MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 6, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Subcommittee on Judiciary was called to order by Assemblyman Lou Toomin at 1:35 p.m., May 6, 1993, in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Gene Porter (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Kevin Dash/Research

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. John W. Riggs, Sr.

      Mr. Curk Cave

      Mr. John Clement

      Mr. Michael Alukes/Owner, Alukes International Armament; Tactical Representative, Stano Night Vision

      Ms. Lucille Lusk/Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens

      Mr. Eric Cooper/Undersheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

      Mr. Dennis Green/Assistant Sheriff, Carson City Sheriff's Department, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

      Mr. Nile Carson/Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department

      Lt. Jim Nadeau/Washoe County Sheriff's Office

      Ms. Lisa Foster/City of Sparks

      Mr. Dennis DeBacco/Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

      Mr. Glen Reamez

      Ms. Juanita Cox

      Mr. Ned Ayre

      Mr. Harry Pappas/Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association

      Mr. Erik R. Johnson

 

AB 306:     Requires department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue permits to carry concealed weapons under certain circumstances.

 

Mr. John W. Riggs, Sr., citizen, spoke in favor of AB 306.  (See Exhibits C and D.)  He had a petition signed by 3,32l Nevadans in favor of AB 306.  He discussed Florida 1990 census showed 13,003,362 residents, and of that number 135,000 (or 1 percent) requested permits to carry a concealed weapon. 

 

Mr. Toomin asked how many were granted, and Mr. Riggs answered only 800 were granted.  After the 800 permits were issued, Mr. Riggs said only 85 to 90 offenses were created of which only five concerned carrying a concealed handgun.

 

Mr. Toomin conveyed Oregon, Washington and Montana laws nearly identical to Florida laws.  Mr. Riggs submitted Exhibit C, the Oregon law which covered carrying a concealed weapon.  Mr. Riggs stated he had reviewed the law and compared it with AB 306, and he reported it compared closely to AB 306.  One difference, he noted, in Oregon sheriffs administer it, but the permit is a statewide permit issued by the state.  The permit had to be resolved in 45 days and was good for two years.

 

Mr. Riggs quoted from "American Rifleman" in 1990 for likelihood of arrest, conviction and imprisonment, the average murderer could expect 1.8 years in prison, for rape 60 days, for robbery 23 days, for aggravated assault or larceny less than a week.  Because of jail overcrowding, parole boards were being told to turn people out, he testified.  When a person received a light sentence for a crime, Mr. Riggs said the person would commit the crime again.

 

He discussed crime statistics in Florida.  In 1989 when Florida's law was passed, the crime rate dropped by a distinct number. 

 

Law abiding citizens do not cause trouble when stopped by police officers, Mr. Riggs continued, and he told what citizens should do if stopped.  Mr. Riggs discussed petitions in his possession from northern Nevada taken over a period of three months.  One out of six signers on the petitions was a woman, and he added women were very much concerned today about their right to carry a concealed weapon. 

Regarding civil rights, Mr. Riggs said if a person qualified to carry a concealed weapon and the sheriff refused to issue a permit for a reason the sheriff thought valid, the sheriff could be subject to being sued under the Civil Rights Act.

 

Statewide law was needed, Mr. Riggs continued, and law-abiding citizens needed the right to apply for a permit.

 

Florida statistics showed a mass exodus to the state police or the state of Florida to buy permits did not take place.  The original number of permits issued when the bill was first passed was approximately 20,000.  The figure was up to 134,000 which was only 1 percent of Florida's population.

 

At this point, Mr. Toomin questioned where Mr. Riggs obtained the Florida statistics.  Mr. Riggs obtained statistics from an article in the N.R.A. magazine and from Marion Hammer, Vice President of NRA who resides in Florida.

 

The non-law-abiding citizen would not apply for a permit because he would carry a weapon without a permit, and some law-abiding citizens carried weapons without permits, Mr. Riggs continued.

 

Discussion ensued between Mr. Riggs and Mr. Toomin concerning the year Florida gun law was enacted with Mr. Toomin contending the year was 1987 and Mr. Riggs contending the year was 1989.  Mr. Toomin said in 1988 violent crime was up 9.1 percent according to statistics from "Crime in America."  Mr. Riggs added the first minor changes in the Florida law were in 1991.  Mr. Toomin and Mr. Riggs discussed Florida statutes and statistics regarding license to carry concealed weapon.  (See Exhibit D.)

