First I must apologize for being less than diligent in keeping SECTION 11 up with new, insightful commentaries. I just haven’t found much to write about that is Nevada specific lately…well now I have!
First some background from the last legislative session. As many of you know, we worked diligently to pass firearms friendly legislation and equally as hard to defeat those bills that would limit our Section 11 rights. A couple of laws that we put into the “win” column were S.B. 92 and S.B. 237. We didn’t get everything we wanted, not by half, but we did see them both as progress.
Well it looks like we may have been premature in our anemic praise for both of them. Let’s review both: S.B. 92 was initially introduced to eliminate the exemption to pre-emption that Clark County has enjoyed for many years. Senator John Lee’s intention was good, the result sucked. What started out to eliminate the “blue card” Clark County handgun registration and the other anti Section 11 and Second Amendment ordinances in North Las Vegas, Boulder City and Henderson wound up benefiting everyone but Clark County residents! S.B. 92 now delays registration of handguns by Clark County residents. What had been interpreted as within 24 hours of moving into the county will now be 60 days. Additionally a Clark County resident must register a newly acquired handgun within 72 hours of acquisition. That’s it! Nothing else!
We had been told that the onerous ordinances in the cities of North Las Vegas, Boulder City and Henderson would fall after S.B. 92, but we were wrong and those blatantly illegal ordinances march on. More on North Las Vegas’ ordinances in an upcoming SECTION 11 exposé!
One more thing…S.B. 92 is to go into effect October 1st. The Clark County Board of Commissioners (as well as the city councils of North Las Vegas, Boulder City, and Henderson) has until January 1, 2008 to modify their current ordinances to comply with all of the provisions of S.B. 92; if they don’t then what happens? Absolutely nothing! S.B. 92 goes into effect whether they modify the ordinance or not! (we had heard that Clark County would lose its pre-emption exemption if they didn't modify the ordinances, but that was false)
First some background from the last legislative session. As many of you know, we worked diligently to pass firearms friendly legislation and equally as hard to defeat those bills that would limit our Section 11 rights. A couple of laws that we put into the “win” column were S.B. 92 and S.B. 237. We didn’t get everything we wanted, not by half, but we did see them both as progress.
Well it looks like we may have been premature in our anemic praise for both of them. Let’s review both: S.B. 92 was initially introduced to eliminate the exemption to pre-emption that Clark County has enjoyed for many years. Senator John Lee’s intention was good, the result sucked. What started out to eliminate the “blue card” Clark County handgun registration and the other anti Section 11 and Second Amendment ordinances in North Las Vegas, Boulder City and Henderson wound up benefiting everyone but Clark County residents! S.B. 92 now delays registration of handguns by Clark County residents. What had been interpreted as within 24 hours of moving into the county will now be 60 days. Additionally a Clark County resident must register a newly acquired handgun within 72 hours of acquisition. That’s it! Nothing else!
We had been told that the onerous ordinances in the cities of North Las Vegas, Boulder City and Henderson would fall after S.B. 92, but we were wrong and those blatantly illegal ordinances march on. More on North Las Vegas’ ordinances in an upcoming SECTION 11 exposé!
One more thing…S.B. 92 is to go into effect October 1st. The Clark County Board of Commissioners (as well as the city councils of North Las Vegas, Boulder City, and Henderson) has until January 1, 2008 to modify their current ordinances to comply with all of the provisions of S.B. 92; if they don’t then what happens? Absolutely nothing! S.B. 92 goes into effect whether they modify the ordinance or not! (we had heard that Clark County would lose its pre-emption exemption if they didn't modify the ordinances, but that was false)
Here’s my question, “What law is in effect from 10/1/07-1/1/08?” I don’t have an answer…do you?
What about S.B. 237? Well we were all wrong here too! The bill was to have allowed the State of Nevada to recognize certain states’ CCW laws giving their qualified citizens the right to carry concealed here in Nevada. Additionally, Nevada citizens were going to be given a break when it came to qualifying their CCW firearm. Initially the bill would have allowed a citizen to qualify with a revolver and carry any revolver and/or qualify with a semiauto and carry any semiauto. Representative Bernie Anderson, chairman of the powerful Assembly Judiciary Committee, made certain that the bill had his personal fingerprints on it. He amended S.B. 237 to allow the revolver qualifying rule to stay, but insisted that an individual qualify on each and every semiauto before it could be added to the permit. (I understand that Bernie was shown a MAC and freaked thinking that if someone qualified on a Glock they could carry a MAC!! I guess Bernie is totally clueless that a MAC semiauto is a perfectly legal firearm!!)
Fast forward to October 1st. Now if you have a revolver on your permit you can carry any revolver you own, correct? Not so fast paleface! Take a look at the back of your Nevada “Concealed Firearms Permit”. Do you see the word “revolver” anywhere? Nope! It’s not there. The back of my permit looks like this:
MAKE-------MODEL------CAL ---------DATE
TAS---------85----------------38------------061605
SR----------VAQUERO------45------------061605
I don’t have any semiautos on my permit, so the TAS (Taurus) model 85 in .38 Special and the SR (Sturm-Ruger) Vaquero in .45 Colt are both revolvers. You know that they’re revolvers, I know that they’re revolvers, but the Clark County Metropolitan Police Department doesn’t know they’re revolvers! I am absolutely serious!! Metro has no record that the above firearms are revolvers! As a consequence we have been told that Metro will require you to qualify on the next revolver you wish to add to your permit then any additional revolvers will be ok to carry without endorsement to your permit after that.
What about reciprocity? We’re still waiting on the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association to furnish the list of states that should be allowed reciprocity. The list was supposed to be completed and forwarded to the Attorney General in August. Guess what…it ain’t happened yet and I wouldn’t hold my breath that it will be forthcoming anytime soon.
More about all this as we find out more, but never underestimate the bureaucracy’s ability to screw with you!!
WE MUST REMAIN EVER VIGILANT…EVER WATCHFUL
What about S.B. 237? Well we were all wrong here too! The bill was to have allowed the State of Nevada to recognize certain states’ CCW laws giving their qualified citizens the right to carry concealed here in Nevada. Additionally, Nevada citizens were going to be given a break when it came to qualifying their CCW firearm. Initially the bill would have allowed a citizen to qualify with a revolver and carry any revolver and/or qualify with a semiauto and carry any semiauto. Representative Bernie Anderson, chairman of the powerful Assembly Judiciary Committee, made certain that the bill had his personal fingerprints on it. He amended S.B. 237 to allow the revolver qualifying rule to stay, but insisted that an individual qualify on each and every semiauto before it could be added to the permit. (I understand that Bernie was shown a MAC and freaked thinking that if someone qualified on a Glock they could carry a MAC!! I guess Bernie is totally clueless that a MAC semiauto is a perfectly legal firearm!!)
Fast forward to October 1st. Now if you have a revolver on your permit you can carry any revolver you own, correct? Not so fast paleface! Take a look at the back of your Nevada “Concealed Firearms Permit”. Do you see the word “revolver” anywhere? Nope! It’s not there. The back of my permit looks like this:
MAKE-------MODEL------CAL ---------DATE
TAS---------85----------------38------------061605
SR----------VAQUERO------45------------061605
I don’t have any semiautos on my permit, so the TAS (Taurus) model 85 in .38 Special and the SR (Sturm-Ruger) Vaquero in .45 Colt are both revolvers. You know that they’re revolvers, I know that they’re revolvers, but the Clark County Metropolitan Police Department doesn’t know they’re revolvers! I am absolutely serious!! Metro has no record that the above firearms are revolvers! As a consequence we have been told that Metro will require you to qualify on the next revolver you wish to add to your permit then any additional revolvers will be ok to carry without endorsement to your permit after that.
What about reciprocity? We’re still waiting on the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association to furnish the list of states that should be allowed reciprocity. The list was supposed to be completed and forwarded to the Attorney General in August. Guess what…it ain’t happened yet and I wouldn’t hold my breath that it will be forthcoming anytime soon.
More about all this as we find out more, but never underestimate the bureaucracy’s ability to screw with you!!
WE MUST REMAIN EVER VIGILANT…EVER WATCHFUL
Posts
12 comments:
Mike, I believe we are in good shape on revolvers for CCW. LVMPD sent letters to all CC CCW Instructors stating that persons qualifying with a revolver would have the notation on the qualifying form "Revolver" and no make, model, caliber, serial number. CCW holders can carry any revolver if they have qualified with a revolver. The change accomplished the goal for revolvers this time around.
