Assembly District 25 is totally within Washoe County, on the western side of Reno. There are two candidates in this GOP primary race – Pat Hickey did not respond to this interview.
1. Give a brief summation of your professional and political background
In 2008 I retired from the practice of law. For 35 years I was a trial attorney specializing in labor law and workers’ compensation. I was admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court in 1980, and was appointed as a judge pro tem of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in California in 1984. As the principal owner of the Law Office of Richard Fineberg, I was also a small businessman. My family were all registered democrats, and so was I until Jimmy Carter became POTUS. I re-registered as a republican at that point, and never turned back. I worked on the campaigns of Ronald Reagan both times he ran for president. I am presently a member of the Washoe County Central Committee and the Nevada Republican Assembly, where I was treasurer of that organization in 2012. I am active in social media and write a political blog espousing conservative principles.
2. Define your district – geographic boundaries, demographic makeup, and political balance.
I am a resident of Assembly District 25, and am currently seeking election to that office. All assembly districts in Nevada are by constitutional requirement set up to be roughly equal in terms of population. Right now, that means there are approximately 67,000 registered voters in the district. There is a Republican advantage in voter registration in the district at an estimated 53%. While Assembly District 25 has the same number of voters in it as other districts, geographically, the district is very large. AD 25 is chiefly the west side of Reno and is entirely within Washoe County. It the eastern border of the district extends north to encompass Cold Springs, runs south just west of Robb Drive down to Plumb Lane, then goes east to Virginia Street and then south again to Mount Rose Highway. Everything west of the eastern border to California is within AD 25. Hello Mogul and Verdi !
3. If this is your first time running for office (or this position), why are you running for this position? If you are an incumbent, what have been your top accomplishments as a legislator?
This is my first serious foray into politics. I threw my hat into the ring and decided to run for AD 25 because I want to improve the economic climate for all Nevadans, reduce the size and scope of government, oppose new taxes, encourage free market solutions, reduce burdensome regulations on business and empower individuals. Every year since I escaped California to come to what I thought was the more business friendly State of Nevada, the trend has been to hike taxes, impose new fees, increase regulation on small business, and grow welfare programs. The last legislative session was a disaster for the citizens of Nevada where no significant government reforms were enacted in exchange for supporting new taxes. The “go along to get along” policies of the incumbent have not been friendly to the pocketbooks of my fellow Nevadans. My opponent, voted to extend excise taxes on business, raise energy costs, impose additional fuel taxes on motor vehicles, voted twice to extend over $700 million in taxes which were supposed to “sunset”, voted to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, and was a key promoter of AB 46 which would have raised both property and sales taxes by shifting legislative authority to raise taxes to the Washoe County commissioners in violation of the Constitution of the State of Nevada. What will I do when I am elected to by your representative in Assembly District 25?
● I will follow the Constitution of the State of Nevada
● I will adhere to the platform of the Republican Party
● I will reduce the size of government
● I will eliminate burdensome regulations and fees on business
● I will promote free markets
● I will oppose new taxes as well as increases in state taxes
● I will vigorously defend the Second Amendment from attack
● I will listen to the people, not the lobbyists
● I will restore transparency to government
● I will read the bills before I vote on them
It is not leadership to “go along to get along” and perpetuate failed policies. I am a true conservative. I have signed the Tax Payers’ Protection Pledge. I will not increase your taxes. I will give the voters a real choice. Rick Fineberg will champion the conservative change that we need, and will be the conservative voice we deserve.
4. What makes you more qualified to serve in this position than your opponent?
I am a Republican candidate running in a Republican primary. I have promised to follow the constitution of the State of Nevada and the Republican party platform. There is no democrat running in AD 25. That is because my opponent has been carrying the water for Democrats and they don’t feel a need to challenge him. I’m more qualified than Pat Hickey because I have committed to follow my party’s platform and have pledged not to raise your taxes. My opponent on the other hand hasn’t met a tax increase he didn’t like, and has attempted to bypass the Nevada State constitution in order to shift authority to raise property and sales taxes to the Washoe county commissioners. The coming elections are going to be an opportunity for Nevadans to make a real choice when they go to the ballot box. Instead of having to make the choice between democrat or democrat-lite, they can vote for me, Rick Fineberg, a true constitutional conservative.
