MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session April 25, 1995 The Senate Subcommittee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, April 25, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter 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 Joseph, Lobbyist, Gun Owners of America Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Dennis DeBacco, Administrator, State Criminal History Repository Robert Seligman, Citizen Larry Dilley, Citizen Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) SENATE BILL 299: Requires department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to certain persons. Chairman McGinness reported the subcommittee had met previously and resolved most of the issues raised regarding Senate Bill (S.B.) 299. It is the intention of the subcommittee to complete the process, he noted. The issues remaining include what process should be implemented in order to appeal decisions of the sheriff regarding the permits. The chairman called on Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to report the results of her research in this matter. Ms. Combs reported the Legislature determines the jurisdiction of the state's justices' courts. As a result, the committee can assign the appeal to that court, she said, but noted the district courts are also available, as is a proposed three-man board. The three-man board might present some problems, she opined, such as release of confidential documents that might be necessary to address and appeal, as well as how to effect compensation for the board members. Senator McGinness stated it is his view that the citizens' board would be problematic because they would have limited access to the confidential records which are the basis for the sheriff's decision. Thus, the options of justices' or district court appeal remain the only viable ones to be considered, he observed. He offered there is also the option of not addressing the appeal process, which would automatically send it to district court. Senator Porter asked what would be the result of the committee doing nothing in this regard. The chairman replied it would result in an appeal to the district court. John W. Riggs, Sr., Concerned Citizen, addressed the committee saying he concurred with the committee's idea. He stated the appeal process specified in the original bill will result in a fiscal note, which is undesirable. The chairman asked Mr. Riggs' opinion as to which court the appeal should be directed. Mr. Riggs expressed no strong feeling for either one, noting perhaps the justices' courts should be used in the rural counties that have no district court in close vicinity. On the other hand, he said he feels the district judge is a true representative of the law, who might be a better authority to rule in such matters. Senator McGinness revealed his concern that district court appeals will require more time because their calendars are full and it takes longer to get a hearing. Mr. Riggs concurred. Daniel Joseph, Lobbyist, Gun Owners of America, spoke next voicing his preference for leaving the appeal at the district court. This, he opined, will result in a zero fiscal impact. He stated he prefers whichever court will result in the least fiscal impact, but noted if there is an unfavorable ruling in the justices' court the appeal of that will go to district court. It might be better to simply bypass the first step, he said, and go for a more definite, final answer. Senator McGinness called on Eric Cooper, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, to proffer his opinion and experience as to the court calendars, or which court might be more timely in hearing these appeals. Mr. Cooper stated while the appeal to the justices' court might be more expedient, the district court opinion might be more binding. He expressed certainty that law enforcement officials would prefer to avoid "a lot of lengthy appeals," and for that reason district court might be best. In addressing the time line question, Mr. Cooper noted both courts are very busy. He suggested the committee might contact the court administrator or chief judge in the larger communities in order to get feedback from them about calendar loads or whether they might select a particular judge to serve as a master for these appeals. He offered a guess that it might take as long as 3 months to get a hearing in a district court. Senator Lee pointed out that, while district court might be the most fiscally expedient, the individual in the smaller more distant areas is likely to find it burdensome to travel to the district court for an appeal. On the other hand, this will require the sheriff's representative to travel to the justices' court for the appeal, he said. Mr. Cooper agreed with the senator, adding it is usually a high- ranking police officer who is required to appear and explain the sheriff's action. Senator McGinness called on Dennis DeBacco, Administrator, State Criminal History Repository, to explain his experiences with appeals on the Brady Bill background checks performed by the criminal history repository. He asked how many appeals the repository deals with. Mr. DeBacco replied since the implementation of the Brady Bill criminal check in March, 1994, the repository has processed approximately 35,000 checks on people wishing to purchase guns in the state. There is a process for hearing appeals through the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety's (DMV&PS), he