The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill aimed to amend and improve a law regarding extreme risk protection orders, also known as a red flag law, on a 7-4, party-line vote Monday.
The bill would clarify that law enforcement officers could be the reporting party, according to the bill’s sponsor.
HB 27, sponsored by state Rep. Christine Chandler, would amend the Extreme Risk Order Protection Act, which became law in 2020. Chandler said the amendments are necessary because of some impediments to efficiency and ways the new law could be improved upon.
The original law allows immediate family members to seek an extreme risk of firearm protection petition when there are signs of imminent danger of an individual who owns a firearm of hurting themselves or others. Chandler said that since 2020, the law has been used 75 times.
She said that there are differing interpretations as to whether law enforcement and health professionals can file for a petition. The amendments would clarify that.
“Who is authorized to be a reporting party? There is some disagreement and confusion among those relying on the law if law enforcement could be a reporting party,” Chandler said.
The changes include specifying that the protection order would expire in 365 days; adding licensed healthcare professionals to the list of individuals who can request the order; allowing a petitioner to be anyone with “a continuing personal relationship” to the respondent to request an order; expediting the process; and requiring the respondent to request the return of the firearm and allows law enforcement to destroy, sell or transfer an unclaimed firearm after 365 days.
One of Chandler’s expert witnesses, New Mexico Police Chief Association’s President Steve Hebbe, who is the chief of police for Farmington Police Department, called the bill a “no brainer.”
He said there are times when family members are scared and afraid to sign the order.
“We want tools for law enforcement. If someone is in crisis, we don’t need family members to take additional risk,” Hebbe said.
The bill would also eliminate a 48 hour waiting period before the firearm can be removed from the person who is in crisis.
“Forty-eight hours is a long time to wait,” Hebbe said.
State Rep. Eliseo Lee Alcon, D-Milan, tried to amend the bill to remove the word “sell” because he said he thought law enforcement should not sell an unclaimed firearm but, instead, should destroy it. Chandler said it was an unfriendly amendment because it would deviate from general practice. State Rep. Jared Hembree, R-Roswell, said removing that language could “expose the state for liability.”
The amendment died by a vote of 6-2.
State Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, said that since the law takes away a constitutional right, he thought that if a case is dismissed by a judge, it should be done so with prejudice, meaning that the case would be closed and could not be refiled without new information.
Chandler said an order dismissed on technical reasons might need to be corrected and refiled. She said it could also lead to a “big fight about what is new information.”
State Rep. Andrea Reeb, R-Clovis, asked Chandler to define a “continuing personal relationship.”
“It could be just about anybody,” Reeb said.
Chandler said this is not new language and that it is already in statute.
State Rep. T. Ryan Lane, R-Aztec, criticized the bill, saying it would “now allow law enforcement to be a complainant and petitioner.”
“When you have a system for that kind of authority housed in one person, there is the potential for abuse,” Lane said.
Hembree, as well as several other Republicans, said he was not comfortable with allowing a health provider to report when a person is a danger to themselves or others. Hembree and other Republicans brought up HIPAA as an impediment to a provider alerting law enforcement.
“I don’t see the conflict. A provider can provide the minimal facts necessary to a law enforcement officer. He’s then responsible to establish probable cause,” Chandler said.
The bill heads next to the House chamber.
