"Before Park Ave. Shooting," says the headline over a New York Times story published this week, "Nevada Police Had Gunman Committed." If so, that means Shane Devon Tamura, who killed four people before committing suicide at a Manhattan office building on July 28, was disqualified from possessing firearms under both federal and Nevada law. Yet last week, the Times reported that Tamura "obtained a firearm legally in his home state of Nevada even though he had a documented history of mental health problems." The headline: "Gunman's Mental Health History Did Not Prohibit Gun Purchase."
What gives? In 2022 and again in 2024, Tamura was subject to a "mental health crisis hold," which Nevada law authorizes when police, based on "personal observation," have "probable cause to believe" that someone, "as a result of mental illness," poses "a substantial likelihood of serious harm" to himself or others. That is not the same as being "committed" to a "mental health institution" under court order, which triggers the federal and state bans on gun possession.
That distinction is relevant to the gun control debate provoked by Tamura's horrifying crime. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul blamed Nevada's "weak gun laws" for the shooting. More specifically, the Times highlighted the fact that Tamura could have obtained the rifle he used in the attack "without additional background checks" because he "had a permit to carry a concealed weapon" issued by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in May 2022. But the Times acknowledged that Tamura had "no criminal history," and now it seems clear that he did not have a disqualifying psychiatric record either, which means he would have passed a background check.