I have purchased two new revolvers for October 1, and that brings me back to my old nagging point, where are our dealers when we are in Carson City fighting for changes they will profit from in new gun purchases? Nevada's FFL holders should form an association to help us in the battle. They are competitors in prices, but they all benefit when customers are active. My bet is revolver sales will be up 100% for the next 4 months.
Let's ask our dealers what they are doing to help us at the Legislature. If they don't have an answer let's suggest they get active.
DJ
"I understand that Bernie was shown a MAC and freaked thinking that if someone qualified on a Glock they could carry a MAC!!"
Gee, one of the "unprofessional" comments I made at the NSPA love-fest was my remembrance of the NSPA lobbyist using that same tactic at the very first hearing on "Shall Issue" CCW.
I think it was back in 1995!
The current NSPA lobbyist shouted that I was "barking up the wrong tree", that I was wrong, that "that was a long time ago", etc.
He claimed that the NSPA is not like that anymore, they are here to "Help" us!
Uh yea, "we're the NSPA, and we're here to help you"!
MY constitutional rights do not need their sort of "Help".
NSPA has no credibility with me, they only serve THEMSELVES (and Bernie A.), not the citizens of Nevada.
In order to protect our RKBA and other rights it is essential that we actively begin to limit the NSPA's influence on our legislature.
Their continued clear hypocrisy, flippant dismissal of the "Open meeting" laws as not applying to them, disdain for actually answering questions or allowing comment, etc. all need to be carefully documented and brought to the attention of our elected officials.
NSPA power thrives on it's lack of accountability, we can force them to become accountable to the public they only claim to serve.
I look forward to this site documenting the facts of how the legislation is implemented, and how NSPA manipulates that, verse the promises made to us.
"What about S.B. 237? "
I expect that since Bernie A. and his cronies at the NSPA were able to keep the requirement for individual qualifications for all semi-auto's, NO other states CCW will be found compatible with Nevada's!
This has been the scheme all along.
When "Shall Issue" CCW first became law I was careful to put both a revolver and a pistol on my "permit".
I did this partly in the expectation that once CCW was well established in Nevada, the ridiculous overly restrictive provisions would be removed.
But those criteria have NOTHING to do with CCW holder competence, they exist SOLELY to prevent Nevada having reciprocity with any other states!
Bernie A. has stated many times that "Nevada will never have CCW reciprocity with other states so long as I am in office".
He is still there, and the onerous details unique to Nevada that prevent CCW reciprocity are still in place.
Until Bernie goes away, and the NSPA is brought under control, we are not going to see real reciprocity.
Richard,
If you mean the NSRPA I can tell you I was in communication with Smitty and Art during the Legislature and they supported the changes that improved our rights in options for CCW.
The NSRPA is stuck in a 501.c3 status that doesn't allow ANY political activity and the Board needs to change that, but the individual NSRPA folks I know are with us for sure.
I mean the Nevada Sheriff & Police Association, or maybe it's the Nevada Sheriff & Chief's Association.
These damn shorthand acronyms are a PITA.
I mean the "Police" association lobbying group who have sought to prevent or limit our CCW at every step, and who have no hesitation in using ANY tactic they can get away with to accomplish their goals.
Sadly, it seems the Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association (NSRPA) has become less effective with each new session.
From my perspective it is the real grass-roots lobbyist who have the power to make a difference.
But only if they begin participating in larger numbers, otherwise our legislature will continue to be dominated by the best funded lobbyist.
The best funded lobbyist tend to be at some level, directly or not, Gov. Org. supported.
Such as the Nevada Sheriff and Police/Chief's Association.
We need to know if they receive ANY federal money, if they do, their lobbying efforts are illegal!
Devil John I have no idea why the licensed dealers allow their livliehood to be kicked around like a soccer ball. I still find it hard to believe that I'll have to pay at least $10 to a range to certify a new revolver and $25 to have it added on my permit so that I then can have the "privelege" of not having to qualify on any more revolvers! You'd think qualifying on two already would be enough!!
Richard I really appreciate your comments. As I have stated, the police--at least at the top levels--are no friends of firearms owners here in Nevada. I still remember Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie saying that he'd confiscate firearms in the wake of an emergency (and he knows where every registered handgun is located!) I know, he changed his tune when it was thrown back at him, but that's the mentallity of the upper ranks of Metro and probably most of the other PD's in the state.
Mike, others,
As a licensed dealer I know a lot of current and former law enforcement people, local cops, prison guards, even members of varied Fed. alphabet agencies.
It appears that betrayal of the service oath ("I swear to .... protect and defend the constitution of the United States"....) becomes politically mandatory when seeking senior management positions.
Apparently too much brass on the uniform lobotomizes formerly intelligent officers!
Most regular street cops understand the Second Amendment and support it, the most vociferous defenders of our RKBA I have met are retired L.E. and military officers.
The exceptions I meet are usually from socialist states like Kalifornia or N.Y., where they grew up with fascist regimes, so consider any place with more freedom than they are used to as being populated by barbarians.
As one local ex-Kalifornia night commander put it to me before he retired, "YOU PEOPLE IN NEVADA ARE JUST BACKWARDS".
Notice the "You People", he clearly never really became a Nevadan in his heart, despite living here for decades.
I have met hundreds of people who moved to Nevada in large measure to enjoy the relative freedom of our "Backward" gun laws.
I usually respond that they are welcome, but that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, so I expect to see them at future firearm related legislative hearings.
Not enough of them, or native Nevadan's, are taking the time to actively defend our RKBA.
We cannot win so long as we depend so heavily on the "Professional Experts" (NRA, NSRPA, etc.) to do the work for us.
The experts are too willing to compromise, not wanting to "offend" members of the legislature, while still wanting to brag of their shallow "victories" for member recruitment.
As for myself, I am proud to be an active "Unprofessional", "Backward", Nevada Barbarian!
Richard,
That's the Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association, NVSCA - www.nvsca.com - and they testified in favor of the change to any semi-auto and any revolver on permits. I checked and they stuck with that position and I couldn't find any back door lobbying from LE on that provision of the CCW legislation. Sometimes that happens when a group gets split, but the NVSCA represented the position of all our Nevada Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and they supported the change for CCW citizens. It was really very good testimony.
Not everybody at the Legislature was ready for the change and when the NVSCA testified they were for it and stated that it was like a driver license, you can pass the test with an automatic transmission compact car and you are legal to drive a stick shift truck, I watched to see if some of the committee might fall off their chairs.
Without getting into all the background, it must be stated that the NVCSA was with us on that provision of the CCW law and we'll need them next time for sure so let's applaud their help and be sure it's there in 2009.
I believe the best action we could take is to see that every CCW holder in Nevada thanks his or her Sheriff for the support in 2007 and asks that Sheriff to support us again in 2009. Do it often, and do it around election time. Write it in a letter or on the bottom of your campaign contribution check.
But don’t forget we need them in 2009.
DJ
Devil John,
I remain skeptical that NVSCA has really changed.
Publicly, maybe, but behind the scenes?
They are still dominated by liberal leaning Las Vegas and it's surrounding area.
It might help their credibility if their recent past president had not stated to me that, "You CCW holders are an insignificant minority".
This in regards to NOT taking action to restore our lost NICS exemption for CCW.
An exemption we are in imminent peril of losing again, with NVSCA already making excuses and shifting blame.
Now they are derelict in completing the task of listing states eligible for CCW reciprocity with Nevada.
They appear to still be resisting compliance with Nevada's open meeting laws.
What do they not want us to see?
Deeds speak louder than words!
NVSCA must begin to act professionally, carry out their duties without whining for massive fee increases, stop making excuses for failure to do their legislated task, and meet in the open.
THEN I may be impressed.
They appear to have a long way to go.
Richard,
I don't believe that the 16 other Sheriffs are a bit intimidated by any of Clark County's Sheriffs.
They won't stick their nose into another Sheriff's jurisdiction but I am thinking that the Sheriff running Elko, or Eureka, or Lander, and so forth, doesn't much give a hoot what goes on in LAS VEGAS.
Anyway - they stuck with their testimony and I sure thank them each and every one.
I hear from a that DPS will be presenting the NVCSA with the first list of reciprocity states at the September meeting. I'll pass along the facts as soon as I get the info.
DJ
Any word on Nevada honoring Ohio?
"Sadly, it seems the Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association (NSRPA) has become less effective with each new session."
I joined and was very disappointed.
Zero activism in the Reno area.
CA type police state progressives are gaining ground and we gunnies are not doing anything.
Post a Comment