MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session March 28, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: John W. Riggs, Sr., Concerned Citizen Daniel Hansen, Nevada Chairman, Independent Americans Gary Farnsworth, Citizen Jim Mikkelson, Citizen Francis Gillings, Citizen, Americans for a Return to Constitution Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum Joel Backer, Citizen Larry Dilley, Citizen Juanita Cox, Chairman, People to Protect America Jan Brown, Citizen, Churchill County David Cusick, Citizen, Reno M.K. Yokum, Member, Independent Americans Brent Buscay, Citizen, Carson City Robert Saligman, Citizen, Gardnerville Daniel Joseph, Lobbyist, Gun Owners of America Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Ned Eyre, Citizen Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) Dennis DeBacco, Criminal History Repository Before moving to the agendized item, the chairman brought out two bill draft requests (BDRs). BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-328: Provide that breast feeding of baby does not violate prohibitions against obscenity, indecent exposure or any other criminal activity. This bill draft was requested by Senator James, he called for a motion to introduce the BDR to the committee. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-328. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER, TITUS, AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-98: Revise provisions governing designation of rooms where smoking of tobacco is allowed. The next BDR comes to the committee from the Nevadans for Nonsmokers, through Senator O'Connell. The chairman called for a motion for committee introduction. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-98. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER, TITUS, AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION (S.C.R.) 10: Urges Supreme Court of Nevada to examine judicial accountability. Next, the senator noted the Assembly passed S.C.R. 10 with amendments. The amendments were distributed to the committee members and Senator James explained them as inserting some provisions regarding open meetings and open access. There were two recitals added, along with the urging of the Legislature for the supreme court to enhance public access to the judicial system, generally, he said. The chairman stated he "did not personally see any problem with any of the Assembly amendments" and he called for a motion that the Senate concurs in the amendments as proposed. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO CONCUR IN THE AMENDMENTS TO S.C.R. 10. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATE BILL (S.B.) 299: Requires department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to certain persons. At this point the hearing on S.B. 299 was opened by the chairman, who noted the bill was introduced by Senator Lawrence Jacobsen. There were numerous persons wishing to testify on the bill, he said, the first being John W. Riggs, Sr., Concerned Citizen. Mr. Riggs, Senator James said, is the person who originally requested the reintroduction of the measure. Further, he reminded the audience if they wish to speak before the committee, they must sign in, remain in the hearing room in order to listen to other speakers so as not to repeat points, and to keep their remarks brief. Mr. Riggs testified he is the person who requested Senator Jacobsen reintroduce the bill during the present session. He stated a similar bill had been introduced during the Sixty-seventh Session of the Legislature, "but had gone nowhere." He admitted there were faults with the previous bill, but it has been rewritten and improved. He declared the people of the State of Nevada "want this bill to be passed because they want to make it easier for them to get a carry permit that will be good statewide." Currently, with 17 counties issuing their own permit, it is onerous to try to legally carry a concealed weapon while traveling throughout the state, Mr. Riggs testified. There have been other states who have approved a statewide permit, with Utah being the most recent. Mr. Riggs showed the committee a petition with 3500 signature in support of the bill. This is an indication of the portion of people who want this law, he continued. Recently it has even been suggested by other states that they would honor a permit issued in a person's home state, he reported, either by honoring the home state permit, outright, or by issuing a temporary permit for the duration of the visit to their state. He reiterated the people support this measure. Mr. Riggs assured the committee the bill contains safeguards which will assure a safe and reliable issuance policy and system. He presented the committee with a packet of various articles (Exhibit C), which tell of some other state's experiences in this area. Referring to the crowded hearing room, Mr. Riggs stated there is strong public support for the measure. He offered to answer questions. Senator James asked which other states have passed such measures. Mr. Riggs listed Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona, Tennessee, and California (with a system where the sheriff issues a permit which is honored throughout the state, unless the county has a preexisting prohibition). Mr. Riggs addressed the issue of an increase in the crime rate