Link

Thier you go hot linked it for you. BTW this sucks ass.

BATFE NV CCW

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Director
Washington, DC 20226
May 30, 2008
OPEN LETTER TO ALL NEVADA FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of an important change to the procedure you must
follow beginning July 1, 2008 in order to comply with the Brady Law,
18 U.S.C. § 922(t).
Beginning July 1, 2008, Nevada’s Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permits will no longer
qualify as an alternative to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check
through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Please note that this change also applies to
pawn transactions. The change is discussed in detail below.
BACKGROUND
The permanent provisions of the Brady Law took effect on November 30, 1998. The Brady Law
generally requires licensed dealers to initiate a NICS background check through the FBI (or the
State in a Point of Contact State) before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed individual.
However, the Brady Law contains a few exceptions to the NICS check requirement, including an
exception for holders of certain State permits to possess, carry, or acquire firearms. The law and
implementing regulations provide that permits issued within the past 5 years qualify as
alternatives to the NICS check if certain other requirements are satisfied. Most importantly, the
authority issuing the permit must conduct a NICS background check and must deny a permit to
anyone prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal, State, or local law.
In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) sent an Open Letter to
all Nevada Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) advising them that the Nevada carry concealed
weapons permit would qualify as an alternative to the background check required under the
Brady Law. ATF’s recognition of these permits as a Brady alternative was based on the fact that
Nevada conducted background checks through NICS prior to the issuance or renewal of these
permits, and denied a permit to anyone prohibited under Federal, State, or local law.
In March 2004, ATF began a review of all States that had permits that qualified as NICS check
alternatives to determine if they still qualified. In May 2005, we informed Nevada State officials
that Nevada no longer met the qualifications. Nevada was not able to adequately address the
deficiencies of the Nevada CCW permit in meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements for
qualifying as a NICS alternative.
- 2 -
Accordingly, on October 17, 2005, we sent an open letter to Nevada FFLs stating that effective
October 19, 2005, the CCW permit no longer qualified as a NICS check alternative.
Subsequently, the Nevada Department of Public Safety and the Nevada County Sheriffs entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding addressing the Nevada CCW shortcomings in qualifying
as a NICS alternative. This Memorandum of Understanding was accepted by ATF as an interim
measure until the shortcomings in qualifying as a NICS alternative could be remedied by the
Nevada State Legislature in 2007 session. Accordingly, on January 5, 2006, we sent an Open
Letter to Nevada FFLs stating that the Nevada CCW permit again qualified as a NICS check
alternative.
The Nevada State Legislature did not enact laws in the 2007 session necessary to remedy the
shortcomings of the Nevada CCW permit in qualifying as a NICS check alternative.
Specifically, the carry concealed weapons permit can no longer qualify as an alternative to the
background check required by the Brady Law.
HOW THIS AFFECTS FFLS
Beginning July 1, 2008, a NICS check must be conducted before transferring a firearm to an
unlicensed person, even if the unlicensed person has a Nevada carry concealed weapon permit.
Because Nevada is a NICS Point-of-Contact State, you will contact the Nevada Department of
Public Safety, rather than the FBI, to conduct this check.
We hope that your transition to this new procedure on July 1, 2008, will not be an inconvenience.
As always, we thank you for your cooperation.
Audrey Stucko
Acting Assistant Director
(Enforcement Programs and Services)

Aww WTF.

What did the bozos fuck up now?

Stupid question I know, Could we us the UT permits in place of NV for NICS checks?

son of a bitch....

Quoted: Stupid question I know, Could we us the UT permits in place of NV for NICS checks?

If you lived in UT and were buying a gun there...sure

Not os sure about the UT aspect, but if the UT permit complies with the NICS check, there should be no reason why it wouldn't be permitted.

Sure, try telling that to a NV FFL when you're buying a gun as an NV resident.  Hilarity ensues.

What happened this time?

Quoted: What happened this time?

Yeah that was my question. It doesn't really say what wasn't addressed by the legislator.  Last time it had something to do with Sheriffs up north giving away permits to their cronies or something.

As mentioned above, I wonder if an out-of-state resident CCW would qualify.  Looks like the UT permit is accepted...

www.atf.gov/firearms/bradylaw/permit_chart.htm

height=8

Quoted: Not os sure about the UT aspect, but if the UT permit complies with the NICS check, there should be no reason why it wouldn't be permitted.

One would think, BUT we can't have that.

did some searching and it looks like the purchase has to take place in the state that issued the permit, didn't find anything about residence.

Junk!

Quoted: As mentioned above, I wonder if an out-of-state resident CCW would qualify.  Looks like the UT permit is accepted... www.atf.gov/firearms/bradylaw/permit_chart.htm

If you are a Nevada resident then the state does not allow you to use an out of state CCW for carry or purchase.

I was looking for a reason to not work the Gunshow doing background checks and go camping up north next month. This looks like a damn good reason!

DAMMIT!

After all these years I finally relented and got a CCW so I WOULDNT have to pay that crap!

I've only bought one gun with it. I just wasted 100.25.

Not to be a harbinger of doom, but it won't change back anytime soon, we've been working on an LEO exemption for a long time, and there's no light at the end of this tunnel.

DAMMIT!

Saw this today at work

Is there any way to find out why this happened?
This is the same thing that happened in Alaska

Well there's no way to change this currently; these dumbshits at the ATF have made up their minds. So which State politicians do we need to yell at in order to get the laws changed so the NV permit DOES meet the ATF's absurd levels of "compliance"?

Good. Glad to know that in these trying times, when guys like myself are suffering from extremely high gas prices, less tourism generated income, a retarded half-measure smoking ban that targets only small businesses and just a generally weak economy, that if i were to scratch up enough cake to buy a new gun,  get to pay an extra .guv tax to secure, it, despite having fulfilled all of the other bullshit needed to carry CCW.
Thanks for the assist, assholes.
Insert flaming boot flying into rectum icon here!

ETA: Can someone please dig up the relevant info on the NSCA so we can begin a truly momentous NVHTF firemission on these incapable fucks?! I am sure it comes back to the local yokel who isn't doing routine background checks or some such bullshit, and the thin blue administrative line of these guys backing each other no matter how assinine.
We will have to lean on the legislators also.

TAG for a fire mission...WTF

Quoted: Not to be a harbinger of doom, but it won't change back anytime soon, we've been working on an LEO exemption for a long time, and there's no light at the end of this tunnel.

Sorry to say so, but good.  It seems like every time a "LEO exemption" (to whatever stupid gun law) gets passed, the rest of us end up with our rights reduced, and the Sheriffs & Chiefs Assn (etc) is all too willing to back the wrong side and keep it that way.

Nothing personal LVMPDawg - I am sure it isn't you.

I would like to know why the ATF continues to exist?  They serve no real purpose in Federal LE that isn't already handled by the FBI.

Quoted: I would like to know why the ATF continues to exist?  They serve no real purpose in Federal LE that isn't already handled by the FBI.

Oh come on now, isn't it totally cool to have an alphabet soup .org that deals in booze, bombs, bullets and blunts?

This was a couple years ago, but back in Washington State, no one had to pay for the NICS check when buying a gun.

Is Nevada charging because the check is done via a Nevada agency if I read right above?

Yeah, NV charges for the privilege. Don't remember how much as it's been a few years since I bought a new gun without the benefit of the permit.

ETA: It looks like the fee is $25 according to this guy.

Quoted: I would like to know why the ATF continues to exist?  They serve no real purpose in Federal LE that isn't already handled by the FBI.

+1

Quoted: I would like to know why the ATF continues to exist?  They serve no real purpose in Federal LE that isn't already handled by the FBI.

I know there's a good deal of frustration in this thread regarding the ATF, but this comment is a bit...weird.  Are you really claiming that the FBI already goes around collecting excise taxes on various goods, even though Title 26 of the USC doesn't give them the authority to do so?

C'mon guys, I know there is no love for the ATF, but apparently someone on the local Nevada side screwed this one up, even after being given a couple years to straighten it out.  Put the blame where it belongs.

Quoted: Quoted: Not to be a harbinger of doom, but it won't change back anytime soon, we've been working on an LEO exemption for a long time, and there's no light at the end of this tunnel. Sorry to say so, but good.  It seems like every time a "LEO exemption" (to whatever stupid gun law) gets passed, the rest of us end up with our rights reduced, and the Sheriffs & Chiefs Assn (etc) is all too willing to back the wrong side and keep it that way. Nothing personal LVMPDawg - I am sure it isn't you.

It appears to be the other way around. CCW holders had the exemption, which prompted me to get one.

What we need to change is the fact that Nevada charges a fee period.

We should be able to call the FBI directly instead of the state police. There should not be any fee to do the nics check ccw or not.

Quoted: What we need to change is the fact that Nevada charges a fee period. We should be able to call the FBI directly instead of the state police. There should not be any fee to do the nics check ccw or not.

That's a good point, but taking away money from the .gov elicits the same results as taking candy from a kid.

Quoted: What we need to change is the fact that Nevada charges a fee period. We should be able to call the FBI directly instead of the state police. There should not be any fee to do the nics check ccw or not.

Bingo!!  As I have said in the past and got in arguments with you guys before, Good!!!

Maybe if EVERYONE fights to remove the fee we can get it done, as it was, anyone with a ccw didn't give a fuck what kind of fee they charged. I bet you do now

Now we are on to the meat of the subject.
If I remember correctly, the last time we lost the exemption, it was based on the fact that the ATF was counting on local permit issuers to run regular/yearly background checks on those who have been issued CCWs. The idea being that if they just run us through every now and then, nothing slips through the cracks and we get to skip the NICS.  I believe DCSO Sheriff Ron Perini was heard to voice the opinion that it wasn't cost effective and didn't affect a significant portion of the public, so it wasn't really that important (this is 3rd hand, from a conversation Rich Brengman of Special Interest Arms had with him). After we managed to get enough troops to make a stink, they relented and acted in a manner most butt-hurt. The NSCA never seems to act as a friend to CCW holders. Their puppet (Bernie Anderson) scuttled our bills in the last session, now we are back where we were a few years ago, simply because it's just too much work for LEOs (and as usual, I mean the admin. ASSHOLES, not the rank and file) to do their damn job. After reading the Article 11 Blog, I am reminded that they did back AB21 which was their way of saying look , "we did try to fix it". Yeah, by adding an exorbitant price increase to the privilege of exercising our rights. I see this as a local failure, not one of the ATF. They told us what needed to be done.    
None of this would be an issue, if it wasn't for the fact that Nevada charges firearms purchasers $25 for a service that is FREE in most states, and is provided to them for free! Now that many of us, who got CCWs to avoid that added cost are gonna have to pony up, maybe we can get that changed. Likely, no. Budget shortfalls will guarantee that this practice remains. So our only hope is to force the NSCA to adopt a policy of complying with ATF's request to do this the way that will continue to allow us the NICS exemption.
As much as I'd like to blame the Feds, this is a failure on the part of the Barney Fifes in neckties at the County level.

As much as I'd like to blame the Feds, this is a failure on the part of the Barney Fifes in neckties at the County level.

100% agreed,here we go again

So who do we call, write or bitch to, to push for change?

Quoted: So who do we call, write or bitch to, to push for change?

Its not going to change short term, the position will be that we all paid for a CFP we all got a CFP, we did not pay for a NICS exemption that was a benefit we got and it is up to the counties how they administer the CFP they issue and not the ATF so long as it conforms to Nevada law.

The ATF allow the exemption if the CFP programs includes the elements they want this being Nevada they do it different in every county.


Maybe if the state was to centralize the CFP program the ATF might reinstate the exemption, that would require the CFP legislation being redone which would take some time. (A couple of years I would think)

I did consider that maybe if you had an out of state CCW that is OK for NICS exemption that even though they wont let you carry with it if your a resident here that the ATF might let you use that for NICS but the consensus I have had is that by Nevada law residents are not allowed to use an out of state CCW in any way in the state.

The only thing that may work is if some counties are complying and the ATF can be persuaded to accept those county CFP's only, but I don't think they will be prepared to break it down like that.

ETA: We could try to campaign to get the NICS fee waived for CFP holders, after all its free from the FBI  and the NHP already makes a huge profit on the NICS fees.

Quoted: ETA: We could try to campaign to get the NICS fee waived for CFP holders, after all its free from the FBI  and the NHP already makes a huge profit on the NICS fees.

I think that's our only recourse at this point.  $25 for something that's free elsewhere is a crime. The ones to talk to are no doubt the NSCA and your legislator(s). The Legislature meets again in six months, so the time to address it with them is now.

Good luck with the state giving up easy money when they are broke.

Never hurts to try though.

Quoted: So who do we call, write or bitch to, to push for change?

Call and email your state lawmakers.

The ATF is blaming them in this memo.  

edited:  I read the blog listed on the front page and realized that the NVS&C assn tied the compliance corrections to that stupid law increasing the CCW fees...  That's why it failed.  They tried to use it to get a fee increase.


I wrote my state lawmakers asking them why the ATF was blaming them for this fiasco, citing the memo.

That should get some attention.

I would love to find the contact for the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. They don't seem to want to publish that information anywhere...
I understand that you can go directly to the individuals, but if they have an Association to help them in bargaining and what-not, they should be available for our gripes as well.

Anybody got a contact number, address, etc?

Here is what the Wyoming Attorney General did when threatened with the same thing..

They threatened to sue the BATF and the BATF backed down...


http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/PR101205.pdf

Folks better Buckle Down and Fight for your Rights,

Next stop Kalifornia and it's pounding on your door,call me what you will but,,,,,,,,

It's True

Quoted: Their puppet (Bernie Anderson) scuttled our bills in the last session, now we are back where we were a few years ago, simply because it's just too much work for LEOs (and as usual, I mean the admin. ASSHOLES, not the rank and file) to do their damn job. After reading the Article 11 Blog, I am reminded that they did back AB21 which was their way of saying look , "we did try to fix it". Yeah, by adding an exorbitant price increase to the privilege of exercising our rights. I see this as a local failure, not one of the ATF. They told us what needed to be done.     None of this would be an issue, if it wasn't for the fact that Nevada charges firearms purchasers $25 for a service that is FREE in most states, and is provided to them for free! Now that many of us, who got CCWs to avoid that added cost are gonna have to pony up, maybe we can get that changed. Likely, no. Budget shortfalls will guarantee that this practice remains. So our only hope is to force the NSCA to adopt a policy of complying with ATF's request to do this the way that will continue to allow us the NICS exemption. As much as I'd like to blame the Feds, this is a failure on the part of the Barney Fifes in neckties at the County level.

I can't believe how many of you are so shocked over this development. Gunmonkey hit it on the head when he mentioned the AB21 debacle - the Sheriff outright told everyone this charge would start up again.

Quoted: Folks better Buckle Down and Fight for your Rights, Next stop Kalifornia and it's pounding on your door,call me what you will but,,,,,,,, It's True

It's really not in this case. Your letting your fear of California make you see ties that aren't there.This issue in no way is leading Nevada to be like California. All thats happening is that ccw holders will have to do the brady and pay a fee. The fee would not exist if the state wasn't looking for an easy avenue of backdoor tax revenue. When every gun purchase has a 10 day wait and they stop issuing ccw permits, then you can cuss California

and let us not forget that when the brady checks started the fee was $15 and was only supposed to be in place long enough to pay for the computers and equipment to do the checks. Not only did they not get rid of the fee, they raised it to $25. Funny that

Quoted: Quoted: Their puppet (Bernie Anderson) scuttled our bills in the last session, now we are back where we were a few years ago, simply because it's just too much work for LEOs (and as usual, I mean the admin. ASSHOLES, not the rank and file) to do their damn job. After reading the Article 11 Blog, I am reminded that they did back AB21 which was their way of saying look , "we did try to fix it". Yeah, by adding an exorbitant price increase to the privilege of exercising our rights. I see this as a local failure, not one of the ATF. They told us what needed to be done.     None of this would be an issue, if it wasn't for the fact that Nevada charges firearms purchasers $25 for a service that is FREE in most states, and is provided to them for free! Now that many of us, who got CCWs to avoid that added cost are gonna have to pony up, maybe we can get that changed. Likely, no. Budget shortfalls will guarantee that this practice remains. So our only hope is to force the NSCA to adopt a policy of complying with ATF's request to do this the way that will continue to allow us the NICS exemption. As much as I'd like to blame the Feds, this is a failure on the part of the Barney Fifes in neckties at the County level. I can't believe how many of you are so shocked over this development. Gunmonkey hit it on the head when he mentioned the AB21 debacle - the Sheriff outright told everyone this charge would start up again.

What they said was completely disingenuous and they tried to bundle it with a hefty increase in fees for permit holders.  That was completely unacceptable and totally unnecessary. What they need to do is comply with the ATF requiremtents without sticking it up the ass of permit holders.

Quoted: Quoted: Folks better Buckle Down and Fight for your Rights, Next stop Kalifornia and it's pounding on your door,call me what you will but,,,,,,,, It's True It's really not in this case. Your letting your fear of California make you see ties that aren't there.This issue in no way is leading Nevada to be like California. All thats happening is that ccw holders will have to do the brady and pay a fee. The fee would not exist if the state wasn't looking for an easy avenue of backdoor tax revenue. When every gun purchase has a 10 day wait and they stop issuing ccw permits, then you can cuss California and let us not forget that when the brady checks started the fee was $15 and was only supposed to be in place long enough to pay for the computers and equipment to do the checks. Not only did they not get rid of the fee, they raised it to $25. Funny that

I'll respond to that by the fact this is'nt the first time someone stuck there foot in the door.This is just a gateway for chipping away at your Freedom,the start of the end.

If I CCW why would I have to have a background check (NCIC) whatever? and the fact this is FREE in other states and the Dept. of Public Safety is Hosing your Keester with Zero reach around could you at least kick me in the Balls?,,,,Oh wait they are

Mabey you like it but I don't,every inch you give away they will want a Foot more of your Rights(I call it SnowBallin),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,as for Kalifornia thats it's own Sh*tHole let's not take that Trail

Looks like the NV EE is going to see a surge in FTF transactions in the near future.

We all need write our legislative rep (Both REP & DEM) on all levels and ask them How did this happened?, What are the precise discrepancies that they could not come to an agreement on? When is this going to be resolved? and who is the leading legislature that allowed this to happen?. We want answers.

No answers........VOTE THEM OUT.

If we can't stick together on some of these issues, how can we count on each
other when times get rough on other issues.

We need to be one voice. Follow the link, place your address......BOOM their
they are. I've made it easy for you........please write.

http://mapserve.leg.state.nv.us/website/lcb/viewer.htm


MY E-MAIL LETTER & RESPONSE BELOW

From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 17:51
To: [email protected]
Subject: NICS Background Check - July 1, 2008 for CCW Permit Holders



Dear Senator Heck: The attached PDF is disturbing to me. My questions are as follows;
How could the Senate allow this to happen to law-abiding citizens (see PDF letter attached)?      

I would like to know what are the specific disparaging reasons that they (Nevada State Legislature) could not come to an agreement on?

Is this going to be resolved? If so when?
Who is the leading legislature that allowed this to happen?

More laws and penalties for law- abiding CCW holders is tiring. How many 'background checks' does an upstanding citizen need?

Government is getting way out of hand.

Please research this matter and get back with me. I would like specific answers.

I also would like to know where you stand on this issue? Please be specific in your views.
See attached (Openletter to Nevada) PDF from ATF

Thank you,
Your NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, Nevada


RESPONSE FROM SENATOR Dr. Joe Heck

Mr. ___________:

I do not recall any legislation coming forward last session on this issue and a quick review of the bill list did not reveal anything.

I will need to have the Legislative Counsel Bureau research this matter and find out exactly what the issue was that the ATF found to be a problem.

I will contact you after I receive further information.

Sincerely,


Dr. Joe Heck

State Senator

District 5

702.614.5900 (voice)

702.920.7635 (fax)

www.SenatorJoeHeck.com



This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521, and may contain confidential information intended for the specific individual(s) only. This information is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message

WTF!! We just got .....