From the NRA

OK, here's our "Meet& Greet" venue!

See you there!

Debbie Smith, from Sparks NV.....she's voting for this.  @#$%#$^@ Biatch

Sounds like Moises Dennis is also.

It's going to pass. None of these people will listen to reason.

If this bill (and some other bills pass) I will be GONE.

I love Nevada (I'm a 37 year resident), but I can't put up with this Kommiefornia, Cancerous Douchebaggery infecting our BELOVED state.

Greener (free gun) pastures are available.

Just Sayin'.

Unless you will take jobs and TAXES with you, the anti-RKBA zealots do not care.

This is a MONEY committee, we have to hit them from THAT angle!

I have a couple of ideas and plan to attend.

Can someone explain to me why the finance committee is the one handling this Our whole system is broken

Because increasing the NICS staff workload by "40%" is going to cost more.
Since it's a state expense this committee has to approve it.

Not sure we can kill the alleged mental health portion, but very determined to kill the universal background check/registration!

Any chance Gov. Sandavol will kill it?

Many feel NOT killing it by veto would be political suicide for him.
But I do not think Nevada has a line-item veto, so the "Mental Health" portion might be enough to save it from his veto?
Hard to tell what he would do, he seemed a lot more solidly conservative before he became Gov.

That committee reviews every law, to measure fiscal impact. If the impact is too great, the law may not pass the committee.

The problem is the analyzation is based around govt. cost and not the cost to the people. At $25 and FFL fees for every transfer, the peon impact will be greater than the govt's cost which is paid by the background fees. There is no way the state run system is not a revenue generator.

Ah yes, BUT!

What we have to remind the committee of is that the "40%" increase in background checks will NOT be off-set by new fee payments!
The bill specifically exempts private party transfers from the NV NICS fee.
No doubt that exemption is only temporary, to be added next session, since it will be "Unfair" that the state is not being paid for the "Service" they hope to force on us.

Certain FFL's like Safe Snot are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of gouging us for transfer fee's like they do in Ca-Ca-Lafornia.
But NV would not get any of that until they amend the proposed law next session.
By then it will be apparent the system does not work as most guns are unregistered, so that would become part of the laws "Update" as well.

8:00 AM right?

What's the word? They must be done by now.

Feculent bill is still alive.
Lots to post later, I did attend and speak at the hearing.

There is a new amendment from Jones in an effort to keep the bill alive, it should have died this morning.

Jones is a damn liar, he is claiming to have been in communication with me, NOT TRUE!
Details once I get off work.

I think this tactic, the inevitable registration that will come from this bill, is the last hope for convincing the Assembly that this scheme is not workable (the Assembly is up next, right?). There is simply no way to enforce this background check law without a complete record for every new and existing firearm. We need to hammer this home in all further correspondence.

They would make nothing on the new 40% increase in the workload per the bill as amended.
Probably have to hire more folk and promote those already there too.
So this would cut up their cash-cow.

Well, that was a main argument I had against the bill. I wrote a nice letter about the abuse of the NV NICS system and its revenue generation. Not a single response from any of them either.

I included plenty of other areas, which sounds like a good thing. I am sure it will be ignored. The fiscal impact cannot be measured, until the bill is in the works.

Update from my senator, James Settlemeyer.
I will have my own commentary up later.

------------------------------------------

Senate bill 221 the firearms background check bill was heard today in Senate Finance.  Many people testified in opposition to the amendment to the bill which I have attached it for your review.  
No votes was taken.  

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
SENATE BILL NO. 221 (FIRST REPRINT)
BY: Senator Jones
Summary: This proposed amendment requires a private party to provide his or her firearm to a licensed dealer before the private party may sell the firearm. The licensed dealer then completes a background check on the person to whom the private party wishes to sell the firearm. The background check is completed by the licensed dealer directly through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System rather than through the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History. The private party may only complete the sale if the licensed dealer informs the private party that the sale is authorized. The firearm is returned to the private party after the background check is complete. This amendment further removes the provision that would allow the transfer of a firearm for a period of not more than 72 hours without completing a background check. This proposed amendment further requires the Central Repository to enter into an agreement with the FBI and take any other necessary actions as soon as practicable to allow licensed dealers to conduct background checks directly through the NICS on behalf of private parties. The proposed amendment to section 8 becomes effective when such an agreement is entered.
Specific Details of the Proposed Amendment
A. Amend Section 8 of the bill to: 2
1. Require a private party who wishes to sell a firearm to transfer the firearm to a licensed dealer so that the licensed dealer may conduct a background check on the person who wishes to acquire the firearm.
2. Require the licensed dealer to whom a firearm is transferred, to obtain a background check on the person who wishes to acquire the firearm by contacting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and requesting its report.
3. Require the licensed dealer to comply with any requirement set forth in federal law with respect to the sale of a firearm by a licensed dealer, except the licensed dealer must obtain the background check directly from the NICS rather than the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History (Central Repository).
4. Require the licensed dealer to return the firearm to the private party who wishes to sell the firearm when:
(a) The licensed dealer receives information from the NICS indicating that the sale is allowed by federal law; or
(b) By the end of the third business day after taking possession of the firearm if the NICS has not responded, and inform the private party who wishes to sell the firearm that he or she may presume that selling the firearm to the person who wishes to acquire the firearm would not violate federal law.
5. Prohibit a private party from completing the sale of a firearm to another person unless informed by a licensed dealer that the sale of the firearm to the person who wishes to acquire the firearm is allowed.
B. Further amend Section 8 of the bill to remove the exception in paragraph (i) of subsection 6 which allows for a temporary transfer of a firearm for not more than 72 hours without a background check. Retain all other exceptions to the requirement to obtain a background check for a private party transfer set forth in subsection 6.
C. Add a new section to the bill to require the Central Repository to enter into an agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigations as soon as practicable and take any other necessary actions to allow licensed dealers to conduct background checks on behalf of private parties who wish to transfer a firearm directly with the NICS as required by section 8 of the bill. Further make the bill effective when such an agreement is entered between the Central Repository and the FBI.


Other bills in the legislative process.

SB76 by Senator Settelmeyer, One gun all gun CCW.
       Heard on 2/17/2013, in Senate Judiciary passed that day. Passed Senate floor 21 to 0 on 3/4/2013.  In Assembly waiting for hearing in Judiciary.

The following bills while surviving the deadline have been sent to the money committees and need to have their fiscal impact evaluated before they can proceed in the legislative process.  Most bills do not survive the fiscal analysis in these economic times.

AB195 by Assemblyman Ellison, Allows renewal of a CCW early.
       Heard on 4/03/2013,  in Assembly Judiciary.
       Work Session on 4/05/2013,  in Assembly Judiciary passed unanimously.  On the floor was re-referred to Assembly Ways & Means due to a fiscal note.
       Heard on 4/24/2013,  in Assembly Ways & Means, no vote was taken.
SB221 by Senator Jones, Requires those that plead out due to mental illness to be reported in 5 days to the Central Repository.  Provides requirement of private party background checks.
       Heard on 3/14/2013 in Senate Health and Human Services.
       Work Session 4/09/2013 in Senate Health & Human Services, Passed out PARTY LINE VOTE.
       Heard on 5/06/2013,  in Senate Finance, no vote was taken.

SB226 by Senator Settelmeyer, Eliminates the Clark County handgun registration program. Eliminates the CCW card and instead puts it on the driver’s license as an endorsement, lets one get a separate ID card w/o the endorsement on it.
       Heard  on 3/25/2013  in Senate Judiciary.
       Work Session 4/05/2013, in Senate Judiciary.  Committee amended out the portion that eliminates the Clark County handgun registration program.  Passed unanimously.  Re-referred on the floor to Senate Finance due to fiscal note.
SB277 by Senator Kieckhefer prohibits a person from purchasing a firearm if they have a petition for mental evaluation filled against them.
       Hearing 4/09/2013  in Senate Health & Human Services.
       Work Session 4/11/2013 passed with Senator HARDY in opposition.

The following is a link to view or submit your opinion on legislation.  
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/77th2013/A/

here's hoping all the crap dies cause we don't have any money for it.

one gun all gun ccw just makes sense

wish the constitutional carry didn't die.

Losing the 72 hour rule screws up a lot of things.

Transfer of ownership arguments will be a good grey area too.

I attended the finance committee hearing on SB221 this morning.
Only the author, senator Jones spoke in support.

NRA, Janine Hansen, and myself spoke in opposition.
I noticed some committeee members taking notes, so we must have made some points they found to be significant.
We also had a couple of speakers from LV.
Senator Jones gave me a glare that should have turned me to ash, he made my day!
He also clearly attempted to mislead the committee on more than one occasion, including his claim to have worked with me to perfect his bill.

This took a while to compose.
Too bad I don't drink booze, or I would want a beer after this effort!

I know it's too long and muddled, so is the bill I am responding to.
------------------------------------------
SB221:

The mental health portions of SB221 are still flawed, they appear to suspend an accused right to due process and appeal for two to three years.
They are much improved from the original bill, and SB221 might be salvageable if the section 8 mandatory background check demands were stripped from the bill in their entirety.

Since this is a finance committee I have tried to confine my objections to financial aspects as much as possible.
I have to submit this via email as it is too long for the NELIS system to accept.

There are so many issues with this bill that it is hard to organize a concise response.
I must apologize for the length and chaos of my observations, but at twenty-four pages SB221 leaves no other response possible.

First off, a few points from agency fiscal impact statements which I find very interesting.

And here is the reason for the latest proposed amendment!
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/FiscalNotes/4183.pdf

Records and technology fiscal note.
SB221 seems to be patterned after the federal Brady Act. From a legal standpoint, the Repository cannot comply with the provisions in Sect. 8 which require a check of the NICS for private party sales. Only federally licensed firearms dealers may access the NICS per federal law.
Further, the bill is silent on the State Brady Program, about missing court dispositions and
making persons "unresolved" when staff cannot obtain the missing information. This needs to be worked out with the sponsors to make the bill workable from the Repository's standpoint.
National estimates indicate that 40% of gun sales are conducted by private parties. CHR could not absorb the increase with existing staff. It estimated that 6.0 FTEs would be required to adequately staff for the increase.
The creation of one new crime in the bill will require a new Nevada Offense Code (NOCs), which could have a cumulative effect on the Repository.
Further, programming would be required to allow for private parties sales. This is a significant change to the application for the Brady program and would require outside contractor assistance as well as internal IT resources.
Name Melanie Young
Title ASO II

Investigation division fiscal note.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/FiscalNotes/4180.pdf
"The volume and complexity of such requests is unpredictable and therefore a fiscal impact upon the Investigation Division is unknown.
The Investigation Division does not anticipate a material increase in its case load due to this Bill. Low volumes of such cases would not likely result in a material fiscal impact on the Investigation Division's budgetary needs.
Name David F. Jones
Title Acting Chief"

Really?
So the entire Universal Background Check portion of SB221 is a waste of time as there is so little in need of correction, a 40% increase in likely investigations remains too low volume to result in a fiscal impact?
Good to know!
---------------------
Additional points that need to be considered, organized as best I could on short notice.

1. Yes, I will join in and support the expected class-action lawsuits.

2. During testimony it was more difficult to respond to the bill as the author Senator Jones seemed to assume his amendment will be adopted, when in fact it had not been, may he make such assumptions with certainty?
If so the process becomes very suspect!

3. The latest proposed amendment to SB221 is not a good fix, it actually creates more new problems than it solves.
It seems the author wishes to shift the burdens of SB221 to the states FFL holders in order to avoid the true fiscal impact to Nevada and to circumvent Federal prohibitions.

4. The latest amendment makes several fundamental changes to the bill, most of which actually make the bill even worse than the current version.
If the 72 hour exemption is removed it may have severe impacts on Movie and TV production, stage plays, training events, safety instruction, entertainment events, charity fundraising, and more.

5. The claim that a POS/NICS check "Only takes five minutes" would be laughable if it were not so very false.
If that were true the Nevada POS office would not have to shut down their phone lines a half hour early to ensure employees finish all transactions by the close of their business day.
In reality each firearm tendered for a POS/NICS SB221 background check will require inspection for condition, with any flaws to be noted.
The personal contact information for the owner and potential buyer will have to be recorded.
The POS/NICS - SB221 forms will have to be filled out for both parties.
The NV POS (or NICS if the proposed amendment is accepted) will have to be contacted, several questions answered, and the reply and transaction number recorded.
I would hope the no one on this committee really believes all that is going to be accomplished in only five minutes!
The parties of the transfer may not still be on premises, so will have to be asked to return, and the transaction resumed, with additional time required for all involved.

6. I reviewed the Federal law, and consulted with other FFL's regarding the return of the firearm(s) to the original seller as supposed in the latest proposed bill amendment.
Under current Federal law any person who leaves a gun for consignment sale or pawn must undergo a "Brady" background check before it may be returned to them.
Other FFL dealers and myself are unanimous in our certainty that current Federal law would require TWO background checks under this bill.
The first one on the seller in order to return the firearm to them, and a second on the buyer to comply with the terms of SB221.
The legislative counsel may wish to confirm this with BATFE, I am certain that my interpretation will be found correct as it is clearly specified in federal law.

7. As testified, there is no provision in SB221 preventing FFL's charging a fee, or limiting the fee amount.
Time is money, how much time are FFL dealers expected to contribute, what will be an accepted fee for this imposed "Service"?
In my opinion the proposed amendment essentially mandates involuntary servitude for FFL's.
We are to take up the handling of a 40% increase in paperwork and storage without full compensation, or risk the ire of our customer base.

8. I sincerely doubt that every town in Nevada has an FFL dealer available.

9. I know from personal experience that the POS/NICS contact points are frequently subject to long delays for a variety of reasons.
This is a particular problem in circumstances where the parties may not be local to the dealer, such as at a gun show.
Buyer or sellers from out of the area would be greatly inconvenienced if the POS/NICS check has a technical issue or a "Delayed" response.
Increasing the occurrence of these issues by 40% serves no ones best interest.

10. Requiring the FFL to track two separate contact streams as proposed under the latest amendment would be a real nuisance, most FFL's do not employ a professional book keeper just to handle transfer paperwork.

11. I know from personal experience that actual full resolution resolution of a POS/NICS check may take weeks or months. I also know from experience that most denials are in error.

12. SB221 clearly fails the "Reasonable Man" test.
How many average Nevadan's will clearly understand the paragraph on page 18, starting on line 8?
"(c) A transfer of a firearm that is a gift or loan between family members who are related by consanguinity or affinity withing the second degree."
Geneticist and family law practitioners will understand that, I doubt many other do or will.
How many members of this committee could do so right now, without logging on to the internet or grabbing a dictionary?

13. Much of the bill is redundant, attempting to codify in Nevada law what is already covered by Federal law.

14. California has had this sort of mandatory background checks for several years, with a fee capped by law at $35.00.
FFL's there still routinely add "Storage" and other fee's bringing cost to over $100.00 per background check.

15. A few days ago California found it necessary to allocate twelve-million dollars for firearms records correction and updating.

16. As has been demonstrated in Colorado and other states, adopting laws similar to SB221 leads to firearms companies leaving those states, taking jobs and tax revenues with them.
For many companies there is no real choice, as their customer base demands they cease doing business in anti-Second Amendment environment states or face a boycott.
Moving out usually reaps the companies a surge in sales as customers reward their taking a strong stand  in support of an unabridged, un-infringed second amendment.

17. SB221 and related bills have already cost Nevada any chance of landing several million dollars in new Firearms companyJobs/infrastructure investment.
Companies moving out of other states which have passed overly restrictive legislation are now NOT looking to come to Nevada.
Despite our being a (Formerly?) very logical choice due to location and traditionally being very firearm friendly.
We should have gotten Magpul Industries and their three hundred jobs plus millions in tax revenue, to my knowledge we were not even considered!

18. In reading the bill it appears that at least four new forms will have to be created for state agencies and FFL's, that is an unknown expense.

19. Who will provide the forms to the FFL's, in what format, at what expense?
The bill prohibits a fee for the background check, will there be a fee for the form to circumvent that prohibition?

20. As the POS fiscal report confirms, SB221 conflicts with federal law.

21. As an FFL I know that with or without the latest amendment the bill will be a paperwork nightmare.
Having to log transfer firearms into my permanent bound book and be responsible for the secure storage of them would require me to buy additional safes.

21a. Many of these guns are very expensive, I would be liable for any damage, real or imagined.

22. SB221 fails to address what the FFL is to do about records of persons who are denied.
BATFE requires separate record keeping, will the state do the same?
The bill does not say.

22a. ATF requires dealer records be kept for twenty years, SB221 does not address this issue or it's cost to FFL's.

23. It appears clear that even though there is no state private party background fee now, there is nothing to prevent such a fee being imposed later.

24. Using the 40% figure from prior testimony and NV-POS figures is seems clear that the latest proposed amendment ensures that the ratchet effect will impose a fee by the next legislative session.

25. It also appears clear to me that this bill is precursor to universal firearm registration.
The Oboma Justice Department has stated that universal background checks cannot be made to work as intended without prior registration of all new and used firearms.
Registration virtually always ends in confiscation.
The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure a means of last resort for the people to resist an out of control government, setting up the means to rescind that right is the ultimate unconstitutional manifestation of "Infringing" on the second amendment!

26. The public was assured that no anti-Second Amendment votes would be taken until balancing testimony has been taken in response to the three hours of one sided testimony offered during the "Firearms informational hearing".
That opportunity has never materialized.
Only a few sparse minutes have been offered following testimony before other committees.
Those minutes were limited to only a very few speakers, mostly professional lobbyist.

27. I have to say for the record that Senator Jones owes the committee and myself an apology for claiming to have been in contact with me.
He implied that he has tried to work with me for some extended time to address the issues with SB221, that is not true, and I am sincerely offended at his misleading statement.
In truth our only direct conversation has been limited to my asking him after the first SB221 bill hearing if there was any chance he would reconsider the universal background check portion of SB221 and his replying that there was not.

I have offered my contact information and willingness to discuss any firearm related bill at every hearing I have attended.
The ONLY senator to actually engage me in direct conversation of any significant length has been my own senator, James Settlemeyer.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard /SIA
FFL/SOT

Some very good points for sure. I do have a question though. My understanding is that individuals can access the background checks in NV. Even though it is never done I thought we could do it in writing or some such nonsense.

Under current law an individual may ask for and get a background check done for their pending firearm sale at no cost.

Very few do so, SB221 is trying to make it mandatory.

Apparently some dipshits do not know what "for" and "against" mean.

yeah there were a couple of for votes with against comments.

there are a lot of against though 1924 against 66 for

any insight in to this article looks like it was put out before the financial committee hearing I don't recall seeing anything like this.

run the checks through NICS instead of the state system to avoid the cost

http://www.rgj.com/viewart/20130506/NEWS11/305060040/Nevada-bill-instills-universal-background-checks-guns

All the checks should be run through NICs now and save us all money

Fat chance I know

Follow this link to follow the money!

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/FiscalNotes/4183.pdf

It will tell you how much NV-POS admits to making.
Former COP who used to work there claimed there was more that is "Off the books".

The POS fee's are funding DPS, with a surplus.
NV Legislature will NOT want to give up that cash-cow.
If we only went through NICS the legislature would have to make DPS a normal budget item paid for from the general fund.
So in essence gun owners are being singled out to be taxed on their RKBA to pay for DPS.

You would think this should earn us a little more courtesy and gratitude, but it does not.

Checked with my senator, SB221 is kind of in a coma.
It's in "Ways and Means" on life support.
Not dead, not really alive, but could revive and be passed with some sort of legislative Frankenstein type operation.

The best outcome is a clear death, if it lingers without a stake being driven through it's heart THIS session it will certainly rise up again next session to bite us.
There are so many things wrong with it that it should have been burned at the stake weeks ago, but the libs are in control of the asylum in CC.

We need to light some torches and sharpen the pitchforks on this, one more run at the castle should get this monster pitched into the abyss!

Yes, I am finding this session of the legislature to resemble a horror show!

Me too.

I had asked this question before.
Will all the bills that have not passed today the 17th Die a quick and painful death or is Bills like SB221 still able to pass and if so when is the final date that it has to pass before it is dead?

SB221 is exempt from deadlines since it is in the money committee.

So when does this session end? It should Die at the end of the session right?

Unless some dirty last minute tricks are pulled it should be "dead" now, it will be when the session ends in a couple of weeks.

Except that it will not be truly dead since we can expect it to come back to life via being reintroduced next session.
Unless we make an object lesson out of certain persons who have to run for election next year.

Segerblom and Jones would probably be my top picks for returning to the full time civilian sector.
There are others as well, but to succeed we have to pick our battles and not dissipate our strength.

Taking Segerblom and/or Jones out of the equation would send a pro-RKBA message that even such irrational zealots can understand.

If we can give the R's control of one house these sort of bills would be DOA, and never come to vote.
So long as one party controls both houses these sort of attacks on our rights will continue.
A split legislature forces genuine compliance with the rules, two-party compromise kills the outrageous bills before they are even introduced as it's known from the beginning that they would not stand a chance of passage.

And that's the issue right there...

However, my Senator (Kieckhefer) is a complete loss when it comes to firearms issues. And he's a 'R'. He will hear from me again before next election and he won't like what I'll email him.

RGJ, may they burn in hell, is reporting it passed narrowly this morning in the finance committee. WTF? Sandy Hook parents, An Arizonan and some others testified? Im livid.

I think we're fucked on this one.

Private party background checks.

Please explain why any of them testified before the finance committee? I doubt it was on the financial effect.

FUBAR

So what happens now

Shopping spree.

Non-residents should not be allowed in the legislative process, in any state, for any reason.

Thats the way the RGJ read. Pissed me right off.
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- Family members of victims slain by various acts of gun violence across the country converged on Nevada's Capitol Tuesday urging lawmakers to approve universal background checks on gun purchases in the Silver State.

CSers
http://m.rgj.com/latestupdates/article?a=2013305210064&f=1304

This is absolute Bull Sh*T!!!!!

Write the Senate. Urgent even MORE now. Daily, weekly, let your friends know.

I believe this was "some dirty last minute tricks" to which you refer.  What a bunch of carp.

Where can I find the most current text or PDF of this bill? Can someone help with a link please

!!!!!!!

I wanted to go this morning, but had very short notice, only learned of the hearing last night.

Looks like I SHOULD have gone, might have gotten thrown out when this BS started, but as those who have seen me speak know, I do not mince words!
This is a CROCK, all the bleeding heart BS in the world does not change the FACTS of this one iota.
If you cannot win with logic, bring in the out of state professional weepers and mourners!
Emotional drivel over sense, ignore the conflicts with Fed. law, ignore the budget impact, compel FFL's to be your unpaid servants!   >>>>>>>>>>>>>!

Funny how Amanda Collins tribulations can be ignored and the relevant bill denied a vote, but we are supposed to fall over ourselves in the rush to be impressed with THIS drivel? (Insert major COC violation here!)

The above is pretty much what I am sending my reps, the hypocrisy here is thick and heavy enough to shovel!

Damn... time to fight harder than ever, don't give up now.

This really is some feel-good liberal bullshit.