 

Mr. Riggs believed a gun law was a political thing which might get a popular vote with the people; therefore, politicians focused on gun laws.

 

Mr. Riggs then testified concerning handgun workshop courses, noting courses could be conducted in all community colleges throughout the state. 

 

Mr. Toomin interjected this information was not pertinent to the bill.  However, Mr. Riggs stated the bill required something related to this, and he again referred to the petition containing 3,321 signatures of people obtained within three months who wanted AB 306 passed.  The figures did not include signatures from Las Vegas and southern Nevada.

 

Mr. Toomin explained all one needed to do to obtain a permit was to apply for a permit at county sheriff's office.  He further explained there was no law against applying for a gun permit.  Mr. Riggs acknowledged this fact but stated in most cases a permit would not be issued.  Mr. Riggs had heard sheriffs say permits were not issued because of the liability factor. 

 

Statistics from Clark County given by Mr. Toomin showed since the beginning of 1993, 1240 permits were issued, 23 were pending and 13 were rejected.  Mr. Riggs brought up the question of the permit being acknowledged in counties other than Clark County.  When Mr. Toomin suggested this issue should be addressed, Mr. Riggs concluded his testimony by pointing out AB 306 addressed the issue by putting it up to state level.

 

Mr. Curk Cave, a native of Elko, who had lived in Reno approximately 30 years, testified in favor of AB 306.  He did not represent any group, was not a hunter, and was not a member of NRA.  He stated he basically was a conservationist.  He travelled, worked, and lived for seven and one-half years in other countries.  He discussed incidents of violence toward innocent people which had occurred in Reno.  He was a victim himself which resulted in his hospitalization in intensive care for 30 days.  The hospitalization cost consumed all of Mr. Cave's earnings for seven years. 

 

He discussed his experiences concerning weapons while living overseas, women owning guns, and firearms instructions.  

 

He gave statistics from North Dakota which, he said, had the lowest crime rate in the nation and the highest population of armed citizens, 42,000.  Mr. Toomin interjected and asked if the number was "concealed," and Mr. Cave confirmed it was.  Mr. Cave concluded his testimony by stating he did not go anywhere without a gun. 

 

Mr. John Clement stated he presently resided in Reno and had been a police officer for 18 years in Oakland, California, Alemeda County Sheriff's Department and in Reno.  Mr. Clement was presently retired due to a disability.  He testified in favor of AB 306 and stated he wished to deal with reason and logic and not emotions; facts, not misrepresentations.

 

AB 306 had not been widely publicized, and Mr. Clement felt a significantly larger number of signatures otherwise would have been obtained.  He referenced statistics given by Mr. Toomin of permits issued in Clark County by the sheriff's department, and he pointed out in Washoe County the statistics did not apply.  "The worst thing you can do on a permit for a concealed weapons license is to put down that you want it for self defense.  That will almost get you an automatic denial from what I have been told by people in the sheriff's department," he said.

 

He gave three examples of acquaintances who were refused requests for a CCW from the sheriff's department with answers such as, "readjust your schedule so you don't go to your office at night," "readjust your schedule for making deposits or take someone with you," "don't go in the parking lot alone, take someone with you."   Mr. Clement commented it appeared honest citizens had to adjust their schedules to accommodate criminals which seemed contrary to what society should be.  Criminals should readjust their lifestyle.

 

Over 20,000 gun laws existed in the United States, and crime was skyrocketing, he continued.  Criminals, by definition, would not obey laws including gun laws.  Honest, law-abiding citizens were victimized by armed criminals because private citizens were not allowed to be armed, Mr. Clement declared.

 

Mr. Toomin interrupted and informed Mr. Clement Nevada's law did not say a citizen could not be armed.

 

Mr. Clement stated he was referring to the specific concealed carry law and apologized for the misstatement.

 

Mr. Clement continued his testimony confirming it was very difficult to get a concealed weapons permit under Nevada's current law.  The point he wished to make was criminals would carry concealed weapons without a permit, and law abiding citizens were being denied their rights to carry firearms with a permit.

 

Mr. Clement referenced laws and statistics of Florida and Oregon regarding firearms and concluded by stating AB 306 would do the most good for the law-abiding people of Nevada.

