MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 22, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Thursday, June 22, 1995, Chairman Humke presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Fred Griisser, National Rifle Association Mr. Robert Seligman Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum Mr. Dale Andrus Mr. Linwood E. Tracy, Jr., Chairman, Washoe County, Independent American Party Mr. Jim Dennis Ms. Carolyn Nelson Ms. Theresa Price Mr. Joseph Wilson Mr. David I. Applebaum Mr. Larry Dilley Mr. Bob Gunn Mr. Dave Haskins Mr. Steve Chano, Law Enforcement Alliance of America Mr. Brent Buscoy Mr. Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs/Chiefs Assn.., Washoe County Sheriff Neal Harris, Elko County Sheriff's Department Sheriff Rod Banister, Carson City Sheriff's Office Mr. Dave Kieckbusch, Washoe County Sheriff Mr. Vern Peterman Mr. Al Baumruck, Douglas County Sheriff Mr. Jerry Mather, Carson City Sheriff Captain Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff Captain Lee Bergevin, Washoe County Sheriff Mr. John W. Riggs, Sr., Nevada Gun Owners Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Chief Deputy Frank Barker, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Mr. Ernest Johnson Jerry H. Mowbray, Esq. Mr. Herbert Klemme Ms. Grace George, Department of Motor Vehicles Mr. Richard Nichols Mr. Joel Backer Mr. H. L. Kilchrist, Nevada Pri. Coalition Mr. Jim Kovacks Mr. Glen Reames Mr. Jack Kuehl Ms. Cindi Seigman Ms. Anne Cathcart, Deputy Attorney General Mr. Mark Ghan, Attorney General's Office Ms. Stephanie Licht, Lobbyist, Nevada Woolgrower's Association Mr. Jan Brown Mr. Parker Dale Dumbauld Mr. Michael Ford, Nevada Gun Exchange Mr. Richard Breugman, Committee of 1776 Mr. Tony Byzewski Mr. Dan Joseph, Gun Owners of America Mr. David Cusick Ms. Tamela Gunero Ms. Juanita Cox, People To Protect America Mr. Michael McGriff, American Pistols and Rifle Association Mr. Chris Langer Mr. Gordon Larsen Louis A. Levy, M.D., F.A.C.S., Diplomate American Board of Neurological Surgery Ms. Sherri Lakin, Taxpayers Education Alliance Mr. Alex R. Bruckner, National Rifle Assn./ American Pistols & Rifle Assn. Mr. Kevin Milburn Bill Bradley, Esq., Nevada Trial Lawyers Association Mr. Gary Mouden, Executive Director, Nevada Dental Association Ms. Donna Brown Bruce Pendleton, DDS, Nevada Dental Association Joel F. Grover, DDS, Nevada Dental Association Mr. Jim Wadhams, Nevada Dental Association Mr. Buddy Garfinkle Chairman Humke opened the hearing on Senate Bill 299. SENATE BILL 299 - Requires sheriff to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to certain persons. Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District, bill sponsor, noted he is armed only with the first reprint of S.B. 299. He described his background in security and his service as national advisor for all 50 states for the National Security Association, and as head of the Legislative building security. Senator Jacobsen remarked this is good legislation and is an endeavor to meet the concerns of all the different groups. He explained in 1971 when he served as speaker and he had his life threatened. The incident began his enthusiasm for self protection and to guarantee the safety of all. He commented since crime is on the increase S.B. 299 would be a deterrent to crime. Mrs. Monaghan requested clarification of Page 1, regarding competency in use of a firearm and asked if it was similar to police officer qualifications. Senator Jacobsen responded a person would have to prove competency and complete a gun safety course. Mrs. Monaghan requested the definition of a dangerous knife. Senator Jacobsen replied the dangerous knife was not part of his initial bill draft request. Mr. Fred Griisser, lobbyist, National Rifle Association, testified in support of S.B. 299. On behalf of more than 30,000 [NRA] members in this state and hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Nevadans he urged passage to establish uniform statewide guidelines for the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Mr. Griisser stated applicants must provide proof of successful completion of a course in firearms instruction, as well as alternatives to the use of deadly force. He added S.B. 299 explicitly prohibits the issuance of a permit to: a person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, including domestic violence or stalking; has an outstanding criminal warrant against them; a parolee or probationer; or a person who is incompetent, insane, admitted to mental health facility, or habitual user of alcohol or controlled substances. Referring to Page 2, Lines 29-33, Mr. Griisser commented law enforcement has the ability to deny a permit to any individual whom they have knowledge of engaging in activities which would preclude them from obtaining a permit. S.B. 299 stipulates certain places where firearms cannot be carried, such as schools, courthouses, prisons, police stations and any other place where state or federal law will prohibit the carrying of a firearm. This legislation protects the rights of law-abiding Nevadans who choose to provide for their self-defense while balancing the public concern for those who would and should be disqualified for carrying a firearm. Mr. Griisser advised 26 states have statutes which provide for a non-discretionary or permit system. Mr. Griisser concluded his remarks quoting Police Captain F. Sherman Stillman, Oregon law enforcement officer, coordinator of that state's permit system, "The people who have these concealed gun licenses are not the people we should be concerned about having firearms. These are law-abiding citizens." Mr. Griisser stated law- abiding citizens of Nevada are crying out for uniform, fair guidelines for the issuance of a permit to carry a firearm for self-protection. Mr. Griisser wished the committee to recommend to the full Assembly a do pass on S.B. 299 without any amendments to hinder its passage. Referring to a provision in the bill regarding incompetency or insanity during the immediately succeeding five years, Mr. Carpenter stated anyone declared insane should not have a firearm even if it is longer than five years. Mr. Griisser advised that provision was the result of the Senate re-write, and he agreed with Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Griisser noted this bill gives law enforcement the discretion to deny anyone a permit. Mr. Carpenter called attention to Page 2, Line 29, regarding denial of an applicant who receives an affidavit from a peace officer and asked if it could be from an ordinary citizen. Mr. Griisser replied a normal person would not be able to submit an affidavit, just a law enforcement officer. Mr. Carpenter commented if the definition of a dangerous knife is not amended it would make a criminal out of 70%-80% of people in Nevada and asked if there would be any objection to deleting of this section. Mr. Griisser replied there was no objection at all. Mr. Goldwater commented law-abiding citizens in this state can have weapons and hopefully always will be able to. Mr. Goldwater questioned why they need the concealed weapons permit. Mr. Griisser responded it is the society we live in today. If a gun is carried on your hip walking down the streets of Las Vegas or Reno, any city, there would be undue stigma attached. Mr. Griisser stated this may be the West, but it certainly is not the wild West. Mr. Griisser noted he lived in Phoenix and if he were to carry open there, the gang bangers would try to provoke an incident. Mr. Goldwater surmised the deterrent effect is enhanced by having a concealed weapon, but it is exacerbated when it is out in the open. Mr. Robert Seligman testified in support of S.B. 299. Mr. Seligman stated he has served his country in military special operations in intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement. Mr. Seligman noted people will testify it is an imperfect bill and they are correct; imperfect people had input, but it is the best product of our constitutional republic which honors different points of view from diverse groups. He concluded it recognized the interests of all; however, the addition of the 2-inch knife was a surprise from the original version. Mr. Seligman recommended passage as drafted; and, if fine tuning is required, it can be accomplished in the next session. Ms. Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, testified in support of S.B. 299. Ms. Hansen referenced a copy of the fact-sheet on concealed carry firearms (1995), attached as (Exhibit C). She stated criminals prefer unarmed victims and in the Nevada Constitution it states we have the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense. Ms. Hansen noted it is a growing issue to women. She stated in response to Mr. Goldwater's question, women do not want to carry a gun on the hip but rather in a purse or briefcase. Ms. Hansen added when law- abiding citizens have guns, the crime rate goes down. She agrees and supports the deletion of the section on the 2-inch knife. Mr. John W. Riggs, Sr., Nevada Gun Owners, testified in support of S.B. 299. Mr. Riggs clarified the bill, as originally drafted, was to have the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Highway Patrol Division, oversee the gun safety course and this was not satisfactory. Mr. Riggs agreed the sheriffs are more qualified in the administration of this bill. He drew attention to Page 5, Line 36, and noted everything in Section 12, and on, was requested to be put into the bill by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The 2-inch knife meaning was not understood. The current law does not provide a definition of dangerous knife and he recommended deletion of this section or changing it to a 3.5-inch knife. Mr. Riggs commented every hunter, sportsman, and anyone carrying a pocket knife would be in violation of the 2-inch provision. Mr. Riggs stated his part of the bill stopped at Line 35 and Senate Judiciary subcommittee did a fine job re-writing the bill. Mr. Riggs commented if the government cannot trust their citizens, then the citizens certainly cannot trust their government. Mr. Batten voiced strong opposition to citizens carrying concealed weapons, especially in a casino or bar. Batten pointed out the places where a concealed firearm is prohibited listed on Page 4, Section 8, Line 32. Mr. Riggs responded casinos and bars are private properties and it is up to the owner