MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session April 21, 1995 The subcommittee meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, April 21, 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 Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis A. DeBacco, Program Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Highway Patrol Division, Records and Identification Services Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Fred Griisser, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association of America Dan Joseph, Gun Owners of America John E. Gallagher, Member of the Public John Miller, Member of the Public John W. Riggs, Sr., Gun Owners of Nevada Joel Backer, Member of the Public Paulla Comley, Member of the Public Jim Hertz, Chairman, Douglas County Chapter, American Pistol & Rifle Association Sandy Harris, Member of the Public Bill Mueller, Member of the Public Lieutenant (Lt.) William H. Cavagnaro, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) Lieutenant (Lt.) Phillip A. Galeoto, Reno Police Department Jan Brown, Member of the Public Daniel Applebaum, Member of the Public Senator McGinness opened the subcommittee hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 299. SENATE BILL 299: Requires department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to certain persons. Senator McGinness stated the subcommittee had been charged with the duty of "coming up with the best concealed carry weapons bill we can...." He said there would be no debate as to whether or not having such legislation was an issue. Senator McGinness indicated the subcommittee wished to develop a satisfactory bill, utilizing the input of those present. He stated if the subcommittee reached consensus on an issue contained in the bill, that issue would be voted upon at the end of the meeting. Senator McGinness indicated he had worked closely on the legislation with Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst, and different options had been explored. The chairman began with a discussion of section 2 of S.B. 299, which contains definitions. He indicated there should be a change from "department," meaning the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, (the DMV & PS) to "sheriff," because the county sheriffs issue the concealed carry weapons permits (CCWs). Senator McGinness also indicated the bill could require a fiscal note if left as now written. Senator Porter indicated he was aware of the frustration which now exists in several areas of the state with respect to services by the DMV & PS. He added the Senate Committee on Transportation was attempting to reorganize the department in order to provide better "front line service." Senator Porter said "switching to the DMV [DMV & PS]" may cause more frustrations than currently exist. He added he believed the subcommittee "...could take an existing law and improve upon it, instead of wiping out the slate and starting all over again." Senator Porter indicated he believed they could meet the goals which would be expressed during the hearing by doing that properly. Senator Lee agreed with Senator Porter and said he had confidence that the sheriffs in Nevada could issue the permits "in a prudent manner." He said he had hopes that streamlining could be done in order to develop an equitable situation. Senator McGinness stated he knew the frustrations persons have had with regard to obtaining permits with local sheriffs, and added he believed the use of a standard form would allay some of the frustrations. He said rather than having a person justify a need for a concealed carry weapons permit, the sheriff may be put in the position of giving reasons why the permit should be denied. Senator McGinness asked Allison Combs to discuss background information she has gained regarding forms to be developed. Ms. Combs indicated she had contacted the Florida Department of State which operates the concealed weapons program, and has received a copy of their form, together with a sample form from the state of Wyoming. She said they were very straightforward, one-page forms. Ms. Combs referenced section 3(5) of S.B. 299 which contains basic information to be requested on the sample forms. Senator Porter asked if the fee requested in section 5(d) was an existing or new fee. Ms. Combs responded the fee was not currently provided for in the statute and the fees varied between counties at this time. Senator Porter stated he understood present costs involved were $24.00 to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and $15.00 to the DMV & PS. Senator McGinness asked Dennis A. DeBacco, Program Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, Highway Patrol Division, Records and Identification Services, to approach the subcommittee and discuss the matter of fees which were set forth in the bill. Mr. DeBacco stated if the permits were issued through the sheriffs' departments, if the fingerprints were submitted to the state's criminal history records repository, and subsequently forwarded to the FBI in Washington, D.C., the fees set forth above would apply. He referenced line 40 on page 2 of S.B. 299, and said if the