Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Senate Bill 29

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    114

    Senate Bill 29

    FYI, Senate Bill 29 has been introduced to lighten up on certain concealed carry renewal requirements:

    SB 29 Neville (R2)
    CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE REQUIREMENTS RELAXED
    Analysis (changes only): (Similar to 2010 SB212, 2009 SB507) Eliminates the requirement for a biennial two hour refresher course for persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Permits a license renewal up to 90 days prior to its expiration. Eliminates the requirement for additional fingerprinting to obtain a license renewal.
    12/20/10—S Pre filed in the Senate.
    01/18/11—S Introduced and referred to Senate Public Affairs.
    01/18/11—S Also referred to Senate Judiciary.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143
    Thanks for posting NMBill. You are right on top of the latest in SF!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348
    I know its to late but what about allowing permanent residents IE green cards holders to get a NM CCW
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    114

    And a companion house bill...

     HB 140 Gentry (R30)
    ELIMINATES CONCEALED HANDGUN CONTINUING TRAINING
    Analysis (new): (Similar to SB29) Eliminates the requirement for a biennial two hour refresher course, approved by the Department of Public Safety, for persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
    01/24/11—H Introduced and referred to House Consumer & Public Affairs.
    01/24/11—H Also referred to House Judiciary.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    114

    More info

    Here is a fiscal impact report re SB29 (elimination of the the fingerprint requirement for CCW permit renewals, the two-year refresher course requirement, etc.). Bottom line, DPS says they need the fingerprint cards to run another full background check and the Public Defender Dept says NM is the only state with a two-year refresher requirement.

    http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/11%2...irs/SB0029.pdf

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143
    NMBill- Thanks for the update, but as you know, that is pure BS about needing fingerprint cards to run background checks. There are many, many states that do not require fingerprint checks for renewal. How hard can it be for them to pull the original prints on file. It is ridiculous for the state to require all the cost and labor of each gun owner when they have these on file.

    DPS is just wanting more red tape and costs to the gun owners.
    I believe that I will send a letter to the new DPS chief and Governor Martinez to let them know about their waste.
    Last edited by snoball; 01-27-2011 at 04:14 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143
    Here is the text of the letter I sent to Governor Martinez and new DPS Cabinet Secretary Gorden Eden:

    January 27, 2011

    Governor Susana Martinez
    Office of the Governor
    490 Old Santa Fe Trail Rm 400
    Santa Fe, NM 87501

    Cabinet Secretary Gorden Eden (gorden.eden@state.nm.us)
    Department of Public Safety
    PO Box 1628
    Santa Fe NM 87504-1628

    Subject: 2011 Legislative Session- Request DPS to Modify Position on Fingerprints for CCW Renewal

    Governor Martinez and Secretary Eden,

    I am writing to ask the two of you to have the staff of DPS modify their position on the Fiscal Impact Report for Senate Bill 29. In the previous administration DPS did everything they could to make legal gun owners spend as much time and money to obtain a concealed carry license despite the intent of the legislation that created the act. It appears that this practice is continuing without your knowledge.
    Currently New Mexico gun owners are required to obtain a new set of fingerprints at considerable cost and time every four years despite the fact that DPS has all the fingerprints on file from the original applications. Here is the excerpt from the Fiscal Impact Report dated 1-21-11:
    “DPS advises that it is not feasible to access or pull an original set of prints, but DPS needs a new set of fingerprint cards in order to continue conducting a national background check upon renewal of a license. Under the proposed changes, DPS would be able to run only a very limited background check that will not include national fingerprint-verified arrest information. Additionally, DPS reports the two- year refresher course ensures the maintenance of at least some level of proficiency during the four- year license term.”
    This is ridiculous. Why is it not feasible? Are they just lazy? These CCW files are important and they should be easily accessed. If Senate Bill 29 is approved, their workload should theoretically decrease by 50% since applications would come through every four (4) years instead of two (2) years. In addition, common sense tells you that processing a brand new set of redundant fingerprints should take just as much work as pulling a file and sending in a set of prints they already have.
    Here is the Synopsis of Bill 29:
    “Senate Bill 29 proposes to amend the Concealed Handgun Carry Act to: 1) eliminate the fingerprint requirement when a concealed handgun license is being renewed; 2) eliminate the two-hour refresher firearms training course requirement that existing law requires be completed two years into the four year license term; 3) allow a licensee to apply to renew a license up to 90 days prior to expiration; and 4) expand the grace period for renewals from 60 to 90 days after expiration.”

