Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: S.B. 231 hearing

  1. #1
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    S.B. 231 hearing

    I attended the hearing today in Las Vegas at the Grant Sawyer Building. Overwhelming support from the people, but strong descent from Campus law Enforcement. Also testifying against the bill was The Chief of UNLV police. His testimony was disturbing as he outlined a myriad of constitutional rights violations that his officers would commit should they see someone lawfully carrying a firearm should this bill pass. In his view, if this law passes, and an individual is reported to be in possession of a firearm, he has no choice but to act on the assumption that the person with a firearm is acting as a criminal.

    My testimony centered around DeShaney v. Winnebago County dept. of Social Services as well as Warren v. D.C. which establish that no police department can be obligated to protect anyone unless they have established a special relationship. I also gave the committee a preview of the arguments against the bill and explained why they were irrational and unfounded. Testimony offered by police chiefs revolved around things like sports events and alcohol consumption. The response to these arguments has generally been that police students and faculty on campus would be placed in no greater danger than anyone else would off campus.

    My feeling is that 4 of the 5 committee members are behind this legislation and it will easily pass out of committee.

  2. #2
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Awesome! Thanks for being there. This bill means a lot to me, and I would love to see it domino all over the states, following Utah and Idaho(?).
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  3. #3
    Regular Member Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    9
    Didn't you like Settlemeyer's comment to the UNR chief? "I'm glad the guys with guns feel safe on the campus when the unarmed victims don't feel safe". How about Schneider thinking the map from the NRA was showing only crimes happen off campus and the chairman had to break it to him that those dots on the map were sex offenders. I laughed for a minute straight.

    (for anyone that cares I'm Beretta96 on NS).

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    I attended the hearing today in Las Vegas at the Grant Sawyer Building. Overwhelming support from the people, but strong descent from Campus law Enforcement. Also testifying against the bill was The Chief of UNLV police. His testimony was disturbing as he outlined a myriad of constitutional rights violations that his officers would commit should they see someone lawfully carrying a firearm should this bill pass. In his view, if this law passes, and an individual is reported to be in possession of a firearm, he has no choice but to act on the assumption that the person with a firearm is acting as a criminal.

    My testimony centered around DeShaney v. Winnebago County dept. of Social Services as well as Warren v. D.C. which establish that no police department can be obligated to protect anyone unless they have established a special relationship. I also gave the committee a preview of the arguments against the bill and explained why they were irrational and unfounded. Testimony offered by police chiefs revolved around things like sports events and alcohol consumption. The response to these arguments has generally been that police students and faculty on campus would be placed in no greater danger than anyone else would off campus.

    My feeling is that 4 of the 5 committee members are behind this legislation and it will easily pass out of committee.
    The heads of campus law enforcement who testified at the hearing are puppets to begin with. They were sent by their superiors to voice their opposition to the bill. Of course, they are going to proclaim how safe their campus is and that being armed doesn't guarantee safety.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    SB-231 Hearing, March 18, 2011


    Bear in mind I am not a stenographer. But the following is what I understood. My opinion.

    Forgive me if I didn’t catch full names or their official positions/titles.

    There was much positive and compelling testimony in support of SB-231.

    Of special note is Amanda Collins. She is a brave, courageous and very intelligent young lady. God bless her!

    The ONLY opposition to SB-231 came from law enforcement. And virtually all of their testimony was (at best) faulty - or worse.

    Much testimony is available as exhibits on NELIS.

    Jim Richardson, Nevada Faculty Alliance. www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Lobbyist/reports/LobbyistDetail.cfm?lobbyist=23&Session=76 Indicated the Board of Regents is akin to a fourth branch of government! What the heck is he thinking? Apparently he believes the Board of Regents own and govern campus property – NOT true. The 1st, 3rd and 4th Amendments apply on campus, why not the 2nd Amendment? He said campus is safe; current law allowing the president to give permission is adequate and working well. I would like to hear him explain that to the crime victims and their families. He said he doesn’t understand the purpose of SB-231. And, like many anti-gun people, he said he is not anti 2nd amendment because he owns guns. Nice. But he apparently doesn’t want anyone to be able to defend themselves. He also admitted they have no financial resources to provide more guards. (The ratio of security officers to students is miniscule.)

    Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Ass’n, Executive Director Frank Adams. Indicated some concerns. “How to implement?” “How will law enforcement handle situations?” “Firearms at stadiums, tail gate parties, in dorm rooms, etc.” Apparently, some in law enforcement are not aware we already have laws to deal with such. For example, it is already unlawful to possess a firearm with a specified blood alcohol content. Uh, maybe we could apply “off campus” law “on campus”?

