Committees hear bill to bar firearms within 100 feet of polling sites; supporters cite intimidation risks, opponents warn of 'gun‑free zone' vulnerabilities
Loading...
Summary
AB 105 would prohibit firearms within 100 feet of entrances to polling locations and counting centers; supporters said the restriction reduces armed intimidation of voters and election workers, opponents warned of practical and constitutional problems and urged alternative enforcement of existing threats laws.
Assembly Bill 105 drew lengthy testimony in a joint hearing of the Nevada Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees. The bill would prohibit firearms within 100 feet of entrances to polling locations, ballot drop boxes, and central counting places, with limited exemptions for on‑duty law enforcement and narrowly defined circumstances.
Sponsor Assemblymember Sandra Howtege said AB 105 is intended to protect voters and election workers from armed intimidation. "If 1 of them retires out of intimidation, if 1 voter turns away from an election site out of intimidation, that's 1 too many," she said in closing. Supporters included Giffords, Everytown, the Brennan Center (cited in testimony), the ACLU of Nevada, and multiple civic groups; witnesses testified that dozens of election officials nationwide reported threats since 2020, and cited studies and local anecdotes describing voters and poll workers expressing fear about firearms at or near polling places. Ethan Murray (Giffords) and Charles Allen (Everytown) urged the committees to treat polling places as the sort of "sensitive places" the Supreme Court and historical practice allow legislatures to regulate.
Supporters said the law would not ban firearms in all public spaces, but would narrowly restrict guns near voting activities to ensure people can exercise their right to vote without fear. Several groups handed the committees local reports and surveys indicating officials' concerns that harassment and threats have made it harder for election officials to remain in office.
Opposition testimony came from a mix of law-enforcement and firearms-rights organizations, local political groups and individual citizens. Several speakers warned that creating gun‑free zones could make polling locations targets for attackers who do not obey public‑safety rules; others said the proposal could leave lawful, trained citizens unable to defend themselves or others and urged instead targeted enforcement of existing statutes prohibiting threats, harassment or other unlawful conduct. The Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association asked for an explicit exemption for law‑enforcement officers covered by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (HR 218), which permits qualified off‑duty and retired officers to carry nationally.
Committee members asked about enforcement, the relationship with existing statutes that criminalize threatening or intimidating conduct near voting, and whether carving out exemptions for on‑duty or HR‑218‑qualified officers would alleviate opponents’ safety concerns. Several members observed that many polling locations are privately owned or sited inside public buildings (libraries, schools, grocery stores), and raised technical questions about the boundaries for the 100‑foot buffer and how to treat people "passing through" to do errands.
Supporters argued the amendment under consideration would address several of those issues — for example, clarifying a "passing through" affirmative defense for those who unwittingly come through a voting location while carrying for lawful purposes — and the sponsor and counsel noted the committee received data about local election‑official turnover and that a Clark County District Attorney amendment was submitted to address preemption and prosecutorial issues. The transcript records no committee vote; sponsors said they will continue to work on language and exceptions with counsel and stakeholders.