subcommittee proposed that the fingerprints are so forwarded, it must reference the FBI in the bill. Senator McGinness asked if fingerprints would need to be resubmitted at the time of a permit renewal application. Mr. DeBacco said there were no mechanisms in place which provide for a continuing background investigation on an individual, and the FBI's report "...is only good up to the day they respond." He indicated later information may go into the records repositories which would require a subsequent fingerprint card as part of the renewal process. The next person to speak to the subcommittee was Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. Mr. Cooper stated he did not believe the sheriffs would require fingerprints every time a permit was renewed. He added, "Frankly, for most Nevada residents, we would not even need to send the fingerprints to the FBI." Senator McGinness asked if fingerprints should be required on an initial application. Mr. Cooper answered he believed it should be an option on the part of the sheriffs. He added if a person had never had any fingerprints taken by the sheriffs, and has none on file, that person should go through the process. Mr. Cooper concluded, "I would rather see you make it permissive than mandatory." Mr. DeBacco added, "If that is the committee's pleasure, it certainly could be written in that fashion." Senator Lee asked Mr. Cooper if he could estimate the total cost to issue a permit, in light of his suggestion. Mr. Cooper answered Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO) had never charged a fee. However, he added, that was when the number of permits totaled approximately 1,700, while now there are approximately 3,000 each year. Mr. Cooper said the issuance of those concealed carry weapons permits requires one full-time clerk together with a part-time employee. He said the process is "laborious," consisting of a background check and clerical time which could take from 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours for each permit. Mr. Cooper suggested a reasonable fee for clerical time would be $15.00 to $20.00. Senator Porter stated he was not opposed to certain costs, so long as those costs were for expenses only, and not set forth as a tax. Senator McGinness said constituents had indicated to him they were not opposed to paying "actual costs." He added if a fiscal note were prevented by including fees within the bill, the legislation would have a better opportunity to be passed. Senator McGinness expressed concern with the language regarding the "demonstration of competence of a firearm" to the sheriff. He said the original bill contained language regarding the successful completion of a course conducted by the division of wildlife, or an equivalent course conducted by a similar agency, etc. He said his concerns were with the courses offered regarding "competence." Senator McGinness asked Fred Griisser, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association (NRA), to speak to the subcommittee on the issue of guidelines. Mr. Griiser provided the subcommittee with suggestions, set forth as Exhibit C. He said the courses mandated by other states differed widely, with requirements set forth from 6 hours to 16 hours. He said some states have guidelines utilizing a wide range of qualified instructors, although they may have minimal qualifications to complete the course. Mr. Griiser stated the NRA offers a course entitled "Personal Protection," which is widely used across the country. He said the course lasts 12 hours, discusses all different types of handguns, and has "live firing situations." Mr. Griiser said as part of that course, local law is taught by an attorney or law enforcement officer. He said such a course would address some concerns regarding "...when Nevada residents know if or when to shoot." Senator McGinness indicated the original bill referenced a "course in firearm safety conducted by the National Rifle Association," and said he would not like to limit it to that particular course. He said in some areas of the state that course may not be available. Senator McGinness asked Mr. Griiser to elaborate on the remaining guidelines in the 12-hour course. Mr. Griiser said there was a segment on gun cleaning and maintenance, together with other rigid guidelines. He agreed to only mention an NRA course was limiting, since there were other institutions and organizations which teach arms courses, including the law enforcement agencies. Mr. Griiser referenced the $50 fee set forth in the bill. He said there would be other fees attached to that fee, such as course fees, which cost from $75 to $200. Mr. Griiser stated when new CCW legislation is passed in a state, "...it is like a new market and everybody comes out with their school." He said if too many hours or types of courses are mandated, "...we will find that certain middle or lower income people, especially in the center-city areas, will be disqualified because they can't afford the fees and the training course." Senator McGinness stated one of his large concerns was that "...we don't put in too many restrictions so it actually prevents people from