Governor signs red flag firearms bill (New Mexico)

The Albuquerque Journal ^ | February 25, 2020 | Dan Boyd

[CedarDave]

SANTA FE – Over objections from all but a few New Mexico county sheriffs, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Tuesday signed into law a red flag gun bill that will allow firearms to be temporarily taken away from those deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

The Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act, which takes effect in mid-May, will make New Mexico the 18th state to enact such a law.

The Democratic governor made the red flag gun bill one of her top initiatives during the 30-day legislative session that ended last week and predicted the new law would reduce New Mexico’s high rates of firearm-related deaths, including suicides.

“We know this is a meaningful tool to address gun violence,” Lujan Grisham said Tuesday.

However, the red flag gun measure, Senate Bill 5, was fiercely opposed by Republican lawmakers during this year’s session, and several New Mexico counties have passed resolutions opposing it.

Some sheriffs have indicated they might not enforce the bill, citing concerns over constitutional due process issues.

“They’ve made this bill so horrible that we can’t (enforce it),” Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace told the Journal. “Somebody hasn’t even committed a crime, and you’re taking their personal property.”

Mace, chairman of the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association, said a court challenge will be filed before the law takes effect in an attempt to block it from being implemented.

National groups on both sides of the debate have made hefty campaign contributions, including nearly $400,000 given by Everytown for Gun Safety, a national group affiliated with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to New Mexico Democrats and Democratic-leading political committees during the 2018 election cycle.

The state Republican Party cited those special interests in a Tuesday news release, claiming this year’s bill infringes on New Mexicans’ rights.

[CedarDave]

The bill takes effect on May 20 which is 90 days after the end of the legislative session which ended last Thursday.

Below are the major provisions of the new law:

• A law enforcement officer, or a prosecutor in cases involving a law enforcement officer, will be able to file a petition in state court for an order to prohibit someone from possessing firearms.

• The petitions could be filed upon request from a spouse, ex-spouse, parent, child, grandparent, school administrator or employer.

• If a law enforcement officer declines to file a petition upon request, the officer will have to file a notice of the decision with the county sheriff.

• A judge can enter an emergency 10-day risk protection order if probable cause is found that an individual poses a danger of causing “imminent” injury to themselves or others.

• The individual is then required to surrender all their firearms within 48 hours of a judge’s order – or sooner.

• A one-year order can then be imposed after a court hearing, although such an order requires a higher evidence threshold.

• One-year risk protection orders are subject to appeal.

• All firearms are required to be returned to their owner within 10 days after an order’s expiration.

[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.)

[rktman]

Hmmmm. “All firearms are required to be returned to their owner within 10 days after an order’s expiration.”

Not that I want to see it happen to some hapless schmo someplace but what would be the consequences if the 10 day time frame isn’t met?

Sad dang state of affairs there CedarDave.

[Mariner]

While I generally agree with the sentiment of stopping the occasional wingnut from doing mass murder, the left will pervert such law to take guns from half the men in divorce, fired from a job or in dispute with a neighbor.

And once it finally lands in the USSC all such law is likely to be overturned.

But we need somebody with standing to appeal.

[Leaning Right]

> The individual is then required to surrender all their firearms within 48 hours of a judge’s order – or sooner. <

At least that gives you some time to lose all your guns in a boating accident.

/s

[Texas resident]

...will allow firearms to be temporarily taken away from those deemed dangerous to themselves or others...

No way that will be abused.

[faithhopecharity]

As my neighbor ( a very very good law abiding citizen and attorney) says, anybody trying to confiscate or steal
Our property will get his pitiful brains removed in a most expeditious and messy fashion.”

[1Old Pro]

Hopefully this crazy stuff will turn NM Red this year.

[Terry L Smith]

I suggest the domestic incident rate will triple; the sheriff’s department will be swamped, because with all that juicy red flag stuff, they won’t have time for true criminals, and those there now, might just quit!

[elcid1970]

“But we need somebody with standing to appeal.”

The first time a citizen has his guns seized because a disgruntled liberal tells cops “He wears a MAGA hat and I’m afraid for my life!!!”, there’ll be lots of standing out there.

Extreme?

[Texas resident]

Good point. A personally owned firearm is personal property. Who gave these people the “right” to confiscate personal property of someone who hasn’t committed a crime?

[Ingtar]

Seizure, like taxes, is never temporary.

[ManHunter]

“Temporarily” is such a fungible term...

[faithhopecharity]

Additionally, a firearm is the only item of property to be specifically recognized as a protected right in our constitution. “...The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”. It’s communist and Nazi dictatorships that seek to confiscate people’s firearms— not permitted in USA

[Regulator]

DOA in the SCOTUS

The Ginsburg-Sotomayor-Bryer-Kagan axis of anti-Americanism will get dumped on this one. There’s really no way out of it...absent a crime, how do you abrogate a Constitutional right?

The Warren Court might have found a way but them dayz be gone.

[RitchieAprile]

might take longer than 48 hrs to find any large body of H2O in NM..

[IYAS9YAS]

might take longer than 48 hrs to find any large body of H2O in NM..

I was wondering why Elephant Butte reservoir's water level was up.

[Bob434]

Law enforcement could fight this by ALL refusing to uphold it- go on strike if necessary- fight it!

[Uncle Miltie]

“deemed”

= Without due process.

prima facie unconstitutional violation of rights.

[Monkey Face]

This just takes my breath away with its stupidity. I hope NM turns red in the very near future!