The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:52 a.m., on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, Las Vegas, 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:

Assemblyman John J. Lee, Clark County Assembly District No. 3

Assemblyman Donald (Don) G. Gustavson, Washoe County District No. 32

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John J. Lee, Clark County Assembly District No. 3, testified A.B. 400 is a probate bill that is slowly moving Nevada into the mainstream with other states using the Uniform Probate Code as a guide. Assemblyman Lee quoted the dictionary definition of probate, "A process of establishing the validity of a will." He noted there are other new and exciting words such as "executor," "fiduciary," "holographic will," and so forth. Assemblyman Lee advised the drafters have been working on this 161-page, 539-section bill for 18 months. It is a significant piece of legislation, and the testimony, in Assemblyman Lee’s opinion, would go quickly. He introduced Gardner Jolley and Don Ashworth.

R. Gardner Jolley, Attorney, testified from Las Vegas, Nevada. He offered a quick background of the bill. Mr. Jolley stated a committee formed after the 1995 and 1997 Legislative Sessions had been asking the State Bar of Nevada to make a wholesale revision of the probate and trust sections of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He remarked he headed the committee, and it was made up of people from all fields, including attorneys, the probate commissioner, the public administrator, the Clark County Clerk assistant, and so forth. Mr. Jolley advised the Assembly Committee on Judiciary passed the bill out after adopting some technical amendments, and it was his hope the Senate Committee on Judiciary would pass A.B 400, in its present form.

Don W. Ashworth, Probate Commissioner, Eighth Judicial District Court, remarked the two prior sessions his committee had a revision it was trying to make without any input from the legal community in regard to the adoption of the Uniform Probate Code. He mentioned this revision is not the Uniform Probate Code, and if this bill passes, Nevada would still not have the Uniform Probate Code. Mr. Ashworth stated this bill is not perfect, but as an individual who works with these statutes every day, it is much better than what is currently in statute. He also noted, if passed, this bill would make it easier to practice probate and trust law and would answer questions an individual might have in reading the statute. Mr. Ashworth referred to section 256 of the bill and pointed out subsection 1 references NRS 145.090, which does not exist. He stated that is a technical amendment he wished to bring to the attention of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

Chairman James commented there are a few bills every session that are prodigious revisions of the law in different areas. He remarked it is customary for the committee to receive a summary of the changes, and requested such a summary of proposed changes to A.B. 400. Assemblyman Lee distributed the bill summary (Exhibit C).

Mr. Jolley reviewed the proposed changes called for in A.B. 400. He said, first of all, they put definitions in the beginning of the bill. Mr. Jolley added they clarified the sections to enable the reader to be in one section without jumping to other sections. He remarked they attempted to expedite the entire probate process and eliminate unnecessary technicalities. Additionally, Mr. Jolley stated they allowed the probate to expand its jurisdictions so a person could try title in probate if the court agreed. He said they also allowed the probate court to enter temporary restraining orders to stop foreclosures. Mr. Jolley advised a problem in small estates where there is not a lot of money, is that the mortgage company will try to foreclose, and the executor will attempt to sell the house. A temporary restraining order would allow money to be brought into the estate. Mr. Jolley remarked another change would be to the murder statute so the convicted killer could not inherit. It would allow the probate court to have a hearing to decide if the judge determines there was a felonious killing, even if a criminal jury acquitted the individual, the probate court could determine under a civil standard, the person was not entitled to inherit.

Chairman James stated there was a bill the Senate Committee on Judiciary passed out, A.B. 159, that was on the Senate secretary’s desk due to a technical issue. He advised Assemblywoman Gibbons had a bill that would make a minor change to the insurance statute regarding the ability to receive insurance proceeds if an individual killed somebody. Further, Chairman James remarked it changed the standard slightly, but it was still a criminal standard. He said when the committee heard testimony on the bill, it amended the bill substantially and adopted a comprehensive slayer statute for Nevada. Chairman James advised that the drafter of A.B. 159 informed him the bill is somewhat inconsistent with what A.B. 400 accomplishes. He requested Mr. Jolley review A.B. 159 to see what inconsistencies exist, prepare any necessary amendments to either bill, and bring them to the committee on Friday, May 14, 1999. Mr. Jolley agreed to Chairman James’ request.

