The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:52 a.m., on Thursday, March 25, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe Senatorial District No. 2, said he is the sponsor of S.B.420, which is a carry a concealed weapon (CCW) bill. The bill provides for reciprocal licensure between states that have equal or greater standards set by Nevada. He stated the bill excludes language regarding people who have been convicted of use or threatened use of force or violence as a misdemeanor. The language allows an individual who has been certified to carry multiple weapons under the permit. He noted another deletion is to omit the social security number from appearing on the permit. Senator Washington brought to the committee’s attention other proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit C).

Senator McGinness observed that in section 1, subsection 2, lines 9-13, that once a year each state’s permit requirements are to be examined. He said this also raises the question of a fiscal impact. Senator Washington responded the focus was to verify if other states’ training requirements were equal or greater than Nevada’s.

Senator Wiener noted the language in the bill uses "similar" rather than equal to or greater than. She observed "similar" could mean that something just a little less is close enough. Chairman James stated those who administer the program would use discretionary determination.

Senator Care wanted to know how many states currently recognize someone from Nevada carrying a concealed weapon (CCW). Steven C. Helsley, Lobbyist, Nation Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, referring to the "Guide to Interstate Right-to-Carry Reciprocity" (Exhibit D) stated there are seven states that already recognize a CCW permit from Nevada. Mr. Helsley noted the amendments would eliminate the cost.

Senator McGinness observed there are few states that have training as Nevada requires. He noted the wording in the bill says the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association (NSCA) would check annually if other states’ requirements have changed.

Mr. Helsley stated one advantage to the structure of the amendments is it requires a visitor to Nevada to register for a temporary sticker, and at the same time they would be informed of Nevada’s gun laws, which helps to keep everyone informed.

Senator Care stated California residents with CCW permits have inquired about bringing their weapon on 3-day weekend visits to Nevada. Mr. Helsley commented that as far as he knew there was no federal or state law requiring a weekend visitor to register. He added there was nothing that prohibited the transport of a personal weapon across state borders.

Merritt K. (Ike) Yochum, Lobbyist, also Chairman, Independent American Party (IAP), Carson City Branch, said the IAP thinks this legislation makes good sense and they are in favor of S.B. 420.

Pete Bachstadt, Concerned Citizen, voiced his gratitude to the State of Nevada for the privilege to carry. He pointed out some of the ideas in the bill made a lot of sense and completely agreed with those ideas.

Robert E. Smith, Concerned Citizen, said the purpose of the bill was to clarify the language so honest people could more easily comply with the law, and to include reciprocity.

Nolan R. Prater, Concerned Citizen, said as a CCW permittee he is in favor of the bill, S.B. 420. He said the reciprocity language is an added feature towards security of the weapon when traveling.

Lynn P. Chapman, Lobbyist, representing Nevada Eagle Forum (NEF), emphasized the reason for support of the bill by reading a quote by George Washington (Exhibit E). She said NEF particularly likes being permitted for more than one weapon, and leaving the social security number off the permit.

John W. Riggs Sr., Lobbyist, Gun Owners in Nevada, said he concurred with prior testimony of the social security number. He noted there were quite a few states with reciprocity laws, and that Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, and Michigan have blanket permits for all states. He said additionally, the reciprocity will help the visitor to Nevada. He stated he is in favor of having "State of Nevada" prominent on the permit, and a standard permit for the whole state.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), said NCC would like to lend their support of S.B. 420 for reasons already stated. She added she was in favor of the amendment to have Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association determine suitability of requirements in other states. She wondered how the sticker program would work for the visitor, and whether there were any implications.

Allen Baumruck Jr., Lieutenant, Douglas County Sheriff’s Department, commented that the amendments took care of most of the arguments he had against the bill. He said he would suggest the language be changed from 3 years after a misdemeanor to 5 years to be consistent with statute. He illustrated that a conviction does not always reflect the circumstances. The conviction could be a plea to a lesser crime. He pointed out that "firearms of any type" should read "handguns" since there are many automatic weapons small enough to be concealed on a person. He said he would also like other states to have reciprocity for Nevada.

