Nevada’s New Mental Health Law Empowers Police to Seize Firearms from Individuals Placed on Crisis Hold, Aiming to Prevent Future Acts of Violence

Nevada’s recent legislation empowers law enforcement to seize firearms from individuals placed on a mental health crisis hold. The law, effective since last month, was designed to address cases similar to the Manhattan office shooting incident in July 2024.

Shane Devon Tamura, a Las Vegas resident aged 27, owned firearms and underwent two psychiatric holds in 2022 and 2024 after his mother reported threats of self-harm to the police. During these periods, he held a Nevada concealed carry permit. In 2024, Tamura used these weapons to kill four individuals at a New York office building on Park Avenue and injure another before taking his own life.

The law’s key feature enables police to confiscate firearms from individuals experiencing a mental health crisis prior to court proceedings. The legislation authorizes officers placing someone on a mental health hold to immediately seize any weapons owned or possessed by the individual, with a subsequent notice detailing the procedures for returning the firearm.

Nevada’s previous red flag law follows similar state statutes aimed at preventing gun access for individuals posing a threat to themselves or others. However, it requires a court process initiated either by law enforcement or family members. The absence of this tool could have potentially prevented Tamura from retaining his firearms following his mental health crises, according to Thomas Chittum, former associate deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Both incidents preceding Tamura’s mental health holds were critical touchpoints where the red flag law could have been invoked, representing one of the key indicators of future violent acts, as those closest to the individual attempted intervention.

Experts argue that even when individuals are reporting potential threats to law enforcement, they may not be aware of their ability to prevent firearm purchases or possession or encourage law enforcement to utilize these tools more proactively. Christian Heyne, a gun violence survivor and Brady’s chief programs and policy officer, echoed this sentiment: “These tools exist, but people often aren’t aware they can prevent individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms.”

Red flag laws are not widespread nationally, yet states like Texas, Florida, and California have similar legislation with variations. All 50 states have legal procedures for taking a person into custody during a mental health crisis hold; however, only some have provisions addressing gun ownership in such cases. The specific circumstances surrounding Tamura’s psychiatric holds remain unclear, but it is uncertain whether these incidents alone would have prevented him from obtaining his license or purchasing firearms due to privacy concerns and the specific criteria under federal law regarding mental health and firearm ownership.

Under federal law, only involuntary commitments or an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” are disqualifying factors for gun ownership. The government and most states (with some exceptions) restrict firearm ownership in cases where a person has been declared incompetent by a court, faced a restraining order, been involuntarily committed, or deemed a danger to themselves or others due to a mental illness.

An extreme risk protection order (ERPO), or red flag law, allows law enforcement or family members to petition a court to seize a person’s guns if they pose a threat to themselves or others. According to Chittum, such a measure might have been effective in Tamura’s case had an ERPO been sought, as it would have been incorporated into the background check system and prevented him from purchasing a firearm.

Gun rights advocates oppose these laws, arguing they infringe upon Second Amendment rights without conviction. The Nevada Firearms Coalition, a gun rights group, strongly opposed the new law in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating that the legislation unconstitutionally burdens the accused for the return of their property – firearm ownership being a constitutional right.

Some law enforcement officials support this new legislation due to the need for protection and clear guidance when dealing with individuals experiencing mental health crises. Chittum asserted: “This isn’t radical; it offers protection and clear direction on what officers should do when dealing with people in a mental health crisis.”

Data from Everytown for Gun Safety shows that 21 US states have implemented red flag laws, while a federal red flag bill passed by the House in 2022 has yet to progress. The proposed legislation would authorize and establish guidance for federal courts to issue extreme risk protection orders, enabling family members to request a federal court order temporarily restricting firearm access for individuals deemed dangerous by the court.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on red flag laws, with Chittum noting that it remains an emerging area of law: “We’re still trying to figure out this issue where people have constitutional rights but at the same time, we know some people are dangerous.” The court is grappling with the tension between protecting constitutional rights and taking action to prevent violence.

Historically, police have faced legal challenges for seizing firearms under the “umbrella” term of community caretaking. In cases like Caniglia v. Strom, officers were sued for violating Fourth Amendment rights by confiscating a man’s firearms during an observation period. While the First Circuit Court approved the seizure under community caretaking function, the Supreme Court ruled it was not a “blanket exception” and remanded the case. In U.S. v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court upheld a civil process for disarming a person, as it granted the subject a hearing before issuing an order – similar to red flag laws.

Nevada’s new gun law mirrors California’s 5150 law, which allows involuntary detention of individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others. During this period, authorities can temporarily seize their firearms and potentially impose a five-year prohibition. Christian Heyne emphasized that laws like these “narrowly tailor firearm prohibitions for people who are at an imminent and immediate risk.”