Posted: 2/22/2011 10:13:02 AM EDT
|
Okay, let's try to stay on topic and keep the discussion relevant to the topics.
Here is a partial list if RKBA bills and drafts that need our support and attention. SB 171 adds knives of ever shortening length to the list of items prohibited in defense free victim zones. SB176 Constitutional carry and blue card elimination! No chance in hell of getting past the NVSCA and Gillespie, but we can make them fucking hear us this session! AB143 CCW streamlining and privacy addressed. SB126 CCW streamlining in the Senate. Hopefully, these two will be merged and come out the other end as a useful product and not manure. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Opinion/76th2011/Poll/ Go here and register your opinion on each bill so the legislators can hear our voices. Anything that was missed can be added to this post. Please jump in and let's get what we deserve out if this session. |
|
RE S.B. 171
I remember when this crap nearly passed a few sessions back. It was attached to our CCW Bill. It was a pet project of the LV Cops, they wanted another law that would allow them to charge almost anyone. The previous "Dangerous Weapons" statute had been struck down by the court for being too damn vague. At the last possible moment some legislator noticed that if it passed THEIR pocket knife would be illegal (I think it was Sen. Jacobsen), so the bill was amended on the spot to allow a longer blade. Another legislator took out his knife, Oh Schidt, his knife would still be illegal! So another amendment! This was repeated a few times over. If you look at the Nevada CCW law you will see the solution, the final amendment made it illegal to carry a concealed MACHETE! I wonder if we will ever see another session where such a practical solution will be found? For some reason the legislature was incapable of simply deleting the offending section, guess it's impossible to simply refuse the cops demands outright. |
|
Quoted:
Clarification on SB171? Doesn't look like anything I'd support... Edit: Richard SIA beat me to the post; stilkl doesn't look good to me. I don't believe GM is saying we should support SB171, but that it comes under the heading of RKBA and needs our attention. 
MF |
|
RE S.B. 171
Link to PDF of text, http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/SB/SB171.pdf It's more KALIFORNICATION! 2" blade limit, outlaws having camping gear on school property, etc. Of course it brings back the "any other deadly (undefined) weapon" bs. |
|
S.B. 126
Got an answer from Sen. James Settelmeyer. "Wordsmithing, while his arguments may make it better, it risks its failure. I am told it will likely be on the next work session. So lets keep our fingers crossed. Once we get it out of committee then we need to push the folks on the floor to let it pass". |
|
Quoted:
RE S.B. 171 Link to PDF of text, http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/SB/SB171.pdf It's more KALIFORNICATION! 2" blade limit, outlaws having camping gear on school property, etc. Of course it brings back the "any other deadly (undefined) weapon" bs. We need to oppose this faggotry |
|
Need to bump this to the top, or make it a sticky.
LOTS going on! S.B. 126 CCW streamlining in the Senate. Next hearing, 3/3/11, 8:00 AM, Room 2149 S.B. 176 Constitutional carry and blue card elimination. Nothing scheduled, looks like we will have to demand it be scheduled or it may die in committee. A.B. 8, Castle Doctrine. No news. One way the legislature kills bills is to just ignore them until the end of the session. This is called "Died in committee" A.B. 143 CCW streamlining and privacy addressed. Hearing TOMORROW! Monday morning, 2/28/11, Room 3138, 9:00 AM |
|
Just got back from the A.B. 143 hearing.
Assemblyman Bobzien introduced the bill and introduced the first supporting witnesses. The room was pretty crowded with supporters. Eagle Forum, IAP, and other lobbyist were present. This was my first time attending the Assembly Judiciary Committee since we got rid of Bernie (Butthole) Anderson. The new chairman appears to be much better, not that that would be hard. 
The only ones opposing passage of this bill were the presstitutes, they had "No position" on the semi-auto carry portion of the bill. They are adamant that we should be liable to having our names published at their whim. I have to give the committee compliments, they and the chairman seemed unimpressed with the media lobbyist assertion that the public "Needs to know" who has or has had a CCW. A motion to pass was made and seconded, the bill was set to pass today, BUT! At the last moment one of the assemblymen brought up his noticing an amendment that had been requested by the NACJ. The "Do Pass" motion was withdrawn, the bill has been continued to a later hearing! This really irks me, after some effort I was able to locate the text of the proposed amendment, and just who the hell the NACJ are. I feel the proponents of the amendment (NACJ) should have been present, or the amendment should have been discarded on the spot. Support for this bill is overwhelming. NACJ is Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice http://www.nacj.org/ Their proposed amendment would go to the very last line of the bill/current law. It reads, "or released in response to a subpoena issued in a CIVIL or criminal proceeding. The red word, "CIVIL" is my highlight, they are looking for for the same thing as the presstitutes, a means to sensationalize and exploit CCW holders. Criminal subpoena is already covered in the current statute. I suggest as many of us as possible contact the committee to ask the bill be passed AS WRITTEN, without the ambulance chaser amendment. I find it insulting that some lawyer group can (e)mail in a request for an amendment, not even bother to show up to testify, and still cause the bill to be delayed. If I think about this lawyers favoritism crap too long, I may have to withdraw my compliments to the committee! |
|
Im trying to keep track of this and post as much as I can on my blog.
No meetings are yet scheduled for SB176. Urge the cmte chair to schedule a hearing! We need to get to work on this, voice support, CONTACT these people. A few minutes of our time can make a huge difference if we all get on it. Don't let good bills die in committee. Senate Judiciary Committee: Wiener, Valerie E-mail Address(es): [email protected] Department: Leg Bldg Rm 1219 Office: 775-684-1422 Phone: 702-871-6536 Notes: D, Clark no 3 Chair, Senate Judiciary Cmte Copening, Allison E-mail Address(es): [email protected] Department: Leg Bldg Rm 2129 Office: 775-684-1475 Notes: D-Clark, No. 6 Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary Cmte Breeden, Shirley E-mail Address(es): [email protected] Department: Leg Bldg Rm 2126 Office: 775-684-1457 Notes: D, Clark Co no 5 Gustavson, Don E-mail Address(es): [email protected] Leg Bldg Rm 2104 Office: 775-684-1480 Notes: Washoe County Senatorial District #2 Kihuen, Ruben E-mail Address(es): [email protected] Leg Bldg Rm 2124 Office: 775-684-1427 Notes: D, Clark no 10 McGinness, Mike E-mail Address(es): [email protected] Leg Bldg Rm 2160 Office: 775-684-1442 Notes: LCB (775) 684-1442, LCB office number 2131 R, Central NV Senatorial District, Senate Minority Leader Roberson, Michael E-mail Address(es): [email protected] Leg Bldg Rm 2103 Office: 775-684-1481 Notes: R, Clark no 5 |
|
I never did find a handy link, but I did put this list together.
This is the list of assembly judiciary committee members and their contact information. Assembly Judiciary - 76th (2011) Session Regular Meetings in Room 3138 at 8 a.m. Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. •William Horne - Chair, (Party) Democratic (District) No. 34 2251 North Rampart Boulevard, No. 357 Las Vegas, NV 89128-7640(Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8847 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 3127(Home) 702-457-6963 (Fax) (Cell) (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •James Ohrenschall - Vice Chair, (Party) Democratic (District) No. 12 P.O. Box 97741 Las Vegas, NV 89193-7741 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8819 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 3128 (Home) 702-432-6999 (Fax) (Cell) 702-523-4766 (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Steven Brooks (Party) Democratic (District) No.19 6007 Turtle River Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89156-4791(Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8569 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 3159 (Home) 702-987-1820 (Fax) 702-987-1820 (Cell) (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Richard Carrillo, (Party) Democratic (District) No. 18 Biography 4819 Diza Court Las Vegas, NV 89122-7574(Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8801 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 3125(Home) 702-273-8786 (Fax) (Cell) (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Skip Daly, (Party) Democratic (District) No. 31 2180 4th Street Sparks, NV 89431-2201 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8563 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 4105(Home) 775-359-0731 (Fax) (Cell) 775-722-6534 (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Olivia Diaz, (Party) Democratic (District) No. 11 P.O. Box 365072 North Las Vegas, NV 89036-9072 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8553 