►
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
A
Thank
you
so
much
with
that,
we
do
have
a
quorum,
and
today
we
are
here
to
hear
one
bill.
I'm
sure
you
all
know
that
it
is
senate
bill
452,
and
I
want
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
the
lay
of
the
land
as
we
get
started.
We
are
going
to
hear
the
the
bill
in
joint
session.
I
will
give
the
presenters
ample
time
to
present
the
bill
and
there
is
an
amendment
on
nellis
that
they
will
also
be
presenting
to
us.
A
The
members
of
both
committees,
which
I
will
here
too
for
referred
to
as
the
committee,
because
we
are
now
one
committee-
will
have
as
much
time
to
ask
questions
as
they
need.
Each
person,
though,
will
only
get
one
bite
at
the
apple.
So,
if
you
think
of
another
question
after
you've
already
had
your
turn
to
ask
questions,
you
will
be
asked
to
follow
up
offline
with
the
sponsors
or
whoever
you
need
to
ask
the
questions
of
likewise.
A
If
any
of
the
questions
become
excessive
or
redundant,
I
will
ask
you
to
follow
up
offline,
because
we
do
have
not
only
this
meeting
to
get
through.
We
have
other
meetings
going
on
in
the
building
today
and
we
do
have
a
rather
large
committee
when
we
are
combined.
So
after
every
member
gets
a
chance
to
ask
any
questions
that
they
might
have,
we
will
move
to
testimony
on
the
bill.
Testimony
will
be
taken
in
the
normal
order.
A
A
I
also
encourage
you
to
simply
say
you
agree
with
previous
testifiers
that
you
are
in
the
same
position
that
helps
us
to
get
through
more
people,
and
I
understand
that,
if
you're
not
used
to
testifying
it
may
seem
like
you're,
not
giving
us
your
all.
But
truly
we
appreciate
it.
We
do
understand
when
you
say
something
as
simple
as
I
agree
that
we
register
that
as
your
support,
we
will
limit
testimony
on
each
in
each
position
to
one
hour.
A
My
goal
is
to
get
us
all
out
of
here
by
noon,
and
so
I
will
be
keeping
track
of
that
and
announcing
it
as
we
go
through.
I
want
to
remind
everybody
in
a
contentious
hearing
like
this
may
become
to
be
respectful
and
civil.
Keep
your
comments
to
the
policy
questions
and
concerns.
Again.
I
will
cut
you
off
if
the
if
you
violate
that
request-
and
finally
I
want
to
let
you
know
that
we
all
have
our
computers
out,
and
I
hope
you
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect.
A
It
is
how
we
access
our
bills
and
other
information
and
after
the
end
of
the
hearing,
the
committee
will
go
into
a
recess
during
that
recess.
We
will
excuse
the
members
of
the
assembly,
though
we
enjoy
their
company,
they
do
not
have
the
bill
yet
in
their
house,
so
they
cannot
yet
work
session.
The
bill,
the
senate,
on
the
other
hand,
may
be
ready
to
work
session
the
bill
at
the
end
of
the
hearing.
A
You
might
have
noticed
that
a
work
session
was
previously
scheduled
as
a
separate
meeting,
but
we
have
since
confirmed
that
we
are
able
to
simply
work
session
the
bill
as
a
senate
committee
within
this
meeting
after
the
hearing.
So
if
we
have
that
work
session
after
the
work
session,
we
will
go
to
public
comment.
Public
comment
will
also
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person
and
to
30
minutes
total
and
public
comment
is
not
a
time
to
continue
testimony
on
the
bill.
A
It
is
a
time
to
make
remarks
on
other
issues
of
importance
to
the
judiciary,
and
after
that
we
will
conclude,
and
so
I
will
turn
it
over
to
my
co-chair
assemblymember
yeager,
to
make
any
remarks
that
he
has
and
then
we
will
get
started.
C
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
good
morning.
Everyone
I
just
wanted
to
let
members
of
the
assembly,
judiciary,
committee,
know,
and
members
of
the
public
know
that
we're
hearing
this
bill
in
joint
hearing,
because
I
do
not
intend
to
have
a
separate
hearing
on
the
bill
in
the
assembly
if
the
bill
is
to
come
over
to
us.
C
So
I
wanted
to
let
everybody
know
that
and
as
chair
scheibel
mentioned,
we
are
not
able
to
take
any
action
on
the
bill
in
the
assembly
because
we
don't
yet
have
it,
but
I
wanted
to
make
clear
for
the
members
of
the
assembly
that
this
will
likely
be
your
one
and
only
chance
to
ask
questions
on
this
measure.
So
I
would
encourage
you
to
ask
questions
if
you
have
them
and
just
wanted
to,
let
you
know
that
this
will
be
the
assembly
hearing
as
well.
So
thank
you
so
much
chair
appreciate
it.
D
Thank
you,
chair
scheibel
and
chair
yeager,
members
of
the
assembly
and
senate
judiciary
committees.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
nicole
canizaro
and
I
represent
senate
district
six,
which
is
located
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
here
today
to
present
for
your
consideration
senate
bill
452,
which
prohibits
a
person
from
possessing
a
firearm
on
specified
premises.
In
certain
circumstances.
D
With
your
with
your
permission,
chair,
scheible
and
sherry
yeager,
I
would
like
to
provide
just
a
very
brief
introduction
of
the
bill
and
then
would
like
to
turn
some
of
my
time
over
to
my
co-presenters.
I
do
have
with
me
attending
virtually
aisha
molino,
with
mgm
resorts
and,
of
course,
assemblywoman
sandra
haughey,
to
explain
more
of
the
background
and
details
of
the
bill.
D
We
also
have
with
us
today
senator
fabian
dunante,
who
is
here
to
help
walk
through
some
of
the
amended
the
proposed
amended
version
of
the
bill
that
has
been
provided
on
nellis,
as
well
as
by
by
way
of
background
information
over
the
last
year.
Our
state,
of
course,
has
been
deeply
impacted
as
a
result
of
the
kovid
19
pandemic,
and
the
hospitality
industry
has
been
hit
especially
hard
as
we
begin
to
turn
the
corner
and
start
to
make
our
comeback.
We
must
ensure
that
our
world-renowned
resorts
are
safe
for
everyone.
D
These
are
just
some
of
the
steps
that
we've
been
able
to
take
to
ensure
not
only
the
safety
of
those
who
are
visiting,
but
also
the
safety
of
those
workers
who
keep
this
state
running
each
and
every
day,
with
senate
bill.
452,
we
are
again
looking
to
adapt
our
state's
legal
tools
to
better
protect
our
hospitality
workers
and
our
visitors
and
guests
that
travel
to
las
vegas
from
around
the
world.
D
This
time
by
ensuring
that
we
can
appropriately
prevent
instances
where
physical
violence
may
be
may
otherwise
be
a
factor
when
we
look
at
federal
and
other
states
gun-free
zone
legislation
that
has
been
passed
in
recent
years.
The
intent
of
this
kind
of
legislation
is
very
clear.
These
measures
are
supported
by
those
who
hope
not
only
to
reduce
violent
crime,
but
also
to
reduce
suicides,
unintentional
firearm,
injuries
and
deaths,
and
mass
shootings.
D
Private
businesses
already
have
the
ability
to
prohibit
firearms
on
their
premises.
That
is
something
that
they
may
already
do,
and
we
are
trying
to
seek
to
make
sure
that
that
is
something
that
they
can
properly
enforce
again.
I
would
also
note
that,
while
this
is
something
that
they
can
already
do,
this
is
also
something
that
is
a
choice
for
that
particular
premises.
Owner
this
language.
It
simply
enhances
the
business
communities
toolkit
to
notify
patrons
of
this
prohibition
and
to
call
upon
law
enforcement
to
assist
and
address
situations
before
they
escalate
and
become
dangerous.
D
E
Thank
you,
chair
scheible
and
cherry
jaeger
and
good
morning
to
the
members
of
the
joint
senate
and
assembly
committees
on
judiciary,
for
the
record.
My
name
is
fabian
donate
and
I
represent
senate
district
10
in
central
and
east
las
vegas
senate
director
10
covers
unlv,
mccarran
airport
parts
of
east
las
vegas
and
the
majority
of
the
las
vegas
strip.
E
E
For
me,
one
of
my
biggest
priorities
is
to
ensure
the
health
and
safety
of
my
family
members
and
my
community.
That
means
passing
policies
that
will
enhance
the
protections
offered
to
our
fellow
casino
workers.
Let
me
be
clear
with
one
thing
today:
the
epidemic
of
gun
violence
is
a
public
health
crisis.
E
We
need
to
do
everything
we
can
to
prevent
the
acts
of
violence
before
catastrophe
occurs.
After
witnessing
the
horror
and
pains
that
resulted
from
the
route
91
harvest
festival,
shooting.
It
is
clear
to
me
that
more
must
be
done
to
ensure
that
our
visitors,
casino
workers
and
local
residents
are
further
protected,
which
brings
me
to
senate
bill
452.
E
After
speaking
with
various
stakeholders
and
community
members,
I
am
offering
this
friendly
amendment
that
will
help
clarify
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
we
are
seeing
with
the
original
language.
Under
my
proposed
amendment
senate,
bill
452
will
take
the
same
approach
that
we
have
already
established
within
nrs
regarding
public
buildings
and
schools.
E
This
amendment
strengthens
the
bill
requirements
with
regards
to
signage
and
makes
these
signs
required
at
every
casino
entrance
check-in
desk
and
cashier's
cage.
Additionally,
it
also
changes
the
penalties
associated
with
any
violations
of
this
policy
down
to
a
gross
misdemeanor,
which
is
a
similar
language
that
is
reflected
in
nrs
202
that
265
that
prevents
the
possession
of
a
weapon
on
the
school
premise.
F
Thank
you
senator
good
morning,
chair
schaible,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
judiciary
for
the
record.
I
am
sandra
haudeghi
representing
assembly,
district
41,
and
I'm
happy
to
be
here
alongside
majority
leader
canazarro,
to
have
the
conversation
about
what
it
takes
to
keep
nevada
safe.
I'm
proud
that
we
are
continuing
the
conversation
on
this
policy
that
we
began
to
work
on
over
a
year
ago
with
the
stakeholders.
Here.
F
People
were
here
visiting
las
vegas
to
have
an
exciting
fun
memorable
memorable
trip
only
to
experience
the
deadliest
mass
shooting
in
modern
us
history.
While
we
have
made
progress
in
the
year
since
then,
we've
also
seen
continued
violent
incidents
that
have
left
both
nevadans
and
the
economic
engine
of
our
state.
Las
vegas
tourists.
F
End
quote,
I
know
metro
and
sheriff
are
doing
the
best
they
can
to
handle
this
uptick,
but
they
simply
need
more
tools
at
their
disposal
in
a
post-covered
world.
We
know
we
need
to
show
visitors
and
residents
alike
that
we
are
a
place
where
you
can
come
and
forget
about
your
problems
not
come
to
find
more.
We
know
we
need
every
single
selling
point
we
can
to
get
our
tourism
economy
back
on
track
committee.
On
march
9th,
eight
days
before
I
presented
a
bill
to
give
businesses
the
tools
they
need
to
enforce
their
firearm
policies.
F
F
F
In
the
last
30
days,
committee
members,
we
have
the
opportunity,
with
senate
bill
452
to
help
the
largest
driver
of
our
state's
economic
recovery,
be
safe
for
the
40
million
visitors
that
visit
las
vegas
every
single
year
and
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
nevadans
that
go
to
work
there
every
single
day.
Thank
you
committee.
Thank
you.
Majority
leader,.
G
Good
morning,
members
of
the
senate
and
assembly
judiciary
committees,
chair
yeager,
chair
scheible,
thank
you
all
very
much
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
appear
before
you
today.
My
name
is
aisha,
molino
and
I'm
the
senior
vice
president
for
public
affairs
for
mgm
resorts.
I
want
to
thank
majority
leader
ken
azaro,
for
bringing
forth
this
measure.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
senator
daniate
and
assemblywoman
hadiki
for
your
tireless
effort
on
helping
us
to
get
this
bill
right
as
the
state's
largest
employer.
G
We
have
a
responsibility
to
keep
our
employees,
our
guests
and
our
customers
safe
and,
ultimately,
that's
what
this
bill
is
all
about.
Let
me
first
emphasize
this
about
this
bill.
It
does
not
change
any
existing
rights
for
gun
owners
and
ccw
permit
holders
as
a
private
property
owner
mgm
resorts
already
has
the
lawful
right
to
prohibit
guns
on
our
properties
and
we
do
under
existing
law.
G
Our
unarmed
security
teams
must
first
issue
a
verbal
warning
to
a
patron
and
ask
who
is
in
possession
of
a
firearm
more
often
than
not,
these
individuals
either
willingly
surrender
their
firearms
or
they
leave
the
premises.
Unfortunately,
this
is
not
always
the
case.
As
a
result,
our
employees
and
our
patron
safety
is
put
at
risk.
G
This
bill
gives
private
property
owners
the
ability
to
call
metro,
in
certain
circumstances
where
an
individual
ignores
our
lawful
right
to
prohibit
firearms
and
creates
an
unsafe
environment
for
our
employees
and
our
guests.
Importantly,
this
bill
is
opt
in.
It
does
not
create
any
additional
mandates
on
private
property
owners.
It
applies
only
to
to
non-restricted
gaming
licensees
who
choose
to
prohibit
firearms
on
their
property
in
order
to
opt
in
a
licensee
must
post
the
prescribed
signage
at
all
public
entrances,
as
well
as
other
locations
within
the
establishment.
G
D
Cherishment,
chair
yeager,
this
does
conclude
our
portion
of
the
presentation
for
senate
bill
452..
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
share
an
overview
of
this
bill,
as
proposed
to
be
amended
and
again
as
we
emerge
from
the
covet
19
pandemic
and
continue
to
reopen
las
vegas.
I
believe
it
is
essential
that
we
again
adapt
and
work
better
to
address
and
prevent
instances
where
the
presence
of
guns
puts
lives
at
risk
in
our
tourism
and
hospitality
sector.
D
The
kind
of
change
that
can
keep
people
safe
is
something
that
is
truly
remarkable.
So
I'm
very
grateful
that
she
is
here
today
and
for
all
of
her
hard
work.
Madam
chair
excuse
me
cherish
schreibel
and
sherry
yeager.
With
your
permission,
we
would
like
to
open
it
up
for
any
questions
that
you
and
the
remainder
of
the
committee
members
may
have.
A
Thank
you
so
much
majority
leader
canazarro
someone
houdiki
senator,
donate
miss
molino.
We
appreciate
you
being
here
to
present
to
us,
and
I
know
that
our
committee
members
will
have
plenty
of
questions
for
you.
So
do
the
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
have
questions
at
this
time.
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
that.
I'm
just
curious.
This
is
a
little
bit
unusual,
to
say
the
least,
this
type
of
presentation
and
hearing
so
do
we
address
the
amendment.
Only
are
we
saying
that
the
bill
is
going
to
be
amended,
so
we
address
it
as
both
or
just
the
bill
and
can
I
address
to
all
the
people
who
presented
or
how
do
you
want
to
proceed.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
In
that
respect,
I
appreciate
the
presentation
by
the
mgm.
It
sounds
to
me,
like
they're,
doing
a
pretty
good
job
right
now
of
actually
practicing
basically
de-escalation
protocols
to
ensure
situations,
don't
turn
troublesome,
to
say
the
least.
So
I
appreciate
that
I'm
kind
of
curious
why
the
current
system
doesn't
necessarily
work.
C
So
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
this
bill
will
change
that
in
any
way,
shape
or
form
and
make
it
so
that
you
have
more
law
enforcement
to
respond
or
you
know
they're
saying
they
need.
Maybe
they
just
need
to
hire
more
security
themselves
and,
of
course,
then,
within
that
whole
question
is
what
does
an
individual
supposed
to
do?
You
know
they
mentioned
the
discussion
of
the
off-duty,
cops.
What
that's
what
happens
with
them?
C
It
says
you
know:
active
law
enforcement,
where
law
enforcement,
at
least
in
my
counties
that
I
represent,
are
required
to
carry
a
gun
with
them
at
all
times,
even
when
they're
off
duty,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
wrap
my
head
around
all
that
in
that
respect.
So
I
understand,
there's
a
few
questions
to
say
the
least
in
there.
But
then
again
I
think
the
bill
merits
that.
G
G
Is
can
go
ahead
under
current
law,
we're
required
to
provide
people
who
trespass
onto
our
property
with
a
firearm,
in
contravention
of
posted
signage.
A
verbal
warning
before
we
are
allowed
to
engage
with
law
enforcement
and
ask
them
to
in
law,
enforce
ask
law
enforcement
to
assist
us
in
removing
those
individuals
from
the
property.
What
this
bill
would
provide
us
is
essentially
an
enhanced
ability
to
de-escalate
situations
before
they
rise
to
a
violent
occasion
by
asking
law
enforcement
to
help
us
remove
individuals
from
property
without
issuing
them
a
verbal
warning.
G
All
all
they're
facing
right
now
is
a
trespass
charge,
and
so
it
can
be
very
hard
for
us
in
those
situations
to
actually
remove
people
who
don't
want
to
be
who
don't
want
to
turn
over
their
firearms.
From
the
property-
and
so
it's
really
an
enhancement
tool
to
allow
us
to
leave
metro
in
advance
of
a
violent
situation
occurring.
C
Thank
you
and
thank
you
sure.
I
appreciate
that.
But
again
I
myself
am
a
property
owner
numerous
times
come
across
individuals
that
trespass
on
my
property
with
guns,
and
so
I
understand-
and
I
feel
for
you
in
that
respect,
but
law
enforcement
does
not,
at
least
in
my
community,
have
the
ability
to
respond
to
those,
even
if
the
individual
is
actually
literally
firing
that
gun
on
my
property.
So
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
you're
going
to
have
enough
ability
to
have
law
enforcement
and
then,
of
course,
the
question.
D
Sure,
if
I,
if
I
may,
I
think,
because
that's
an
important
question
that
I
think
senator
settlemeyer
is
asking,
through
you
chair
to
senator
settlemeyer,
nicole
candizzaro
senate
district,
six
with
respect
to
the
law
enforcement.
D
If
you
look
at
the
first
page
of
the
proposed
amendment
to
senate
bill
452
in
subsection
3b,
it
says
that
this
would
not
apply
to
a
security
guard
of
a
covered
premises,
an
officer
of
a
law
enforcement
agency
who
is
required
to
carry
a
firearm
as
part
of
his
or
her
official
duties
and
who
is
acting
in
his
official
capacity
at
the
time
of
possession
of
the
firearm
on
the
covered
covered
premises.
So
that's
piece
one
and
then
piece
two.
D
If
you
go
further
down
to
subsection
four,
it's
any
person
who
has
the
written
consent
of
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
covered
premises
or
an
agent
thereof
to
possess
a
firearm
on
the
covered
premises,
and
so
this
gives
the
ability
for
any
covered
premises
to
grant
authority
for
someone
who
would,
for
example,
be
required
to
cut
to
carry
a
firearm
to
obtain
that
consent.
But
it
does
expressly
exclude
law
enforcement
officers.
Who
would
be,
for
example,
there
on
duty
or
inside
the
covered
premises?
D
So
I
think,
between
those
two
exceptions
that
would
be
covered
and
then.
C
C
Majority
leader,
I
appreciate
that,
but
I
guess
my
question
is
it
says
that
as
part
of
his
or
her
official
duties,
who
is
acting
in
their
official
capacity,
it
is
a
request
of
their
employer
that
they
carry
a
gun
at
all
times.
So
are
you
saying
that
that
means
as
long
as
your
employer
states
that
you
have
to
carry
a
gun
that
that
meets
said
criteria
or
did
they
have
to
you
know,
go
obtain
permission
ahead
of
time
because
I'm
my
own
employer
so
I'll
just
require
that
I
have
to
carry
a
gun.
