Nevada has a civil commitment law. See NRS 433A.150. Someone who’s mentally ill may be placed in a mental health facility for I believe up to three days on an emergency, non-court ordered basis. That person must be released afterward unless a petition is filed with a court and the involuntary commitment process is started (which would disarm that person).
Nevada’s governor recently signed a law, AB291, that goes further. AB291 creates a process to seize firearms of people who do not meet the test for civil commitment and who have not been convicted of any crime. We have already seen how “red flag” laws have been wielded against 8-year old boys–lacking any access to firearms–who happen to be smartasses in school. Lock ’em up!
It is reasonable for pro-constitutional sheriffs in sanctuary counties to be skeptical of AB291. They should keep in mind the Supreme Court’s decision 7-2 decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The Court said that lack of action on the part of law enforcement to enforce a restraining order “does not trigger protections under the Due Process Clause” and the respondent had no “entitlement” to expect law enforcement to act a certain way.
Nevada has a civil commitment law. See NRS 433A.150. Someone who’s mentally ill may be placed in a mental health facility for I believe up to three days on an emergency, non-court ordered basis. That person must be released afterward unless a petition is filed with a court and the involuntary commitment process is started (which would disarm that person).
Nevada’s governor recently signed a law, AB291, that goes further. AB291 creates a process to seize firearms of people who do not meet the test for civil commitment and who have not been convicted of any crime. We have already seen how “red flag” laws have been wielded against 8-year old boys–lacking any access to firearms–who happen to be smartasses in school. Lock ’em up!
It is reasonable for pro-constitutional sheriffs in sanctuary counties to be skeptical of AB291. They should keep in mind the Supreme Court’s decision 7-2 decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The Court said that lack of action on the part of law enforcement to enforce a restraining order “does not trigger protections under the Due Process Clause” and the respondent had no “entitlement” to expect law enforcement to act a certain way.