Senator Care noted that there is now a federal statute that does not permit anyone convicted of domestic violence to ever carry a weapon. Lieutenant Baumruck responded that was correct. He said that same federal law is now being challenged at the U.S. Supreme Court. He noted on page 3, section 3, subsection 3, paragraph (f), the issue of domestic violence is adequately covered.

Senator Washington commented the federal domestic violence law is being challenged primarily because it is retroactive.

Senator Titus observed that since Nevada is such a transient state it would be difficult to adhere to reciprocity and the use of a temporary sticker.

Lieutenant Baumruck stated that Nevada has laws that allow a person to carry a weapon anywhere except on their person. He said although it would be difficult, it is a law officer’s job to enforce whatever law is on the books.

Frederick B. Hersey, Firearms Safety Instructor, said he agrees the language should specify "handgun" and not "firearms of any type."

Senator Titus said it seemed to her if carrying a weapon is good, that carrying a visible weapon would reduce the chances of being mugged. She thought the perpetrator would pick on someone who was not armed. Mr. Hersey acknowledged the concern. He added that states with CCW laws have less crime. He emphasized the biggest argument to carry concealed is a visible weapon makes that person more of a target.

Senator Washington noted although there is a provision, some people may not wish to expose the weapon. He elucidated it is a personal choice to strap on the weapon or to wear it concealed.

Raymond L. Sparks, Deputy Director, Public Safety, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), stated the proposed amendments to the bill have resolved most of the concerns. He noted the bill would still require the DMV&PS to furnish the forms to NSCA, but did not see that as a problem. He said he did a quick survey of 1998 CCW applications, which shows the department processed around 2,500 fingerprints, and only a small percentage of applicants were denied. He expressed his support of the amendment to reinstate the language regarding ineligibility for criminal activity. He observed the amendment governing out-of-state permits needs a time frame as a guide for law enforcement.

Senator Titus inquired about an unfunded mandate clause, because the local sheriff’s offices would be doing most of the CCWs. Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, commented the sheriffs and chiefs annual reciprocity updates would not have any effect, as they are a private association. He added there is no apparent impact on law enforcement at this time. He expounded the DMV&PS is currently working on fiscal impact, which may require a part-time person.

James F. Nadeau, Captain, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association, and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, said those he represents were in opposition to S.B. 420. He emphasized the Washoe County Sheriff was a proponent of the 1997 session bill that relaxed the CCW laws, and continues to support them. He said the NSCA is strongly in favor of certification, of keeping the ineligibility and notice of a crime language, and listing the make, model, and caliber of the weapons.

Senator Wiener asked about the wording "of any type." Captain Nadeau said that most handguns have some automatic feature, but the "handgun" language would be workable.

Senator Care wanted to know if the information required on the permit was satisfactory. Captain Nadeau responded the permit should definitely contain the type of weapon and that the person is qualified in the use of the weapon listed. He iterated that lines 41-42 on page 2 should remain in the statute.

Senator Washington noted gun owners who are certified to use several weapons, believe the permit should allow them to carry any of their weapons. Captain Nadeau stressed law enforcement must be qualified in the use of any weapon they carry, on or off duty. He believes the same standard should apply to citizens.

Senator Washington invited Captain Nadeau to work with the committee to craft language that would satisfy the concerns of those who testified and of law enforcement.

Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Government Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro), stated he agrees with Captain Nadeau’s concern regarding training. He conveyed that Metro believes the lack of incidents over the 4 years since the CCW law went into effect is directly connected to the required training of the CCW permit holder. He said in those 4 years Clark County has issued over 9,000 permits, and denied 186. He said Metro receives about 125 new applications per month. Lieutenant Olsen called attention to the fact that there has been only one incident with that many permits out, and that incident was cleared. He stated Metro directly attributes that good record to the training requirement. He added there have been some permits revoked due to domestic violence. He articulated that Clark County requires identification of the weapon on the permit, and will continue to do so. He noted Clark County strictly enforces the requirement that the person carry the permit with them at all times.

