Committee hears bill allowing officers to temporarily remove firearms during mental‑health holds

Carson City — The Assembly Judiciary Committee on (hearing) considered Senate Bill 347, introduced by Sen. Melanie Scheibel, to clarify that a police officer may confiscate a firearm from a person being taken into custody on a statutorily authorized mental‑health crisis hold and to set out how firearms would be returned when appropriate.

Supporters, including the bill’s co‑presenter Officer John Abel of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Police Protective Association (LVPPA), told the committee the measure closes a gap in current law that left officers unsure whether they could take a weapon from a suicidal or dangerous person who had not committed a crime. "This bill truly is not a gun grab bill," Abel said, adding officers routinely leave a firearm at the scene because they fear violating Fourth Amendment protections. Senator Scheibel said the bill also provides the officer an option to seek a court protective order if further restriction is needed after a patient is released from a facility.

Proponents said the bill limits seizures to firearms on a person or in the "immediate vicinity," and that Nevada case law defines that phrase as within reach and exposed. Scheibel cited the phrase’s origin in Agnello v. United States and Nevada decisions she said interpret the term as "within reach and exposed." Officer Abel and law‑enforcement witnesses described the routine practice: officers prepare an evidence/property sheet with serial numbers and leave a copy with the person; when cleared through a firearms section, the owner may present ID and the receipt at the evidence vault to recover the weapon.

Opponents urged tighter safeguards and clearer return procedures. Thomas Morley of the Nevada Firearms Coalition said the bill raises due‑process concerns and could leave heirs or inheritors unable to prove ownership if serial numbers remain registered to a deceased owner. Caller Kimberly Fergus argued the measure lacks judicial oversight and clear, timely return procedures, urging lawmakers to demand more defined safeguards before codifying the authority.

The Clark County Public Defender’s Office said it worked with the sponsor to narrow broad language that could have authorized officers to conduct wide searches of a home; the office supported the posted amendment, which narrowed authority to firearms on the person or in the immediate vicinity. Law‑enforcement groups including the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association and the Washoe County Sheriff's Office testified in support, saying the amended language aligns with current field practice and protects officers from liability when they safely remove immediate threats.

Committee members asked about definitions and implementation: several members pressed for a clearer statutory definition of "immediate vicinity" and of the statutory phrase "shall make available" for return of property. Officer Abel described his reading as "within hands reach" and said many agencies already maintain evidence/return policies; he said the return process typically involves verification of ownership, a firearms‑section clearance (e.g., not a prohibited possessor or stolen weapon), and presentation of the evidence sheet and ID at an evidence vault. Senators and members noted some situations—heirship, antique or unmarked firearms, or guns stored in safes—could pose practical difficulties under the bill as written.

No committee vote was recorded in the hearing. The sponsor and stakeholders said they had accepted and worked on amendments; the Clark County Public Defender’s Office described the posted amendment as addressing its major concern. The hearing record closed with additional public comment for and against; the committee adjourned without taking final action on SB 347.

Ending: Committee staff said public comment was closed and the hearing on SB 347 concluded; any further changes or votes will be scheduled by committee leadership.