of the property to address this issue. Mr. Riggs referred to an antique law in Nevada , "to check your guns at the bar." Mr. Riggs advised there is another bill that addresses a drunk with a gun; this bill is concerned with giving people the right to carry a concealed firearm. Mr. Batten asked if a bar owner required the guns be checked at the door how it would be verified if a gun is on a person or no and if he was caught with a concealed weapon in the bar what would the penalty be. Mr. Riggs replied there would be no penalty because it is on private property and the owner would be relying on a law-abiding citizen to comply with their request. Mr. Riggs stated in many cases an armed citizen in a bar or supermarket can prevent a robbery. Mr. Riggs concluded armed citizens on the streets will deter crime far more than it will create it. Mr. Manendo asked how many people were carrying mace in the room. Mr. Riggs and five other people in the audience raised their hands. Mr. Manendo commented the law-abiding citizen needs to have protection and asked if other methods of protection are used. Mr. Riggs replied the `pepper popper' was one of the best items for protection and reiterated what is addressed in the bill is to give the privilege for people to have choice of protection. Ms. Steel agreed citizens have a right to be armed and the police force has to work with the same citizens. Ms. Steel questioned the carrying of more than one weapon. She asked why a provision to limit the number was not included. Mr. Seligman responded the argument is just for record keeping purposes but the general feeling of law enforcement has been to know the armed citizen has qualified as proficient with the particular firearm carried. Mr. Seligman preferred citizens be required to demonstrate proficiency with a particular class of weapon and not limited by serial number or particular brand. Ms. Steel advised she has no problem with the serial number part of it and requested clarification if one can be proficient in different brands. Mr. Seligman responded what evolved in the Senate was it would be a proficiency for a semi- automatic pistol and proficiency for a revolver because they are mechanically different. Mr. Seligman stated a citizen could qualify for one or the other or both. The general feeling of law enforcement was they were not trying to effect a backdoor gun registration but wanted demonstration of proficiency of the weapon to be carried. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Riggs if the proliferation of people carrying concealed weapons would create an atmosphere of courtesy and non-violence since the people would suspect other would carry weapons; but they really did not know. Mr. Perkins added he was not buying that argument in light of the recent events on California freeways and the altercations occurring in traffic with the exchange of gunfire. Mr. Riggs added it would make people drive more careful to avoid an altercation. Relative to the homicide rate in Florida falling 22% according to FBI data, Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Hansen if Nevada's homicide rate has increased or decreased in the same period. Ms. Hansen did not have any knowledge. Mr. Perkins did not want the committee misled by this information as Nevada's rate has also fallen. Mr. Perkins's estimated the reason is the same as in Florida; it was not because of the concealed weapons law but because of the immense growth both the states are experiencing. Mr. Perkins advised the FBI uniform crime reporting data is based upon per capita ratio and suggested this was the reason why the homicide rate has fallen. Ms. Hansen stated it could be a contributing factor the data shows states that have the most liberal gun laws also have the lowest crime rates. Mr. Perkins asked, as it relates to Florida and not in relationship to the ratio of population, did the numbers in that state increase or decrease. Ms. Hansen replied she can look it up. Mr. Perkins stated he would appreciate that. Ms. Stroth commented news reported homicide rates have decreased, but battery cases have increased more than 60% in the state. Ms. Stroth remarked this statute is really needed and noted her son was killed with a handgun and she will be one of the first to apply for a permit if this bill is passed. Mr. Carpenter asked if the proficiency course would be an extra cost or paid out of the $60 fee. Mr. Riggs replied the $60 covers administration of the bill and $39 is applied to the FBI check. Mr. Carpenter requested confirmation the charge of the course would be over and above $60. Mr. Riggs affirmed it. Mr. Linwood E. Tracy, Jr., Chairman, Washoe County, Independent American Party, testified in support of S.B. 299. Mr. Tracy stated 12,489 signatures of citizens of Nevada on petitions who support this bill had been secured. Mr. Tracy apprised the committee of his background. Mr Tracy said England has the oldest gun law system in the world and has one of the most critical criminal, murderous historical societies in the world. He expounded this country was based on a principle the constitution asserts all power is inherently in the people; they may exercise it by themselves and it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; and they are entitled to freedom of person, religion, property and press. Mr. Tracy said there is a great movement in the United States to get rid of big government and if S.B. 299 is turned down, it is big government; this is the people's desire and not the legislator's desire. He told the legislators they are here to represent the people of Nevada, and it is their desire to put sidearms on their families to protect themselves and to secure their properties and persons. The sheriffs' being selective of whom they want to permit to carry a firearm resulted in the request for this bill. Mr. Tracy pointed out law enforcement is not a protection agency, but an investigation agency and its law enforcement's job is not to protect individually, but collectively. Mr. Tracy maintained the individual is responsible for his own protection, and this bill gives that option and right. Mr. Batten commented it was earlier stated the permit would identify the type of firearm qualified with. He did not note that provision in the bill and wondered if he qualified with a .38 what happens if he carries a .9 mm. handgun; would he have to get a new permit stating .9 mm. Mr. Tracy called attention to Page 3, and noted it states the type of firearm authorized. Mr. Tracy advised it makes absolutely sure the individual is permitted to carry a firearm they are familiar with. Mr. Batten restated his question as to type of firearm authorized. Mr. Seligman responded the type was distinguished by either semi-automatic or revolver and was not further categorized. Mr. Riggs advised this very question arose during the Senate hearing and it was the consensus the gun owner would list one firearm he would normally carry. If there are other guns which they wish to carry, they would be listed on the application only. If the firearm specified on the permit was not the one the person carried, it could be verified by the sheriff's office on the list on the application. Mr. Riggs stated qualification has to be shown for the extra weapons. Chairman Humke asked if Mr. Tracy desired to leave the petitions for the committee's perusal and reading. Mr. Tracy stated they wanted to keep them for further proceedings. Chairman Humke advised the record will be kept open for later submission of statements. Chairman Humke apologized the committee was rediced to a subcommittee at this time with four members present: Assemblymen Ohrenschall, Batten, Humke and Perkins. Assemblymen Anderson and Sandoval are excused with medical problems in their families and other members are in other committees testifying on various bills. Mr. Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, testified in opposition of S.B. 299 and submitted a copy of their proposed amendments (Exhibit D). Mr. Cooper stressed it was important to understand that law enforcement has no objection to the issuance of concealed weapons permits to the citizens of Nevada. When he was Undersheriff at Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) for 12 years, he was responsible for the issuance of concealed weapon permits and people were only denied for cause. Currently, LVMPD has 2600 weapon permits outstanding with more applying every day. A large number of applications are currently being processed in Washoe County. Mr. Cooper explained justification for proposed amendment to S.B. 299 (Exhibit D). He emphasized law enforcement wants to know the make, model, and caliber of a firearm to be carried concealed because there are an incredible array of weapons that can be carried. Sheriff Neal Harris, Elko County Sheriff's Department, expressed disappointment the full committee was not present to hear their concerns. Sheriff Harris explained he is a dues paying member of the NRA and was not against people possessing firearms. He has been in law enforcement since 1969 and seen incidents where citizens possessing firearms have helped law enforcement. He described and event in 1985 when a deputy was shot in the head and citizens in the camping area shot the suspect. Sheriff Harris stated the deputy recovered but was no longer capable of performing in law enforcement. Sheriff Harris stated this bill is necessary because the statute allows for the issuance of concealed weapon permits and when president of the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association the desparity was apparent in the manner sheriffs issued permits and processed applications. Sheriff Harris stated they attempted to address it through the Association by statewide application forms. Since January 1995 Sheriff Harris requires all his permits expire at the end of his term; a new sheriff should know who has a concealed weapon permit. This year he has issued 48 permits, denied eight and has nine applications pending. Sheriff Harris explained his application process. Sheriff Harris requested the committee to address amendments if inclined to pass this legislation. He pointed out the importance of including the amendment regarding the sheriff of each county issuing to a resident of that county. Chairman Humke asked if this bill provides for a county or state carry permit. Sheriff Harris believed it is a state carry permit, but