Accused Costilla shooter released, turns over weapons

Posted

Andrew Bernard Mott, the man accused of assaulting an off-duty New Mexico State Police officer and his family in Costilla on March 11, has been released from the Taos County Adult Detention Center.

Mott, 58, left the jail following a Taos District Court arraignment held on Monday (April 24), in which Judge Jeff McElroy granted the defendant a conditional release on a $20,000 unsecured appearance bond.

In addition to the requirement that the defendant reappear in court as his case is processed and wear a GPS ankle bracelet that will track his movements, Mott was also required to turn over any weapons in his possession “within three days of release.”

Mott’s defense attorney, Alan Maestas, confirmed with The Taos News this week that Mott complied with the final condition, turning over two weapons: an LAR .50-caliber BMG Grizzly Big Bore rifle and an Armalite M15 5.56X45 mm assault rifle, according to court documents filed on Monday.

Both are military-grade weapons, each taking rounds commonly seen in armed conflict. For example, the .50-caliber round was developed in the early 1920s for use among NATO forces and comes in variations that include incendiary and armor-piercing rounds, sometimes used to penetrate tanks. The cartridge is about 5 inches in length and almost an inch in diameter.

But there was a glaring, possible omission in the weapons surrendered.

Law enforcement has alleged that the defendant used a .45-caliber handgun to fire at least one shot at New Mexico State Police Lt. Jose Martinez and his family members on March 11, but no such firearm was turned in following the defendant’s release.

The alleged weapon was also not recovered during an initial search. A second search that took place while the defendant was still being held on bond also came up empty, according to the court documents, which state that the defendant had, in fact, hidden the weapons “at a site away from his home” prior to his arrest on March 27.

Mott’s case has been transferred to Taos District Court Judge Sarah Backus. The defendant’s next hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Comments

2 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Robert Andreoli

"turning over two weapons: an LAR .50-caliber BMG Grizzly Big Bore rifle and an Armalite M15 5.56X45 mm assault rifle, according to court documents filed on Monday.

Both are military-grade weapons, each taking rounds commonly seen in armed conflict. For example, the .50-caliber round was developed in the early 1920s for use among NATO forces"

Neither of these rifles are military grade weapons. Both are produced for the civilian market. The AR15 is not now nor has it ever been an assault weapon. While it closely resembles the Military M16 the AR15 does not have those features required to be designated an assault rifle. The AR designation in AR15 does not stand for assault rifle, it stands for Armilite Rifle in reference to the company that originally designed the rifle. The .50 caliber round began development in 1917 but was not accepted by the US military until 1933. NATO was created in 1949 and had nothing to do with the development or use of .50 BMG ammunition.

If you can't report accurately you're just Fake News. I realize that your organization is skewed far to the left and anti gun, anti 2nd amendment but accurate and honest reporting is required if you want to be taken seriously.

Sunday, May 7 | Report this
John Lapin

Not great reporting on the gun parts but the story is about Andy. Too often people feel they can resolve issues by waving and firing guns. That seldom solves their problem. There is a place for armed self defense but the legal restraints need to be understood. Andy seems to have succumbed to the frustrations of being burglarized one time too often and thought the passerby on the road was a threat. He acted inappropriately and will suffer consequences. So, what can we learn from his experience? Know the law about self defense, particularly the part about property versus bodily harm. It is worth the time to take a class on self defense.

Wednesday, October 25 | Report this