Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR
Reps. Garratt/Chandler/Sens. Duhigg and
Berghmans
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 1/28/25
SHORT TITLE
Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order
Changes
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 12
ANALYST Sanchez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
AOC No fiscal impact
$200.0 to
$500.0
$200.0 to
$500.0
$400.0-
$1,000.0
Recurring General Fund
Local Law
Enforcement
Agencies
No fiscal impact At least $50.0 At least $50.0 At least $100.0 Recurring General Fund
DPS (LEA) No fiscal impact At least $100.0 At least $100.0 At least $200 Recurring General Fund
Total
No fiscal
impact
At least $350.0 At least $350.0
At least
$700.0
Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
Office of the Attorney General (NMAG)
New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC)
Agency Analysis was Solicited but Not Received From
Department of Public Safety (DPS) Because of the short timeframe between the introduction of this bill and its first hearing, LFC has yet to receive analysis from state, education, or judicial agencies. This analysis could be updated
if that analysis is received.
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 12
House Bill 12 (HB12) proposes amendments to the Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act
(Section 40-17-5, NMSA 1978) to enable law enforcement officers to file petitions for extreme
risk firearm protection orders (ERFPOs) based on information collected during their official
duties and require respondents to immediately relinquish firearms upon being served with an
extreme risk protection order. This change aims to eliminate delays in firearm relinquishment, House Bill 12 – Page 2
with the goal of reducing risks during the interim period between service and compliance. The
bill also makes technical and conforming amendments to ensure consistency within existing
statutory language
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
HB12 will likely create new operational and resource demands across state and local agencies by
simplifying the process for law enforcement officers to file ERFPOs and requiring immediate
firearm relinquishment.
The elimination of the requirement for a third-party affidavit in filing ERFPOs will likely lead to
an increase in the number of petitions filed by law enforcement officers. Currently, the law limits
officers to acting on affidavits provided by family members or close associates of the respondent,
which creates procedural barriers. Removing this requirement and allowing officers to act on
credible information gathered during their duties will likely lead to higher volumes of petitions.
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) will likely face increased caseloads, requiring
additional resources to manage filings, hearings, and enforcement actions. For example, if
petition filings increase by 25 to 50 percent, the courts may require more administrative staff,
which could cost an estimated $250 thousand to $500 thousand annually in personnel expenses,
depending on the scale of the increase.
Requiring immediate firearm relinquishment upon service of an ERFPO also introduces new
logistical challenges. Law enforcement agencies will need to collect, store, and track surrendered
firearms more quickly than under current law, which allows respondents up to 48 hours to
comply. Many agencies may need to invest in additional storage facilities or upgrade existing
ones to handle an increased volume of firearms. For instance, building or retrofitting secure
storage facilities could cost agencies between $50 thousand and $100 thousand per location,
depending on local needs. Additionally, agencies may need to hire personnel or assign existing
staff to manage firearm collection and storage, which could result in annual recurring costs of
approximately $75 thousand to $150 thousand per agency.
Another considerable expense will be training for law enforcement officers. Officers will need
instruction on documenting credible information, preparing detailed petitions, and implementing
immediate firearm relinquishment protocols. The Law Enforcement Academy or other training
providers may need to develop and deliver a new curriculum. Statewide training efforts,
including materials and instruction, could cost an estimated $100 thousand to $200 thousand
initially, with ongoing costs for periodic updates. These training efforts will ensure officers
consistently apply the new procedures and avoid challenges that could arise from inconsistent
implementation.
The anticipated increase in ERFPO filings and procedural changes may also strain judicial
resources. Courts may need to adjust their processes to handle additional hearings and ensure
compliance with immediate firearm relinquishment orders. This could necessitate one-time
expenditures for process updates or system modifications, along with ongoing costs for increased
staffing. Additionally, the bill’s lack of clarity regarding whether law enforcement officers can
serve as both petitioners and reporting parties may lead to legal challenges, requiring courts to House Bill 12 – Page 3
resolve procedural disputes, which could create further administrative burdens.
Despite these upfront costs, HB 2 could generate significant long-term savings by reducing
firearm-related incidents, particularly suicides and domestic violence cases. Research on similar
laws in other states has shown a measurable reduction in firearm-related deaths following the
implementation of extreme risk protection orders. By potentially preventing hospitalizations,
emergency responses, and law enforcement interventions, New Mexico could avoid costs that
otherwise burden state and local systems. For example, the average hospital cost for a single
firearm injury exceeds $30 thousand;
1
avoiding even a modest number of incidents annually
could offset some implementation costs.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Currently, the statute requires both a petitioner and a reporting party to initiate an order. Law
enforcement officers act as petitioners but must rely on affidavits from third-party individuals,
often family members or close associates, to support the petition. HB12 allows law enforcement
officers to independently file petitions based on credible information gathered during their
official duties, even when no third-party reporting party is involved. While this amendment
increases the autonomy of law enforcement in emergencies, the bill lacks clarity regarding
whether a single officer can serve as both the petitioner and the reporting party, raising questions
about procedural consistency and the separation of roles.
Another significant change proposed in HB12 is the requirement for respondents to relinquish
firearms immediately upon service of an ERFPO. Under current law, respondents have up to 48
hours to surrender their firearms unless the court orders otherwise. This extended timeline could
pose a public safety risk by allowing individuals deemed dangerous to retain access to firearms
for a critical period. HB12’s provision for immediate surrender aligns with practices in most
other states with ERFPO laws and seeks to mitigate the risks of firearm-related harm during this
window. However, the change also introduces logistical challenges for law enforcement, who
may require additional resources to collect firearms swiftly and ensure compliance.
AOC highlights that HB12 creates a new process requiring law enforcement officers to include a
statement explaining why they believe the respondent poses an imminent danger. However, the
bill does not specify whether this statement replaces the currently mandated sworn affidavit from
a reporting party or is intended to supplement it. If the affidavit requirement remains, the bill
does not clarify how this process applies when no third party is involved. This ambiguity may
complicate implementation and require additional guidance for law enforcement and judicial
personnel to ensure compliance with procedural requirements.
The proposed changes would bring New Mexico’s ERFPO process closer in line with national
trends. Of the 20 other states and the District of Columbia with similar laws, the majority already
allow law enforcement officers to petition for an order based solely on their assessment of
credible information. Currently, New Mexico is one of only four jurisdictions that require a third
party to request or provide evidence for a petition. By enabling law enforcement officers to act
independently, HB12 aims to reduce procedural barriers and expedite protective measures in
1
Miller, T. R., & Waehrer, G. M. (2024). Costs of fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries in the U.S., 2019 and 2020.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 66(2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2023.08.007 House Bill 12 – Page 4
high-risk situations. Additionally, the requirement for immediate firearm surrender reflects best
practices adopted in most states, enhancing the law’s effectiveness in preventing imminent harm.
Despite these improvements, implementation challenges may arise. Allowing law enforcement
officers to act on their assessments could lead to an increase in ERFPO filings, potentially
straining judicial and administrative resources. Additionally, the lack of clarity regarding what
constitutes “credible information” may result in inconsistent application of the law across
jurisdictions. Proper training for law enforcement officers and updated guidelines for courts will
be essential to ensure uniform and fair enforcement of the revised statute. Legislators should also
consider whether existing infrastructure can support the increased demand for immediate firearm
collection and storage.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
AOC analysis states:
“If the intent of HB 12 is to allow a law enforcement officer to be able to file a petition
for an ERFPO if a reporting party is unavailable or unwilling to provide credible
information by completing an affidavit, the definition of a “reporting party” in subsection
H of Section 40-17-2 could be amended as follows:
"reporting party" means a person who requests that a law enforcement officer file
a petition for an extreme risk firearm protection order. A reporting party can be any person, and includes including a spouse, former spouse, parent, present or
former stepparent, present or former parent-in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-
law, co-parent of a child, child, person with whom a respondent has or had a
continuing personal relationship, employer or public or private school
administrator, or a law enforcement officer who obtains credible information
while carrying out the officer’s official duties about the respondent posing a
significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to self or others by having
custody or control or by purchasing, possessing or receiving a firearm.
If the intent of HB 12 is to preserve the two-party system where a reporting party must be
a different person than the law enforcement officer filing the petition, the following
sentence could be added to the expanded definition of a “reporting party” in subsection H
of Section 40-17-2 above:
A reporting party must be a different person than the petitioner.”
SS/SL2/rl