it does not say it will be issued to a resident of the county by the sheriff of that county. With regard to Mr. Cooper's and Sheriff Harris' previous statements, it was suggested that the permits should expire with the term of the incumbent sheriff. Chairman Humke commented the current statute on carry permits is a stringent statute for the applicant, where there is a high degree of discretion by a sheriff. This bill transfers that function to a more ministerial function. Chairman Humke asked if he would stipulate that is correct and asked why should a permit not carry over to the term of the next sheriff. Sheriff Harris expressed concern with the requirements for qualification as it is written because it means any individual can come in with the minimum qualifications and the sheriff must issue a permit unless he can find reasons not to; it means it will be an armed camp. Sheriff Harris honestly feels the sheriff in office should know who carries those concealed weapon permits. He said the record sometimes disappears or is destroyed by the outgoing sheriff. Chairman Humke concluded a statute may be needed to compel every sheriff to maintain a set of books and records to pass onto his or her successor. Sheriff Harris agreed. Ms. Steel expressed concern in having to re-take fingerprints. Mr. Cooper advised it was an amendment suggested by one of the sheriffs who felt the additional fingerprint process should be done at the end of a five year period. Sheriff Harris stated a sheriff would not be aware of any arrests outside of the county or state. Law enforcement would not become aware of it unless another set of prints are sent to the FBI. Mr. Cooper said the FBI will not provide a verified records check without additional fingerprints being submitted. Ms. Stroth inquired under existing law if one gets a concealed permit in Clark County, is it good outside of Clark County. Mr. Cooper answered current law states concealed weapon permits issued by any sheriff are good throughout the state. Ms. Stroth commented she was told by LVMPD and the DA's office that if she said she needed a concealed weapon for purposes of protecting herself because she carried money to deposit at the bank, she could probably get it. Ms. Stroth said they indicated that just wanting to protect oneself was not justification. Mr. Cooper replied he personally approved every application and assured Ms. Stroth only half of the applications were for simple self protection. Mr. Cooper stated early in Sheriff Rand's administration specific reasons were required but in the last four years, the determination was based upon the fact crime was becoming a problem and they could no longer deny a citizen the right to carry a concealed weapon for self protection. Sheriff Rod Banister, Carson City Sheriff's Office, testified he was not opposed to the fundamentals of the bill. Sheriff Banister stated the $60 fee is not sufficient to cover the $39 charge be the FBI and the cost for manpower to conduct the basic background investigation for the number of individuals that will apply. Sheriff Banister added $25 is not sufficient for the renewal fee as the FBI will not do another check unless another set of fingerprints are provided; a $39 charge. He concluded it will have a major fiscal impact on his office.. Deputy Chief Frank Barker, representing Sheriff Keller and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified they are the most populous county in the state and issue the most permits. To update Mr. Cooper's numbers, he indicated over 3,200 permits were issued, 50 rejected and 300 in process. They are in the process of changing the permit system to allow a person, if they qualify in the proficiency of a weapon, to have two weapons on a single permit for a longer time period. He confirmed Mr. Cooper's prior statement they accept self protection as reason to issue a permit. Deputy Chief Barker stated their concern and that of the chiefs of Henderson and North Las Vegas is if a sheriff is going to issue permits under conditions fixed in state statutes, they need the proposed amendment (Exhibit E), to allow them to do an adequate investigation with adequate information from the applicant. In addition reference was made to Section 10, Lines 15-17, directing money to go into the county general fund. There is a unique situation as the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has a general fund. In order for them to recover the costs the money needs to go into the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department general fund instead of the county general fund. Mrs. Monaghan asked if Deputy Chief Barker has statistics on how many permits were issued five years ago versus one year ago. Deputy Chief Barker replied in 1990 the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department issued 890 permits; in 1991 - 875 permits; in 1992 - 1,056 permits; in 1993 - 1,546 permits ( 556 new with 16 denied and 8 revoked); in 1994 - 2,367 permits (50 denied); in 1995 - presently issued over 3,000 permits of which 2,265 were issued in the first three months and 50 denied. Mrs. Monaghan inquired if the figures were general citizens and not police officers. Deputy Chief Barker answered the ability for a police officer to carry a concealed weapon on or off duty is provided for in other statutes. He stated police officers are issued two permits to carry, backup and off-duty, and officers must demonstrate proficiency as they do for their duty weapon. Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, told the committee he was armed and displayed different types of firearms. Lt. Olsen gave a brief overvirw of the amendment (Exhibit E) and pointed out several weapons which would qualify under the bill as presently written. His concern was if an individual trains with a semi-automatic .22 pistol, he can still choose to carry a large semi-automatic Mac 10 or Uzi semi-automatic. He noted Uzi makes a full automatic weapon but the one being discussed is not a full automatic or machine gun. Lt. Olsen stated the way the bill is written, if law enforcement does not have the ability to require an individual to train in the specific weapon they want to carry, and to approve that specific weapon, then, as an example, if the person trains only with a semi-automatic .22 Jennings, they could later carry a semi- automatic Mac 10. Displaying a number of weapons Lt. Olsen stated copies of machine guns have no business being carried concealed but a Smith & Wesson 6- shot revolver is acceptable. Lt. Olsen displayed a Smith & Wesson 8-inch with scope and said the weapon could be carried. Lt. Olsen reiterated they are asking for the ability to ensure the individual is trained in a specific weapon, to identify the weapon and to approve of the weapon. Mr. Anderson inquired if the amendment was submitted to the Senate side. Lt. Olsen confirmed some of the amendments were accepted and some were not. Mr. Cooper stated this was due to large number of amendments and requests that did not come out on the bill draft request. Mr. Goldwater requested if an applicant will be denied a permit if he has a problem with narcotics and is currently in a treatment center. Lt. Olsen replied substance abusers are denied. Lt. Cavagnaro stated they have to delve into a person's background sufficiently to discover the answers to the questions to allow them to issue the concealed weapons permit. Mr. Goldwater commented while an individual has a right of privacy and confidentiality in his life, he also has a right to carry a concealed weapon. Lt. Cavagnaro responded the statute gives the sheriff the right to deny a person addicted to alcohol or drugs or is a habitual criminal. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if they are required to look at a person's physical condition as with a driver's license test. She commented if visual acuity is 20/20 with corrective lenses the requirement to wear glasses when driving appears on the driver's license. She asked if something similar would be included in a [carry] permit. Lt. Olsen replied successful completion of a firearm training course would be noted on the certificate. Ms. Ohrenschall asked if it would show on his permit. Lt. Olsen replied it would not. Mr. Carpenter questioned what the cost of the course would be. Lt. Olsen answered their [LVMPD] range can not be used because it is occupied at all times. They refer people to several approved private ranges in the Las Vegas valley. Mr. Carpenter asked if LVMPD has any type of a course set up now. Lt. Olsen responded they do not because their range is occupied at all times. Mr. Cooper noted the cost runs from $50-$100, depending upon the range. Chief Deputy Dave Kieckbusch, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, representing Sheriff Kirkland, testified their administration supports the private ownership and carrying of handguns by responsible citizens. He stated they revised their application and permitting process from a 10-12 pages document to a 2-page application and reduced fees from $139 to $89. This year 80 permits were issued with no denials. He stated the amendments to the bill offered by the previous speakers are extremely important, particularly the ones regarding the potential of unfunded mandates by incorporation of certain fees that do not meet the price of the officers doing the work necessary to complete the background investigation for the permit. Deputy Chief Kieckbusch stressed the individual sheriff of a county should retain the ability to carefully examine each applicant and eliminate those he feels are not responsible to be certified. He pointed out Sheriff Kirkland agrees with the other sheriffs' comments. Lt. Olsen added Clark County handguns are already registered by serial number, so it is not an issue other than identifying it on a permit. Mr. Anthony Wopacicki, a police officer for the federal government in Reno at Nevada Air National Guard and 15 years as a professional bodyguard and investigator, testified he is opposed to one provision in S.B. 299. Mr. Wopacicki commented an individual who is qualified and meets the standards should not be limited to two guns. If someone is working professionally, circumstances may require them to have other weapons at times and there should be provisions for that. Mr. Wopacicki did not see any harm in what kind of weapon you decide to carry. If there is a situation where someone is shot one time, there is as much damage whether it is from a .22 or from an Uzi. Chairman Humke stated Mr. Wopacicki was in opposition to certain amendments offered by Mr. Cooper and others and closed the hearing on S.B. 299. Chairman Humke announced there are two conflicting sets of amendments and directed they be compiled into one document, agreed to by law enforcement, and be submitted to the offices of the Co-Chairmen by close of this business day. SENATE BILL NO. 129 - Requires cause of action for dental malpractice to be submitted to screening panel before it may be filed in district court. Mr. Jim Wadhams, Nevada Dental Association, testified in support of S.B. 129. Mr. Wadhams stated the purpose of this bill was to add dentistry to the existing medical screening panel and does not make changes in that panel. Mr. Wadhams assured there was no domino effect and stated medicine and dentistry have similar practices in hospitals being the only professionals in health care with full staff privileges take histories, conduct physicals and admit patients to the hospitals. In 1985 the request should have been made to add dentistry. Mr. Wadhams stated Nevada is at or above the national percentage of dentists per capita population. and the dentists are practicing defensive dentistry and restricting the care they are willing to provide. The ultimate beneficiary in this legislation is not dentists but constituents who need access to an important component of health care, dentistry. He noted the survey to be distributed later by Mr. Gary Mouden indicates the rising premiums which is indicative of increasing claims and lawsuits. Mr. Wadhams said they asked for this addition of dentistry to the screening panel because the positive effect of the panel has been recognized by physicians, hospitals and trial lawyers. The reason dentistry should be included is it is consistent with medicine in its hospital practice. Mr. Wadham testified to a constitutionality problem and states where it has been ruled unconstitutional it is because the legislature took the step to prevent lawsuits from going to court. He directed attention to Page 6, Lines. 24- 25, and stated this legislation does not preclude anyone from going to court irrespective of what the panel may decide as to hospital, physician or general liability. Ms. Buckley requested an estimate on what percentage of cases filed against dentists for malpractice are believed to be frivolous. Mr. Wadhams did not have an estimate. Mr. Gary Mouden, Executive Director, Nevada Dental Association, reviewed the position of the Nevada Dental Association of dental screening panel, attached as (Exhibit F). Joel F. Glover, DDS, Nevada Dental Association, testified for the past 15 years he has represented the Chairman of the Board of Dental Examiners. Dr. Glover envisioned this bill as necessary to put them with the physicians with the ability to protect the public and to cut down on malpractice and court costs to enable practitioners to practice and not be so concerned about the malpractice results. Dr. Glover encouraged support for their position to add dentistry into the panel. Bruce Pendleton, DDS, President of Nevada Dental Association, testified the medical screening panel has proved its worth over the past ten years, and they should have been added to it in the beginning. Dr. Pendleton was of the opinion this panel will do a great job in eliminating frivolous lawsuits and felt the dental consumer will benefit and dentists will practice less defensively. Mr. Anderson directed attention to a letter of June 19, 1995, from the American Board of Trial Advocates, Reno Chapter, Peter Chase Neumann, President, attached as (Exhibit G). Jerry H. Mowbray, Esq., of Reno, Nevada, testified to represent his interest as a lawyer in medical and dental malpractice cases. Mr. Mowbray stated the reason this legislation was developed was because of a verdict he obtained two years ago against a very prominent dentist in Reno. He noted if the case had been submitted to the dental screening panel, the "good ole boy network" in Reno, would never have allowed it to go through. Mr. Mowbray pointed out all the reasons given by the dentists are not supported by fact. There is no defensive dentistry being practiced as a result of threat of malpractice litigation. Specifically, Mr. Mowbray referred to Mr. Neumann's letter (Exhibit G) which indicates there are about four cases per year filed in Washoe County against dentists. Mr. Mowbray stated this is not representative of a litigation crisis for the dental field. The cost of dental malpractice insurance is less than lawyer's insurance which runs between $1200- $2800 per year. Mr. Mowbray referred to several documents, attached as (Exhibits H and I). He noted the dentists testified they desired input on the decision-making process; who is allowed to go into court and who gets to succeed against a dentist. Mr. Mowbray described a case, tried two years ago, in which the opposing asked for an independent medical examination, (Exhibit H). The hired the chairman of the department of oral surgery at the University of Washington was hired to conduct this independent medical examination; the findings were unfavorable. Opposing