Chapter 60, Article 2E NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Gaming Control Act". History: Laws 1997, ch. 190, § 3; 2002, ch. 102, § 2. Cross references. — For the Indian Gaming Compact, see 11-13-1 NMSA 1978 et seq. For criminal offenses relating to gambling, see 30-19-1 NMSA 1978 et seq. The 2002 amendment, effective March 5, 2002, substituted "Chapter 60, Article 2E NMSA 1978" for "Sections 3 through 63 of this act". Indian Gaming Compacts approved. — The Secretary of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, published in the August 29, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 45867) notice of Indian Gaming Compacts, executed on July 9, 1997, between the State of New Mexico and the following tribes and pueblos: the Mescalero Apache Tribe, Pueblo of San Felipe, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Santa Clara, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Acoma and Pueblo of Isleta. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1998 (25 U.S.C. § 2710), these compacts are considered approved, effective August 29, 1997, but only to the extent they are consistent with the provisions of that act. The Secretary of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, published in the October 15, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 53650) notice of an Indian Gaming Compact between the State of New Mexico and the Pueblo of San Juan, executed on July 11, 1997. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1998 (25 U.S.C. § 2710), these compacts are considered approved, effective October 15, 1997, but only to the extent they are consistent with the provisions of that act. The Secretary of the Interior, through the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, published in the November 5, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 53650) notice of Indian Gaming Compacts, executed on August 20, 1997, between the State of New Mexico and the following tribes and pueblos: Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Santa Ana, and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, and an Indian Gaming Compact between the State of New Mexico and the Pueblo of Nambe, executed on September 5, 1997. Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1998 (25 U.S.C. § 2710), these compacts are considered approved, effective August 29, 1997, but only to the extent they are consistent with the provisions of that act. Prospective application of amendments. — Because the amendments to the Gaming Control Act are silent as to whether they apply retroactively, the amendments only had prospective application. State ex rel. N.M. Gaming Control Bd. v. Ten (10) Gaming Devices , 2005-NMCA-117, 138 N.M. 426, 120 P.3d 848, cert. quashed, 2006-NMCERT-003, 139 N.M. 352, 132 P,3d 1058. Town's charter, authorizing the regulation of gaming, has been impliedly repealed by the Gaming Control Act. — The Gaming Control Act, 60-2E-1 to 60-2E-62 NMSA 1978, regulates all aspects of permissible gaming in the state, including gaming operators, gaming employees, gaming device distributors and manufacturers, and gaming machines; the Gaming Control Act authorizes the gaming control board to adopt regulations that, among other things, govern the issuance of licenses and permits, define authorized games and gaming devices, govern the manufacture, distribution and repair of gaming devices, and prescribe accounting and security procedures required of licensees. Based on its provisions, it is clear that the New Mexico legislature intended the Gaming Control Act to cover all aspects of gaming regulation, and constitutes a comprehensive law covering the whole subject matter of gaming in the state, and therefore, the town of Silver City's charter, which authorizes Silver City to tax, regulate and restrain gambling within and up to one mile outside the town limits, has been impliedly repealed by the Gaming Control Act. The town of Silver City has no power to permit, tax or otherwise regulate gambling. Regulation of Gambling in the Town of Silver City (2/7/17), Att'y Gen. Adv. Ltr. 2017-02.
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.