    Washoe County Sheriffs Office. Officer Kuzanek www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Lobbyist/reports/LobbyistDetail.cfm?lobbyist=487&Session=76 testified in opposition, for the same reasons as the NSCA. The Committee Chair asked if Kuzanek trusted CCW permittees in Washoe County; he responded ‘yes.’ Cmte Chair asked if he trusted CCW permittees on Campus; Kuzanek faltered (big time!) and in the end he indicated he didn’t have a response to the question.

    UNR Chief of Police Adam Garcia. Testified in opposition. Said he supports the 2nd Amendment but the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Provided a litany of tired reasons why he and UNR President Milton Glick strongly oppose CCW on campus. Garcia said UNR is safer than Reno. In fact, at least four times he stated the UNR campus is safe. He said that students are more susceptible to suicide; when firearms are used, 90% of suicide attempts are successful but when drugs are used, only 10% of suicides are successful. Was Garcia implying we should ban firearms and encourage drugs? He said in his eight years, UNR has had about a dozen requests for permission to CCW on campus; ONLY once was permission granted – and that was AFTER the requestor had been raped by Brianna Dennison’s killer. In response to Garcia’s comments, Cmte member Senator Settelmeyer commented, "I'm glad the guys with guns [police only] feel safe on the campus when the unarmed victims don't feel safe.” (Quasi quote)

    TMCC Cop. Testified in opposition. Cited “FBI empirical evidence” to support his testimony in opposition. Funny, we did not see his ‘empirical evidence’ – he should research credible gov’t statistics and credible empirical studies such as that of preeminent Professor John Lott.

    UNLV Cop Jose Elique testified in opposition. Said this bill will result in more threats to the campus community and to the weapons carrier – special places require different type of policing. He said he will respond tactically to all people with a gun – will “aggressively take them down.” He said, “…officers always look for anyone with a firearm in their hands or on their person. During these scenarios anyone with a weapon could very likely be shot.” [Bold/underline is his original emphasis.] Apparently, Elique is not award of the 2nd nor 4th Amendments; apparently, he will take you down even if probable cause or reasonable suspicion does not exist; apparently Elique does not understand the legal premise that the mere possession of a firearm is NOT probable cause nor reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed. He said the eight-hour CCW training does not prepare citizens. Funny he isn’t aware of the vast numbers of law-abiding citizens (both with AND without permits) using firearms to thwart crime. He said CCW on campus would serve no useful purpose. He testified the UNLV president has issued ZERO permits. Also of note, Elique testified that CCW training does not train CCW permittees how to neutralize an active shooter. This in spite of NSCA Exec Dir Frank Adams’ testimony that the primary purpose of a CCW permit is to allow one to defend himself/herself only – NOT to “save the day” (his words, meaning not to act as law enforcement.) Elique went on to say “…the premise that an elementary trained individual could successfully thwart an attack by an armed assailant is flawed.” Apparently, Elique is not aware of the annual tens of thousands of incidents of law-abiding citizens’ use of firearms to thwart attacks. Elique appeared to be anti-CCW altogether.

    In summary, it seemed apparent that law enforcement (for the most part) claim to trust law-abiding adults with CCW permits off campus – BUT apparently believe those same adults will become highly irrational – criminal even – if allowed to step foot on campus. Law enforcement carefully avoided a comparison between Utah (where CCW on campus is lawful – and there have been no problems) and Nevada (where one must obtain permission from the campus president – and NOTE the Nevada campus presidents have given permission to ONE student out of thousands and thousands of students! And, despicably, that permission was not granted until after the requestor had been raped.)

    The ACLU testified as neutral.

    Senate Gov’t Affairs Cmte member Senator Schneider said gun control in Las Vegas would pass. He said WalMart told him they don’t sell guns in large city WalMarts, only in smaller cities. He said we have a “separation of society” – his “constituents don’t want guns and don’t buy them.” His district: Clark County Senatorial District #11. Do you know any 2nd Amendment/CCW supporters in his district? Senator Schneider’s 2011Legislative Biography:
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Senate/Current/Senators/Schneider.pdf

    The hearing was very interesting and lasted nearly three hours!

    SB-231 now goes to Committee Work Session.
    Last edited by varminter22; 03-20-2011 at 01:56 PM. Reason: add comments, UNR's Garcia

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •