The Consensus from All: The bill as worded will lead to it being disproportionately applied to certain subsets of people including people of color, lead to more interactions of police with mostly legally armed persons (which may not always go right), restrict the rights and safety of the people who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment right, lead to stop and frisk, and more.
The opposition testimony greatly outweighed the support testimony. There was nearly 50 minutes of opposition compared of close to just 7 minutes for. This was one of the best sets of opposition testimony I have heard in regards to an Nevada anti-gun bill.
There was a lot said during the almost 4 hour hearing so I will breakdown just a couple of key points. If I missed something, which I most likely did, please feel free to chime-in in the comments to this article.
Before the session started Senator Fabian Donate submitted an amendment that stripped the bill of any verbal warnings, including for CCW holders, and changed the penalties to a Gross Misdemeanor straight across the board (even for first offenses). His opening statement is he wants the bill to mimic that of the law that prohibits firearms on School Property and Public Buildings.
Since it was a joint session, Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui opened up with her statement once again citing 1 October but this time, like we knew would come up, she listed all the most recent shootings on the Las Vegas Strip over the past couple months. She provided several examples of which one happened inside a parking structure and one on a casino floor (ND). The rest happened outside and outside the bounds of any certain casino's property lines (I believe).
There was a lot of back and forth about the same thing as it seemed both sides couldn't seem to understand the other questions or responses which made for a lot of the same questions being asked and a lot of the same responses as the bills proponents refused to fully address some of the concerns.
Even a few of the democratic committee members shared concerns and asked questions that weren't truly answered.
MGM had their rep via Zoom and continuously said, like a broken record, they want the proposed law as a tool they can use to avoid violence before it happens. They said the bill is designed to address violence before it happens based on a couple certain sets of circumstances but stopped short of saying what those exact circumstances would be.
The only set of circumstances mentioned by the MGM rep, outside of not having to interact with a person who has a firearm which she claimed they were trying to avoid (which also goes against her statement of sometimes giving people a verbal warning, at their discretion), is that they want their security to have the ability to call Law Enforcement if security "believes" there could be violence in an effort to stop violence before it happens.
The problem with that statement is it is a core job of security to believe there could be violence at anytime by any person. To security a person with a firearm in and of itself could be reason enough to believe there could be violence and be cause enough for them to call police on that person without even interacting with them or seeing if that person maybe wasn't aware of the property's rules.
The MGM representative continued to say numerous times (and even admitted) that they could and would CHOOSE, at their discretion, to give somebody a warning. That statement conflicts with their reasoning for pushing the law and leaves it open to be not used evenly with everyone by everyone. They basically openly admitted that certain persons can receive the benefit of a warning while others will be subject to receive a pair of handcuffs instead based on their discretion.
When asked about how the general public and visitors would be made aware of the new law should it pass, Sen. Cannizzaro and Sen. Donate used "Education and Engineering", two core principles of the health sector (Sen. Donate used the 'Gun Violence" is a public health epidemic statement in bringing this up as a response to a question), as an example of how to 'make the public aware of the new law' he used the comparison of like going to a game where you must follow certain rules like you can't bring a purse but a small clear bag instead.
What is failed to be mentioned here is if you bring a non-clear bag you are allowed to remedy the situation WITH A WARNING and not be subject to immediate arrest if you weren't aware of the rule when you show up on the premises with it in your possession.
Sen. Cannizzaro in her closing statement compared this proposed law to the current laws that pertain to public buildings like courthouses and legislative buildings as well as at events like sporting events, concerts and etc. She said people have no problem with following those laws. What she fails here to mention is that in most of those locations there are metal detectors to ensure that NO ONE has a weapon and/or they, in most cases, have armed law enforcement or security personnel onsite.
It is also noteworthy that they are unwilling, and seemed very resistant, to change the wording to allow off-duty and retired law enforcement to carry their firearm without express written permission even though they are almost always required to carry at all times when off-duty.
You can watch the full meeting below or here (starts around the 27 minute mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJeMpBAyOmg&list=PLesLuA7zZE-fVR8ho6eDv-JsT_tOns6W6&index=61 (It's about 3 1/2 hours long.)
Public Comment Is Still Open, Still Time to Have Your Voice Heard!
Find and Your Your Senator Now: https://nvlcb.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9c2cd4575624417fa56fd084a7ee4dd9
Write Your Opinion on the Bill Here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/81st2021/ and select SB 452 from the dropdown menu and the select Oppose and Leave a Comment.