cops Sheriff lacks proper training (copy)

Rio Arriba County Sheriff James Lujan is among 29 of New Mexico's 33 sheriffs whom the New Mexico Sheriff's Association says oppose Senate Bill 5, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act.

Rio Arriba Sheriff James Lujan says he will not enforce the controversial “red-flag” gun safety law signed into legislation by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham Tuesday.

Lujan is among 29 of New Mexico’s 33 sheriffs whom the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association says oppose Senate Bill 5 or the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act.

The bill, which becomes effective May 20, allows law enforcement officers to petition a court to preemptively and temporarily seize a person’s firearms if they are deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Sheriff Lujan said the bill is a violation of multiple constitutional rights.

“They’re taking away somebody’s property without a hearing,” he said. “I’m not gonna endanger my deputy’s lives to try and go take away someone’s guns from them unlawfully.”

While people who know a potentially dangerous individual may go to law enforcement with their concerns, it is up to law enforcement officers’ discretion to decide whether or not to take the issue before a court.

The Albuquerque Journal reported Tuesday that Lujan Grisham said elected law enforcement should resign if they will not enforce state law.

Other legislation related to public safety passed by both houses of the Legislature are listed below. Lujan Grisham has until March 11 to act on legislation.


Presumption for First Responders

Effective July 1, 2020, unless a law enforcement officer or emergency medical services first responder is determined to have post-traumatic stress disorder during an initial employment medical screening, a new PTSD diagnosis will be presumed to be a job-related condition. This streamlines mental health treatment and coverage under workers’ compensation insurance providers.

HB 21: Prohibit NDA for Sexual

Harassment Cases

Effective May 20, 2020, employers may not require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements as part of sexual harassment settlements.

HB 184: Law


Officers at Schools

Effective July 1, 2022, specialized training will be a requirement for all school resource officers, The act also allots $1,000 in state funds for training each officer.

SB 64:

Public Records

Settlement agreements with Risk Management, the state government’s insurance division, will no longer be sealed for six months and will be subject to regular public records law.

(10) comments


Agree or not it is the law of the land. Funny how law enforcement can pick and choose which laws to enforce but the citizens of the county and the state the expectation is for us to follow them all. I support the 2nd Amendment but the law is the law. If the sheriff doesn't like the law then take the legal course of action to have it changed or removed.

In accordance with Article XX in the New Mexico Constitution "Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability."

I don't see where it says that you can pick and choose. By definition what the sheriff is doing is a crime.

Definition of crime. 1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially: a gross violation of law. 2: a grave offense especially against morality. 3: criminal activity efforts to fight crime. - Definition of Crime by Merriam-Webster

This behavior shouldn't surprise me though as some members of law enforcement throughout the county have difficulty understanding the oath they have taken. We can and should do better Rio Arriba. We live in a part of the world that has been touched by the hand of God. Until we hold ourselves and our elected officials accountable for the change and the desired outcome that we deserve the status quo will remain.

Do your job Sherrif set upon yourself the same expectations that you have set upon the citizens you serve.


Democrats think they have the upper hand, well think twice! This breaks our rights! I can see felons not to posses a firearm but the rest of us of will be able to bear arms for protection or hunting! Think twice before you speak! Just saying!!




I disagree with you sorry! But it volatiles our right to bear arms! This ridiculous. I don’t care what your opinion is but not all of us kill ourselves or others with a firearm!

Gene Ralno

Democrats see this movement as rational but the fact is, red flag laws were created to transfer powers from licensed psychiatrists to unqualified persons more obedient to democrats, e.g., local judges and crotchety old aunts. Due process requires reports from two psychiatrists, one from each side, legal representation, arraignment, indictment and trial by jury.

I've often wondered how the police, teacher, classmate or aunt would know the rightful owners of which firearms. Seems law enforcement would risk serious lawsuits if they err on that point. And I've wondered about the issue of an accused having firearms stored at another address. What if they're out of the city or even the state but easily accessible. This law is flawed in many ways.

Nobody wants criminals to have firearms but to be taken seriously, if the accused is a danger to himself (not against the law) or others, he should be legally arrested. In other words, take the man but leave the guns. The line of inheritance codified in state laws determines the legal custodian of any property. Politicians on both sides who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws.

Their legacies will carry a Supreme Court scolding and perhaps be the landmark of their careers. Writers, politicians and demonstrators have been hoodwinked by Bloomberg's rhetoric and haven’t read his 2018 data. It reveals gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent.

As an analogy, if someone sips too much wine during dinner at home, a crotchety old aunt might be empowered to call the police and have them impound every motorized vehicle from the homeowner -- just in case he or she might decide to drive somewhere. Never mind who owns the vehicles.

None of this hysteria is justified. Since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent. It's bizarre that Bloomberg wants to change all that. Since 1999, the statistical probability of a student being killed in school, on any given day by a gun has been one in 614 million. Your odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 300 million. The chances of your child being kidnapped are about one in 300,000. Bloomberg says the nation is in crisis, suffering an epidemic. Folks, there is no crisis, no epidemic.

Shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the '90s. Fact is all but three mass shooters in recent history passed background checks. Two stole their rifles. The other one bought from a guy who assembled it from parts and sold it from home. Murders committed by all types of rifles combined, in 2018, dropped by 23.9 percent. According to the FBI, out of 14,123 homicides in 2018, only 297 (2.1%) were committed by rifles, less than by knives (11%), hands, fists and feet (5%) and blunt objects (3%).

During that time, citizens were buying a record number of firearms. In 2019, more than 28 million requests were submitted to the National Instant Background Check System, a general indicator of firearms purchased and an historic record. That number exceeds 27.5 million in 2016 when purchasers were mortified that Hillary might be elected. Democrats want US citizens to believe making the U.S. safer for criminals will make it safer for their victims. Ask yourself, do you believe being disarmed makes you safer? What kind of political leader would disarm his people while howling about the peril they face?

The Supreme Court isn't about to jeopardize its own reputation by reducing the ability of private citizens to defend themselves. It's especially important because currently, half the nation's murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all.

As a postscript, red flag laws have triggered the national movement for 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties. And we’re already witnessing a sea change in the sanctuary movement. I've always believed these partisan and unconstitutional laws could be defeated by simply denying assistance to federal or state law enforcement.

The obvious reason is federal and state resources alone are woefully inadequate to enforce such things as grip or storage violations and could not begin to undertake such efforts without local law enforcement assistance. If deputizing hundreds of thousands to actively resist federal and state efforts is representative of the whole movement, it’s a single issue rebellion which could rapidly expand.

Hundreds of counties already have proclaimed sanctuary status and almost 70 percent of the counties nationwide are projected to declare allegiance to the Constitution and refusal to enforce laws that violate it. That would comprise 472 counties with only one murder per year plus 1,700 counties that have no murders at all. If that materializes, a desirable result would force federal and state enforcement to concentrate on the 63 counties (2% of the total) where half of America’s murders occur.


”I’m not gonna endanger my deputy’s lives to try and go take away someone’s guns from them unlawfully.“

Sounds like he would rather put everyone else’s lives in danger. Not to mention it’s is literally the law, so it’s his job to enforce it.


What about Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico? Has the bill passed the constitutional muster?


It puts everyone in danger when the laws are unconstitutional. The 2and Amendment is the protection from those unjust laws


You are only seeing it one way. If LE wants to go they due process as the constitution states, they will certainly serve the lawful order. That is not what this law does, because there is no due process.

Evil gringo

When did rights become so disposable? Might want to go back and read the constitution and federalist 46. I applaud the sheriff.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.