LAS VEGAS (KLAS) – A bill moving through the Nevada Legislature meant to keep firearms away from people experiencing a mental health crisis could help others in domestic abuse situations, according to advocates.
The Nevada Assembly Committee on Judiciary heard Senate Bill 347 on Wednesday, more than a month after it passed through the Senate.
The proposal would allow police to temporarily confiscate guns from a person experiencing a mental health crisis who could become a threat to themselves or family members.
“We generally support bills,” SafeNest CEO Liz Ortenburger said. “That helps get guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”
Ortenburger believes this legislation could go a long way towards protecting people experiencing domestic violence.
“If your abusive partner has a gun,” she said. “That is going to lead to a lot of fear, right?”
80 percent of domestic violence-related homicides in Nevada are connected to firearms, according to Ortenburger.
Any bill that would limit access to a gun in a volatile, unstable, or violent situation is important, she told 8 News Now.
“Let’s make the environment safer for the person who is experiencing that mental health crisis,” Ortenburger said. “But also for the community around that person.”
Those against the bill claim it’s too broad. Several people shared concerns with due process and constitutional compliance during its hearings in the Nevada Assembly and Senate.
“It is in my eyes a clear violation,” Tanya Freeman said to lawmakers. “Of the second amendment and the fourth amendment.”
Other organizations in opposition include the National Rifle Association and the American Independent Party.
“It violates constitutional amendments, or provisions rather,” Thomas Morey of the Nevada Firearms Coalition said. “And we are in opposition to this bill.”
However, the people backing the bill called it a stopgap to help families suffering make it out of dangerous situations safely.
“Let them calm down, get the help that they need,” John Abel of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association said. “And then be able to get their firearm back.”
Those behind SB 347 made several amendments before its assembly hearing. The most significant, the firearm must be on the person in question, or in their immediate vicinity, for police to confiscate it.
