Sheriffs argue no red-flag laws are needed
Group says New Mexico has protections in place already; Lujan Grisham to decide if Legislature takes up issue
The New Mexico Sheriff ’s Association opposes so-called red-flag gun legislation, and at least two sheriffs say they’ll refuse to enforce it if it becomes law.
San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari sent an email on the association’s behalf to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s office last week outlining eight ways sheriffs believe current laws already “address individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others,” according to a copy obtained by The New Mexican.
“We’re not going to support any new legislation,” Ferrari said in an interview when asked about the email and the association’s position. “We feel there are ample laws already.”
Ferrari added that if the Legislature passed the bill in its current form, he would not enforce the new law in his county. A bill allowing for “extreme risk protection orders” would let law enforcement obtain a court order to remove guns from people considered dangerous.
“It’s going to be a matter we’re going to have to take to the Supreme Court,” he said.
Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace, who chairs the association, confirmed the group would not support the current bill and that he would not enforce such a law in his county.
“The general consensus is we’re not going to enforce any law that we deem unconstitutional,” he said.
Ferrari’s email to the Governor’s Office did not explicitly state the association would not support any form of the legislation, nor did it say sheriffs would not enforce such legislation if approved.
But the group’s stance could again put sheriffs and Lujan Grisham’s administration at odds over gun control during the lawmaking session that convenes in Santa Fe in January. 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.
The governor said after holding a domestic terrorism summit on Aug. 14 that she would push for passage of a red-flag bill in the next session. Such a bill cleared the House in the last session but wasn’t taken up in the Senate.
A meeting held in June to discuss potential changes was attended by Ferrari, members of the Governor’s Office and Rep. Daymon Ely, who co-sponsored the previous bill, among others. The Governor’s Office requested written feedback from the sheriff ’s association after that meeting.
Ely, D-Corrales, said Monday it would be “outrageous” if sheriffs did not enforce a bill signed into law.
“Their job is to enforce the law,” he said. “They don’t get to pick and choose.”
Ferrari’s email, which was sent to Ely as well as officials at the Governor’s Office on Aug. 29, also included five additional points of disagreement with the bill proposed in the last session.
The first point said the current draft would violate 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,” the email stated.
Ely called that point “an absolute misunderstanding of what this bill is trying to do,” saying that if a person were an imminent threat to themselves or others, it would not make sense to wait for a hearing before taking away their guns.
“This first condition is a nonstarter,” he said. “It would just gut any positive aspects of this bill.”
The sheriffs also said in the email that the bill’s definition of a “household member” was too broad and “includes past relationships which have the propensity to be at odds.”
Under the bill, a “household member” — which includes a former stepparent, former parent-in-law or former grandparent-in-law — could request an “extreme risk protection order” to have a person’s firearms removed.
Additionally, the sheriffs took issue with a provision that would allow a court to issue an extreme risk order if it finds by a “preponderance of the evidence” that a person poses significant danger. Ferrari said courts should instead be required to find probable cause.
“That’s not how America works,” he said. “I can’t just go take your property because there’s a preponderance of the evidence.”
Ely said that if the stance expressed by the sheriffs is their final position, then negotiations with them may not be able to continue. However, he said he remained “hopeful” they could find common ground because the June meeting was “very cordial.”
“There seemed to be a willingness to try to come to something where we could agree,” Ely said. “I was hopeful leaving that meeting.”
The governor will set the agenda for the upcoming, primarily financial 30-day session of the Legislature. A spokeswoman for Lujan Grisham did not confirm Monday whether a redflag bill would be taken up in January, saying the “entirety of items to be addressed on the call is still developing,” but that “addressing gun violence is a priority for this administration.”
She added that the Governor’s Office was “grateful” to have the sheriffs’ feedback and that legislators would be “sure to take it into consideration,” but their comments outside of the feedback process were not helpful.
“We asked for and they provided their input on this bill, and that kind of interaction is the spirit in which conversation about potential legislation should take place,” said spokeswoman Nora Sackett. “Their comments outside of our interaction with them are, frankly, counterproductive.”