explained. There have been no official appeals from those 35,000 checks, Mr. DeBacco told the committee, noting there are persons who contact the office claiming an error has been made, generally in identification matching. The response from the repository to the individual, Mr. DeBacco testified, is to request they send in a fingerprint card which can be used to verify the identity. In almost all cases so far, he stated, the records do match the subject. There have also been some instances where the repository's decision has been reversed after further investigation, he reported. The witness took a moment to outline the usual process for a background check that results in a denial. In most cases fingerprint checks reveal there has been no error on the part of the repository. Senator McGinness asked Mr. DeBacco to address the need for fingerprint checks in the application process. The witness reported, based on a request from the previous hearing, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stated a state statute with permissive language regarding fingerprint checks would be considered a form of potential discriminatory practice in some of the jurisdictions (i.e., a sheriff may only require fingerprint cards from some particular ethnic or racial group). This kind of statute would be "rejected" by the FBI, he said. If it is the intention of the committee to conduct a national fingerprint check of applicants, then the language in the law must read "must forward" to the FBI, he asserted. Mr. DeBacco voiced his own opinion that the only true way to accurately check a person's criminal background, and that is through a fingerprint check. He admitted a thorough fingerprint check is "very, very costly; very, very labor intensive; and it's very, very time consuming." Conversely, a name and date of birth check on someone is "very, very misleading." These items can easily be changed or forged he asserted. The chairman summarized the FBI's response as being, if the statute requires fingerprints of one individual, it must require them of all. Mr. DeBacco concurred. Senator Porter asked if a fingerprint check is required for a Brady check. The witness stated there is no such requirement to purchase a gun, they must only provide a valid form of identification and answer a questionnaire. Senator Porter confirmed with Mr. Joseph the form he provided the committee at a previous hearing was a sample of the Brady form. Mr. Joseph stated the form 4473 (Exhibit C) is the federal form after which the state Brady form is fashioned. It asks the same questions, he stated. Mr. Joseph took the opportunity to offer his opinion regarding requiring fingerprint cards. He suggested the person could apply without a card and, if the sheriff denies the application and the person claims there is an identity problem or denies the record, they can submit a fingerprint card for confirmation, one way or another. Senator Porter voiced his agreement, noting, "The hardened criminal is not going to go fill out an application to get a concealed weapon permit." Mr. DeBacco told of a problem he had observed. A person who has been issued a CCW (carry concealed weapon) permit subsequently goes to purchase a gun and fails the Brady check because he or she fits one of the prohibitive categories. He noted there are inconsistencies between the Brady requirements and the requirements of some jurisdictions for a CCW permit. He proposed there be an effort to bring some consistency to the two. Mr. DeBacco opined the Brady check is weak in various areas. For example, permits are denied on the basis of felony convictions, but there are individuals convicted of gross misdemeanors who might have as a condition of their probation that they cannot possess firearms. Under the federal guidelines there is no basis to deny this individual a purchase permit, he said. The best that can be done is to notify the Division of Parole and Probation of the individual's attempt to purchase a gun. His point, he said, is there needs to be consistencies between the prohibitions for purchase of a gun and those for carrying one concealed. Senator Porter asked what the guidelines for denial are. Mr. DeBacco replied they are on the form submitted (Exhibit C). He reminded the committee there has been an argument made that information available on a local level should also be a basis for denial. The chairman asked Mr. DeBacco if he feels the minimum check should be a Brady type check run through the criminal repository. Mr. DeBacco replied that has been suggested within his department. He suggested it would be wise to decide on the criteria for the check and implement those criteria statewide. Senator McGinness stated that has been the intent of the subcommittee all along. Chairman McGinness asked if the repository charged the gun dealers $15 for the Brady check. The witness replied affirmatively. He stated he feels such a check could be a requirement of the bill, which would reduce the work load of the local sheriffs in this regard. He opined the sheriff could take the application and all the paperwork, and then when a criminal history background check was needed the repository would be able to conduct a Brady check. There would remain the need to check the local files for any information on the individual that might be pertinent, he concluded. Senator McGinness summarized the process proposed as: requiring the applicant to provide all the necessary information and