D
Thank
you
senator
for
the
question.
Nicole
cannizzaro
senator
district
six
through
you
chair
to
senator
sanomeier.
You
can.
D
Thank
you
so
this
bill,
this
bill
expressly
applies
to
individuals
who
have
that
non-restricted
gaming
license.
So
this
is
not
just
private
property
owners
right
we're
talking
about
a
very
specified
group
of
entities
that
would
be
covered,
so
I
would
start
there.
D
Second
of
all
this
is
this
language
here
is
meant
to
say
that
if
they're
acting
their
official
duties
and
they're
required
to
carry
a
firearm
as
a
result
of
that
that
they
are
not
covered
within
the
portions
of
this
bill,
but
then
there
is
also
a
section
that
would
provide
flexibility
to
allow
for
a
covered
premises
to
say
yes,
we
give
you
consent
to
carry
that
firearm
on
this
property.
So
I
think
between
those
two,
you
would
cover
any
of
the
instances
that
you're
discussing.
D
And
I
think
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
just
also
note
that
I
do
think
is
important.
Is
that
this
this
bill,
this
language
would
not
require
any
covered
premises
or
or
operator
to
opt
to
to
put
in
place
this
particular
policy.
They
could
choose
that.
That's
not
something
that
they
want
to
do
right.
They
don't
have
to
prohibit
firearms
on
property,
but
if
they
do,
then
this
is
a
tool
that
would
allow
them
to
do
so
and
have
an
enforcement
mechanism.
H
More
of
a
comment
and
a
question,
I
guess
number
one:
all
these
policies
would
have
been
in
place
in
october
of
2017.
There
are
pri
mgm's,
a
private
business,
and
at
that
time
I
can
assure
everybody
that
some
guy
bringing
in
what,
over
a
dozen
rifles,
not
pistols
not
concealed
weapons
through
their
whole
security
system,
using
their
service
elevators,
bringing
in
thousands
of
rounds
of
ammunition.
H
All
of
that
must
have
been
security,
the
in
place
at
the
time
that
mgm
dropped
the
ball
on
and
so
for
them
to
now
come
here
and
say
everybody
else
in
the
entire
strip
apparently
has
been
failing
to
to
follow
these
protocols
just
doesn't
add
up
so
to
try
to
pass
the
the
buck
off
on
everybody
else
on
the
strip,
who
probably
have
been
doing
good
security
by
now
saying.
Well,
we
need
this
new
law.
Yeah
yeah
mgm
had
the
chance
at
the
time
to
do
that
so
that
that
discerning.
H
The
other
thing
question,
as
I
understand
it,
safari
club
international,
which
are,
I
can
assure
you
probably
about
99.9
pro
second
amendment
are
coming
to
mandalay
bay.
We
have
the
shot
show
that
comes
to
vegas
275
million
dollars
all
pro
second
amendment
people.
H
D
Man
I'm
terrified.
If
I
cherish
I
will,
if
I
may,
through
you
to
senator
hansen.
I
would
first
note
that.
D
Even
even
as
we
sit
here
today
and
even
within
the
last
30
days,
there
have
been
an
enormous
number
of
incidences
where
there
have
been
firearms
and
shootings
and
violent
crimes
that
have
been
occurring
in
these
properties.
So
I
think
the
idea
that
somehow
what
we
have
is
working
to
keep
hospitality
workers
safe
to
keep
guests
safe,
is
simply
belied
by
the
facts
of
current
law
enforcement
response.
D
D
This
is
about
an
ongoing
issue
that
is
demonstrated
and
supported
by
the
facts
that
have
been
provided
by
law
enforcement
by
the
incidences
that
are
occurring
within
our
tourism
corridor,
which
has
a
huge
impact
not
only
on
our
community
and
on
those
workers,
but
on
our
state's
economy
as
a
whole.
So
I
would
start
there,
second
of
all,
with
respect
to
industries
where
they
have
some
of
these
trade
shows
we
are
expressly,
including
in
the
language
of
the
bill.
I
would
again
direct
to
section.
D
Excuse
me
section
three
b,
three,
where
we
talk
about
guests
of
public
accommodation
facilities
who
are
attending
and
participating
in
trade
shows,
so
that
they
are
not
the
individuals
who
are
being
targeted
as
a
result
of
this.
Of
course,
we
want
these
trade
shows
to
come
to
las
vegas.
We
want
those
guests
to
be
here.
D
This
is
not
intended
to
somehow
be
some
overarching
thing
that
says
we
don't
want
people
to
come.
We
don't
want
these
shows
to
come.
We
are
trying
to
build
in
enough
safety
and
some
exceptions
here
to
ensure
that
that
is
the
case,
while
still,
while
still
wanting
to
welcome,
of
course,
those
trade
shows
those
individuals.
D
At
the
same
time,
we
have
an
obligation.
We
in
fact
have
a
huge
obligation
to
ensure
the
safety
of
those
guests
and
safety
of
the
people
who
surround
it.
So
we
have
some
exceptions
that
are
carved
out
here
to
ensure
that
this
again,
I
would
note
is
opt
in
so
a
premises
is
not
required
to
say
that
they
do
not
want
firearms
on
the
property
they
do
not
have
to
opt
in
to
this
particular
law.
D
This
is
something
that
is
completely
discretionary
for
those
property
owners,
and
if
they
choose
to
use
it,
then
this
is
giving
them
that
additional
enforcement
tool-
and,
as
ms
molino
mentioned,
one
of
the
issues
that
they
have
is
that
we're
talking
about
workers
who
are
unarmed
workers
who
are
there
trying
to
do
their
job?
Even
you
know,
let's
say
they're
a
porter
who
is
helping
guests
and
now
they're
the
individual
who
may
have
to
say
to
someone
hey.
H
Well,
that's
a
nice
intent,
but
that
realize
you
realize
that
you're,
essentially
asking
law
enforcement
to
be
able
to
almost
randomly
pat
down
people
who
show
up
at
the
building,
and
somebody
in
security
then
says.
Well,
I
think
this
guy
may
be
a
ccw
holder
and
he
didn't
check
his
gun.
In
I
mean
the
the
the
level
of
increase
of
police
response.
That
you're
talking
about
is
almost
a
little
bit
frightening,
because
the
truth
is
this:
that
people
who
are
ccw
holders
in
the
state
of
nevada.
H
There
are
now
hundreds
of
thousands
of
them
and
there
hasn't
been
a
single
case
in
nevada
of
a
ccw
holder,
committing
a
gun,
so-called
gun
crime,
not
any
so
the
idea
that
we're
having
this
escalation
of
gun
violence,
as
if
guns
themselves,
somehow
do
it
in
our
building.
We
have
security.
People
walking
around
with
open
carry
guns
all
over
the
place
hasn't
been
a
single
example,
one
of
those
guns
of
doing
anything
violated
to
any
of
us.
H
So
I
know
the
whole
the
whole
definition
of
gun
violence
and
all
that
doesn't
make
sense,
plus
the
very
stats
you
bring
up
look
long
term.
The
actual
crime
rate
in
nevada
has
dropped
since
we've
expanded
the
ccw
program.
So
this
whole
thing
is
about
emotion,
not
fact,
and-
and
madam
chair,
I'm
sorry
since
we're
we're
doing
it
to
where
we're
only
allowed.
One
thing
I
want
to
get
that
on
the
record.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
There
are
dozens
of
questions
that
really
should
be
added.
H
One
other
thing
that
really
disturbs
me
too.
This
bill,
this
portion
of
this
new
emergency
bill
actually
was
already
in
the
bill
in
the
assembly,
and
the
assembly
said
no
and
to
now
bring
it
as
an
emergency
measure
on
the
senate
side,
it's
disingenuous
and
wrong
to
the
whole
process.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair.
D
Church
tribal
and
through
you
to
senator
hansen,
I
did
want
to
address
just
one
piece
of
that:
nicole
canozzaro
senate
district.
Six
again
in
subsection.
Excuse
me
in
section
three
and
the
amended
portion
of
the
bill
subsection
b,
one
there
are
specific
allowances
for
security
guards
or
law
enforcement
agencies
who
carry
weapons
so
to
the
example
in
this
building
is,
is
an
example
of
a
building
where
people
cannot
bring
firearms.
You
cannot
bring
firearms,
there's
a
sign
at
the
front
door.
You
cannot
bring
a
firearm
into
this
building.
D
We
have
amazing
legislative
police
who
are
here
who
do
in
fact
open
carry
as
part
of
their
job
duties.
If
this,
if,
if
we
were
to
apply
that
same
thing
to
this
particular
bill,
they
would
be
accepted
by
the
language
in
this
bill.
Additionally,
this
does
not
give
unfettered
ability
for
law
enforcement
to
skirt
not
only
the
constitution,
with
respect
to
search
and
seizure
or
with
respect
to
their
duties,
to
find
probable
cause.
If
they're
going
to
encounter
someone,
this
doesn't
change
law,
enforcement's
duties.
If
we
say
something
is
prohibited.
D
Conduct
law
enforcement,
in
any
circumstance
in
any
circumstance,
has
to
have
the
right
procedure
and
process
in
place
they're
going
to
follow
those
procedures
and
processes
in
order
to
address
that
particular
concern.
So
this
bill
does
not
say
forget
the
constitution,
we
don't
care
about
search
and
seizure
law.
We
don't
care
about
the
fourth
amendment.
We
don't
care.
If
law
enforcement
has
probable
cause
people
calling
complaints
to
law
enforcement
all
the
time.
A
I
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair.
I
have
several
questions,
so
let
me
try
to
kind
of
consolidate
them
and
they're
practical
questions,
because
I
understand
the
emotional
response
to
want
to
well
and
the
practical
response,
the
the
legal
response
trying
to
fix
a
problem
that
we've
seen,
and
so
I
respect
that.
So
I'm
thinking
about
the
practical
terms
with
respect
to
the
the
verbal
warnings
and-
and
you
know
how
we
enforce
this
first,
when
it
comes
to
verbal
warnings,
how
do
we
know
that
they
occurred?
I
I'm
thinking
a
person
walks
in
with
a
firearm,
whether
it's
concealed
or
not,
we'll
get
into
the
distinction
in
a
second,
but
they
walk
in
and
they're.
Given
a
verbal
warning
or
they're,
not
given
a
verbal
warning,
it's
an
evidentiary
issue.
How
did
how
is
that
proven?
I
I
would
imagine
that
the
resort
would
have
the
the
burden
to
prove
that
the
verbal
warning
was
given.
But
how
does
one
prove
that
a
person
was
carrying
at
the
time
and
and
actually
got
the
verbal
warning?
I
Are
they
recorded
or
are
the
security
guards
now
wearing
body
cameras?
You
know,
how
does
this
work.
G
Senator
this
is
ishmaelino
with
mgm
resorts.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
You
know.
Verbal
warnings
are
used
all
the
time
in
these
sorts
of
trespass
situations
and
from
our
perspective,
our
security
guards
generally
keep
a
a
record
of
when
verbal
warnings
are
issued
and
when
we
ask
people
to
leave
the
property.
So
we
think
that
sort
of
issue
is.
I
I'm
not
suggesting
that's
a
barrier,
I'm
just
wondering
how
it
works,
so
it's
a
written
record
made
after
the
fact.
I'm
just
trying
to
think
through
this,
because
you
know
one
of
the
things
that's
written
in
the
amendment
is
for
the
and
in
the
original
was
for
the
permission,
I'm
not
sure
how
one
goes
about
getting
permission,
but
how
does
then
the
security
officer
know
whether
or
not
they
have
permission
or
for
that
matter,
how
they're,
if
they're,
even
carrying
at
that
moment?
I
So
let
me
ask
it
this
way:
a
security
officer,
armed
or
unarmed,
because
that's
of
course
up
to
the
employer
to
determine
whether
or
not
they're
going
to
hire
armed
security,
and
I
understand
the
desire
not
to
have
you
know
a
militarized
zone
or
that
that
sense,
but
they
walk
up
to
a
person
and
they're
carrying
concealed.
G
Senator,
if
I
could
just
know
you
know,
I
think
that
a
lot
of
the
the
questions
that
you're
raising
some
of
them
are
the
same
questions
that
others
in
in
the
senate
also
raised
and
senator
gennady's
amendment
actually
does
a
lot
to
address
a
lot
of
those
questions.
So
senator
dunante's
amendment
does
not
distinguish
between
between
concealed
and
open
carry
for
that
for
in
part,
I
believe,
for
that
reason,
so.
I
D
And
if
you
know
so,
chair
schreibel,
I
wanted
to
give
one
example,
and
then
I
think
assemblywoman
hadagi
may
have
some
answers
as
well
through
youtube
to
senator
pickard,
nicole
cannizzaro
senate
district
six.
So
there
was
a
question
in
there
about.
How
do
you
obtain
permission
and
I'll
give
an
example?
D
The
courthouse
in
las
vegas
permits
certain
individuals
to
carry
within
that
courthouse,
but
you
have
to
obtain
permission
prior
to
being
able
to
do
that,
and
so
you
would
go
through
a
process
by
which
you
would
ask
for
permission
and
give
whatever
documents
or
other
indicia
that
you
would
be
that
you
have
some
sort
of
training
if
they
want
to
or
if
they
require
you
to
have
a
ccw
permit
such
that
you've
had
that
that
training
or
whatever
other
information
they
may
need.
D
But
that
is
something
that
is
not
unique
to
this
bill
that
occurs
in
other
other
facilities,
where
you
can
grant
permission
and
would
go
about
it
by
simply,
you
know,
contacting
the
premises
and
finding
out
whatever
it
is
that
they
need
in
order
to
do
so,
and
in
fact
it
does
happen
in
the
in
the
courthouse.
In
in
las
vegas,
where
certain
individuals
can
be
given
permission
to
carry
inside
of
the
the
courthouse
concealed
and
then
I
don't
know
if
assemblywoman
wanted
to
address
some
of
the
other
questions,.
F
F
The
covered
premises
already
have
these
policies
in
place
because
they
already
have
policies
in
place
that
restrict
firearms
from
their
premises.
All
senate
bill
452
is
trying
to
do
is
give
teeth
to
existing
policies,
so
in
many
of
the
non-restricted
gaming
license
properties
on
the
strip,
they
already
have
policies
that
exist.
That
say,
no
firearms
are
allowed
on
their
properties,
and
that
applies
to
everyone,
whether
you're,
a
ccw
holder
or
open
carrying.
F
You
already
can't
be
on
their
premise
with
a
firearm,
and
so
what
this
is
doing,
senate
bill
452
is
just
again
giving
teeth
to
already
existing
policies.
So
you
know
you
ask:
how
would
they
handle?
You
know
someone
who
steps
foot
on
their
property
with
a
firearm?
They
already
have
existing
policies
to
address
that
this.
This
is
just
a
mechanism
to
give
them
teeth
to
enforce
their
existing
policy.
I
I
Do
they
pat
them
down?
Do
they
require
them
to
remove
their
outer
clothing?
How
do
they
verify
it?
How
how
does
one
go
about
finding
out
if
that
person
is
actually
carrying,
because
I
assume
that
since
now
we're
adding
a
criminal
penalty
instead
of
just
trespass
that
there's
got
to
be
a
certain
level
of
evidence
that
they
were
actually
carrying?
So
how
do
we
obtain
that
evidence.
G
Senator
we
don't
we
don't
our
security
guards,
don't
as
a
matter
of
course,
frisk
our
customers
and,
as
I
noted
in
most
situations
where
our
security
and
where
our
security
guards
believe
that
a
person
is
on
the
premises
carrying
a
firearm
in
contravention
of
our
policy,
and
we
ask
those
people
to
turn
over
their
firearms,
because
we
are
a
firearm
free
zone.
Most
individuals,
especially
the
law-abiding
individuals
of
you,
know
that
you're
so
con
you're.
G
So
rightfully,
I
think
so
concerned
about
are
more
than
willing
to
turn
over
their
firearms
they're,
not
there
to
make
trouble.
They
don't
want
to
make
trouble,
they
want
to
be
on
the
property,
they
want
to
have
a
good
time
and
they
comply
with
with
our
policies
and
respectfully
do
so,
and
so
the
sorts
of
incidences
that
you
are
that
that
you
are
suggesting
they
just
they
aren't
commonplace.
G
What
we
are
trying
to
solve
for
here
is
a
situation
where
we
have
individuals
who
don't
want
to
comply
with
our
policies,
who
are
there
for
the
wrong
reasons?
Who
are
there
to
create
trouble?
And
it's
in
those
circumstances
that
our
security
guards
really
do
need
to
be
able
to
rely
on
on
police
officers
on
additional
metro
assistance
in
order
to
make
sure
that
our
facilities
remain
a
safe
and
secure
place
for
our
employees,
for
our
guests
and
for
our
customers.
I
All
right-
and
I
I
appreciate
that
response,
because
it
sounds
like
the
log
abiding
individuals
do
comply
with
your
policies
and
it's
not
commonplace.
However,
we
heard
in
prior
testimony
that
the
strip
is
is
a
dangerous
place
right
now
without
this
law,
particularly
in
the
resort
corridor.
So,
apparently
that's
not
the
case.
Apparently,
this
is
not
commonplace,
but
I'm
trying
to
get
at
the
bad
actors.
I
agree
with
you.
I
I
think
that
the
law-abiding
citizens
will
comply
with
with
the
requirements
I'm
trying
to
get
at
the,
and
I
I
don't
feel
like
I'm
getting
straight
answers,
but
I'm
trying
to
get
it.
We've
got
a
bad
actor.
We've
got
somebody
in
the
facility
that
wants
to
do
harm.
Okay,
paddock
is
one
example.
It
sounds
like
there
are
others.
I
How
is
it
that
we
currently
under
existing
law,
identify
and
struggle
with
removing
the
person,
because
you
know
it
sounds
to
me
like
you're,
saying
law
enforcement
doesn't
respond
presently,
and
yet
the
testimony
was
exactly
the
opposite.
So
I'm
trying
to
reconcile
the
discrepancies
and
what
we've
already
heard
today,
it's
not
common,
and
yet
this
is
a
problem,
it's
dangerous,
but
it's
it
doesn't
happen.
It's
not
commonplace,
we
don't
frisk,
but
we
don't
know
if
they're
caring,
but
we
assume
they
are,
I
mean.
I
Can
you
tell
me
how
this
actually
works
and
how
this
bill?
Because,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
the
only
thing
this
bill
does,
is
it
adds
a
criminal
penalty
to
the
existing
scheme
with
a
few
alterations
around
the
margins?
So
how
is
it
that
we
currently
find
out?
How
do
they
defend
themselves
if
they
don't
have
a
gun
and
how
do
they?
How
does
security
currently
get
to
the
bad
actors
and
how
you
know,
how
is
a
criminal
penalty
going
to
improve
the
police
response.
G
This
is
aisha,
molina,
with
mgm
resorts
for
the
record
and
senator.
I
think,
as
I
hear
the
question
that
you're
trying
to
get
at
is
what
is
the
problem
that
we're
really
trying
to
solve
for
here
and,
from
my
perspective,
here's
the
problem
right
now.
Nevada
is
one
of
just
a
couple
of
jurisdictions
where
there
is
no
underlying
legal
prohibition
on
people
carrying
firearms
on
the
casino
floor.
G
So
if
we
as
a
private
property
owner,
didn't
post
the
signage
that
prohibited
that
prohibited
individuals
from
carrying
firearms
within
our
casino,
there
is
nothing
preventing
them
from
carrying
firearms
in
a
very
crowded
environment
and
from
our
perspective
that
is-
and
that
is
a
a
pro,
a
predicate-
a
set
of
circumstances
that
we
don't
want
on
our
private
property,
which
is
why
we
as
private
property
owners,
have
chosen
to
prohibit
it.
G
But
I
think
that
what
we're
trying
to
solve
for
is
a
circumstance
where
an
individual
carries
a
very
dangerous
firearm
across
our
property
and
there's
absolutely
nothing
that
we
can
do
in
order
to
stop
that
from
happening,
even
though
we
have
already
posted
signage
prohibiting
it.
Unless
our
security
guard
goes
up
to
that
individual
and
engages
directly
with
them
from
our
perspective,
we
have
already
posted
signage,
telling
people
that
they
are
not
allowed
to
carry
firearms
on
our
property
as
a
private
property
owner.
G
I
Seem
to
be
saying
the
same
things
over
and
over
again,
and
so
let
me
get
off
this
point.
Let
me
ask
another
question
and
that
has
to
do
with
the
the
extent
of
the
prohibition.
I
Does
this
apply
to
every
area
that
is
within
the
the
property
boundaries
of
the
of
the
the
property?
Or
is
this
just
within
the
casino
floor?
In
other
words,
can
a
person
legally
carry
into
a
restaurant
or
a
shopping
mall
or
whatever
that
might
be
associated
with
and
within
the
property,
but
not
part
of
the
gaming
operation?
I
Or
would
this
be
a
blanket
prohibition
that,
if
someone
steps
in
to
a
because
I'm
assuming
you're,
not
putting
these
big
signs
on
every
single
door,
what
if
they
miss
it
and
they
walk
in
without
knowing
now
it's
a
crime,
if
they're
just
going
to
buy
an
apple
watch
or
something?
G
This
is
aisha,
molino,
with
mgm
resorts
for
the
record,
so
senator
a
couple
of
things
so
just
like
what
just
like
with
every
other
private
property.
First
of
all,
this
bill
is
an
opt-in
bill.
Second,
as
the
majority
leader
noted,
it
would
apply
only
to
unrestricted
licensees,
but
third,
just
like
with
regard
to
any
other
private
property
owner.
We
as
an
unrestricted
licensee,
have
decided
that
our
private
property
in
its
entirety
is
a
firearm
free
zone,
and
so
for
our
purposes,
it
would
apply
to
the
entirety
of
our
property.
I
Okay,
because
right
now
the
the
interpretation
has
historically
been
it's
just
at
the
entrance,
not
necessarily
on
every
single
door,
but
that'll
be
interesting
to
to
see
how
that
works,
but
all
right
so
the
if,
if
we're
talking
about
well,
I
noticed
in
the
amendment
the
parking
lot
is
you're
allowed
to
store
it
in
the
parking
lot.
How
is
it
then,
that
our,
if
we're
not
giving
them
a
warning,
they
walk
in?
I
They
didn't
see
the
sign
whatever
that
may
be
they're
not
given
a
verbal
warning
anymore.
They
go
directly
to
jail
if
they're,
carrying
and
they're
not
given
an
opportunity
to
to
put
it
in
their
car.
Is
that
right
and
then
also
it
sounds
like
you
already
have
the
signs
up,
how
many
people
have
obeyed
that
that
signage.
G
The
senator,
as
I
noted
earlier,
you
know
again,
I
think
that
what
happens
in
the
majority
of
circumstances
when
we're
dealing
with
law-abiding
individuals
is
when
they're
asked
to
turn
over
their
firearm,
because
we
are
a
fire
firearm
free
zone,
whether
that's
that
would
be
by
us
or
potentially,
by
law
enforcement
when
they
respond,
they
would
do
so,
and
you
know
by
all
accounts
once
that
happens,
we
have
no
desire
for
there
to
be
a
situation
where
law
enforcement,
law-abiding
individuals
who
made
an
honest
mistake,
are
subject
to
or
being
or
being
criminally
punished.
I
I
I
guess
I
just
don't
see
the
the
need
given.
It
sounds
like
you're
already
doing
everything
that
you
need
to
do,
but
how
many
people
have
the
to
the
second
part
of
the
question,
how
many
people
have
been
stopped
and
have
either
turned
in
their
firearm
or
have
taken
it
to
their
car?
D
And
chair,
I
do
think
we
also
had
one
one
other
item
that
we
wanted
to
just
add,
because
I
think
there's
a
there's
been
a.
I
think
some
of
the
general
overview
of
those
questions
have
to
deal
with
what
and
why
and
how
this
would
affect
the
ability
of
the
business
to
kind
of
operate,
and
I
think
the
assemblywoman
wanted
to
add
to
that.
F
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
will
have
to
excuse
myself
after
this.
I
do
have
a
committee
to
get
to
and
we
are
we're
sessioning,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
when
we
conversations
on
this
policy
started
over
a
year
ago,
we
looked
at
what
other
states
did
and
many
other
states
have
already
implemented
these
business
empowerment
policies,
and
we
we
looked
to
texas
and
texas,
actually
implemented
this
policy,
and
their
businesses
have
not
suffered.
They
are
still
very
much
succeeded
and
they
they
did
exactly
what
we
are
trying
to
do.
F
Give
business
property
owners
the
rights
to
implement
policies
that
would
keep
their
employees
and
their
customers
safe.
Thank
you,
chair,
scheibalen.
With
your
permission,
I'm
going
to
excuse
myself.
A
I
Well,
I
have
a
lot
of
questions
that
still
remain
unanswered,
but
I
won't
take
any
more
time
I
just
I
wish
we
could
get
direct
answers
to
direct
questions,
but
I
understand
the
politics
behind
it,
I'll,
let
it
go
with
that.
Thank
you,
manager.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
believe
most
of
my
questions
will
be
for
miss
molino
and
I'm
going
to
ask
you
a
couple
things,
but
I
understand
you
haven't
had
much
time
to
think
about
it,
so
feel
free
to
say
you
can't
commit
to
anything
at
this
point.
If
that,
in
fact,
is
your
genuine
response,
so
the
bill,
the
proposed
amendment
requires
cover
premises
to
adopt
policies
and
procedures
to
kind
of
enact
the
bill.
J
Would
your
employer
at
least
be
open
to
the
idea
of
putting
in
place
a
policy
and
procedure
that
would
allow
off-duty
officers
to
somehow
inform
security
guards
that
they
are
carrying
and
give
them
permission?
Is
that
something
you
think
you
guys
could
build
into
your
policy
on
how
this
bill
would
work.
G
This
is
aish
molina
with
mgm
senator.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
I
have
not
had
a
chance
to
to
look
into
that
in
any
great
detail,
but
I
would
I
would
say
to
you
that
I'm
happy
to
have
that
conversation
with
you.
You
know
I
think
again.
J
Thank
you
so
much
miss
molina.
Another
question
I
have
is:
would
would
your
employer
be
willing
to
consider
maybe
offering
lockers
where
people
can
willingly
surrender
their
firearms
as
opposed
to?
I
guess
you
know
having
their
firearm
taken
away
to
some
place
where
they
may
not
see
it
and
have
to
kind
of
rely
upon
the
the
private
property
to
promise
that
they
will
give
it
back.
I
think
we
may
be
able
to
add
compliance
here.
J
If
there's
a
mechanism
for
folks
to
just
willingly
turn
their
their
gun
over,
maybe
in
a
gun
locker.
Keep
that
key
with
them
and
then
pick
it
back
up
when
they
leave.
Is
that
something
you
guys
would
be
willing
to
think
about.
G
This
is
aish
molino
with
mgm
resorts.
Thank
you
senator
for
that
question.
You
know,
as
as
I
noted
in
my
comments
to
senator
pickard.
G
These
situations
have
happened
before
we
have
had
circumstances
where
our
our
guests
or
others
come
onto
the
property,
don't
realize
that
they
have
a
firearm
and
when
asked
to
turn
over
their
firearm,
they
they
do
turn
it
over
to
us
and
we
hold
that
for
them
in
a
manner
where
it
is.
It
is
safe
but
accessible
to
them
at
the
time
they
wanted.
G
We
have
not
heard
that
there
is
a
that
there
have
been
any
concerns
with
that
or
that
that
is
a
disincentive
to
people
that
prevents
them
from
from
turning
over
the
firearm.
When
asked
so,
you
know
I'm
happy
to
have
that
discussion
with
you.
We're
not
aware
that
that
particular
circumstance
has
been
a
problem
or
a
disincentive
that
prevents
compliance
with
our
policies.
J
Lastly,
would
you
all
be
willing
to
what
are
your
plans
to
to
inform
the
public
of
this
new
law?
I
think
that
you
know
people
understanding
that
this
is
a
thing
now
and
some
of
that
confusion.
It
right
creates
some
of
these
issues
and
especially
if
we're
going
to
have
some
properties
opting
in
and
other
properties,
often
opting
out.
I
think
it
will
be
very
important
for
those
properties
who
choose
to
opt
in
to
make
sure
that
they
make
that
as
known
to
the
general
public
as
possible.
G
This
is
actually
now
with
mgm
resorts
for
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
for
that
question
as
well.
So
a
couple
of
things.
First
of
all,
we
we
we
do
currently
have
signs
posted
at
our
properties,
as
you
know,
for
those
prop
for
those
properties
that
choose
to
opt
in
pursuant
to
this
bill.
There
also
is
a
seven
day
I'll
call
it
a
delayed
implementation,
so
once
a
property
opts
in
there's
a
seven
day
period
before
the
criminal
penalties
would
would
kick
in.
G
So
there
is
a
chance
for
people
to
become
aware
through
that
mechanism.
In
addition,
we
will
work
with
our.
We
will
work
with
all
of
our
convention
partners,
our
all
of
the
all
of
the
general
partners
that
who
utilize
our
premises
to
make
sure
that
they
are
aware
that
this
is
in
fact
policy
and
that
there
are
now
criminal
penalties
pursuant
to
this
law
in
the
state
of
nevada
for
for
violating
the
policies
in
a
manner
that
would
violate
the
this
bill
if
enacted.
G
J
And
thank
you
so
much
for
that
answer.
I
I
really
appreciate
that.
I
just
I
understand
that
the
signs
are
kind
of
more
of
what
I
would
call
like
a
passive
measure,
and
I
think
those
active
measures
are
going
to
be
just
as
important,
if
not
more
important,
in
kind
of
cutting
this
off
at
the
front
end.
So
I
would
encourage
you
all
to
do
as
much
proactive
work
as
you
can
to
get
the
word
out.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
G
L
K
G
Senator
my
understanding
is
that
senator
my
understanding
is
that
the
gaming
commission
already
collects
much
of
that
data,
so
there
already
are
mechanisms
in
place
for
data
collection
around
those
sorts
of
issues.
I'd
also
note
that,
as
a
place
of
public
accommodation,
you
know
we
are
already
subject
to
very
strict
anti-discrimination
laws
under
existing
nevada
law,
as
well
as
under
federal
law
and
so
and
as
a
as
a
unrestricted
licensee.
That
also
carries
a
privileged
license.
We,
of
course,
take
all
of
these
obligations
extremely
seriously.
J
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
presenting
this
bill,
I'm
sort
of
going
to
piggyback
on
to
my
colleague
from
the
the
senate
on
that,
because
I
did
want
to
talk
about
section
4
and
all
the
subsections
under
that
the
de-escalation,
the
cultural
cultural
diversity
competency.
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
get
an
idea
of
what
that
that
looked
like,
because
I
I
do
feel
I'm
I
like
this.
J
You
know,
and
so
that's
what
we
want
to
do
with
our
community
right,
but
I
just
I
do
have
a
concern
that
unfort
the
unintended
consequences
that
we
will
be,
unfortunately,
racially
profiling,
people
and
asking
black
and
brown
people
about
their
guns
more
than
we
would
white
people
so
that
I
I
just
if
you
could
discuss
that
aspect,
and
you
mentioned
that
the
gaming
control
has
that
information.
I
was
not
aware
of
that,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
that
the
legislature
sees
and
then
my
last
question
and
I'll
leave.
J
G
Thank
you
very
much
for
for
those
questions
assemblywoman.
This
is
aisha,
molina,
with
mgm
resorts
for
the
record.
So,
first
of
all,
let
me
just
say
that
that
diversity
and
diversity,
training
and
making
sure
that
all
of
our
guests
experience
a
hospitable
environment
is
a
core
part
of
who
we
are
at
mgm
resorts.
We
would
not
have
a
business
if
we
did
not
treat
all
of
our
guests
with
an
equal
amount
of
respect,
and
that
is
something
that
we
take
extraordinarily
seriously
in
terms
of
the
training
that
we
provide.
G
You
know
making
sure
that
again
that
all
of
our
guests
are
treated
are
treated
equally,
is
part
of
training
for
all
of
our
employees
and
certainly
for
our
security
employees
to
understand
that
there
can
be
no
disparate
treatment
amongst
our
guests
in
any
aspect
of
how
they
enforce
our
policies
is,
is
present
it's
something
that
everybody
is
required
to
do
as
a
part
of
their
job
description
in
terms
of
in
and
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
gaming.
G
They
do
collect
information
regarding
regarding
enforcement
of
these
sorts
of
policies
on
our
properties,
and
so
I'm
not
fully
aware
of
their
policies
regarding
sharing
that
information
with
members
of
the
legislature.
But
I'm
happy
to
get
more
information
about
that
and
follow
up.
If
that
would
be
helpful.
J
G
Sure
absolutely-
and
you
know
again,
assemblywoman
the
way
that
this
bill
is
structured
is
for
those
for
those
unrestricted
licensees
that
choose
to
opt
in.
It
gives
us
the
opportunity
to
engage
with
metro
and
ask
for
law
enforcement
assistance,
where
our
security
guards
believe
that
that
would
be
an
important
tool
in
order
to
proactively
prevent
violence.
G
G
There
may
be
many
circumstances
where
our
security
guards
continue
to
use
the
tools
that
they
have
been
using
in
order
to
de-escalate
and
that
they
they
engage
with
a
with
a
person
on
our
property,
or
they
are
engaging
with
a
person
on
our
property
and,
at
that
point,
become
aware
that
that
person
is
carrying
a
firearm
and
asked
them
to
to
leave
the
property,
and
so
there
there
are
going
to
be
a
variety
of
tools
that
our
security
guards
continue
to
use
that
currently
use
and
continue
to
use
in
order
to
make
sure
that
our
properties
are
kept
a
firearm
free
zone.
G
And
so
I
don't
think
it's
as
black
and
white
as
if
this
bill
passes,
we
will
cease
to
give
verbal
warning.
I
just
think,
in
a
real
world
environment
there
will
continue
to
be
engagement.
There
will
be,
can
be
continued
efforts
to
de-escalate,
but,
as
has
been
noted
earlier,
this
bill
would
give
us
one
more
tool
in
order
to
make
sure
that
our
environments
stay
as
safe
and
secure
as
possible.
J
J
I
think
we,
my
fear,
is
what
what
that's
going
to
look
like
in
practicality
and
who
gets
a
verbal
warning
and
who
doesn't
and
when
it
gets
escalated
to
bringing
the
police
in,
and
I
believe
me
I
understand
your
intent
in
this
bill.
I
really
please
understand
that.
I
just
get
concerned
that
when
it's
not
just
yes,
we
would
give
a
verbal
warning
across
the
board
that
there
might
there's
going
to
be
some
unintended
consequences.
Thank
you.
L
L
I
I
I
do
agree
that
the
intent
that
we
all
want
to
make
sure
that
people
are
as
safe
as
possible
and
and
in
that
regard,
and
and
in
the
the
interest
of
not
surprising
people,
would
you
be
willing
to
agree
to
include
language
that
websites
on
the
resorts
have
to
include
this
information,
because
I
have
a
real
concern
about
someone
driving
across
country
getting
here
and
finding
out
that
they
can't
bring
their
weapon
inside
the
casino
or
inside
the
resort.
L
And
then
maybe
it's
a
you
know,
and
they
say:
well,
I'm
I'm!
I'm
not
gonna
turn
my
weapon
over
and
you
know
maybe
it's
nascar
week.
Maybe
it's
you
know,
there's
a
big
convention
in
town
and
they're
driving
around
town
and
they
cannot
find
a
place
to
stay,
and
I
don't
think
that
helps
anyone's
safety.
G
G
It
does
provide
property
owners
that
opt
in,
and
it
does
make
clear
that
for
property
owners
that
opt-in
they
may
choose
to
give
written
permission
to
certain
individuals,
so,
in
the
circumstance
that
you
described
right
again,
where
we're
dealing
with
with
folks
that
have
made
an
honest
mistake
or
were
unaware
of
policy
for
whatever
reason,
there
are
multiple
avenues
by
which,
by
which
that
mistake,
or
their
lack
of
knowledge
about
the
policy
can
be
cured
so
in
a
circumstance
where
they
aren't,
for
example,
comfortable
handing
over
their
firearm,
they
could
be,
they
could
ask
for
specific
written
permission
to
perhaps
keep
keep
the
firearm
in
their
car
or
something
like
that.
L
All
right,
thank
you
and
then
I
guess
also
kind
of.
L
Following
along
with
some
of
the
questions
about
exceptions,
I
also
wanted
to
get
back
to
the
off-duty
law
enforcement
officers,
because
I
do
believe
that
there
are
different
agencies
in
the
state
that
require
their
law
enforcement
officers
to
carry
at
all
times
and
even
when
they're
off
duty.
And
I
I
also
can't
imagine
those
people
like
every
time.
I
think
you
know
I've
said
it
in
this.
I
haven't
said
it
this
session.
So
might
as
well
say
it
again.
I'm
a
daughter
of
a
of
a
retired
parole
and
probation
officer.
L
She
had
to
carry
at
all
times,
and
I
cannot
imagine
every
time
that
we
went
to
a
resort
for
a
wedding
to
meet
family
members
from
out
of
town
to
go,
have
dinner,
that
every
time
she'd
have
to
go
to
security
and
get
an
exception
to
where
or
to
keep
her
her
weapon
that
she
was
required
by
her
agency
to
to
carry
at
all
times.
So
I
would
ask
that
you
consider
changing
that
exception
so
that
off-duty
officers
can
carry.
A
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
actually,
I'd
like
to
kind
of
go
back
to
that,
because
what
I've
seen
now
for
about
110
days
in
this
building
is
bill's.
Come
before
me
that
I
read
thoroughly
and
someone
says
well,
this
is
the
intent
of
the
bill,
so
I
figure
in
2023
we're
going
to
be
back
here,
for
our
first
200
bills
will
be.
This
is
what
we're
cleaning
up
from
2021,
because
the
intent
of
the
bill
is
not
usually
what
the
plain
language
I
shouldn't
say:
usually,
but
sometimes
not
what
the
plain
language
of
the
bill
is.
N
So
I
think
part
of
the
problem
we're
having
and
is
you
know,
as
we
look
at
the
amendment
here
where
it
says
an
officer
of
a
law
enforcement
agency
who
is
required
to
carry
a
firearm
who
is
acting
in
his
or
her
official
capacity?
N
N
They
don't
go
back
to
the
intent
unless
there's
some
ambiguity
in
there,
but
but
given
that
a
officer
of
the
law,
you
know
walking
into
a
cafe,
who's
off
duty
doesn't
see
the
sign
et
cetera,
going
to
go,
get
something
to
eat,
and
someone
goes
to
security
and
says
that
gentleman
over
there,
I
think,
he's
carrying
a
gun.
N
I
think
I
saw
something
and
security
stops
him,
and
he
and
or
anybody
had
none
officer
alone,
but
anybody
and
the
security
stops
him
and
he
doesn't
want
them
to
know
that
he's
carrying
a
gun.
So
they
ask
him,
are
you
armed
and
he
says
no
and
he
keeps
walking?
What
is
that
scenario?
What
when
someone
says?
No
anybody,
not
just
a
cop
but
someone
says
no.
What's
the
scenario:
where
does
it
go
from
there?
Does
that
then
become
a
stop
and
frisk
type
situation
which
I
think
we're
trying
to
stay
away
from
here.
D
Chair
shareable
through
you
to
assemblyman
wheeler
and
nicole
candacero
senate
district
six.
So
I
think,
first
and
foremost,
of
course,
in
this
building.
If
we
passed
every
law-
and
it
was
completely
perfect
and
worked
exactly
the
way
that
we
wanted.
Most
of
us
would
not
be
sitting
here
today,
assemblyman
because
there's
always
changes
from
something
that
had
been
passed.
That
needed
to
be
clarified
because.
D
Work
exactly
the
way
that
we
wanted,
so
I
don't
think
that
the
idea
that
potentially
at
some
point
someone
may
make
a
revision
to
the
nevada,
revised
statutes
is,
is
somehow
I
think
detrimental
to
this
particular
language.
D
The
example
that
I
gave
earlier
was
the
courthouse
where
there
are
no.
There
is
a
very
expressed
prohibition
on
carrying
firearms
into
the
courthouse
unless
you
have
the
consent
of
the
premises
in
order
to
carry
a
firearm
on
that
property.
Now,
maybe
those
procedures
differ
between
what
a
covered
premises
and
this
who
would
opt
into
this
particular
law,
would
require
and
what
is
required
for
for
the
courthouse.
D
But
that
is
a
very
real
example
of
how
exactly
this
kind
of
thing
works,
and
there
are
officers
who
are
there,
who
are
not
on
duty
who
may
have
a
firearm
they're,
also
concealed
carry
concealed,
carry
permit
holders
who
are
permitted
to
concealed
carry
within
that
building
because
they
have
obtained
that
consent,
and
so
I
think
that,
between
these
two
exceptions
that
are
in
the
plain
language
of
the
amendment
here
in
subsection
three
b,
one
and
four
that
that
is
covered
in
the
plain
language,
not
just
the
intent.
That
is
the
intent
of
course.
D
Making
a
record
of
intent
is
always
something
that
we
strive
to
do
and
something
that
is
very
helpful
when
it
comes
to
legal
analysis.
Should
a
lobby
challenged,
but
to
your
point,
the
language
does
include
exceptions
for
that.
D
Additionally-
and
I
think
your
other
question
is
what
happens
if
somebody
is
not
truthful
when
they're
asked
if
they
are
carrying
a
firearm-
and
I
think
you
know-
I
don't
know
if
ms
molina
wants
to
win
on
that
as
well,
but
I
think
they've
talked
a
lot
about
trying
to
give
verbal
warnings
where
that
may
be.
D
D
But
in
these
instances
I
think
most
people,
as
ms
molino
has
indicated
numerous
times
today,
most
people
who
are
approached
and
say
hey,
you
know
this
is
actually
a
place
where
you
cannot
have
a
firearm
are
more
than
willing
to
oblige,
but
those
who
aren't
or
who
are
seeking
to
engage
in
violent
behavior.
They
want
to
be
able
to
have
a
tool
to
address
that
as
well.
N
Thank
you,
but
maybe
miss
melina
can
answer
it
because
I
don't
think
I
got
a
real
answer
there.
The
someone
says
no
and
turns
around
and
walks
away.
Is
he
allowed
to
walk
away
or
he
or
she
is
or
is
that
person
stopped?
N
Is
what
is
the
procedure
where?
Where
do
we
go
from
there?
Is
he
stopped?
Is
he
frisked?
Is
he
we?
We
can't
seem
to
get
that
answer.
What
is
the
procedure?
I've
walked
into
very
many
casinos.
I'm
a
ccw
holder
and
many
times
walked
in
without
you
know.
But
if
someone
came
up
to
me
and
asked
me-
and
I
said
no,
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
allow
him
to
frisk
me.
N
G
G
At
that
point,
there
is
no
stop
and
frisk,
but
if
they
believe
the
person
is
carrying
a
firearm
and
contravention
of
our
policy,
they
would
be
asked
to
leave
if
the
individual
did
not
leave,
and
this
is
under
existing
existing
law.
If
the
individual
did
not
leave
at
that
point,
then
we
could
call
law
enforcement
to
engage
in
the
circumstance
that
you're
describing.
G
D
Okay,
thank
you
cherish.
I
will,
if
I,
if
I
just
may,
I
think,
add
to
that
nicole
cannons
are
assigned
to
district
six
assemblyman.
There
are-
and
I
I
I
guess,
I'm
one
of
the
I
think
hard
parts
about
answering
the
question
that
you
are
asking
is:
what
are
the
specific
details
like?
Do
you
see
the
outline
of
a
firearm
in
someone's
pocket?
Are
they
sort
of
fidgeting
with
it
are
they
do
did?
Did
a
cartridge
case
fall
out
on
the
floor?
You
don't
like
those
kinds
of
things
right
there.
D
There
are
indicia
that
may
lead
you
to
believe
that
someone
is
carrying
a
weapon.
Those
would
be
the
kind
of
details
that
that
would
be
important
to
what
happens
next
right.
If
someone
says
no
and
there's
no
probable
cause,
this
isn't
giving
law
enforcement
nor
security,
the
unfettered
right
to
just
stop
and
frisk,
whoever
whomever
they
want
right.
The
law
still
applies.
The
fourth
amendment
still
applies.
You
still
have
to
have
those
kinds
of
things
in
place.
People
call
and
say:
hey.
D
This
person
seems
to
be
driving
drunk
on
the
road
if
law
enforcement
responds
and
pulls
that
individual
over,
and
it
turns
out
that
they're,
not
in
fact
drinking
and
they're,
not
in
fact
under
the
influence.
Maybe
they
had
a
dog
in
the
car
and
the
dog
jumped
on
their
lap
and
that's
why
they
swerved
a
little.
D
You
know
they're,
not
it's
not
as
though
law
enforcement's
going
to
show
up
and
be
like
well,
we
got
a
call
that
someone
said
that
you
were
driving
drunk,
so
we're
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
arrest
you
for
a
dui.
That's
not
how
the
law
works.
Those
things
are
not
taken
out
of
our
general
understanding
of
how
investigations
work
about
how
the
constitution
works.
It
doesn't
change
any
of
those
things,
so
some
of
that
is
very
fact
determinative
about
exactly
what
was
observed
and
exactly
how
that
happened.
D
But
I
think
the
important
point
about
this
particular
bill
is:
it
is
putting
in
place
language
to
say
that
we're
a
covered
premises,
option
to
say
we
don't
want
firearms
on
the
property.
Here
are
some
of
the
exceptions.
Here's
what
that
property
has
to
do
to
comply
with
that
we're
going
to
make
sure
there's
good
training,
we're
going
to
make
sure
that
there
are
proper
notifications
at
every
entrance
at
the
cashiers
cage
at
check-in,
so
that
people
are
aware
of
this.
D
We're
going
to
make
sure
we're
working
with
guests
and
folks
who
are
in
there
to
make
sure
that
people
are
safe
but
where
they
may
need
the
intervention
of
law
enforcement
for
de-escalation
purposes
before
it
turns
into
a
shooting
before
it
turns
into
an
assault
with
a
deadly
weapon
that
they
can,
that
they
can
do
that.
And
that's
what
this
is
designed
to
do.
D
N
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
You
did
say
something
about
training,
though
I'm
just
wondering
I
didn't
see
anything
in
the
bill
about
training.
Also,
you
think
stockman's,
casino
or
sharkey's
is
going
to
get
that
training.
E
E
If
you
go
towards
the
end
of
the
first
page
I
covered
you
know,
one
of
my
worries
was
making
sure
so
throughout
today,
we've
had
conversations
as
to
what
happens
in
this
situation,
whether
if
it's
law
enforcement
officers
off
duty
and
everything,
but
the
narrative
that
we're
forgetting
are
the
situations
that
our
security
guards
are
in
most
of
these
times
and
the
situations
that
they
have
to
deal
with
on
the
casino
floor,
and
I
think
that's
an
important
narrative
that
we
continue
to
have,
and
so
that's
why,
in
this
amendment
proposed
amendment,
it
says
any
covered
premises
must
adopt
policies
and
procedures
to
enact
this
section,
including
the
escalation
techniques.
E
O
I
do
understand
and
appreciate
the
intent
of
of
the
bill.
The
october
1
2017
massacre
was
a
a
horrific
nightmare.
I
I
have
a
family.
I
want
my
family
to
be
safe
too,
when
we
travel,
but
there's
always
reasonableness
in
the
law,
and
it
has
to
be
reasonable
to
the
average
law-abiding
citizen
so
that
they
can
follow
the
law.
O
O
Section
3
b
does
not
apply
to
and
moving
down
to
subsection
3
a
guest
of
public
accommodation
facility
who
sub
roman
numeral
numeral
four
notifies
the
public
accommodation
facility
in
writing
that
his
or
her
bag
contains
an
unloaded
firearm.
Okay.
So
I
have
a
compound
question
here,
because
when
do
they
notify
one
minute
one
hour
one
day
one
week,
that's
the
first
part.
Second,
I'm
looking
at
the
the
the
cute
picture
of
the
sign
that
says
you
know:
firearms
are
prohibited.
O
Unless
you
have
the
written
consent
of
the
owner
or
operator,
it
doesn't
have
a
phone
number
there.
It
doesn't
have
an
email
there.
It
doesn't
have
an
address
where
I
can
write
my
letter,
a
law-abiding
citizen
says:
oh
owner,
what's
an
owner
of
a
casino,
that's
a
publicly
held
corporation.
Oh
you.
Look
that
up
the
shareholders.
Are
the
owners
of
a
publicly
held
corporation?
So
do
I
have
to
write
to
every
shower
holder?
Do
I
write
to
just
the
majority
shareholders
who's?
The
operator?
O
I
don't
know
multiple
people
go
into
operating
a
casino
and
then
I
looked
at
the
mgm
website.
I
looked
at
the
top.
I
looked
at
the
middle.
I
looked
at
the
bottom.
Nowhere
does
it
say
if
you
want
to
bring
your
concealed,
carry
permit
or
get
permission
from
the
owner
or
operator
of
this
property.
Here's
the
address!
Here's,
the
email,
here's,
the
phone
number,
here's
a
name.
It
says
nothing.
I
even
went
to
the
fax
and
the
commonly
asked
questions.
So
how
does
the
law-abiding
citizen
find
out?
D
Thank
you
for
the
question
assembly
woman
through
you,
chair,
schreible
to
the
assembly
woman,
nicole
cannizzaro,
sent
a
district
six
away
in
and
then,
if
miss
molina
wanted
to
add
anything
or
senator
donate
wanted
to
add,
I
can
let
them
add
as
well.
So
with
respect
to
the
signs.
The
signs
that
are
that
are
included
in
this
particular
bill
are
posted
at
the
cashiers
cage
at
check-in
and
at
all
the
entrances
to
the
building.
D
So
I
think
to
say
that,
because
it
doesn't
say
who,
because
there's
no
telephone,
number
or
email
address,
that
somebody
would
have
to
would
interpret
that
as
having
to
go
contact
all
of
the
shareholders
when
they're
standing
in
the
property
and
reading
the
sign
seems
a
little
less
than
reasonable
to
me,
especially
because
that
is
how
this
operates
for
a
variety
of
facilities.
When
you
walk
into
this
building
that
we
are
in
today,
there
is
a
sign
that
says
you
may
not
carry
a
firearm
on
this
premises.
D
There.
The
signs
are
on
the
property.
So
certainly,
I
think
to
your
point
about
whether
there
should
be
additional
dissemination
of
information
to
advise
people
that
this
particular
premises
has
opted
into
a
law
that
restricts
the
carrying
of
firearms
on
property.
It's
certainly
a
question
that
we've
heard,
I
think
in
a
from
a
couple
of
different
members-
and
I
I
know
ms
molino
had
talked
about
their
efforts
to
ensure
that
guests
have
full
understanding
of
what
is
permitted
and
not
permitted
in
their
efforts
of
outreach.
D
D
Obviously,
this
law
is
pretty
clear
that
they
want
folks
who
are
coming
into
the
property
to
have
the
unloaded
firearm
and
to
let
folks
know
so.
I
I
don't
know
that
there
is
ambiguity
built
into
the
language
of
this
bill,
because
it
says
that
they
must
notify
the
public
accommodation
facility
in
writing
that
they
have
a
bag
that
contains
an
unloaded
firearm.
E
Terry
scheibel,
the
only
I
want
to
give
just
a
quick
background
as
to
how
I
got
to
my
amendment
and
hopefully
that
can
address
it
as
as
well
as
some
of
the
concerns
that
you
you
documented.
So
in
public
health,
we
always
talk
about
how
how
we
can
develop
good
public
health
policies
that
influence
behavioral
health
science,
and
that
means
that
the
actions
that
people
carry
out
can
influence
the
health
and
safety
of
everyone
else
in
public
health
policy.
We
always
talk
about
three
things.
We
talk
about
education,
enforcement
and
engineering.
E
Those
are
the
three
e's
that
we
always
talk
about
education
that
was
covered
earlier
through
ms
molino's
test
testimony
where
she
mentioned
that
as
part
of
this
implementation,
the
mgm
properties
would
carry
out
the
education
for
their
visitors
and
residents
to
understand
this
new
change
enforcement.
E
This
policy
covers
the
same
way
that
we
would
do
for
any
other
public
buildings
or
schools
and
which,
in
my
opinion,
would
eventually
lead
to
good
policy,
because
the
same
way
that
you
can't
bring
a
firearm
into
a
stadium
or
a
sports
entertainment
center,
that's
learned
already
through
behavioral
science
and
then
the
last
thing
is
engineering.
E
This
amendment
builds
on
the
concept
of
public
health,
because
not
only
are
we
providing
signage
at
public
entrance
areas,
we
are
building
on
that
and
making
sure
that
guests
who
are
not
staying
at
the
hotel
are
informed
of
this
at
the
cashiers
area
and
then
also
for
those
who
are
staying.
There
are
being
made
aware,
when
they're
checking
into
the
hotel
having
those
three
sections
and
building
on
the
education,
enforcement
and
engineering
of
this
policy
can
lead
to
behavioral
changes,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
we
have
to
must.
G
G
That
the
a
plane
reading
of
the
sign
and
played
the
plane
reading
of
the
statute
made
clear
that
the
owner
operator
of
the
unrestricted
licensee
or
an
authorized
agent
thereof.
So
all
of
our
employees
will
be
trained.
When
asked
to
direct
individuals
to
the
approp
to
the
appropriate
authorized
agent,
who
can
give
permission
to
the
extent
appropriate.
O
O
It
doesn't
say
where
there's
nothing
at
the
bottom
no
address
it's
where
I
can
write
my
letter,
no
email
where
I
can
shoot
a
quick
email,
no
phone
number,
even
where
I
can
call-
and
there
certainly
isn't
an
nrs
section
listed
at
the
bottom-
that
I
can
look
up
on
my
iphone
and
then
I
went
to
the
website
and
it's
not
on
the
website
either.
This
is
who
to
contact
if
you're,
a
ccw
carrier,
and
you
want
written
permission
to
bring
your
firearm
onto
our
premises.
O
G
Yeah
absolutely
assemblywoman,
you
know,
as
I
noted
and
as
the
senator
noted
as
well.
We
we
do
and
we'll
continue
to
train
all
of
our
employees
about
how
these
particular
provisions
will
be
enforced,
and
so
the
law
abiding
citizen
who
wants
to
comply
with
our
policies
and
comply
with
the
law
merely
we'll
need
to
ask
any
of
our
employees
where
they
can
get
written
permission
or
how
they
can
get
written
written
permission
and
they'll
be
directed
to
get
that
information.
G
Much
like
you
know,
our
our
employees
are
well
trained
to
answer
thousands
and
thousands
of
discreet
questions
that
they
get
from
our
guests
every
day.
As
you
can
imagine,
given
the
nature
and
scale
of
our
operations,
we
have
guests
who
have
any
number
of
questions
and,
and
they
ask
and
they're,
guided
to
the
appropriate
place
to
get
those
answers,
and
so
in
terms
of
their
their
ability
to
get
those
answers
from
our
employees.
G
O
So
just
a
quick
follow-up,
so
so
you're
saying
that
people
can
get
a
verbal
permission.
Then
it's
not
going
to
have
to
be
written
and
they're
not
going
to
have
to
do
it
in
advance.
They
can
do
it
on
the
spur
of
the
moment
and
will
this
will
this
bill
be
amended
to
say
that
resorts
and
properties
must
put
something
on
their
website
to
inform
persons
who
are
ccw
carriers
who
they
can
write
or
email
or
call
if
they
want
to
get
that
express
written
permission.
G
G
My
point
was
that
any
guest
can
ask
our
employees
where
they
can
get
the
appropriate
permissions
and
they
will
be
directed
to
the
right
place
to
get
the
appropriate
permissions
in
terms
of
when
they
should
do
that.
They
should
do
that
as
soon
as
they
become
aware
that
they
will
that
they
do
or
intend
to
have
a
firearm
on
the
property
and
contravention
of
our
policy.
G
So
if
they
are
aware
of
aware
that
they
will
be
traveling
with
a
firearm
and
they
need
to
bring
that
in
the
property,
then
they
should
call
in
advance
and
they
should
find
out
how
to
get
the
appropriate
permissions
or
what
the
policies
are
with
regard
to.
Turning
over
that
firearm
at
the
time
that
they
are
that
they
will
come
onto
property,
and
I
should
know-
and
I
have-
and
as
I've
noted
previously-
this
already
is
our
policy.
So
you
know
our
frequent
guests
already
are
aware
of
this.
G
At
that
point,
they
become
aware
that
they
are
carrying
a
firearm
in
the
convention
of
our
policy.
At
that
point,
they
can
engage
with
our
employees
and
find
out
what
steps
they
need
to
take
in
order
to
cure
in
order
to
at
that
point,
cure
the
violation,
so
they
can
either
turn
over
the
firearm,
as
as
our
customers
already
do,
when
they,
when
they
come
onto
property
and
realize
at
that
point,
that
they're
violating
our
policy
or
they
can
secret
permission.
G
O
So
I
just
one
follow-up
assemblywoman
lisa
cresser.
Let's
say
I
am
aware
of
the
law
because
I
went
through
this
hearing
and
I
am
a
ccw
carrier
not
confirming
or
denying
just
hypothetical,
and
I
want
to
comply
in
advance
when
I
went
to
your
website
there's
nowhere
where,
where
I
can
write
or
email,
it
does
not
give
me
an
email
address
or
an
address
it.
It
doesn't
give
me
any
direction
and
I'm
just
wondering
if,
if
that
will
be
included
in
this,
that
that
directs
resort
properties
to
put
something
on
their
website.
A
I
think
this
question
has
already
been
asked
and
I'm
going
to
ask
that
we
move
on.
If
you
have
any
other
questions.
B
Thank
you
chair
for
the
opportunity.
I'm
grateful
that
I'm
able
to
ask
some
questions.
I
have
several
but
I'll,
try
to
keep
it
short.
I'm
trying
to
address
miss
molino
numerous
times.
You've
stated
that
we
already
do
this,
but
that
you
need
one
more
tool
that
you
need
this
bill
for
that
purpose
and
I'm
not
I'm
not
seeing
that
play
out.
Yet,
as
I
look
back,
I
looked
up
an
article.
B
It's
been
referenced.
Some
of
the
violence
that's
occurred
on
the
strip
in
the
last
year.
When
I
looked
back
at
some
of
the
news
articles,
there
was
one
from
the
las
vegas
sun
and
what
some
of
the
other
resorts
are
doing
currently
without
this
bill
they've
enhanced
their
security
measures.
They
have
they're
using
metal
detectors.
B
B
They
also
said
that
on
fridays
and
saturdays-
they
only
you
know
they
have
a
certain
screening
process.
They
screen
bags,
they
use
the
metal
detectors,
and
so
I'm
just
not
understanding
to
me.
This
is
such
a
broad
net
that
there
are
mechanisms
in
place
for
security.
Some
of
these
shootings
have
occurred
outside
not
in
covered
areas.
Some
were
on
the
freeway
right
near
the
strip.
B
I
I
still
need
to
be
convinced
that
this
this
broad
net
is
not
going
to
target
the
very
people
that
are
law
abiding
to
go
after
bad
actors
that,
when,
when
they
are
committed
to
do
violence,
we're
going
to
want
to
have
armed
security
guards
in
the
building
ccw
holders
in
the
building
and
law
enforcement,
off-duty
officers
with
their
weapons
as
our
safety
net.
So
can
you
tell
me
what
teeth
you
need
that
say
the
wind
or
the
cosmopolitan
some
of
these
others
that
they're
practicing
now
that
you're
not
able
to
do.
G
Assemblywoman,
I
think
that
we
all
share
the
same
goal,
which
is
that
we
all
want
to
see
incidences
of
violence
minimized
in
our
communities
and
certainly
on
the
las
vegas
trip
and,
like
I've
said
numerous
times.
Ultimately,
that
is
the
goal
of
this
bill.
G
What
we
have
chosen
to
do
as
mgm
resorts
is
we
have
chosen
to
enact
a
policy
that
makes
clear
that
our
properties,
our
private
properties,
are
properties
that
are
firearm-free
zones.
What
the
law
does
currently
is.
It
requires
our
security
guards
to
engage
with
individuals
who
violate
our
our
policy
to
engage
with
them
and
provide
them
with
verbal
notice
before
they
can
be
trespassed
from
our
property.
G
What
the
bill
is
seeking
to
do
is
the
bill
is
seeking
to,
in
certain
instances,
give
our
security
guards
the
ability
to
engage
with
law
enforcement
before
they
are
required
to
give
a
verbal
notice,
and
so
what
this
does
is
already
under
nevada
law.
Private
property
owners
can
trespass
individual
individuals
for
any
variety
of
purposes.
It's
private
property.
G
But
but
what
all
this
all
this
bill
allows
us
to
do
is
it
allows
us
to
engage
with
law
enforcement
without
a
verbal
warning
in
certain
circumstances,
and
we
believe
that,
in
certain
certain
circumstances,
that
additional
tool
can
help
all
of
our
properties.
Those
who
those
who
desire
to
opt
into
this
can
help
to
reduce
potential
incidences
of
violence
on
our
property.
B
Just
a
quick
follow-up:
are
you
able
to
ban
people
from
your
properties
as
it
is?
If,
if
you
notice
the
suspicious
actions
of
an
individual,
they
don't
respond,
you
ask
them
to
leave.
I'm
just
curious.
How
do
you
handle
the
things
now
and
if
somebody
doesn't
comply
with
your
rules
that
exists
now,
do
you
as
a
resort,
have
the
ability
to
to
ban
an
individual
kind
of
like
you
know
you
have?
Is
it
the
famous
the
blacklist
where
you
you
have
individuals,
who've,
maybe
cheated
that
you
can
keep
out
of
the
resort?
B
Can
you
can
you
do
that
if
they
don't
comply
with
existing
laws.
G
So
assemblywoman,
as
I
know,
the
way
that
existing
law
works
is
that
as
a
private
property
owner,
we
do
have
the
authority
to
to
prevent
individuals
who
carry
firearms
onto
our
onto
our
property
and
contravention
of
our
policies.
We
do
have
the
ability
to
trespass
them
from
our
properties.
The
way
that
works
right
now
is
that
we
have
to
give
them
a
verbal
warning
if
they
refuse
to
comply
with
our
request
to
either
turn
over
the
firearm
to
leave
the
property
if
they,
if
they
refuse.
G
At
that
point,
we
can
call
law
enforcement
and
ask
law
enforcement
for
assistance
in
removing
that
individual
from
our
property.
What
we
cannot
do
right
now
is
trespass
an
individual
with
a
firearm
without
engaging
with
them
with
a
verbal
warning,
and
so
what
this
bill
is
seeking
to
do
is
to
close
that
gap.
A
All
right
any
other
questions,
okay,
and
I
also
just
want
to
remind
you
guys
that
after
you
ask
the
question,
if
you
leave
your
microphone
button
on
that's
what
causes
the
garbled
responses
from
people
on
zoom,
so
just
make
sure
that
you
turn
your
mic
off
and
on
as
you're
asking
your
questions,
assemblymember
pete
o'neill.
Did
you
have
a
question.
P
Thank
you
chair
appreciate
the
time
I
have
one
question
actually
for
you
chair.
Do
you
know
if
we
have
metro
representatives
coming
on
to
testify,
because
I'd
really
like
to
hear
more
about
these
alleged
crimes
that
were
reported
by
assemblywoman
howdegy
and
how
many
of
them
concern
the
resorts
we're
on
the
strip,
how
many
concerned
legal
gun
owners
etc
and
how
they
prioritize
their
response
to
the
resorts
now.
P
P
P
Also
have
said
that
firearms,
the
signs
are
there,
saying
no
firearms,
so
you're
telling
the
person
what
they
can't
do.
I
don't
see
anything
telling
the
person
what
they
can
do,
that
the
law
enforcement
officer,
who
has
an
hr
218
and
is
allowed
to
travel
across
state
lines
and
carry
a
concealed
weapon.
There's
nothing
telling
him
where
to
go.
What
to
do,
I
know
they're
not
going
to
carry
around
the
nrs
is
with
them
when
they
come
up
from
arizona.
P
P
That's
a
fact,
so
that's
not
addressed
at
all
either,
but
let's
actually
get
dan
to
my
question.
If
I
may
so
I'm
a
law
abiding
person,
you
ask
me:
if
I
have
a
firearm,
I
say
yes,
I
do
you
say
well,
you're
not
allowed
to,
I
say:
well,
what
can
I
do?
Well,
you
must
give
me
that
firearm,
so
I
can
hold
it
until
you
leave
the
premise.
P
P
D
Chair
tribal
through
you
to
the
assemblyman,
nicole,
cannizzaro,
senate
district,
six.
So
first
I
would
note
that
I,
I
guess
I'll
answer
your
question
about
what
to
do
what
you
would
do
with
the
firearm.
I
think
that
there
is
also
the
option
that
miss
molino
has
talked
about
where
they're
asked
to
leave
the
premises
if
they
want
to
have
their
firearm
or
they
can
walk
it
back
to
their
car.
D
Additionally,
there
are
a
number
of
circumstances.
For
example,
if
you
were
to
go
to,
if
you
were
a
law
enforcement
officer,
ccw
carrier
and
you
had
a
firearm,
you
were
to
go
to
visit
someone
in
the
clark
county
detention
center.
You
can't
bring
that
firearm
in
with
you,
but
they
can
store
it
for
you.
They
can
take
it
and
store
it
for
you.
D
So
that
is
not
how
that
law
reads
and
it
wouldn't
require
for
if
someone,
if,
if
a
covered
premises,
were
going
to
adopt
policies
to
store
firearms,
that
wouldn't
that
that
law
does
not
kick
in,
because
that
is
not
what
that's
not
what
that
law
does.
So
I
think
that
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
an
inaccurate
reading
of
what
exactly
the
background
check
law
was,
and
that's
certainly
not
what's
being
litigated
here
today.
D
What
is
in
this
bill
and
again,
I
would
note
that
this
is
very
similar
to
what
we
have
for
schools.
It
is
similar
to
what
we
have
for
libraries.
It
is
similar
to
what
happens
in
this
very
building.
You
cannot
bring
firearms
onto
the
premises,
so
I
think
one
of
the
one
of
the
difficult
parts,
and
maybe
one
of
the
frustrations
over
the
questions
that
are
being
asked
numerous
times
and
then
being
answered
and
there
being
frustration
about
it
is
that
this
is
not
a
new
concept.
D
This
isn't
a
law
that
doesn't
exist
in
other
places
where
we
have
said
that
there
should
be
some
safety
and
security
built
into
facilities.
This
is
something
that
says:
here's
what
we
can
do
we
can,
if
we
choose
as
a
cover
premises,
to
prohibit
firearms
on
the
property.
If
we
do
that
here
are
some
of
the
parameters
for
what
that
looks,
like
policies
and
procedures
will,
of
course,
support
those,
and
it
is
but
a
tool
for
when
law
enforcement
may
need
to
engage
and,
of
course,
law
enforcement
is
always
going
to
prioritize.
D
But
we
don't
say
that
we're
not
going
to.
You
know
we're
going
to
say
well
if,
if
there's
only
if
law
enforcement
is
only
responding
to
the
most
serious
crime
and
then
there's
nothing
else
that
they
should
never
respond
to
we're
never
going
to
pass
any
laws
about
that,
because,
ultimately,
the
whole
goal
here
right
is
that
if
law
enforcement
is
needed
in
order
to
help
de-escalate
a
situation
that
they
have
that
as
a
tool,
I
think
the
important
piece
to
note
here
is
that
this
is
very
similar
to
how
other
premises
operate.
D
D
We
are
either
assuming
that
individuals
are
operating
in
bubbles
where
they
have
never
been
to
another
problem
place
where
they
have
not
been
told
that
they
can't
bring
certain
things
in.
If
you
go
to
a.
If
you
go
to
a
hockey
game,
you
can't
bring
in
certain.
Sometimes
you
have
to
have
a
clear
purse.
You
can't
even
bring
in
a
purse
with
other
things
in
it.
Sometimes
you
can't
even
bring
a
bag
at
all
people
adapt
to
those
situations.
This
is
not
an
absurd
situation
that
doesn't
exist
in
other.
D
In
other
places,
we
prohibit
guns
on
schools
in
the
same
fashion.
We
prohibit
guns
and
libraries
the
same
fashion,
very
big
guns
in
this
very
building
and
people
are
perfectly
capable
of
complying
with
that,
and
that's
what
this
particular
bill
is,
and
I
think
that's
some
of
the
frustration
with
some
of
the
questions
that
continue
to
be
answered
about.
What
are
we
going
to
do
about
this?
There
are
different
pieces
built
in
here
right
to
address
some
of
those
concerns
with
respect
to
what,
if
somebody's
there
for
a
trade
show
and
purchases
a
weapon.
D
Well,
they
have
to
get
consent.
What,
if
they're
a
law
enforcement
officer,
then
they're
exempted
by
the
bill?
What
are
we
going
to
do
to
make
sure
that
the
individuals
from
the
properties
who
are
dealing
with
folks
who
maybe
have
a
weapon
on
property,
we're
going
to
make
sure
they
have
these
policy
procedures
and
these
trainings
in
place?
How
are
we
going
to
notify
folks?
P
I
appreciate
senator
carrizon
to
your
response,
but
I
don't
think
you
actually
are
dealing
with
it.
When
you
go
into
the
courthouse,
you
go
through
a
metal
detector.
I've
gone
through
the
metal
detector
in
the
courthouses.
I
identify
myself
as
a
law
enforcement
officer.
They'll
ask
me:
are
you
caring?
Yes,
we've
got
lock
boxes
right
here
under
guard.
P
Would
you
put
your
weapon
in
there?
I
do
that.
I
have
the
key.
There
is
no
master
key.
I
haven't
heard
any
of
that
discussed
here
in
this
bill
and,
as
I
said,
it
tells
me
what
I
can't
do,
there's
no
information.
What
I
can
do
when
I
walk
into
that
casino.
When
I
walk
into
that
premise,
I'm
not
going
through
a
metal
detector.
Apparently
you
have
not
addressed
that
for
me.
You've
also
not
addressed,
as
I
said,
other
weapons
and
as
I
when
I
worked
undercover,
I
carried
the
bowing
knife.
P
P
P
A
All
right
other
questions
from
committee
members,
assuming
someone's
on
armstrong.
Q
Q
What
is
concerning
is
that
all
of
the
places
that
have
been
mentioned,
where
there
are
processes
in
place,
are
public
their
public
buildings.
Q
There
are,
it's
already
been
well
noted
that
there
are
scans
downstairs.
This
is
a
public
building
in
the
courthouse.
I
worked
in
one
for
several
years
as
a
public
building
those
processes
there
are
in
place.
These
rules,
this
law
that
you
are
trying
to
present
today
that
you
represent
today,
has
to
do
with
private
business.
Q
G
Assemblywoman,
you
know
with
mgm
resorts
for
the
record,
so
in
response
to
that
question
what
we
are
trying
to
get
at
here-
and
I
know
I've
said
this
a
number
of
times,
but
is
a
situation
where
our
security
guards
believe
that
de-escalation,
on
their
own,
is
not
an
appropriate
response
and
what
they
need
is
additional
assistance
from
law
enforcement,
and
so
there
will
be
a
narrow
set
of
circumstances
where
our
security
guards
believe
that
that
is
that.
That
is
the
case
and
to
to
the
point
made
earlier
from
senator
dunane's
friendly
amendment.
G
There
are
specific.
There
is
specific
language
in
that
in
that
particular
amendment.
That
goes
directly.
I
think
to
one
of
the
issues
that
you've
raised,
which
is
the
ability
of
of
the
resort
to
handle
this
on
its
own
without
going
to
law
enforcement
and
de-escalation
techniques
are
built
into
that.
We
support
that.
G
But
again
what
we're
trying
to
get
at
here
is
not
the
question
necessarily
of
whether
the
response
from
our
facility
is
through
an
armed
guard
or
an
unarmed
guard,
but
rather
our
security
guards
believe
that
the
situation
is
such
where
violence
could
be
imminent.
In
a
manner
that
they
believe
that
law
enforcement
assistant
is
necessary
and
it
provides
them
with
the
option
to
engage
that
law
enforcement
assistance
where
they
believe
that
de-escalation
by
the
property
itself
will
not
be
an
effective
solution
to
to
mitigating
the
the
potential
that
a
violent
situation
could
occur.
Q
Thank
you.
So
what
you
are
saying
is
that
you
all
do
not
want
to
be
responsible
for
de-escalation,
but
that
you
would
like
our
law
enforcement
to
come
on
property,
private
property
and
to
be
responsible
for
de-escalation
on
private
property
and
wait.
Let
me
finish
because
I've
heard
several
I've
been
sitting
here
and
I
apologize
for
being
late.
I
had
a
rough
night,
so
I've
heard
several
explanations,
so
there
is
no
fiscal
note
here
to
talk
about
how
this
is
going
to
affect
policing
in
our
communities.
Q
Q
Q
I
am
very
concerned
about
what
I
believe
this
leads
to,
which
is
stop
and
frisk,
and
it
is
concerning
that
there
is
no
commitment,
oh
and
by
the
way.
In
case
anybody
doesn't
know,
there
are
172
locations
in
city
of
las
vegas,
city
of
north
las
vegas
and
henderson
that
have
unrestricted
gaming
licenses.
Q
We
know
that
every
single
time
there
is
an
interaction
with
police
for
black
and
brown
people,
the
opportunity
for
it
to
go
sideways
is
grand,
and
we
just
don't
want
that
and
without
a
commitment
for
there
to
be
notice
as
part
of
the
policy
and
not
a
policy,
but
actually
the
law,
because
policies
change
depending
on
who's
in
charge.
Q
G
This
is
actually
now
with
mgm
resorts
for
the
record
and
assemblywoman.
You
know.
Certainly
I
understand
your
concerns
and
your
desires
to
make
sure
that
this
bill
in
no
way
creates
a
disparate
impact.
I'd
just
like
to
address
a
few
of
the
points
that
you
made,
which
I
think
are
important
ones.
G
First
of
all,
in
the
in
the
friendly
amendment
that
senator
dunyada
offered
there,
there
are
specific
requirements
that
that
unrestricted
licensees
that
opt
in
provide
required,
training
to
their
security
guards,
around
de-escalation
techniques,
diversity,
training
and
implicit
bias,
and
so,
in
terms
of
the
required
training,
the
the
three,
the
three
categories
that
senator
zenyatta
articulated
or
not
just
required
as
a
matter
of
policy,
they
are
required
as
a
matter
of
law,
so
we
are
not
asking
that
police
perform
the
escalation
on
our
behalf.
G
In
fact,
our
security
guards
will
be
required
to
understand
the
escalation
techniques
as
a
condition
of
our
ability
to
opt
in
to
this
to
the
statute
if
it's
enacted.
Second,
with
regard
to
your
note
that
police
would
be
responding
to
internal
issues,
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
that's
the
case
here.
G
What
what
police
would
be,
what
police
would
be
responding
to
was
incidences
where
there
is
a
potential
of
violent
engagement
on
our
property,
and
I
think
we
all
are
aligned
and
wanting
to
reduce
any
incidents
of
violence
that
would
occur
in
densely
populated
areas
like
like
our,
like
our
properties
are
the
the
third
point
that
I'd
like
to
note
is
that,
with
regard
to
our
security
guards
themselves,
this
is
it
is
not
a
homogeneous
workforce,
it
is
a
very
diverse
workforce.
G
We
have
a
majority
minority
security
majority
minority
population
amongst
our
security
guards,
60
of
our
workforce
is,
is
diverse
and
fourth,
with
regard
to
the
example
that
you
gave
of
southwest
and
their
ability
to
provide
that
sort
of
warning,
it
is
a
very
different
circumstance.
Of
course,
we
are
places
of
public
accommodation
that
are
where
our
doors
are
open
to
the
public.
We
don't
provide
boarding
passes.
We
don't
have
that
sort
of
direct
ability
to
provide
a
a
written
warning
to
every
individual
that
comes
onto
our
property.
G
G
Assemblywoman,
I
wasn't,
this
is
actually
not
the
record.
I
was
not
attempting
to
prevent
the
question.
I
was
actually
trying
to
think
through
how
it
works.
I
believe
they
have
landing
pages
within
our
home
page.
So
I
believe
that
if
you
want
to
go
to,
for
example,
if
you're,
if
you
want
to
go
to
catch,
let's
say
you
can
navigate
there
through
the
aria
website,
as
I
believe
the
way
it
works.
Q
So,
if
mgm
is
the
mothership
and
mgm
put
the
information
about
your
policies
on
your
website
whether
there
was
a
follow-up
ping,
if
someone
books
something
or
not,
it
doesn't
matter
if
mgm
and
any
other
non-restricted
licensed
gaming.
Establishment
that
wants
to
participate
in
this
is
required
to
put
that
information
on
their
website.
Q
Q
Q
Q
You
are
allowing
anyone
in
the
public
to
have
one
spot
to
get
data,
and
then,
if
you
have
to
ask
someone
you
can
point
to
that,
but
I
believe
that
it
is
the
responsibility
of
the
mothership
who
was
coming
to
us
asking
for
this
law
to
make
a
commitment
to
inform
the
public
the
entire
public.
If
it's
on
the
website,
anybody
can
ask-
and
I
don't
see
that
in
here
I
only
see
some
vague
policies
and
procedures
again
that
could
change
with
new
leadership.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
G
A
Thank
you
for
that
assembly.
Member
kasama.
O
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
all
the
presenters.
My
question
is
this:
this
bill
is
for
non-restricted
gaming
properties
and
on
those
properties
we
also
have
condo
hotels.
O
So
we
have
people
that,
for
example,
the
signatures
the
signature
towers,
so
we
have
people
that
own
the
units
individually
there
in
the
bill
here
under
section
8
b2,
there's
a
section
there
regarding
residential
unit
owners
are
exempted
and
that
they
can
have
carry
the
firearms
to
his
or
her
unit
and
there's
some
information
on
that.
So
my
question
is
that
many
of
those
owners
put
those
units
in
rental
pools
or
they
have
them
with
airbnb.
So
if
the
owner
is
allowed
because
there's
no
mention
of
how
that
would
work.
O
So
if
the
owner
is
allowed
to
carry
the
weapons
and
if
they
decide
to
rent
out
those
units,
then
is
the
tenant
or
the
short-term
occupant
for
the
weekend
are
they
exempted
if
the
owner
is
allowing
that?
There's?
No
clarity
on
that,
and
I
think
that
really
needs
to
be
addressed,
because
there
is
a
lot
of
those
units
down
on
the
strip.
G
This
is
actually
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
The
the
way
that
the
bill
is
contemplated
is
that
the
the
owner
himself
or
herself
is
exempted
from
the
bill
as
a
matter
of
the
statute
itself.
G
With
regards
to
guests
of
those
facilities,
it
is
mgm
resorts
in
its
entirety
is
a
gun
freezer,
and
so
it
is
our.
It
is
our
policy
that
we
do
not
want
any
firearms
on
our
premises.
G
To
the
extent
that
an
individual
who
owns
a
condo
within
our
facilities
is
renting
out
one
of
those
one
of
those
condos,
and
they
are
renting
it
to
a
person
who
is
carrying
a
firearm
on
the
premise
that
person
would
be
subject
to
this
statute
as
it
is
drafted,
so
to
the
extent
that
that
person
is
already
covered
by
an
exemption.
That
exemption
would
apply
to
the
extent
that
that
person
would
like
to
get
written
permission
from
the
owner
or
the
operator
or
an
agent
one
of
our
one
of
our
authorized
agents.
G
That
person
may
do
so
to
the
extent
that
that
person
brings
a
firearm
onto
the
property
and,
at
that
point
realizes
that
firearms
are
not.
Generally
permitted
that
person
may
turn
it
over
to
the
to
an
agent
of
our
property,
as
is
permitted
in
this
bill.
So
again,
there
are
ample
opportunities
for
a
individual
who
is
renting
out
a
condo
on
our
premises
to
to
seek
an
exemption
or
turn
over
turn
over
that
firearm,
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
the
bill.
O
So
you're
saying
that
a
tenant
or
short-term
occupant
for
the
weekend
would
not
be
covered
under
the
owner's
exemption,
but
what
about
an
owner's
relative?
They
have
their
brother
coming
and
staying
with
them.
I
just
think
that
that
we
need
to
have
that
clarity
in
this
bill,
because
I
don't
think
that's
very
clear.
G
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Other
questions
from
the
committee
assembly,
member
gonzalez.
L
Thank
you
so
much
chair
majority
leader
ken
nanzaro,
senator
daniate
and
assemblywoman
howdy.
Thank
you
so
much
for
this
bill.
I
know
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
going
into
this.
I
just
have
a
few
questions
and
I
think
a
lot
of
my
concerns
have
already
been
addressed.
I
think
that
I'm
still
very
confused
and
concerned
with
a
lot
of
what
my
colleagues
have
stated.
I
was
curious.
L
There
has
been
a
lot
of
talk
about.
You
know,
guns
on
the
strip.
You
know,
assembly,
woman
summers,
armstrong
brought
up
that
there
are
other
businesses
and
entities
that
fall
into
this
non-restricted
gaming
license
on
section
four.
It
talks
about
de-escalation,
so
I
was
just
curious.
What
are
your
de-escalation
policies?
I
don't
think
we've
like
had
that
conversation.
L
It
also
says
that
there
needs
to
be
a
requirement
for
cultural
diversity,
competency
and
implicit
bias,
training,
those
all
mean
separate
things
and
and
I'm
just
concerned
and
confused
on
what
that
means
to
what
business
and
what
training.
That
means
we've
seen
across
the
country
that
you
know
even
police
departments,
have
these
policies
and
and
we're
still
having
you
know,
deadly
interactions
with
with
people,
and
so
I'm
just
really
concerned.
So
maybe
we
could
just
start
with
like
what
would
where
is
the
de-escalation
policies?
G
This
is
ishmaelina
with
mcm
resorts
for
the
record,
so,
with
regard
to
our
our
existing
training,
we
have
an
entire
training
manual
that
our
employees
are
required
to
to
abide
by
in
terms
of
understanding
how
to
treat
our
guests
so
with
regard
to
making
sure
that
none
of
our
policies
are
applied
to
our
guests
in
a
disparate
way.
G
That
is
something
again
that
we
take
very
very
seriously
and
so
they're
required
to
go.
Go
through
diversity.
Training,
they're
required
to
go
through
training
that
make
sure
that
they're
aware
that
every
single
guest
must
be
treated
in
the
exact
same
manner
and
that
required-
and
that
is
with
regard
to
all
of
our
policies,
not
just
this
policy.
Senator
giada's
friendly
amendment
includes
additional
provisions
that
would
require
us
to
include
to
provide
training
on
de-escalation,
cultural
diversity
and
implicit
bias.
G
But
it's
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
a
a
minimum
baseline
of
that
sort
of
that
sort
of
training
across
the
board
in
terms
of
in,
in
terms
of
the
enhancements
that
you
referenced
assemblywoman.
G
G
They
must
engage
with
that
individual
and
provide
a
verbal
warning
before
law
enforcement
can
be
called
what
this
does
in
those
circumstances
where
our
security
guards
believe
that
that
individual,
that
they
need
firearm
assistance
in
order
to
prevent
a
violent
situation
from
unfolding
on
our
property,
it
allows
them
to
call
for
law
enforcement
assistance
without
providing
that
verbal
warning.
That
is
not
to
say
that
in
every
incident
they
will,
but
as
it
is
to
provide
that
option
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
our
resorts
continue
to
be
a
safer
place
as
possible.
L
Assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
for
that.
I
think
I'm
I'm
still
really
concerned.
You
can
only
speak
to
mgm
policies
and
procedures
and
so
we're
allowing
over
hundreds
of
businesses
to
opt
into
this
policy.
We
don't
know
what
their
training
is.
We
don't
know
who's
doing
their
training.
We
don't
have
a
standard
training
for
everyone
that
will
be
opting
into
this
policy.
How
I
mean
for
your
business?
How
often
are
are
people
doing
these
trainings?
L
Is
it
like
you
first
get
hired
and
that's
your
implicit
bias
training.
Are
there
reoccurring,
trainings?
I
just
I
have
a
lot
of
concerns
about
about
this
training
or
saying
hey.
We
do
this
training
and
so
now
we're
all
good
to
go
and
nobody
has
implicit
bias.
We
all
have
implicit
bias
right,
so
I'm
just
I
just
have
a
lot
of
concerns
around
that.
G
This
is
aisha,
molina,
with
mgm
resorts
for
the
record.
Assemblyman
again,
I
can
only
speak
to
our
policy.
Our
policy
is
annual
at
a
minimum
for
our
trainings.
L
G
This
is
aisha,
melina
with
mtm
resorts
for
the
record
and
assembly
woman.
I
think
you've
highlighted
what
exactly
the
problem
is.
The
problem
is
that
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
call
metro
unless
we've
provided
a
verbal
warning,
so
even
in
an
incident
where
our
security
guard
believes,
for
example,
that
violence
could
be
imminent
because
an
individual
is
carrying
a
firearm.
G
Our
security
guard
cannot
call
metro
for
assistance
unless
our
security
guard
first
engages
with
that
individual
and
provides
a
verbal
warning,
so
that's
even
where,
for
whatever
the
other
context
might
be,
for
whatever
the
other,
for
whatever
the
other
circumstances
might
be.
There
is
a
reasonable
belief
that
this
could
the
situation
could
turn
violent
imminently
under
existing
trespass
law.
Our
security
guards
have
to
provide
a
verbal
warning
and
directly
engage
with
that
individual.
So
you
know
again,
there
is
a.
L
We
don't
know
or
have
there
been
any
examples
where
someone
didn't
want
to
leave
after
you
approached
them
and
then
it
became
violent.
I
mean
we
had
a
lot
of
examples
of
shootings
on
the
strip
right
of
of
the
uptake
and
violence.
But
my
question
is:
how
many
times
have
you
approached
an
individual
with
a
verbal
warning
where
they
didn't
want
to
leave,
and
it
then
became
a
violent
situation.
G
Assembly
assembly,
with
this
actually
no
with
mgm
resorts
for
the
record.
What
I
can
tell
you
is
that
there
have
been
circumstances
where
we
have
where
we
have
sought
to
trespass
individuals,
because
they
have
refused
to
leave
the
premises
after
a
verbal
warning.
L
A
All
right
other
questions,
as
we
member
orton
liquor.
N
Thank
you
chair
and
david
orient
liquor,
assembly,
district,
20
in
east
side
of
las
vegas
and
henderson.
Thank
you,
senators
for
bringing
this
bill.
I'm
curious
about
the
covered
premises.
Definition
as
assembly,
women,
gonzalez
and
summers
armstrong
have
mentioned
it.
N
It
has
a
fair
amount
of
breath
and,
as
I
look
at
a
list
that
I
found
on
the
nevada
gaming
control
board
it
if
I've
got
the
right
lists
included
in
non-restricted
license
locations
are
an
albertsons
on
south
rainbow
several
vons
groceries,
dotties
a
smithson
north
rainbow
and
and
the
focus
of
this
has
been
on
casino
resorts
and
the
violence
there
and
the
assurance
to
tourists.
N
Is
it
true
that
it's
more
dangerous
to
go
to
a
smith's
than
to
a
cvs
or
a
7-eleven
and
that
it's
more
dangerous
to
go
to
a
gaming
establishment
than
a
non-gaming
establishment?
So
why
is
it
so
broad?
I
could
imagine
you
could
borrowing
from
another
bill
we're
considering
instead
of
saying
non-restricted
license,
you
could
say
non-restricted
license
associated
with
a
hotel
that
has
at
least
175
rooms
as
we've
seen
in
another
bill.
So
why
is
the
definition
doesn't
seem
connected
to
the
purpose
of
the
bill?.
G
This
is
ishmaelina
with
mgm
resorts
for
the
record.
The
the
bill
is
intended
to
get
at
a
particular
set
of
circumstance
right
and
the
particular
set
of
circumstances.
The
one
that
we've
been
discussing
here
today,
the
definition
of
covered
premises
when
this
bill
first
started,
was
much
broader
than
what
it
is
in
this
bill
and
it
covered
all
sorts
of
different
circuits.
All
sorts
of
different
real
property
that
could
potentially
be
impacted.
The
bill
was
narrowed
to
cover
only
a
particular
subset
of
private
property.
G
Non-Restricted
unrestricted
licensees
in
large
part
to
address
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
during
the
course
of
this
conversation
today,
which
is
to
make
sure
that
the
bill
is
not
overly
expansive
to
make
sure
that
the
bill
is
can
be
implemented
in
a
way
and
by
by
private
property
owners
that
do
have
a
lot
of
the
elements
in
place
that
have
been
raised
with
regard
to,
for
example,
diversity,
training,
etc.
G
To
make
sure
that
any
sort
of
disparate
impact
that
this
bill
might
realize
is
mitigated
to
the
extent
possible
so
the
to
the
question
of
whether
it
should
be
further
narrowed
to
include
only
a
certain
subset
of
non-restricted
licensees,
but
I
can
tell
you,
as
from
mgm
resort's
perspective,
we
would
not
have
an
issue
with
that.
I
can't
speak
with
others,
but
from
from
our
perspective,
there
is.
There
is
no
substantive
concern
there.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
I
am
not
seeing
any
other
questions
from
any
members
of
the
committee,
so
I
just
want
to
clarify
a
couple
of
things
and
I
actually
wanted
to
get
legal
to
to
weigh
in
here,
because
we
have
been
focused
on
these
trespassing
warnings
and
calling
police
for
trespassing,
and
I'm
wondering
if
there
is
anywhere
else
in
the
law
that
the
concept
of
requiring
a
verbal
warning
before
a
private
individual
is
allowed
to
contact
law
enforcement.
Does
that
exist
elsewhere
in
the
nevada
statutes.
O
Thank
you,
chair,
scheibel,
nick
anthony
from
the
legal
division
for
the
record.
I
am
not
aware
that
any
other
warning
is
required
currently
under
law.
Typically,
if
a
crime
is
being
committed,
a
property
owner
or
anybody
else
who
witnesses,
the
crime
could
immediately
call
law
enforcement
for
assistance
prior
to
giving
a
warning.
A
My
second
question
for
the
presenters,
which
is
my
understanding,
is
that
the
issue
right
now
is
that,
because
this
violation
of
policy
only
rises
to
the
level
of
a
trespass
that
once
the
policy
has
been
violated
in
those
unusual
but
especially
dangerous
circumstances,
where
somebody's
unwilling
to
comply
you're
kind
of
out
of
options
once
they
refuse
to
comply
because
they're,
not
in
violation
of
the
law
they're
only
in
violation
of
the
policy
and
so
to
call
the
police
would
be
a
trespass
violation,
but
there's
no
underlying
prohibited
conduct
occurring,
and
so
this
would
give
you
the
teeth
that
you
need
to
ensure
that
people
are
not
bringing
firearms
onto
your
property
and
if
they
are
that
you
can
respond
accordingly.
A
The
way
that
people
can
receive
permission
to
carry
would
be
the
same,
and
it's
my
understanding
that
that's
because
we
have
probably
more
people
entering
casinos
every
single
day
than
we
do
our
libraries,
perhaps
unfortunately,
but
they
are,
you
know
they
are
places
of
public
accommodation,
and
this
is
a
policy
choice
to
say
that
they
are
places
that
have
children
at
them
and
have
families
at
them
and
visitors
at
them,
and
people
who
deserve
that
kind
of
protection
that
we
also
afford
to
schools
and
libraries.
Is
that
accurate.
D
Thank
you,
chair
for
the
question.
Nicole
cannons
are
awesome
at
district
six.
That
is
correct.
Obviously,
in
this
language,
we've
also
included
some
additional
parameters
to
ensure
that
things
like
training
are
taking
place
and
those
policy,
those
types
of
policies
for
de-escalation,
cultural
diversity,
competency
and
racial
profiling
are
included
and
then,
of
course,
some
unique
circumstances
for
like
residential
unit
owners.
But
yes,
that
is
the
the
intent.
A
I
also
want
to
let
everybody
know
that
we
will
not
be
taking
a
recess
during
testimony,
so
I
hope
that
you
will
have
patience
with
our
members
if
they
have
to
step
out
to
use
the
restroom
grab
a
sip
of
water
or
something
like
that,
but
I
don't
want
to
delay
the
hearing
for
any
of
that,
so
instead
we
will
go
directly
into
support
testimony.
We
will
start
with
anybody
present
in
the
room
who
would
like
to
give
testimony.
A
K
K
R
In
october,
2017
nevada
experienced
the
deadliest
mass
shooting
in
modern
history
when
a
gunman
opened
fire
on
a
concert
in
las
vegas
and
in
a
matter
of
minutes,
killed
58
people
and
injured
over
400..
Since
this
horrific
tragedy,
the
las
vegas
strip
has
seen
a
drastic
increase
in
gun
violence
in
the
past
few
years.
R
Under
current
nevada
law,
the
rules
for
businesses
that
choose
to
prohibit
guns
on
their
property
are
vague.
This
bill
will
provide
clear
rules
for
certain
businesses
that
wish
to
prohibit
both
open
and
concealed
carry
of
guns
from
their
property.
Ensuring
that
law
enforcement
officers
have
the
tools
they
need
to
enforce.
The
law.
R
Open
carry
is
a
dangerous
policy.
Research
shows
that
the
presence
of
a
visible
gun
makes
people
more
aggressive.
It
is
exploited
by
white
supremacists
and
opposed
by
law
enforcement
and
the
public.
Furthermore,
we
know
that
guns
and
alcohol
don't
mix.
There
is
strong
evidence
that
people
under
the
influence
of
alcohol
are
at
an
elevated
risk
of
violent
behavior,
including
gun
violence.
The
public
recognizes
this
danger
and
overwhelmingly
opposes
allowing
people
to
bring
guns
into
establishments
where
alcohol
is
consumed.
R
K
K
M
Good
morning
committee,
this
my
name
is
jim
sullivan
j-I-m-s-u-l-o-I-v-a-m
and
I'm
representing
the
culinary
union.
The
culinary
union
supports
sb
452.
Its
proposed
amendment
for
from
senator
donate,
because
allowing
firearms
in
casinos
and
hotels
is
a
worker
safety
issue.
While
the
culinary
union
supports
legal
and
responsible
gun
ownership,
we
also
believe
all
workers
deserve
to
be
protected
from
gun.
Violence
at
work
and
sb
452
will
help
make
that
a
reality.
M
M
During
the
october
first
shooting
in
2017,
thousands
of
culinary
union
members
saw
firsthand
the
effects
of
gun
violence.
Five
culinary
members
were
injured
in
the
mass
shooting
and
countless
others.
Other
workers
suffered
ptsd.
After
that
tragic
incident,
the
culinary
union
wants
to
ensure
that
no
hospitality
worker
ever
has
to
experience
that
trauma
again.
M
Gun
violence
on
the
las
vegas
trip
in
downtown
could
threaten
the
economic
recovery.
Nevada
desperately
needs
more
than
a
year
since
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic.
The
culinary
union
has
approximately
50
percent
of
workers
still
unemployed,
as
the
state's
number
one
industry
hospitality
was
hardest
hit
during
the
pandemic.
M
Economic
recovery
won't
be
possible
without
workers
getting
back
to
work
and
being
safe,
while
work,
sb
542
will
protect
workers
and
accelerate
nevada's
economic
recovery.
Lastly,
we
hear
and
understand
the
concerns
regarding
this
bill
as
an
organization
committed
to
both
social
justice
and
worker
safety.
We
did
not
come
to
the
support
light
easily,
and
I
want
to
be
clear
as
the
largest
organization
of
immigrants
of
black
latinx
and
aapi
workers
in
nevada,
the
culinary
union
is
anti-racist
and
against
all
forms
of
racism
and
oppression.
M
K
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much,
mr
kyle,
for
your
help.
We
will
move
to
testimony
in
opposition
to
sb452.
Can
I
just
show
of
hands
people
in
the
room
planning
to
testify?
Okay,
so
here's
the
way
this
is
going
to
work.
You
can
come
down
to
the
table
two
at
a
time.
You
don't
have
to
be
friends
and
each
person
will
get
two
minutes
maximum,
not
a
minimum
and
first
come
first
serve
all
right.
Come
on
up
for
opposition
testimony
to.
O
O
This
bill
only
exempts
members
of
law
enforcement
that
are
on
duty
at
the
time
that
they
are
on
property.
Therefore,
this
bill
explicitly
criminalizes
active
qualified
law
enforcement
officers
from
carrying
concealed
while
off
duty,
the
law
enforcement
officer
safety
act
of
2004
addressed
the
topic
of
officers
meeting
the
definition
of
qualified
officers
to
legally
carry
concealed
in
all
50
states.
Notwithstanding
the
state
law.
O
While
there
is
provisions
in
the
law
that
apply
to
private
entities,
creating
rules
to
disallow
such
conduct,
the
spirit
of
that
law
is
to
ensure
law
enforcement
can
carry
lawfully,
can
carry
lawful
firearms
for
the
purpose
of
protecting
themselves,
their
families
and
based
on
the
natures
of
their
jobs.
Criminalizing
such
behavior
with
this
bill
is
creating
unnecessary
dangers
to
our
police
professionals
in
our
state.
I
have
been
in
law
enforcement
for
over
20
years
in
las
vegas
on
multiple
occasions,
while
off
duty.
O
I
have
happened
across
individuals
in
the
capacity
of
an
officer
that
I
have
arrested,
including
some
that
have
served
prison
time
based
on
investigations.
I
was
involved
in
on
one
of
those
occasions.
I
was
confronted
by
an
individual
while
my
child
was
with
me.
I
am
thankful
that
none
of
these
occasions
resulted
in
a
physical
altercation
and
I
did
not
have
to
use
my
firearm,
but
I'm
certainly
thankful.
I
had
it
with
me.
O
Additionally,
this
bill
will
inevitably
increase
interactions
between
police
and
otherwise
suspected
armed
law-abiding
citizens
contact
such
disease
have
the
chance
of
being
in
an
emotionally
charged
interaction
that,
I
believe,
should
be
unnecessary,
as
we
have
seen
in
the
media
when
those
interactions
result
in
tragic
outcomes,
the
police
bear
the
brunt
of
the
public
outrage.
I
encourage
this
committee
to
vote
no
on
sb
452..
Thank
you.
K
K
This
proposed
legislation
creates
the
potential
of
an
armed
confrontation
between
normally
law,
law-abiding
citizens
and
law
enforcement
officers
inside
crowded
businesses,
which
is
very
dangerous.
I've
studied
the
proposed
amendment
and
the
language
still
does
not
take
away
that
danger:
potential
armed
confrontation
between
law
enforcement
officers
and
citizens.
K
I
think
this
bill
goes
in
the
opposite
direction
and
to
answer
your
question:
assemblyman
wheeler,
if
someone
says
no
and
the
police
are
called
they're
going
to
come
lights
and
sirens
and
the
police
are
called
and
told
there
is
an
armed
person
in
the
casino
who
is
not
listening
to
to
leave
and
if
there's
probable
cause
officers
are
going
to
respond
and
potentially
prone
them
out
in
the
middle
of
the
casino
at
gunpoint,
take
them
into
custody.
I
don't
think
any
of
us
want
that.
Thank
you.
K
K
No
amendment
to
this
bill,
no
matter
how
well
intended,
can
fix
its
potential
outcomes.
This
bill
is
inherently
unredeemable
and
is
a
pretense
for
dangerous
and
racist
stop-and-frisk
policies
that
have
plagued
our
country
and
our
state
over
the
course
of
time.
To
illustrate
that
point,
did
any
of
you
think
that
the
aclu,
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada,
the
police
unions,
the
national
rifle
association
and
other
groups
would
come
together
this
last
week
of
session
on
this
type
of
bill?
This
is
half
baked
at
best.
K
This
bill
is
currently
drafted,
largely
reflects
language
from
a
previously
dead
amendment
and
assembly
bill
286,
and
it's
been
brought
back
in
this
new
form
the
last
week
of
session,
when
it
really
shouldn't
be
look
I'm
a
person
of
color,
first
and
foremost
before
I'm
executive
director
of
the
aclu
before
I'm
an
attorney,
I'm
a
gun.
Violence
survivor
I've
been
shot
at
I've
also
been
detained
by
police
five
times
in
three
jurisdictions.
K
None
of
those
were
friendly.
There
were
no
practices
related
to
de-escalation
and
you
heard
no
testimony
from
a
single
law
enforcement
agency
today
that
spoke
to
their
de-escalation
tactics.
This
is
a
bill
that,
in
effect,
would
provide
private
security
for
a
private
business
like
mgm,
and
if
mgm
wants
to
engage
in
hiring
armed
security,
they
can
do
so.
The
last
I
checked
they
were
not
strapped
for
cash.
We
stand
with
our
our
friends
at
the
and
members
of
the
culinary
union.
K
You
chair,
I'm
just
encouraging
this
committee,
both
of
the
committees
to
take
a
better
look
at
this,
perhaps
turn
it
into
a
study
that's
been
done
over
and
over
and
over
to
actually
assess
the
proper
way
of
implementing
such
a
policy
to
prevent
gun
violence.
Thank
you.
K
There
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainty
for
people
how
to
comply,
why
this
is
truly
necessary
and
why
mgm
cannot
take
care
of
this
security
on
their
own
without
going
into
creating
this
new
crime.
That
ultimately,
would
result
in
at
least
suspension
or
revocation
of
a
ccw
for
someone
who
may
have
accidentally
parked
in
the
wrong
parking
lot
or
not
been
aware
of
the
signage
when
they
got
onto
that
floor.
K
We
think
this
bill
is
wholly
unnecessary
and
it
really
could
implicate
a
lot
of
good
people
as
well
as
residential
unit
owners
or
lessees
on
that
land.
K
I
know
residential
owners
are
specifically
covered
in
the
original
bill
and
it's
a
little
bit
broader,
but
the
amendment
actually
narrows
that
down
even
further,
so
it
would
specifically
be
to
the
owner
whether
a
family
member,
a
significant
other,
a
child
etc,
who
may
be
actually
residing
there
probably
isn't
going
to
fit
into
that
definition
and
they
would
be
stripped
of
their
ability
to
carry
a
firearm
in
and
out.
Also,
it
begs
the
question
of
how
do
you
know
if
someone
has
permission?
K
How
do
you
not
get
into
that
situation,
especially
with
the
amendment
where
we're
removing
the
the
warning
language
they're
not
mandated
by
that
you've
got
to
ask?
Why
is
the
verbal
warning
that
was
at
least
the
original
bill
for
some
people
taken
out
of
the
second
bill,
there's
so
many
more
issues
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
this
were
to
pass,
there's
no
obligation
on
these
private
property
owners
if
they're
going
to
exclude
people
to
increase
their
security
measures
on
their
own,
and
so
for
that
and
many
other
reasons
we're
on
position.
O
Thank
you,
chair
john
piero
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
echo
the
comments
of
the
aclu
that
came
before
us
gun.
Violence
is
obviously
a
sticky
issue,
but
we
are
concerned
with
some
of
the
stop
and
frisk
policies
that
this
bill
may
put
in
place.
We'd
also
like
to
welcome
the
nra
and
the
nevada
firearms
coalition
to
stand
with
us
on
other
stop
and
frisk
issues
that
come
up
in
the
legislative
body,
but
because
of
the
ones
that
are
a
result
of
this
bill.
We
are
in
opposition
at
this
time.
O
O
S
Bruce
thompson,
carson
city
resident
a
lot
of
what
I
had
prepared
has
been
covered
up
here.
So
I
appreciate
that
I
got
the
opportunity
to
distill
a
lot
of
what
I've
heard,
of
course,
there's
the
cliche,
but
truth
that
this
bill
will
not
affect
anybody
with
illegal
intent
on
their
mind.
S
This
will
not
stop
any
of
them
from
bringing
guns
into
a
casino.
This
only
punishes
by
criminalizing
normally
law-abiding
citizens
and
an
unarmed
security
presence
in
a
in
a
casino
is
not
going
to
do
anything
to
guarantee
my
safety
by
disarming
me
and
then
having
to
wait
for
the
police
to
show
up
further.
The
definition
of
covered
property
is
any
real
property
owned
by
someone
with
a
non-restricted
gaming
license.
Let's
take
the
atlantis
casino
here
in
reno
as
an
example,
they
own
two
strip
malls
adjacent
to
the
casino
itself.
S
S
S
Well,
then,
great,
come
back
in
2023
and
work
on
trespassing
laws.
Why
assign
a
criminal
penalty
to
legal
carriers
instead
of
going
to
the
root
cause
of
what
you
want
to
fix?
What
you
really
want
to
fix
is
we
want
to
be
able
to
call
the
police
before
we
give
anyone.
A
verbal
warning.
Fine
then
address
that
law.
There's
a
lot!
That's
been
missing
from
this
that
you
all
have
discussed.
That's
missing
from
this
bill.
Well,
that's
reached
two
minutes.
If.
S
C
Yes,
I
was
a
ccw
carrier
and
I
have
one
in
my
wallet
today
he
was
put
on
the
ground
taken
into
custody
and
all
the
rest
of
the
stuff.
With
this
bill,
I
believe
that
you're
trying
to
victimize
citizens
of
this
community
because
they're
unable
to
protect
themselves
that
where
I
go
somewhere-
and
I
cannot
have
my
ccw-
because
someone
has
granted
me-
not
special
dispensation
to
have
my
firearm
with
me-
then
I'm
left
unprotected.
C
I
know
that
you
probably
know
these
statistics,
but
I'm
going
to
read
them
to
you
is
that
during
the
year
of
2020,
americans
purchased
about
23
million
guns,
an
increase
of
64
percent
over
2019
cells
and
23
percent
of
those
were
women.
Why
are
women
doing
this?
There's
protection,
orders
and
all
kinds
of
other
issues
that
they
need
to
protect
themselves.
So
if
they
go
into
a
shopping
mall
and
they
have
the
sign
up
there,
that
says
they
can't
have
a
firearm.
What
happens
to
them?
They
can't
protect
themselves.
Victims
have
seconds
to
defend
themselves.
C
C
H
A
You
have
to
turn
on
the
microphone
and
yeah
then
give
your
name
and
you'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak.
E
E
All
right,
so,
basically,
we
have
watched
the
majority
of
our
leadership,
be
puppets
for
district
attorneys
in
the
mgm.
Why
is
that?
We
couldn't
do
this?
Why
can't
we
hear
the
death
pen,
the
death
penalty,
the
death
penalty,
a
b
as
well
as
a
joint
session
with
this.
E
And
unfortunately,
it's
too
bad
that
folks
in
the
death
row
doesn't
don't
death
row,
don't
have
a
hotel
to
buy
politicians
to
speak
up
to
for
the
right
for
their
right
to
live
this
bill,
as
well
as
all
the
other,
watered-down
police
accountability
bills
butchered
the
session.
Once
again,
this
per
person
disproportionately
put
black
and
brown
at
risk
and
being
killed
for
exercising
their
rights
to
bear
arms.
A
A
So
we
will
go
to
broadcast.
Mr
kyle,
please
would
you
cue
up
the
first
person
in
opposition
to
sb
452.
K
R
R
As
many
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
know,
that
happened
to
me
when
I
showed
up
to
try
to
testify
for
my
first
in-person
hearing
where
I
went
to
the
tent
for
the
cove
intent
and
was
told
just
to
go
to
the
back
entrance
like
I've
done
every
single
day
last
session,
and
unfortunately
that
meant
that
I
missed
through
the
security
checkpoint.
I
went
into
the
committee
room
and
then
it
was
removed
and
luckily
the
capitol
police
showed
me
enough
grace
to
then
tell
me.
R
I
just
had
to
go
through
security,
but
if
I
was
in
one
of
the
mgm
properties
that,
instead
of
having
capitol
police,
nicely,
explain
the
situation
that
could
be
a
very
dangerous
and
different
situation
put
into
play.
I
think
all
of
us
have
been
in
some
of
that
situations
where
we
may
just
not
have
known
the
law
or
had
an
honest
mistake,
but
those
individuals
would
now
be
convicted
of
a
gross
misdemeanor.
Thank
you.
K
R
R
I'm
the
policy
director
with
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada
here
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
452.
We
too
fear
that
senate
bill
452
enables
casinos
to
implement,
stop
and
risk
policies.
We
have
seen
from
many
other
jurisdictions
that
these
kind
of
tactics
result
in
enormous
racial
disparities
in
2020,
nearly
three-quarters
of
the
stops
by
the
metropolitan
police
department
in
dc
were
of
black
people.
R
R
K
T
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
jeanine
hanson
j-a-n-I-n-e
h-a-n-s-e-n,
I'm
the
state
chairman
of
the
independent
american
party.
We
oppose
sb
452.
I've
had
a
concealed
carry
permit
for
over
25
years.
As
a
woman,
I
feel
it
is
critical
for
my
personal
protection
and
the
protection
of
my
family
gaming
establishments
can
already
post
a
firearms
prohibited
sign
and
prohibit
people
from
carrying
a
firearm
by
expanding
gun-free
zones.
This
bill
puts
law-abiding
citizens
at
risk
when
we
advertise
to
criminals
that
they
need
not
fear
that
anyone
will
be
able
to
defend
themselves.
We
invite
criminal
activity.
T
The
crime
prevention
research
center,
founded
by
dr
john
lott,
found
that
98
percent
of
mass
shootings
occurred
in
gun-free
zones
between
1950
and
19
and
2016,
and
according
to
a
2007
study
published
by
the
harvard
journal
of
law
and
public
policy,
the
more
guns
a
nation
has
the
less
criminal
activity
where
firearms
are
most
dense.
Violent
crime
rates
are
lowest
and,
where
guns
are
least
dense,
violent
crime
rates
are
the
highest
of
the
harvard
study.
T
K
M
M
Excuse
me
who
has
senator
hanson
asserted
or
not
the
problem
or
not
the
people
committing
gun
violence.
I
personally
believe
that
it
would
be
in
the
best
interest
of
casinos
to
allow
permit
holders
to
conceal,
carry
on
their
properties,
statistically
crime
rates
drop
when
many
in
the
citizenry
are
known
to
be
armed.
This
happened
to
detroit
in
2014,
under
police
chief
james
craig,
who
encouraged
gun
ownership
for
the
citizens
in
his
jurisdiction.
M
There
are
many
cases
in
which
responsible
gun
owners
have
prevented
mass
shootings
from
occurring
a
2009
workplace
shooting
in
houston,
texas
was
halted
by
two
co-workers
who
carry
concealed
handguns
a
2012
church
shooting
in
aurora
colorado
was
stopped
by
a
member
of
the
congregation
carrying
a
gun.
How
many
more
lives
would
have
been
lost
in
the
above
situations?
M
Congressman
congressman
thomas
massey
shared
a
story
about
a
former
staff
member
who
watched
as
her
husband
was
killed
in
front
of
her
because
she
followed
gun
control
laws
and
her
assailant
did
not.
She
left
her
concealed
carry
weapon
in
her
car
because
it
was
a
gun-free
zone.
It
is
a
sign
that
no
criminals
pay
attention
to.
Sadly,
this
bill
does
target
law-abiding
concealed,
carry
permit
holders
some
who
may
mistakenly
carry
a
handgun
into
a
casino
and
not
the
criminal
who
ignores
gun
control.
M
K
K
R
Hello,
my
name
is
lena
radney,
l
y,
why
I
represent
more
than
a
hashtag,
which
is
a
local
protest
group
here
in
las
vegas
nevada,
I'm
in
opposition
of
this
bill
because,
as
we
know
from
the
jorge
gomez
case
on
june,
1st
2020
lvmpd
is
not
equipped
or
trained
to
interact
with
the
public
when
they're,
open,
caring
or
concealed
caring.
They
recklessly
murder,
jorge
gomez.
On
june
1st
2020
and
d.a.c
wilson
decided
not
to
indict
the
officers.
If
you
guys
allow
this
bill
to
pass.
This
will
happen
on
casino
premises.
R
What
that
will
do
for
our
economy,
because
black
lives
matter
when
it
affects
the
economy,
is
people
are
going
to
stop
coming
to
vegas
they're
going
to
know,
vegas
is
not
safe,
people
are
dying,
people
are
being
killed
and
murdered
and,
as
everybody
echoed
before,
this
affects
small
body
conditions
as
well.
That's
all
that's
it.
K
H
I
am
the
national
committee
man
for
the
nevada
republican
party,
and
I
testified
against
this
bill
when
it
was
ab286
and
it
was
considered
by
the
committees
and
rejected
this
language
was
all
taken
out
of
the
bill.
We
object
to
taking
valuable
legislative
time
to
review
issues
that
have
already
been
debated
and
settled
in
this
session.
It
is
telling
that
the
aclu
planned
nevada
law
enforcement
and
the
nra
are
all
united
in
opposition,
and
I
second
all
of
the
excellent
testimony
that
was
given
earlier,
particularly
by
the
aclu.
H
H
K
T
T
I
have
never
had
any
problems
with
with
anyone
that
I've
gone
to
and
asked
to
comply
with
my
request
to
leave
the
premises
to
secure
their
weapon
and
secure
it
themselves
in
their
automobile
on
the
back
of
their
room
or
house
the
first
time
it
was
a
ccw
holder,
but
because
of
our
protocol
and
our
and
our
rules
on
the
property
not
to
have
a
firearm,
I
explained
that
it
needed
to
be
taken
off
properly
and
they
were
a
bit
perturbed
by
it,
but
complied
went
back,
took
their
their
firearm
back
to
their
to
wherever
and
came
back
afterward.
T
So
I
I'm
finding
it
very
difficult
that
mgm
is
trying
to
and
seems
to
be
bringing
potential
laws
for
problems
that
are,
you
know
not
a
major
problem,
and
so
I
just
I
just
would
wish
that
you
all
would
vote
no
to
sb
452.
Thank
you.
K
H
I
think
it's
terrible
public
policy
to
attach
criminal
penalties
to
violations
of
private
sector
rules
and
regulations.
I
think
it's
more
terrible
policy
to
admit
an
unequivocal
requirement
for
an
oral
warning,
not
just
to
involve
law
enforcement
but
an
element
of
the
crime.
I
also
think
it's
important
for
everyone
to
notice
that
I'm
intentionally
using
the
word
oral
instead
of
verbal
because
they
have
different
meanings.
H
Today,
we've
heard
much
testimony
regarding
how
casinos
and
the
security
may
handle
this
legislation
we've
not
heard
is
how
this
legislation
may
be
handled
by
law
enforcement
in
a
proactive
manner.
We
can't
forget
that
law
enforcement
will
not
only
be
acting
on
this
legislation
in
the
form
of
calls
for
service,
but
also
in
the
form
of
officer
initiated
stops.
H
Sp
452
will
provide
gang
units
and
saturation
patrols
with
another
excuse
to
stop
people,
especially
young
black
males
in
the
las
vegas
strip,
and
this
activity
is
something
the
legislature
should
be
seeking
to
limit,
not
increase
without
a
requirement
for
an
oral
warning.
Police
may
have
reasonable
suspicion
to
detain
people
within
the
property
boundaries,
not
necessarily
in
the
buildings
or
structures
of
a
covered
premises.
H
So
we
should
expect
to
see,
stop
and
frisk
activity
that
results
not
only
from
casino
calls
for
service,
but
more
often
from
the
standard
practice
of
proactive
policing,
often
seen
in
urban
areas.
Downstream
of
this,
we
can
expect
undesirable
use
of
force
events,
and
I
therefore
urge
the
community
this
bill.
Thank
you.
K
H
Yes,
thank
you.
My
name
is
mike
hawkins
h,
a
w
h-a-w-k-I-n-s,
and
I
am
in
responding
to
this
bill
in
opposition,
I'm
heavily
against
any
other
attempts
to
curtail
our
concealed
carry
rights.
Also,
I've
been
in
many
casinos
where
they've
had
calls
for
security
that
were
met
not
by
one
individual,
but
by
more
than
one
when
they
have
a
potential
problem.
Usually
the
security
is
hired,
is
six
foot
two
or
four
in
that
range,
and
there's
three
or
four
of
them
that
prevents
usually
anything
going
wrong.
They
have
never
been
around
anybody.
H
That's
had
these
guns
problems,
mostly
it's
drunks.
The
only
times
I've
heard
of
guns
going
off
in
casinos
has
been
when
gangs
have
come
in
with
guns
illegally
and
had
shootouts
like
they
did
down
in.
In
elko
I
mean
in
carson
city
and
in
reno,
I'm
100
gun
owner.
I'm
100
against
giving
this
casino
a
free
pass
on
liability
for
having
these
problems
in
their
casino.
They
should
not
be
calling
the
police
they
should
have
armed
security
in
their
casino.
H
K
H
H
H
These
people
are
people
that
comply
with
the
law
and
done
everything
possible
to
be
able
to
protect
themselves
while
complying
with
the
law.
At
this
point
is
a
bill.
Written
by
a
person
wishing
to
protect
themselves,
gets
one
slap
on
the
wrist
and
then
becomes
a
prohibited
person
and
loses
the
right
of
concealed,
carry
as
well
as
possibly
ownership
of
all
their
firearms,
as
well
as
possible
fines
or
jail
time
for
exercising
the
right
of
self-defense
as
stated
ease
earlier,
I'm
incapable
of
running
away
and
I'm
a
little
old
for
physical
fighting.
You've.
H
A
A
K
T
We
oppose
sb
452,
our
borders
are
wide
open
and
who
has
come
into
our
country.
Do
we
even
know?
No,
we
do
not
do
we
know
what
weapons
they
may
be,
bringing
with
them.
No,
we
do
not.
I
heard
on
the
news
may
10
that
in
one
month's
time,
over
six
thousand
known
terrorists,
rapists,
child
molesters
and
murderers
from
around
the
world
have
now
been
apprehended
at
our
border
and
those
were
the
ones
that
they
were
that
they
caught.
T
I
wonder
how
many
were
not
caught
and
what
type
of
weapons
they
may
have
brought
with
them.
What
about
gangs
in
our
country
and
what
about
drug
cartels
both
are
very
heavily
armed
and
usually
outgun
our
own
police,
but
once
again
you
keep
going
after
the
law
abiding
citizens
with
more
laws
that
do
nothing
but
disarm
them.
T
T
K
R
Hi
there,
my
name
is
jamie
shepler,
that's
j-a-I-m-e-e
s-h-e-p-l-e-r.
I
did
not
hear
one
example
of
a
shooting
by
a
person
who
took
the
ccw
classes
and
educated
themselves
to
obtain
a
ccw
to
protect
their
own
lives.
R
As
a
lawful
ccw
holder,
I
will
not
be
coming
to
any
gun
show
if
I
am
unable
to
conceal,
carry
in
the
casinos,
restaurants,
etc.
Outside
of
the
gun
show,
it
seems.
The
issue
here
is
the
actual
presence
of
firearms,
not
the
presence
of
violent
people
who
want
to
do
harm,
which
should
be
the
real
problem.
R
If
this
bill
is
not
intended
to
go
after
people
making
an
honest
mistake,
what
process
is
in
place
to
differentiate
between
people,
making
an
honest
mistake
and
those
who
are
not,
if
I
was
traveling
from
out
of
town
and
had
my
ccw
by
walking
into
the
casinos,
ask
an
employee
who
to
talk
to?
Am
I
not
already
a
criminal
by
this
law?
And
how
do
I
make
sure
that,
in
this
instance,
I'm
going
to
get
both
a
prompt
response
and
permission
to
carry?
R
I
heard
some
say
that
in
some
instances
people
may
be
given
a
verbal
warning
and
in
other
instances
they
would
not.
This
is
unfair
and
inconsistent
treatment.
Section
18
of
article
1
says
the
right
of
the
people
to
be
secure
in
their
persons,
houses
and
effects
against
unreasonable
seizures
and
searches
shall
not
be
violated.
Sb
452
is
in
direct
contradiction
to
several
sections,
some
already
stated
of
the
nevada
constitution.
R
K
H
Hello,
my
name
is
adrian
lowry
a-d-r-I-a-n-l-o-w-r-y
and
I
voted
sb
four
452
I'm
incredulous
and
I
hope
everyone
is
incredulous.
It's
claimed
that
there's
no
racial
discrimination
in
the
casinos
there's
no
way
that
this
bill
will
be
equally
used
against
white
customers
and
black
and
brown
customers.
Everyone
in
this
room
knows
that
it's
true
and
that
they're
claiming
this
further
undermines
the
idea
that
they
should
be
given
this
power.
H
They
claim
there
will
be
training
required
like
the
implicit
class
training,
or
we
just
got
to
pretend
that
these
trainings
are
effective.
These
trainings
are
not
effective,
so
at
least
acknowledge
that
it's
the
way
to
check
off
the
box,
it's
more
compliance.
Theater,
most
studies
have
shown
that
implemented
bias.
Training
does
not
change
the
behavior
of
employees.
H
These
people
are
not
stupid,
they
already
know
when
they
go
into
the
training.
What
the
message
is
going
to
be-
and
they
already
know
that
they
disagree
with
that
message,
but
they
will
go
along
with
it
to
get
through
compliance,
you're
asking
us
to
believe
that
they
just
don't
know
what
is
considered
racist
or
discriminatory
they're,
not
a
blank
slate,
they
already
know,
and
they
already
disagree.
H
You
must
not
pass
this,
though,
because
it
will
increase
and
perpetuate
violence
against
communities
of
color.
You
need
to
reframe
your
approach
because
it
does
not
reduce
crime
when
you
take
a
father
or
a
mother
out
of
the
lives
of
their
children,
by
locking
them
up
and
preventing
that
family
from
accessing
resources
that
other
families
have
available,
we
must
not
expand
the
power
of
thought
and
frisk
to
private
organizations.
H
It
is
dangerous,
destructive
and
wrong
if
it
takes
one
life
away
due
to
a
misunderstanding
or
racial
stereotyping,
that
is
too
much.
This
will
not
make
people
safer.
It
will
make
people
less
safe.
This
committee
needs
to
make
a
decision.
Do
you
actually
want
to
reduce
crime,
or
do
you
just
want
to
continue
the
destructive
approach
of
collective
punishment
on
online
communities?
Thank
you.
K
H
Hi,
jim
hoffman,
representing
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
Nacj
opposes
sb
452,
we're
not
here
today,
because
we're
opposed
to
the
concept
of
gun
control
on
a
substantive
level.
Instead,
we
share
the
concerns
discussed
by
the
aclu,
ms
burchie,
the
saunders
and
many
of
the
other
people
who
testified,
including
the
caller.
Just
before
me,
gun
violence
is
a
real
systemic
problem,
but
we
should
be
looking
for
real
systemic
solutions.
H
K
H
I
do
want
to
echo
the
callers
before
me
with
everything
they've
said,
along
with
I
agree
with
senator
hansen
and
assemblyman
o'neill,
that
this
will
not
prevent
crime.
This
will
not
be
able
to
differentiate
between
the
bad
actors
and
those
law-abiding
card-holding
citizens,
assemblywoman
krasner
and
assemblywoman
summers.
Armstrong
bring
up
excellent
points
that
there
is
little
to
no
access
to
get
this
information
and
how
to
get
and
the
ability
to
obtain
authorization
if
you're
trying
to
do
so.
H
Senator
canozzara
brought
up
the
point
that
this
is
a
de-escalation
bill
and
a
de-escalation
tactic,
which
is
interesting
because
there
has
been
bills
brought
forth
this
session,
one
which
I
can
think
of
specifically
from
summer
armstrong
herself,
which
received
no
arm
no
support
from
her
or
the
chair.
So
it
makes
you
wonder,
is
this
bill
about
de-escalation
or
what
this
is
about?
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
I
urge
your
opposition.
K
R
Leslie
turner,
l-e-s-l-I-e
t-u-r-n-e-r,
I'm
calling
in
opposition
to
sb
452,
and
I'm
just
urging
everyone
on
this
committee
to
please
vote
no
and
vote
this
down.
I
think
that
it's
you
know
I
I
can
keep
my
testimony
short
because
I
feel,
like
many
people
have
said
already
what
I
plan
to
say,
and
I
think
the
broad
coalition
of
of
opposition
to
this
bill
is
very
telling.
R
So
I
guess
my
question
then
is:
are
you
going
to
listen
to
the
will
of
the
people,
because
the
people
have
come
out
abundantly
clear
that
we
do
not
want
this
bill?
We
do
not
want
new
ways
to
criminalize
people
on
the
street
and
I
don't
understand
why
so
much
time
energy.
R
You
know
there
was
an
hour
offered
for
opposition.
I'm
I'm
sorry
support
testimony
and
you
know
I've
been
calling
in
all
sessions
my
first
time
seeing
an
hour
allotted
for
testimony
and
support.
So
again,
why
is
so
much
time
and
energy
being
put
into
a
bill
to
criminalize
people
on
the
strip
for
for
open
carrying
when
many
of
those
folks
have
licenses,
and
there
is
no
way
to
differentiate
who
has
a
license
and
who
doesn't
so
and
especially
given
the
nature
of
everything?
R
That's
happened
over
the
last
year
and
a
half
with
people
in
the
streets
actively
protesting
against
police
violence
being
further
criminalized,
and,
and
so
it
again,
it's
just
a
way
to
have
more
people
have
interactions
with
police
when
it's
not
necessary
so
mgm
they
have
plenty
of
money.
They
can
hire
armed
security
to
handle
the
situation
in
a
way
that
is
fits
into
their
policies,
but
codifying
policies
for
the
mgm
that
all
nevadans
now
have
to
follow
and
be
impacted
by
is
not
a
good
public
policy,
and
I
I
just
urge
everyone.
A
K
K
K
We
certainly
support
the
second
amendment
and
the
ability
of
law-abiding
citizens
to
carry
their
firearms
for
protection,
and
likewise
we
also
support
the
rights
of
business
owners
to
prohibit
firearms
on
their
property.
Obviously
it
is
the
decision
of
you,
the
legislative
body,
to
determine
if
carrying
a
firearm
on
someone's
property
against
their
wishes
warrants
a
criminal
penalty.
K
In
regards
to
some
of
the
questions
that
were
asked
for
law
enforcement,
I'd
like
to
quickly
clarify
one
question
that
was
raised:
regarded
trespassing
and
response
by
law
enforcement.
Obviously
we
prioritize
calls
and,
depending
on
the
time
of
day
and
what's
occurring
out
there,
trespassing
in
and
of
itself
may
be
a
low
priority
call.
K
Over
the
last
30
days
we
had
605
trespassing
calls
valley,
wide
and
289
trespassing
calls
on
the
strip.
74
of
those
calls
were
closed
out
with
no
response,
and
that
could
be
a
result
of
several
reasons:
either
the
caller
called
back
and
canceled
our
response
or
a
supervisor
handled
the
call
over
the
phone
with
no
response.
K
K
K
Call
it
with
the
last
three
digits
937,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak
and
they
begin
right.
Thank
you.
My
name
is
michael
finley
for
the
record.
We
were
actually
supposed
to
be
in
opposition,
as
opposed
to
neutral.
I
apologize.
I
apologize
about
the
technical
difficulties
on
that
again
for
the
record.
My
name
is
michael
finley.
I'm
with
the
national
shooting
sports
foundation,
we
run
shot
show
in
las
vegas.
We
have
major
concerns
with
the
bill.
K
We
testified
in
opposition
when
it
was
in
the
assembly
and
we'd
like
to
testify
in
opposition
again
on
this.
Our
main
concern
is
while
we
appreciate
being
exempted
from
the
provisions
within
the
bill.
We
do
have
concerns
about
how
this
would
affect
our
show
and
practice
and
held
how
it
would
affect
our
members
who
do
attend,
shot
show
in
addition
to
that,
we
would
we.
K
We
do
think
that
the
policies
that
would
put
that
are
put
in
place
need
to
be
spelled
out
more
and
there
needs
to
be
more
certainty
on
the
front
end.
So
our
law,
abiding
attendees
as
well
as
guests,
know
exactly
what
we
can
and
cannot
do
prior
to
coming
to
las
vegas
when
we
bring
about
80
000
people
to
clark
county
with
that.
I
won't
take
up
any
more
time
and
I
would
urge
the
committee
for
a
no
vote.
Thank
you.
K
K
Okay,
all
right,
I
apologize.
My
name
is
cyrus
sojadi
hojatti,
c-y-r-u-s
h-o-j-j-a-t-y.
Thank
you
so
much
for
this
opportunity.
Here's
the
heart
of
the
issue.
People
are
really
not
talking
about,
what's
truly
causing
the
increase
in
violence
in
society,
which
is
fatherless
homes
and
the
growing
gap
between
the
rich
and
the
poor.
I
have
a
lot
of
suspicions
about
this
bill
because
it's
being
shut
through
through
the
last
minute-
and
I
haven't
also
been
told
about
where
similar
bills
has
worked
anywhere
in
this
country
around
the
world.
K
The
fact
that
casinos
and
culinary
union
is
pushing
this
bill
further
proves
my
main
concern
of
this
state,
which
is
how
this
political
machine
really
works.
Total
conflicts
of
interest-
and
I
just
want
to
respond
to
the
culinary
union-
I
don't
think
they're
a
legitimate
union,
and
you
also
have
to
understand
that
they
talk
about
how
the
shutdowns
harmed
their
jobs
remember.
They
were
the
major
factor
in
the
elections
and
what
caused
the
outcomes
to
put
people
in
power
all.
A
Right,
as
I
mentioned
previously,
testimony
needs
to
be
limited
to
the
policy.
If
you
have
anything
else
to
say
about
the
policy
go
ahead.
K
Oh
okay,
well
I
I
apologize.
I
was
just
trying
to
respond
and
other
than
that
you
know.
I
feel
that
this
is
going
to
create
more
concerns.
Regarding
casino
security.
You
know
a
lot
of
people
have
been
visiting
the
hotels.
I've
heard
a
lot
of
reports
that
people
have
been
86
of
them
banned
for
useless
reason.
K
I
believe
this
will
further
intensify
this
kind
of
thing
and,
as
far
as
I
know,
it's
just
a
lot
of
people
have
been
going
there
with
fear,
and
this
is
just
going
to
add
insult
to
entry,
so
other
than
that
at
least
what
you
can
do
is
you
can
make
some
changes
to
it.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
apologize
for
going
a
little
off
topic
and
best
of
luck
to
everybody.
A
All
right,
so
we
have
taken
testimony
from
everybody
in
the
room
and
everybody
who
called
in
in
all
three
positions,
which
means
that
we
are
concluding
testimony
now
and
I
will
invite
the
sponsors
of
the
bill
back
to
the
table
to
give
some
closing
remarks.
E
Thank
you
so
much
cherish
schaible
and,
of
course,
chad,
yeager
fabian
danate
for
the
record
well,
happy
saturday,
I
guess,
with
these
testimonies
first
of
all,
first
off,
I
want
to
make
my
closing
remarks
detail
on
the
positive
impact
that
we
can
create
today
by
passing
this
bill.
E
Given
the
questions
and
comments
that
were
given
throughout
today,
I
think
it's
safe
for
me
at
least
to
commit
to
fixing
the
education
portion
of
this
bill
and
addressing
the
concerns
with
off-duty
officers
and
limiting,
of
course,
the
scope
of
covered
premise.
I
think
that
was
something
that
miss
molina
had
detailed.
So
thank
you
all
for
bringing
those
comments
forward.
As
a
person
of
color,
I
can
attest
to
the
racial
discrimination
that
we
experience
on
a
daily
basis.
E
I
disagree
with
the
sentiment
that
enacting
this
policy
will
target
target
responsible,
gun
owners
negatively
it's
a
tool
for
prevention,
which
can
which
cannot
be
left
behind
in
this
conversation.
In
fact,
this
supports
responsible
gun
owners
who
will
collaborate
with
the
institutions,
particularly
with
mgm
and
other
entities
similar
to
that.
E
E
E
We
must
recognize
the
value
of
public
private
partnerships
that
are
necessary
beyond
this
framework
in
this
legislation
to
carry
out
the
good
work
of
this
mission
in
public
health.
We
lead
with
the
belief
that
everyone
should
have
the
deserves
the
right
to
live
a
long
and
fulfilling
life,
and
the
first
step
to
accomplish
that
is
to
prevent
violence,
gun
violence.
That's
what's
at
stake
today.
D
Thank
you,
chair,
shinelle,
chair
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee,
for
what
I
think
is
an
important
conversation
to
make
sure
that
we're
answering
and
asking
the
kinds
of
questions
that
we've
heard
today
and
thanks
for
everyone
who
has
come
up
and-
and
I
think
given
some
some
interesting
arguments
in
opposition,
I
think
that
senator
donante
said
it
best.
This
is
this
is
about
gun,
violence
and
it's
as
simple
as
that
either
either.
D
But
I
mean
we
have
taken
steps,
even
in
my
time
here
to
say
that
we
don't
believe
that
libraries
are
a
place
where
people
should
carry
guns
and
a
lot
of
the
opposition
that
we
heard
in
those
in
those
situations
was
that
this
would
just
target
law-abiding
citizens
who
would
be
unfairly
kept
from
exercising
their
second
amendment
rights.
Yet
there
is
a
decision
there
that
that's
a
place
where
the
possession
of
a
firearm
is
is
not
appropriate.
D
D
D
D
D
But
when
those
verbal
warnings
are
insufficient
and
someone
who
has
a
firearm
is
saying,
I
am
not
going
to
leave
your
property.
They
are
at
a
loss
of
what
to
do
and
when,
coupled
with
the
fact
that
there
are
incidences
of
gun
violence
that
are
escalating
to.
As
I
believe
mr
callaway
mentioned
robberies
domestic
violences
with
firearms
assaults.
D
These
are
the
kinds
of
incidences
that
we're
trying
to
prevent
from
happening
in
the
first
place
that
law
enforcement
is
not
responding
to
a
robbery
or
a
domestic
violence
situation
with
a
firearm,
but
that
they
are
responding
to
say,
hey,
look,
you
have
a
firearm
you're
not
supposed
to
be
here,
that's
against
the
law
and
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
help.
You
help
you
leave.
D
D
There
are
also
some
groups
who
oppose
this,
who
have
opposed
every
use
of
force
bill
that
has
been
discussed,
who
have
opposed
implicit
bias,
training
who
have
opposed
early
warning
detection
systems
to
ensure
that
we
can
have
faith
in
our
law
enforcement
community
to
properly
enforce
laws
in
a
way
that
is
not
unfairly
targeting
black
and
brown
communities
or
people
of
color
or
anyone
else
unless
they
are
breaking
the
law.
Yet
today
we
are
opposed
to
this
because
of
the
same
reasons
that
potentially
it
may
result
in
racial
profiling.
D
That's
it
and
I
find
the
data
that
there
is
ongoing,
gun
violence
in
some
of
our
tours
and
properties,
and
I
and
I
understand
that
this
definition
and
I
think
we're.
I
think
everyone
is
happy
to
work
on
the
definition
to
make
sure
that
it
is
narrowly
tailored.
So
it's
addressing
the
issue
that
we
are
trying
to
address.
D
That
is
it.
That
is
all
this
bill
is
about
and
if
we
are
not
seeing
those
same
effects
in
schools,
libraries,
this
building
courthouses
other
other
venues
where
we
have
prohibited
people
from
possessing
firearms,
then
I
am
just
at
a
loss
of
how
this
is
any
different
than
trying
to
address
the
very
specific
problems
that
are
currently
occurring
in
our
communities
and
where
we
have
an
opportunity
to
help
address
that.
D
I
appreciate
the
committee
taking
the
time
on
a
saturday
after
what
was
a
long
night
here
last
night,
and
I
know
that
everyone
has
done
a
lot
of
really
good
work
to
not
only
ask
the
right
questions,
but
hopefully
that
we
have
provided
some
answers,
and
I
just
appreciate
everyone's
diligence
and
time
this
morning.
Thank
you,
chair,
scheible
and
sherry
yeager.
A
Thank
you
so
much
majority
leader,
cannazaro
senator
donate
and
everybody
else
who
came
and
participated
in
this
hearing
and
this
robust
discussion.
I
appreciate
your
presentation
and
your
attention
to
this
issue
and
I
again
appreciate
everybody's
participation
at
this
point
in
time.
I
will
ask
chair
yeager
if
he
has
any
comments
before
I
officially
close
the
hearing.
C
Thank
you
cherish
ibel.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
inviting
us
this
morning
to
participate
in
the
hearing.
Thank
you
assembly,
members
for
your
diligence
and
your
attention
this
morning
greatly
appreciate
it,
and
just
so
you
all
know
if
you
didn't
read
already
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting
will
be
tuesday
at
10
o'clock,
where
we'll
be
hearing
one
bill,
so
we
will
see
you
then
and
hope
you
have
a
great
weekend.
A
All
right
and
with
that
I
will
officially
close
the
hearing
on
sb
452.
We
are
going
to
go
into
a
recess
at
the
end
of
that
recess.
Members
of
the
assembly
are
welcome
to
join
us,
but
we
will
be
doing
a
senate
work
session,
so
you
won't
be
able
to
vote.
I
imagine
you
have
better
things
to
do
on
a
saturday,
but
for
the
members
of
the
senate
committee
we
will
be
coming
back
into
this
room
at
the
call
of
the
chair,
so
please
stay
close.