SANTA FE — A newly filed firearm bill would require immediate surrender of guns upon service of a domestic violence order of protection, adding to a body of New Mexico firearm law that has been repeatedly reviewed by federal courts in recent years.
House Bill 67 would require individuals restrained by an order of protection to relinquish firearms immediately upon being served. Current law ties firearm surrender to specific judicial findings. The bill amends the Family Violence Protection Act to require delivery of firearms to law enforcement or a federally licensed dealer and to prohibit possession for the duration of the order.
The proposal enters a legal landscape shaped by recent federal court rulings examining firearm measures enacted by New Mexico’s Democrat-led Legislature and signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. Courts have applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s “text-and-history” framework when reviewing Second Amendment challenges.
In 2025, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Ortega v. Grisham that New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period law is likely unconstitutional under that framework. The ruling returned the case to district court for further proceedings. While the law remains enforceable pending court action, the decision marked a significant judicial review of legislation adopted by the Legislature.
Federal courts have previously intervened in New Mexico firearm policy. In 2023, a federal judge blocked enforcement of the governor’s emergency public health order suspending public carry in parts of Albuquerque, finding the action likely violated constitutional protections.
House Bill 67 would operate alongside New Mexico’s Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order law, commonly referred to as the red flag law. Enacted in 2020, the statute allows a court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual if it finds the person poses a credible risk of harm to themselves or others. The law authorizes petitions by law enforcement officers or district attorneys and requires sworn statements, judicial review, defined time limits on firearm removal, and a process for firearm return.
At the national level, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi upheld a federal statute barring firearm possession when a court has made specific findings that an individual poses a credible threat, emphasizing individualized judicial determinations and due process protections.
House Bill 67 differs in that it requires firearm surrender upon service of an order of protection, rather than following a separate judicial finding regarding dangerousness, placing the bill within the evolving constitutional framework courts have applied following Bruen and Rahimi.
As lawmakers prepare to gavel in next Tuesday, some Republicans have raised concerns that additional firearm measures are likely to face similar court challenges. In a recent Facebook video addressing pending gun litigation, state Sen. Crystal Brantley said lawmakers have already introduced “a number of bills that are clearly unconstitutional,” adding that such measures “will be challenged in a court of law” and “create chaos for New Mexicans.”
Lawmakers are scheduled to convene in Santa Fe next Tuesday, when House Bill 67 and other pre-filed measures will be formally introduced and assigned to committee.
