HB31 amends New Mexico’s criminal code to increase the penalty for making a shooting threat from a misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony. The bill defines a shooting threat as intentionally communicating an intent to bring a firearm to a property or use a firearm in order to place a person or group in fear of great bodily harm, prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a public building, or trigger a law enforcement or emergency response.
The bill also retains existing law on bomb scares and keeps that offense classified as a fourth-degree felony. In addition, it preserves the court’s authority to order restitution for victims and clarifies that economic harm can include lost wages, employee compensation paid during disruptions, and overhead costs incurred when a business is shut down because of the offense.
Impact
HB31 would change Section 30-20-16 NMSA 1978 by reclassifying shooting threats from a misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony, increasing potential criminal exposure and likely strengthening prosecutorial leverage in cases involving threats of gun violence. The bill does not alter the definition of bomb scares or their felony classification, but it reinforces restitution provisions for both bomb scares and shooting threats, affecting defendants, victims, businesses, schools, public buildings, and emergency responders who may be impacted by threat-related disruptions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety response to threats involving firearms and emergency disruptions. The overall tone of the legislation is punitive and preventative, suggesting support for stronger consequences for threatening conduct. Because no transcript or vote history is provided, there is no documented opposition or support to characterize beyond the bill’s apparent intent.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the decision to elevate shooting threats from a misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony, which raises questions about proportional punishment, prosecutorial discretion, and the treatment of speech-related conduct versus credible threats. Supporters would likely emphasize deterrence, school and public-building safety, and the costs imposed on victims and emergency systems, while critics may be concerned about overcriminalization, potential First Amendment implications, and whether felony penalties are appropriate for all covered threats.