obtaining [a permit]." He said he had identified that "from the beginning" as one of the stumbling blocks to the legislation. Mr. Griiser agreed with the chairman's concern. He then referenced page 2 of S.B. 299 at line 6, where the language states, "...receive training in any branch of the military." Mr. Griiser stated, "Some people never got much training in the military...and there is no certifiable way to tell if a person even knows what Nevada law is." He said one of the most important aspects of having a CCW permit is that a person knows their legal responsibility. The next person to speak to the subcommittee was Dan Joseph, representing Gun Owners of America. Mr. Joseph referenced the training provisions contained in section 2(d)(2) on page 2 of the bill, and said the use of the word "or" covers enough methods of such training. He did, however, suggest the sheriffs may bypass that provision if they are satisfied with their personal questioning of a particular applicant. Mr. Joseph said a person may have been a former peace officer or similar profession who could present proof of completion of a gun handling course. Senator Porter concurred that a sheriff should be given the option to waive that training provision. He suggested language which would replace "the National Rifle Association" with "a national organization that certifies firearm safety instructors." Senator McGinness agreed, but stated he would not like to preclude local agencies or private organizations who have good training courses. The next person to speak was John E. Gallagher, Member of the Public. Mr. Gallagher suggested that an honorable discharge from the armed forces of the United States should meet the qualifications of firearms training. Senator McGinness responded the earlier suggestion regarding giving sheriffs the option to waive current firearms training would cover that issue. He also stated, "They should have had training [in the military], but some people didn't." The next to appear before the subcommittee was John Miller, Member of the Public. Mr. Miller stated he had grown up with guns in the state of Idaho, and is currently a member of the NRA. He said there are many persons like him who are more proficient with guns than someone who has just completed a short course. Senator McGinness agreed with Mr. Miller and thanked him for appearing. Next to testify was John W. Riggs, Sr., representing Gun Owners of Nevada. Mr. Riggs referred to a 2-day training program conducted by police officers who are NRA-qualified instructors. He said the cost of the primarily self-defense course is $100.00, with the first day dedicated to classroom work and the second day reserved for actual gun training. Senator McGinness stated that was exactly the type of course he would not like to preclude in the provisions of S.B. 299. Mr. Riggs referenced a "rewrite" of S.B. 299, which he provided to the subcommittee, and which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. He said one suggestion was language which stated, "...private agencies which are qualified to teach." The next person to speak to the subcommittee was Joel Backer, Member of the Public from Fallon, Nevada. Mr. Backer referenced Assembly Concurrent Resolution 62 of the Sixty-Seventh Session (A.C.R. 62 of the 67th Session). ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 62 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Urges local law enforcement agencies to develop guidelines to ensure that citizens are afforded the right to bear arms. Mr. Backer stated testimony on the bill pointed out that "The Nevada Constitution plainly states that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms...." He said the legislation stated a person could keep a loaded pistol in their car (to prevent car jacking) or a loaded pistol in their house (in case someone breaks in). Mr. Backer asked, "How come you can do that without having a `safety course'...?" He added, "I have assisted in teaching this NRA course for women, and I think it stinks...but then I have other opinions of the NRA, which I don't want to give you now." Mr. Backer said he had a gun in his automobile glove compartment and asked, "How come you don't ask for fingerprints for that...is that any different?" He added there were two places that the law does not allow persons to protect themselves. The first, Mr. Backer indicated, was against muggings and the second was "being in a place where an armed robbery was committed." He said in those two cases, a person would need to carry a concealed weapon. Mr. Backer asked, "Why is that any different constitutionally from what you have now...where you can protect yourself in your car...in your house...without a safety course...without fingerprints?" Senator McGinness reminded Mr. Backer that they had discussed the matter of fingerprints being optional if the local sheriff so decides. Mr. Backer continued: "A license to be able to protect yourself per the Nevada Constitution seems absurd...any time you accept a license that means you are accepting the licensor's right to revoke that license." He said if the subcommittee were to use A.C.R. 62 of the 67th