Senator Care referred to section 79 regarding holographic wills, and inquired why it is necessary for a holographic will to contain a date. He also asked how section 79 works with sections 83 and 84. Specifically, Senator Care inquired whether a holographic will could revoke a previous will. Mr. Ashworth remarked under section 79, regarding the holographic will and the date requirement, there is no change. The reason for the requirement, according to Mr. Ashworth, is that if an individual is using a holographic will to amend a will or if a person has two holographic wills, without a date there is no way of knowing which holographic will was the latest as far as its execution. He added in all states he is familiar with, the holographic will must be dated. Additionally, Mr. Ashworth mentioned the situations in which a holographic will could revoke a prior will that had been executed, and stated without the date, there would be no reference.

Chairman James informed Mr. Jolley and Mr. Ashworth there would be videoconferencing on Friday, May 14, 1999, and A.B. 400 would be on that meeting’s agenda. There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 400. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 82.

Carlos Brandenburg, Ph.D., Administrator, Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation Division, Department of Human Resources, testified one of the agencies operated by the division is Lake’s Crossing Center for the Mentally Disordered Offender (Lake’s Crossing). He explained it is a facility where individuals who are committed under chapter 178 of NRS are either incompetent to stand trial or under evaluation of competency to stand trial. Dr. Brandenburg further explained the duties of the administrator are stipulated under NRS 178.450. After the staff of Lake’s Crossing has seen the individual, it makes a determination of whether the individual is competent to stand trial. He advised it is the administrator’s responsibility to give written notice to the committing court as to whether or not the individual is clearly competent or will obtain competency in the future to stand trial. At that time, Dr. Brandenburg stated, the division must request in writing to the judge, who then appoints three independent mental health professionals to see if they concur with the staff of Lake’s Crossing. Continuing, he indicated NRS 178.465 provides that compensation for the three independent members of the competency commission must be paid by the division. He advised this bill allows the administrator to fix a reasonable rate of compensation. Dr. Brandenburg maintained it is imperative for the administrator to have the ability to establish the compensation rates. He concluded, in the past the compensation rate has ranged from $260 to $2,000.

Senator Wiener inquired whether the staff of Lake’s Crossing determines competency of people throughout the state. Dr. Brandenburg answered affirmatively. Senator Wiener asked what procedure is followed. Dr. Brandenburg replied after a district court in Clark County, for example, finds the individual incompetent to stand trial, the judge signs an order and a sheriff would transport the individual to Reno. Once the state is of the opinion the individual has obtained competency, the state flies the individual back to Clark County. Dr. Brandenburg advised that in rural Nevada, the county sheriff would transport the individual to and from the facility. Senator Wiener queried, in the price range Dr. Brandenburg was talking about, what variables would affect the rate of compensation. Dr. Brandenburg stated he was attempting to establish a rate of $260 for evaluation. He advised that would include an assessment of the individual by the mental health professionals and a report to the judge indicating whether or not the individual was competent. Dr. Brandenburg stated this bill additionally clearly stipulates that neither the state nor the division is responsible for the expert witness fees. He mentioned in the past judges have sometimes provided an expert witness to determine competency and have then tried to get the division to compensate the witness. Dr. Brandenburg asserted A.B. 82 makes it clear he will be working with the chief judge of the committing court or a judge in the county to establish a reasonable fee, which in Dr. Brandenburg’s opinion, is $260 at the present time.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 82. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 406.

Gemma Greene, Lobbyist, Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, testified A.B. 406 was proposed by Assemblyman Hettrick at the request of the East Fork Justice Court Department of Alternative Sentencing. She remarked a representative of that department was at the meeting. Ms. Greene advised in misdemeanor cases, the law provides for a formalized probation, and that is what the Department of Alternative Sentencing does in the applicable jurisdiction. She said unfortunately, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary amended the law making it applicable to all jurisdictions whether or not it was governed by the statutory provision in chapter 211A of NRS providing for the formalized probation for justice courts. Ms. Greene noted the only two jurisdictions that have the formalized program are Carson City and Douglas County. Therefore, she stated the Consensus Amendment, dated April 22, 1999, distributed earlier (Exhibit D), is a consensus of the justice courts, district attorneys, and public defenders, to make the changes applicable only to the jurisdictions operating under chapter 211A of NRS.

Ms. Greene pointed out that Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, had suggested before the meeting to put the amendments into chapter 211A of NRS. She advised in her opinion, that would be more appropriate, so that it is clear it only applies to chapter 211A of NRS alternative sentencing. Referring to Exhibit D, Ms. Greene explained the amendment drafters have stricken the language as it appeared in the Assembly version, and are asking that it be replaced with language that is specific to chapter 211A of NRS. Further, Ms. Greene stated the Director of the Alternative Sentencing Program would explain how it is actually changing the law.

Doug Swalm, Chief Probation Officer, Department of Alternative Sentencing, East Fork Justice Court, Douglas County, introduced Dwight Gover, Chief Probation Officer, Department of Alternative Sentencing, Carson City. Mr. Swalm mentioned that James EnEarl, Judge, East Fork Justice Court, requested and wrote A.B. 406. He said Judge EnEarl’s goal was to enable the existing structured program to be extended up to 1 year if a violation occurs as opposed to ceasing the program at exactly 1 year from the initial court hearing. Chairman James pointed out the bill formerly stated, in section 1, subsection 1, "Before a justice of the peace may revoke or modify the suspension of a sentence of an offender pursuant to subsection 2, the justice of the peace . . . ." He asked if that was anywhere in the proposed amendment (Exhibit D). Mr. Swalm replied it is included in section 1, subsection 2 of the proposed amendment. Chairman James noted it does not talk about obtaining counsel, advance notice of the time of the hearing, presenting relevant letters, and so forth. He asked about the remainder of the deleted language.

Ms. Greene answered they had received quite a bit of input from different sources, particularly the Clark County Justice Court judges, who indicated the requirements listed in the original bill would create an unworkable system. She explained the way it would work under the proposed amendment; the person would get all the things that were spelled out in the prior version of the bill. However, if the judge sentenced someone, and Mr. Swalm told the judge the person was not following his orders under probation, the judge could merely come in and modify the sentence. If necessary, Ms. Greene continued the judge would order the person’s attorney to be present. She pointed out, however, some misdemeanor offenses might have been handled without an attorney in the first place. Ms. Greene remarked all of the requirements listed in the original bill are met in the probation program of alternative sentencing in place in Carson City and Douglas County. She indicated the way the bill was written prior to the proposed amendment, the person, whether or not he had an attorney the first time, would have to have one appointed just to modify the sentence. Ms. Greene asserted that was not the intent of the bill, and it is not current court practice.

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, stated originally he had a great deal of opposition to this bill. However, realizing it is now limited to those jurisdictions under chapter 211A of NRS, it is now Mr. Morrow’s opinion the bill, as amended, does what it was intended to do. He continued, saying all of the stricken language regarding witnesses and presenting evidence and so forth is covered more succinctly under section 1, subsection 2 of the amendment (Exhibit D). Mr. Morrow also noted in the normal course of events, that subsection incorporates everything Chairman James was concerned about in the stricken language.

Senator Care remarked in his understanding of the procedure, normally if the defendant receives probation, there would be counseling for drugs if, for example, there was a drug problem, and a status check would be scheduled approximately 6 months from the time of the original hearing. He said the defendant is put on notice at that time that if he does not appear or meet the conditions of his probation, the judge will revoke his probation. Senator Care agreed the language of subsection 2 of section 1 of the amendment covers that. He remarked the only thing that is different from current law is the 1-year provision. Ms. Greene commented Senator Care had a good understanding of how the program works. Further, she stated the alternative sentencing program under chapter 211A of NRS operates similarly to the formal probation a person would receive in a felony or gross misdemeanor offense. Ms. Greene reiterated the only two jurisdictions that follow this procedure on misdemeanor offenses are Carson City and Douglas County. She pointed out Mr. Swalm is the program participants’ probation officer. Mr. Swalm is the one that ensures the defendant is following the conditions of his probation, and if not, he is the one who tells the judge the defendant is not following the program. Ms. Greene stated the judge would then tell the defendant if he were required to have his attorney present for a hearing in which the defendant would explain why he was not following the probation requirements.

