A Las Vegas assemblyman wants Nevada courts to strip firearms from domestic violence respondents when a protection order is issued, rather than only after a later hearing. Assemblyman David Orentlicher, who represents Assembly District 20 in Clark County, says the gap in current law is costing lives, pointing to 20 domestic violence homicides reported in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's jurisdiction as of September 13, up from 16 at the same point in 2025.
Orentlicher, an attorney and professor at UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law, plans to introduce legislation requiring firearm surrender under both temporary and extended domestic violence protection orders, according to KSNV. He said current Nevada law does not go far enough to protect victims. Under existing statute, a temporary protection order — which can last up to 45 days and may be granted with or without notice to the accused — does not automatically require firearm surrender or block new gun purchases, the station reports.
An extended protection order, which requires notice and a hearing and can last up to two years, already bars the subject from buying or acquiring firearms while it is in effect. But whether that person must actually hand over guns already in their possession remains up to a judge's discretion, weighing factors like documented abuse history, firearm threats, or prior use of a weapon in a crime, per the same account.
Closing What Orentlicher Calls a Dangerous Gap
Orentlicher wants to add firearm surrender requirements to temporary orders and make surrender automatic once an extended order is granted. He said the proposal should apply to both types of orders, arguing that stronger firearm restrictions could reduce deadly violence in domestic violence cases. “The proposed restrictions work and will save lives,” he said, according to the station's report.
The lawmaker holds both a law degree and a medical degree from Harvard and directs UNLV's Health Law Program, a background that frames his push for gun restrictions through both a legal and public health lens, according to LegiStorm. He previously served in the Indiana House of Representatives from 2002 to 2008 before winning his Nevada Assembly seat in November 2020.
Gun-Rights Group Vows Opposition
The Nevada Firearms Coalition, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, said it will oppose the proposal on due process and Second Amendment grounds. The group noted that a temporary protection order can be issued without a court hearing and without the accused having a chance to defend himself, and it argued current law already allows judges to weigh individual circumstances before ordering surrender under extended orders, per KSNV's reporting. The coalition said it will fight any move toward automatic firearm surrender without added due process protections.
State laws vary widely on whether ex parte orders — issued before the accused can appear in court — automatically trigger firearm surrender, according to the Giffords Law Center. Opponents of mandatory ex parte surrender raise due-process concerns about disarming someone before a hearing.
The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the underlying constitutional question in June 2024, ruling 8-1 in *United States v. Rahimi* that federal law barring firearm possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional when a court finds the person poses a credible threat to physical safety, according to Everytown for Gun Safety. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that temporarily disarming dangerous individuals aligns with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
A Legislature That Only Meets Every Other Year
Orentlicher's proposal cannot move quickly no matter how the debate shakes out. Nevada is one of only four states where the legislature meets in regular session just once every two years, and its 84th Session is not scheduled to convene in Carson City until February 1, 2027, according to the Nevada Legislature. Any bill draft request Orentlicher files now could be prepared before the session, but formal debate would come during the 2027 session.
The coming session may turn into a fight between strengthening enforcement of existing discretionary rules versus expanding automatic surrender to emergency temporary orders.
Nevada also already has a separate mechanism for emergency firearm removal. Since January 1, 2020, the state's red-flag statute has let civil courts issue emergency ex parte High-Risk Protection Orders, according to the Nevada Attorney General.
The Numbers Behind the Push
Orentlicher's argument rests heavily on lethality data. National public health research shows an abused partner is five times more likely to be murdered when their abuser has access to a firearm during a domestic dispute, and firearms are used in roughly two-thirds of intimate partner homicides involving female victims nationwide, according to the SAFE Alliance. Statewide, domestic violence-related homicides are also part of the broader debate over firearm restrictions. The issue also figures into broader discussions of intimate partner violence and female homicides in Nevada.
Election-Year Divide on Assembly District 20
The debate is also shaping up as a campaign issue. Orentlicher, who won his Democratic primary in June with 71.3 percent of the vote, faces Independent American Party candidate Stan Vaughan in the November 3 general election for Assembly District 20, according to Ballotpedia. Vaughan opposes Orentlicher's firearm surrender proposal and agrees with the Nevada Firearms Coalition's position, per KSNV's reporting, setting up a clear contrast between the two candidates ahead of the vote.