answer the questions on the application; the sheriff would check the local files; and, the repository would run a Brady check on the applicant. Then, if the Brady check reveals a problem, the applicant could provide fingerprints to verify or deny the accuracy of the identification, he finished. Mr. Joseph suggested there is one question that has been overlooked on both the federal and state questionnaires. They do not ask the individual if they are currently on parole or probation, he observed. This question could be incorporated into the CCW application, which is signed "under penalty of perjury." Then if the individual is found to be lying on the application, Mr. Joseph noted, it is a basis for denial of the permit, as well as grounds for prosecution. Mr. DeBacco addressed the issue of perjury on the forms. He told the committee the repository has denied somewhere around 700 applications to purchase a handgun, and in not one single case has the applicant responded affirmatively to the questions about felony convictions or being a fugitive. He observed there is an unwillingness to prosecute persons for these falsified answers. Senator McGinness directed the committee to move on to the mechanics of the form. He wondered how the form might be prepared, printed, and distributed, and who would pay for this process. Mr. DeBacco, noting the support of the DMV&PS for the idea of the local sheriff administering the CCW permit process, told the panel there is a fiscal note which addresses the DMV&PS dealing with it. This note includes the cost of the forms, which would be based on a form similar to one used in Florida. If the program is to be administered locally, the department does not anticipate providing forms. He added, the form used for the Brady check is provided to the gun dealers by the federal government, and the form is forwarded to the DMV&PS by the gun dealer. The fiscal note, as summarized by Senator McGinness, indicates a cost of $69,497 for Fiscal Year 1996, including onetime, start-up costs and new personnel. The second year would cost $6,883; with the income from fees and because the capital costs are no longer incorporated. Mr. DeBacco admitted the fiscal note is uncertain because it is difficult to estimate the number of applications that might be processed. Additionally, there is the term of renewal to consider and the fee to be charged for the application, he reported. Senator Porter, after doing some calculations based on the total number of applications versus the total number of denials, stated he needs to revise his thinking about only honest people applying for the permit. Apparently approximately 2 percent of all applicants are denied, he stated, and then asked if this percentage might be expected for CCW permit applications. Mr. DeBacco agreed the percent is probably accurate, noting it is a fairly universal denial factor. He noted the percentage of denials of the CCW permits might be higher than the 2 percent figure. Mr. Riggs addressed the question of the format of the application. He offered a copy of the Washoe County application (Exhibit D). This is similar to the 4473 federal form, he noted. The only objection made to the application is the requirement to list the weapons the applicant owns. This equates to a form of gun registration, he opined. He noted it might be possible, instead, to incorporate a phrase which prohibits the carrying of weapons that are considered illegal. Looking at fees, Mr. Riggs referred to another handout (Exhibit E) which comes with the Washoe County application. This form also explains the questionnaire more fully, he noted, adding the questions on the application relate to the period of time 5 years previous to the date of the application. This 5-year figure seems to be becoming more universal in its use, he said. The final document to accompany the Washoe County application is a document that lists all the laws dealing with carrying concealed firearms (Exhibit F). Mr. Riggs reminded the panel the goal is to formulate a standardized application and permit throughout the state. Mr. Riggs emphasized the resistance to registering the weapons in order to acquire the permit. He stated the permit is to the person, not the weapon. He opined the fee could be minimal, and could be used by the sheriff to pay for any costs incurred by the program. The witness listed the fees charged by Washoe County, which total $113. He speculated the cost would be much lower if no fingerprints are necessary, and the investigation is done through the criminal history repository. Mr. Cooper noted the denial rate in Clark County, after a revamping of their requirements, is at 2 percent. Many of those denied would not be denied if the Brady criteria was all that was required, he said, noting local files containing non- conviction information were used as a basis in some cases. The removal of discretion from the sheriff is a real concern, Mr. Cooper stated, maintaining the claims that sheriffs only issue permits to friends or associates is untrue. Mr. Joseph addressed the question of fees and forms noting the DMV&PS has a simple, one-page application form for driver's licenses which may serve as a model for the CCW application. He suggested the statute could even have the form incorporated into it, or at least the requirements clearly and precisely outlined in its body. Mr. Joseph also observed the DMV&PS is able to process a drivers' license application for $20. If the $15 charge for the Brady check is added on to a $20 processing fee, it only adds up to $35. Therefore, the $50 proposal should be more than sufficient to cover the cost of the application. Mr. Joseph also spoke in support of allowing the sheriff the discretion to require fingerprints, which would reduce the cost of the application by $75, if the prints are not required. Chairman McGinness voiced concern about actual format of the CCW permit. He noted Mr. Riggs has suggested it be similar to a driver's license. This may not be a problem for the larger jurisdictions, but what about those rural areas where the equipment to produce such permits might not be available, he asked. Senator Porter noted a resolution to that problem may not come during the day's hearing, suggesting DMV&PS might be able to assist in that area. He noted the actual questions to be asked on the form, as well as the format of the permit itself might best be left to those experts available from that department. He added a form is easily duplicated or photocopied. Senator Lee opined a picture I.D. CCW permit might be difficult for some of the counties to produce. The chairman asked Ms. Combs what format other states have for their permit. Mr. Joseph, from the audience, told the committee the majority of the states do not have pictures on the permit, but some do have a thumbprint or photo option. He concurred that it may be difficult for the smaller areas to produce a photo card. He suggested it might be feasible to allow the photo as an option for each jurisdiction to decide as it wishes. There followed a discussion of the Oregon permit, which does have a photo option. The Oregon statute incorporates a photo of the permit and the application. Senator McGinness asked the committee whether they feel it best to incorporate the actual form into the statute or will it suffice to simply outline the information to be requested on the application. He opined it might be best to put in the information requirement without prescribing the form itself. This would make easier allowance for changes that might be needed in the future, he observed. Senator Lee stated he feels this course of action is fine, as long as there is also language which allows the various jurisdictions discretion in the means they use to investigate the applicant. Senator McGinness stated he is only addressing the actual form for the application. The chairman summarized the committee's progress so far, noting that fingerprints will be a requirement, based on Mr. DeBacco's report on FBI policy. Senator Lee stated his concern about not requiring fingerprints. He stated he recognizes some members of the audience or the public may feel this is "overzealous" on the part of the committee. This bill sets the foundation for CCW permits in the state, and he opined the panel would not want to be responsible for creating a loophole that would allow a dangerous individual to acquire a CCW permit. He supports the fingerprint mandate, he concluded. Senator Porter reiterated his feeling of naivete regarding who will and will not apply for a CCW permit. He opined it is up to the committee to provide citizens with a more uniform process by which they can exercise their Second Amendment right. It is necessary to assist law enforcement in their efforts to protect the community and the citizens therein, he added, and the fingerprint requirement is a key step to that end. Senator Lee spoke of the Brady bill and the bad rap it has received, from many people including himself. But listening to the talk before the committee today, he said he hears the Brady bill is okay as a standardized check. This causes him some concern he noted. Mr. Joseph took one more opportunity to appeal to the board not to require the fingerprint check. He opined the imposition of a fingerprint requirement would result in a much longer time line for the issuance of the permits. He asked the sheriff be allowed "the full latitude of discretion," including the ability to issue emergency CCW permits in particular cases. Mr. Riggs reminded the committee there is a need to do what is best for Nevada citizens. He opined that the issuance of CCW permits is a states-rights issue which should consider only what is best for the citizens of Nevada and those citizens who want "to carry." Senator McGinness reminded the witness the committee also has a responsibility to the victims of crime. There needs to be a balance in order to assure the safety of all citizens. Additionally, he warned there is a need for a moderate approach that will be acceptable to the committee as a whole and the entire Senate and Assembly, or all this effort will be a waste because the bill will not pass. Senator Porter outlined his understanding of the desires of the citizens in regard to this issue. He noted a need for consistency in the process which is not arbitrary in nature so they feel an application is taken in good faith, but with proper controls. Robert Seligman, citizen, asked to be recognized and address the committee regarding the limiting of liability for the sheriffs. He opined the committee is close to a consensus on the remaining issues before them. He asked if they were going to address the biggest concern of the local sheriffs, one of the major contributing factors to their reluctance to issue the CCW permits: liability. Reminding the panel of his previous testimony as to contacting all the sheriffs in the state, he asserted their biggest concern is for the safety of the citizens in their jurisdictions. This concern, along with a fear of where liability lies if they issue a permit to someone who then uses the weapon unlawfully, drives their reluctance, he reported. Mr. Seligman suggested it would be in the best interest of all concerned to "protect those jurisdictions, the sheriffs as individuals, the departments and the counties from what has become excessive and predatory litigation." Senator McGinness agreed this is a major concern, remarking there will probably be a section added to the bill which addresses that very issue. Larry Dilley, citizen, spoke to Senator Lee's comments on the Brady bill. He opined the main difference between the Brady bill and this CCW bill is the goal. He stated those behind the Brady bill feel someone with a gun probably cannot be trusted. The proponents of this CCW bill believe someone who has a gun can be trusted, as long as he has an honest, clean record. Once again the chairman reviewed the progress of the subcommittee. He explained there would be a vote taken at the end of the hearing to determine support for the various changes being proposed. He moved to the question of the length of time the permit will be valid. The bill originally called for a 3-year life, he reported, and there have been suggestions for change covering the entire spectrum of lifetime to 5 years. He asked for the panel's views, noting his own is in favor of a 5-year life. Senator Lee stated he does not disagree with a 5-year life, but he is concerned about provisions for revocation. He wondered if there is a means for notification to the issuing jurisdiction if a felony conviction occurs after the issuance of a permit. Senator McGinness agreed that is a concern. Mr. Dilley observed there might be a possibility of tracking such things through the DMV&PS system. Mr. Joseph reported a conversation with Lt. Cavagnaro of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO). He stated the lieutenant opined a minimum of a 5- year life is best, as it limits the amount of paperwork needed to maintain the permit. Mr. Joseph asked the committee to extend the life of the permit even longer. He also said it is his belief the current computer technology and communications systems in law enforcement should easily allow for notification of felony convictions. Pressing the limits of the envelope further, Mr. Joseph suggested if an individual is checked out to the extent proposed for the CCW permit, they should be allowed an automatic bypass of the Brady requirements for purchasing a gun. The chairman noted the Brady law is a federal statute which cannot be overridden by the state Legislature. Mr. Joseph stated: There is verbiage in the federal law that allows, if there is identification, a credential issued, that positively identified the person, and if that person is, in fact, clear...there is provision in Brady which allows you to bypass the point of sell check by presenting this thing. ASSEMBLY BILL 65: Requires investigation and reporting of criminal history of certain applicants for licensure or employment in positions related to education. Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, took the floor to address the issue of background checks and notification of felony convictions. She stated there is a bill before the Assembly (Assembly Bill (A.B.) 65) which addresses this. She suggested the committee might want to research the proposal to determine if the process they hope to use will be feasible for the CCW permits. Secondly, Ms. Lusk suggested the information requested on the application form put together by the Legislature be the only information required; that other questions should not be allowed. She also noted the application form should ask if the individual is on probation or parole. Finally, she said she feels it is completely justifiable to deny a permit based on a misrepresentation on the form. Senator McGinness asked how law enforcement agencies are notified of felony convictions of individuals. He referred his question to Mr. DeBacco, wondering if the repository could be used for such a notification. Mr. DeBacco confirmed that he is familiar with A.B. 65, explaining that when a fingerprint card is sent to the repository it is registered to their automated fingerprint identification system. This system will send up a flag whenever new information is put into the system for that set of fingerprints. The department then notifies the agency (in the case of the Assembly bill, the department of education) that there has been a subsequent arrest since the last search. This system only flags occurrences within Nevada and the western states, he warned. Senator McGinness asked if the department has prepared a fiscal note for the Assembly bill. Mr. DeBacco guessed in the affirmative, but noted it would also incorporate other costs. The chairman asked for a consensus as to the length of the permit life. The subcommittee agreed on 5 years. Senator McGinness questioned the issue of proficiency testing on renewal. He asked if the renewal is timely for the permit; is it necessary to retest for firearm proficiency? Mr. Cooper replied the law enforcement agencies previously required a proficiency test every 5 years. This is because proficient shooting is a perishable skill, he stated, and there is a concern that eyesight or other physical conditions may have changed over that period of time. The goal is only to ensure the permittee can hit the target and manipulate the firearm properly, he stated. At this point, Mr. Cooper spoke to the concern of listing the guns to be covered by the permit. He suggested a permittee should be qualified on all types of firearms they intend to carry. Mr. Cooper explained the care and use of a revolver is quite different from that of a semi-automatic weapon. Stan Olsen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO), took the floor to address the same issue. He told the panel that METRO is currently working with local governments in the Las Vegas area to allow a maximum two- weapon permit. He stated the department does have a concern about allowing unlimited weapons "regardless of the training issue." The chairman asked what METRO requires for renewal of the permit. Mr. Olsen echoed the statements of Mr. Cooper in that regard. Senator McGinness asked how the qualification process works. Mr. Olsen stated he believes there is a standard course offered at each of the qualifying facilities. Senator Porter asked the witness what the problem is with allowing types of guns, rather than a particular number of guns. Mr. Olsen reiterated the differences between types of firearms, adding the department is concerned that permittees will qualify with one weapon and then purchase a different one without having to prove proficiency in the use of that particular weapon. He opined, on behalf of METRO, that two weapons should be sufficient. Mr. Riggs referred the committee to the reverse side of Exhibit D, the Washoe County CCW permit application. There it reads: "I agree to maintain proficiency with the firearms listed on this permit and exercise due care and diligence in the handling, carrying and use of said firearms." An applicant is required to sign the agreement as a condition of the permit, Mr. Riggs pointed out. The chairman returned to the question of recertification, noting it appears to be the panel's desire to require a recertification in shooting proficiency for renewal. All panel members agreed. Senator McGinness asked the panel to consider whether the permit should apply to all guns or only to specific ones. Mr. Seligman returned to the stand and urged the committee "in the strongest sense" to license the individual, not the weapon. He used the analogy of issuing drivers' licenses to people not cars. A person does not have to drive only one particular automobile, he told, and this comparison "captures the spirit of [his] sentiments." There does not appear to be any reluctance to requalify at permit renewal time, he observed, but the requirement to limit the permit to only one particular weapon "is unreasonable, and does not serve the public safety in any manner," he stated. Senator Porter asked if the possibility of categorizing the types of weapons the permittee is qualified to use is a reasonable compromise. Mr. Seligman opined this is a reasonable requirement. Mr. Joseph observed in California there is a different test given for each type of weapon to be carried, and the permit then reflects which types of weapons the carrier has tested for. Senator McGinness concurred with this suggestion, instructing the research analyst to incorporate language in the bill that is appropriate to that end. Mr. Joseph asked the panel to examine the issues of the residency requirement for a permit, as well as allowing interstate reciprocity of permit carriers. The chairman, responding to the question of reciprocity, noted such an allowance does not "do anything for the citizens of the state of Nevada." A reciprocity ruling will simply allow people from out-of-state to come to Nevada with their permits and carry concealed weapons here. This is not an advantage to Nevada citizens, he opined, and asked the other panel members for their feelings. Senator Porter agreed the question of reciprocity is not one that will be resolved before this committee at this time. This is a question that requires an agreement among and between states, he said, and granting visitors the right to carry concealed weapons is not a good thing. Ms. Lusk asked if it might be possible to empower a state representative to negotiate reciprocity agreements. This would also allow some controls as to the criteria the other states might hold for issuing permits, she observed. The chairman agreed with that point, and promised to examine the options at a later time. Mr. Joseph, referring to the residency requirement, suggested that visitors could apply, go through the process, and then when they came to Nevada to vacation or travel, they would be properly licensed. Secondly, he noted, by allowing persons to travel to other jurisdictions to apply for the permit, the larger jurisdictions would not be so inundated with applicants, and the process might go faster. Senator Porter stated it is his opinion that residency is a good requirement which he does not care to set aside. Senator McGinness observed this is an issue "parallel with reciprocity," noting it would allow no real benefit to the citizens of the state. The limited liability question remains, the chairman noted. He referred to an amendment prepared by the research analyst, reading the language to the panel. Senator Porter noted Las Vegas has a release on their application. Mr. Cooper noted this release is a release of information. Ms. Combs was asked to explain the information release liability provision. She stated several other states have such a provision which provides some protection to the sheriff in any discretionary matters or information released by other agencies. Mr. Cooper noted the sheriff could be "hounded forever by some disgruntled person who was denied a permit." This liability limitation is meant to extend, the chairman speculated, to circumstances where some information is overlooked by one of the investigating agencies. Then if the permittee takes the gun and uses it criminally, the investigating or issue party is not liable for that action. This is the intent of limiting such liability. Another issue raised by Senator Porter was that of retired law enforcement personnel being automatically issued a permit. Senator Lee noted that allowance is under a different statute, which might be incorporated by reference into the bill. Mr. Cooper agreed Nevada Revised Statutes specifically provide that individuals honorably retired from law enforcement from the state of Nevada are exempt from the concealed weapons law. There is some concern, he asserted, however, because there have been instances of out-of-state retired officers coming to Nevada. These persons "retired just ahead of an indictment" in their former agency, he told. These individuals were prohibited from carrying concealed weapons, he said. He suggested that retired officers from other states should be subject to the same background checks and requirements as the ordinary citizen. Senator McGinness confirmed that honorably retired Nevada police officers are exempt. Senator Lee emphasized the importance of the word "honorably." A group of Newcomers club members from Reno joined the hearing late in the process. The chairman welcomed them to the hearing. He then moved to the final question before the committee: the sharing of information between sheriffs. He read some language proposed by the research analyst: Within 10 days after issuing a permit, the sheriff shall send a copy of the permittee's approved application to the department [of motor vehicles]. The department shall maintain an automated listing of permit holders and pertinent information, and the information shall be available on-line upon request, at all times to all law enforcement agencies. The senator checked with Mr. DeBacco to confirm this availability of this information handling. He asked if there would be a fiscal impact. Mr. DeBacco told the committee there is currently a redesign being done of the information system at the DMV&PS. This redesigned system will allow the entry and storage of such information as sex offender registrations, ex-felon registration, and law enforcement agencies are requesting the development of a CCW file. After the redesign the information could be entered into the system directly at the sheriff's department that issued the permit. This would require no paperwork being sent to the department. He anticipates the redesign will be completed in the next 13 months, he reported. Upon receipt of this information, the committee concluded the proposed language will need to be reworked. The chairman asked for Mr. DeBacco's suggestion as to the wording. Mr. DeBacco proposed changing the requirement to send information to the department to, "shall enter into the system." The chairman called for a motion to amend the bill as follows: 1) require the submission of fingerprints in the original application; 2) the permit shall be good for 5 years; 3) the permit shall list categories of guns, not specific guns; 4) there shall be a one-page application form; 5) the statute shall list the information that will be sought through the application's questions; 6) the application shall include an inquiry as to whether the applicant is on probation or parole; 7) the application shall be denied if the applicant lies or misrepresents information on the application; 8) there shall be a requirement to renew shooting proficiency on permit renewal; 9) there shall be a section limiting the sheriff's liability as presented to the committee; 10) there shall be a section requiring the permit issuance be entered into the criminal history repository's files; 11) the process of appeals shall be to the justices' courts; The chairman asked if there was anything else to be covered. Senator Porter reminded him there had been a request that a conviction for stalking or domestic violence should be grounds for denial. The chairman said he thought that amendment had been made, but reiterated the condition as part of the motion. 12) a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), domestic violence, or stalking shall be reason for denial of a CCW permit. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO AMEND SENATE BILL 299 AS LISTED ABOVE. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. The chairman called for discussion on the motion. Senator Porter took the floor to offer accolades to the chairman, Senator McGinness for his professional and sensitive handling of the subcommittee. He also thanked him for involving the various law enforcement agencies and others who offered information and advice. Senator McGinness thanked Ms. Combs for her hard work on the bill as well as thanking those in the audience for their input. Mr. Riggs also offered his congratulations to the subcommittee. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** There was no further business before the subcommittee. The hearing adjourned at 11:15 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Subcommittee on Judiciary April 25, 1995 Page