Santa Fe New Mexican

Lawmaker to revive ‘red-flag’ bill

Rep. Ely says 2020 measure will not reflect sheriffs’ ‘unworkable’ input

- By Jens Erik Gould jgould@sfnewmexic­an.com

State Rep. Daymon Ely is moving forward with a plan to propose so-called red-flag gun legislatio­n without modifying it based on criticism from state sheriffs, saying an attempt to compromise with them has failed.

“There was an attempt to work out a compromise with the sheriffs’ associatio­n,” Ely, D-Corrales, told the Courts, Correction­s and Justice Committee on Wednesday. “That is not going to happen.”

Legislatio­n allowing for “extreme risk protection orders” would let law enforcemen­t obtain a court order to remove guns from people considered dangerous. Ely and Rep. Joy Garratt, D-Albuquerqu­e, proposed a bill in the last session that cleared the House but wasn’t taken up in the Senate.

Since then, legislator­s and the sheriffs have attempted to work together on new legislatio­n. In August, the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Associatio­n sent a letter outlining its objections to the previous bill after it participat­ed in a June meeting on the matter with Ely and members of the office of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

On Wednesday, Ely called that feedback “unworkable.”

The August letter, written by San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari, said the current draft of legislatio­n would circumvent due process and that people considered a threat should be entitled to a hearing before having their arms taken away.

“Depriving a person of a right to possess firearms should only happen after a hearing of which the person has notice and is given an opportunit­y to participat­e,” Ferrari wrote.

Ely said giving such notice would allow people considered a threat time to harm themselves or others.

“I want to stay away from adjectives that would describe how unworkable that is,” Ely told lawmakers. “That says, ‘If you’re going to kill yourself or commit mass murder, you’ve got 15 days to do it.’ ”

Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace, who chairs the associatio­n, said Wednesday the sheriffs stood by the objections they stated in the August letter and said lawmakers had not been willing to consider their point of view.

“We’ve put our recommenda­tions out there,” Mace said. “It’s pretty much, ‘This is the way it is, take it or leave it.’ There’s no give or take on the other side.”

Ely said he and Garratt now plan to propose legislatio­n for the next session that is very similar to the bill from last session.

Such a bill can only be taken up, however, if the governor allows it to move forward. In a 30-day session such as the one that starts in January, the Legislatur­e may only consider bills related to the budget unless the governor puts nonbudgeta­ry items on the agenda.

Ely said Wednesday he was “hopeful” Lujan Grisham would give the green light for the bill to be considered.

The Governor’s Office said a decision hasn’t been made.

“A final decision about such a bill being on the call hasn’t yet been made, as the entirety of the items that will be on the call is still being finalized,” said spokeswoma­n Nora Sackett.

The governor said after holding a domestic terrorism summit on Aug. 14 that she would push for passage of a bill on “extreme risk protection orders” in the next session. The summit was organized in response to the mass shooting in El Paso.

Ely and other Democratic lawmakers on the committee said they were “disappoint­ed” that there were no sheriffs at Wednesday’s meeting.

“I’m also frustrated that we don’t have any participat­ion today from the sheriffs,” said Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe.

Mace said, however, that his associatio­n was not aware of the meeting.

“We weren’t invited,” he said. “I didn’t even know there was a meeting today.”

The only lawmaker at the committee hearing to express criticism of the legislatio­n was Rep. William Rehm, a Republican from Albuquerqu­e.

He said he believed warrants issued under the law should require a prepondera­nce of the evidence, rather than probable cause.

“We’re talking about their Second Amendment rights,” Rehm said. “I think you need to use the highest standard if you’re going to take away someone’s constituti­onal right.”

Ely responded that while probable cause would be the standard to first obtain a risk protection order, a prepondera­nce of the evidence would be needed to keep the order in place within 15 days after it was issued.

Numerous sheriffs opposed a law passed earlier this year that expanded background checks to nearly all private gun sales, and at least 26 county commission­s approved so-called Second Amendment sanctuary ordinances in opposition.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States