Revised firearms law heads to Senate (New Mexico)

The Albuquerque Journal ^ | February 5, 2020 | Dan McKay

[CedarDave]

SANTA FE — Legislators tightened the scope of a proposed law Wednesday that would allow for the temporary seizure of firearms from New Mexicans deemed an imminent danger to themselves or others.

Only law enforcement officers, not household or family members, would be allowed to petition the court for an extreme risk order under a version of the legislation introduced Wednesday.

The amended proposal narrowly cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee late Wednesday on a 6-5 vote.

Its next stop is the Senate floor — where supporters and opponents alike are preparing for an incredibly close vote. Lt. Gov. Howie Morales, a Democrat, would break a tie.

Democratic Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Las Cruces attorney and co-sponsor of the bill, said the new version of the legislation is intended to address criticism leveled by sheriffs and other opponents of the bill.

In particular, he said, the provision requiring a law enforcement officer to petition the court — rather than allowing someone else to do it — was aimed at preventing abuse by, say, an ex-spouse seeking retaliation.

Household members could request the filing of a petition, but it would be up to a law enforcement officer to determine whether there’s “probable cause” to seek the order in court.

Opponents of the bill said Wednesday that the changes don’t go far enough. They still have concerns about whether the bill adequately gives someone a chance to contest an order to surrender their firearms.

“There’s gun confiscation before there’s a hearing,” Sierra County Sheriff Glenn Hamilton told lawmakers.

[CedarDave]

The proposal is Senate Bill 5 and would create an Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act, sometimes called a “red flag law.”

Legislation text and updates can be found at the below link:

EXTREME RISK FIREARM PROTECTION ORDER ACT
(The legislative calendar has not yet been updated to reflect Wednesday's SJC action)

[CedarDave]

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keyword

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for FR member use; its use in the News Forum should not be for trivial or inconsequential posts. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after answering a question or watching a short video commercial.)

[Uncle Miltie]

Because you can always trust the police

[Monkey Face]

Ah, jeez. The Dems just don’t want to lose at anything, do they? They’re bound to take away our guns. We need another Militia...

[rktman]

Yup. We got the red flag in NV now.

[faithhopecharity]

I’d support such an unconstitutional law only if the legislators were designated as the ( attempted) confiscators. Let them try

[hadit2here]

“confront your accusers”, “question witnesses”, nah, we don’t need any of that steekin’ legal krap. If it saves one child’s life, then giving up all of your rights is worth it, right? /heavy S

Problem is, it won’t change a thing other than making felons out of law abiding citizens.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
—Benjamin Franklin, 1759

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
— Daniel Webster

[Redcitizen]

Once it goes a step forward to confiscation, it never goes back.

[Scrambler Bob]

M4Later

Daniel Webster

[Big Red Badger]

Good Words!

[Svartalfiar]

In particular, he said, the provision requiring a law enforcement officer to petition the court — rather than allowing someone else to do it — was aimed at preventing abuse by, say, an ex-spouse seeking retaliation.

Household members could request the filing of a petition, but it would be up to a law enforcement officer to determine whether there’s “probable cause” to seek the order in court.

In what situation would a cop seriously feel the need to confiscate and keep your firearms, yet not have any reason to arrest you? If someone can't be trusted with a firearm, they likewise shouldn't be trusted with knives, fuel, vehicles, axen, rope, etc etc. And if they can't be trusted with any of that, then why do we trust them out in society at all? Someone crazy/dangerous enough to actually need their firearms removed, needs to be in jail or the looney bin anyway!