Francis Gillings, Lobbyist, Independent American Party, stated that as part of his business in California he required his people to wear their guns in the open for safety reasons. He said it turned out to increase business because tourists wanted to see people carrying guns. He emphasized that early indoctrination to the safe use of guns makes people more responsible. He stated he is in favor of not changing lines 41-42, on page 2.

Hearing no further testimony, Senator James closed the hearing on S.B. 420, and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 166.

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Douglas County, Carson City Assembly District No. 39, said he wanted to emphasize this bill pertains to the good people. These are the people who submit to a background check, to training in an approved course by a certified instructor, and know the law. He cited a recent study done by economist John Lott (Exhibit F) on the impact of concealed carry permits. The study revealed CCW laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent and rape by 5 percent. He recited the study noted that in 1989 Philadelphia asked for and received an exemption from the CCW permit laws in Pennsylvania, and crime has continued to rise in Philadelphia while declining in the rest of the state. Assemblyman Hettrick noted that Philadelphia is one of the cities now suing the handgun manufacturers saying they caused the city’s problems.

Assemblyman Hettrick called attention to a list of permits issued as of February 10, 1999, throughout Nevada (Exhibit G). He noted since 1995 over 13,000 permits have been issued statewide, and only 7 permits were revoked in 4 years. He drew attention to section 1, lines 4-13 which listed all the places a concealed weapon could not be carried, even with a permit. He asserted that section 1, lines 10-11, in particular, would eliminate a lot of convention business around the state, as many show exhibitors have CCW permits to protect their merchandise. He averred as the law exists now the exhibitors could not even protect themselves.

Assemblyman Hettrick said he believes the new language in A.B. 166 will resolve many issues outlined in Exhibit H. He noted subsection 5, paragraph (a) refers to the permission a person can already give under existing law, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 202.265, that allows people to obtain written permission to carry in certain places. He said subsection 5, paragraph (b) allows written permission in the same manner for other public buildings. For example, a state or county agency renting a portion of a building, does not deny the private business also renting in that building from having a CCW permit. He noted statistics prove buildings are safer if signs are not posted. He pointed out that even if the building has signs or metal detectors, no one knows if the person actually has obtained permission from the building supervisor to carry a weapon. The protection of the CCW laws is still in effect there whether posted or not. Assemblyman Hettrick stressed that is what A.B. 166 does, in summary.

Assemblyman Hettrick said some amendments address sections in S.B. 420, for example, qualifying with each type of weapon. He said he had no problem with the word "type" as the person should know how to use both an automatic and a revolver. He voiced the social security number should not appear on the permit, but apply only to the application in order to obtain a good background check.

Assemblyman Hettrick said he asked several people to show CCW permits from around the state. They were different and none said State of Nevada anywhere on the permits. He emphasized the permits need to be standardized and prominently display the words "State of Nevada" on them. He reiterated that it is only the law-abiding citizens who will adhere to the law, not the criminal. He concluded that statistics show where CCW laws are in effect, crime is dropping.

Senator Care noted subsection 7, seems to include all the public buildings listed in current statute with private schools as the one exception. He wanted to know if he was reading the bill correctly. Assemblyman Hettrick responded private schools are already covered in NRS 202.265. In fact, he said, permission can be obtained to carry in a school, but not in a public building. He observed the law makes no sense in that area.

Senator Washington stated he believed it would help law enforcement to have more confidence if the permittee could demonstrate through certification, the ability to have multiple weaponry. Assemblyman Hettrick urged every gun owner to take the firearms safety course.

Captain Nadeau commented NSCA is in support of A.B. 166, and would work on the amendment language.

Chairman James appointed Senator Washington to chair a subcommittee to review amendments to S.B. 420 and A.B. 166. He named Senators Care and McGinness to also serve on the subcommittee.

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, said he has submitted copies of e-mail from the Clark County Department of Aviation (Exhibit I) in opposition to A.B. 166, as written.

Senator Titus asked if those in favor of this bill felt unsafe in the Legislature’s building. Mr. Prater responded he walks a lot, and passes by a place or through an area that may be questionable. He noted a few years ago the St. Charles Hotel was not a nice place to walk and it is across the street from the Legislature. He pointed out a person may not be safe in a parking lot because the building they are going to does not allow CCW permits.

Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on A.B. 166, and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 449.

Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County Senatorial District No. 3, testified this bill does not restrict or expand people’s right to carry a concealed weapon. He said the bill addresses domestic violence in which two normally rational people cease to think straight, and may cause physical harm. He said in most cases people with carry concealed weapon permits (CCWP) who have been arrested for possible domestic violence are not convicted. He elaborated that a judge may, in time, give the weapon back to the person after reconciliation, anger counseling, or psychological assistance. He noted the CCWP may be revoked, but usually the spouse is not aware when the gun is returned to the husband. Senator Coffin conveyed law enforcement told him it would make a big difference on fiscal impact if the notification could be changed from certified mail to first class mail, and the time allowed to notify be extended to 10 days. He observed the notification requirement applies only to those arrested and have had their weapon returned. He conveyed the Police Protective Association (PPA) and Metro are in full support of the bill, and are concerned about the fiscal impact.

Chairman James observed the bill does not make any distinction about notification even to spouses in a harmonious relationship. Senator Coffin illustrated that a domestic situation in which the gun was taken away, made him aware of a gap in the law, later the gun was returned by the judge who decided not to convict.

Chairman James said that roughly speaking this bill calls for the sheriff to suspend the CCW permit, and to restore the permit if the person is acquitted or the charges dropped. Senator Coffin said that is where S.B. 449 comes in. He said it is probably not appropriate to put the disposition of the CCW permit anywhere else. He believes it is not necessary to duplicate in the domestic violence statute. Senator Coffin pointed out a gray area exists where conviction never occurs. Regardless of the outcome in court, the other party needs to be informed when a weapon has been returned. The notification is strictly between law enforcement and the person being notified, not public information.

Senator Titus commented that the most important point is the fact there is a gun in the home, not the permit to carry the weapon. She suggested the consideration of notification at the point of sale.

Senator Coffin responded it was not necessary to broaden the scope, as most other areas seemed to be covered in federal law. He added the committee could seek an amendment to address the concerns expressed, and to clarify the intent, and he would not object. The bill was referred to subcommittee.

Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (NNADV), said NNADV supports the bill based on statistics showing the relationship of guns to domestic violence. She said according to the Violence Policy Center study (Exhibit J), Nevada is the fifth highest in per capita firearm homicide rates in the nation. She elaborated women were more than twice as likely to be shot and killed by their husbands or an intimate partner than a stranger.

Chairman James stated that when the concealed weapons bill was passed in 1995, a number of women’s groups supported the bill because they wanted the right to carry a gun. He expressed concern for the woman with a CCW permit, because now the husband will be the one to receive the notice.

Ms. Berkley observed that having the husband become aware that the wife now has protection, could be a positive effect. She reiterated that it is more often the man who is the problem, so it would be important for the woman to know if the gun has been returned to him.

Mr. Graham suggested inserting in section 4, page 2 "… a person who has a prior arrest for …." He reiterated to change notification time from 2 days to 10 days, and change certified mail to first class mail.

Ms. Chapman said NEF does not support the bill, finding it discriminatory as many people today live together, and some of them are subject to domestic violence. She inquired about the exceptions on lines 11-13, page 2.

Mr. Riggs stated this bill seemed to lean more towards the federal Lautenburg law, which prohibits having a firearm in the home or in the possession of a person arrested for domestic violence.

Ms. Lusk noted on behalf on NCC that this bill really did not address guns in domestic violence situations as much as CCW permits. She emphasized the people who seek CCW permits are the law-abiding citizens. She pointed out that using the mail is no guarantee the person to be notified will receive the notice, and revocation of a CCW permit will not avoid a gun in the home, all it means is the person cannot carry a concealed weapon. She stated there should be equal application of the law.

Senator Care said the underlying presumption of this bill is that married couples do not always communicate. He wanted to know if there were any other law compelling a city, agency, county, or state to inform a spouse that the other spouse has or has not done something. Captain Nadeau responded he can only do requested notification regarding domestic violence, sexual assault, and similar crimes. Such notification is not done contractually, but by request.

Hearing no further testimony, the hearing on S.B. 449 was closed.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: