February 24, 2026

New Mexico’s 2026 Gun Control Push Stalled, but the Overreach Will Return

By Larry Keane

New Mexico’s 2026 legislative session ended with gun control advocates coming up short on their top priority, but exposed a familiar strategy: use a short session to race sweeping restrictions through the process then describe broad limits on lawful gun ownership as “public safety.” The session’s marquee gun control bill, Senate Bill 17 (S.B. 17), titled the “Stop Illegal Gun Trade and Extremely Dangerous Weapons Act,” stalled in the House of Representatives in the final days as lawmakers ran out of time. And thank heavens it did. The bill that faltered was described as the “most restrictive” gun control bill in the country.

For gun owners, retailers and manufacturers, the takeaway is clear. This year was a victory but the policy push did not disappear. It will most likely be back with revised language and the same underlying objective: restrict access to commonly owned firearms and standard capacity magazines by regulating the lawful marketplace and redefining ordinary products as uniquely “dangerous.”

An Anti-Trafficking Charade

Supporters of S.B. 17 sold it as a bill to crackdown on illegal gun trafficking. In reality, it combined two longstanding gun control goals in one vehicle: expanding state-level mandates on federally licensed firearm retailers and prohibiting the sale of constitutionally protected firearms and magazines through a newly created “extremely dangerous weapons” definition.

S.B. 17 passed the Senate. In the House, however, a late night Judiciary Committee hearing stretched into the early morning with lawmakers considering amendments and wrestling with concerns over the bill’s definitions and enforceability. The committee never voted on the bill before the session ended last Thursday. Many factors played a role in the bill’s demise, but near the top was citizen engagement with their legislators, making sure their voices were heard against this abomination. These legislators knew their proposal would have done nothing to reduce violent crime. Instead it would have made life difficult back in their home legislative districts, especially in rural New Mexico.

Gun owners in New Mexico should stay vigilant. The antigun sponsors of this bill, and their allies in the gun control movement, will be back next session to try again to force this unconstitutional bill through the legislature.

Devil in the Details

The most immediate impact of S.B. 17 would have fallen on the lawful, regulated firearm industry. New Mexico firearm retailers already operate under federal requirements governing them, including FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification, recordkeeping, compliance inspections and strict rules on handling inventory. S.B. 17 proposed to layer on state-specific requirements with penalties for missteps and a compliance burden that would increase costs for local businesses.

Small retailers, under this bill, would have faced higher operating costs, more administrative exposure and more ways to trip a technical requirement. It would have meant limited inventory, fewer businesses being able to stay open, especially outside metro areas where gun owners already have limited options. That hurts citizens exercising Second Amendment rights but does nothing to address crime. Department of Justice (DOJ) studies show, criminals don’t buy guns from stores but through theft and the black market.

For New Mexico gun owners, the bill’s “extremely dangerous weapons” language was the most consequential policy choice. It was aimed directly at banning the future sale of all standard capacity magazines and semiautomatic centerfire rifles that use detachable magazines. That is not a targeted enforcement approach focused on criminal misuse. It is a policy designed to reduce lawful access by restricting what can be sold through lawful channels.

That distinction matters because lawful gun owners are not the drivers of violent crime. Yet bills like S.B. 17 treat ordinary citizens seeking the most effective means of self-defense as the policy problem and criminal behavior is left unaddressed.

What’s Sold to the Public

The legislative session also showcased a recurring feature of gun control politics, namely the use of loaded and misleading language to obscure mechanical and legal realities.

Gun control supporters relied on talking points about so-called “assault weapons,” “weapons of war” and “crime guns,” designed to mislead rather than inform. When public officials and advocacy groups blur the lines between commonly owned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), or semiautomatic firearms, and machineguns or suggest that a firearm’s appearance is equivalent to its function, the debate becomes untethered from facts.

Machineguns are defined under federal law. Semiautomatic firearms fire one round per trigger press. Conflating the two is not a minor error. It is a fundamental “misstatement” fueling policy built on fear rather than mechanics and the law.

The same issue applies to how “crime gun” statistics are discussed. Tracing or identifying a first retail sale does not establish how a gun later entered criminal hands, whether it was stolen, illegally straw purchased or an offender acquired it through the black market. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) even provides a disclaimer with this statement for firearm tracing: “Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.”

When lawmakers rely on shaky narratives, the policy tends to miss the target. Instead of focusing on violent offenders and the networks that feed them, the burden is shifted to lawful citizens and lawful commerce.

What the state does not need is another round of bans and bureaucratic traps that fall hardest on the people who already follow the law.

You may also be interested in: 

Judge Again Rejects Elephant ‘Personhood’ Bid — and Pennsylvania Law Is Better for It

Florida Wildlife Calls Bear Harvest ‘Successful’ Despite Anti-hunter Efforts to Derail