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 Jones
/Chavez, N/Reeb
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/12/25
SHORT TITLE Firearms & Certain Persons
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 235
ANALYST Sanchez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
NMCD No fiscal impact At least $28.2 At least $28.2 At least $56.4 Recurring General Fund
Cost to Counties No fiscal impact At least $19.2 At least $19.2 At least $38.4 Recurring General Fund
Total No fiscal impact At least $47.4 At least $47.4 At least $94.8 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)
Law Offices of the Public Defender (LOPD)
Corrections Department (NMCD)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 235
House Bill 235 (HB235) amends Section 30-7-16, NMSA 1978, to expand the list of individuals
restricted from firearm possession. The bill prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving,
transporting, or possessing firearms or destructive devices in the state of New Mexico. The
current statute prohibits firearm possession by felons and individuals subject to protective orders.
The legislation establishes criminal penalties for violations of this restriction.
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
While the bill does not create a direct appropriation or revenue impact, it could have significant
operational costs for the judiciary and public defense. The Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) notes that the bill could lead to an increase in trials and jury trials, requiring additional House Bill 235 – Page 2
judge time, courtroom staff, and jury costs. These costs are difficult to quantify but could be
substantial depending on the number of cases prosecuted under the new provision. The Law
Office of the Public Defender (LOPD) highlights that the bill may result in extensive litigation
over constitutional challenges, leading to increased legal costs. Additionally, LOPD anticipates a
greater need for contracted immigration attorneys to assess clients’ residency status, which could
be a complex and time-consuming process. While the Department of Public Safety (DPS) does
not anticipate significant fiscal impacts, the additional enforcement burden on law enforcement
agencies should be considered. Lastly, potential conflicts with federal immigration enforcement
may create indirect costs related to compliance and coordination with federal agencies.
The overall financial impact on the Corrections Department (NMCD) will depend on the number
of new cases resulting from this legislation. Still, even a modest increase in convictions could
lead to significant expenditures over time. The creation of any new crime, increase of felony
degree, or increase of sentencing penalties will likely increase the population of New Mexico’s
prisons and jails, consequently increasing long-term costs to state and county general funds. In
addition to the potential for new crimes to send more individuals to prison and jail, longer
sentences could result in fewer releases relative to admissions, driving up overall populations.
NMCD reports the average cost to incarcerate a single inmate in FY24 was $59.3 thousand;
however, due to the high fixed costs of the state’s prison facilities and administrative overhead,
LFC estimates a marginal cost (the cost per additional inmate) of $28.2 thousand per year across
all facilities. LFC staff estimate the cost to counties to hold an individual in jail prior to
incarceration is $19.2 thousand per year.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
HB235 may be duplicative of existing federal law. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), undocumented
immigrants are already prohibited from possessing firearms, raising questions about the necessity
of this state-level restriction. Additionally, some of the agency analysis anticipates the bill will
face constitutional challenges, particularly regarding Second Amendment protections and equal
protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is currently a split among federal
courts on whether undocumented immigrants are protected by the Second Amendment, with the
Tenth Circuit (which includes New Mexico) assuming but not deciding that they may have such
rights.
Another significant issue is the potential for civil rights violations, particularly related to Fourth
and Fifth Amendment protections. Law enforcement officers would need a method to determine
an individual's immigration status in the field, which could lead to prolonged detention, racial
profiling, and unconstitutional stops and searches. This raises concerns similar to those seen in
"stop and frisk" policies, which have been ruled unconstitutional in some cases.
Additionally, the bill may create enforcement challenges and conflicts with federal immigration
policy. Immigration status is often complex and difficult to verify, requiring legal proceedings
that can take years. This could complicate state-level prosecutions and create conflicts between
state and federal law enforcement agencies regarding deportation and criminal jurisdiction.
House Bill 235 – Page 3
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
Analysis from LOPD notes:
“As noted above, if HB235 were enacted, LOPD would possibly have to engage in
extensive litigation on each case over constitutional challenges. This would be in addition
to any litigation required due to searches and seizures, since the Supreme Court has made
clear the Fourth Amendment does apply to people without lawful residency status. The
bill may also implicate other constitutional rights due to downstream effects on criminal
procedure. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (criminal legal
rights, including the Fourth Amendment, generally protect people without lawful
residency status who have developed sufficient connection with United States to be
considered part of their community).”
SS/hj/SL2/sgs