Dear Chairmen and assemblymen and women of the Assembly Judiciary committee,
You have all heard my testimony. I would like to offer further rebuttals to the opposition statements given at the hearing on SB 231.
Opposition claim #1; CCW holders are too poorly trained and will pose a danger to others in the event they may need to use their firearm.
This is incorrect. While it is true that CCW permit holders to not receive 80+ hours of training that is required of police officers, they are trained to use their firearm to defend themselves. Police officers receive much more training because they routinely have to place themselves into dangerous situations. The Permit holder is not expected to be a police officer; We do not serve high risk warrants, make arrests or respond to criminal complaints. As permit holders our only concern is to stop a threat that could result in death or serious bodily harm or escape the situation. Our CCW training provides us with the adequate tools to achieve this end.
Additionally, the same people who oppose this bill have not addressed the reality that they are already encountering CCW permit holders daily, they just don’t know it. Passing this legislation places them at no more risk than they already are virtually everywhere else. I argue that that risk is statistically insignificant.
Opposition claim #2; College campuses also have child care facilities on their grounds.
This is true, and under current law and even if SB231 passes, it would remain illegal for a person carrying a firearm in any manner to enter a child care facility. Under the federal gun free school-zone act, there is a 1000 foot perimeter around the boundaries of the facility which under the act Licensed CCW permit holders are exempt from already.
Nevada law also addresses multiple agencies within the same building. If a building with classrooms, lecture halls or common areas also contains a day care, Nevada law would prohibit even a licenses CCW holder from passing beyond the doors of the room or rooms that were operating as a day care facility.
Opposition claim #3; Colleges and universities routinely host events and functions for K-12.
This is true. Also consider that permit holders can go many places with a firearm where people in this group may also be. This is a red hearing. Children in the K-12 age group would be no more at risk on a college campus where licensed concealed carry were permitted than they would be at a Mall, Grocery store, restraint, movie theater, etc.
There are high school students that routinely excel beyond what their local public school can offer. It is not uncommon for them to take college classes. I argue that these students are particularly mature by virtue of their excellence and would have no difficulty integrating into an adult environment where licensed CCW were practiced and allowed.
Opposition claim #4; CCW permit holder will mistake each other in the event of a violent crime.
This is statistically improbable. Consider that Permit holders make up a very small percentage of the total population; about one or two percent. Also consider that because of the demographic makeup of college students, even fewer would qualify. The likely hood of two or more CCW holders being present during a violent criminal assault on campus is very slim at best. Additionally, it is unlikely that someone not inclined to own and carry a firearm will suddenly gain interest simply because this bill is passed into law. Those who are will and those who are not will not. Do not let them infringe upon my right to personal protection simply because they choose not to exercise their own.
Opposition claim #5; there are better, less than lethal choices for personal protection.
While I have already testified on this topic, I would like to expand somewhat. Police officers are not expected to respond to life threatening scenarios with less than lethal force, and neither should we. Police officers use less than lethal force when a suspect is uncooperative and/or aggressive but otherwise not posing a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others. It is absurd to expect that citizens defend themselves against lethal threats or threats of serious bodily harm with less than lethal force just as it would be to expect a police officer to do the same.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, and fellow Nevadan’s, I ask that you recommend and vote to pass Senate Bill 231. The presidents of our public universities have proven that they cannot or will not objectively obey the intent of the law as it currently exists. They have abused their authority by arbitrarily and capriciously denying all but one student their right to carry for personal defense. Students should not have to first be a victim before they can be granted personal protection.