 

Referencing an earlier discussion between Mr. Toomin and Mr. Riggs, Mr. Collins clarified the Florida bill passed in 1987.  According to the F.B.I., Mr. Collins stated uniform crime reports of 1992 for the four years after 1987 reported the homicide rate in Florida actually fell 17.5 percent while the national crime rate was up 18 percent.

 

Mr. Toomin questioned why the committee would be concerned with figures for murders and not the violent crime rate, adding guns were used in crimes other than murder.

 

Mr. Collins reminded Mr. Toomin of the dispute of the years 1987 and 1989, and specified he submitted the statistics for information.  Mr. Collins added over 1500 additional signatures were on petitions from southern Nevada, and when added to Mr. Riggs' petitions of signatures, totalled 4,500 signatures from a population of one million.  An additional 100 or 200 signatures also were in hand, he declared. 

 

For the record, Mr. Collins stated none of the ones on AB 306 were in opposition.  However, one was in opposition to AB 171.

 

Mr. Michael Alukes, owner and sole proprietor of Alukes International Armament and tactical representative for Stano Night Vision, Carson City, testified in favor of AB 306.  He did not represent Stano, he declared and said he represented himself.

 

He thought AB 306 was an excellent bill.  However, he suggested changes in qualifications for people who carried weapons and their ability to use weapons in a life and death situation.  He described a state qualifying course in Washoe County which he recommended.  He further recommended half of the shootings in the course be done in a darkened range to most simulate a violent situation.  He recommended in addition to no felonies, there be no violent misdemeanors in the past two years, no record of having been in a mental institution, no record of alcoholism, no DUI, the person be fingerprinted and mugshotted, have a 10 year background check, and be run through the FBI in Washington.  He discussed the firearms responsibility law which he said Florida and Oregon had passed, and recommended it be included in AB 306.  He recommended types of ammunition be included.  He recommended the bill specify U. S. citizens only.  He recommended the cost be at least $250 for the first three years and $50 for a two or three year period after that.  Upon qualifying, he felt everyone should have an annual qualification for possibly $10.  He recommended when a person qualified for a particular weapon, he should be able to qualify for any weapon under that.  If a person qualified for a 22, he should only be able to carry a 22.  Responsibility and proficiency should be main points.  He recommended a written test similar to the Washoe County test which stressed shoot/no-shoot situations, knowledge of the law and weapon, and ability of the person to reload under stress.  Mr. Alukes believed with these included, AB 306 would be more palatable to the law enforcement community.

 

He discussed his experiences and discussions with law enforcement officials in his weapons business.

 

Mr. Toomin requested Mr. Alukes confine his comments to Nevada regarding AB 306 due to time constraints.

 

Mr. Alukes concluded his testimony by stating Nevada was at a gateway.  Nevada could go the way of New York, Washington and California or Nevada could go the way of Oregon and Florida.

 

Ms. Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, spoke in favor of AB 306.  Ms. Lusk discussed attitudes and treatment by authorities in Nevada that were clearly inconsistent with the Nevada constitutional provision which stated every citizen had the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense.  NCCC's goal was to change these attitudes, she said.  She believed AB 306 would not get out of committee as written.

 

Mr. Toomin informed Ms. Lusk AB 306 would not be acted on that date, and another hearing would probably be held, for the record.

 

Ms. Lusk then submitted Exhibit E, which included a letter signed by Eric S. Cooper, Undersheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.  The letter demonstrated an attitude which was of concern, Ms. Lusk related.

 

She discussed Nevada laws which were interpreted differently in jurisdictions.  Ms. Lusk performed a telephone survey and found numerous differing interpretations in jurisdictions which operated under the same Nevada Revised Statute.  North Las Vegas did not operate under NRS.  North Las Vegas had restrictive gun legislation prior to the passage of the state preemption statute and North Las Vegas was grandfathered in.  The differences included whether handguns could be carried loaded in a car, whether they could be carried in a glove box or under the seat, and whether or not a concealed weapons permit, issued in one jurisdiction, was valid in all jurisdictions throughout the state.  At this point, Ms. Lusk referred the subcommittee to page 2 of Exhibit E.

 

Mr. Toomin asked Ms. Lusk who gave her the information on page 2 of Exhibit E.  In some cases she spoke with the sheriff, in some cases the individual in charge of communication with the public regarding concealed weapon permits and in some cases the officer of the day, she replied.  Mr. Toomin requested names of people Ms. Lusk spoke with in the various counties, and Ms. Lusk said where possible, she would supply names.

 

When Ms. Lusk discussed a court case decided in Oregon, Mr. Toomin requested her to talk about Nevada.  Ms. Lusk felt the information was pertinent since cases were used as precedents in other places and also pertinent because it was related to testimony given by police representatives who indicated in Nevada people had the right to carry a firearm.

 

She suggested if the committee was not ready to pass AB 306 as written, progress should be made in unifying interpretation of existing law to assure Nevada citizens could exercise their full rights under the law and have those right upheld by authorities rather than in some cases infringed. 

 

Ms. Lusk closed her testimony by discussing a study conducted in Florida after Hurricane Andrew where a minimum of crime and violence took place.  She told the subcommittee she would obtain a copy of the study for the subcommittee.

 

Mr. Toomin asked for testimony of those in opposition to AB 306.

 

Mr. Eric Cooper, Undersheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, an opponent of AB 306, testified he had not been present for Ms. Lusk's testimony in which she read a letter signed by himself.  Mr. Cooper pointed out the form letter Ms. Lusk read had not been used in two years.  Sheriff Moran and Undersheriff Cooper had decided over two years ago their concealed weapons criteria was too restrictive, and applications for self protection were now allowed.  Mere self protection was not an applicable term in current administration.

 

Mr. Cooper testified concealed weapons permits issued in Clark County and in counties throughout Nevada were valid according to NRS.  Therefore, "Any sheriffs who do not honor Clark County concealed weapons permits statewide are in error," he said.  "Clark County honors Washoe County permits and any permit issued by a sheriff within Nevada," he added.  Problems existed with the concealed carry law in Nevada, Mr. Cooper echoed.

 

Mr. Toomin interrupted, for the record, the concealed weapon law was NRS 202.350.

 

Mr. Cooper continued some years ago, Clark County and City of Las Vegas ordinances against carrying a weapon concealed in an automobile were declared unconstitutional.  The police had not enforced the law since that time.  Mr. Cooper believed if the legislature or the chairman of the committee requested from the Attorney General's office an opinion as to what constituted carrying a concealed weapon upon a person, and if that were to be put into the annotations in the NRS, that would clarify a lot of problems being experienced with people who wished to carry a weapon in the automobile.

 

Mr. Toomin asked if anyone was present from the office of the Attorney General, and for the record, requested an opinion from the Attorney General's office with regard to NRS 202.350 particularly the section defining concealed weapons.

 

Mr. Collins, for the record, stated he spoke to the Attorney General's office earlier, and because legislature had an attorney and Legal Counsel Bureau, stated "we are not to go to the Attorney General's office but rather go through our own legislative legal services.  To get Attorney General's opinion, we would have to have some challenge of the legislative opinion unless there was already on file an opinion, and they are searching for that."

 

Mr. Toomin questioned if the Department of Motor Vehicles would be able to request that.

 

Mr. Cooper stated he did not know, but Metro had to request their opinions from the District Attorney's office.

 

Mr. Collins said, "We have to go through the LCB here in the building, and then that goes around the channels."

 

Mr. Toomin asked Mr. Collins if he had requested that already, and if so, through whom.

 

Mr. Collins replied he had spoken with the Attorney General's office earlier in the day and was told procedures, but in reply to Mr. Toomin's question, advised he had not requested an opinion from LCB as to what constituted carrying a concealed weapon upon an individual.

 

Mr. Toomin asked the record reflect that subcommittee would request Lorne Malkiewich to issue an opinion with regard to NRS 202.350 in particular, concealed weapon.

 

Mr. Cooper discussed a concern was whether carrying a concealed weapon in a briefcase would constitute carrying a concealed weapon on a person.  Police officers were generally uncomfortable when approaching people who might be carrying a concealed weapon upon their person, for instance, under a coat.  A weapon in a briefcase was much less assessable.  Suspects' hands were always watched, and, if a person went into a briefcase, the officer would be forewarned, whereas a weapon carried on the person and drawn from the waistband would create a different problem.  He believed there should be an interpretation as to whether a weapon in a briefcase would constitute concealed weapons carry and would like to see an interpretation. 

 

AB 306 should not exclude pimps, prostitutes, dopers, bikers and gang members, Mr. Cooper said.  If legislation excluded these people for crimes they had been arrested for, the honest, law-abiding citizen would also be excluded who ran afoul of the law through an accident or through a misadventure.  Hard cases with 3, 4, 5 and 6 page rap sheets should be excluded.  AB 306 required law enforcement to issue it to anyone not restricted by the provisions in the legislation.  The provisions were good, but did not go far enough.  This was the basis on which Mr. Cooper was opposed to AB-306.

 

Metro was fairly liberal in issuing concealed weapons permits, Mr. Cooper specified, and law-abiding citizens should have the right if that person was properly trained and qualified.  Women who did not want to go through training and qualification but wanted to carry a weapon in the glove compartment, were acceptable also.  Police difficulty was with concealed/carry on the body and the types of people who could get a permit under the guidelines as outlined in AB 306.

 

Mr. Cooper said because the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was successfully sued by Englebert Humperdink, who was a citizen of England, resident aliens were now issued concealed weapons permits and could own registered firearms.  The decision was a district court decision and did not go to the Supreme Court, he told the committee.

 

Mr. Toomin requested Mr. Cooper give a scenario of a person who applied for a concealed weapon permit.

 

Responding to Mr. Toomin's request, Mr. Cooper said if Lucille Lusk applied for a concealed weapon permit, she would be given an application, she was required to fill out the application with personal background information which would permit the police to identify her.  However, if she had fingerprints and a mug shot on file with the police, she would not have to go through that process.  If she did not, she would have to go to the Fingerprint Bureau, be fingerprinted and a mug shot taken.  She then would be required to present herself either at the police firearms range or at a commercial firearms range approved by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and she would have to qualify with a weapon.  This procedure would confirm she was capable of handling a weapon, knowledgeable about clearing malfunctions, and capable of hitting her target.  Within 90 days of being issued the permit, she would be required to take a department-approved course (a minimum of eight hours) from any commercial range in Las Vegas approved by the Las Vegas M.P.D. in safe handling and legal aspects of use of deadly force.  Proof of course attendance would be provided to the L.V. MPD.

If proof was not provided within 90 days of being issued the permit, the permit would be revoked.

 

AB 306, Mr. Cooper noted, did not address legal responsibility for use of deadly force, and when/when not to use deadly force.  Mr. Toomin asked if the same procedure was used every year in renewal.  It was not, Mr. Cooper replied, since once the initial course was taken,  it was assumed the person had the knowledge and would not lose the knowledge.  When a person renewed his/her concealed weapons permit for the first four years, no qualification was required.  Re-qualification was required every five years, he said.  Requalification was also required if a person changed weapons.  For instance, if a person qualified with a revolver and changed guns to a semi-automatic pistol, Las Vegas M.P.D. required re-qualification because the principle of operation was significantly different.

 

Mr. Toomin stated for the record all guns would have to be registered with Las Vegas M.P.D.  Mr. Cooper confirmed a blue card would have to be issued for each weapon.  However, Mr. Cooper pointed out this law was only for Clark County.

 

Mr. Collins asked for a copy of the current letter mailed to requestors of a concealed weapon permit.  Mr. Cooper replied form letters were no longer used.  He stated when a request was denied, he personalized the letter.  Few requests were presently denied, he said.  In letters of denials, he might say, "A review of your record indicates you do not qualify under our guidelines for a concealed weapons permit."

 

Mr. Collins asked if Sheriff McGrath's amendment (Exhibit F), submitted by the sheriffs, was a consensus of all sheriffs in Nevada or just two or three sheriffs.  Mr. Cooper could not answer Mr. Collins' question, but said Washoe County, Carson City, and Clark County sheriffs were consulted.  He did not know of others consulted, but pointed out Washoe, Carson City and Clark counties were the major population centers.

 

Mr. Collins asked if Mr. Cooper had any ranges on fees.   A fee was not charged in Las Vegas, Mr. Cooper answered.

 

Mr. Collins then referred Mr. Cooper to the time frame of getting it done in a 90 day time period, where Mr. Cooper would investigate within 90 days after receiving the application rather than 90 days after the investigation.  Mr. Collins asked if there was a problem with changing that language. 

 

Mr. Cooper replied time frame was not a problem for his department.  Mr. Collins and Mr. Cooper discussed nation and statewide checks and agreed the state repository in Carson City would be a centralized place to have all registrations, thereby making them consistent throughout the state.

 

Mr. Cooper added issuance of permits was fast.  Reference checks were done fairly fast, an intelligence check through narcotics and intelligence were also done which allowed permits to be processed in two weeks.  FBI and fingerprint checks would take approximately 60 days to get back to the Las Vegas M.P.D. 

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Cooper if he believed a qualified armed citizen would be better than an unarmed citizen in the state of Nevada, and Mr. Cooper replied, "Yes."

 

The stumbling block to the Las Vegas M.P.D., Mr. Cooper declared, was they could not find a way under the scheme put forth in AB 306 to filter out people which he earlier named.  Mr. Collins asked if that was his reason in section 2 for using the word may instead of must.  Mr. Cooper believed unless a filter existed to filter these people out, the sheriffs should still have the discretion.

 

Mr. Collins queried if some people requesting permits were taking the courses ahead of time.  Some were, Mr. Cooper declared and discussed commercial operators in Clark County having self defense courses for citizens which generally addressed the use of deadly force.

 

Mr. Toomin questioned, "If a person has not been arrested and you check the records and there is no arrest record, is there any way to find out what their psychiatric background may have been?" Mr. Cooper replied, "No, there isn't." Mr. Toomin asked, "Is there any way to find out what their alcoholic background may have been?" Mr. Cooper responded, "No, there isn't." Mr. Toomin then queried, "And how about their drug background?" Mr. Cooper answered, "No, there isn't." Mr. Toomin commented, "So, in other words, unless they've been arrested and they have any one of those three problems, you don't know that." Mr. Cooper agreed, "No, that's correct."

 

Concluding his statement, Mr. Cooper explained many people filtered through the criminal justice system and generally escaped retribution for what they had done.  He gave a scenario of such an incident where the victim refused to press charges.  The perpetrator applied for a concealed weapons permit.  Under AB 306, he would qualify for the permit.  Mr. Cooper told the subcommittee he rejected the person who applied for the permit based upon reports he read of acts committed by the person.  Mr. Cooper than stated this was the kind of problem dealt with in trying to create a universal law, and this was his reason for believing discretion must be left in the hands of law enforcement although, he added, he was not opposed to good, honest, stable citizens having concealed weapons.

 

Mr. Collins noted Mr. Cooper had records on some people but would not have convictions on some people.  Elaborating, Mr. Collins said Mr. Cooper would know of events which were not conviction events and could disclose the event for a reason to reject only to that individual.  Mr. Cooper confirmed he could disclose the knowledge to that individual but to no one else.  Mr. Collins elaborated further to note consistency.  Mr. Cooper stated if police denied, based upon their knowledge, or if law enforcement could veto if DMV took this over based upon police knowledge, it would be workable.

 

If the request went through public safety and criminology, DMV approved it, the permit went to the police who would veto it, the individual was brought in and given the reason for the veto, and the individual challenged the reason in court, Mr. Collins asked Mr. Cooper if he would be able to use that information (reason for the veto) in public.  Mr. Cooper said the court would have to decide.  Mr. Cooper added if the "must" was in the bill and police were given veto with recourse to courts, the police would lose most of the time because the man could say the charges against him were never filed, the person could assume the witness stand, recant, and the police would lose.  Mr. Cooper reminded committee of the civil liability also.

 

Assistant Sheriff Dennis Green, Carson City Sheriff's Department, representing Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association, testified they were adamantly opposed to AB 306 as written primarily because of the mandatory nature of the issuance of the permit.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Green how he would support his position of denial if taken to court.  Mr. Green stated in court the reason for denial of the permit would have to be articulated, and the court would determine whether or not the reason was sufficient for denial.

 

Mr. Collins asked what happened if it was a confidential case where the victim recanted.  Mr. Green answered Mr. Collins' question by noting if the individual took police to court to justify reason for the denial, police would have the right to bring out at that point the information contained in their records which would justify the denial because the permit requestor initiated the action. 

 

Deputy Chief Nile Carson, Reno Police Department, an opponent of AB 306, stated Reno Police Department did not issue permits.  Reno Police Department supported position discretion should be left with the Nevada Chiefs and Sheriffs.  He discussed courses given at T.M.C.C. with emphasis on education and safety.  The courses were not to make people experts in the use of guns.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Carson if the public was better armed and better able to take care of themselves, would he feel more comfortable.

 

Mr. Carson expressed on the surface it sounded very reasonable, but a study by the Bureau of Justice Administration indicated 51 percent of people killed were killed with their own guns.  He would hesitate to say he was in favor.

 

Lieutenant Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, opposed AB 306 and reported Washoe County Sheriff strongly supported discretionary power of the sheriff to view the overall application package and be able to have some decision in whether or not that person would receive the concealed weapons permit.  The sheriff assumed liability when the weapons permit was issued, and if he assumed liability, the sheriff felt he should have the ability to approve the request.  People were confused regarding Nevada concealed weapons law, he cited.  Chief Deal was unable to attend the meeting, but some issues in the bill concerned him, Lieutenant Nadeau said.

 

Ms. Lisa Foster, City of Sparks, discussed a memo from Chief of Police John C. Dotson in opposition to AB 306.  (See Exhibit G.)

 

Mr. Dennis DeBacco, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated he was assigned to the criminal history records repository and was present to respond to any questions the subcommittee might have in regard to fiscal note prepared by DMV.  The department felt responsibility for the issuance of permits probably should stay at the local level.  However, fiscal note was developed on the premise the process would be centralized.

 

Based on the Oregon model, Nevada projected applications for permits would be 8,400.  (Surveys indicated approximately 2,000 permits had been issued presently).  Projected cost for first year overall would be about $796,875.  The fiscal note was based upon a $75 fee and a $50 renewal fee in AB 306.  They based their costs on information given to them at the time of $125 initial fee and a $100 renewal fee.  Fiscal note indicated a carryover reverting into the budget account, he hoped, as opposed to the general fund to continue to sustain the program.

 

Mr. Glen Reamez, a resident of Carson City and an opponent of AB 306, spoke regarding leaving the decision to local police.  He stated the bill might just as well die because police would not let a citizen have a permit.  Mr. Reamez tried to obtain a permit in Carson City, Nevada, when travelling to and from California periodically and was told, "there's no such a         thing in this state."  Police would just say no and that would be final, he added.  Mr. Reamez asked for clarification for carrying a weapon which was loaded in the car.

 

Mr. Toomin told Mr. Reamez according to present Nevada law, he would be allowed to carry a loaded weapon in his car.

 

In response to Mr. Toomin's communication, Mr. Reamez stated ability to carry a loaded weapon in an automobile depended on "whether or not you got a rookie cop who's trying to make points or some guy that's...."  Mr. Toomin interrupted Mr. Reamez and stated according to state law, Mr. Reamez would be allowed to carry a loaded weapon in his car.  Mr. Toomin further stated clarification was needed.

 

Mr. Collins at this time submitted a letter from Mr. Joseph Nizzari (Exhibit H) for the record.

 

Ms. Juanita Cox, a citizen, spoke for herself and submitted Exhibit I.  She described herself as a law-abiding, tax-paying, and voting citizen.  She felt many times legislators did not listen to the citizens, but in actuality listened to special interest groups.  Mr. Toomin at this point agreed with Ms. Cox.

 

Ms. Cox stated the Nevada constitution and the federal constitution gave citizens the right to keep and bear arms, but she questioned how far she would be allowed to go with a gun strapped to her side or on the dashboard of her car.  She referenced Exhibit I, a memo she received from Assemblyman Toomin, District No. 15.  As a citizen, she was upset and offended by the memo, she declared.  She addressed Mr. Toomin and quoted from the memo (Exhibit I).

 

Mr. Toomin interrupted Ms. Cox, and said for the record he did say what was in the memo.

 

Ms. Cox continued her testimony and said she understood Mr. Toomin had a concealed weapons permit and she felt perhaps Mr. Toomin did not want others to have the same privilege.  She questioned, with some respect, she added, how Mr. Toomin could sit on the committee, and stated she felt he should disqualify himself from the subcommittee and from the Judicial Committee for AB 306.  She requested he take that under advisement.

 

Mr. Toomin informed Ms. Cox he would check with the Ethics Committee and see if her request was in order.

 

Mr. Ned Ayre, a citizen, stated he was a hunter safety instructor since the inception of the program in Nevada, and he was not testifying for or against AB 306.  As an instructor, they taught never to carry a loaded weapon in a car, and the largest number of fines, according to game wardens, were given for carrying a loaded weapon in a car.  He said he was not sure this was within the confines of the state law.  He suggested confusion could be caused by description of a loaded weapon.  In his opinion, if a weapon had a shell in the chamber, it was loaded; if it did not have a shell in the chamber, it was unloaded. 

 

Mr. Toomin suggested Mr. Ayre could be dealing with federal reservations where the laws were extremely different from laws of the state of Nevada with regard to game wardens.

 

Mr. Ayre questioned if a shell in the chamber meant "loaded." 

 

Mr. Toomin's understanding was a shell could be in the chamber.  The statute contained nothing to the contrary.

 

Mr. Harry Pappas, representing Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, testified he was a field coordinator for the N.R.A. in Clark County.  For the record, the two organizations had a combined membership of over 20,000 in Nevada, he said.  Mr. Pappas stated neither organization supported AB 306, but they also did not oppose AB 306.  Both organizations supported conceal-carry type of legislation.  Constituency pressure would force both organizations to take a position in the near future on this type of legislation.  Therefore, it would benefit everyone to work something out this session rather than go through hearings again at a later time.  He concluded by testifying he did not believe firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens would increase crime.  Mr. Pappas discussed ownership of weapons by citizens of Switzerland which was one of the lowest crime rate countries in the world.

 

Mr. Erik R. Johnson, who lived in Carson City, testified he gathered from opponents and proponents of AB 306, no one was opposed to good, honest, stable citizens having a concealed weapon permit.  Mr. Johnson thought the problem seemed to be discretion; should it be an unfettered discretion left with one person, the particular sheriff.  The problem would be whether Undersheriff Cooper's position in 1993 would be affected, which was what he told committee, or Undersheriff Cooper's position in 1989 which was a lot different.  Mr. Johnson stated his experience with the courts during the past 14 years had been if discretion was left with the sheriff's department, the sheriff's department decision would be the court's position.  The courts would generally not interfere with exercise of discretion. 

 

Mr. Johnson suggested a solution might be to leave initial discretion determination with the sheriff's department and create a state level appeal with guidelines along the lines of hearing officers of DMV or SIIS appeals where a person who felt the law enforcement official was exercising unfettered discretion would have some other recourse.

 

Mr. Collins briefly discussed possibilities for improving AB 306 which included using the word "may" and a possible AJR which would address definition of concealed upon a person.  Mr. Collins postponed suggestions for a future discussion in full subcommittee.

 

Mr. Toomin said in recent weeks speaking with people in regard to AB 306 and reading pertinent information, he was convinced Nevada was "playing on an uneven field," and he felt existing state statute needed to be addressed and defined.  Mr. Toomin believed every sheriff in Nevada should play by the same rules.  He stated he himself was a law-abiding citizen, his life had been threatened, he applied for a concealed weapon permit at the sheriff's office and fulfilled all requirements and was granted a permit. 

 

Mr. Toomin further stated with statistics presented by Sheriff Cooper at the meeting, "it doesn't seem to me that nobody is getting concealed weapons permits."  Mr. Toomin felt people in the state of Nevada did not realize how unrestrictive Nevada gun laws were.  He thought once existing statutes were brought into compliance and made equal for everyone, Nevada would be better off.  "I don't think AB 306 is going to do that," Mr. Toomin concluded.

 

Ms. Lusk, speaking from her chair, told the committee from her perspective an opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau would not be sufficient because it had no real legal weight.  She asked the committee to seriously consider some form of legislation to level the playing field or possibly a joint resolution.

 

Mr. Toomin did not believe her suggestion would solve the problem.  However, Mr. Toomin stated he would pursue the opinion from LCB and if he was not satisfied with that opinion, he would go to the Attorney General for an opinion.  Mr. Toomin felt once the two opinions were received, the committee could press forward and even the field properly.  He would try to do that before end of session. 

 

Mr. Collins explained his biggest opposition to "may" was the sheriff now would not always be sheriff in the future, and every time the counties had a different sheriff, discussion of the word "may" and the conditions would be instituted.

 

Mr. Toomin submitted Exhibit J for the record.  There being no further business to come before subcommittee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      BOBBIE MIKESELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Subcommittee on Judiciary

May 6, 1993

Page: 1