Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Anjeanette Damon (contact) 
, David McGrath Schwartz
Published Friday, Feb. 22, 2013 | 11:55 a.m.
Updated Friday, Feb. 22, 2013 | 2:39 p.m.
Troubled Assemblyman Steven Brooks, D-North Las Vegas, tried to buy a firearm at a Sparks sporting goods store on Thursday and the sale is pending a background check by state public safety officials, Chief Patrick Conmay confirmed.
The sale at Scheels was put on "delay" as authorities research Brooks background to determine whether he is eligible to purchase the gun. Restrictions on gun sales are limited and generally include a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction or an adjudication of mental illness.
Although Brooks has been arrested twice in the past month-- once on allegations he threatened a fellow lawmaker and once on allegations of domestic battery-- he has not been convicted in either of those instances. Brooks was also detained by police for a psychiatric evaluation and spent five days in a Las Vegas hospital.
Conmay said a decision has not been made on whether Brooks is eligible to buy the gun. The department has three business days to make that determination, meaning a decision will be made on Tuesday.
The lack of a conviction wouldn't necessarily allow Brooks to purchase the firearm. State officials can determine his status is "unresolved." In that case, the firearms dealer could make the decision whether to go forward with the sale.
"Typically, an 'unresolved' is where we see an arrest reported on a rap sheet without any disposition needed to make a decision," Conmay said.
"The firearm dealer can decide to go ahead and sell the gun, but most of the time when the dealer is notified there is still an issue, they don’t do that," Conmay said.
Rick Combs, director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, confirmed that Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Assembly Majority Leader William Horne both received temporary restraining orders against Brooks on Feb. 14 that last until March 16, unless extended.
He said that following news that Brooks attempted to purchase a firearm, there was increased security at the Legislature.
"We're not ignoring it," he said. "There's a heightened level of concern and awareness." But, he said, "We believe people in the building are safe... I truly believe that we're all being watched out for by people being paid to watch out for us."
The 30-day temporary protective orders, issued by the Carson City Justice Court, prevents Brooks from entering the Legislature or Kirkpatrick's or Horne's residences. Horne, as chair of the select committee investigating Brooks, banned him from the building. The protective orders also prevent Brooks from "contacting, intimidating, threatening or otherwise interfering" with the two Democrats, Combs said.
If this guy gets a gun something tragic will soon follow!
Due to his recent actions I don't see him doing good if he is in possession of a gun.
Hopefully some good judgment is used here.
This is like a sick parody and a true embarrassment for Nevada.
Outrageous the background check hasn't yet been knocked back. In any case, sadly, with some of the most lax gun control laws in this country, he will be able to buy a gun no problem in this state even if he doesn't pass the check.
Given that Brooks has three strikes against him (2 arrests and being detained for psychiatric evaluation), he should definitely not be cleared to purchase a gun.
But even if he was cleared, due to the specific regulations, the sporting goods store might as well put up an "Out of Business" sign if they sold one to Brooks. Once something happened with that gun (assault, murder, or suicide), or even if Brooks was just arrested again with it in his possession, lawyers would come out of the woodwork to sue the store to "make an example" of it (which in this case could be justified).
I'd bet the store is hoping the background check comes back as denied and they can wash their hands of the matter. The anti-gun lobby will have a field day if this sale goes through.
Truly Outrageous! Were the Judges who set Mr. Brooks' bail conditions out to lunch? I must be under the mistaken impression that people arrested for domestic battery and making death threats against an elected official could not possess firearms as an automatic condition of bail.
Just ban Democrats from buying guns and you wont have to do mental health checks.
With all the press this guy had, this has to be a joke, right.
He is only exercising his 2nd Amendment rights that all the gun nuts want him to be able to freely exercise. Right now there is absolutely nothing to keep him from joining the gun gestapo so they should make him their poster person.
Is this guy totally off his rocker or what? If necessary, change the law to include anyone out on bail -- he's probably more of a threat to society than some ex-con who's just inmterested in finding a job and getting on with his/her life.
I just can't really believe even those who are staunch, vociferous supporters of the 2nd amendment want this guy to be able to buy a gun. Stranger things have occurred though.
The irony in this is that the sales tax from Mr. Brooks' choice of gun stores is used to reimburse the Scheele's special tax district. This amounts to a public subsidy of firearm sales. Someone should give him the shop-local spiel.
No way
How can they allow mentally ill Brooks get a gun
The ACLU is protecting Brooks
But he should have no rights
Our mental illness health care delivery and reporting system is broken. HIPAA-1996, Privacy Rules, passed under Clinton, must be modified to allow sharing appropriate information with immediate family and law enforcement databases.
The problem is we have been closing mental health health facilities at an alarming rate and replacing them with a cornucoppia of drugs instead. Thorazine, Haldol, lithium...and on and on. The problem is guys like Brooks need to be committed to a mental health hospital/sanitarium to keep the public safe. This guy is a lit stick of dynamite. Whoever is in range when he goes off is likely dead.
Don't retailers (taverns, for example, and others) reserve the right to refuse service? Wouldn't that also be a good practice for retailers selling firearms and ammunition? Especially in this case where the purchaser has been in the news from one end of this state to the other for his erratic, unstable behavior. Seems to me that selling him a firearm would make the seller guilty of aiding and abetting or accessory before the fact if Brooks used it to harm or kill?
