►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
We
are
back
from
recess.
This
is
still
technically
the
joint
committee
of
the
senate
and
assembly
judiciaries
and
right
now
we
only
have
the
senators
here
because
we
are
going
to
enter
a
work
session
on
sb
452.
A
We
have
created
and
provided
a
work
session
document.
It
is
available
on
nellis.
I
believe
it
has
been
emailed
to
senator
pickard,
who
is
joining
us
by
phone
today.
It
is
also
provided
on
the
desks
of
all
the
senators
who
are
here
in
the
room,
and
I
will
have
mr
guidan
walk
us
through
it.
Please.
B
Thanks
chair,
excuse
me
patrick
gein,
and
for
the
record
committee
policy
analyst.
So,
as
the
chair
just
mentioned,
we
are
going
to
do
a
work
session
on
senate
bill,
452,
which
we
heard
here
in
this
committee
this
morning,
sponsored
by
the
majority
leader.
This
bill
prohibits
the
possession
of
a
firearm
on
a
covered
premises.
In
certain
circumstances,
I
won't
read
the
summary
of
the
bills,
as
we
just
heard
it.
B
We
provide
that
when
a
law
enforcement
officer
arrives
in
response
to
a
call
from
an
establishment
before
making
an
arrest,
the
officer
must
identify
himself
or
herself
and
provide
the
person
an
opportunity
to
comply
with
the
establishment.
Excuse
me,
the
establishment's
policy
would
narrow
the
definition
of
premises
to
exclude
adjacent
properties
that
are
owned
by
the
licensee,
who
would
revise
language
regarding
law
enforcement
off
the
law
enforcement
officer
exception.
B
A
Thank
you,
mr
gunnan,
and
I
think
all
of
these
reflect
amendments
that
were
proposed
and
discussed
during
the
hearing,
but
are
there
any
questions?
Is
that
okay,
I
don't
see
any
questions.
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
with
both
the
amendment
provided
at
the
hearing
and
the
additional
conceptual
amendments
reflected
in
the
work
session
document.
A
C
Thank
you
jerry.
I
appreciate
that
there's
a
lot
of
questions
that
came
out
during
the
debate.
I
understand
that
the
concept
of
this
newest
newest
amendment
is
compromised
on
those
particular
aspects,
but
I
think
that
the
testimony
clearly
showed
the
fatal
flaws
of
this
bill,
and
that
would
be
an
understatement.
C
The
question
to
me
is,
though,
we
have
a
lot
of
ones
that
are
still
out
there.
That
haven't
been
answered,
that
we
asked
of
the
mgm
properties,
who
are
the
primary
person
who
brought
this
bill,
and
we
haven't
got
those
answers
back
so
at
this
point
in
time
I
will
definitely
be
opposing
this
bill
yeah.
I
don't
know
to
bring
back
a
bill
that
failed
in
one
house
and
then
just
reintroduce
it
in
the
other
house.
We
have
so
many
issues
out
there
that
we
could
have
discussed
today,
death
penalty
included.
E
F
Very
good,
thank
you.
I
want
to
get
over
what
my
colleague
just
said.
I'm
really
disturbed
frankly,
not
just
about
the
bill,
but
the
process
having
an
emergency
built
the
last
minute
on
a
bill
that
had
already
been
vetted
by
our
colleagues
in
the
other
house.
I
think
it
was
a
real
slap
in
the
face
and
I
don't
think
it's
the
right
way
to
handle
things,
especially
when
we
do
want
to
have
some
level
of
both
bipartisanship
and
some
level
of
camaraderie
between
the
two
houses.
So
I
thought
that
was
a
big
mistake.
F
Look
good
now
as
if
there
was
an
absence
in
the
law
that
that
that
caused
the
october
2017
shooting,
when,
in
fact
what
it
was,
is
the
mgm's
own
security
people
just
flat
dropped
the
ball
horribly
and
allowed.
I
believe
it
was
15
long
guns
to
actually
be
transported
for
apparently
over
a
period
of
several
days
and
thousands
of
rounds
of
ammunition
and
now
coming
back
and
saying
well.
Well,
we
we
need
a
change
in
the
law
to
prevent
things
like
that.
F
I'm
sorry,
all
those
other
casinos
have
been
doing
a
marvelous
job
of
making
sure
that
vegas
stays
safe
and
that
people
feel
safe
coming
there,
and
I
thought
the
the
the
that
aspect
of
this
thing
was
really
painfully
disingenuous,
and
that
was
evident
strongly
by
the
absence
of
answers
to
fundamental
mechanical
ways
of
how
this
law
would
actually
be
applied.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
letting
me
vent
I'll,
be
a
strong
no
on
this
bill.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
first
impulse
after
hurrying
through
this
bill
that
we
just
got
a
couple
of
days
ago
was
to
think
that
resorts,
particularly
mgm,
are
certainly
entitled
to
protect
their
space.
I
also
recognized
after
going
through
it,
that
the
law
gives
mgm
and
the
others
the
authority
to
exclude
firearms.
E
E
I've
heard
from
many
who
actually
are
opposed,
but
remain
quiet
so
as
not
to
rock
the
boat
at
the
association,
but
this
all
works
to
make
me
think
that
this
is
about
and
one
entity
trying
to
burnish
their
image
and
to
make
metro
become
their
private
security
forces.
One
of
the
witnesses
later
testified
as
much
as
I
agree
that
they
need
to
have
better
security.
They
need
to
be
better
by
simply
hiring
armed
security
or
better
security,
since
metro
would
be
at
best
minutes
away,
maybe
half
an
hour
away.
E
Ultimately,
I'm
most
concerned
about
the
reality
of
the
disparate
treatment
that
this
bill
is
going
to
create.
We
have
as
a
society
as
senator
hanson
just
mentioned
questioned,
are
most
highly
trained
and
responsible
law
enforcement
individuals
and
their
ability
to
police
without
bias.
Arguably,
the
security
force
that
will
be
required
to
enforce
this
policy
before
metro
shows
up
will
not
be
as
well
trained
or
organized,
and
it's
impossible
to
avoid
the
question
of
disparate
treatment
and
profiling
that
is
likely
to
occur,
given
it
is
so
ingrained
in
our
media
and
entertainment
today.
E
So
I
I
joined
in
the
calls
from
the
aclu
and
the
others
to
avoid
the
disaster
that
is
sure
to
be
the
real
outcome
of
this
bill
and,
let's
find
a
more
reasonably
and
constitutionally
permissible
way
of
accomplishing
the
goal,
which
I
think
is
a
worthy
goal
of
keeping
our
public
places,
especially
concentrated
areas
like
casinos
and
the
like.
Safe
and
again,
I
sympathize
with
the
cause,
the
the
the
the
intent
of
the
bill,
the
you
know
we
kept
coming
back,
even
though
we
weren't
getting
the
answers
to
our
questions.
E
We
kept
hearing
about
the
goal
of
the
bill
and
I
agree
with
the
goal.
I
think
everybody
agrees
with
the
goal
that
we
want
to
make
these
places
safe,
but
I
think
rushing
a
bill
through
without
the
ability
to
really
vet
this
thing
without
the
ability
to
get
our
questions
answered
even
in
follow-up
means
that
you
know
a
hurting
decision
is
always
a
questionable
one.
E
So
I
think
that,
because
this
was
brought
so
late
in
the
session,
we're
not
able
to
really
vet
this
we're
not
able
to
quell
the
fears
of
frankly,
you
know,
as
the
I
think
it
was
the
aclu
mr
hasabula
mentioned
that
it's
unusual
to
think
that
the
the
groups
that
were
aligned
against
this
bill
would
ever
come
together
on
the
same
side
of
a
bill.
I
think
that's
testimony
enough
that
this
hasn't
been
well
thought
through.
E
There
are
other
alternatives
short
of
what
I
believe
to
be
constitutionally
impermissible
language,
and
so
I
will
be
a
no
on
this
bill
as
well.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
I
want
to
thank
majority
leader,
ken
azar
and
the
other
proponents
for
the
additional
amendments.
Senator
donate
senator
harris
that
have
been
proposed
here.
They
do
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
I
had
and
I
hope
some
of
the
concerns
of
other
some
of
the
other
assembly
people
and
state
senators
who
had
questions,
and
so
I
I
do
appreciate
them
trying
to
address
that.
I
certainly
I
I'm
cognizant
of
the
concerns
that
were
brought
up
by
aclu
and
progressive
leadership.
