“NRS 202.360 Ownership or possession of firearm by certain persons prohibited; penalties.
1. A person shall not own or have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm if the person:
(a) Has been convicted in this State or any other state of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33);
(b) Has been convicted of a felony in this State or any other state, or in any political subdivision thereof, or of a felony in violation of the laws of the United States of America, unless the person has received a pardon and the pardon does not restrict his or her right to bear arms;
(c) Is a fugitive from justice;
(d) Is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance; or
(e) Is otherwise prohibited by federal law from having a firearm in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control.
Ê A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
2. A person shall not own or have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm if the person:
(a) Has been adjudicated as mentally ill or has been committed to any mental health facility by a court of this State, any other state or the United States;
(b) Has entered a plea of guilty but mentally ill in a court of this State, any other state or the United States;
(c) Has been found guilty but mentally ill in a court of this State, any other state or the United States;
(d) Has been acquitted by reason of insanity in a court of this State, any other state or the United States; or
(e) Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
Ê A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
3. As used in this section:
(a) “Controlled substance” has the meaning ascribed to it in 21 U.S.C. § 802(6).
(b) “Firearm” includes any firearm that is loaded or unloaded and operable or inoperable.”
This seems fairly clear. A person in Nevada shall not possess firearms if he or she is (1) convicted of domestic abuse; (2) is a felon; (3) is a fugitive from justice; (4) is addicted to drugs; (5) is adjudicated mentally ill.
Now, how do we determine if someone falls into one of these proscribed categories? There are supposed to be background checks for that purpose. One would think that law enforcement officers would be in favor of any measure that would help prevent guns from getting into the hands of domestic abusers, felons, fugitives, addicts, and the dangerously mentally ill. While such a measure wouldn’t prevent all such incidents it would help, and in this matter every bit of assistance would be welcome. We’d be wrong. Some of the local law enforcement personnel appear to be acting against their own best interests in anti-Question 1 advertising.
Contrary to the gunslingers – Question One doesn’t “criminalize gun ownership.” Gun ownership for domestic abusers, felons, fugitives, addicts, and the adjudicated mentally is ALREADY a criminal offense. There’s nothing added that would criminalize gun ownership for any other person not falling into one of these categories.
Contrary to the gunslingers – Question One isn’t about “g u n c o n t r o l” (think of a scary voice…) It is about keeping guns out of the hands of people who should never have them in the first place.
Contrary to the gunslingers – the law is unworkable because criminals won’t obey it – for the umpteenth time: That is the definition of a criminal, a person who doesn’t obey the law. Again, do we take the laws against bank robbery off the books because bank robbers don’t respect them? Of all the pro-gun proliferation arguments this has to be the silliest.
Contrary to the gunslingers – Simply because a single measure won’t prevent all violent crime doesn’t prevent the idea from having merit if it seeks to prevent some violent crime. The standard set by the NRA/Ammosexuals is artificially high and obviously unachievable – no law will prevent all criminal activity, but that’s no reason not to make an attempt at reduction.
There is a slippery slope here, not as the NRA contends that any regulation of firearms will necessarily devolve into the confiscation of all firearms; but, that we will continue to slide down a slope on which it becomes easier and more convenient for those who should never have lethal weapons in the first instance to create more havoc, more lethal incidents, and more tragic events.