counsel blacked out the unfavorabe comments on the copy Mr. Mowbray received (Exhibit H). He recieved an unedited copy only after threatening to go to the judge (Exhibit I). Mr. Mowbray noted these exhibits where provided as an example, and stated peer review is good when it "gets them off the hook", but when it does not they try to hide the evidence because they do not want to be held accountable. Mr. Mowbray described another case of a client who filed a complaint with the grievance committee of the Northern Nevada Dental Society (Exhibit J). The complaint had merit and the Northern Nevada Dental Society recommended legal action. A letter from the Dental Care Center office manager's of May 10, 1989 which informed the patient should he pursue litigation in accordance with the Committee's recommendation the patient and his family would be put in jeopardy of legal ramifications including but not limited to suit for libel or slander. Mr. Mowbray maintained when a decision is against a dentist, they do not believe in the peer review because they are not willing to follow the recommendations and pointed out the only time there has been a verdict against a dentist in the history of Washoe County was in the first case. In the second case involving the dentist who would not follow the recommendation of the peer review committee and threatened his client with suit, Mr Mowbray's case did not settle until after thousands of dollars were expended in depositions and the case was on the steps of the courthouse. Mr. Mowbray contended dentists are not like physicians; they are different in the sense a dental malpractice cases are small cases. Mr. Mowbray stated the average dental case is worth about $10,000-$15,000 and he advises his clients their case must be worth at least $50,000-$100,000, as it will be more expensive to litigate than it is worth because $8 will be spent to get $10 back with a 10% chance of recovery. Mr. Mowbray stated statistically the medical screening panel only passes one in ten cases and the effect of this legislation is it will not discourage frivolous lawsuits. It will discourage 95% of the dental cases from going forward because it will tell the client it will cost $1,500-$5,000 to get an expert to review this case and no one will accept it as an economically viable proposition. Mr. Buddy Garfinkle, a retired school teacher from Washoe County testified he had a routine root canal to insert a post to hold a cap. His dentist was out of town when he had the procedure done by a reputable dentist. Mr. Garfinkle related he became very sick resulting in endocarditis and subsequently underwent open heart surgery, as half of his aorta valve was eaten by bacteria. Mr. Garfinkle advised the dentist he would not pursue a lawsuit and asked for medication and asked for assurance this would not happen again. Mr. Garfinkle stated the dentist was very, very sorry. Mr. Garfinkle had 80%-20% insurance coverage and the 20% [he was responsible for] equaled $8,000, which used his savings. Mr. Garfinkle stated the dentist was a nice man and called him 10-12 times to express his sympathy and tell him he believed he had insurance to with medical bills. Mr. Garfinkle stated nothing ever happened. After about a week the tooth came loose and he was so ill and he lost the sight in his left eye. Mr. Garfinkle asked the [Judiciary] Committee if this bill was really needed and stated he was of opinion, from the statistics, it does not look like it is needed. Mr. Garfinkle said special interests with lot of money, power and influence would benefit from this bill and asked who stands up for the general public. Mr. Garfinkle called attention to the composition of the panel of three dentists and three lawyers and stated the [Judiciary] Committee members are more his peers than the panel is. Mr. Garfinkle stated he would like a homemaker, teacher, rancher or fireman on the panel who he could relate to. Mr. Garfinkle questioned who was going to fund this; taxpayers--as it is another layer of bureaucracy that is not needed. Louis A. Levy, M.D., F.A.C.S., Diplomate American Board of Neurological Surgery, testified he had the opportunity of being on both sides of the medical screening panel and firmly believed both sides are problematic both to patient and physician. Dr. Levy stated yesterday was the first time he heard about it [dental crisis] and checked with his personal dentist and to ask what his professional liability premiums were. Dr. Levy stated his dentist said they amounted to $4,400 a year, of which $2,800 covered the liability and the balance covered fire, earthquake, flood damage. Dr. Levy surmised $200 per month is for malpractice insurance and stated there is no crisis. He added his malpractice insurance is $96,000 per year amd that is a crisis! Dr. Levy noted constitutionality of the medical screening panel is being challenged. Dr. Levy noted Nevada is only one of two states that has a viable medical legal screening panel and stressed his opposition to S.B. 129 in tacking the dental screening panel onto the medical screening panel. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 10:43 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary June 22, 1995 Page