H
I
didn't
want
to
be
left
out,
so
I
know
most
people
know
I
was
not
a
fan
of
of
this
bill
as
originally
introduced,
and
I
think
it's
come
a
very
long
way
and
I'd
like
to
echo
my
colleagues
comments
and
thanking
the
majority
leader
for
listening
to
folks
concerns,
and
with
this
amendment
and
and
the
new
proposed
amendment
in
the
work
session,
I
I
feel
comfortable
voting
on
that
measure
today,
as
well
as
the
commitments
from
the
culinary
union
and
others
to
be
on
the
lookout
for
any
bias
that
may
manifest
itself.
H
A
Thank
you
and
I'll
take
a
point
of
personal
privilege
to
indicate
that
I
will
also
be
supporting
this
measure
out
of
committee,
because
I
do
believe
that
it
accomplishes
the
goals
that
were
set
out
by
the
the
sponsor
of
this
bill
and
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
that
it
was
originally
contained
in
ab-286.
A
Assemblywoman
houdiki
was
here
testifying
in
support
of
the
bill.
So
I
think
that
this
represents
actually
the
proper
functioning
of
our
system,
where
we
were
unable
to
reach
to
address
all
the
concerns
when
ab286
was
in
the
assembly
and
so
sure
this
was
removed
from
that
bill.
But
it
came
back
in
a
very
different
form.
The
bill
that
you
see
in
front
of
you
today,
sb
452,
is
different
from
the
provisions
that
were
originally
in
ab-286.
A
This
allows
us
to
treat
a
prohib,
a
a
certain
premise
that
opts
in
to
prohibit
guns
on
their
property,
the
same
way
that
we
treat
a
school
or
a
library
or
a
public
building
which
makes
sense
because,
as
we've
all
noticed,
the
tourism
economy
is
the
lifeblood
of
our
nevada
economy,
and
so
we
we
should
be
paying
special
attention
to
the
the
resorts
and
the
casinos
and
the
hotels
and
all
of
the
places
that
people
come
from
all
over
the
world
to
see
and
ensure
that
they
can
be
safe.
A
While
they
are
there
and
we
should
be
able
to
allow
those
facilities
to
have
this
increased
and
improved
amount
of
safety
on
their
properties.
I
also
think
that
this
hearing
was
largely
focused
on
issues
that
were
not
relevant
to
the
bill.
It
was
very
clear
to
me
that
we
had
moved
away
from
the
legal
understanding
of
the
fourth
amendment
and
of
search
and
seizure
law,
because
none
of
that
is
changed
by
this
bill.
A
D
A
And
with
that
the
motion
passes,
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
senator
canazzaro
and
that
concludes
our
work
session.
For
today
this
is
still
a
judiciary
committee
meeting,
so
we
do
still
have
public
comment
on
the
agenda.
I
don't
see
anybody
in
the
room
to
give
public
comment
broadcast
if
we
could
just
check
and
see
whether
anybody
is
on
the
phone
to
give
up
a
comment.
Please.
I
I
J
Cyrus
hogarty
c-y-r-u-s
h-o-j-j-a-t-y.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
guys
all
about
this
opportunity,
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
I
believe
that
violence
in
general
is
going
to
be
my
concern
because
excuse
me,
I'm
sorry,
there's
a
lot
of
outside
police.
J
Okay,
yeah!
I
believe
violence
is
going
to
be
announced,
a
serious
concern
because
there
is
an
epidemic
of
loneliness
that
is
out
of
control
and
because
of
this
pandemic
I
think
loneliness
can
lead
to
violence,
and
it
was
really
interesting
to
see
how
you
know
what
I've
been
hearing
is
on
both
sides.
For
and
again
people
were
complaining
that
one
side
was
going
to
benefit
minorities.
The
other
side
was
not
going
to
benefit
and
I
really
saw
people's
true
colors.
You
know
culinary
union
was
foreign
other
organizations
there
were.
Four
minorities
were
against
it.
J
A
All
right,
then,
that
brings
us
to
the
conclusion
of
our
meeting.
I
believe
we
have
posted
an
agenda
for
monday's
meeting,
which
is
scheduled
to
begin
at
1pm.
I'm
just
checking
before
I
close
us
out
yep.
I
will
see
you
all.
On
monday,
at
1pm
have
a
great
rest
of
your
weekend.
We
are.