Bill would let officers temporarily seize firearms during mental‑health crisis holds; opponents warn of due‑process and logistics issues

CARSON CITY — Senate Bill 347, presented April 2 by Sen. Melanie Scheibel, would permit law enforcement officers who place an individual on a mental‑health crisis hold to take a firearm in the person’s immediate vicinity and trigger a court petition process to determine whether the firearm should be returned.

“Instead of going through the ERPO process, this bill authorizes an officer who has placed a person on a mental‑health crisis hold to immediately confiscate a firearm owned or possessed by that person,” Scheibel said during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, describing the proposal as a measure to address an encounter when an officer is already present with a person in crisis.

Under current Nevada statute, an extreme‑risk protection order (ERPO) can require the temporary relinquishment of firearms where a petition is granted; SB347 targets situations where an officer is already at the scene for a legal 2000 (72‑hour) hold and an immediate removal of a nearby firearm would not fit the ERPO fact pattern. The bill would require officers to provide the person a receipt and a notice describing procedures to request a hearing and to return the weapon. If the person is released from inpatient care, the law enforcement agency would have 30 days to file a petition with the court to keep the firearm; the court could thereafter authorize retention, sale, destruction or other disposition if it determines return would pose a substantial likelihood of serious harm.

Officer John Abel, testifying for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said the bill targets firearms “in the immediate vicinity” (on the person or unsecured nearby) and that current practice—taking firearms for “safekeeping”—can raise Fourth Amendment concerns when suicide is not a crime. “If they’ve committed a crime, absolutely,” Abel said. “But suicide isn't a crime. So that's where the issue lies.”

Opponents said the bill as drafted raises substantial due‑process and privacy concerns. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender's Office said the bill could require disclosure of protected health information to law enforcement and could leave people without a realistic opportunity to request a hearing while hospitalized or without access to courts. Keeley Hopkins, State Director of the National Rifle Association in Nevada, said the measure permits a seizure without conviction, adjudication of mental illness or prior hearing and would allow retention for at least 30 days without immediate judicial review.

Other witnesses — including the City of Henderson, the Washoe/Las Vegas law enforcement associations and the Nevada Firearms Coalition — said they supported the bill's intent but sought clarifying amendments on due process, scope of search, storage logistics, HIPAA and the petition timeline. Several speakers noted the bill already contains a provision requiring the agency that retains custody to file the petition; Sen. Scheibel clarified that the agency bears the burden to file the petition to justify continued retention and that, if it does not, the firearm would “be treated like any other piece of property” and be returned.

Committee members pressed presenters on how existing practice works: witnesses described ad hoc “safekeeping” procedures, property reports and local release processes that can differ between departments; witnesses said other non‑firearm items (for example, knives or ropes) are treated as property and normally returned without a judge’s intervention. Several senators and witnesses said they expect technical amendments to clarify scope, storage, HIPAA protections, petition procedures and timelines.

No committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Sponsors and many stakeholders said they plan to continue working on amendments to address due‑process, privacy and operational concerns.