Rep. Joy Garratt, D-Albuquerque, talks with law enforcement officials Thursday at the Capitol before speaking to the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee about House Bill 31, a proposal to recategorize shooting threats as a fourth-degree felony. Photo by Jim Weber/The New Mexican
Rep. Stefani Lord, R-Sandia Park, asks questions Thursday at the Capitol during the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee about House Bill 31, a proposal to recategorize shooting threats as a fourth-degree felony. Photo by Jim Weber/The New Mexican
By MARGARET O’HARA
The Santa Fe New Mexican
House Bill 31 started with a plea from a 10-year-old.
As Rep. Joy Garratt visited constituents in northwest Albuquerque, the young girl issued an urgent request that she do something about school shootings, the lawmaker told members of the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee Thursday.
The interaction struck Garratt, a Democrat and retired educator.
“That a 10-year-old would say something like that to me hurt my heart,” she said.
Garratt’s bill was one of a series of bills — pertaining primarily to young people and guns — discussed during the hourslong committee meeting.
House Bill 31, a proposal to recategorize shooting threats as a fourth-degree felony rather than a misdemeanor, advanced out of the committee Thursday, as did House Bill 38, which would prohibit possession of “a weapon conversion device,” or devices used to convert semiautomatic weapons into fully automatic ones.
Both bills would still need to get the OK from the House Judiciary Committee and then pass the full House before heading on to the Senate.
HB 31 drew broad support from law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. Increasing the penalty for shooting threats would benefit investigators, James Grayson, state chief deputy attorney general, told the committee.
Judges, Grayson said, are reluctant to issue search warrants when the crime at issue is a misdemeanor, meaning police sometimes can’t access cellphones or lockers they’d otherwise search in the midst of an investigation.
Attorney General Raúl Torrez said he was “encouraged” by the committee’s initial approval of the bill.
“Students and parents have suffered for too long with these terrifying acts and its impact on teachers and police officers is not only impacting education but undermining public safety,” he said in a statement. “We still have a long way to go but I’m proud of the progress we made today on this important issue.”
However, defense attorneys were hesitant to turn the misdemeanor into a felony when the change would primarily be wielded against young people, with Chief Public Defender Ben Baur noting “real consequences” can stem from juvenile delinquency proceedings.
“I’m concerned about school shooting threats. I’m concerned about the children and adults who would make them and the harm that there could be,” Baur told the committee. “I’m also concerned about criminalizing conduct for people and over-penalizing folks.”
House Bill 38, too, earned praise from law enforcement.
Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman framed the weapon conversion devices — commonly known as “glock switches” — as “cop killers” because they allow the gun to fire 30 rounds in just over two seconds.
While introducing the bill, sponsor Rep. Kathleen Cates, D-Rio Rancho, noted the conversion devices are particularly common among youth and are already illegal under federal law, though the crime is seldom prosecuted in federal courts. She said HB 38 is meant to ensure federal and state law are in alignment.
A self-described “gun guy,” Las Cruces Police Chief Jeremy Story said, “This isn’t about trying to ban the gun. This is about banning a device that takes a gun and makes it into something that is already illegal on the federal side.”
However, HB 38 also drew some concerns from the committee’s Republican members and public commenters supportive of gun ownership, primarily related to the discrepancies between the bill and existing federal law banning gun conversion devices.
Rep. Stefani Lord, R-Sandia Park, said she’d be supportive of the bill if it aligned exactly with federal law, but did not support it as presented Thursday.
Those changes may come as the bill moves on to the House Judiciary Committee next.