This fellow is in a real pickle, the big question is will he kill himself or someone else? Looks like the system has failed all of us especially Mr Brooks...
Go ahead Right Wingers, support HIS second amendment rights!
Ok notacon, I will. I am a right winger and I do support his right to buy a gun. There is no system or law in place to block a nut job from buying a gun. Don't get me wrong, I think there should be, and that is the problem. Under the law he is entitled. So I say let him have it ..... so he can prove our point that the system is broken and that crazy people kill people, not guns!
After all, he is not really a threat to any of us, just a few in Carson city. ....
Not says "Go ahead Right Wingers, support HIS second amendment rights!"
Absolutely NOBODY supports nuts having guns except the left wing ACLU
I do not question the security practices provided for our state legislators while they are actively in session. As stated in the article, one politician stated, "We believe people in the building are safe..."
However, it bothers me greatly when each business day has concluded and our elected officials are departing the protected bubble of the state legislature building and its officers.
What do you think you're doing, or should I say, not doing, Chief Conmay? You stated, "A decision has not been made on whether Brooks is eligible to buy the gun. The department has three business days to make that determination, meaning a decision will be made on Tuesday."
I'll tell you my forthright opinion Conmay. You're playing "a serious chance game" that between now and Tuesday nothing will happen to any of our legislators where a mentally problematic Assemblyman Brooks stands.
This is not the time to chair "a house of indecision". Try something new, Patrick Conmay". Our legislators and citizens are depending on you!!!
An individual who's exhibited the behavior Brooks has recently should NOT have access to a weapon.
But, he's never been convicted of a crime, domestic violence or otherwise, (his wife, the complainant, never showed up for the hearing - a common occurrance) and he has never been adjudicated mentally ill.
Perhaps most importantly, whether the "pending" sale is approved or not, all Brooks has to do to buy a gun is to show up at the Las Vegas Gun Show this weekend with cash and he can buy whatever he wants.
I could see this going down : Uhhh yeah I wanna buy dis rifol, now, don't be doin one uh dose checks on me doe I jus buyz it now ok?, jus gimme da gun I got places to go and peepol ta see, What ??? 3 daze??? mannn dat aint rite. Hmmm , uhhhh never mind I jus goes and gets wun on da street.
Hey Bradley Chapline: You forgot to say how this is the Union's fault!!
This idiot was sworn in as a Nevada State Assemblyman, even after, threatening the life of another assembly person. Not to mention all of his mental, criminal problems to follow. Since I am now paying his salary until he kills someone, and since I am a gun advocate, I propose that if he promises to put the gun up to his head and pull the trigger, sell him one!
Welcome to where the rubber meets the road in the gun control debate. The one common theme in all these mass shootings has been that the shooter was not of sound mind, to put it politely.
Does Mr. Brooks have a sound mind? Who will determine if he does or does not?
He has been arrested - but not convicted. He's gone in for psychiatric evaluation, and come back out again. In both cases, the police and the doctors performing the psychiatric evaluation let him go out into public again, and I'd take this as evidence that they do not feel he is a danger to himself or others.
The Assembly swore him into office. That says they think he's competent to represent his district (no offense meant to his constituents). Of course, they though they had his word that he'd leave right away, which he did not. What a shock! A politician that didn't keep his word - why, that's almost like promising a tax increase is temporary and then extending it over and over again. Seems more like SOP for the Assembly than anything else.
It seems to me that what we have can be one of two things. One is that the stories of his mental instability have been exagerrated in the press. The other is that the authorities that should restrict his freedom have failed to do so, hoping someone else would do what is needed.
A third possibility is that what we have is a gap in the law that gives no one the authority to restrict anyone's rights under these circumstances.
What do we do when a person acts normally most of the time, but has his temper explode in times of stress? When someone can't control their temper in such circumstances, I sure wouldn't want them to have a gun.
And who makes that decision?
I bet the NRA is gonna stay real quiet on this one...
If you buy a gun, you should get a phone call. You should be asked, 1) Is there a crisis going on in your life right now? and 2) If so, would you like to talk about it with a trained counselor?
Oh my god..this is just plain sick. If he was not an assemblyman, he would be in jail..really, he would be. Keep it up.. Is he out of friends that will "loan him a gun?"
Will common sense prevail here? I womder how LaPierre would resolve this case.
Pisces41 nit LaRierre the ACLU you meant right.
I'd let him buy all the guns he could carry, plus I'd lift the restraining order on him entering the Legislature. Let those morons in Carson City know how "ordinary" citizens feel to have a crackpot threatening them. They receive no "special" treatment and are left, in most cases, to sink or swim on their own. I have no sympathy for the lunkheads in Carson City. Let them call their friends at the ACLU for help; the ones who made it virtually impossible to put nutcases such as Brooks in an environment far away from normal society.
Amen Jerry Fink , amen. Tell it like it is.
Mr. Fink,
Fact is you don't want him put away. Putting him away would cost money. Money that you don't want to be taxed to take care of the problem. You also don't want others having the right to make these decisions because someday they might have to make the decision and it involves you. You would be screaming personal rights big time if this was you involved here.
You can't have it both ways. Personal rights and not paying for protection.
That seems to be the problems today. Everyone wants the government to take care of everything yet don't want to pay for them to do it. Than when it costs people in taxes they don't want the government taking care of the problems.