Committee advances bill to clarify who may seek extreme-risk firearm orders and require immediate relinquishment

The Consumer & Public Affairs Committee advanced House Bill 12 on a 4-2 vote after hours of testimony that split heavily along pro- and anti-gun lines.

The bill would amend New Mexico’s extreme risk firearm protection order law — known commonly as the red-flag law or IRPO — to explicitly allow police officers to file petitions and to require immediate relinquishment of firearms after an order, replacing a 48-hour window critics say creates a safety risk.

Supporters, including law enforcement witnesses and public-safety advocates, said the change solves a court split and helps officers and families protect victims. “Police officers see a lot of things, interact with family members, and often have knowledge about the person that would give rise to sufficient information for them to file such a petition,” said Representative Christine Chandler, sponsor, describing the bill as “a pretty narrow bill” that addresses two identified issues.

Opponents — a mix of firearms organizations, individual residents and gun-rights lawyers — argued the measures reduce due process and open the door to abuse. “This bill seeks to expand New Mexico’s red flag confiscation law by broadening the list of individuals who can apply for an order,” said Anthony Seguerra of the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association. The National Rifle Association and local rifle clubs also said rapid, officer-initiated removal risks civil-rights violations.

Committee members asked detailed procedural questions about what “credible information” means, training levels for officers, how immediate relinquishment would be effectuated if an FFL (federally licensed dealer) is closed, and how court clerks would enter orders into the NICS system. Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Vickery, who trains officers statewide, said her office has provided continuing education and that courts would perform judicial review at the subsequent evidentiary hearing.

After questioning and public comment, the committee voted 4-2 to advance the bill. Roll call showed Representatives Romero, Thompson, the vice chair and the chair voting yes; Representatives Locke and Lord voting no.

Committee staff and witnesses repeatedly flagged operational questions left to implementation: how quickly courts can process ex parte petitions in rural areas, what level of independent verification officers must achieve before filing, and how law enforcement should handle immediate repossession when an owner is unwilling or when FFLs are closed.

The bill’s sponsors said the measure is intended as a surgical change — clarifying what some courts already allow and removing a delay they say has led to violence — while defenders of gun rights asked for stronger due-process protections and limits on who may petition. The bill will move to the next committee with a do-pass recommendation.

Votes at a glance: House Bill 12 — Motion: do pass; mover: Representative Thompson; second: not specified. Committee vote: 4 yes (Romero, Thompson, Vice Chair, Chair), 2 no (Locke, Lord).