Committee advances HB 31 to make school shooting threats a fourth‑degree felony

House committee members voted to advance House Bill 31, a proposal to raise the penalty for intentionally communicating a shooting threat from a misdemeanor to a fourth‑degree felony, the committee announced after a 3‑2 roll call on Thursday.

The bill sponsor, Representative Garrett, told the committee he introduced the measure after constituents — including a 10‑year‑old who told him, "please do something about school shootings and guns at school — I'm afraid to go to school" — urged stronger response tools. "No child of any age should fear going to school because they might get shot," Garrett said in opening remarks.

Supporters including the New Mexico Department of Justice and local law enforcement said the change would give investigators stronger authority to pursue leads and obtain warrants in social‑media and electronic investigations. James Grayson, chief deputy at the New Mexico Department of Justice, said, "This bill is not ... the target is really not punishment. This tool is ... about giving law enforcement the tools to react to a school shooting threat in a manner that prevents the threat from being carried out and protects particularly school children." Detective Mick Rael of the Albuquerque Police Department described the range of modern threat mechanisms — calls, social posts, images — and said school responses often must be rapid and thorough: "My job is not just for the physical security of the children, but their mental security as well."

Public commenters and defense representatives disagreed about whether the statute change would achieve those aims or would instead produce lasting collateral consequences for young people. Ben Bauer, chief public defender, said he was "concerned about criminalizing conduct, for people and over penalizing folks," and questioned the claim that upgrading the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony is necessary for effective investigations. Kim Chavez Cook of the Law Offices of the Public Defender noted that the existing misdemeanor statute covers verbal threats and "does not require any imminence," and warned that raising the penalty could have "unintended long term consequences of increasing felony convictions, especially on young people." Diane McCash, a citizen, said she supported the intent but worried the long‑term consequences for young people could be harmful.

Business and law‑enforcement leaders who testified in support argued the statute already treats bomb threats as a fourth‑degree felony and that shooting threats have comparable community impact. Terry Cole, president and CEO of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, told the committee, "Making a threat is a very real form of violence and intimidation that can leave lasting emotional scars." Chief of Police Storey of the Las Cruces Police Department said his department has handled multiple disruptions in which "up to 20 to 25% of our students do not show up to school that day," stressing the downstream disruption to instruction and community resources.

Committee members questioned how the change would interact with juvenile law and mental‑health responses. Committee questioning clarified that, if committed by a minor, the conduct would generally be handled as a delinquent act under the children's code rather than as an adult criminal conviction; chief deputy Grayson and other experts said juvenile dispositions would remain available and that juvenile records may be sealed after successful completion of court dispositions. Members also asked whether the statutory language adequately distinguishes hyperbolic or noncredible speech from "true threats" not protected by the First Amendment; Grayson cited the U.S. Supreme Court precedent Counterman v. Colorado on true threats and explained the bill’s requirement that the communication be made with intention to place persons in fear, interrupt use of a building, or cause a law‑enforcement response.

After roughly 80 minutes of testimony and questioning, a committee member moved the bill "do pass without recommendation" and the committee recorded a 3‑2 vote to advance HB 31 to the next stage. The committee’s record shows the motion carried by a 3‑2 tally; the roll call statements naming individual votes were not fully specified in the public transcript. The motion as recorded is "do pass without recommendation." No amendment changing the bill language was adopted during this hearing.

The bill now moves forward from the committee with no recommendation; proponents say it will aid investigations and align shooting threats with bomb‑threat penalties, while opponents say it risks overcriminalizing young people and urged stronger mental‑health and school‑security investments as alternatives.