Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Security Firearms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 105 would ban firearms within 100 feet of polling places; supporters cite voter safety, opponents call it 'gun‑free zone' risk
Summary
Assembly Bill 105 would prohibit possession of firearms within 100 feet of an election site and create a gross misdemeanor for violations; sponsors said fiscal impact to NDOC would be minimal and uncertain, while opponents warned the ban would create gun‑free zones that attract attackers and objected to new criminal penalties and possible impacts
Assembly Bill 105, a proposal to prohibit the possession of firearms within 100 feet of an election site, was heard by the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. The sponsor, Assemblymember Sandra Houdegi, described the bill as a redraft of prior legislation and reviewed a Department of Corrections fiscal estimate that had been refined during discussions.
What the bill does: AB 105 would make it unlawful to carry a firearm within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. The measure creates a gross misdemeanor penalty for possession in violation of the zone; it establishes a category D felony if a person knowingly possesses a firearm within the zone with the specific intent to “disrupt, interfere with, or monitor the administration of the election, the counting of the votes, or any person who is voting or attempting to vote.” The bill includes exemptions for law enforcement and private security.
Sponsor and agency testimony: Majority Leader Houdegi presented the measure and its fiscal note. Don Southworth of NDOC said the department reduced an initial estimate to reflect a potential for "one additional potential offender every other year," leading to a $33,000 per‑fiscal‑year estimate for the even‑numbered election years. Southworth and the sponsor noted many cases would be resolved at local levels (e.g., gross misdemeanor county jail terms or plea bargains reducing charges), and that a category D felony could be pled down to a category E or a gross misdemeanor depending on prosecutorial discretion and plea agreements.
Public comment split: Supporters who called in included voting‑rights and civic groups who urged passage; written and live opponents were numerous. Speakers opposed on Second Amendment and public‑safety grounds, arguing gun‑free zones can create targets for attackers. Janine Hanson, state president of Nevada Families for Freedom, cited a study she said shows civilians with concealed carry permits intervene effectively in active‑shooter events and warned that creating gun‑free zones could increase risk. Other callers and organizations also urged a no vote, calling the bill an infringement on lawful firearm owners and warning of enforcement burdens and fiscal impacts to county jails.
Committee outcome: The committee closed the hearing with no vote. Members questioned NDOC about the fiscal estimate and whether many convictions would be handled at the county level rather than in the state system. Several members noted the distinctions between gross misdemeanors (county jail) and felonies (state prison) when assessing fiscal outcomes.
Ending: Sponsors left the bill open for further consideration; no committee action was taken at the hearing.