Session by changing some language, they could provide that Nevada citizens could carry weapons, "concealed or not concealed." He said he believed the Legislature of Nevada should show the citizens that they trust them. Senator McGinness stated he was satisfied with broad language regarding various training programs. Senator Porter said he supported keeping the sheriffs as the issuing entities because "...they are locally elected and locally accountable." He said he believed they should be able to make a decision regarding gun safety courses. The next to testify was Paulla Comley, Member of the Public, Lyon County, Nevada. Ms. Comley stated she believed it was correct to leave the matter of training programs to the discretion of the sheriffs. Senator McGinness agreed and indicated the language should state, "...a course approved by the issuing agency." Dan Joseph returned to the witness table and said he wished to offer suggestions "...in the interest of speeding the hearing up." He referenced the "term" of the licenses and asked the subcommittee to consider "issuance for life." Mr. Joseph stated this would reduce the cost to the state and to the person holding the license. He said the only time a license should come up for review was if there had been an incident involving an unlawful use of a firearm. Mr. Joseph stated it would also keep costs at a minimum if the requirement for an FBI fingerprint check was an option with the sheriffs. He added he believed the sheriffs should have to show why a license should not be granted, rather than the applicant having to show why it should. Mr. Joseph indicated this would negate the appeals process, which involves additional expense. Senator McGinness referenced page 2, section 3, line 8 of S.B. 299, which dealt with the appeal process. He indicated information set forth such as "...has been judicially declared incompetent or insane...," is not available to the sheriff through the criminal repository, since it is privileged information. Senator McGinness said the language on line 13 regarding admission to a mental health facility is also unavailable information. He referred to suggested language provided by the NRA (Exhibit C) on page 3, section 2(ii), which states if a sheriff knows a person has committed acts which may make that person ineligible for a CCW permit, he must take a proactive stance to deny the permit. Senator Lee stated Senator McGinness' remarks enforced the reasons he believed the issuance of the permits should be kept in the hands of the local sheriffs. He said the state agencies do not have contact with the residents of the community and could not have the type of knowledge necessary to make a judgment. Mr. Joseph approached the subcommittee to offer a copy of the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms application for the purchase of a firearm. The front page of that form is attached hereto as Exhibit E. He said if the information required was adequate for the purchase of a firearm, it should be a guideline for the CCW permit application. The next person to testify was Jim Hertz, Chairman, Douglas County Chapter of American Pistol & Rifle Association. Mr. Hertz stated he believed there were sheriffs in Douglas and other counties "...who are denying an application based on the constitution which gives the people the right to carry a gun openly." He said there were reasons not to carry a gun openly. Mr. Hertz said he believed there should be a change on page 2, line 8 of the bill, from "shall deny" to "may only deny...." Senator McGinness indicated the subcommittee had determined to use language which said the sheriff shall issue an application unless he can show reasons to not issue that application. Mr. Hertz said his point was with language that says "shall deny," it gives sheriffs leeway to do what they are doing now in the way of denials. Senator McGinness reiterated the language will say "shall issue," instead of "shall deny." Senator Porter indicated the full committee, and in particular Senator Adler, had suggested language which also referred to convictions for domestic violence as a reason for denial. Senator McGinness agreed. The chairman asked the subcommittee for input regarding an appeal process if a denial was issued. (See S.B. 299, page 3, line 17.) He said he believed the appeal should be a local one, not statewide. Mr. Riggs returned to the witness table and referenced Exhibit D. He said the appeal process was included "...to prevent the sheriff...just because he doesn't like somebody, or the way he dresses...to deny a permit on that basis." Mr. Riggs said he felt a person who wishes to appeal must pay for the appeal process if he loses the appeal. Senator McGinness asked Mr. Riggs what type of appeals board he would suggest. Mr. Riggs answered he believed it should be composed of three persons, one from the NRA or the state association, one police officer from another jurisdiction and a third person picked at large, "satisfactory to the other two." Senator Porter brought up the matter of having an appeal heard "within a time certain." Mr. Riggs agreed and added the appeal should be held in the county where the application was denied. Senator McGinness responded he believed that was vital, and that the matter should be resolved quickly. The next person to speak was Sandy Harris, Member of the Public. She referenced page 1, section 3 of the bill and indicated there should be language which stated, "These forms shall be readily available." Ms. Harris also stated that completed applications, and/or in the event of a denial, "...shall be processed in a timely manner." Mr. Joseph once again approached the subcommittee. He said with reference to the appeals process, he agreed with a local, three- person board. Mr. Joseph asked the subcommittee to consider issuing something other than a "license or permit," since "...a license or permit by its very definition insinuates something the government is granting that they can take away from you." He said perhaps the title could be changed to "concealed carry authority." Mr. Joseph added, "This would infer something that we are entitled to that is a constitutional protected right, and we are going to qualify for this authority...and it is not something to be taken away other than a person forfeiting himself by an illegal act." Mr. Griiser again spoke to the subcommittee members. He referred to page 4 of Exhibit C regarding "Review of Denial, Revocation, or Suspension of License." Mr. Griiser then suggested removing section 5 of S.B. 299 altogether. He said he did think the burden of an appeal should be placed on the issuing agency or the sheriff. Mr. Griiser stated the NRA probably could not place a person in each county who would be qualified to sit on an appeals board. He said their suggested language would provide that "all denials should go to the local justice of the peace...which are courts set up to handle this type of thing every day." Mr. Griiser indicated the responsibility for payment of fees, expenses and attorney's fees should be set forth. He asked the subcommittee to review the suggested language set forth in Exhibit C, page 4. Senator McGinness indicated he felt the language was good and thanked Mr. Griiser for supplying the same. Senator Lee asked if an appeal went to the justice court, if a person could represent themselves, rather than employing an attorney. Mr. Griiser answered a person could do so, since the court was conducted informally. Senator Porter indicated there would be another hearing on the bill, after the subcommittee had compiled the information received in today's meeting. The next person to speak to the subcommittee was Bill Mueller, Member of the Public, Gardnerville, Nevada. Mr. Mueller stated he agreed with the proposed language of the bill, but suggested a provision be made "...that the sheriff's office not stonewall the appeal process by failing to appear." He said language should be included to state if the sheriff's office fails to appear, the appeal would be won by the person filing the same. Senator McGinness asked Allison Combs if there was a precedent for such language. She said the present language provided that the sheriff receive notice, and a sheriff's failure to appear would not preclude the hearing from going forward. Senator Porter indicated Mr. Griiser's proposed language stated "the sheriff or his designee," which could be another agency or "other people in fact." Senator McGinness referred to Mr. Mueller's statement regarding "stonewalling," and asked the subcommittee members if there was a suggestion regarding placement of an exact time in the bill. Senator Porter answered he believed "within 60 days of application" would suffice. Eric Cooper returned to the witness table and indicated a sheriff's department should be able to complete an investigation within 30 days. He said the biggest problem is timely submission of the application and completion of schooling. Senator McGinness asked if the school certification was normally submitted at the time of the application and Mr. Cooper answered "very often not." Senator McGinness stated it was incumbent upon an applicant to provide all the needed information in a timely manner. Appearing to speak on that subject was Lieutenant (Lt.) William H. Cavagnaro, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (METRO). Lt. Cavagnaro said 30 days was not an adequate time line. He said at this time, METRO received an average of 22 new applications daily. In addition, he stated, at this time there is no fee charged, so only one part-time person is handling the applications. Lt. Cavagnaro added an FBI fingerprint check could take a minimum of 90 days. He said a background check could vary from "10 minutes for a local person to several days for someone from out of the state." Lt. Cavagnaro stated they have trouble ascertaining if persons are even residents of the state and Clark County. He said if the legislation imposes a time limit of 30 days from the date of submission of the application, the matter will be "opened to a wealth of interpretation as to what exactly is a completed application." Lt. Cavagnaro also said there are times when an application is not complete when it is submitted. He reiterated, "30 days is certainly not enough." Senator McGinness asked Mr. Cooper if he believed an FBI fingerprint check was always necessary. Mr. Cooper answered the fingerprints would have to be submitted if the applicant's prints were not already on file. He admitted if a person moved to Clark County from out of the state, "...it could take from 60 to 90 days to follow up." Mr. Cooper said reviewing an application from a long-time resident of a county would be far more simple and take less time. Lt. Cavagnaro added that background checks which are done for child care applicants have shown it is very difficult to obtain information when an applicant has lived in another area, although they lived in Clark County at an earlier time, without doing an FBI fingerprint check. He stressed an applicant could have committed some type of crime while not living in Nevada. Lt. Cavagnaro also stated it is difficult to conduct some types of background checks "...without a requirement in the state law that says that is what we need to do." He said it should be required that the applicants sign a waiver and release of information form. Mr. Cooper said it was possible that there may be persons serving on an appeals board to whom law enforcement legally could not provide with information. Senator McGinness asked Lt. Cavagnaro if he felt an appeal should go before the justice of the peace. Lt. Cavagnaro replied he believed that could not be done, since appeals of state law must go to the district court. He said placing the burden on the district court would be an "unfunded mandate." Senator Lee suggested utilizing three persons from the METRO "civilian review board" which exists in Clark County, and consists of volunteers. Lt. Cavagnaro indicated that was a possibility, although it was his understanding that all appeals of state laws were done through the district court. Senator McGinness asked if a civilian review board were utilized, if background information obtained through the application process could be released to that board. Lt. Cavagnaro answered it could be done if a release had been signed. He said METRO's release could be given to any type of licensing board. Senator Porter stated he felt the appeal process was important, but once there are reasonable plans in place, it will not be needed as often as it is now. He added, "An applicant will know where he stands, while today, I think they are confused." Lt. Cavagnaro said in 1995 to date, METRO has processed 2,265 applications with only 43 being denied. He added many of those denials were based on a person not being a resident of Clark County, and such person would not have a basis for an appeal. Lt. Cavagnaro stressed the legislation should state the acceptable bases for appeal, such as omission or error of fact. The next person to speak was Lieutenant (Lt.) Phillip A. Galeoto, Reno Police Department. Lt. Galeoto stated the Reno Police Department did not take a position on the bill. He said he wished to make sure everyone understood that civilian review boards are not "a common thing" in the State of Nevada. Lt. Galeoto said they were typically established as a citizens' oversight committee in some police agencies in the country, but exist in this state only in Las Vegas. Mr. Joseph again approached the subcommittee and suggested striking the residency requirement set forth in the bill. He said a tourist traveling in Nevada should be able to carry a concealed weapon lawfully. Mr. Joseph added the wording regarding an appeals process was "probably unnecessary" since there are other provisions in the law regarding appeal. Senator McGinness reiterated the staff would research the matter of being able to appeal to justice court. He also stated he believed if a time limit were placed on an appeal process, there would be a fiscal impact to the bill. Mr. Joseph also stated it had been expressed to him by a large number of persons that the current permit process ties a person down to one or two guns. He asked the subcommittee to have the legislation refer to a license, permit or authority of the "person" so they may carry any firearm they so desire. The next to approach the witness table was Jan Brown, Member of the Public, Churchill County, Nevada. Ms. Brown asked, "If you are licensed to own a gun, I don't see why you can't carry one concealed...if you have it on your person and you put a coat over it, what is the difference?" She said it takes only a matter of minutes to go through a "Brady Bill check," so it should not take a great deal of time for a concealed weapon application. Mr. Griiser addressed the subcommittee again, saying: "I have testified in over 30 states...and I have never heard anybody testify that it takes 90 days for an FBI background check to go through." He said in the state of Arizona the average wait, with a background check, is 10 days. Mr. Griiser stated he believed setting a 60-day time limit would be sufficient. Mr. DeBacco, who testified earlier regarding this aspect of the legislation, said the repository submits approximately 60,000 to 70,000 civil fingerprints cards each year to the FBI, and the average turnaround time on licensing and employment issues is approximately 60 to 90 days. He said the testimony in that regard is accurate. Senator Porter indicated Nevada is the fastest growing state in the country, which may account for the lengthy turnaround time. Mr. DeBacco said the fingerprint check is a "labor intensive process," and is a much more inclusive process than a simple background check. Senator McGinness reiterated the subcommittee had discussed the matter of allowing a sheriff discretion in the matter of a fingerprint check, particularly in the smaller counties. John Riggs spoke to the subcommittee again, suggesting with regard to the appeal process that a person could select either the justice court or a three-man board. He also said he could assure the subcommittee that the United States Rifle and Pistol Association could provide members in an advisory capacity or as a member of a board. Senator McGinness said the subcommittee would consider this suggestion, since the aim should be to make the process as uncomplicated as possible. Mr. Miller, who spoke earlier, suggested with regard to setting a time line, that a "progress report" be issued if a fingerprint check was delaying the process. Senator McGinness responded, "If we put notification on the backs of the law enforcement agencies, you will see a fiscal note...." He reminded those present that the testimony regarding a 90-day time line, would probably only relate to Clark County. Senator Porter suggested language which would state "as soon as possible," or "a maximum of 120 days." Mr. Mueller, who testified earlier, asked if there could be an "either/or" provision, indicating if the sheriff elects to do a fingerprint check, it shall extend no longer than 120 days, while if no such request is made, it shall extend no longer than 30 days. The next person to speak was Daniel Applebaum, Member of the Public. He suggested submission of the fingerprint check request should be made to the FBI within a certain amount of time after an application is received. Senator McGinness indicated if a sheriff determines that fingerprints are not required, the original language (60 days after the application) will be utilized, and if fingerprints are required, a 120-day time limit would be reasonable. Senator McGinness summarized the earlier discussions. He said the fees should be kept "as bare bones as possible," to include fixed fees for fingerprints and $15 for the repository records check, together with any fees imposed by the local sheriff's agency. Senator Porter stated he believed they should address the issue of "state reciprocals." Senator McGinness asked Ms. Combs if reciprocity was automatically offered to other states. Ms. Combs said that would be a matter of state policy. Senator McGinness asked the subcommittee members if that should be placed into the legislation. Senator Porter answered he felt proper language should be inserted in that regard. Senator McGinness pointed out that such a law in Nevada would not mean that other states would have to give Nevada reciprocity. Senator Lee stated he would agree with language regarding reciprocity, but he would like to see what procedure the other state went through to grant a permit to an individual. Mr. Joseph approached the subcommittee to say he had researched the matter of reciprocity, and found that most states have the same criteria regarding issuance of permits. He said there are 16 states which have reciprocity written into their laws which state, "If you have a valid concealed carry authority license/permit from any other state, it will be recognized in that state while you are traveling." He said if a person becomes a resident, he or she must apply in the new state of residence. Mr. Riggs came forward to concur. Mr. Joseph asked the subcommittee to consider language which would allow a sheriff, in an emergency situation, "...or in any situation in his discretion he believes an immediate need dictates....," to bypass the entire process on his own volition. Senator McGinness indicated the subcommittee would meet again on the remaining issues contained in S.B. 299. He said the subcommittee had reached a consensus on leaving authority with the sheriff, information on gun safety courses, time lines and authority to waive a fingerprint check. He asked for a motion to set forth the above items in the form of an amendment. SENATOR LEE MOVED FOR PREPARATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS LEAVING AUTHORITY WITH THE SHERIFF, INFORMATION ON GUN SAFETY COURSES, TIME LINES AND AUTHORITY TO WAIVE A FINGERPRINT CHECK. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Mr. Griiser approached the subcommittee and asked that they consider the issue of limited liability as set forth on Exhibit C. He said police departments and sheriffs must be protected from civil liability. Senator McGinness stated that matter would be addressed in the next subcommittee hearing on the bill. There was no further business to come before the subcommittee, and the hearing was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: __________________________________ Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman DATE: Senate Subcommittee on Judiciary April 21, 1995 Page