It is hard to read this bill to be other than a very cleverly camouflaged gun control measure — no, a gun CONFISCATION measure.
The individual has only been accused, not proven to be guilty of anything, yet this bill would immediately deprive “him” of “his” Second Amendment rights, without any due process. (Let’s face it, most people subject to a temporary restraining order would be men, right?) This bill would not even allow the transfer of his guns to a family member, until his case is resolved.
How can a law like this be deemed constitutional? Under either the NV or the US Constitutions?
Vote NO on SB 387 which violates fundamental due process regarding the possession of a firearm.
The Nevada Firearms Coalition strongly opposes the passage of this bill that would revise provisions concerning the possession of firearms by people subject to a restraining order.
Here are some key talking points that you can use:
SB 387 requires a person to surrender their firearms to police or to a person appointed by the courts, which is a rough penalty for someone who has a restraining order placed on them with no chance to prove innocence.
SB387 could allow for civil rights and due process violations inherent in obtaining an ex parte restraining order against a so-called “high-risk” individual, as well as the secrecy with which these orders can be issued.
Such an order can be issued against a person of whom there is merely a belief that there “. . . is a substantial likelihood that a person will, in the near future, be a high-risk offender.”
This ex parte order violates a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence.
The accused is not afforded the opportunity to challenge the order in court before it is issued, which violates another fundamental civil right, that of due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Once granted, such an ex parte order requires the subject to dispose of legally owned firearms under fire sale circumstances, the cost and consequences of which can be substantial.
While the surrender of firearms and property is only temporary, and is sought to guard against potential injury to innocent victims, it does not justify the assault by the legislature on the civil rights of the accused.