Assembly Judiciary Committee hears bill to allow voluntary temporary firearm storage with civil‑liability protections

Assembly Bill 451, sponsored by Assemblymembers Sandra Houdege and P.K. O'Neil, received a public hearing before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary in Carson City and via remote connection. The measure, as presented in the committee's most recent amendment, would authorize voluntary "firearm hold agreements" under which a licensed firearm dealer or a local law‑enforcement agency may take and hold a lawfully possessed firearm at the owner's request for an agreed minimum period (21 days), and would provide specified civil‑liability protections for entities that participate.

The sponsors told the committee the bill is intended as a suicide‑prevention tool: temporarily removing access to firearms can create time and space for someone in crisis and reduce the immediate risk of a lethal act. Assemblymember Sandra Houdege described models in other states and said the Armory Project, a nonprofit that helps match firearm owners in crisis to voluntary storage sites, reported more retailers participating after civil‑immunity laws passed in other jurisdictions. Assemblymember P.K. O'Neil and witnesses emphasized that participation by dealers and law enforcement would be voluntary and that an additional amendment is expected to change the negligence standard to gross negligence.

The committee heard testimony in support from public‑health and law‑enforcement groups and from mental‑health clinicians. Witnesses included Dr. Gala True of the Armory Project, who described the project's work onboarding firearm retailers in Louisiana and Arkansas and said retailers' chief concern was civil liability; Joe Dibble of the Washoe County Suicide Prevention Alliance described local outreach efforts and a small existing network of participating dealers; and clinicians and public‑health officials described evidence and experience indicating that limiting immediate access to firearms reduces suicide risk.

Members asked detailed questions about implementation and possible unintended consequences. Committee members sought clarification on: whether written or oral storage agreements would be permitted; how long firearms can remain in storage; whether a retailer must log stored firearms in federal or ATF acquisition/disposition records; how a retailer or law‑enforcement agency would know whether a person seeking return of firearms is legally prohibited from possessing them; and whether family complaints could trigger a requirement for a dealer to refuse return or incur liability.

Witnesses and sponsors responded that: (1) the amendment allows either written or oral agreements to accommodate people who do not want a paper record; (2) 21 days is a statutory minimum but sites may hold firearms substantially longer by agreement; (3) in some storage models firearms are placed into an FFL's inventory and must be logged, and the returning person must pass the required background check; (4) retailers and agencies could decline to return firearms if the recipient is a known prohibited person or demonstrates behavior that gives actual, knowable grounds for refusal; and (5) the sponsors plan to narrow liability language to a gross‑negligence standard and to preserve other legal avenues such as extreme‑risk protective orders (so‑called "red flag" petitions) for formal intervention.

Opponents and commenters raised concerns about privacy, the potential for coercion or false allegations, and record‑keeping. Several callers and in‑room witnesses asked how Nevada law would prevent creation of a persistent government database of gun owners or otherwise impair Second Amendment rights; sponsors and some supporters said the amendment before the committee was intended to be narrowly focused, voluntary, and to require destruction of certain records, and that they would work with stakeholders to tighten language where necessary.

Committee staff and multiple witnesses described outreach plans if the law is enacted: model agreements and training materials already used by the Armory Project, outreach through public‑health and veterans' organizations, and a public map of participating locations. Law‑enforcement witnesses said local offices and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association have worked with sponsors on technical changes.

The hearing closed after testimony in support, opposition and neutral positions; no final vote on the bill was taken at the hearing. Sponsors said they would continue technical discussions with stakeholders and expected at least one additional amendment on the negligence standard.

Ending note: Supporters described the measure as a voluntary, narrowly drawn tool to reduce suicide risk by creating immediate barriers to access; opponents and several committee members focused on tightening language around liability, recordkeeping and return‑of‑firearms procedures before any final committee action.