MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 28, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:40 a.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 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 Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety
John Hoames, Concerned Citizen
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Families for Freedom, Nevada Eagle Forum
Christopher J. W. Oswald, Lobbyist, National Rifle Association of America
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Richard Brengman, Concerned Citizen
Paul A. Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association
Robert E. Smith, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association
Gina Crown, President, Nevada Investigative and Protective Services (NIPSA)
James F. Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Toni M. Weeks, Detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association
Chairman James:
We have Bill Draft Request (BDR) 15-473 from the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association to introduce today.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-473: Authorizes court to sentence person convicted of misdemeanor to make donation of money to charitable or educational organization under certain circumstances. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 263.)
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-473.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR MCGINNESS, SENATOR PORTER, AND SENATOR TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman James:
Due to the fact that Senate Bill (S.B.) 20 and Senate Bill 172 are closely related, the committee decided to hear testimony on them interchangeably throughout the hearing.
SENATE BILL 20: Revises provisions governing weapons. (BDR 15-12)
SENATE BILL 172: Removes limitation on number of firearms for which permit to carry concealed firearm may be issued. (BDR 15-886)
Senator Raymond (Ray) D. Rawson, Clark County Senatorial District No. 6:
This legislation, S.B. 172, is a simple change. When the original law was passed it probably should have allowed more than two firearms. I understand that people were concerned it would open the floodgates and there would be significant problems. However, there is history behind it now and it has not created problems. Nearly 10,000 permits have been issued in southern Nevada with very few incidents and no shooting or fatalities.
Senate Bill 172 came from a law enforcement person in my district who complained they had to go through the permitting process for a concealed weapon like anyone else. On off-duty time, they are expected to have access to a weapon so they can still be of benefit to the public, if necessary. As seasons change, so does their clothing, and there is a need to change their weapon so it is not visible. In other words, they may have a Colt Commander or Colt 45 they carry normally as their preferred weapon. If they are wearing light clothing, without a coat, they may have to go to a smaller model, such as a 380. The purpose is to not frighten other people or embarrass themselves by showing a weapon.
Law enforcement is limited with only being able to have a license for two weapons. There are occasions a third weapon might be needed, or access to a third weapon. This bill simply says that we recognize they have taken the courses, demonstrated themselves trustworthy, and there has been a thorough law enforcement check. If they can be licensed for two weapons, there is no need to say it cannot be for three or four or however many they might choose. There is nothing more sinister in S.B. 172 than making it convenient for people who have already been approved.
Senator James:
Does this give the sheriff discretion?
Senator Rawson:
In essence, if a person qualifies with a weapon and it is listed on their permit, it would be permissible to carry that weapon. The bill would not open the statute to allow people to have guns on which they have not demonstrated their ability. However, if a person has an interest in, and is qualified with more than two particular weapons, the weapons would be listed on their permit.
Senator James:
Section 1, subsection 2, paragraph (d), of S.B. 172, says “Demonstrates competence with a firearm by presenting a certificate or other documentation to the sheriff which shows that he . . .” So, it is whatever weapons they submit on which they have demonstrated competence.
Senator Rawson:
Yes.
Senator James:
Are there any other questions for Senator Rawson?
Senator Rawson:
Thank you very much.
Senator James:
Thank you very much, Senator Rawson. It looks like a good change.
Richard Kirkland, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety:
I have 32 years of law-enforcement experience. I started with the Reno Police Department in the late 1960s and retired as Chief of Police. I was elected twice as sheriff of Washoe County. In 1994, in my first term as sheriff, I was the first sheriff in the state to open up the right to carry a concealed weapon under the authority that existed for sheriffs at that time. I issued a couple of thousand permits over the next couple of years and instituted a policy and procedure and training program, which was ultimately adopted by the Legislature and created the bill before us now.
I have been asked to give my comments. I want to be on record as having said, “I do not represent the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association even though I am a member of that organization.” Some of my fellow sheriffs and chiefs do not share my views. In my 32 years’ experience, and extensive time in Washoe County, we had fewer difficulties and problems with people who had appropriate background checks and training and were permitted to carry firearms than we had on a daily basis with individuals who were not permitted and messed around with guns.
My professional training and study of statistics across the nation convinced me that the great bugaboo everyone predicted regarding the right to carry firearms in this country did not occur. However, there are a number of vicariously linked benefits from various states that created laws to allow people to carry firearms.
I am in support of both S.B. 20 and S.B. 172. Regarding S.B. 172, in my opinion, as long as the training and other requirements of law are met, it is of little, if any, difference or significance what particular firearm is carried. Currently, if an individual qualifies with two weapons and later decides not to use them, he/she may get rid of those two weapons, requalify for two more, and carry them. The issue seems to be in regard to ministerial reporting, which makes no sense whatsoever. The important element is the background check, training, ability to demonstrate proficiency in safety, and understanding of the laws relative to the firearm.
Senator Wiener:
You said that changing one weapon to another may not be significant if a person demonstrates proficiency on the changed weapon. Because we do not know what types of firearms will be developed in the future and the changes required in terms of proficiency, it would be clearer if section 1, subsection 2 of S.B. 172, were changed from “is qualified to possess a firearm” to “is qualified to possess each firearm”; as well as section 2, subsection 1 of S.B. 172, from “a handgun” to “each handgun,” because we do not know what the future will hold in terms of weaponry.
Mr. Kirkland:
That makes perfect sense to me. I think the issue is qualification and your suggested language makes sense. I think there will sensitivity over the issue of whether or not the weapons are registered. That was the issue raised in the initial bill I supported.
Senator McGinness:
What is the percentage of the number of people who want multiple firearms? Do most people want to be proficient in one firearm and have one listed?
Mr. Kirkland:
I am not sure I can answer that. In the initial stage there was concern; however, people who are firearm aficionados are in the majority and want to legally carry a firearm. The overwhelming majority want to make the choice as to which firearm they carry. I have found there is a rush to carry a firearm, go through training, and carry the weapon for a month or two. They then find the firearm is a “pain in the tail” and it goes into the glove box of the car. Then they reach a point where they take the weapon when they really think they need it. There is, therefore, a balance.
Senate Bill 20 will be more controversial. If a person from another state resides in Nevada 6 weeks, goes through the training and background process, and qualifies, it makes no difference to me whether or not they are from another state. I leave the reciprocity process to the Legislature, as long as there is assurance that the training, standards, and background are either the same or greater than. It makes no difference as long as there is a process that will deliver the information to the local sheriff in a sufficiently advanced time period. That may be difficult to accomplish. I do not know how we can draw a differentiation if a citizen of this country has gone through background checks, proficiency and liability training, and is legally authorized to carry a firearm by Nevada or another state. That is my philosophy. Others might disagree, but I think it is difficult to argue with a common sense approach.
There will be argument from some of my fellow sheriffs and chiefs about control. I am a strict constitutionalist. I believe in the Second Amendment and government’s responsibility to control and ensure that criminals, the mentally disturbed, and individuals incapable of adhering to the requirements are prohibited. Other than that, I do not see a problem with the way S.B. 20 is written. Time elements and advance notification need to be strengthened in order to ensure that training modules and background checks are accomplished. The burden of that responsibility will not be placed on local sheriffs or the state, but on individuals who travel to and carry a firearm in Nevada.
Senator Wiener:
In reference to the comparison between qualifying in Nevada and another state, the language on line 23, section 3, subsection 1 of S.B. 20, says, “substantially similar,“ whereas in your testimony, I heard: “same or greater than.”
Mr. Kirkland:
That would be my recommendation. It is something with which my fellow sheriffs and law enforcement professionals will be concerned. Quite frankly, some of them probably do not agree with the current law. I do not believe they will agree to anything less than current state law.
Senator James:
I had the same question regarding “substantially similar.” We appreciate your testimony on the two bills.
Mr. Kirkland:
I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Senator.
Senator James:
Depending on the testimony and will of the committee, if there are further hearings or a subcommittee, we would welcome your assistance.
Mr. Kirkland:
I would be pleased to be part of that. Thank you, Sir.
Senator James:
Thank you very much.
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2:
I would like to provide a prelude to S.B. 20, which has been controversial. I offer an amendment (Exhibit C). I know every member of the committee has been inundated with e-mail, particularly from people outside the state in regard to reciprocity. I would like to note that Nevada accommodates other states in areas such as vehicle licensure, marriage licenses, and higher education in the western states. It should not be any different for carrying concealed weapons (CCWs). Some e-mails state that individuals have gone to great lengths to obtain background checks and have been permitted to carry certain firearms. They travel to Nevada for various purposes, including recreation, business, and/or family matters. These individuals wish to be able to carry their concealed weapons.
The amendment to S.B. 20 has been streamlined and the provisions concerning multiple weapons removed and transferred to S.B. 172, and the reciprocal portion of the CCWs has been placed in S.B. 20.
I will go through the [proposed] amendment to S.B. 20 (Exhibit C). In regard to section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a), “substantially similar to,“ Senator Wiener remarked that Mr. Kirkland used the language “either equal to or greater than.” We have no qualms about changing section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of S.B. 20, to: “either equal to or greater than.”
The words “equal to or greater than” will be added in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (b), to “Prepare a list that includes each state whose requirements are equal to or greater than.“
In section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (c): “Provide a copy of the list prepared pursuant to paragraph (b) to each law enforcement agency in this state.”
Then in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (d): “Make the list prepared pursuant to paragraph (b) available to the general public.”
In section 1, subsection 2 of S.B. 20, “The Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association . . . perform the duties set forth in [this] section.”
In section 1, subsection 3 of S.B. 20, persons who come into the state will be required to report to the sheriff’s agency concerning their concealed weapon.
The time line has been a question. In section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (a) of [the proposed amendment to] S.B. 20, there has been controversy whether the language should state less than 72 hours, or greater than 72 hours. We are willing to work with the committee. Of course, paragraph (b) states they should be provided a sticker from the sheriff’s association.
Those are the only significant changes in the bill. We have streamlined it and made it easier. The fee was removed; therefore, a two-thirds vote will no longer be required. The bill will allow each county to handle the situation at its own discretion.
Senator James:
Why would we take out the fee?
Senator Washington:
There was a fee for the sticker, which was insignificant; therefore, it did not make sense to leave it in.
Senator James:
Does the amendment replace the entire bill?
Senator Washington:
Yes, the amendment replaces the bill.
Senator James:
The fee would be paid to the sheriff; therefore, the money would be with the sheriff. There are administrative costs associated with the sheriff handling the procedures. The sheriff would need administrative resources dedicated to implementing this law.
Senator Washington:
They currently do that.
Senator James:
Not for people from out of state.
Senator Washington:
My understanding is the cost would be about the same anyway. I believe law enforcement would go through a list forwarded to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History (central repository) to ensure the person has gone through the appropriate necessary background checks and is certified for the weapon they are carrying.
Senator Care:
If the list is published by July 1 of each year, someone from out-of-state who wants to carry a concealed weapon into Nevada has to make sure the state for which the permit is issued is on the list. That is the first step. Correct?
Senator Washington:
That is correct.
Senator Care:
That is an affirmative duty on the person. It is not word of mouth.
Senator Washington:
He has to physically go in. That is correct.
Senator Care:
Could the list be amended? I do not know how often the list would change. Could a change be made 6 months after the list is published, if a person wanted to make a change? If a list is issued on July 1, is it finalized until the next July 1?
Senator Washington:
It is not indicated in the amendment or the original S.B. 20 whether or not the list can be updated or downgraded. I see your point that it would be necessary to allow the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association to at least amend the list more than once a year. There may be states, currently without a CCW, that may come on-line and need to be reviewed. We need to adjust the amendment to that purpose.
Senator Care:
We sat on the Senate Committee on Transportation last session and discussed the regulation of buses. The focus was on Clark County where, if a bus company wanted to avoid state regulation, they could drive to Boulder Dam, cross into Arizona, and come right back. That was interstate and the same approach applies here. In reference to the 72-hour provision regarding a person present in the state for a period of less than 72 hours, but wanting to stay 2 weeks, there would be nothing to prohibit him/her, on the seventy-first hour, driving to Boulder Dam, crossing into Arizona, and coming right back. Do you see my point? I do not know whether or not you want to address that.
Senator Washington:
You bring up an interesting scenario, Senator Care. You have to remember, based on the testimony from Mr. Kirkland, most of the people who come into the state with CCWs are usually law-abiding citizens. It is the criminal element with whom we are concerned. There has been some question regarding the 72‑hour time period as to whether it should be expanded or made shorter. I have no qualms one way or the other. I think the intent of the bill is basically to allow citizens from other states to continue to carry firearms in Nevada.
Another interesting aspect is the fact that Nevada does not have a reciprocal measure in its CCWs; therefore, states that have CCWs do not honor Nevada citizens when they carry in another state. Reciprocity works both ways. A person could have a CCW in Nevada, travel to Arizona, and because Nevada does not have reciprocity with Arizona, that state will not honor the Nevada CCW.
Senator Care:
It is the same with attorneys.
Senator Washington:
I know this issue has been controversial. It made it out of committee to the Senate Floor last session and, unfortunately, met its demise in the Assembly. We are hoping it has been cleaned up enough to present something factual and not based upon emotion, hearsay, or ignorance. It has been proven that people who carry weapons are responsible, take the Second Amendment seriously, and contribute, not only to Nevada, but the country as a whole.
Senator Porter:
Was the bill passed last session similar to the original S.B. 20, or is it similar to the amended version?
Senator Washington:
The bill passed last session was written exactly the same as S.B. 20.
Senator Porter:
As drafted?
Senator Washington:
It went to a subcommittee and the bill that came out of the subcommittee, which was passed in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, was exactly the same as S.B. 20, not the amendment.
Senator Wiener:
My question refers to the revised version of S.B. 172, based upon Mr. Kirkland’s testimony in regard to my concern about the qualification with each firearm meeting the standards in view of the future. Are you excluding or deleting from the amended version the language that would require additional firearm qualification and identification of make, model, and so forth? I am concerned that S.B. 20 requires no specific firearm expertise. Would you address that issue?
Senator Washington:
I think your concern will be answered in section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment to S.B. 20, if we change the language from “substantially similar” to “equal to or greater than.” Therefore, if a person wants to carry multiple weapons, the CCW laws of their state of origin should be equal to or greater than Nevada’s current statutes.
Senator Wiener:
Mr. Wilkinson, would this language address my concern regarding “equal to or great than” for each weapon?
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I think it would depend upon the specific standard the Legislature would adopt as to when reciprocity would apply. Is your question “Would reciprocity not apply if another state did not have the same requirement of approval of each specific firearm?”
Senator Wiener:
My concern is that the standard in Nevada would be distinctively different than other states in regard to reciprocity.
Mr. Wilkinson:
If we adopted that same requirement in our law . . .
Senator Wiener:
Would the “equal to or greater than” standard affect the reciprocity issue?
Mr. Wilkinson:
That is true.
Senator Wiener:
Thank you.
Senator Care:
Has the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, or perhaps another association, done a study, or formed an opinion regarding whether or not other states have less stringent, substantially similar, or tougher requirements?
Following up with Senator Wiener, there could be states that only peruse the background of the character of the permit holder when issuing a permit, but Nevada also looks at each specific weapon. We could end up with a blank, broad law that focuses on character, versus a state where the focus is on character and a particular weapon.
Senator Washington:
I am not well versed with that issue, but there are those in the audience who could respond to it. I assume the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, as they go through the requirements to check issuance of CCWs, would probably make reference to ensure it is “equal to or greater than” for not only one, but multiple weapons.
Senator James:
Thank you, Senator Washington.
John Hoames, Concerned Citizen:
I am here representing my wife and myself. We both have CCWs, which were recommended by Sid Smith, Sheriff of Lyon County, due to the nature of our business. I will make two comments. One, Senator McGinness asked how many people need more than two weapons in reference to S.B. 172. When my wife and I went through training, we qualified with four weapons. Under the rules we had to pick two to put on the license. My wife picked two lighter weapons due to her size, and I chose two heavier weapons. When the weapons are in our vehicle there are occasions when we would like to feel comfortable with either weapon within the requirements of the law. I am not sure what would happen in an emergency if a person used a weapon that was not on the license. It seems strange that the permit is limited to two weapons. We would feel more comfortable if we could have interchange between the two licenses with four weapons.
Senator McGinness:
My question was more curiosity regarding the percentage of people that want more than two weapons. I understand your desire to have more than two weapons on the permit.
Mr. Hoames:
Speaking to S.B. 20 and the reciprocity issue, I find it scary that when a person has accomplished 16 weeks of training, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) check, and obtained a license, should he/she leave a weapon in his/her truck and drive a few miles west across the state line and be caught with the weapon, he/she is a felon. That is scary! This bill does not speak to that; however, it does take a first step toward reciprocity with states that have similar conditions to Nevada. It is sort of an analogy to changing the rules for betting on ball games. There was a rule whereby the citizens of Nevada could not bet on University of Nevada ball games, but could bet on other college games. Nationally, Nevada looked silly having that rule and it was changed. If we are ever to get to the ultimate goal of national reciprocity with CCWs, we must stick our neck out and try to recognize the states currently similar to us. Therefore, someday Nevadans will not have a situation in which a law-abiding citizen will cross the state line into California and become a felon. This is the first step in that direction. I seriously request you give this careful consideration. Thank you.
Senator James:
I would be interested to know what other states are considering this type of legislation, and whether or not Nevada’s passage of these bills would trigger any kind of action. If other states have reciprocity in their laws, maybe we should put it in ours. The notion that a permit would come up for review at such time as another state would give reciprocity to Nevada. That would address your concern, Mr. Hoames. This is not going to change it, but may help lay the predicate because Nevada would be recognizing other states.
Mr. Hoames:
Yes, sir.
Senator James:
Did you mention the nature of your business?
Mr. Hoames:
We manage rental property. At Christmas, our lives were threatened by a tenant who was high on drugs. Not long ago my wife went to check our property and found doors kicked in and the tenant a bloody pulp because his drug dealer beat him up. Those things happen and are the reason the sheriff recommended we carry weapons. I had a call one morning from the deputy sheriff asking if my wife was at such-and-such address. I said, “Yes.” He said, “I’m there. Is this guy a problem?” I said, “He can be. Why, is there a problem?” He said, “I don’t like what I see and I’m staying here. Is she packing?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Good.” We run into those kinds of situations occasionally. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life.
Senator James:
According to the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), the states that recognize the right to carry a concealed weapon are Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. Those are the states that currently give Nevada reciprocity.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
We are here today to support S.B. 20 and appreciate the opportunity to move the legislation forward. I would like to remind the committee about the standard in Article 1, section 11, of the Nevada Constitution, wherein every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, lawful hunting, recreational use, and other lawful purposes. We need to look to that standard any time we are dealing with gun issues.
I had an opportunity earlier this year, at a National Eagle Forum council meeting, to hear Professor John Lot of Chicago University who wrote a book. He started out in favor of strict gun laws; however, as he researched he began to realize that where there is proliferation among law-abiding citizens, the crime rate goes down. Using data from 3054 United States counties from 1977 to 1994, Professor Lot found for each year a concealed handgun law was in effect, murder declined 3 percent, and robberies and rape declined 2 percent.
I appreciate the fact that we are trying to develop a reciprocity law. I am concerned that it is more restrictive than we would prefer, but realize this is a first step. I would ask those who suggest we need such strong restrictions in terms of reciprocity, “Where is the evidence that restrictions have prevented crime rather than restricting law-abiding citizen from self defense?” I think we need to look at the hard evidence. When there are less restrictive “concealed-carry” laws crime goes down, and when there are more restrictions crime does not go down. Therefore, the less restrictions there are on law-abiding citizens to carry guns, the better it is for the protection and defense of those individual citizens.
I am a member of Gun Owners of America. The organization suggests that Nevada needs unilateral recognition, or slightly less good reciprocal recognition. This approach would have Nevada recognize the permits of other states without complicated agreements. Should this approach be adopted, permits issued by Nevada would be easily recognized in several states. We could have reciprocity with over 21 states that have concealed-carry laws if our restrictions were not so extreme. That is something to consider.
I do not have a concealed-carry permit and this was the first year I got a hunting license and went deer hunting. My son has a concealed-carry permit. With regard to S.B. 172, I feel it is an advantage to carry more than two weapons, and to have a choice as to the best weapon to carry at a particular time. I have only one gun; however, my son, who has been interested in guns his whole life, has numerous different weapons that he uses on various occasions for different purposes. The opportunity to have more than one weapon on his permit is an advantage for him. When a person goes out shooting for the day, he/she may take a shotgun, a rifle, and different guns for each purpose. It is an advantage to have a permit that allows you to have a heavy or light weapon, or a weapon for different applications with regard to what is being done.
We are not only in favor of S.B. 20, but also in favor of Senator Rawson’s bill, S.B. 172. We encourage the committee to find hard evidence indicating greater restrictions are safer than fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens. We have long been in favor of these bills and collected thousands of signatures several sessions ago. We brought them to the committee to support concealed-carry laws, which allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. There is great support among the populace.
Senator Wiener:
When we discuss concealed-carry, are we referring to weapons that are carried on the body? I assume we are not referring to shotguns or rifles.
Ms. Hansen:
Yes. It would be difficult to conceal a shotgun or rifle. Just as you would use those weapons for different purposes and have a different reason for using them, one may also have a reason for carrying a different handgun in a concealed manner. I apologize if I confused the committee.
Lynn Chapman, Lobbyist, Families for Freedom, Nevada Eagle Forum:
I would like to address S.B. 20 first. We are in favor of S.B. 20. Many visitors to our state have been attacked in hotel rooms, in elevators, and on the street. The numbers seem to be rising. I think it would be advantageous for visitors coming to Nevada to obtain a concealed-weapon carry permit to defend themselves. I think that is important. When Florida passed concealed-weapon carry laws, the citizens were safe but visitors were attacked in larger numbers. Criminals realized that visitors to the state were “easy pickings.” Therefore, I am in favor of S.B. 20.
My husband and I own land in two states besides Nevada. We would feel more comfortable being able to visit our land and legally carry two weapons. The Gun Owners of America indicate that law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals over 2.4 million times in a year, and 60 times more often to protect themselves. Of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are women defending themselves against sexual abuse. Of the 2.4 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves, 92 percent merely brandish the gun or fire a warning shot to scare off an attacker.
The police are not here to protect individuals. The courts have consistently ruled that law enforcement is only present for the public in general. In Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (1981), the courts, without exception, concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish public services it assumes a duty only to the public at large, not to individual members of the community.
The U.S. Department of Justice found in 1989 that 168,881 crimes of violence had not received a response by police within one hour. Currently, 50,000 police officers are on duty at one time to protect a population of more than 250 million Americans, or almost 1,700 citizens per officer.
It has been proven that concealed-carry laws help reduce crime. Criminals avoid armed citizens. The justice department conducted a number of studies, one of which indicated that three-fifths of felons polled agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.”
Christopher J. W. Oswald, Lobbyist, National Rifle Association of America:
I have run two reciprocity bills in other states this year. I am very familiar with the issue and can address specific concerns. I will first address S.B. 172. Allowing more than two guns on a permit is a way to help Nevada citizens with a CCW to comply with the law. In order to have a concealed-carry permit the firearm must be concealed. A firearm that would be carried during the winter while wearing a heavy jacket would be heavier than during the summer when wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Therefore, the option to carry a variety of different firearms would help individuals with CCW permits comply with the law and ensure the firearms are concealed when carried with a permit.
Moving on to S.B. 20, currently the position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) is to allow people from out-of-state to carry a concealed weapon in Nevada and enable folks within Nevada to carry in other states. Our position is that the right to self-defense neither begins nor ends at a state border. When crossing the state line into Utah, a law-abiding citizen does not suffer a character change and automatically become a bad guy. Without reciprocity, that is exactly what happens. When a law-abiding citizen in Nevada crosses a state line, he becomes an automatic criminal without a reciprocity statute, or without some sort of recognition. S.B. 20 is our effort to remedy the situation.
Eighty-five percent of violent crime is committed outside the home. Currently Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, and Michigan have an open-recognition system and recognize Nevada permits. If a person has a permit, no matter in which state it is issued, the permitted firearm may be carried in that state without having to jump through hoops to obtain a particular permit. Wyoming’s law was recently changed. I am the lobbyist for Wyoming.
Senator James:
Excuse me, Mr. Oswald. You said Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, and Michigan? Your home page is not accurate because it does not list Kentucky.
Mr. Oswald:
It was accurate at the time it was put together, but has not been updated.
Senator James:
Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, and Michigan have blanket-recognition laws.
Mr. Oswald:
Absolutely. A permit issued by another state is recognized in those states without checking with state police. The Nevada CCW permit is recognized as valid in those states.
Senator James:
The subcommittee, which Senator McGinness will chair, would be interested in having a copy of those statutes.
Mr. Oswald:
In addition, currently there are 26 states on the books that have some sort of recognition or reciprocity agreement. I will provide you information on this issue.
A quick anecdote: I spoke with the Wyoming Director of Criminal Investigation who handles concealed carry permits. I believe the state has issued CCW permits for the past 8 years. Wyoming currently has nearly 7000 CCW outstanding permits and recognized out-of-state permits until the law was changed this year. The director said, “Chris, tell the legislators in Nevada and South Dakota (who are contemplating the issue) that in the 8 years we have recognized out-of-state permits, I never heard a complaint from a highway patrolman or any other law enforcement.” Out of 7000 outstanding permits, less than two dozen have been revoked for any reason, and none for violent crime. Generally, revocations occur when someone carries a concealed weapon into a prohibitive place, for instance, a bar, the state capitol, or a judicial building. Violations mean an automatic revocation of the permit in another state.
I have recently compiled statistics from other states. Keep in mind that the people you heard from on your e-mail, as well as the individuals here to testify, are law-abiding citizens and want to do the right thing. They do not carry concealed weapons in other states. I am from out-of-state and do not carry a concealed weapon in Nevada because it is illegal and I do not want to be labeled a criminal.
I will address the amounts of revocations in regard to permit holders in other states: Virginia, less than one-tenth of 1 percent; Florida, two-tenths of 1 percent; Louisiana, two-tenths of 1 percent; Texas, four-tenths of 1 percent, South Carolina, three-tenths of 1 percent, Oklahoma, one-tenth of 1 percent; and Wyoming, less than two-tenths of 1 percent. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem. Criminals do not request permits. Senate Bill 20 will simply allow law-abiding citizens to comply with the law and make it easier to defend themselves. It has been proven in other states that the privilege and right will not be abused by law-abiding citizens.
Senator Washington:
Senator Wiener desires an amendment to the amended version of section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a), S.B. 20, changing “substantially similar” to “greater or equal to.” Is there a problem with that or do you see anything we could do different?
Mr. Oswald:
Currently Nevada has some of the strictest provisions and hoops to jump through in order to obtain a permit. It is exceedingly rare, although not unique, that to obtain a concealed carry permit you must qualify with a particular firearm and have it listed on the CCW permit. Of the 26 states that have some type of reciprocity — and 32 states have conceal-carry statutes — two-thirds have some sort of training requirement. Those states’ training requirements are typically similar to Nevada’s and include a class from a state police instructor or the NRA. The NRA classes throughout the country are similar and include basic pistol and personal-protection classes. A class taught in South Dakota or Idaho would have a similar curriculum to a class taught in Nevada. In that respect, qualifying with a particular firearm is exceedingly rare. In those classes a person is taught different types of firearms, such as revolvers or semi-automatic firearms. Therefore, even though an individual is not familiar with each particular firearm, he/she is taught the general workings of handguns, which are basically classified into revolvers and semi-automatics, and the person is familiarized with both operations. I hope that answers the question.
Senator Care:
My focus remains on what is done in other states. You mentioned four states — Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, and Indiana — where there is, in essence, an open-door policy. That begs the question. What kind of requirements do those states have to obtain permits? I do not dispute any discussion regarding Second Amendment, safety, and law-abiding citizens; however, the focus still remains on what standards will be adopted for reciprocity. Do we blindly assume the citizens of Nevada will be satisfied with the standards of a state issuing a permit?
Mr. Oswald:
Currently the standards in Idaho, Wyoming, and Michigan have a basic open-door policy that, in my estimation, is very lenient. However, most states that allow recognition in Idaho and Wyoming have more stringent requirements, but still open the door. I believe Wyoming requires a background check and a training course; however, Idaho does not require a training course. In my fuzzy memory and attempting to keep 50 states straight, I believe Idaho only requires a signature and a background check by the state police.
In the revised language of S.B. 20, the standard of “equal to or exceeding” would take care of that particular question. It would have to be the judgment of the issuing authority whether or not the standards for issuance in Alabama or Oklahoma meets or exceeds Nevada’s standards. If they do not, we will not recognize them in Nevada. In that sense, the Legislature and law enforcement are protecting themselves from other states. We would like to open the door to as many people as possible, but we are realists and understand this is a first step.
Senator McGinness:
It appears to me the language “substantially similar” would allow a little greater flexibility than “the same,” which would require comparison of the same standards. That issue must be addressed before deciding upon the language.
Mr. Oswald:
If the intention is to kill the bill, put in language that says the requirements must be same. Every state is different; however, general provisos and criteria for issuing permits fall along similar lines. The “equal to or exceeding” clause would fit more appropriately when observing states on a case-by-case basis. Suggested language might be, “Classes are substantially similar to or equal to what is taught in Nevada and the background check is essentially the same.” That language could be used as a guide for providing reciprocity in those states.
Senator Care:
I think it was the chairman who asked whether other states have legislation similar to what is proposed today. It is not difficult to foresee what might happen here. If the association makes a judgment and an applicant disagrees with the determination, what factors would be considered and what scale would be used to weigh them? Are any other states doing what is contemplated today?
Mr. Oswald:
Absolutely. I am pressing reciprocity bills in 2 states out of the 50, and I only handle 5 for the NRA. The NRA has made it a priority to establish reciprocity agreements for as many states as possible. In answer to your question, I envision a clause that would state, “The permit is reviewed every July 1, or as circumstances change.” The clause would reflect any changes. I envision Wyoming changing its reciprocity statute, as it did recently, to review the permit and subsequently revise it as changes occur. In general, reciprocity is not changed often, but it does happen. I can see a need to immediately reflect that in Nevada law. I think it would probably be a smart thing to do.
Utah, our neighbor to the east, has had reciprocity for quite awhile. The state is currently in the process of dropping the reciprocity statute in favor of an open door straight recognition policy. This is an idea that works. It has been implemented in 26 states and is growing throughout the nation.
I leave you with one impression today: law-abiding citizens are not the problem. They want to do the right thing and obey the law. Let us do our best to help them do it.
Senator Washington:
Would an open-door policy allow a person with a CCW in Nevada to go to Utah without any problems, and vice versa?
Mr. Oswald:
Absolutely. Currently, a person can carry a concealed weapon in Idaho with a Nevada CCW permit without being checked or obtaining a sticker from the sheriff or highway patrol. A Nevada permit is recognized as valid in Idaho. It would be similar should current pending legislation in Utah be passed.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Concerned Citizens:
We, too, are in support of S.B. 172 and S.B. 20. Clearly this is an important first step in the move toward reciprocity and recognition of the legal right of individuals who are law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for personal defense. I have a couple of questions and clarifications to be considered in subcommittee.
I ask the committee to determine whether other states would qualify for reciprocity in Nevada under the “equal or greater” standard. In addition, how many more states would qualify for reciprocity in Nevada if the “substantially similar” provision were to be used? I, too, would prefer straight recognition, but that seems unlikely to pass from this Legislature at this time. However, it would be helpful to consider the effect of using lesser standards.
The provision on page 2, lines 37 through 44, section 3, subsection 3, paragraph (c), of S.B. 20, says, “A person is not required to comply with the provisions of subsection 2 if the person: (a) Is present in this state for a period of less than 72 hours; or (b) Previously obtained a sticker and a printed copy of the provisions of this section . . . and has in his possession a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm that has the sticker affixed to the permit.” When an out-of-state visitor checks in with a sheriff in Nevada and obtains a sticker, would the person be covered anywhere in the state or would it be necessary to check in with each sheriff?
Senator James:
It is in the amendment. It appears that if a visitor is in Nevada 72 hours or less, they do not have to do anything; however, if they are in Nevada more than 72 hours, they must report to each county sheriff.
Ms. Lusk:
That is a concern. I request the committee to consider that once a sheriff in the state approves and provides a sticker to an individual, the person would legally be able to carry a concealed weapon within the entire state. Thank you.
Senator James:
It will be considered in subcommittee.
Richard Brengman, Concerned Citizen:
I support both S.B. 20 and S.B. 172. I have provided my written testimony (Exhibit D). I apologize for the errors on my notes on S.B. 20 because I was unable to read the line numbers for the bill on the website. They are printed extremely small for some reason.
What I am hearing is anyone from Vermont will never be able to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Nevada. Vermont has no testing and is the only state in the nation that actually fully adheres to the Second Amendment. If you are not a criminal, in the state of Vermont you may carry a concealed weapon. End of story. No permit required. My ultimate goal is to see Nevada the same as Vermont, anything less will disappoint me. I make it very clear from that perspective.
I am disappointed the language in these bills implies or requires defacto registration by requiring make, model, and number. One line of these bills seemed to imply that in Clark County, for example, serial numbers would be required in the future. I am not happy with that. I am very happy to see these bills, but I think they are over-complicated and over-thought.
The people who have concealed-carry permits are not causing problems. Criminals, by the very definition of criminal, will cause problems and commit crimes. I ask that we try to keep it simple and make reciprocity easily available. Beyond that I will let you go through my written comments. Thank you.
Paul A. Grace, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association:
Since my wife and I retired from California 6 years ago, I have lived on the Mount Rose Highway. I started out with guns when I was 8 years old, at which time I was given a 22-caliber single-shot rifle and a job of keeping the crows out of the garden. I took a course and earned a bachelor’s degree in physics, worked in semiconductor research, and went to night school in Massachusetts at a place called the “B School.” I have been interested in guns for many years. My wife retired as a deputy sheriff; therefore, I am very much involved in law enforcement.
Last spring I began working to establish “Project Exile” [expedited Federal prosecutive effort by the United States Attorney’s office] in Nevada. I started the previous November and the following March, Dick Gammick [Richard Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County] Kathryn E. Landreth [United States Attorney, Nevada District, Office of the Attorney General, United States Department of Justice] from Las Vegas, and I had a news conference which was not very well attended. They started a program similar to “Exile.” Although there was no push in the current administration, there will be more because our new Attorney General made gun law enforcement his number one priority in a written memo to Ms. Landreth a week-and-a-half ago. Therefore, things are going to change in that area.
I submitted some written comments (Exhibit E). I met with a lot of people, including Assemblyman Anderson last October. We went over a bill that was defeated because it did not come through his committee 2 years ago. My job as a new lobbyist for the Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association (NSRPA) is to attempt to reach a compromise bill that will have a chance of passing through both houses. I made a number of comments on the second page (Exhibit E) to Senator Washington in regard to little changes that would improve things.
I spoke with a lot of different people and arrived at the conclusion that [the language] “substantially similar” is too vague. I requested the bill be amended to “equal or exceed” to get rid of the vagueness. Law enforcement in Nevada made that point.
The second point I mentioned (on page 2 of Exhibit E) is the addition of “or intends to be present in the near future,” to open up the time frame if a person is planning a vacation to Nevada. Nevada is, as I said in my notes, a destination state very much like Florida. Perhaps giving people a 30-day advance to be able to fill out the necessary papers and get rid of a tight requirement would be better. Law enforcement down south would prefer 24 hours to 72 hours, and that gets to be really sticky. The argument being, of course, that a person is going to be here for a 3-day weekend and will never bother to register for anything if they have 72 hours.
On the other side, there are literally several thousand people who come to Nevada on a typical weekend who never inform anyone they are armed, particularly one group in which my wife and I are now members, recreational vehicle (RV) people. In my own personal experience, better than 90 percent of them are armed. I am serious, they really are. They carry shotguns, hand guns, all sorts of stuff. Many of these people travel all over the West and go through all different states, never have any permits, and rarely have any trouble. The other group, with which I am familiar due to my wife being a retired sheriff from California, are the several hundred weekend police officers who come to Nevada and carry their guns and gamble on professional courtesy taking them out of any problem, if they ever actually have one because they are armed. Facts are facts. They really do. I am not going to name officers, but I know personally at least two current sheriffs in California who told me exactly that information. All their guys do. They have never had any problems but are “extra free officers” on vacation in Nevada with their wives and children. Sometimes the bad guys they put away are also here, because they live in Nevada, or were shipped to Nevada from California with a one-way ticket. Here they are and they do not like the sheriff who has his kids with him. So they carry, and it is just a fact of life.
I note the fee has been removed; therefore, my comment of not exceeding $10 is moot at this point. Based on our (NSRPA’s) membership, there are a number of people, including firearms instructors, who do not like the word “firearm” to be generically used for a permit. They want each model specified. I received confirmation from Jim Nadeau [James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office] that several police officers, while learning to use the “Glock,” a popular handgun with police around the country, experienced accidental discharge accidents while becoming familiar with it. The Glock has a unique safety and trigger system. I do not know a single one of our (NSRPA) members who has had an accidental discharge with a Glock, but perhaps some police officers require further training before they carry live ammunition. We would like to see it done on an individual basis at this point, simply because there are far more than two categories of guns. There are several types of revolvers and semi-automatics. I disagree with the NRA on that point; however, at the moment, we think it would be the best idea. It also takes care of some of the concerns of the law enforcement community in Nevada.
The last comment I make (on page 2 of Exhibit E) is in reference to the missing word, “honorably,” in front of the word retire, [the omission of] which was a typo by the bill writer. Everybody has commented to me that it was an obvious mistake. You do not retire without being honorable, but get an honorable badge for a police officer. My wife is positive on this, too. She has a gorgeous plaque on the wall in our entryway and it certainly deters occasional people. We had a personal incident when a person who was high on drugs came to our front door and demanded a ride downtown. He got into the entryway, looked at the plaque, and froze. I was armed and detained him until the sheriff’s deputy came and gave him his ride downtown. He had two open warrants at the time and I hope he is still put away.
I was asked to add the word “just” in front of the word “cause” because legally “just cause” is proper wording. I do not know if that was a mistake or whatever.
In summary, I do not understand why I need a permit. My wife will qualify that I have only broken speed laws occasionally because she threatened to arrest me if I speed.
Vice Chairman Porter:
Excuse me, Mr. Grace, Senator Wiener has a question.
Senator Wiener:
We had a meeting in the office the other day to address your concerns. Senator Washington proposed an amendment to his bill, and I ask whether his intent is to remove the section regarding badges. Mr. Grace addressed that issue twice.
Senator Washington:
In answer to Senator Wiener’s question, it was probably an oversight on our part. We wish to include it in the amendment.
Senator Wiener:
Would the additions offered by Mr. Grace be recommended and included in the amendment?
Senator Washington:
Yes, that would be fine. I think it will go to subcommittee and be accomplished there.
Mr. Grace:
On Senator Rawson’s bill (S.B. 172), I would like to make a comment that I personally would like three firearms on my permit. There is room for four on the back that is physical space. The reason has been stated. I am proficient in far more than three firearms and cannot imagine why I would need anything beyond three, although people could possibly need it. I mentioned in my written comments (Exhibit E) that a gun, for instance, can be broken and at the shop, and that is the one you really wanted, but you cannot use it for whatever purpose. Or you may be going to a shooting competition somewhere and you would like to carry a concealed weapon because, quite frankly, there are a number of people around the United States frightened by open carry, which is legal in Nevada. I can walk around with two great big guns clearly hanging on my hips like a very dangerous looking person, and it is perfectly legal. It terrifies some individuals. Police officers often note the nervousness of private citizens when looking at exposed guns on their hips. I think concealed makes an awful lot of sense for an awful lot of reasons. We once had a problem with a weird person in eastern Washington in our RV and, again, we made him go away. Nobody had to get shot, there was no blood on the streets, it was just simply that he was terrified when he found out he was looking into the end of a gun. That big hole in the end gets awfully large when it is pointed at you. It is an inherent situation.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN) asked that the word “just” be put in the bill. It was not my idea but makes legal sense. In regard to guns being brought to Nevada on airplanes, it is unlawful to carry a concealed weapon on a plane without a federal permit. Robberies escalated in Florida and then the state passed a nonresident permit law that, I understand, took care of the problem. People coming in could become licensed and the robbery rate went down.
It is obvious the bad guys are the problem. Now that Ms. Landreth has a high priority, I will start my “Project Exile” efforts again, and you guys will be hearing from me more in that area. I am absolutely opposed to the wrong people carrying guns, but absolutely in favor of good guys carrying them.
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Mr. Grace. Are there any questions from the committee? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of S.B. 20 and/or S.B. 172?
Robert E. Smith, Lobbyist, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association:
I live in Senator Washington’s district in Sparks and have a couple of comments about S.B. 172. The provision opening up the number of guns on the permit was one of our ideas when we began the bill last session. Many of us have a large gun, and in hot weather, we have to carry a small one. As Mr. Grace said, if your gun is broken you have to borrow one. I travel, and when I fly to Las Vegas, I do not have to take a gun because I borrow one from someone there. I am an NRA instructor for rifles, pistols, and shotguns, and carry a concealed weapon for personal protection. I make sure I am proficient with many guns so I can be qualified with as many as possible. I ought to be able to put them on my permit so I can carry them.
Last session, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS) planned a repository where all guns would be listed and there would be no more listing on the permit. I am not sure whether it will fly this time, but I think that would be the way to handle the situation. Whatever guns a person qualifies for would be listed in the repository. If law enforcement wants to check on what type of gun a person is allowed to carry, the officer can get on the radio, call in, and check it out. I think this would be good thing.
When traveling out of state, law enforcement officers cannot carry a concealed weapon because there is no police reciprocity. It is done on a professional-courtesy basis. This bill (S.B. 172) would allow police officers to carry any concealed weapon they choose when traveling out of Nevada.
Some police organizations are opposing S.B. 20. Law enforcement should realize this bill is personally good for them because, when they go out of state, they would be able to legally carry a concealed weapon. A police officer’s family is vulnerable. There are many people with whom an officer has come in contact during his/her career that hold grudges for being put away in the “big house.” It would make police officers and their families safer if we liberalize concealed-carry laws and obtain reciprocity or recognition in other states. Perhaps law enforcement has not thought about that. A reciprocity bill or some type of recognition of other states’ permits would be a positive for the state of Nevada. Many tourists have been victimized. Criminals know they can go to a hotel, hang out in a hallway, and jump a person when he/she gets off the elevator. It happens quite a lot. I would like to request your positive approval of S.B. 20.
Gina Crown, President, Nevada Investigative and Protective Services (nipsa):
I have four comments. Generally speaking, NIPSA supports S.B. 20 and S.B. 172 with certain clarifications. I would like to clarify that these bills apply to both private citizens, professional industries of investigations, and security and executive protection, which comprises much of NIPSA. That is to say, the bills would apply to everyone who carries a concealed weapons permit.
We support continuing high standards on training for firearm safety courses and competency qualifications.
We would also like to know that reciprocity is truly reciprocal. Although I did not have much time to research this issue, I understand, for example, that Arizona might have equal or higher standards, but would not recognize CCWs from Nevada because they are not issued at the state level, but rather at the sheriff’s level. Therefore, regardless of equal standards, they still would not reciprocate.
While our industry feels it would be advantageous to have reciprocity for us, we would like to know it will, in fact, happen in both directions, particularly in the area of executive protection. Many people trained with several different weapons absolutely support removal of the limit on the number of firearms on a permit.
Senator James:
Is there anyone else in favor of passage of these two measures? If not, we will turn to those who have signed in opposition.
James F. Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association:
I currently work in the Detective Division for Sheriff Dennis Balaam in Washoe County. We are in an interesting dilemma in reference to concealed weapons permits. Both Lieutenant [Stan] Olsen, Government Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, and myself were deeply involved in the 1995 change to the CCW law. We were very supportive and worked closely with all the people you have heard speak in reference to that.
There is a presumption that sheriffs in Nevada are opposed to reciprocity. I would like to make clear, for the record, that our concern is lack of standards in Nevada in regard to carrying a concealed weapon.
As an aside, I would like to mention that Mr. Grace and I had a conversation that, at the time, he clearly indicated was off the record. In regard to comparing accidental discharges, we should compare the number of citizen fatalities and the incidences that happen with accidental discharges. I will keep the rest of our conversation off the record, because that was my agreement. Mr. Grace and I talked about a variety of things and I wanted to ensure there was no misunderstanding regarding how weapons could accidentally discharge. The point is this: weapons react and function in different ways that can cause injuries. It is important to ensure that a person who is qualified with a weapon is qualified for the weapon he/she is carrying. This does not mean if a person qualifies with a semi-automatic he/she should automatically be licensed or have a permit for every automatic. Different automatics do not act the same, as well as some revolvers, and so forth. However, let us return to the issue at hand.
In reference to S.B. 172, the Nevada central repository is in the process of building a module that would allow the expansion and listing of the number of weapons that can be contained on a CCW permit. When the law was originally written in 1995, it was understood that because of the permitting process on the back of the permit, weapons would be listed on the back of the permit. That is why the permit ended up with two weapons as a matter of law. I have been informed by employees who issue permits that there is now room for four weapons to be listed on the back of permits. When the central repository module comes on line, the number of weapons can be endless, and accommodate whatever number the repository database can maintain. The database will be accessed exactly as driver’s license information is currently accessed, because the permit will come under the Nevada criminal justice information system. Therefore, when an officer encounters an individual on the street with a concealed weapon, the officer will be able to run the weapon and/or the person through the database to ascertain whether or not there is a permit to carry that weapon.
Dennis DeBacco [Program Manager, Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV/PS)], indicates the new module could possibly be on-line within 1 year if there is appropriate funding from the DMV/PS. I am sure Director Kirkland could deal with the funding issue. His testimony indicated he supports those kinds of things.
Therefore, we have absolutely no issue with S.B. 172 and deem it a viable possibility.
In regard to S.B. 20, I would like to make it clear that we believe there are insufficient protectives from unlawful possession or validation of verification of a permit. If a law enforcement officer stops a person from another state at 2 a.m., we would like to have the ability to validate and verify that the concealed weapon the person presents to us is a valid concealed weapon. There are a variety of ways to implement this and we are willing to work with the subcommittee to see whether we can come to some type of agreement. Again, from the sheriffs and chiefs’ position, the reciprocity issue is a matter of validation and verification, and we are not adamantly opposed to reciprocity in and of itself.
Senator Care:
A few years ago Congress enacted an amendment whereby, under federal law, if you are convicted for a crime of domestic violence, even if it is a misdemeanor, you are no longer permitted to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. You may argue that is unfair because a firearm may, or may not, be involved in a crime of domestic violence. Do other states issue permits that are, for example, good for 1 year, 6 years, and so forth? Is a permit for life? My concern is the case of a person from out of state who has a valid permit and is a law-abiding citizen and then, at a later time, is convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence. Under federal law, that person would not be entitled to possess a firearm. How would you know that?
Captain Nadeau:
Those are some of the issues with which we are concerned in regard to verification of the CCW. Nevada law requires sheriffs to suspend permits and do a variety of things based on charges, convictions, and those kinds of things. Without some type of automated system or ability to verify the information in the middle of night, we would not know whether the permit was issued 4 years ago and subsequently suspended by the agency that issued it, but never formally pulled. In other words, the individual was suspended and notified, but still had the permit in his/her possession. Unless we had some type of automated means to check it, we would not know. At 2 a.m., there are police available; however, the records are not always available. Those are our concerns.
In regard to domestic violence, that was retroactive, so it would not even be prospective convictions.
Senator Titus:
We have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence about tourists who become victims of crime when they come to Nevada. Do you have any statistics about how often it really occurs, what the numbers are, and how big a problem it is in Nevada?
Captain Nadeau:
I do not have comparable data as to whether the victims are out-of-state or in state. We can try to put some numbers together on it, but I do not have it readily available.
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association:
We have a tourist crime section that deals strictly with such. I do not have the numbers but I will get them for you. I can tell you this, however, in the vast majority of crimes against tourists, such as burglaries in hotel rooms, the tourist is not present when the crime occurs.
Senator Titus:
You hear occasionally about a dramatic incident with a tourist, which makes the news. However, I wonder how many times a tourist is put in danger who would protect himself if he were carrying a concealed weapon [permitted] from some other state.
Captain Nadeau:
I will obtain those statistics for you.
Senator Washington:
Lieutenant Olsen and Captain Nadeau, I know we already had an opportunity to speak about the bills prior to the hearing. Captain Nadeau, I want to go back to something you said regarding verification and certification of CCWs from other states. In section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (a) of the amendment to S.B. 20, it states, “is present in this state for a period of less than 72 hours.“ Is there anything we could do to enhance or make that provision more amenable to the sheriffs and police association?
Captain Nadeau:
Yes, we discussed that. There is a Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association meeting today at which we wanted to discuss the amendment to S.B. 20, as well as other issues. There may be some leeway insofar as to how it is dealt with and how soon people might report.
In reference to S.B. 172, I agree with earlier testimony in regard to the 72-hour provision. Senator Care brought up a good point. A person has been in town 72 hours, drives around Lake Tahoe, which takes him/her outside the state; therefore, he/she can return to Nevada and have another 72 hours before being required to report. It is a continual problem with reference to people who register cars or obtain driver’s licenses. The issue is of obvious concern and I would be willing to work on the language in order to come to an agreement.
Senator Washington:
It seems to me, it is a mechanical function whether we use technology or other means to verify the certification of CCWs. I do not know how to address the problem, but I think we need to figure out some way to put verification of the certification of CCWs in place. Citizens from other states who come to Nevada, or vice versa, have CCW permits. If they come into the state and are pulled over, they become a felon because Nevada has not reciprocated.
Captain Nadeau:
I think we can come to some agreement on that. There has been a lot of discussion regarding concealed weapons. Line 26, section 5, subsection 2 of S.B. 20 states, ”’Concealed firearm’ means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.” Therefore, we are not talking about shotguns or rifles that are carried. We are not talking about a weapon in the glove compartment, under the seat, next to the person on the seat, or in the side-door caddy. The weapon is concealed on a person where it is not discernable. In reference to RVs, people are not violating the law if they drive down the road with a gun in their vehicle. That is not what the law says. We must keep in perspective that we are talking about concealing a weapon on a person’s body. Therefore, if a person is driving down the road with a gun on his/her hip, it is not an issue or a problem. Nevada law is much more liberal when compared to many states in the sense that the definition is more relaxed.
Senator Wiener:
Captain Nadeau, I heard you talk about being qualified for each weapon because each weapon is different. For the record, I would like to know whether or not you support changing the language in S.B. 172 from “a firearm” to “each firearm.”
Captain Nadeau:
We are not opposed to the numbers. It is not a numbers game to us.
Senator Wiener:
We have had several references to tourist traffic and allowing tourists to protect themselves. Senator Titus requested further information. I am curious about a dilemma that has not been addressed, and that is the substantial number of tourists. There is an additional concern regarding people who come to Nevada by air.
Captain Nadeau:
If they are traveling by air carrying a concealed weapon, they have much larger problems to deal with than Nevada laws. I think that is much more serious.
Lieutenant Olson:
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will address S.B. 20 and Detective Weeks will address S.B. 172.
With regard to S.B. 20, there has been testimony here today that is important for S.B. 32, on telecommunication for preliminary examinations about tourist victims of crimes.
SENATE BILL 32: Allows witness to testify at preliminary examination or before grand jury through use of audiovisual technology under certain circumstances. (BDR 14-637)
Lieutenant Olson:
I need to clarify a point. Mr. Grace mentioned that southern Nevada law enforcement wishes certain time frames in regard to reciprocity. I can tell you, as a representative of Clark County Sheriff Jerry Keller and all southern Nevada law enforcement, Mr. Grace never talked to me except to introduce himself this morning. He has not talked to Sheriff Keller. I do not know where he got his information, but it is neither true nor accurate. It is not true that METRO [Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department] is in opposition to S.B. 20 for the reasons he stated. We are in opposition for a number of reasons, including the reasons stated by my colleague, Captain Nadeau.
We are especially in opposition to the amendment to S.B. 20 because it would require a fiscal note. In order to check the background on a CCW from out of state, it must be run through the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, the Interstate Identification Index (III), or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and a fee will be charged by the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History. The amendment would cause a fiscal note and that is unacceptable.
Additionally, a fiscal note would be required due to the operational needs of the organization, which is a unit that deals with CCWs, and such, and investigation of crimes. The registration part of the unit shuts down at 5 p.m. If a tourist arrives in town after that time he/she would be unable to register until the next day, at which time he/she would be in violation of the law.
I need to clarify one more point. The fact that a tourist may or may not walk into Nevada with a concealed weapon and does not have a permit does not make him/her a felon. In fact, the first offense is a misdemeanor, and the second is a gross misdemeanor, unless they commit another type of offense along with it.
I have great concern that the committee has been given some information that is not exactly accurate.
Additionally, we do not have a problem with the citizens of the state of Nevada who have legitimate CCW permits. We know what kind of citizens they are. They have gone through an extensive background check and training program and we know they are upright citizens. However, we do not know anything about people from out-of-state from the time they obtain their permit to the time they come to Nevada. We have some real issues with that.
Finally, Mr. Grace made a comment that S.B. 20 would be an advantage to law enforcement. You need to be aware that law enforcement is under the same restrictions as any other CCW permit holder. Some states have reciprocity with Nevada and some do not. The same is true of law enforcement. Some states allow law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons and some do not. We are under the same type of legal guidelines and still oppose S.B. 20.
Senator James:
For the subcommittee, would you research the states that have blanket reciprocity laws and check with your law-enforcement colleagues as to how they work and the manner in which those issues are handled.
Lieutenant Olson:
I will be glad to do that and obtain some of the information from Mr. Oswald.
Senator Care:
Do you know whether resorts have any sort of policy? If I walked into the Bellagio, for example, would there be a sign informing me I must surrender my concealed weapon?
Lieutenant Olson:
Based on a law we passed last session, the hotels have the option to post “no firearms allowed”; however, I am not aware of any hotels that have done so. According to a couple of security chiefs with whom I have spoken, it would place concern or fear into the minds of guests who are not carrying a firearm and do not understand legal CCW permit processes. Some hotels have opted not to post for that reason.
Senator McGinness:
If validation and the language “substantially similar” or “equal to or greater” can be resolved, would it change the position of the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association?
Lieutenant Olson:
We would have to see what type of system would be put in place. I can tell you quite honestly that I would have difficulty with it. I know other folks would also have difficulty with a national system that allowed for checking. I am not referring to a registration system, but rather a nationwide or federal system that allows for law enforcement to check it state by state. I do not think it would work without it.
Senator McGinness:
Prior to the subcommittee meeting, I would appreciate receiving information regarding the cost to various agencies. The subcommittee will need to know if there is to be a fiscal note. We will need to know the cost to run a check in the middle of the night to verify the permit.
Lieutenant Olson:
I will be glad to get that for you.
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
I would like to point out, with regard to hotels, the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) does not have any provisions specifying any prohibition on carrying firearms in hotels. The provisions only pertain specifically to public buildings.
Senator James:
We passed a bill that said a person could carry a concealed weapon into a public building unless the operator of the building posts a sign. Therefore, hotels may do whatever they wish.
Lieutenant Olson:
That is what I meant.
Senator James:
I think you are both right.
Toni M. Weeks, Detective, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association:
We are in support of S.B. 172. Prior to the current NRS, for several years METRO supported more than one firearm for CCW purposes, and issued up to two firearms. With the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History on-line and expanding, we will be allowed to issue more than four, if applicable. We are in support of that. We continue to support firearm safety and training, which is continued in the new bill draft.
Chairman James:
Thank you very much. The subcommittee will consider these firearm measures and any others that might be introduced in the near future. The subcommittee will be chaired by Senator McGinness, with members Senator Washington and Senator Care.
Senate Bill 20 and Senate Bill 172 are referred to the subcommittee for further consideration and action. The hearing is closed on S.B. 20 and S.B. 172.
The hearing is adjourned at 10:42 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Barbara Moss,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE: