Provides immunity from civil liability to licensed firearm dealers under certain circumstances. (BDR 3-549)
Summary
AB 273 would create a new civil-liability immunity for licensed firearm dealers when they participate in a “firearm hold agreement.” Under the bill, a dealer who takes temporary possession of a lawfully possessed firearm at the owner’s request, stores it for an agreed period, and returns it according to the agreement would generally be shielded from civil claims arising from acts or omissions connected to that arrangement, including claims tied to injury or death resulting from the return of the firearm.
The bill defines a firearm hold agreement as either a written or oral agreement between the firearm owner and a federally licensed firearm dealer. It also limits the immunity by preserving liability if the dealer’s conduct was otherwise unlawful. The measure applies prospectively to causes of action accruing on or after October 1, 2025.
Impact
AB 273 would amend Chapter 41 of NRS, Nevada’s civil immunity provisions, by adding licensed firearm dealers to the list of persons protected from civil liability in specified circumstances. It would affect dealers who temporarily store firearms for owners and could reduce exposure to lawsuits alleging negligence or other civil wrongdoing connected to the storage and return of firearms, while still allowing claims based on unlawful conduct by the dealer. The bill does not create a fiscal impact on state or local government according to the bill summary.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive in concept, with the measure framed as a targeted liability protection rather than a broad policy change. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to provide legal certainty for dealers who offer firearm storage services at an owner’s request. No opposition, amendments, or recorded vote concerns are available in the provided context.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of immunity for firearm dealers, particularly whether shielding dealers from civil liability for injuries or deaths connected to a firearm hold agreement could limit recourse for harmed parties. Supporters would likely emphasize that the protection is narrow, applies only to lawfully possessed firearms held at the owner’s request, and excludes unlawful dealer conduct. Critics may focus on the risk that an oral agreement or the return of a firearm could still lead to disputes over responsibility, negligence, or public safety.