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 4122 (Home) 702-501-8994 (Fax) (Cell) (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Marilyn Dondero Loop, (Party) Democratic (District) No. 5 3724 Emerald Bay Circle Las Vegas, NV 89147-6816 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8833 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 3119 (Home) (Fax) 702-240-7995 (Cell) 702-556-0224 (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Jason Frierson, Party) Democratic (District) No. 8 P.O. Box 31623 Las Vegas, NV 89173-1623 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8537 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 3134 (Home) (Fax) (Cell) 702-280-2981 (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Tick Segerblom, (Party) Democratic (District) No. 9 700 South Third Street Las Vegas, NV 89101-6703 (Wk) 702-388-9600 (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8549 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 4109( Home) (Fax) 702-385-2909 (Cell) (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Scott Hammond, (Party) Republican (District) No. 13 8408 Gracious Pine Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89143-4608 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8853 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 4111 (Home) 702-523-9055 (Fax) (Cell) (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) shammond@asm •Ira Hansen, (Party) Republican (District) No. 32 68 Amigo Court Sparks, NV 89441-6213 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8851 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 3156 (Home) (Fax) 775-322-8889 (Cell) 775-221-2502 (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Kelly Kite, (Party) Republican (District) No. 39 P.O. Box 2251 Minden, NV 89423-2251 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8843 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 4121 (Home) (Fax) (Cell) 775-450-6962 (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Richard McArthur, (Party) Republican (District) No. 4 4640 Panoramic Court Las Vegas, NV 89129-1617 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8829 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 4123 (Home) 702-396-1065 (Fax) (Cell) (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] •Mark Sherwood, (Party) Republican (District) No. 21 2397 Brockton Way Henderson, NV 89074-5462 (Wk) (Leg. Bldg.) 775-684-8839 (Leg. Bldg. Room) 4104 (Home) 702-624-6600 (Fax) 702-933-5801 (Cell) 702-624-6600 (Term ends) Nov. 2012 (EMail) [email protected] Please submit all documents in support of your testimony electronically to [email protected]. See the agenda for specific submission deadline. |
|
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anyone mention AB185, be sure to support it as it would repeal the firearms ban in Nevada State Parks.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Opinion/76th2011/poll/ |
|
A.B. 185
Introduced in the Assembly on Feb 17, 2011. By: (Bolded name indicates primary sponsorship) Goedhart, Goicoechea, Hambrick, Hansen, Hardy, Kirner, McArthur, Stewart, Woodbury, Cegavske, Halseth, Roberson Revises provisions governing the possession and use of firearms in state parks. (BDR 35-358) Fiscal Notes Effect on Local Government: No. Effect on State: No. Most Recent History Action: (See full list below)From printer. To committee. Upcoming Hearings - None scheduled. Past Hearings Final Passage Votes Bill Text As Introduced Bill History Feb 17, 2011 Read first time. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To printer. Feb 18, 2011 From printer. To committee. |
|
Quoted:
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anyone mention AB185, be sure to support it as it would repeal the firearms ban in Nevada State Parks. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Opinion/76th2011/poll/ Looks like a good thing... mimics the Federal National Parks carry bill. Copy of text below... red text is the new, added language. "2. Any regulations relating to the conduct of persons within the 11 park or recreational facilities must: 12 (a) Be directed toward one or both of the following: 13 (1) Prevention of damage to or misuse of the facility. 14 (2) Promotion of the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the 15 people of this State through the preservation and use of the facility. 16 (b) Apply separately to each park, monument or recreational 17 area and be designed to fit the conditions existing at that park, 18 monument or recreational area. 19 (c) Not establish restrictions on the possession or discharge of 20 firearms within the park or recreational facility which are more 21 restrictive than the laws of this State relating to: 22 (1) The possession or discharge of firearms; or 23 (2) Engaging in lawful resistance to prevent an offense 24 against a person or property. 25 Any regulation which violates the provisions of this paragraph 26 is void. |
|
Quoted:
S.B. 126 CCW streamlining in the Senate. Next hearing TOMORROW, 3/3/11, 8:00 AM, Room 2149 This is the hearing where we want to see the bill pass out of committee. We need support, but no more amendments that may further delay the bill. Eager to hear how this went today. |
|
S.B. 126 was PASSED by the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning!
NO amendments. That is the good news. This does NOT mean we have won, there are still some issues to be resolved, and some heavy lobbying to be done. I will write up a more detailed report later. |
|
Quoted:
S.B. 126 was PASSED by the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning! NO amendments. That is the good news. This does NOT mean we have won, there are still some issues to be resolved, and some heavy lobbying to be done. I will write up a more detailed report later. Excellent. Thanks for keeping us up to date. |
|
Quoted:
Yes we do, but I'm not sure we can get it past our Casino masters. Tourist who gamble are sacred here, ANYTHING that might spook a New York granny into complaining is going to be damn hard! People already carry in NV... not sure why the fuck granny would care whether the person CCW-ing has a plastic card issued by previously referenced masters or not ? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes we do, but I'm not sure we can get it past our Casino masters. Tourist who gamble are sacred here, ANYTHING that might spook a New York granny into complaining is going to be damn hard! People already carry in NV... not sure why the fuck granny would care whether the person CCW-ing has a plastic card issued by previously referenced masters or not ? And you know this can't be LOGICAL! It's not what the granny actually sees and does, it's what the Casino's "Feel" might offend. They are very proud of their power, and clearly like to use it. |
|
Casinos are welcome to post "no open carry" signs, or "no ccw" as they please; constitutional carry of lack of blue cards won't take away property owner's rights.
Most (many?) of us know not to scare the tourists; they pay our state tax for us, so I want them to feel comfy while they make their donations. Keith |
|
Whatta ya know, NRA came through with notice of another RKBA related Nevada bill!
It was stuck in my SPAM filter, or I would have posted it earlier. A new measure introduced by Assemblyman John Ellison (R-33), Assembly Bill 217 (A.B. 217) <http://www.nramedia.org/t/41044/6795890/2197/0/>, is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee on Monday, March 7. AB 217 is a much-needed economic shot in the arm for Nevada's Federal Firearms Licensees in that it would allow residents of non-contiguous states to purchase long guns in Nevada. In addition, it would allow Nevada residents to purchase long guns from non-contiguous states. This would bring Nevada in line with the protections provided by the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, which allows the interstate sale of long guns by federally licensed firearms dealers.* Please contact members of the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee TODAY and urge them to support this important measure!* Contact information for this committee can be found here <http://www.nramedia.org/t/41044/6795890/2198/0/>. |
|
Quoted:
Whatta ya know, NRA came through with notice of another RKBA related Nevada bill! It was stuck in my SPAM filter, or I would have posted it earlier. A new measure introduced by Assemblyman John Ellison (R-33), Assembly Bill 217 (A.B. 217) <http://www.nramedia.org/t/41044/6795890/2197/0/>, is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee on Monday, March 7. AB 217 is a much-needed economic shot in the arm for Nevada's Federal Firearms Licensees in that it would allow residents of non-contiguous states to purchase long guns in Nevada. In addition, it would allow Nevada residents to purchase long guns from non-contiguous states. This would bring Nevada in line with the protections provided by the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, which allows the interstate sale of long guns by federally licensed firearms dealers.* Please contact members of the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee TODAY and urge them to support this important measure!* Contact information for this committee can be found here <http://www.nramedia.org/t/41044/6795890/2198/0/>. Did we not have this right already? For example, buy a rifle off gunbroker, have it shipped to local FFL? I'm confused on this one. |
|
As I read this, it relates to face to face transactions and visitors.
It seems Nevada statute conflicts with Fed. Since this Nevada statute is not well known some transactions have possibly occurred under the Fed. guidelines. So FFL's and others may be unintentionally breaking the Nevada law. This "Should" be a simple revision, but nothing can be taken for granted. |
|
This is my more detailed report on S.B. 126 I promised earlier.
I slept on it to ensure I did not allow my anger to prejudice my report. I still find it accurate to the best of my knowledge, so here it is. S.B. 126 was PASSED by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning! NO amendments. That is the good news. This does NOT mean we have won, there are still some issues to be resolved, and some heavy lobbying to be done. The problem now is that A.B. 143 does not have identical language. A.B. 143 also has an additional provision to protect the privacy of CCW holders. The prestitiutes are determined to mine CCW holder information to create sensationalized stories, to impugn the reputations of candidates (Mr. X is running for school board, and HAS A CCW PERMIT, think of the children!), etc. They are shameless in taking advantage of their position as publishers to push their agenda on the sheeple. So much for a "Fair and unbiased" media! We need to counter this, letters to the editor*, call in to talk radio, letters to our senators and assembly, etc. Another critical (back door) issue. L.E. (NSCA) is attempting to use the CCW legislation to sneakily create NEW LEGISLATION by stealth! They are pushing for an amendment requiring that the person carrying a firearm must "OWN" it The language that is being proposed is not clear, it conflicts with other lines of the bill. The NSCA proposed amendment IS likely to kill the entire bill as it sets up a conflict between the intended purpose of the bill supported by the public, and the (NSCA) attempt to create a new chargeable offense. Clearly, when cops claim "We don't write the laws, we just enforce them", they are lying, their lobbyist have inordinate influence on legislation! Am I the only one who sees a clear conflict of interest in allowing the cops to write the laws they will enforce? What they are trying to do now is create a situation where if someone has a firearm without the permission of a spouse, parent, room-mate, etc. and the owner of record does not want to press charges, the cops can press charges anyway. This seems to be another example of Clark County trying to control the entire state. In all other counties there is NO GUN REGISTRATION, so no "record" of who owns a particular firearm. Any actual criminal misuse of a firearm is already well covered by current NRS, CCW holder or not. As I see it, this is either unacceptable "mission creep" or a ploy to kill the bill while publicly claiming to support it. I believe we want A.B. 126 and S.B. 143 to both be passed WITHOUT any amendments. I want the reconciliation bill to use S.B. 126 language with the privacy provision added or retained from A.B. 143. If we are forced to sacrifice the privacy provision in order to win passage of the main bill, I want the presstitutes responsible to go bankrupt, they are morally bankrupt already. 
* After submitting your letter, wait three days and call the newspaper asking to confirm it was recieved. This GREATLY increases the chance that it will be published! |
|
SB-176 (Constitutional Carry) referred to Senate Judiciary Cmte. Perhaps this "cut/paste" list will make it easier:
Senate Judiciary Committee: Valerie Wiener - Chair Allison Copening – Vice Chair Shirley A. Breeden Ruben J. Kihuen Mike McGinness Don Gustavson Michael Roberson Email addresses: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Please urge Chair Wiener to schedule a hearing for SB-176. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––- http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Reports/history.cfm?ID=515 There is a companion bill in the Assembly to go along with SB176, it is AB231 PLEASE urge the Asm Jud Cmte Chairman, Asm William Horne, to schedule a hearing for AB-231. Assembly Judiciary Committee William C. Horne - Chair James Ohrenschall – Vice Chair Steven Brooks Richard Carrillo Richard (Skip) Daly Olivia Diaz Marilyn Dondero Loop Jason Frierson Tick Segerblom Scott Hammond Ira Hansen Kelly Kite Richard McArthur Mark Sherwood Email addresses: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] If your legislator(s) are not co-sponsors, please urge them to become co-sponsors. Cast your 'vote' and type an optional supportive opinion at http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Opinion/76th2011/Poll/ |
|
Many of you guys may already be members of this forum I am linking to but there is some VERY good information here.
http://www.nevadashooters.com/showthread.php?p=157469&posted=1#post157469 You might have to be registered there to see this thread, not sure... |
|
A.B. 217, hearing 3/7/11, Room 4100, 1:30 PM
Also room 4406 at the Grant Sawyer state office building. This measure would bring Nevada into line with federal law regarding interstate sales of firearms. It actually increases our freedom by a small measure, a rare thing! http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Agendas/Assembly/CMC/Final/425.pdf Bill text, http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB217.pdf |
|
A.B. 205 – Revises provisions concerning carrying of concealed firearms, 8:00 am, Tuesday March 8, Assembly Judiciary, Room 3138 (Room 4401 Las Vegas)
This bill allows members of the armed forces aged 18 or over to obtain a CCW permit, increases the fee for permit renewal and eliminates the requirement for a competency exam for renewal. The bill has bipartisan sponsorship. Bill Info:https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/App#/Bill/Overview/AB205 |
    Quoted:
increases the fee for permit renewal
Another damn sheriff's poison pill? They DO seem to be trying to slip them into every RKBA bill! Publicly they are "Supporting" us, but their behind the scenes maneuvers (contrary amendments) seem to discredit that claim.
At some point, probably very soon, we are going to have to make a loud and strong stand in support of our RKBA bills as introduced. The session is 1/4 over, bills are now moving to "Work Session's" and passage, or dying in committee without a floor vote. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
increases the fee for permit renewal
Another damn sheriff's poison pill? They DO seem to be trying to slip them into every RKBA bill! Publicly they are "Supporting" us, but their behind the scenes maneuvers (contrary amendments) seem to discredit that claim.
Regarding the portion of the bill that would eliminate competency exams on renewal: wouldnt that portion take us even farther away from regaining our CCW NICS exemption? At some point, probably very soon, we are going to have to make a loud and strong stand in support of our RKBA bills as introduced. The session is 1/4 over, bills are now moving to "Work Session's" and passage, or dying in committee without a floor vote. |
|
Regarding the portion of the bill that would eliminate competency exams on renewal: wouldnt that portion take us even farther away from regaining our CCW NICS exemption?
No, the NICS exemption ONLY applies/applied to those who have a formal CCW permit and who were subjected to a fresh background check at renewal, no more than every five years apart. I do not recall ever seeing a demand from BATFE that a competency test be required to retain the NICS exemption. For Constitutional Carry, no formal "Permit", no NICS exemption. I see a formal permit as being handy for reciprocity, but if you do not travel, you really should not need it. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––- It appears the following bills are being denied their due process, no hearings have been scheduled. A.B. 8 A.B. 185 A.B. 231 S.B. 176 Each is overwhelmingly popular, each is pro-RKBA. I have sent an email to my assemblyman and senator who sit on the appropriate Judiciary Committee's asking that these bills be scheduled for a hearing. I would like to ask that all who read this thread do the same. I will report back from the A.B. 217 hearing this evening. |
|
A.B. 217 was heard in the Committee on Commerce and Labor today.
It has a LOT of support, twenty-four cosponsors out the door. It is a "minor" RKBA bill, it just removes a small section of Nevada law which conflicts with the Fed. law, NRS 597.910 There was no testimony in opposition, even the ACLU supported this bill. The bill would have been passed today if it had not been last on the schedule and the committee had not lost it's quorum. Once passed in the full legislature and signed by Governor Sandoval FFL's will be able to sell long guns locally to out of state residents as allowed under Fed. law. Currently they are limited to NV and residents of contiguous states. |
|
While at the legislature I enquired as to why several RKBA bills have not been scheduled for a hearing yet.
The answer is partisan politics, of course. Since the D's control both houses, most republican bills are being delayed as long as possible. The way to counter this is for all supporters of these bills to contact the committee chairs asking that the bills be heard as quickly as possible. We need early hearings to prevent the bills failing due to time running out. |
|
A.B. 143, second hearing, 3/11/11 9:00 AM, room 3138.
This pro-RKBA bill nearly passed at it's first hearing, until some ambulance chaser lawyers and the presstitutes got their panties in a wad and demanded amendments that would undercut the whole point of the privacy provision. We need a major turn out this time around in order to bury the lawyers and "Unbiased media" with our support.
May we please have more than two or three L.V. people show up at the Grant Sawyer building to support us? L.V. has so much of the states population, many of the committee members are from L.V., we REALLY need the L.V. / Henderson guys to turn out for this! The meeting starts at 9:00, A.B. 143 is the sixth item on the agenda. Items are USUALLY taken in order, but the chair may take them out of order at his discretion in the interest of efficiency. (Getting legislators and lobbyist testimony in time for them to make other hearings). We need to be sure the bill passes this time, PLEASE attend if at all possible, if not PLEASE send in testimony supporting the bill via email. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Opinion/76th2011/poll/ |
|
Update on A.B. 205 – Revises provisions concerning the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms.
Existing law requires holders of CCW permits to be 21 years of age. This bill allows members of the armed forces aged 18 or over to obtain a CCW permit, increases the fee for permit renewal and eliminates the requirement for a competency exam for renewal. Sponsors: Hickey, Hansen, Bobzien, Anderson. Co-sponsors: Ellison, Goicoechea, Hambrick, Kirner, Kite, Livermore, Smith, Stewart, Woodbury A.B. 205 was originally scheduled for hearing on March 8, but has been removed from the agenda. No alternate hearing date has been scheduled. Bill Info: https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/App#/Bill/Overview/AB205 I will try to find out what happened, and what we may want to do about it! |
|
UPDATE, A.B. 205 and A.B. 143
A.B. 143 The Friday hearing will be a "Work Session". A typical work session does not take much comment from the public, if any. It IS necessary that the bill sponsor be there, the paid lobbyist also usually attend as the committee may ask questions. Additional supporters being present cannot hurt, but a large crowd should not be necessary at this meeting. I plan to attend, and will relate a first-hand report. We WILL need a large crowd once the bill moves to the other house, and is being combined with S.B. 126 and other RKBA bills. A.B. 205 Was "Pulled" due to "concerns with the bill language". It IS expected to return at a later date, hopefully without the feculent fee increase! |
|
S.B. 126
Introduced in the Senate on Feb 04, 2011. By: (Bolded name indicates primary sponsorship) Settelmeyer, Lee, Revises certain provisions relating to permits to carry concealed firearms. (BDR 15-335) Fiscal Notes Effect on Local Government: No. Effect on State: No. Most Recent History Action: (See full list below)Read third time. Passed. Title approved. (Yeas: 21, Nays: None.) To Assembly. Upcoming Hearings Past Hearings Senate Judiciary Feb. 16, 2011 08:00 AM No Action Senate Judiciary Mar. 03, 2011 08:00 AM Do pass Final Passage Votes Senate Final Passage (As Introduced) Mar. 10 Yea 21, Nay 0, Excused 0, Not Voting 0, Absent 0 Bill Text As Introduced Bill History Feb 04, 2011 Prefiled. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To printer. Feb 07, 2011 From printer. Read first time. To committee. Mar 07, 2011 From committee: Do pass. Mar 09, 2011 Read second time. Mar 10, 2011 Read third time. Passed. Title approved. (Yeas: 21, Nays: None.) To Assembly. Friday morning should be the final committee hearing an A.B. 143. If it also passes the bills will have to be combined in conference before the entire legislature can pass a final bill. I am surprised S.B. 126 moved so fast from Judiciary to senate passage, unanimous too! |
|
A.B. 143 passed the assembly judiciary committee this morning (3/11/11) WITHOUT any amendments, and with the privacy provision intact.
Kelly Kite made a statement for the record that he feels the bill does not go far enough, that we should simply issue CCW's that do not specify the type of firearm permitted. I noticed that the Mr. Brown who was the only opponent of the bill during it's first hearing was present, he did not look happy. 
A.B. 143 now moves to the full assembly for ratification, hopefully that will also go smoothly. If it passes the full assembly A.B. 143 will have to be reconciled in conference with S.B. 126 before the the entire legislature can pass a final bill. The combined bill is probably where WE will have to make ourselves heard, this is when the opposition will make their big push to kill the bill. |