Right now, in Carson City, you have an incumbent, Pat Hickey whose voting record for higher taxes and more spending is virtually indistinguishable from his fellow democrat legislators. We don’t have to accept this kind of government. The early founders of our great country who wrote the Declaration of Independence and drafted the Constitution had a different vision. They too were facing an intrusive, oppressive bureaucracy and a tax burden that crushed liberty and opportunity. And now it is time for us to return to that same vision of individual freedom, economic opportunity, and a government that protects property rights.
I think it essential that we elect true conservatives who believe in limited government, constitutional governance, no new taxes, and free markets unfettered by burdensome regulation. And we need someone who can be trusted to do what they say, and not just give lip service to conservative principles. In this election you will have a real choice and an opportunity to strike a blow to the status quo. Pat Hickey isn’t qualified to be your Assemblyman because he doesn’t vote your values. No matter what he says, he is NOT a conservative. You can vote for Rick Fineberg. I promise I will follow the platform of my party, and the Constitution of the State of Nevada. I signed the Taxpayer’s Protection Pledge not to support any new taxes nor any increase in existing taxes. My opponent refused to sign it. On June 10th you will be able to vote for a true, honest, constitutional conservative. We have to return to the vision of our Founding Fathers. Now is the time. We must not fail.
5. There is a well-publicized, on-going philosophical split among many in the Republican Party. Describe your political philosophy in relation to this ‘moderate’ conservative versus ‘tea party’ conservative divide.
The split between establishment Republicans, and conservatives is not new. Ronald Reagan had to deal with a political environment very similar to that of today. Reagan’s conservative philosophy of limited government, lower taxes, free markets, and individual responsibility clashed with that of the northeastern “moderate” Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller who believed in a larger, more powerful centralized government for dealing with problems. This is the conflict we have today. I believe that history has now given us the answer to this philosophical schism. Large bureaucratic, top-down governance doesn’t work. The best solutions are arrived at by the individual states and local communities working together because they understand local problems and tailor services to match local needs. Just look at the disaster of ObamaCare and Common Core which seek to impose a “one size fits all” template on all of us. Ronald Reagan knew what had to be done, and that was to make the Republican party more conservative from within. The result was that Reagan was elected twice, by landslides! The last two presidential elections were lost by the so-called “moderate” Republicans because the voters didn’t see any difference between the parties. Faced with a choice between democrat and democrat-light, millions stayed home from the polls. I want to be the politician who brings conservative values to the legislature. My opponent famously said when he decided to run for office, and when he sought to be minority leader in the Assembly that he would “reach across the aisle”, and “work with my democrat friends” to bring meaningful reforms to Nevada. That kind of go-along-to-get-along philosophy has made the last couple of legislative sessions a disaster and has weakened the economy in Nevada, given us high unemployment, the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, and has placed our schools at the bottom of educational achievement. Why would you want to continue to elect a “moderate” who will only serve the interests of lobbyists for big government and perpetuate policies that have not worked?
