Assembly panel hears support for gun law reform bill
CARSON CITY — A Republican-backed bill that would make sweeping changes to Nevada gun laws received a generally favorable reception Thursday in an Assembly committee after it was amended and passed by the state Senate.
Senate Bill 175, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, and co-sponsored by all 10 other GOP senators, would expand and clarify Nevada’s justifiable homicide law and prevent people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms.
It further would prohibit anyone under an extended protection order from acquiring weapons during the time the order is in effect and abolish Clark County’s “blue card” ordinance requiring registration of firearms, a local law that has been on the books for more than six decades.
State Sen. Greg Brower, R-Reno and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the bill “covers self-defense and who can carry firearms in our state.”
It would extend justifiable homicide to include vehicles.
“This idea is to make sure the classic carjacking scenario is addressed in the bill just as the Castle Doctrine scenario is addressed in the law,” said Brower in testimony before the Assembly panel. Nevada law already allows people to use force to defend themselves in their home.
The original version of the bill was amended in the Senate to narrow the justifiable homicide definition to “occupied” vehicles or houses.
The bill also would protect those who kill someone from civil liability, with a “rebuttable presumption” if they knew or reasonably believed that the person killed was attempting to enter an occupied house or vehicle unlawfully with force or the intent to invoke violence.
Some Democrats in the Senate opposed the bill when it was introduced, arguing it didn’t go far enough to protect stalking victims. A bill sponsored by state Sen. Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, sought to require people under extended protection orders to surrender weapons they already possess. SB195 would only prohibit them from acquiring new ones.
The bill passed the Senate 14-5 with some Democratic support. Assembly Judiciary took no action on the bill Thursday.
Brower said judges have the power to require someone under an extended protection order to surrender weapons they possess.
Still, there are critics.
“The abuser gets to keep his arsenal, but can’t acquire any more guns? Where is the sense in that?” asked John Saludes, an advocate for Nevadans for Background Checks. He urged the Assembly committee to amend the bill to prohibit gun possession if under an extended protection order.
Another provision of the bill would allow reciprocity of concealed weapon permits issued in other states if those states also require holders to take a training course.
If the bill is enacted, Clark County, which has required firearm registration for decades, will have a year to destroy all records in its keeping. Chuck Calloway, representing Las Vegas police, said the agency purged some records in the 1980s but still has about 1 million on file.
Further, the bill would establish “state control over the regulation of policies concerning firearms,” and allow anyone “adversely affected” by local ordinances or regulations that violate the measure to sue for damages.
Assemblyman Elliot Anderson, D-Las Vegas, questioned the need for that clause.
“Why damages?” he asked.
Brower said local governments need to be “appropriately incentivized” not to put additional restrictions on gun rights.
“The idea here … is we want to make sure that the litigation is potentially painful enough that the local government won’t dare someone enough to sue them,” he said
The Metropolitan Police Department and other law enforcement agencies supported the bill, as did some women’s groups and advocates for domestic violence victims.
But the Nevada Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense opposed the reciprocity for concealed carry permits, opposed damages against local governments for tighter gun ordinances and reciprocity of concealed carry permits.
Vanessa Spinazola with the American Civil Liberties Union objected to restricting civil liability in cases where someone shot another out of fear.
“Even if there was a mistake, there would be no way for the families to recover” damages, she said.
Contact Sandra Chereb at schereb@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901. Find her on Twitter: @SandraChereb.