NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Corrections Department (CD)

Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD)

Attorney General (AG)

Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court (BCMC)

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

HB310, the "Handgun Safety Standard Act," mandates state uniform handgun safety standards. The bill provides for the creation of a "Handgun Standards Commission." The commission shall be composed of nine members, including two members from the house of representatives, appointed by the house speaker, two members from the senate, appointed by the president pro tempore, the attorney general or designee, the chief of the New Mexico State Police or designee, the secretary of health or his/her designee, a representative of the handgun industry, appointed by the governor, and finally, a mechanical engineer, appointed by the governor.

The commission will be responsible for promulgating uniform state standards for handguns within one year of their formation. They will also be responsible for designating an existing state agency for administering and enforcing the promulgated standards.

Mandated standards include:

(1) the "personalization" of a handgun so that it can only be fired when operated by the gun's authorized user;

(2) the "personalization" technology will not be an accessory of the handgun, but incorporated into its design;

(3) the "personalization" mechanism must not permit deactivation.

The commission will also formulate necessary testing procedures to determine if the handgun meets commission promulgated standards; the commission may designate one or more laboratories to confirm adherence to standards. All manufactures of handguns wishing to offer handguns for sale or transfer within the state shall have their guns tested, at the manufacturers expense, at commission designated laboratories to assure compliance to commission promulgated standards. If a handgun fails to meet commission-promulgated standards, it shall not be "manufactured, possessed, sold, offered for sale, traded, transferred, shipped, leased, distributed or acquired" by anyone in the state. A gun that passes muster will be certified by the designated state agency and shall be labeled on the gun accordingly. The gun thereafter cannot be altered in any way which would affect its safety under commission-promulgated rules.

Enforcement provisions of the bill mandate that guns that do not meet commission standards within four years of the date of adopted commission standards shall be effectively banned. Any police officer, acting within existing constitutional parameters of searches, who discovers a handgun not in compliance with the commissions safety standards shall seize the gun; the gun will then be destroyed. The Attorney General will have the power to bring an action on behalf of the state against sellers and manufacturers or possessors of handguns to enjoin violations of the handgun act. Exemptions are made for antique firearms owners, law enforcement agencies, handguns manufactures prior to four years from the date of commission promulgated standards (although ownership of the gun cannot be transferred after four years from the date of the adoption of commission standards), and guns that belong to a federal agency.

A person who violates the Act by manufacturing, possessing, selling, offering for sale, trading, transferring or acquiring a handgun that has not been certified by an independent testing laboratory as meeting commission standards and does not fall within an exception to the act will be guilty of a fourth degree felony.

Significant Issues

CD reports the most significant issue is that HB310 will result in an increase in costs to the department as a result of the new criminal offense. HB310 could also result in additional offenders being placed on probationary supervision by the CD and sentenced to CD prisons.

BCMC reports the issue is whether, and to what extent, caseloads and Judge's dockets would be impacted if enactment would lead to numerous prosecutions for alleged violations of the Act in Bernalillo County. One might reasonably presume that the potential number of prosecutable violations could be considerable.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

HB310 will not have a direct impact upon the performance of any of CD's programs. However, it could result in an indirect negative impact upon the performance of CD's if it significantly increases the prison population or probation and parole case loads and CD is not provided with sufficient resources to handle the increase

According to BCMC, if enactment produces a significant caseload increase due to numerous prosecutions of violations of the Act, there could eventually be a need to correspondingly increase the Court's operating budget to cope with the increased workload. If a significant increase in prosecutions did not result from enactment, impact on the Court should be manageable.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

CD reports there is no appropriation in HB310 to cover the increase in costs to the agency that will result from the new offense. Since HB310 creates an entirely new offense, it is almost impossible for the CD to estimate how many persons will be convicted of these new offenses. However, given the number of gun owners in New Mexico, the number could be significant. CD estimates that the majority of the persons convicted of the new offenses will be sentenced to probationary supervision by the department and the remainder will be sentenced to prison.

According to CD, the private prison annual cost of incarcerating an inmate based upon Fiscal Year 00 actual expenditures is $21,670 per year for males. The cost per client to house a female inmate at the privately operated facility in Grants is $24,348 per year. Any net increase in inmate population will be housed at a private facility.

The cost per client in Probation and Parole for a standard supervision program is $1,536 per year. The cost per client in Intensive Supervision programs is $3,922 per year. The cost per client in Department-Operated Community Corrections programs is $5,519 per year. The cost per client in Privately-Operated Community Corrections programs is $10,724 per year.

HB310 will also result in a minimal increase in revenue due to the additional number of offenders who are required to pay probation and parole supervision fees.

AOC reports it will cost the judicial information system $400 for statewide update, distribution and documentation of statutory changes. Any additional fiscal impact on the judiciary would be proportional to the enforcement of this law and commenced prosecutions. New laws, amendments to existing laws, and new hearings have the potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus requiring additional resources to handle the increase.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

According to CD, in both short-term and the long-term, HB310 will result in an increase in the administrative burden upon the CD's prison, probation and parole, and support personnel who will be required to manage a larger probation case load and prison population. If the number of persons convicted of the new offense is significant, CD will be unable absorb the additional administrative burden and additional F. T. E. will be required.

AOC reports there may be an administrative impact on the courts as the result of an increase in caseload and/or in the amount of time necessary to dispose of cases.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

According to BCMC, one might reasonably assume that some of those prosecuted for violating this Act (if adopted), might argue that it unconstitutionally restricts the right to bear arms as per the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and/or Art. II, Sec. 6 of the N.M. Constitution. It is presently difficult and speculative to predict the outcome of such a challenge though there is authority which acknowledges some latitude for reasonable regulation upon the right to bear arms. See, e.g., State v. Lake, 121 N.M. 794 (Ct. App. 1996), cert. den. 121 N.M. 676 (1996) (right to bear arms per N.M. Constitution was not violated by statute barring possession of a firearm in a licensed liquor establishment).

LT/ar/njw