6. What do you see as the three most important issues related to your district?
A. We must defeat the so-called “Education Initiative” otherwise known as the Margin Tax.
I signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and promised I would not support new taxes. But nobody should support this proposed Margin Tax under any circumstances. It is a job-killer! It’s a tax on gross income of businesses meaning that even if a business is losing money, it still has to pay the tax. And this is a tax on top of all the other taxes and fees that business pay to keep their doors open. It puts the survival of many small business on the line. The Margins Tax is being brought to you this November by the teachers’ union who are marketing it as the “Education Initiative”. However, the dirty little secret is that there is no requirement that the new taxes be applied to education. There is no guarantee that any of the funds would reach the classroom of our children. There is no sunset provision so once this tax goes into effect you’re never going to get rid of it. This tax is so bad that even the Washoe County Democrat Party opposes it and the democrats wouldn’t even bring it up for a vote in the legislative session. The Nevada State Education Association has put $1M into a PAC to sell this lump of coal wrapped up in a ribbon. I have heard from businesses that were thinking of relocating to Nevada that they are going to look elsewhere simply because this proposed tax is on our ballot in November. It is critical to the economy and the future of Nevada that the Margin tax be defeated.
B. We must opt out of Common Core which is nothing less than the nationalization of our educational system.
Common Core represents the largest federal expansion into our schools than we have ever seen before. It imposes national standards which fail to improve outcomes for our children and removes parents from decisions about the content taught in their public schools. Common Core imposes questionable standards for English and math and the data collection aspects of the program represent a dangerous invasion of your privacy. The constitutional authority for education rests with the states and localities, and ultimately with parents …not with the federal government. Unfortunately for Nevada, our governor and superintendent of education has gone all in. The feds dangled a carrot of more tax dollars to the State which our elected officials jumped at without giving due consideration to the strings that are attached to these monetary grants. The imposition of federal standards are already failing to improve educational outcomes and in fact are doing just the opposite. Testing of students in states that have adopted the Common Core standards shows a decline in achievement and graduation rates. The standards being imposed on the states through Common Core are standardizing mediocrity at a significant cost. The one time grants that have been given to states are unlikely to cover the costs of massive standards and assessment overhaul currently facing the states and local communities. We must opt out of the standard testing and data collection imposed by Common Core and return control to our local communities.
C. We must do what we can to repeal the Silver State (ObamaCare) Exchange and halt the expansion of MediCaid.
Setting up the health care exchange in Nevada was a Big Mistake. It didn’t surprise me that the governor would be all in for expansion of MediCaid under ObamaCare. After all, Governor Sandoval was the most active Republican governor nationwide seeking full implementation of ObamaCare during the 2011 session of the Legislature and he actually proposed legislation to establish the Silver State Exchange pursuant to the Act. The governor went along with rules expanding Medicaid eligibility bringing about 78,000 MORE new individuals into the program. As federal subsidies start to taper and ultimately disappear, it is estimated Nevada taxpayer Medicaid outlays will INCREASE up to $5.7B between now and 2023. Of course, when that bill comes due, the governor won’t be in office any longer. We can’t afford this expansion. We don’t have the ability to pay for it. It will bankrupt Nevada. I would have joined the other 34 states that have explicitly rejected these exchanges. Only two other states with Republican governors established state run exchanges. The governors in those other 34 states must have actually read the bill, because it only allows the IRS to levy new taxes against large employers who do not provide qualifying health insurance in states that have set up a state run exchange. States without their own exchanges are going to be more attractive to a large business seeking to relocate or expand. If Nevada wants to attract new and large business to the State, we have to get out from under the yoke of the health care exchange.
7. As a legislator, you are allowed to present a specific number of bills during the legislative session. Do you have any specific bills in mind?
I am a gun owner and strongly support the right of our citizens to keep and bear arms to defend themselves. Most of us in Nevada are aware of the story of Amanda Collins, the UNR student who was brutally raped right on campus and just across the street from the university police station. Amanda had a concealed weapons permit, but because the university was a “gun free zone” and prohibited the carrying of a firearm for personal protection, Amanda was defenseless against her attacker. One of the first bills I will seek to introduce is a CAMPUS CARRY bill so that student like Amanda who already have qualified for and have been issued their concealed weapons permit will have a fighting chance to stop being attacked by criminals. Our neighboring state of Utah has permitted campus carry for several years now and all of the horror stories that have been predicted by the anti-gun groups have failed to materialize. In fact, they have not experienced a single incident of unlawful use of a firearm by a student, nor have they had any rapes or murders of a student on campus who has been allowed to carry their concealed firearm.
I would also offer a bill that requires any legislation being proposed to have a preamble which explicitly states the constitutional authority for the measure. This will hopefully prevent measures like AB46 from seeing the light of day. AB 46, which was sponsored by my opponent, bypassed the constitutional requirement that revenue (tax) bills be passed by either a vote of the people or 2/3rds of the legislators.
8. What is your position in regards to the taxes imposed in 2009 that were to ‘sunset’ in 2011, but were re-approved by the 2011 and 2013 legislature?
One of the major factors in my deciding to run for Assembly District 25 was because I was “mad as hell” that our elected representatives, including my opponent Pat Hickey TWICE voted to extend over $700 million dollars in taxes which were scheduled to sunset. I saw this as a fundamental breach of trust and a broken promise to the citizens of our State. You just can’t go around like Pat Hickey (and our governor) did, running for office on the promise that they would NOT extend taxes which were scheduled to sunset. That’s just wrong on many levels. First of all, they induced you to go along with these taxes in the first place by swearing to you they would be temporary. Then, twice, they outright went back on their promise to you by extending these taxes which were supposed to be temporary. In my book there’s no excuses for that and you need to vote these politicians out of office. Secondly, when you go back on your word to extend taxes which should have ended, you’re sending a lousy message to people and business who might have otherwise thought about coming here and helping Nevada grow and be prosperous.
9. How would you address improving the performance of Nevada’s public schools.
First off, performance data clearly shows that the performance of Nevada’s schools won’t be improved by spending more money. Nevada has tripled per-pupil funding over the last 25 years adjusted for inflation, to approximately $10,000 per pupil, while educational quality has deteriorated. Ten of the twelve states that spend less than Nevada have better test scores and of Nevada’s five regional neighbors, only California spends more. So the problem is not funding. There is a structural problem.
There are a number of proposals that focus on rewarding results and individualizing the educational process that need to be explored. We can establish Recovery School Districts, where we will not force taxpayers to subsidize failing schools. If a public school is not meeting the educational needs of Nevada families, then it should be closed and/or converted to a charter school.
We should expand the use of charter schools and give them wide flexibility at the local level to implement educational programs.
Let’s eliminate the class-size reduction program. This is a very expensive program that by the state’s own evaluations is shown to be ineffective. Classes of 1-15 pupils have significantly underperformed their peers with larger class sizes in both reading and math.
Expand Nevada’s ACE High School Charter program and encourage integration of vocational training into the educational curricula.
Require the Commission on Professional Standards expand the scope of alternative teacher certification pursuant to SB 315 and not use their discretion to protect incumbent teachers from competition.
10. To what degree should the State support Charter Schools and those students opting to attend a school outside their district? Do you support universal school vouchers, providing the money goes to the student/parent and not to any particular school?
As suggested above, I strongly support a variety of programs that enhance educational opportunity, reward merit, close failing schools, and emphasize choice for parents and students to maximize learning and performance. This approach includes and embraces public school open enrollment; public charter schools; Magnet schools; Voucher programs; online learning and homeschooling. We need to start thinking outside the box to educate our children and provide for the future of our State, and of the entire nation.
11. The State Legislature has found innovative ways to circumvent the state law banning the passing down of unfunded mandates to local governing entities. What is your position in regards to using such actions to fund state needs?
I firmly believe that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. That having been said, we must deal with unfunded mandates honestly, and not “kick the can down the road” rather than dealing with the problem. Our unfunded liabilities in Nevada now exceed one-trillion-dollars, and it’s not getting smaller. We must begin to address reform in PERS that will have new and different rules that will apply to new hires. Some things we could do are to raise the retirement age; increase the mandatory contribution made by the employee; and prohibit the practice of “featherbedding” where overtime and other income is racked up in the last year or two of employment to artificially boost lifetime retirement benefits; and place curbs on or eliminate double and triple “dipping”.
12. What is your position in regards to increasing Nevada’s minimum wage?
I am opposed to minimum wage laws period. I don’t think there’s anyone who honestly believes that our present economy is in good shape. All the talking points reminiscent of Stalinist era propaganda aren’t going to persuade most people that things are getting better when they are losing their jobs, losing their health coverage, and experiencing higher taxes, fees and regulation. There’s a lot of pain out there, and it’s only getting worse. So in the midst of our economic “malaise” as Jimmy Carter was fond of saying, why are we even talking about raising the minimum wage? I can remember a time, not that long ago, when the minimum wage was much lower than today, and the economy was booming. Jobs were plentiful, and employee retention was an issue because people were leaving their jobs to take a new one right around the corner. The thought of raising the minimum wage at that time never came up for discussion. (I won’t mention the name of the President at that time, but his name rhymed with Charles Dickens’ teacher of pickpockets in Oliver Twist). So apparently, talk of raising the minimum wage comes up only during hard times. But isn’t this really getting it all wrong? Part of the problem is that the minimum wage, like any other Big Government program, never goes away, and it continues to grow. If the whole concept of the minimum wage is to assist people in tough times, shouldn’t we be able to reduce the minimum wage in good times? It ain’t gonna happen folks. And that is the fundamental flaw with minimum wage laws. Not only do they kill jobs, they act as a permanent drag on the economy because they increase the cost of labor without any commensurate increase in productivity. Instead of employing large scale government programs to “fix” the problem, it would be better to adopt specific, targeted, and temporary assistance.
13. Do you believe the gaming and mining industries pay ‘their fair share’ in contributing to the state’s economy? Explain.
Both industries, mining and gaming, pay a fairly significant excise tax already. Operating margins are not very high, and we have seen years when both industries have sustained losses. Keep in mind that these industries employ thousands of people and generate millions of dollars in payroll taxes as well. All taxes have the effect of suppressing commerce. That’s the last thing we need to do in an economy that is struggling and where unemployment is at unacceptably high levels. We also have to be mindful of the effect raising taxes would have on business expansion, and the relocation to Nevada of businesses from other states. I think the whole concept of “fair share” has been exploited to take from the producers and give to others as part of an income redistribution scheme that destroys incentives to work and smacks of socialism.
14. With annual approval by Congress required, the Federal government pays state and local governments for the public lands (exempt from local taxation) within their jurisdiction (P.I.L.T.). Approximately 87-percent of Nevada is owned by Federal entities. Define your position in regards to states taking control of (Federal government relinquishing ownership to) all or a portion of these lands.
In June of last year, Gov. Sandoval signed AB227 sponsored by Assemblyman John Ellison. Both described the bill as “taking the first step in fulfilling our responsibility to our children and for the future of our state in making congress honor the same promise to Nevada that it made and kept with Hawaii and all other states east of Colorado.” The “promise” that Ellison refers to is what is referred to as a state’s “enabling act,” which is basically a statehood contract. When a state joins the country, part of its lands are held under federal jurisdiction – which land transfer proponents argue was only meant to be a temporary arrangement. While lands management was transferred to many states that lie east of Colorado, in the west this did not come about.
I believe that the states’ would be more efficient and productive in their management of lands now held by the federal government. It has also been argued by public land transfer advocates that putting the lands back under state control will help create jobs, grow local and state economies, and help better fund education. This would be accomplished by the states opening up previously locked-out areas where oil, natural gas, and other natural resources can be accessed and harvested for use. Taxes collected from the public use of those lands would also provide additional funding to state educational spending. While it is true that P.I.L.T. payments are made by the federal government in lieu of some of these lost revenues, the amounts are inadequate compared to the potential revenue that might otherwise be generated under state management.
15. In 1979 Nevada passed a bill legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. It was repealed eight years later (1987). What is your position in regards to Nevada once again legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes? Legalizing the sale of marijuana, period?
I have always had a fairly libertarian view towards marijuana. I do believe that it has been clearly established that there are legitimate medical reasons to prescribe marijuana and I am not opposed to marijuana being used for medical purposes. The libertarian in me also believes that at the individual level we should be given the freedom to make our own choices as long as doing so does not present a risk of injury or death to others. If you’re going to harm yourself, just don’t require me to pay for the consequences of your bad decisions. That having been said, I am wary of having government become involved in the marketing and promotion of marijuana for recreational purposes and as some kind of revenue cash cow. I think that sends a bad message to our youth that drug use is “ok”. It would be better to simply decriminalize private use and possession of small amounts of marijuana, and to impose age and use (driving while intoxicated) restrictions similar to those applied to alcohol. At the same time I do think we should be educating our children that these drugs are NOT good for you and that there can be long term adverse health consequences. Be honest, don’t exaggerate, but give people the honest facts about drugs. Then when they’re of adult age, people will be able to make rational decisions about whether they are going to use or not use drugs and under what circumstances they will indulge.
16. It appears that millions of acres of Nevada lands are destined to have the sage grouse (among other species) listed as a protected species. What is your position in regards to this issue? Explain.
I came from California to Nevada and while there, saw firsthand how someone claiming to have spotted a particular variety of housefly that was on the “endangered species” list shut down the development of an industrial park that would have boosted the economy in a depressed area and would have created hundreds of jobs. The economic effects of putting the sage grouse on a threatened species list would have devastating economic consequences. If the sage grouse is protected under the Endangered Species Act the Fish and Wildlife Service will designate “critical habitat,” which is the land the agency determines is essential for sage grouse survival. This could span tens of millions of acres and likely will cover most of Northern Nevada. In turn, that will enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to regulate any activity, on public or private land, that may affect sage grouse. That means that anyone who wants to do anything that could affect sage grouse habitat will have to ask permission from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Every single land use that is important to Nevada could be impacted, including mining, grazing, recreation, urban development and renewable energy. Projects under development and other proposed land uses will be stopped dead in their tracks just like what happened in California. Right now proposals are in the works to provide protection for the sage grouse while at the same time developing a revenue stream paid for by developers which would rehabilitate degraded habitat. This is a workable solution which is reasonable and would not remove millions of acres of northern Nevada from any private use and enjoyment or economic development.
17. Define your position on fracking and other means of oil exploration in Nevada. Do you support coal fired plants?
I support any reasonable methods that may be employed to develop oil exploration in the State. I see the absolutely amazing economic boom that is occurring in places like North Dakota where fracking has been taking place on a large scale now. The use of fracking as a methodology for oil extraction has the potential to make the United States energy independent and free us from dependence on hostile Middle East countries. And the truth of the matter is that fracking is safe, just like the development of the XL pipeline has been found by the EPA to be safe notwithstanding the hysteria from anti-capitalist environmental extremists. I am also in favor of utilizing our vast coal resources to meet our energy needs. We now have the technology to build new vastly cleaner plants to burn coal, and also to retrofit existing plants. Rather than insisting on the immediate destruction of existing plants creating artificial shortages of inexpensive energy sources we can develop a structured approach over time to build new plants or rehabilitate existing plants while not sending shock waves through the industry and the economy of the nation.
18. In efforts to bring new businesses to Nevada, the Catalyst Fund was established. This is funded by state tax dollars. The Governor’s Office of Economic Development receives and then votes on applications from businesses and, through local governmental entities, subsidizes those selected. What is your position in regards to the Catalyst Fund? Do you have other ideas to encourage new businesses to locate in Nevada?
The catalyst fund, while it may be well-intentioned, violates Article 8, Sections 9 and 10, of the Nevada Constitution. Article 8, Section 9 reads, “The State shall not donate or loan money, or its credit, subscribe to or be, interested in the Stock of any company, association, or corporation, except corporations formed for educational or charitable purposes.” The State government has no business picking the winners and losers. The catalyst fund represents an unconstitutional subsidy that ultimately harms taxpayers and limits competition among businesses. The State should not engage in a work around of the constitution by creating pass-through local agencies to dispense your tax dollars. The current economic recession poses a great challenge to both to expansion of existing business as well as development of new business and relocation to Nevada from other states. We can encourage expansion of existing business by establishing a stable tax structure that will send these businesses a message that we will not milk the cow dry and that we will not go back on our promises to “sunset” taxes. We can demonstrate to businesses that Nevada is really a business friendly environment rather than pushing for increased taxes like the “Margin Tax”. I personally have spoken with CEO’s and CFO’s of large companies that have taken Nevada off the list of places they will relocate to just because the Margin Tax is on our ballot in November. I think we have a wonderful opportunity right now to entice the firearms manufacturing industry to Nevada rather than letting Texas be the big winner in taking advantage of the hoplophobia (fear of firearms) raging in California and Colorado. We’ve got the perfect regional environment for this industry which would produce many jobs and millions of tax dollars. But to do that you need to be Second Amendment friendly right here in the Silver State and communicate that to the industry. Also, cut the red tape, reduce regulations, and provide short term tax relief while a labor force is developed.
19. Do you support “campus carry” legislation allowing licensed CCW permit holders over the age of 21 to carry their weapons on Nevada college and university campuses? Would you extend the same right to secondary school campuses?
I’m a proud member of the National Rifle Association & Gun Owners of America. Several years ago I started the Gun Ownership and Defense group in Reno in support of the Second Amendment and the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and to educate our seniors about the safe, and responsible use of firearms for their own self defense. Decades of data reported by our own FBI consistently shows that States with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest overall rates of violent crime of all kinds. Venues like Chicago, and Washington DC with the most stringent laws seem to compete with each other as the nations’ murder capitol. As I previously noted, one of the first things I would propose in the legislature is a bill to permit campus carry. I highly recommend everyone watch the YouTube of the testimony of Amanda Collins in 2011 before the Nevada Legislature when she testified in support of a campus carry law (that was killed in committee by the democrats) even though it probably would have passed both the Senate and the Assembly. Ms Collins was a UNR student who couldn’t carry her firearm on campus even though she had a concealed weapons permit. And because of that she was unable to defend herself against a brutal rapist in a campus parking lot, right across the street from the campus police station. By the way, that rapist was James Biela who a few months later would go on to rape and murder Brianna Denison. In all the recent and well publicized shootings we’ve heard about, multiple existing laws were broken. Restrictions on gun ownership only affect law abiding citizens. The criminals could care less. I am in favor of programs which would employ specially trained teachers, and administrators to have concealed firearms on secondary school campuses. Time is of the essence when dealing with an active shooter. We know that at just the sight of another armed individual who can put a stop to them, the active shooter or wannabe shooter will either put down their weapon or turn it on themselves. By declaring our schools gun-free zones, we are turning our campuses into killing zones. Such programs to deploy trained school personnel are already working in other states and since their inception there have been zero attacks.
20. If there is any issue that you are concerned about that has not been addressed in this interview, this is your opportunity to address it:
I have nothing further to add. This has been the most comprehensive series of questions that I have answered for any organization. Good job! And thank you for the opportunity to respond and share my views.
These interviews are posted on Nevada News & Views (www.nevadanewsandviews.com) and/or NewsDesk by Nancy Dallas (www.ndbynd.com). Reposting of any interview by interested parties must include the disclaimer the interview was originally posted in the above publications. Only those Republican races with a Primary contest are being addressed. Questions or comments may be directed to Nancy Dallas at nancy@nancydallas.com or 775-847-0129.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
RSS