Thursday, April 11, 2013

NEVADA LEGISLATION ISSUES 04/11/2013


Vote in Committee Thursday, April 11, 3:30pm Senate Judiciary Committee, Rm. 2149,
Videoconferenced to Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas
SB221: Gun Control under Guise of Addressing Mental Health Issues  
MESSAGE: Please oppose SB221.  It is a gun control bill under the guise of addressing mental health issues. This bill would establish universal background checks. It may also have the unintended consequences of discouraging people who need mental health treatment from seeking treatment because they fear they may lose their right to keep and bear arms.  (You may want to write your own message.)

SB277:  Mental Health & Firearms, Takes Away Due Process
MESSAGE: Please oppose SB277. Existing law requires that before a person loses their right to keep and bear arms that they must be adjudicated mentally ill by a court or committed to a mental facility. This bill lowers that standard and takes away due process. (You may want to write your own message.)


CONTACT:

Senate Health Committee: Senators:
 

By Phone:
Toll Free: 800-978-2878, 800-995-9080, 800-992-0973
Northern Nevada 775-684-6800, 775-684-6789
Southern Nevada 702-486-2626
Toll Free Fax: 866-543-9941

You may also share your opinion with Legislators at: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/ App/Opinions/77th2013/A/

This information is courtesy of the
Nevada Firearms Coalition www.nvfac.org
President Don Turner
SB221:
  • This bill is not a mental health bill but a gun control bill
  • This bill, as written, will exacerbate mental health issues in that people will not seek mental health treatment, as a visit to a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist could severely restrict their freedoms.
  • The only positive mental health change articulated in this bill is to require reporting of mental health adjudications to the central criminal record repository within 5 days.
  • If a person is hospitalized for a mental health issue, they are then prohibited from owning a firearm with no due process of law (court or adjudication).
  • Nevada currently provides a voluntary back ground check service if a person wants to sell a firearm to someone who does not have a concealed firearms permit. This bill changes it to a mandatory program with criminal sanctions for failure to comply with a “transfer” of a firearm. This check currently requires a $25.00 service fee which is not mentioned in the bill, which constitutes a tax.
  • All “transfers” of firearms are required, yet transfers are not defined in the law. It is conceivable that if one allowed a friend to shoot their gun at a shooting range, for example, that this could be construed as a “transfer.” This criminalizes all transfers of all firearms without a background check, including gifts to family members.
  • This establishes Universal Background checks in Nevada and is an unreasonable requirement.
  • This bill makes it a misdemeanor to transfer a firearm without a background check and stipulates that “a person who transfers a firearm to another person in violation is prohibited from possessing a firearm for 2 years.” This is a penalty for a misdemeanor. How will this be enforced? How is the penalty for this provision related to mental health? The person being penalized does not have a mental health problem. This is unreasonable and has nothing to do with solving mental health issues.
  • If a person goes to a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist and is determined by that visit to have mental illness, it is then a Class D felony for that person to have a firearm, police must be notified, and a person cannot have a firearm for 6 months. This violates “due process”. A person may, however, petition the court for relief after the fact.  The bill doesn’t specify, but do police seize all their firearms?  If they have a CCW permit is it revoked? This provision is unreasonable and also denies due process.
  • This proposal also changes the burden on the lawful gun owner who wishes to sell a firearm from “actual knowledge” to “reasonable cause to believe” if that person to whom you are selling a gun is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This becomes a Class B felony; however another section requires a mandatory background check and failure to comply is a misdemeanor penalty. Yet this provision makes it a felony for failure to perform the check “if there is reasonable cause to believe.” These provisions are in conflict and unreasonable.
  • “Due Process” is eliminated. The bill is constitutionally flawed for this reason.

 Copy of the Bill: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/ Session/77th2013/Bills/SB/ SB221.pdf

SB 277 seeks to clarify existing statutes to include a definition of those suffering from mental illness as a “prohibited possessor of firearms.”
     The relationship of mental health to the exercise of freedom is a very delicate balance. We all know of repressive governments who use mental health as an excuse to incarcerate those who disagree with the government.
     Currently, NRS 433A.310 4. states: 4. If the court issues an order involuntarily admitting a person to a public or private mental health facility pursuant to this section, the court shall, notwithstanding the provisions of NRS 433A.715, cause, on a form prescribed by the Department of Public Safety, a record of such order to be transmitted to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, along with a statement indicating that the record is being transmitted for inclusion in each appropriate database of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.                                                    
     NRS 433A. 200 as cited in the proposed statute relates to involuntary court ordered admissions. However, this bill lowers the standards to apply to someone who was petitioned against with a concurrent denial to rights for three years. This bill is flawed because it denies due process and subjects a person to arbitrary standards. The prohibited possessor should be determined by a court determination, not by a petition that can be filed by anyone without a trial or evidence. The wording is in violation of the Constitutional guarantee of due process. Strike all references to “petition” in the text.
     The Nevada Firearms Coalition strongly objects to this bill as a denial of due process under the Constitution, and we request that the Senate Judiciary Committee not pass it out of the committee. 


Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)