Firearms In Unfair Practices Act
SB318 would amend New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act to expressly include firearms, destructive devices, firearm parts, and firearm accessories within the statute’s prohibited unfair and deceptive trade practices. It adds a new unlawful-practice section covering violations of state or federal laws governing the manufacture, advertising, distribution, or sale of firearms, and it expands the Act’s definitions to reach online marketplaces, third-party sellers, and certain firearm-related products and conduct. The bill also broadens the Act’s coverage of commerce and unconscionable practices, updates exemptions and enforcement provisions, and makes technical and conforming changes throughout the statute.
The bill significantly increases private and public enforcement tools. It raises general private damages and civil penalties under the Unfair Practices Act, authorizes substantial firearm-specific remedies, and creates joint-and-several liability for multiple actors and online marketplaces involved in unlawful firearm sales. It also strengthens attorney general investigative and injunctive authority, clarifies subpoena compliance for online marketplaces, and makes refusal to comply with certain subpoenas itself a violation with statutory damages. In addition, it updates venue and jurisdiction concepts to reach businesses serving New Mexico markets, including out-of-state entities and those without a U.S. place of business.
SB318 would materially expand the scope of the Unfair Practices Act by adding firearm-related conduct as an expressly unlawful trade practice and by increasing the remedies available for violations. It would affect sellers, manufacturers, distributors, online marketplaces, and third-party sellers that market or sell firearms, destructive devices, firearm parts, or firearm accessories in violation of state or federal law. The bill also increases general statutory damages and civil penalties under the Act, while creating much larger firearm-specific penalties and damages, and it broadens the attorney general’s and district attorneys’ enforcement authority.
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support in the Senate, passing final passage 21-18. That close margin indicates the measure was politically significant and somewhat divisive. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded discussion to indicate broader consensus or specific supportive arguments beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of firearms as a consumer-protection and unfair-trade issue, which expands liability beyond traditional product or sales regulation. The most consequential provisions are the large firearm-specific damages and penalties, joint-and-several liability for multiple participants, and the requirement that online marketplaces comply with subpoenas and face penalties for noncompliance. Opponents are likely concerned about the breadth of liability, the reach over online platforms and out-of-state sellers, and the interaction with existing firearms law, while supporters appear focused on preventing unlawful firearm commerce and strengthening enforcement against deceptive or illegal sales practices.