House committee advances amendments to New Mexico extreme risk firearm protection order law

Representative Chandler and co‑sponsor Representative Garrett presented amendments to House Bill 12, which would change New Mexico’s Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order (IRPO) law to (1) explicitly allow peace officers to be reporting parties and (2) make the relinquishment of firearms immediate by default when a court issues an order, unless the court directs otherwise.

The measure’s sponsors said the changes respond to implementation questions that have arisen since the IRPO law took effect in 2020. "These 2 changes were, recommended through a task force report," Representative Chandler said, describing the proposals as the result of stakeholder work and law enforcement experience.

Supporters — including Albuquerque Police Department Sergeant Matt Tinney and Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Vickery — told the committee the changes would clarify a split in how district courts interpret who may file a petition and would remove the current 48‑hour default window for relinquishment in order to reduce risks to potential victims and officers. "We've successfully used this bill compassionately in our area to really help folks," said Sergeant Tinney of the Albuquerque Police Department Crisis Intervention Unit. Assistant Attorney General Vickery said the changes should "make the law clearer and more approachable across the state."

Opponents, including speakers from the National Rifle Association and other groups, said the bill risks depriving people of constitutional rights and could be abused. Dan Reed of the NRA said, "We oppose the underlying IRPA or red flag law because you're talking about a deprivation of constitutional rights not based on a criminal conviction or a mental adjudication," and warned that making retrieval immediate could create compliance and due‑process problems.

Sponsors and several advocacy groups, including Moms Demand Action and the New Mexico State Police representative Carolyn Wynne, framed the changes as life‑saving and as tools to prevent suicide and domestic violence homicide. "This is a preventative tool for law enforcement with the goal of assisting the individual and providing resources and ensuring the crisis is addressed," Carolyn Wynne testified. Students and survivors also spoke in favor, describing cases they said illustrated the need for quicker removal when a court finds someone poses an immediate risk.

Committee members questioned how the change interacts with other legal protections and with enforcement practicalities. Representatives asked whether qualified immunity or employer defense would protect officers who file petitions and retrieve firearms; sponsors and counsel said officers who follow the statute would be defended by their employers. Committee members also discussed whether the bill meaningfully changes practice, given that judges already can order immediate retrieval "as directed by the court" under existing language. Sponsors said the bill makes "immediate" the statutory default rather than a discretionary option, reducing variation across districts.

The committee voted to give HB12 a do‑pass recommendation. Roll call on the motion recorded seven yes votes and four no votes (yes: Representative Abeyta; Representative Hockman v. Hill; Speaker Martinez; Representative McQueen; Leader Sapinski; the vice chair; the chair — no: Representative Chavez; Representative Hall; Representative Martinez; Representative Reap). The motion was made by Representative Pansky and seconded by Speaker Martinez, and the committee reported the bill out on a 7–4 vote.

The bill as presented makes two narrow, technical changes to the IRPO statute and leaves the substantive process (petition to a judge, hearing, and judicial determination) intact. It does not change the requirement that a judge issue an order before firearms are removed; it clarifies who may initiate the judicial process and shifts the statutory default on timing of relinquishment.

Votes at a glance: HB12 (Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order amendments) — motion: due pass; mover: Representative Pansky; second: Speaker Martinez; outcome: do pass (7 yes, 4 no).