    I am asking that the red tape stop here. Please ask the staff at DPS to modify their Fiscal Impact Report comments on SB29 and assist the law abiding gun owners in making this a less costly and time consuming process. It goes without saying that New Mexico is one of a very few states with this requirement. DPS is plain wrong on this and it is a continuation of the previous administrations plan to make it more difficult for the gun owner.
    Thank you for your prompt attention to this.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143
    As shown above, I wrote Gorden Eden and received a reply today concerning the following:
    the excerpt from the Fiscal Impact Report dated 1-21-11:
    “DPS advises that it is not feasible to access or pull an original set of prints, but DPS needs a new set of fingerprint cards in order to continue conducting a national background check upon renewal of a license. Under the proposed changes, DPS would be able to run only a very limited background check that will not include national fingerprint-verified arrest information. Additionally, DPS reports the two- year refresher course ensures the maintenance of at least some level of proficiency during the four- year license term.”

    Mr. Eden says that they are drafting legislation to automate the system of fingerprints and they would not need fingerprints for renewal. One item fixed. Now to get the entire law passed. Thanks to DPS' new Cabinet Secretary. This would not have happened under Denko.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    114

    Update

    The Public Affairs Committee has referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee -- unanimous recommendation to pass:

    Your PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, to whom has been referred
    SENATE BILL 29 has had it under consideration and reports same with recommendation
    that it DO PASS, and thence referred to the JUDICIARY
    COMMITTEE.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143
    Gordon Eden followed up with me regarding the fingerprint issue. I have to say he has been very responsive to my correspondence and I appreciate that they are changing the requirements and processes at DPS to make it easier and cheaper for us to renew. Here is what he wrote:

    "DPS has authored and Rep Herrell sponsored HB527 which will eliminate the need for additional fingerprints for CCW. There is a system in place with the FBI that will “fix” this however NM needs a law to support it.

    The Criminal History Bill “Rap Back” has been introduced and it is being opposed in its first Committee (two days ago) and has been tabled. You may wish to contact others who would support this new electronic system and have them contact their Legislator for support of HB527.

    Regards,

    GE"

  11. #11
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    219
    SB 29 tied [failed] in SJC. Once again, Roswell instructor Barry L. Haight's - NM Instructor 211 - emails to Sen Wirth: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1144938 came up yet again, and very likely affected the vote against this common sense measure.

    "DPS has authored and Rep Herrell sponsored HB527 which will eliminate the need for additional fingerprints for CCW. There is a system in place with the FBI that will “fix” this however NM needs a law to support it.
    Director Eden is mistaken. The statute [29-19-5 B:3 NMSA] requires fingerprints for original licensees. The renewal statute [29-19-6 NMSA] does not require fingerprints for renewal licensees. The requirement for additional fingerprints for renewals comes from the Administrative Rule [10.8.2.17 3:a NMAC].

    I am trying to set up a meeting with DPS as I have time, to discuss this issue. We had a meeting scheduled but I had to cancel due to a committee hearing schedule conflict at the last minute. Where SB 29 and HB 140 both ask that the statute specifically reflect there is no requirement for fingerprints on renewal, this is an administrative issue that I believe we can solve outside the legislature.

    Steve Aikens

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    114

    Thanks...

    ...for the update, Steve.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by steveaikens View Post
    SB 29 tied [failed] in SJC. Once again, Roswell instructor Barry L. Haight's - NM Instructor 211 - emails to Sen Wirth: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1144938 came up yet again, and very likely affected the vote against this common sense measure.
    Might it be considered again, or is it dead for this session?

    Who can we write on the SJC? I'd like to chime in as an instructor to try and cancel out the opinion of Mr. Haight[er].

    Seriously, what is this guy charging for renewals to make it worth his time to oppose the bill? Maybe we should put flyers up in Roswell offering free refreshers to dry that up for him

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    219
    There are two Refresher bills, one in the House - HB 140, one in the Senate SB 29.

    House Judiciary & Sponsor

    Rep. Nate Gentry
    natefornm@gmail.com

    http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/committee...mitteeCode=HJC

    Senate Judiciary & Sponsor

    Sen. Steven Neville
    nmsenate@msn.com

    http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/committee...mitteeCode=SJC

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Quote Originally Posted by snoball View Post
    Thanks for posting NMBill. You are right on top of the latest in SF!
    easy lawsuit - somebody should file it under 42 USC 1983 which allows attorney fee shifting if you prevail, which it appears one would as all other court cases have ruled that denying statutorily provided gun privleges to legal resident aliens violates the equal protectioin clause.

  16. #16
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by PracticalTactical View Post
    Might it be considered again, or is it dead for this session?

    Who can we write on the SJC? I'd like to chime in as an instructor to try and cancel out the opinion of Mr. Haight[er].

    Seriously, what is this guy charging for renewals to make it worth his time to oppose the bill? Maybe we should put flyers up in Roswell offering free refreshers to dry that up for him
    Sen. Martinez, the Chair, agreed to pull it for another vote because Sen. Eichenberg was ill when it tied. He tried to do so Wednesday but Sen. Hardin was out so he was going to try again with the full committee yesterday/last night but I don't know the outcome yet as I'm back in Clovis.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •