MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

SENATE committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

March 16, 2001

 

 

The subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 10:00 a.m., on Friday, March 16, 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 Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Terry Care

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Carolyn Allfree, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

James F. Nadeau, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association

Christopher J. W. Oswald, National Rifle Association of America (NRA)

Elizabeth M. Pederson, League of Women Voters of Nevada

Richard Brengman, Concerned Citizen

Harold Lister, President, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association

Fred Hersey, Concerned Citizen

Neil Connolly, Concerned Citizen

Merritt K. Yochum, Independent American Party

Aaron Schumacher, Concerned Citizen

 

Chairman McGinness opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 172, stating there was no opposition to the bill, except for some concerns that the central repository for Nevada records of criminal history would not be able to effectively handle the increased volume of information this bill would create.

 

SENATE BILL 172:  Removes limitation on number of firearms for which permit to carry concealed firearm may be issued. (BDR 15-886)

 

Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said it was his understanding that the central repository will have capabilities online in about 1 year to handle the expanded number of firearm permits that would be issued as a result of S.B. 172.  He stated once the program is online law enforcement would be able to support the bill.

 

Chairman McGinness asked whether an effective date of July 2002 would allow sufficient time for the central repository to be ready to handle the task, and Lieutenant Olsen said he thought it would.

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Captain, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said the agencies he represents have no objection to S.B. 172, but the capability of tracking records would be important.  He said he thinks the central repository module currently being put together would provide the needed capability, and they would like it to be in place before the bill becomes effective.

 

Chairman McGinness said the bill does not seek to change any permitting methods, and he asked for a motion to recommend that S.B. 172 be amended with an effective date of July 1, 2002, and the wording on page 1, line 8, changed from “a firearm” to “each firearm.”  Senator Care suggested that wording on page 1, line 15, be changed also, and Chairman McGinness said it should be left to the bill drafters to determine if it is appropriate.

 

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMITTEE THAT S.B. 172 BE AMENDED TO ADD AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 1, 2002, AND TO CHANGE THE WORDING “A FIREARM,” TO “EACH FIREARM,” ON PAGE 1, LINES 8 AND 15, AND ANY OTHER PLACE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE.

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

* * * * *

 

Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on S.B. 172 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 20.

 

SENATE BILL 20:  Revises provisions governing weapons. (BDR 15-12)

 

Senator Washington said a tentative agreement between the sheriffs association, the metropolitan police, and the supporters of the S.B. 20 had been worked out, but there were still some obstacles to overcome.

 

Christopher J. W. Oswald, Lobbyist, National Rifle Association of America (NRA), explained that an amendment to S.B. 20 the NRA is offering would allow an out-of-state person to obtain a Nevada permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), in place of the reciprocity provided for in current law, and would leave in place all of the requirements of current law.  He said the NRA is offering this as a compromise, which he believed alleviated many of law enforcement’s concerns with S.B. 20 as drafted.  He added that section 6, subsection 1, ought to be amended by removing the wording, “in which he resides.”  In addition, the words, “or is a resident of another state,” should be added to section 6, subsection 2, paragraph (a), or subparagraph (a) should be deleted altogether.  Chairman McGinness said the bill drafters could work on specific language, as long as they knew in which direction to go.

 

Senator Care asked what the proposed language would do for the tourist who is here for fewer than 72 hours, compared with the tourist who will be here for more than 72 hours.  Mr. Oswald responded that a tourist wanting a permit in Nevada would have to go through the same process a Nevada resident does, and the permit would be valid for 5 years, just as a resident permit would be.  “So, in effect, for the casual one-time visitor . . . there will be no change, but for . . . somebody who comes here on a regular basis, it would be to their advantage to take the time to invest and to get this permit,” Chairman McGinness added.

 

Lieutenant Olsen said he wanted to clarify that the law enforcement agencies he represents are still opposed to the bill; they are also opposed to reciprocity; and they have some concerns with the proposed program that would allow someone to obtain a CCW permit in Nevada, then leave Nevada and get involved in something elsewhere that would cause them to lose their CCW permit.  He said,

“We would never know about it, the person wouldn’t turn in their CCW permit voluntarily.”  Lieutenant Olsen said he is concerned about the liability issues of the law enforcement agencies involved.

 

Captain Nadeau said representatives of the agencies he represents have discussed this issue with Mr. Oswald.  He said he and Lieutenant Olsen are not in a position to speak fully for all the sheriffs at this time, but they are willing to go back and talk to them and get their input.  He said he thinks some criteria need to be considered for addressing the liability issue and for providing for periodic criminal record review.  Mr. Oswald said the NRA understands law enforcement’s concerns with liability and not having the resources to check out-of-state people.  Senator Washington interrupted, noting if the same requirements were adopted for nonresidents as for residents, the liability for law enforcement would be covered.  Mr. Oswald added that under section 6, subsection 2, paragraph (c), a person might be prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to the Nevada Revised Statutes.  “So, there may be a little cover there for law enforcement,” he said, and added he would be willing to discuss this issue further with law enforcement.  Regarding Lieutenant Olsen’s scenario, Mr. Oswald contended that if a person has crime on his mind, it will not make any difference whether he possesses a permit or not.

 

Captain Nadeau stressed law enforcement is still in opposition to section 8, subsections 1 and 2, of S.B. 20.  He said there should not be a statutory mandate to the sheriff that a retirement badge be issued to anyone.  Mr. Oswald said he would be willing to negotiate that out.

 

Elizabeth M. Pederson, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, stated the league is opposed to S.B. 20 for several reasons.  Nevada has almost double the national average of gun deaths per capita, she said.  She said the bill contains a big loophole in an area that is already difficult to regulate, specifically, the provision in section 3, subsection 3, relieving a person in the state for fewer than 72 hours of the requirement to comply with the provisions of subsection 2.  Chairman McGinness explained that portion would be removed under the new proposal.  Doing so, Ms. Pederson said, would alleviate her major concern, but she is still opposed to the bill because she objects to more guns coming into Nevada.  Ms. Pederson provided a written statement to the subcommittee (Exhibit C).

 

Richard Brengman, concerned citizen, spoke from written remarks (Exhibit D), saying he found the 72-hour limit unreasonably brief.  For example, a person intending to become a full-time resident is not required to register his car or change his driver’s license for 30 days.  Chairman McGinness interrupted, asking Mr. Brengman if he understood the amendment offered as a compromise, and Mr. Brengman replied he thinks it is “giving away too much.”  He asked the subcommittee to read his comments and take them into consideration “before giving away so much of the progress that we have worked so hard in the last couple of years to get.”  He pointed out that a person must be a resident in Nevada for 90 days before he or she may legally buy a firearm, and cannot get a hunting license for 6 months.

 

Harold Lister, President, Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, opposed S.B. 20 and spoke in favor of reciprocity for all tourists who are visiting Nevada from other states, and for Nevadans visiting other states, to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves.  He said, “The Nevada ‘make-model-and-caliber’ requirement makes most, if not all, other states’ permits fail the ‘equals-or-exceeds’ requirement.”  Different states’ driver’s license requirements vary greatly, but driver’s licenses are freely accepted, and many times more persons are injured or killed by motor vehicles than by firearms carried by licensed persons, he asserted.  “To alleviate law enforcement [concerns] . . . that other states’ training and background checks will not be adequate, I propose that Nevada implement a system for issuing permits to nonresidents who are willing to meet with the Nevada requirements of training and background checks.  This system will allow law enforcement . . . to address all of the problems they have enumerated . . . and still assure that visitors have the ability to protect themselves and their families,” he said.  Mr. Lister provided a written statement to the subcommittee (Exhibit E).

 

Fred Hersey, concerned citizen, noted he was a firearms safety instructor, and suggested that visitors with concealed carry permits are “less problematic” than visitors who carry guns but have no permits.  “I propose that law enforcement resources that might be used to track valid permittees and affix stickers to permits, et cetera, could be better used to address the potential problems with visitors with guns but no permits,” he said.

 

Neil Connolly, concerned citizen, said he was a concealed firearms permit instructor and former deputy sheriff from Riverside County, California, and addressed Ms. Pederson’s statement.  He said, “According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report . . . the concealed weapons permit program does reduce crime, and we have a tourist market that we need to defend.”  He recalled that in 1998 German tourists in Florida “were being murdered wholesale . . . and out‑of-state tourists as well . . . were being killed because the criminals knew they did not have a concealed weapons permit or even a right to own a gun in this nation.  We have got to protect our tourist market,” he said.

 

Merritt K. Yochum, Lobbyist, representing the Independent American Party, said he felt that a concealed weapon permit was a step in the right direction; however, the licensing of firearms for any reason “is repugnant to the Second Amendment to the [United States] Constitution.”

 

Aaron Schumacher, concerned citizen, said he opposed any legislation restricting a citizen from carrying a concealed weapon.  He said, “The [United States] Constitution [says] . . . we have an inalienable right to these firearms and that it shall not be infringed [upon] at any time.  And, ‘shall not’ means that you will not ever pass a law that would infringe on this right . . . We should be able to carry our guns at anytime, anywhere, without having to register them, which is one step closest [sic] to having our guns confiscated.”

 

Senator Washington said he thinks the provisions offered as a compromise should be applied to S.B. 20.  Referring to law enforcement’s concerns regarding Section 8, subsections 1 and 2, he said the provision was requested by a former law enforcement officer who had requested the badge.  Senator Washington said he did not see any problem with leaving the language in.

 

Senator Care said he agrees with Captain Nadeau’s argument regarding the issuance of a badge.  He stressed his vote for the amendment today would be a provisional vote, and he wants to see the amendment in writing.  He said, “I am not persuaded by the argument that people are not going to come here if we do not do something about reciprocity . . . All I am looking for here is legislation that is ultimately fair and which law enforcement is ultimately going to have to live with . . . I am going to be persuaded, very much so, when the full committee meets, as to what law enforcement has to say.”

 

SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMITTEE THAT ALL THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED IN S.B. 20, EXCEPT FOR THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 8, BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW AMENDMENT ALLOWING OUT-OF-STATE PERMITTING THAT MEETS THE SAME STANDARDS AND CRITERIA AS IN-STATE PERMITTING.

 

CHAIRMAN MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

* * * * *

 

Chairman McGinness closed the hearing on S.B. 20.  There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Carolyn Allfree,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman

 

 

DATE: