Senate passes bill allowing law enforcement as reporting party and immediate firearm surrender under extreme-risk orders

The Senate passed House Bill 12, which adjusts the state's Extreme Risk (extreme risk firearm protection order) framework so law enforcement can be a reporting party and so firearms may be surrendered immediately upon issuance of a court order.

Sponsor Senator Duhigg said the bill makes two specific changes: permitting law enforcement to be a reporting party (in addition to family members, employers and others) and removing the current 48-hour delay between a court’s finding of imminent risk and the physical surrender of firearms. Supporters, including law‑enforcement witnesses who were escorted onto the floor by unanimous consent, said the change closes a dangerous window that can allow someone in crisis to harm themselves or others before weapons are collected.

Members pressed the sponsor and testifying experts on implementation details. Senators asked for data on how often petitions were filed and whether injuries occurred in the existing 48-hour gap. The sponsor and witnesses said the statute had been used across 19 counties, with Bernalillo County having the largest share; they reported 90 petitions in 2024 (72 of those for a full year). The sponsor said that after expiration or termination of an order the respondent’s weapons are returned and that respondents can request extensions of up to one additional year subject to court approval.

Opponents raised constitutional and procedural concerns: several senators said the bill allows temporary, ex‑parte orders and the initial removal of property without the respondent’s presence, and they argued for stronger due‑process protections or clearer standards of probable cause. Senator Scott and others noted that floor testimony did not include statistics showing that any injuries actually occurred during the 48‑hour window that the bill eliminates. Senator Brandt and others questioned storage, insurance, and claims for damaged firearms during law‑enforcement custody; sponsor testimony said respondents may make claims through state risk‑management processes and that experts were not aware of prior successful damage claims.

Senator Duhigg moved final passage. On the roll, the Senate recorded 23 votes in the affirmative and 15 in the negative; the presiding officer announced that House Bill 12 had “duly passed the Senate.” The transcript records named senators voting no in the roll call (including Senator Brantley, Senator Lanier, Senator Tobias, Senator Block, Senator Paul, Senator Thornton, Senator Townsend, Senator Ezell, Senator Ramos, Senator Scheer and Senator Woods) and lists the formal motion and subsequent tally.

The floor debate clarified implementation mechanisms cited by supporters: law‑enforcement petitions still require a judge’s order before firearms are taken; ex‑parte temporary orders may be issued initially and then reviewed at a full hearing within 10 days. The sponsor said law enforcement’s decision to file is based on the “totality of the investigation” and the officers’ judgment about credible information. The bill also preserves the role of judges to review evidence before orders are executed.

Ending — The Senate approved House Bill 12 after extensive floor testimony and questioning. The record shows remaining points of contention—due process, evidentiary thresholds for issuance of ex‑parte orders, the handling and safekeeping of seized property, and availability of counsel at full hearings—that may be the subject of follow‑up, implementation guidance or litigation.

This article is based on on‑record floor debate, named expert witness introductions, senators’ questions, and the roll call recorded in the transcript of the Senate session.