following passage of such measures. He stated "it was not really the crime rate per se..., but the fact that there are more criminals, creating more crime." He added, "the police cannot protect us.... The courts have decreed that they can protect society as a whole, but not you or me as an individual." Mr. Riggs reminded the committee the police are not usually on the scene at the moment the crime occurs, but arrive only after the crime has been committed and they have been called. Mr. Riggs suggested this is only the first step in a long, expensive process. He opined a felon will tell the committee "they would much rather go up against a police officer than an armed citizen, because, if he deals with an armed citizen, he stands a chance of being shot or killed." Another point made by the witness was in regard to women who, he said, stand a much greater chance of being violently attacked than they used to be. This bill, the witness testified, would provide "law abiding" citizens with the means to protect themselves and feel secure. If they are law abiding, legal, and meet the training criteria, they should be given the permit and allowed to carry a weapon concealed on their person, he said. Mr. Riggs argued while police may feel they cannot identify who is armed and who is not in a public place if this bill passes, they are really in the same circumstances today, except that those who are armed are more likely to be criminals without permits than not. He opined if the bill passes, the police are more likely to "have someone on their team." Senator James asked the witness if there is a fiscal note that should be attached to the bill. Mr. Riggs replied there is a note, that was only just received, which says there will need to be some funding. He proffered, the bill is meant to fund itself, through the application fees. The senator asked for confirmation as to whether or not it will, indeed, be self-funding. The witness replied it should be, "and if it's not, well, I don't know what to say on that." He added the fee was set based on a comparison with other similar fees throughout the various states with similar laws. He declared in Vermont there is no fee because there is no permit required. There, the citizens "carry" on the basis of the Second Amendment, Mr. Riggs stated. Senator Adler queried the witness as to why the highway patrol has been selected as the issuing agency, rather than, for instance, the Nevada Division of Investigations. Mr. Riggs explained the bill from the previous session was drafted that way, but it was figured the highway patrol, since they house the criminal repository, is the most likely agency. He suggested a wording change be made to the bill, on page 1, line 9, adding "and/or Nevada Highway Patrol," under the definition of department, in case the patrol does split away from the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety. The second question posed by Senator Adler dealt with the demonstration of competence portion of the bill. He observed there is no written test required, such as one given for a driver's license, which would demonstrate the individual knows the basic safety rules of firearms. He wondered why. Mr. Riggs pointed out the bill does require an individual be qualified through a hunters safety course or through previous military training. The senator speculated such military training might have taken place 40 years previously. The witness agreed it would be the case for him. The senator asked if there should be a refresher required. Mr. Riggs quoted the bill as saying "must qualify." Senator Adler reiterated his concern is for the lack of time frame for the qualifying. Mr. Riggs observed most other states do not have such a requirement, however, if the committee feels it is important, he would support it because he is certain the qualified individuals would pass such a test without trouble. Next, the senator suggested the inclusion of violators of the domestic violence or stalking laws under the provision for denial based on convictions of certain crimes. Mr. Riggs argued the stalking laws are not necessarily associated with firearms, but wondered if convicted stalkers would be covered as felons. Senator Adler countered such violators, one could argue, should be excluded from those allowed to carry concealed weapons, whether they are convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. The discussion between Mr. Riggs and Senator Adler continued and the witness expressed a view that when states start honoring other state's carry permits, it will be like a driver's license. Senator Adler asked the witness to confirm his understanding. He asked, "So you think the basic structure should be the same type structure we have for driver's licenses, where we show competence, ability..." Mr. Riggs confirmed that is what the bill says, continuing that most gun safety courses offered today provide classroom and practical instruction, along with a written and practical test upon completion. There were no further questions and the witness stepped down. The second witness to take the floor was Daniel Hansen, Nevada Chairman, Independent Americans, who spoke in support of S.B. 299, "as a step in the right direction." He called attention to a box which he reported, contains petitions filled with 12,489 signatures. A copy of the petition was passed to each committee member (Exhibit D), and the witness read it to them. Mr. Hansen told the committee the petitions represent the voice of the citizens and it is up to the Legislature to heed that voice. Mr. Hansen reported "the people don't want more prisons, they don't more police, they don't want more taxes, because these things lead to more crime and tyranny." What they do want are effective deterrents to crime, he said. Referring to the Second Amendment as allowing the people to keep and bear arms, the witness offered Switzerland as an example of how a well-armed citizenry can prevent invasion from outside forces; Arizona as an example of how it can reduce crime in the streets; Florida and other states as examples of how the crime rate is reduced because the criminals are afraid of their well-armed victims. Mr. Hansen speculated this would result in the people being self-governing, it would be a great deterrent to crime, and it will bring about law and order. He closed his testimony. Next to speak was Gary Farnsworth, Citizen, of Reno, Nevada. He thanked the committee for having the hearing on S.B. 299. Mr. Farnsworth told the committee the only persons who need to fear this law are those who break the law; the muggers, rapists, the carjackers, and the murderers. The remainder of the citizens should feel protected and secure. Senator James asked Mr. Farnsworth to speculate why the police are opposed to such a measure. Mr. Farnsworth's response was to speak of the recent subway shootings. He opined if there was a group of honest, armed citizens on the subway, the attacker would not have killed the number of people he did. He stated, "there is nothing to fear from honest citizens with this right." The chairman explained he wondered only because law enforcement agencies consistently oppose these measures. Mr. Farnsworth emphasized the law is only for the law abiding, not the deranged, the angry, or the criminal. Mr. Farnsworth next told the committee of the crime flux in Florida that targeted foreign visitors. He explained they were targeted because the criminals watched these people come directly off the airplane, where they must have been checked for weapons, and go directly to their rental car. From this, the criminals could surmise the travelers were not armed, he speculated. At this, Senator Lee inquired why it was only foreign travelers, since he too would be checked for weapons, if he had just disembarked from an airplane. Mr. Farnsworth replied the senator could have been attacked. He added that without this law, citizens are only safe in their homes, if they choose to keep firearms there. With this bill, they can feel safe to leave their homes and travel about the community, he concluded. Jim Mikkelson, Citizen, addressed the committee, stating this bill represents a "breath of fresh air." He told the committee he previously has been a professional shooter, but has not done any shooting for 10 years. Even so, he said, he could pick up a gun and without hesitation, shoot a target at 200 yards. Once learned, he explained, firearm operation and safety are not forgotten. Mr. Mikkelson, like those who preceded him, offered the committee anecdotes of instances in history where possessing arms was the only thing to save citizens from tyranny and even extermination. He reiterated the problem in society is crime, and suggested if all laws were directed toward criminals, and punishments were dealt swiftly and without exception, these problems would be greatly reduced. Following Mr. Mikkelson, Francis Gillings, Citizen, Americans for a Return to Constitution, spoke in favor of the bill, with some reservation. He noted "anything is good for a start...but, you've got to understand we have always had this right, as Americans." He opined: ...some of the finest people in America are criminals, ex-criminals.... There is something we don't understand because we don't know American history. The most violent criminals ever in American history, according to the establishment, were those who gave you the right to [govern] and me the right to [appear before government]. He testified the mightiest military the world has ever known is the American civilian population. Mr. Gillings spoke of South Dakota's tradition of citizens carrying arms. It is a pervasive thing "because everybody knows they have that right, even though it's not on the books, `cause they got the Second Amendment." What needs to be done is to let Nevada citizens know they have that right, he opined, and this bill is a move in the right direction. This concluded Mr. Gillings' testimony. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in support of S.B. 299. She offered to respond to the question of how many states currently have concealed weapons laws. There are various figures she said, offering the committee use of a book entitled "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, revised edition, from the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado. Ms. Hansen opined Nevada is behind the trend in allowing citizens "their right to keep and bear arms." Senator James asked for the total number of states and the witness replied "23." She provided another document (Exhibit E) called The 700 Club Facts Sheet, which lists 17 states. This figure is currently inaccurate, she noted. Stating she frequently quoted articles which report since a similar law passed in Florida in 1987, the homicide rate had dropped 18.5 percent while rising nationally 18 percent. Figures now available say Florida's rate dropped 22 percent while the national rate went up 15 percent. She called this significant. She, too, added her support for a constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms. Ms. Hansen told the committee citizens are now able to carry a weapon in plain sight, but today, a woman who wishes to be able to protect herself is not going to carry a gun on her hip, adding, it is important she be able to put a gun in her purse and carry it with her. She finally encouraged the committee to pass this legislation and called for a show of support from the audience. Senator Porter took the floor and encouraged the speakers and the audience to keep their remarks to the subject at hand. He stated, "I'm not sure we are here to discuss the right to carry a concealed weapon.... According to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), currently you can carry a concealed weapon with permission from the sheriff." Ms. Hansen responded noting the problem is that almost everyone is being denied that permission. Resuming, Senator Porter confirmed the issue before the committee is not the right, but the procedure used to receive permission from law enforcement. He emphasized the issue is to determine if there is a better way to get a permit. Ms. Hansen countered the issue is essentially a way to get a permit, noting "essentially, our right is being denied, because there is no real way to get a permit. It might be on the books, but it isn't exercised." Senator Porter thanked Ms. Hansen for her input and declared it was his intention to channel the discussion to address the problem and what can be done to correct it. "If you are being denied permits, let's talk about those things," he said. He asked for specifics regarding the problems encountered by persons who have applied for permits. Ms. Hansen reported people who have contacted her about this problem reveal they are never granted, no matter what the reason offered for the request (carrying large amounts of cash), unless the applicant has a "personal connection in the sheriff's department...." She opined the sheriff's department simply does not want people to carry concealed weapons. She continued such an attitude is "sad" because, according to statistics in Florida, armed citizens actually augment their law enforcement efforts. She noted the problem is statewide, while worse in some counties than in others. Senator Porter confirmed the problem lies in the sheriff's departments, then noted his frustration with "DMV" (Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety) in trying to get a license plate. He said, "I can imagine trying to get a [gun] permit." He asked if efforts to address the existing problem in the sheriff's departments would be better than trying to redesign and implement a new system. Ms. Hansen stated it is her feeling that whatever means is used, the problem needs to be fixed and she really does not believe it matters by what means. She suggested the committee review the book she is lending them, as it might have some systems in use in other states. Mr. Mikkelson returned to the witness table and offered his opinion the direction of the bill is correct because it centralizes the responsibility in a state office. He further opined there are 17 counties with 17 different viewpoints on gun permits. He erroneously stated, if a permit is issued in one county it is no good in another. Senator Porter stated he is not opposed to the gun carry permit idea, he is simply trying to streamline the process. The next witness was Joel Backer, Citizen, Churchill County, who stated he had previously discussed the bill with Senator McGinness, his senator. According to those discussions, the witness said, the senator had talked to the sheriff in Churchill County, who told him there were no applications made in 1993 and only three in 1994, all of which were approved. Mr. Backer spoke to the committee regarding the onerous application process that many sheriff's departments have in place, offering an example of the one for Churchill County (Exhibit F Original on file in Research Library.). Mr. Backer said he was told by the deputy that gave him the application most people who ask for an application "take one look and leave without it." Mr. Backer observed it is designed to discourage applicants. Mr. Backer read examples of the information requested on the application, including mother's, father's, mother-in-law's and father-in-law's date of birth. He also discussed the competency test as the same one given to sheriff's deputies, including a rapid fire test. Mr. Backer's additional concern is the bill makes no provision for checking to assure the "DMV" does not adopt its own set of oppressive conditions. Senator McGinness questioned the witness, asking him if he would be satisfied if there was a statewide, uniform application, with the issuance still out of the local sheriff's department. The senator stated his concern lies in removing local control to the state level. He opined the citizen could much more easily contact his local sheriff or county commissioners than he could travel to Carson City to meet with he senator or assemblyman. Mr. Backer closed his testimony by noting the language of the bill should not say "may," but it should say "shall." At this point, Senator Washington interjected the bill does say "shall." Larry Dilley, Citizen, spoke next stating all the audience wishes is for reasonable requirements, which when met, will result in the issuance of a permit. The problem now is, a person can meet the requirement and still be denied a permit by the local sheriff. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION (A.C.R.) 62 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Urges local law enforcement agencies to develop guidelines to ensure that citizens are afforded their right to bear arms. Juanita Cox spoke next, her testimony is incorporated as Exhibit G. She referred to A.C.R. 62 of the Sixty-seventh Session as the result of a request for the Legislature to address this problem. Senator Titus requested the floor and told Ms. Cox of her inclination to support "some version of this," because women are frightened to go out unaccompanied. They are taking gun classes and want to carry weapons to protect themselves she stated. However, upon her perusal of the petition presented by Mr. Hansen (Exhibit D), Senator Titus said she finds on the reverse side "where you're quoting Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison," offered for sale, bumper stickers that say, "If guns are outlawed, how will we shoot the liberals?" The senator noted this sticker causes her "a bit of concern, [as] I might be considered a liberal on your scheme of things." She asked Ms. Cox if she could understand a new hesitation the senator now feels about supporting such a bill. Ms. Cox replied she could understand the senator's concern, and stated her own sister had expressed a similar one. Ms. Cox responded to the question speaking of her own initial fear of guns, which was abated through education and experience. At this Senator Titus pondered an intention to take a class and carry a gun in order to "protect [herself] from some of you who want to shoot the liberals." Ms. Cox told Senator Titus of statistics from 1992 that report approximately 2.4 million "crimes that were defended by a gun and ... there were only like 800,000 crimes committed with a gun." This shows the tremendous good that guns contribute, she opined. She concluded her testimony. Next, Jan Brown, Citizen, Churchill County, took the floor to briefly to tell the committee that since it is currently permitted to carry a weapon openly without any type of safety training, this bill is an improvement because it does provide a requirement for safety training. She told the committee of her own experience with a gun safety training course, including its intensive classroom and practical training. Following Ms. Brown, David Cusick, Citizen, Reno, spoke to the committee of his difficulties in getting a permit in Washoe County. He related there is a $138 application fee, nonrefundable, which is quite expensive. While researching what was required in Washoe County, Mr. Cusick was told by a Washoe County deputy there are only 61 carry permits in the county, and unless he had connections within the department, it is virtually impossible to have one granted. As he researched further, the witness testified, he found the unwritten policy is to require either a connection with someone in the department or have a current, class-three federal firearms permit (this is basically a machine gun dealer). Mr. Cusick was told that Carson City is even worse "because the department would take [a person's] money and that there is almost no chance of getting a permit." Mr. Cusick also reported in his contact with local sheriff's deputies and police officers, at a local shooting range, he has been informed "the people who are out on patrol favor an armed citizenry, and it is primarily the leaders of law enforcement agencies who have opposition to the issuance of permits." The chairman called the names of the persons who had signed in to speak at the hearing (Exhibit B). Many wished only to express support for the bill and did so by rising at the call of their name and stating, to the effect, "I am here to support S.B. 299. M.K. Yokum, Member, Independent Americans, took an opportunity to request some specific changes in the bill. He asked the committee to strike the reference to federal law on lines 15 and 16 on page 1, because he feels the federal law should have nothing to say about guns. On page 1 starting at line 22, he asked for a period to be inserted after "firearm" and have the remainder deleted or change the word "by" to "or", he said, asking also to delete lines 34 through 38 on page 2, and lines 1 through 16 on page 3. These last sections, he opined, are tantamount to gun registration, which is "the first step in gun confiscation. Otherwise, he and his organization support S.B. 299, he reported. Brent Buscay, Citizen, Carson City, took the floor to respond to an inquiry about the easiest way to address the problem. He suggested the committee pass the bill. He reminded the committee, that as elected officials they are charged to obey and uphold the constitution. He stepped down. Robert Saligman, Citizen, Gardnerville, addressed the committee; he stated he did not represent any group but appeared as a "resident, citizen, combat veteran, and patriot." Mr. Saligman told he had only received notice of the bill's hearing at 4:00 p.m. the previous evening, but within the 1 hour of the business day left he was able to fill the room with supporters of the bill. He asked those in the audience who were there as a result of his call to stand. Most of the individuals there rose. Mr. Saligman speculated if he had had more time he could have filled the building and the block with supporters. The witness stated he supports the constitutional aspects of the bill, but there are some problems. People are being denied permits arbitrarily, he testified. Mr. Saligman reported he had talked to every sheriff in the state, 2 years ago, (a few of those in office then are no longer in office, he noted), and at that time, their opposition to gun permits were: 1) they feared liability for their counties if a citizen was harmed by someone carrying a concealed weapon; and 2) some law enforcement professionals feel the average citizen is not qualified to "bear arms in public." After recounting a long and illustrious military career, Mr. Saligman took exception to being told he, as an average citizen, is not qualified to carry a gun. He offered ways to fix the problem. He proposed that if an applicant is a resident, of lawful age, and has never been convicted of a felony, nor adjudicated to be mentally irresponsible, "you issue a permit, you do not mistrust the decent citizens of this country who elected you." Additionally, a reasonable standard for qualification or proficiency, would have his support. The chairman asked Mr. Saligman if there is a real desire to move the authority for issuing these permits to the state. The senator opined this request is unusual. "It's hard for me to remember a time when people came in here and said they wanted to have to go to the DMV for something," he jested. He pointed out the fiscal impact of the bill, and the fact that budgets will be very tight, and asked if they would prefer a higher fee or rely on the funding that is in place at the county level. The senator also asked the witness if he would support a standardized form that would assure equal access to the permit. The witness reminded the senator he is not authorized to represent the audience, but said it is his opinion that the objection arises from the arbitrary nature of the decisions and that permits are not being issued. He stated if the committee could find a way to remove the arbitrary nature of the decision and provide a uniform application, the people do not care what agency does the issuing. Daniel Joseph, Lobbyist, Gun Owners of America, was the next person called. Mr. Joseph reported he is a retired peace officer and a certified police pistol instructor, and NRA (National Rifle Association) instructor. He referred to a magazine article from the NRA (Exhibit H) and a suggested alternative to S.B. 299, or a source of information to amend it (Exhibit I). Mr. Joseph called the bill a welcome piece of legislation, and opined the reason to assign issuance to "DMV" is because they have the criminal history records. It stands to reason that DMV could issue the permit by, perhaps, adding the certification as an endorsement to a person's driver's license, or through the issuance of a card similar to the driver's license. This "makes good fiscal sense," Mr. Joseph stated. Referring to Exhibit I, Mr. Joseph explained he has provided for a safety course with some criteria outlined. He agreed there is a legitimate concern that someone carrying a weapon should be qualified to do so safely. He opined the problem is multifold, with an absolute power assigned to law enforcement, which is being exercised in an arbitrary manner. He asked the power be removed to a less arbitrary agency where it can be exercised as would the power to issue any other license or permit. Realizing the bill requires some in-depth and continuing examination, the chairman formed a subcommittee to study the issue. Members of the subcommittee are to be Senator McGinness, Senator Porter, and Senator Lee, with Senator McGinness to chair. The hearing then moved to the opposition faction. Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, stepped forward. He stated he is a retired peace officer after 30 years of service. He also expressed a wish to not be considered the "enemy" in this issue. Mr. Cooper stated the fear of law enforcement is there is no "filter fine enough to strain out" those individuals who, while not convicted of a felony, are known to be dangerous and engaged in activities that are illegal. This bill removes the discretion necessary to keep such individuals from lawfully concealing their weapons on their person. Mr. Cooper offered examples of individuals who, for one reason or another, are not convicted of their criminal activities. He emphasized the association does not object to the individuals such as those in the hearing room carrying concealed weapons, but a mandate to issue permits forecloses "the opportunity for an experienced law enforcement officer to use his or her discretion to filter out those individuals who are `wackos, weirdos, or perverts'." On page 5, at line 25 of the bill, is language that currently exists in NRS. This statute allows for a permit issued in one county to be good in all counties in the state, he explained. As far as training requirements are outlined, Mr. Cooper reported his experience in the military did not encompass safety training for firearms. When he served as undersheriff, he said, the department required a person go through a course which demonstrated the person's competence with a firearm, but also taught the individual current laws pertaining to the use of "deadly force." He opined hunter safety courses do not adequately address handgun issues or safety or the legal aspects of the use of "deadly force" against another. He asked the bill be amended to address the use of deadly force issue. The chairman concurred with Mr. Cooper's concern regarding the legal ramifications of the use of deadly force. He also concurred with the concerns of women, for example, who do feel threatened on their own, or unsafe when moving about the community. He asked Mr. Cooper and Mr. Riggs, and Mr. Saligman to cooperate with the subcommittee in order to expedite the bill's success. Ned Eyre, Citizen, spoke in opposition to the bill, not in opposition to the principle of the bill, however. He stated he feels very strongly that citizens of the United States must be allowed to bear arms, even those that are concealed. He said parts of the bill that trouble him include those that remove local control, and the arbitrary nature of the sheriff's decisions. He warned citizens must be careful to protect themselves from a movement to take guns away from citizens. He feels centralization of authority and the concomitant requirement to provide information about what weapons are owned by whom is a dangerous thing. Mr. Eyre read NRS 202.350, "it is unlawful for any person within this state to carry concealed, upon his person, any pistol, or revolver or other firearm...." Why not remove this from the statutes, altogether, he asked. This is a most direct way to address the problem of not getting permits when applied for. Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO), spoke in opposition to the bill for Clark County, only, he emphasized. In Clark County, he stated, the current law works. He offered the committee statistics for Clark County's concealed weapons permits (Exhibit J). He pointed out for February, 1995, Clark County denied eight permits, issued 20 new permits, and had a total of 1950 permits issued. There is also included statistics for all months from 1993. Clark county is also concerned that a centralized system will result in a "rubber stamp" situation. Mr. Olsen noted as part of his packet (Exhibit J) is an article which reports that upon the relaxation of concealed weapons laws, murder by firearm has increased significantly. Senator McGinness asked Mr. Olsen to provide the subcommittee with a copy of Clark County's application. He agreed to do so. The chairman closed testimony of S.B. 299, then reopened it to allow Dennis DeBacco, Criminal History Repository, to answer Senator Adler's questions. Mr. DeBacco testified he manages the Nevada criminal history records repository, which, he said, is a part of the Nevada Highway Patrol, within the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS). He offered a defense of DMV&PS, in terms of their speed of service. He noted the repository is very proud of their turnaround time in background checks. He stated the department's view is a preference that the licensing authority be retained at the county sheriff's level. This would include the continued utilization of the criminal history repository's services. Additionally, the highway patrol supports the position of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, he stated. Senator McGinness directed attention to page 2 of the bill, section 3, subsection 3(c), which addresses the reasons for refusal to issue a permit. He asked whether the repository has access to all the information that would be a basis for such a denial. Mr. DeBacco testified it does not, that mental health information is not accessible anywhere throughout the nation, unless the information is happened upon accidentally through some other agency. He offered an example of how this might happen, but opined it is so infrequent as to be unavailable. Mental health records are confidential and not available through regular channels he said. Senator Adler asked if the witness would recommend a system that has standards, which would require a criminal history check and allow additional checks through the local sheriff's office, with issuance from the sheriff. Mr. DeBacco restated the official preference for the local sheriff to issue the permit and conduct the necessary background investigations, using the repository, and the national file of fingerprints. The witness noted the fees set forth in the bill are not going to be sufficient to fund the process, citing the cost of a fingerprint check as being $38. He suggested the fee might need to be as high as $100 to cover all the costs of processing and investigation. Mr. DeBacco reported the department has only just received the fiscal note and is working on the suggested fees. The chairman called for questions. There were none. He closed the hearing on S.B. 299, noting it would be handled further through the subcommittee. There was no further business before the committee, and the chairman adjourned the hearing at 11:00 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary March 28, 1995 Page