Nevada Assembly Bill AB181

Nevada 2025 Regular Session

• Refer: 2/2/25
• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Failed: 4/12/25

Caption

Provides immunity from civil liability to persons returning a firearm under certain circumstances. (BDR 3-920)

Summary

AB 181 creates a new civil-liability protection for people who temporarily take possession of someone else’s lawfully possessed firearm under a “firearm hold agreement” and later return it. The agreement may be written or oral, but it must involve the owner requesting that another person hold the firearm for an agreed period and then return it according to the agreement’s terms. The bill provides that the person returning the firearm is immune from civil liability for that return, unless the person engaged in unlawful conduct while holding or returning the firearm. The bill also amends Nevada’s background-check exemption statute to make transfers made under a firearm hold agreement exempt from the private-transfer background check requirement. In addition, the bill keeps existing exemptions for law enforcement, immediate family transfers, estate transfers, emergency temporary transfers to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, and certain temporary uses such as at shooting ranges, competitions, performances, hunting, or while in the transferor’s presence. The new provisions apply to causes of action accruing on or after October 1, 2025.

Impact

AB 181 would amend Chapter 41 of NRS by adding a specific immunity from civil liability for returning firearms under a firearm hold agreement, and it would amend NRS 202.2548 to exempt those transfers from Nevada’s private-party background check requirement. The practical effect is to create a legal framework for voluntary firearm storage with a third party, while reducing exposure to lawsuits and administrative burdens for people who agree to temporarily hold and return firearms. It affects firearm owners, friends or family members who store firearms, and others who may be asked to safeguard a gun temporarily.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive in design, with the bill framed as a liability-protection and procedural clarification measure rather than a major policy shift. The measure is presented as a narrow exemption tied to consensual firearm storage arrangements and includes limits intended to preserve accountability for unlawful conduct. No recorded opposition, amendments, or vote history is available in the provided context.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the bill’s treatment of temporary firearm transfers without a background check. Supporters are likely to view the exemption as a practical way to let gun owners safely store firearms with trusted persons without creating legal risk. Critics may be concerned that allowing oral agreements and exempting these transfers from background checks could create loopholes, complicate enforcement, or increase the chance that firearms are transferred without adequate screening. Another possible issue is the scope of civil immunity, especially whether it could shield conduct that later becomes disputed unless unlawful conduct is clearly shown.