Senator Care mentioned the amended language regarding providing notice. He said in his experience, the attorney would be notified, and the attorney would have to go before the judge and explain he could not locate his client or he no longer represents the client. Senator Care asked if in that case, notice would be by mail to the defendant’s last known address. Mr. Swalm replied that was correct. He addressed Senator Care’s earlier recitation of the process in which he referred to the justice court issuing an order of suspended sentence and having the person come up for a review hearing every so often. Mr. Swalm explained what chapter 211A of NRS does is supervises that person so that perhaps a review hearing would no longer be necessary, freeing up the court and district attorney’s time. He gave an example of one of his probationers violating his sentence. If it is something such as not fulfilling a counseling agreement, Mr. Swalm remarked he would create a short report to the court explaining the person was in violation for failure to go to anger management, domestic violence drug treatment, for example. He stated the judge would have two options. One option would be to issue an order to show cause, and Mr. Swalm would personally hand deliver it to the defendant. The judge could issue a warrant at the time, according to Mr. Swalm. At that time also, the defense attorney would be notified by Mr. Swalm’s department or by the justice court in general that there would be a hearing. Further, Mr. Swalm mentioned, as had been stated, there have been people who have admitted to misdemeanor violations at the arraignment, and therefore received a suspended sentence and been placed on probation at the very time. They have elected not to have counsel. He stated if there is a violation and the defendant comes back, the judge affords the defendant the option of having counsel, either court-appointed or private.

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Carson City and Douglas counties Assembly District No. 39, testified whatever the consensus amendment drafters wanted to do was fine with him. He stated the amendment drafters were trying to accomplish their goal in a way that would not negatively impact concerned Las Vegas judges and yet allow Carson City and Douglas County to continue with their alternative sentencing programs. Assemblyman Hettrick offered his support of A.B. 406.

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, gave a quick recap of the bill. He testified that in 1993 and 1995 there were discussions of the informal terms of justice courts probation procedures. Mr. Graham stated, as Senator Care said, the court will issue a number of conditions such as petty larceny school, anger school, driving under the influence impact panel, and so forth, and the defendants are given a return date for a status check. Mr. Graham remarked it was handled informally, and in 1995, Carson City and Douglas County requested a more formal alternative sentencing program. He remarked this bill, in 1995, authorized counties to adopt the alternative sentencing program. Mr. Graham indicated when this bill first came out with the items listed on page 2 of the amendment, all of which happen in the justice courts on an informal basis, the justice courts that are not under chapter 211A of NRS were concerned it would create new requirements and formalities. He concluded this is a continuation of the process that started in 1995.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 406. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 543.

Assemblyman Donald (Don) G. Gustavson, Washoe County District No. 32, testified this bill was brought to his attention by all the frivolous lawsuits being brought by cities and counties that are suing gun manufacturers for crimes being committed by weapons, handguns, and so forth. He asserted the cities and counties are trying to put the responsibility on gun manufacturers where, in his opinion, it does not belong. Assemblyman Gustavson remarked Nevada has always been pro-gun, and passing a piece of legislation such as A.B. 543, would not only prevent the cities and counties from suing gun manufacturers with frivolous lawsuits, but also, in his understanding, would bring gun-related businesses interested in relocating to Nevada. He advised New Orleans, Louisiana, has filed suit against 15 major gun manufacturers for crimes that were committed by guns, but it is not the guns that are committing the crimes; it is the individuals that are committing the crimes. Assemblyman Gustavson also mentioned the lawsuits are not for defects in the guns or ammunition, but if they were, the cities, counties, and individuals would still be allowed to file those lawsuits. Assemblyman Gustavson mentioned the National Rifle Association (NRA) was supposed to be present. Chairman James informed him that Carolyn Herbertson was unable to attend, but submitted a letter offering the NRA’s position on the bill (Exhibit E).

Chairman James noted A.B. 543 purports to be retroactive in section 2. He read section 2 of the bill that states, "The provisions of this act apply to any action that is pending on or brought on or after the effective date of this act." Chairman James pointed out where it states "is pending" would be the basis for a motion to dismiss summarily any suit that is pending in the courts currently. Assemblyman Gustavson remarked he has not heard of any suits pending in the Nevada courts at the present time. Chairman James stated the committee would either have to remove that provision or say the State of Nevada is the only entity in this state that may commence or "maintain" a lawsuit. Assemblyman Gustavson said he had no problem with that amendment.

Senator Care asked if there are no suits, why this bill is needed. Assemblyman Gustavson answered there are no suits at the present time, but there are suits being put together nationwide as either a class action lawsuit by one city or by many cities going together. It is Assemblyman Gustavson’s concern such lawsuits will be coming to the State of Nevada, and everyone will jump on the bandwagon as they did in the tobacco lawsuits. Senator Care inquired whether this statute, if passed, would prohibit a city from suing in federal court. Assemblyman Gustavson stated he believed so, but would have to ask Mr. Wilkinson to confirm his answer. Mr. Wilkinson was of the opinion this would not apply to a suit in federal court. However, he was not certain and stated he would look into it. Senator Care commented what he enjoys about the law is that it is so fluid. He said product-liability theory is relatively new in the history of American jurisprudence. In Senator Care’s opinion, a lawsuit is not frivolous unless a judge says it is frivolous. He clarified it is frivolous as to who gets sued, but oftentimes a jury has a different approach. Senator Care remarked his tendency is not to preclude anybody from suing for anything, and there are sanctions that can be imposed upon an attorney and/or a party for a frivolous lawsuit.

Chairman James asked if Assemblyman Gustavson had considered NRS 41.131 that states:

Assemblyman Gustavson stated the bill sponsors did not look at that. Chairman James advised that law would prevent a person from suing because somebody was killed. He added A.B. 543 is more broad because it would prevent a person from suing because firearms were made available to children or to criminals, and so forth. Assemblyman Gustavson reiterated the firearm was not the cause of the shooting. Chairman James clarified that is what the law already states; a gun manufacturer cannot be sued due to a gun causing injury. He indicated he understood A.B. 543 is broader in scope, and that is why Assemblyman Gustavson supports the bill.

Mr. Wilkinson remarked he wished to clarify his earlier answer. He stated in his understanding, whether this proposed statute would preclude a lawsuit in federal court would be based on the nature of the cause of action. Chairman James added if it were a diversity action based upon state law, it would be precluded; if it were based upon federal common law or federal statute, it would not be precluded.

Senator Titus inquired what Assemblyman Gustavson’s feelings were regarding the tobacco settlement, since he had mentioned it. She stated it was not the cigarette that caused the damage, but the person smoking the cigarette. She asked if he was opposed to Nevada receiving a tobacco settlement. Assemblyman Gustavson replied the cigarette, as well as the secondhand smoke, does cause harm. He advised he did not agree with the settlement, and said he did not believe the tobacco company should have been sued. Assemblyman Gustavson added the attorneys probably benefited more than anybody.

Chairman James noted this bill would not prevent the same type of suit that occurred in the tobacco case from happening against the gun manufacturers. Assemblyman Gustavson requested clarification. Chairman James replied the statute allows the state to commence an action. Assemblyman Gustavson concurred with Chairman James’ comment.

John W. Riggs Sr., Lobbyist, Gun Owners in Nevada, testified this bill would create a preemption to the state on lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He advised this bill is about preemption without eliminating the ability to sue for faulty products. Mr. Riggs offered his organization’s support of A.B. 543.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, added her association’s support of A.B. 543.

Lynn P. Chapman, Lobbyist, remarked Janine Hansen was out of town, and she was speaking in Ms. Hansen’s place. She read from an article titled "Standing Guard," written by Wayne LaPierre from the April 1999 issue of American Rifleman (Exhibit F). She read:

Ms. Chapman then read from an article titled, "The President’s Column," written by Charlton Heston from the April 1999 issue of American Rifleman (Exhibit F). She read:

The last article Ms. Chapman read from ILA Report, from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (Exhibit F). She read:

Ms. Chapman asserted passage of A.B. 543, once again reaffirms that the American people and their elected representatives recognize the fact that firearms are unique among consumer products. She continued the U.S. Constitution and 44 state constitutions, including Georgia’s, protect no other consumer product. Ms. Chapman concluded, therefore, the proper place for the debate over the right to bear arms is in the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures.

Larry M. Osborne, Lobbyist, Executive Vice President, Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce, stated the chamber represents over 1,000 business members including a large number of local manufacturing firms. He remarked the chamber supports A.B. 543, and views it as another economic development tool that can be provided by the State of Nevada at no cost. Mr. Osborne further commented protection against costly and unwarranted lawsuits could send a strong signal to manufacturing that Nevada is the place to do business. He said a letter from Galona Industries Inc., dated May 10, 1999 (Exhibit G), supports that fact. Mr. Osborne requested the committee’s support of A.B. 543.

Chairman James mentioned the committee had the letter Mr. Osborne referred to as well as a letter from National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. dated March 25, 1999 (Exhibit G), for the record.

Richard Brengman, Owner, Special Interest Arms, remarked one thing he had not heard mentioned was the large number of firearms manufacturers already existing in Nevada. One company he specifically mentioned was Calico Light Weapon Systems in Reno that primarily supplies weapons to law enforcement at this time. Mr. Brengman noted Calico Light Weapon Systems relocated from southern California because they found Nevada to be a more amicable climate. He maintained if the Legislature passes A.B. 543, Nevada would prove once again it is interested in diversity for its economic base. Mr. Brengman urged passage of A.B. 543.

Kenneth E. Cazier, Concerned Citizen, testified that when a society holds a manufacturer legally liable for crimes or damage by individuals who ostensibly have an adequate intellect and free will, that is morally reprehensible, in his opinion. However, he stated he was not talking about the manufacturer being held responsible if his equipment is defective. Mr. Cazier told of the light-aircraft industry being nearly driven out of business in the 1970s and 1980s due to having tort liability for every aircraft ever manufactured, including some manufactured in the 1930s. He maintained the industry was sued many times by people who used their equipment incorrectly. According to Mr. Cazier, only when a law limiting liability for the light-aircraft industry was passed in the U.S. Senate, did it begin to revive. He said there are three groups of people in this country: 1) a group pro-Second Amendment, pro-firearm; 2) a group anti-Second Amendment, anti-firearm; and 3) a large group in the middle who, depending upon their situation at a particular moment, may fall into one group or the other.

Continuing, Mr. Cazier stated he believes in the Second Amendment. However, there is a large group of people who would like to drive the firearms industry out of business and confiscate firearms. He maintained these depend for support upon the persons who own and staff major broadcasting networks in the United States. In Mr. Cazier’s opinion, almost all the major networks are anti-gun. He also stated conditions are quite different in Nevada than in other areas of the country, and in his opinion, Nevada should not allow people in other states to dictate how Nevadans should live their lives. Mr. Cazier agreed with Chairman James’ statement the anti-gun lawsuits are different from the antitobacco lawsuits. However, he remarked even though he is antismoking, he still considers the series of suits against the tobacco industry to be morally reprehensible.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 543. He then opened a work session and addressed A.B. 543.

Chairman James mentioned the bill would need to be amended either by taking out the retroactivity or adding the word "maintenance," and since there are no suits pending in Nevada at the present time, he suggested deleting the word "pending" in section 2 of the bill.

Senator Care observed that A.B. 543, in his opinion, has nothing to do with gun control and has everything to do with control of the judicial system. He asserted he does not want to preclude, by statute, the right of any party to sue any other party for any reason. On that basis, Senator Care remarked he will oppose the bill.

The next bill addressed by Chairman James from the morning’s meeting was A.B. 406. He referred to the Consensus Amendment (Exhibit D), and explained it would limit the bill to Carson City and Douglas County.

Chairman James addressed another bill heard this morning, A.B. 82. Mr. Wilkinson mentioned there was a conflict amendment on A.B. 82.

The Chairman stated the amendment would delete section 8, and add Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3, as a cosponsor. Ms. Combs stated all of the identity-theft provisions are identical to the original bill, and the additions regard consumer protection. Chairman James remarked other additions are to the penalty, repair of credit history, satisfaction of the debt, and the civil action. He also mentioned they were deleting the requirement of reporting agencies to do credit repair. Chairman James advised during the interim the Legislative Counsel Bureau would be checking to ensure those procedures are being followed within the industry.

*****

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jo Greenslate,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: