The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 2:30 p.m., on Tuesday, May 25, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Jan Evans

Mr. Dennis Nolan

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call Chairman Buckley opened the committee meeting on Assembly Bill 680.

Chairman Buckley advised the committee A.B. 680 was the insurance commissioner’s omnibus bill. The insurance commissioner had prepared a summary of amendments (Exhibit C) that was distributed to committee members and Chairman Buckley asked if there were questions. She wanted to give everyone the opportunity to comment before actions were taken.

Assemblywoman Sergerblom referred to section 5.4 which stated the limitations of 25 percent were severe and placed unnecessary restrictions on insurers. She wondered if it was to be removed.

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, replied the intention was to change 25 percent to 35 percent.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani alluded to the section on bail bonds that added the terminology of a general agent but wondered about the definition. On page 48, sections 64 and 65, the new component was mentioned along with the $50,000 required to file a bond.

Chairman Buckley asked for additional questions to determine whether the committee would concur or not concur and reviewed the insurance commissioner’s explanation.

Mr. Hughey explained the term general agent was defined in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 697.070. "General agent means any individual or person appointed by an insurer to supervise or manage the bail bond business written by bail agents of such insurer." Subsection 2 said: "A general agent shall not solicit or negotiate undertakings of bail or bail bonds unless licensed as a bail agent in this state."

Guy A. Perkins Jr., Supervisor, Life and Health Section, Division of Insurance, State of Nevada, stated he was familiar with only a few amendments. He was most familiar with the deletion of the language regarding the ability of insurers to cancel people who had committed fraud against them. That deletion was made to the bill.

Chairman Buckley declared the committee would wait for the commissioner to answer a specific amendment having to do with certain types of insurance companies and waiving requirements. She set the hearing on A.B. 680 on hold and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 634 and Assembly Bill 633.

Chairman Buckley related the Legal Division stated there were conflicting policies contained in Assembly Bill 633 and Assembly Bill 634 and wanted to go through the bills. The Legal Division wanted the committee to be aware of the differences and to make policy choices. She asked Mr. Hillerby to describe the Senate amendments and what differences they effected.

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Contractors Board, reminded the committee there had been a long process which involved construction defects and other issues. The bills the board originally submitted needed revamping to address issues of which they became aware during the hearings. There were three bills, Senate Bill 432, Assembly Bill 633, and Assembly Bill 634 in which they attempted to eliminate the conflicts and clarify some issues while in the Senate. The first part of the amendment (Exhibit D) made it clear there were two kinds of investigators. A special investigations unit was responsible for criminal investigations of unlicensed contractors, applications of new contractors, and potential fraud. Page 1, section 2, line 4, of A.B. 634 changed from a special investigation unit to an investigation office and was adopted by the Senate. Lines 5 and 6 were deleted and the investigation office was divided into two parts. The compliance investigation unit dealt with consumer investigations concerned with workmanship issues. Mr. Hillerby continued to testify referring to the exhibit and the details of the amendments.

Chairman Buckley relinquished the chair to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and asked Kim Morgan to walk the committee through the different choices that needed to be made in the bill.

Kimberly A. Morgan, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada, brought copies of Assembly Bill 633 as well as Assembly Bill 634. Ms. Morgan said there were three places where the bills conflicted. In the second reprint of A.B. 634, section 24, page 12, line 16, and the corresponding section on page 5, of A.B. 633 , which was the enrolled bill, crimes were discussed in different ways. In one bill the words were "guilty, guilty but mentally ill, guilty or have been convicted of misdemeanor, felony, or crime involving moral turpitude" and the other bill stated "crime, which would include gross misdemeanor" and the words moral turpitude were removed.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani restated the issue was what criminal penalty did they wish to use so the bills could be conformed to one another.

Chairman Buckley regained the chair.

Assemblyman Hettrick suggested that the verbiage be simplified to crime.

Chairman Buckley replied that the committee could do one of two things. They did not want to have two bills enrolled that were not clear and coordinated. The committee could go through all three and make policy decisions known immediately or not concur and have Ms. Morgan work with the contractors board representatives to clarify the issues. Chairman Buckley suggested the committee listen to the choices to determine the level of difficulty, and if they were not difficult the committee could make the choices immediately.

Ms. Morgan referred the committee to sections 19 and 9 of A.B. 634. Section 19 added section 9 in the list of factors that could be considered when the scope of a contractor’s license was limited. In A.B. 633, section 6, lines 29 and 30, stated "any other factors that the board determines are necessary." The new section 9 was a limitation while in A.B. 634 it was a broad delegation to the board.

Chairman Buckley reiterated they were comparing A.B. 633, page 3, line 29 with A.B. 634, section 9, on page 4. Financial responsibility and financial solvency were addressed.

Assemblyman Hettrick did not like the language "any other factors the board determines are necessary." Even though section 9 in A.B. 634 might have been a greater limitation at least the bill said "by demonstrating" and gave the contractor the opportunity to demonstrate something and was a fixed list of expectations. He preferred section 9.

Chairman Buckley ascertained that was acceptable to the rest of the committee and assisted in creating the amendments for conference.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani originally agreed with Mr. Hettrick but upon reconsideration questioned whether someone should lose his or her license over a misdemeanor. She believed that would happen if the committee accepted the generic crime.

Robert R. Barengo, Lobbyist, Nevada State Contractors Board, related in jurisdictions outside of Nevada individuals had obtained a contractors license who had a background of crime. The contractors license provided an entry to private homes. The broad jurisdiction was desired so background investigations were possible and to deny applicants a license if they had a criminal background. Moral turpitude meant existing law today. Nolo contendere was included because frequently there were plea negotiations, and the contractor’s board also wanted to investigate that.

Assemblyman Hettrick referred to A.B. 634, page 12, section 24, lines 19 and 20, "lack of character may be established by" left the board some flexibility to look at the crime and decide whether or not the crime established lack of character that would preclude the person from obtaining a license. His concluded the question was covered by the word "may."

Chairman Buckley believed a consensus had been reached in the committee and they would stay with section 24 on the crime portion along with sections 19 and 9. A crime expert related other states had misdemeanor burglaries, which would be a felony in Nevada and that was one reason to keep the more expansive definition. The committee would not concur so the clarifications could be added between the enrolled bill. She opened the discussion on Assembly Bill 193.

Assembly Bill 193: Revises provisions governing use of device for automatic dialing and announcing on telephone. (BDR 52-84)

Assemblywoman Segerblom passed out Exhibit E which was a bill summary and points on amendment 1120 to A.B. 193.

Chairman Buckley revealed that in the Senate an irrelevant amendment arose although it fit the legal definition in that it was a deceptive trade practice. Because it was different than what the Assembly committee considered she chose to bring it to everyone’s attention. The amendment stated in a county with a population of 500,000 or more, a person who was a licensee, owner, or employee of a business entity licensed to operate an adult cabaret, erotic dance establishment, or adult nightclub and while performing those duties paid, or offered to pay, remuneration to a taxi, limousine, or bus containing 21 or fewer passengers, for taking them to a location other than the destination requested by the passenger was guilty of a deceptive trade practice. There were also penalty provisions.

Assemblywoman Segerblom observed that was an odd amendment for the bill. When the amendment went to the Senate it had been completely changed. It was directed at a limited number of particular businesses who paid significant amounts of money to have tourists and visitors brought to their location when the passenger had requested to go elsewhere. Recent investigations documented that over 30 percent of passengers requesting to be taken to a type of business that did not pay kickbacks were taken to a business that did. The going rate was $15 to $20 per passenger delivered. While accepting the payments was already against local code the businesses that paid them broke no law. It was more practical to police a few businesses than thousands of drivers. It was proposed to apply only to Clark County because that was where the problems existed and secondly it included the Taxi Authority in the enforcement provisions. Only Clark County had a taxi authority. It provided for civil penalties only. The language had been approved by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The amendment was supported by the Taxi Authority and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce who realized the severe problems the issue created for the tourist industry. It was also supported by union authorities concerned with protecting taxi drivers.

Chairman Buckley indicated it was not set for hearing but was a committee discussion to give the Chair advice on whether to concur or not concur. She welcomed a brief statement from the committee members and anyone in the audience who desired to make a brief statement.

Robert E. Campbell, Lobbyist, Lake Las Vegas Resort and City of Henderson, supported the amendment and asked for the committee’s support.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani inquired if there was originally a bill associated with the amendment.

Tony Sanchez, Lobbyist for Peter Eliades, replied originally it was in Senate Bill 491 and when it appeared the bill would not pass the Senate it was placed in Assembly Bill 543. The main vehicle was S.B. 491 which was the merger between the Taxicab Authority and the Transportation Services Authority. Because the problem addressed deceptive trade practices it seemed more appropriate to be added to A.B.193. A.B. 543 was sent to subcommittee where it died.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked what was the real controversy.

Mr. Sanchez replied that under current state Taxicab Authority regulations it was illegal for a taxi driver to accept money under any circumstances for anyone other than his employer or the person he was transporting. It was not illegal for businesses, who knew it was illegal for a cabdriver to accept money, to offer money to the driver to induce them to break the law. It would allow the Taxicab Authority, through business and industry, to enforce the law upon the handful of businesses rather than attempting to police approximately 3,200 to 3,400 taxicab drivers.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani inquired as to the control possessed by the Taxicab Authority over businesses.

Mr. Sanchez declared that it was the Department of Business and Industry that oversaw the Taxicab Authority. If the amendment under consideration was adopted and a business owner was cited for a violation of the law a court of law would determine if a deceptive trade practice existed.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani wondered who did the initial citation.

Mr. Sanchez noted under Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 598, Deceptive Trade Practices, the citation could be done by the attorney general, Department of Business and Industry, or a local district attorney.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the Department of Business and Industry had an officer currently on the staff that cited businesses for the purposes of deceptive trade practices.

Mr. Sanchez answered the Department of Business and Industry had authority over deceptive trade practices. Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 598 specifically stated the Department of Business and Industry was one of three enforcement agencies.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani inquired if the Department of Business and Industry had testified that was something for which they wanted to accept authority.

Mr. Sanchez indicated a letter had been submitted previously from the Taxicab Authority. He read a letter into the record asserting at the present time the Taxicab Authority was limited to charging drivers of taxicabs for the diversion of passengers to particular businesses. The proposed amendment to A.B. 193, to hold the manager employee of a business accountable for the diversion, was supported by the Taxicab Authority staff. The amendment to chapter 598 would assist in assuring there was a level playing field for those businesses. The administrator of the Taxicab Authority signed the letter.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani questioned what the impact was on the budget and wondered if the bill had to be reopened.

Mr. Sanchez replied it would not have to be reopened.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if there was a fiscal note.

Mr. Sanchez observed it would be part of the existing enforcement activities.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani replied that needed clarification because when businesses came forward their testimony varied, and there had been no testimony regarding the fiscal question.

Assemblywoman Segerblom testified the Committee on Ways and Means would have been alerted to the bill if additional funds were needed.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked if the current law regarding taxicab driver was a regulation established by the Taxicab Authority and not state law.

Mr. Sanchez replied that was correct. There was also a Clark County code as well as a Las Vegas city ordinance that prohibited diversion. The Clark County code and the city code allowed enforcement staff in the event the business had a liquor license to actually cite businesses in those instances.

Assemblyman Hettrick wanted to know if any of the businesses listed did not have a liquor license.

Mr. Sanchez replied yes. The adult caberet’s had liquor licenses and the others did not.

Assemblyman Hettrick disclosed the problem he had was that the entire burden was shifted from the taxicab driver, currently under regulation who was responsible for taking the money, to the businesses entirely. That seemed to be a move to deep pockets, and he wondered why there was no penalty remaining for the taxicab driver.

Mr. Sanchez observed that they had been very careful to work with Legislative Counsel Bureau to insure existing regulations were not superceded by the provision.

Assemblyman Hettrick expressed his concern that the taxicab driver would not be prosecuted because a larger amount of money could be taken from the businessowner. He wanted to make sure both parties who committed a crime paid. It was a mutual crime and both parties should pay.

Assemblywoman Segerblom replied the taxicab driver would not get the $10 to $15 separate from their regular salary.

Assemblyman Hettrick responded that was a big difference between $5,000.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani was not opposed to the regulations but wanted to know if the regulations and ordinance already existed, why that approach was not used.

Mr. Sanchez indicated that the Department of Business and Industry had the expertise, were able to do the sting operations in the past, had the staff, and complained about not having the authority to go after businesses which were the true cause of the problem. The county and the city did not have the resources.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the Department of Business and Industry was a state agency, however, the bill was tailored solely to one county. Therefore, it seemed to be sensible to have the city or counties adopt by ordinance the prohibition so that it was consistent between all the jurisdictions. As previously testified, the Taxicab Authority and district attorney had the authority to enforce current regulation.

Mr. Sanchez declared that the district attorney did not have the authority to enforce deceptive trade practices under NRS Chapter 598. If the bill passed he would then have the authority.

Chairman Buckley opined if it was not a crime under Chapter 598, then the district attorney would not have the jurisdiction. If it was a violation of an ordinance the city attorney would have jurisdiction.

Assemblyman Humke commented that he understood Mr. Sanchez to testify the county authorities did not have the manpower to conduct the enforcement function. Further testimony revealed there was no fiscal impact to the state. Mr. Humke wanted to know how those two differing positions could be rectified.

Mr. Sanchez divulged that currently the Taxicab Authority and the Transportation Services Authority had the jurisdiction, budgets, and staff to regulate the transportation industry. It was not something separate and apart from what the county and city had been doing in the past. Since it was already enforced with regard to the drivers, he could not speak to any additional fiscal impact. They would work with the existing resources they had. Clark County supported the provision.

Assemblyman Humke asked if the Department of Business and Industry had a deputy attorney general assigned for the function.

Mr. Sanchez pronounced the deputy attorney general was counsel for the Taxicab Authority and Transportation Services Authority when enforcing the law regarding the drivers.

Assemblyman Humke inquired if there were sufficient deputy attorney generals assigned to perform the prosecutorial function.

Mr. Sanchez responded he could not speak to that. He noted sting operations were already being performed against the drivers, and the Taxicab Authority noted in the letter they needed more jurisdiction than they presently had.

Assemblyman Humke inquired about the rationale for civil penalties as opposed to criminal penalties.

Mr. Sanchez replied the law applied only to Clark County and for a criminal penalty the law would have to be statewide. The problem was that the proposed amendment applied to Clark County because that was where the problems existed. The Taxicab Authority had jurisdiction only in Clark County.

Assemblyman Humke replied that went directly to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s objections and made the case for not being in state statute because it was in one county. He thought it addressed Assemblyman Hettrick’s questions regarding civil penalty. It appeared the businesses were being targeted and not much was going to happen to the drivers.

Mr. Sanchez related it was currently a civil fine against the drivers that the Taxicab Authority possessed. There was only one Taxicab Authority that would be doing the enforcement, so criminal provisions could not be applied.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED THAT ASSEMBLY BILL 193 BE

RE-REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.

Chairman Buckley announced that a full committee was not in attendance, but if a majority of the members that were present wanted to concur with the amendment she would move to concur. If she did not and questions existed she would not concur to save Assemblywoman Sergerblom’s underlying bill. There was no quorum in attendance and based on an informal poll she would move later to concur or not concur. If other committee members stepped forward to support it she would concur, and if not they would look forward to a full hearing next session.

Assemblyman Parks commented the amendment was aimed at a narrow type of establishment and in the past a similar practice applied to the restaurant industry, and he wondered why those types of businesses were not included. He was also concerned with the lack of judicial review.

Mr. Sanchez contended judicial review had been provided as there was a court that issued citations and any citation issued by the Department of Business and Industry was subject to judicial review through NRS Chapter 233. Restaurants had not indicated there were any problems.

Chairman Buckley moved on to consider Assembly Bill 293.

Chairman Buckley related the bill added mental health parity to Assemblyman Nolan’s innocuous, timely payment bill or timely notice of denial bill. There was no quorum in attendance so the time would be used for review, as there was a large expansion. Testimony could be taken if there were specific questions, otherwise she wanted to know how the majority of the committee wanted her to proceed.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated she was pleased Mr. Nolan allowed the amendment to be added to his bill. She said in 1997 she had the same mental health parity bill, and it was not processed because of time constraints. She wanted to go on record in support. The bill was brought out of the Senate Committee on Commerce and failed to pass the floor session. There was a miscommunication about the bill and the perception was that state employees would be negatively impacted. Support returned when that was clarified, and it was not a partisan issue. That was the reason the bill was back before the committee. State employees continued to have a contract that covered mental health and was the same coverage to be provided by the bill. The bill was restructured because there was an attempt to restructure the Committee on Benefits. Chairman Buckley stated she would take an informal poll of the committee members. Chairman Buckley proceeded to open review of Assembly Bill 109.

Chairman Buckley related A.B. 109 was amended in the Senate to include provisions of the flea market bill. Additionally, Senator Raggio wanted them to consider an amendment to the bill. Ms. Buckley stated she did not concur and wanted the committee’s input on the two separate ideas. Ms. Lau was there to discuss the flea market provision which was already added to A.B. 109. The bill was originally on something completely different.

Mary F. Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada, provided Exhibit F and related that in the interim they worked with the Metropolitan Police Department on the legislation and secured their support on the bill. Part of the problem experienced with flea markets in both northern and southern Nevada was the sale of stolen merchandise, inferior or expired infant formula, medical devices, dangerous nonprescriptive drugs and cosmetics, and personal care products. The bill prohibited a vendor from selling those articles unless they could produce written authorization from the manufacturer or distributor. Retailers had strict Federal Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines on storage and handling of the products and flea markets did not have to comply with those restrictions. No one controlled the area where flea market products were sold with respect to temperature, tampering, and mishandling. The problems the Retail Association of Nevada attempted to correct involved infant formula which caused a death and serious injuries to others. Last October 1998, two men were arrested for stealing 100 cans of baby formula from Longs Drugs, Toys R Us, and Smiths Food Store in Reno. They intended to sell the formula at the flea market in Carson City. Medical devices such as glucose strips used by diabetics could give inaccurate readings if the product had expired which could lead to dangerous and life threatening situations. Nonprescriptive drugs such as aspirin lose potency after the effective date and if not stored correctly, they could become more potent when exposed to extreme heat such as the temperatures in southern Nevada. Ms. Lau continued to read her testimony from the exhibit provided.

Chairman Buckley reviewed the bill and said she had no problem with section 9 trying to make the law tighter with regard to intent to cheat, altering receipts and UPC labels, stealing of goods, and proper storage of goods. Sections 6 and 7 gave her some concern, which required flea market operators to maintain receipts for 2 years. She questioned whether every retailer should be required to do that and was there a justification or need shown to differentiate flea markets. The rest of the bill seemed like reasonable things to add.

Assemblyman Humke questioned Ms. Lau regarding the 2-year retention of receipts, and how it compared with the requirements applicable to a pawnbroker maintaining records of personal property they accepted.

Ms. Lau did not know about pawnbrokers but it could be investigated. However, she did discuss the requirement with general merchandise retailers in the grocery stores, and they kept receipts for 3, 5, and 7 years as various requirements for different things.

Chairman Buckley stated Mr. Hughey could research the pawnbroker requirements. She said they were not kept due to state law but for business practices, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and other dealings.

Ms. Lau agreed the reasons that receipts were kept were for other dealings: business practices, IRS, voluntary FDA guidelines, and pharmacy regulations.

Chairman Buckley hypothesized if the police thought they were dealing with a flea market merchant who was selling stolen property, the lack of a receipt might be one thing they would consider in the case without the requirement existing in state law. She asked Lt. Olson if he was currently working on a case and had reason to believe someone was selling stolen merchandise at a flea market and whether the lack of a receipt would be something that would be considered.

Lt. Stan Olson, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified if law enforcement had reason to believe someone had stolen property, regardless of what kind of property it was, one of the first things they asked the vendor to do was to produce a receipt or proof that they had purchased the item and had legal possession.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani inquired about the penalties of violating
sections 2 through 7. She asked what the differences were.

Ms. Lau disclosed the sections dealt with first offense, second offense, and third or subsequent offenses.

Chairman Buckley requested the pleasure of the committee.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani liked the bill but expressed concern about the numerous informal markets where many of the individuals who sold did not speak English. She wanted some mechanism in the bill for explaining the changes to people, and moving to the immediate step of required receipts may not be communicated to the vendors. The possibility existed they would be caught up in something before they even knew they were responsible.

Chairman Buckley asked Lt. Olson what tools law enforcement needed to access stolen, tampered, outdated, and dangerous products.

Lt. Olson articulated that depended upon the issue under consideration. He used the example of firearms that had the number removed, the firearm could be seized. With other items not easily identified, receipts could help. If the vendor could not produce the receipts, that did not mean that the police would arrest them.

Chairman Buckley reminded him the vendor would be guilty of a crime under the bill. Without a receipt they would be guilty of a misdemeanor. She was in favor of making it a felony if they had tampered with something. The loss of a receipt was a fairly common occurrence to most people, and it would be punitive to be guilty of a crime under those circumstances.

Lt. Olson offered a point of clarification. Currently if the person did not have a receipt, law enforcement rarely arrested them unless something else was involved. The evidence could occasionally be seized until the vendor could show proof of ownership. Most of the time no arrests were made.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani felt she wanted to provide as much support as possible but did not believe receipts were appropriate now.

Assemblyman Beers admitted to misplacing a credit card receipt, but in a business enterprise receipts were essential when dealing with the IRS. He did not believe a 2-year retention requirement on a legitimate business was particularly onerous. The vendor would do that if they were legitimate. At a flea market where individuals sold used personal products the situation was different. The law was specifically aimed at the sale of unused merchandise.

Chairman Buckley agreed and stated the bill was further limited to infant formula, medical devices, nonprescription drugs, cosmetics, and products for personal care. That was different from the individual who sold used household products. She felt there was a consensus for the bill in general, and the only question that remained was how far the committee wanted to proceed on the receipt requirements and penalties. Ms. Buckley asked the retail association to work with her on the bill so they could concur.

Assemblywoman Segerblom remarked when a person had a business they had to maintain receipts for 7 years for the IRS. Requiring receipts be held for 2 years was not bad.

Chairman Buckley replied one issue was whether failure to have a receipt should make a person guilty of a misdemeanor as opposed to being a terrible record keeper. The chair would work with the association to develop the language. A second part came from Senator Raggio, through Senate Bill 45, and the committee had previously had a full hearing on the bill. The bill was not processed due to lack of time. The bill dealt with gun shows. Ms. Buckley invited Lt. Olson to address the options on the bill.

Lt. Olson related in the previous hearing an amendment was proposed by Mr. Beinfeld, (Exhibit G) and (Exhibit H). The proposed amendment was broken down section by section and compared with the federal codes to determine the effect of each section. The amendment was not presented to the Senate and the day after the hearing in the Assembly Mr. Beinfeld amended his amendment.

Chairman Buckley inquired what would be the result if Mr. Beinfeld’s amendments were not considered in deference to Senator Raggio. Ms. Buckley inquired what Senate Bill 45, in the first reprint, did.

Lt. Olson referred to the exhibit and testified line by line. The regulations specified what could be done with firearms at shows. The problems existed with the show producer who rented booths to multiple exhibitors. Under Mr. Beinfeld’s amendment the exhibitors would not be required to be licensed even by local authorities. The show producer would have a master license. That was a concern to law enforcement. Law enforcement felt S.B. 45 was workable and left room for local law enforcement to address specific concerns that arose in their jurisdiction when it moved out of the Senate. Mr. Beinfeld’s proposed amendments removed all authority from local entities to track or regulate gun shows.

Chairman Buckley inquired about the first reprint passed by the Senate and wondered if it stated a gun show would not have to comply with gun laws.

Lt. Olson answered no, it did not.

Chairman Buckley stated the bill only removed some state licensing if the vendor came infrequently to do gun shows but still gave the counties and cities law enforcement over gun checks, waiting periods, and local licensing.

Lt. Olson agreed with her statement.

Chairman Buckley informed the committee that Senator Raggio wanted the amendment included in A.B. 109. Ms Buckley stated she was inclined to reject the amendment presented at the committee hearing, which removed licensing of the gun shows. The original version considered by the Senate was acceptable.

Assemblyman Humke shared he was not familiar with congressional statutes regarding gun control. He inquired how it would impact the bill if the congressional bill passed federal legislation.

Lt. Olson volunteered the only knowledge he had was obtained from the news and newspapers. However, he suggested if the Beinfeld amendment was passed and federal legislation passed they would be in conflict with each other. He understood what came from the Senate would not be in conflict with the federal legislation, but if there was conflict, local governments could enact ordinances or codes that brought them into compliance.

Assemblyman Humke asked if the federal legislation passed would second hand sales and gun show sales of firearms be required to meet the existing guidelines for retail sales in weapons.

Lt. Olson replied that would be an accurate statement. He added retail stores that sold firearms followed rules and regulations 99.99 percent of the time. The problems were with the members who attended gun shows.

Chairman Buckley thanked Lt. Olson for answering the committee questions. She then turned to consideration and discussion of Assembly Bill 680.

Chairman Buckley stated the amendments had been reviewed, and there was one question by a member of the committee who had left. The proposed amendments made by the Assembly to A.B. 680 were rejected and the committee member wanted to know if those amendments had been included in the current version before the committee.

Alice A. Molasky-Arman, Commissioner, Division of Insurance, State of Nevada, testified some of them were presented during the Assembly Committee hearings, and those were sections 5.2 through 5.8. The others were newly presented during the Committee on Senate Commerce hearings.

Chairman Buckley asked who opposed the amendments, and why were they rejected.

Ms. Molasky-Arman did not recall if there were objections to the sections nor did she recall any discussions on the proposals.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Hughey to research and discover who presented the amendments to the Assembly and if there were discussions in the committee. Ms. Buckley said she would talk with the committee member who had posed the question. She solicited further questions for the commissioner regarding the amendments. Ms. Buckley expressed her appreciation to Ms. Molasky-Arman.

In closing the committee meeting Chairman Buckley said she would be asking committee members to assist her in obtaining a poll. She thanked Mr. Beers for all his previous help. The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cleone Bujalski,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: