Well, I think I’ve got it now. First, here’s a link to A.B. 191 . What it boils down to is this; current law prohibits a CCW permit holder from carrying in courtrooms, etc. A.B. 191 prohibits permit holders from carrying in the same places even if the courtroom, etc. only occupies a portion of the building. If I’m wrong on this then please let me know, but that’s the best that I can determine.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
New Restrictions on CCW Proposed
A.B. 191 was formally introduced in the Assembly today. This is the formalization of BDR 15-648. It “Prohibits a permittee from carrying a concealed firearm in a courthouse, court facility or public building partially occupied by a court without proper authorization.” It has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
This appears to be totally redundant legislation. Currently in NRS 202.3673 a permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into:
(a) Any facility of a law enforcement agency;
(b) A prison, county or city jail or detention facility
(c) A courthouse or courtroom
(d) Any facility of a public or private school;
(e) Any facility of a vocational or technical school, or of the University and Community College system of Nevada;
(f) Any other building owned by the Federal government, the state or local government; or
(g) Any other place in which the carrying of a concealed firearm is prohibited by state or Federal law.
So what’s the point of A.B. 191? Beats the heck out of me, but I will follow up on this and keep you informed
This appears to be totally redundant legislation. Currently in NRS 202.3673 a permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into:
(a) Any facility of a law enforcement agency;
(b) A prison, county or city jail or detention facility
(c) A courthouse or courtroom
(d) Any facility of a public or private school;
(e) Any facility of a vocational or technical school, or of the University and Community College system of Nevada;
(f) Any other building owned by the Federal government, the state or local government; or
(g) Any other place in which the carrying of a concealed firearm is prohibited by state or Federal law.
So what’s the point of A.B. 191? Beats the heck out of me, but I will follow up on this and keep you informed
Monday, February 26, 2007
EMails to the Judiciary Committee
Here is the email that I sent to Chairman Anderson and members of the Judiciary Committee regarding A.B. 107 that receives its first hearing on Wednesday--feel free to adapt it for your own emails:
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL IN TESTIMONY ON A.B. 107
Chairman Anderson and Members of the Judiciary Committee:
A.B. 107's provision to now include "dangerous knife" under the definitions of prohibited items listed in NRS 202.265 may sound good on paper, but in reality I believe that it is way over the top. Virtually every man and woman in the West carries a pocket knife. Mine is made by Winchester and under the provisions of A.B. 107, my little pocket knife will put me in jail for 15 days and assess a fine of $2,000! My little pocket knife has a blade that is 2 1/8" long! The typical Official Boy Scout and Cub Scout knives have a main blade that is about 3" long. A.B. 107's "dangerous knife" is any with a blade over 2" long.
I have visited with a member of the Clark County School District Police Department who informs me that his Department confiscates over 400 knives a month, so whatever is currently in effect must be working!
If this bill was modified to increase the blade length to something over 3" and made it applicable to only juveniles then perhaps I could support it, but in it's current form I believe it should die in committee.
Sincerely:
Michael S. Lussem
Chairman Anderson and Members of the Judiciary Committee:
A.B. 107's provision to now include "dangerous knife" under the definitions of prohibited items listed in NRS 202.265 may sound good on paper, but in reality I believe that it is way over the top. Virtually every man and woman in the West carries a pocket knife. Mine is made by Winchester and under the provisions of A.B. 107, my little pocket knife will put me in jail for 15 days and assess a fine of $2,000! My little pocket knife has a blade that is 2 1/8" long! The typical Official Boy Scout and Cub Scout knives have a main blade that is about 3" long. A.B. 107's "dangerous knife" is any with a blade over 2" long.
I have visited with a member of the Clark County School District Police Department who informs me that his Department confiscates over 400 knives a month, so whatever is currently in effect must be working!
If this bill was modified to increase the blade length to something over 3" and made it applicable to only juveniles then perhaps I could support it, but in it's current form I believe it should die in committee.
Sincerely:
Michael S. Lussem
Here's the email that I sent to Chairman Anderson regarding A.B. 21 that was heard last Monday--again, please feel free to adapt this for your own email to the committee chairman and members.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL IN A.B. 21 TESTIMONY
Chairman Anderson:
Unfortunately I was unable to remain for the complete hearing on A.B. 21 last Monday as I had to return to work. As many have already stated, this is a bad bill which I believe should die in committee. The proposal to increase initial CCW fees by 108% and renewals by 500% reflects the inefficiencies of the Clark County Sheriff's Department, not the actual cost of prossessing the Concealed Carry Permit.
The additional request by the Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association to require that all individuals wishing to renew their permit attend a complete school and pay the initial fees all over again is, I believe, a backdoor attempt to discourage Nevadans from exercising their rights. The exemption from the BATFE allowing the Nevada background check to act in lieu of the NICS/Brady check is NOT dependent on this request for change. As previous testimony indicated, a number of bordering states qualify for this exemption yet their renewal requirements do not come close to these espoused by NSCA as being "required".
There are a number of problems with our CCW statutes for example, requiring that each time a firearm is added to the permit the individual must "qualify"and pay $25 to the Sheriff for the privelege--not to mention the fee charged by the range that oversees the "qualification", or that we do not recognize any other state's CCW. The current fee structure, however, is not a problem.
Thank you for your time and I hope that A.B. 21 is allowed to die.
Sincerely:
Michael S. Lussem
Chairman Anderson:
Unfortunately I was unable to remain for the complete hearing on A.B. 21 last Monday as I had to return to work. As many have already stated, this is a bad bill which I believe should die in committee. The proposal to increase initial CCW fees by 108% and renewals by 500% reflects the inefficiencies of the Clark County Sheriff's Department, not the actual cost of prossessing the Concealed Carry Permit.
The additional request by the Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association to require that all individuals wishing to renew their permit attend a complete school and pay the initial fees all over again is, I believe, a backdoor attempt to discourage Nevadans from exercising their rights. The exemption from the BATFE allowing the Nevada background check to act in lieu of the NICS/Brady check is NOT dependent on this request for change. As previous testimony indicated, a number of bordering states qualify for this exemption yet their renewal requirements do not come close to these espoused by NSCA as being "required".
There are a number of problems with our CCW statutes for example, requiring that each time a firearm is added to the permit the individual must "qualify"and pay $25 to the Sheriff for the privelege--not to mention the fee charged by the range that oversees the "qualification", or that we do not recognize any other state's CCW. The current fee structure, however, is not a problem.
Thank you for your time and I hope that A.B. 21 is allowed to die.
Sincerely:
Michael S. Lussem
Friday, February 23, 2007
Weekly Roundup!
Not a lot happened up in Carson this past week with just one exception.
A.B. 21 received its first hearing. Only the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association is for this bill that will increase our CCW fees and make renewals 500% more expensive than current. As mentioned in the recap below, we still need everyone to email the members of Judiciary Committee and tell them to let this bill, in its current form, die in committee.
A.B. 95 is still waiting for its first hearing in the Government Affairs Committee. This is the bill that would prohibit the confiscation of firearms during a declared emergency. If you haven’t sent an email to members of the committee, please do so and tell them that you fully support this excellent bill.
A.B. 107 will have its first hearing next Wednesday, 2/28, in the Judiciary Committee. Please see my commentary below. This is the bill that would classify your “Old Timer” pocket knife as a “dangerous knife” and would prohibit the carrying of it on school property, in your car on school property, etc. I can’t support this bill unless they make some changes, especially the blade size. Please let the Judiciary Committee know that this bill needs to be fixed or dropped.
S.B. 92 is waiting for its first hearing. This is the extraordinary bill from Senator John Lee that will eliminate Clark County’s unique ordinances regarding firearms. It’s not too early for you to contact your state senator and let him or her know that this is a “must pass” bill!
I will keep ever vigilant on these and other bills coming out of Carson City. Please feel free to comment and let me know what you think about them and be sure to let your legislators know how you feel too!!
A.B. 21 received its first hearing. Only the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association is for this bill that will increase our CCW fees and make renewals 500% more expensive than current. As mentioned in the recap below, we still need everyone to email the members of Judiciary Committee and tell them to let this bill, in its current form, die in committee.
A.B. 95 is still waiting for its first hearing in the Government Affairs Committee. This is the bill that would prohibit the confiscation of firearms during a declared emergency. If you haven’t sent an email to members of the committee, please do so and tell them that you fully support this excellent bill.
A.B. 107 will have its first hearing next Wednesday, 2/28, in the Judiciary Committee. Please see my commentary below. This is the bill that would classify your “Old Timer” pocket knife as a “dangerous knife” and would prohibit the carrying of it on school property, in your car on school property, etc. I can’t support this bill unless they make some changes, especially the blade size. Please let the Judiciary Committee know that this bill needs to be fixed or dropped.
S.B. 92 is waiting for its first hearing. This is the extraordinary bill from Senator John Lee that will eliminate Clark County’s unique ordinances regarding firearms. It’s not too early for you to contact your state senator and let him or her know that this is a “must pass” bill!
I will keep ever vigilant on these and other bills coming out of Carson City. Please feel free to comment and let me know what you think about them and be sure to let your legislators know how you feel too!!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
A.B. 107 To Receive Hearing
Not much happening today. There were no new bill pertaining to firearms introduced today, but we do understand that there are at least two being currently prepared. One deals with CCW reciprocity and I’m a little unclear what the other addresses. We’ll let you know when we know!!
A.B. 107 has been assigned a hearing date in the Judiciary Committee. Mark your calendar for February 28th. Speaking of A.B. 107, I was visiting last night with my friend Lt. Tony York of the Clark County School District Police Department. He made some good arguments about the “dangerous knife” language that A.B. 107 wants to put in the current statute. He contends that they need something to curtail the rampant knife invasion that they see in the Clark County schools. I’m not sure I understand why they need anything additional in that they seize something like 400+ knives a month, so something seems to be working!
If the language was modified to indicate that this applies only to students or to those juveniles under age 21 or something along that line and allowed pocket knives with blades up to and including 3” then I might have a better attitude towards it.
However you feel, be sure to let the Judiciary Committee know. They will read your email into the record if you state at the top that you wish it to be included in the Committee’s discussion.
A.B. 107 has been assigned a hearing date in the Judiciary Committee. Mark your calendar for February 28th. Speaking of A.B. 107, I was visiting last night with my friend Lt. Tony York of the Clark County School District Police Department. He made some good arguments about the “dangerous knife” language that A.B. 107 wants to put in the current statute. He contends that they need something to curtail the rampant knife invasion that they see in the Clark County schools. I’m not sure I understand why they need anything additional in that they seize something like 400+ knives a month, so something seems to be working!
If the language was modified to indicate that this applies only to students or to those juveniles under age 21 or something along that line and allowed pocket knives with blades up to and including 3” then I might have a better attitude towards it.
However you feel, be sure to let the Judiciary Committee know. They will read your email into the record if you state at the top that you wish it to be included in the Committee’s discussion.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Link to S.B. 92!!
The link to the full text of S.B. 92 is now available. Take a look at it and see how beautiful simplicity can be! Again, Senator Lee is to be commended on this! Here’s the link Senate Bill 92
We haven’t seen hearing dates set for the other bills that we are tracking; A.B. 95; A.B. 107; or for S.B. 92. When we do, we’ll post them here. As of today, we haven’t seen any new bills introduced that may possibly affect our Section 11 rights, but if you are aware of one that I may have missed then please let me know.
We haven’t seen hearing dates set for the other bills that we are tracking; A.B. 95; A.B. 107; or for S.B. 92. When we do, we’ll post them here. As of today, we haven’t seen any new bills introduced that may possibly affect our Section 11 rights, but if you are aware of one that I may have missed then please let me know.
Monday, February 19, 2007
A.B. 21 Gets Its First Hearing
A.B. 21, the attempt by the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association to increase our CCW fees and make renewals much more difficulty, had its first hearing today. There were 2 of us in Las Vegas--thanks Art!-- and a bunch in Carson City ready to hear what NSCA had to say.
The Executive Director of the NSCA, Mr. Frank Adams, gave the longest testimony and, in my humble opinion, it wasn’t very convincing. His basic reasoning was that it costs Clark County $72 to process a CCW and they only collect $60 so they need to double the fees (not to mention raising the renewal fee by $100!!) There was NO voiced support for this bill from ANY other sheriff’s department in the state!! (Actually there was no support for this bill from anyone at all!)
Mr. Adams also says that making everyone retake the entire CCW course again for their renewal is “required” in order for our CCW to be considered in lieu of the Brady background check when we purchase firearms. This is just B.S. They did not provide any material from BATFE to back up this claim.
The Committee heard from about a half a dozen citizens all in opposition to the bill—the best I heard was from a White Pines County commissioner who is a cowboy action shooter. He carried a lot of credibility with the Committee. The Committee members asked some good questions, interspersed with their obvious lack of knowledge of the Nevada revised statutes that cover CCW.
I urge everyone to email the Committee members again and voice your opposition to this bill. Request that the Committee allow it to die in committee so that it can’t reach the floor and end up as some attachment to another bill.
The best line of the day, “Do you mean that the entire State of Nevada must pay for the inefficiencies in the Clark County Sheriff’s Department?” --yes, that’s exactly what they want!!
The Executive Director of the NSCA, Mr. Frank Adams, gave the longest testimony and, in my humble opinion, it wasn’t very convincing. His basic reasoning was that it costs Clark County $72 to process a CCW and they only collect $60 so they need to double the fees (not to mention raising the renewal fee by $100!!) There was NO voiced support for this bill from ANY other sheriff’s department in the state!! (Actually there was no support for this bill from anyone at all!)
Mr. Adams also says that making everyone retake the entire CCW course again for their renewal is “required” in order for our CCW to be considered in lieu of the Brady background check when we purchase firearms. This is just B.S. They did not provide any material from BATFE to back up this claim.
The Committee heard from about a half a dozen citizens all in opposition to the bill—the best I heard was from a White Pines County commissioner who is a cowboy action shooter. He carried a lot of credibility with the Committee. The Committee members asked some good questions, interspersed with their obvious lack of knowledge of the Nevada revised statutes that cover CCW.
I urge everyone to email the Committee members again and voice your opposition to this bill. Request that the Committee allow it to die in committee so that it can’t reach the floor and end up as some attachment to another bill.
The best line of the day, “Do you mean that the entire State of Nevada must pay for the inefficiencies in the Clark County Sheriff’s Department?” --yes, that’s exactly what they want!!
Friday, February 16, 2007
Weekly Roundup!
It’s been an exciting week up in the state legislature. We’ve been following several bills in the Assembly and now we have a brand new one introduced yesterday in the Senate.
Assembly Bill 21, the proposal to increase our CCW permit fees by 108% will receive its first hearing on Monday, 2/19. This is a bad bill. We need everyone to contact the members of the Judiciary Committee and let them know that this is discriminatory and will allow only the wealthy to obtain their CCW. See below for specifics and links.
Assembly Bill 95, this bill would prohibit the confiscation of firearms during an emergency such as happened in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. Please contact your legislator and tell them that you fully support Assemblywoman Allen’s bill. See below for specifics and links.
Assembly Bill 107, this wrong headed piece of legislation looks good on the surface, but dig deeper and you can see the impact. It adds the words “dangerous knife” to prohibited items not allowed on school grounds, school parking lots, or at school sponsored events. What is a “dangerous knife”? It’s any knife with a blade longer than 2”. That means every Boy Scout knife would be prohibited. The little knife in your pocket that you carry with your change probably would be prohibited. What would be your punishment if you showed up at your kid’s basketball game with that little “Old Timer” in your pocket? Fifteen days in jail and a fine of $2,000!! We’ve got to stop this! See below for specifics and links.
Senate Bill 92 was just introduced yesterday. This is a breath of fresh air coming out of Carson City! If passed it will finally make Clark County part of the State of Nevada! What I mean is that the unique position Clark County has “enjoyed” regarding the state’s pre-emption law will be over! For more information, just look below. This is one bill that we MUST get passed!!
I will keep ever vigilant on these and other bills coming out of Carson City. Please feel free to comment and let me know what you think about these bills and be sure to let your legislators know how you feel too!!
Thursday, February 15, 2007
S.B. 92 Introduced!!
Senator John Lee’s bill, S.B. 92, has finally been introduced! This is the bill that will take away from Clark County it’s unique status regarding Nevada’s pre-emption law. Only in Clark County must handguns be registered; only in Clark County (Boulder City to be precise) must ammo that is being transported be physically separated from firearms and firearms must be in locked cases; only in Clark County (North Las Vegas to be accurate) are individuals traveling with firearms subject to different criteria than in other locales.
S.B. 92 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. Senator Lee has a bunch of co-sponsors including: Hardy, Heck, Beers, Cegavske, Care, Coffin, McGinness, and Woodhouse from the Senate. There are also those from the Assembly that have placed their name on this bill: Anderson, Parks, Ganser, Allen, Mortenson, Beers, Bobzien, Christensen, Claborn, Denis, Goicoechea, Grady, Hardy, Koivisto, Manendo, Marvel, Ohrenschall, Settelmeyer, and Stewart—although I haven’t seen the Assembly’s companion bill yet. Those legislators in bold are main sponsors of the bill.
As soon as I can get a link to the actual bill I’ll post it here. Congratulations to Senator Lee, we’ve been waiting for this kind of legislation for years!!
S.B. 92 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. Senator Lee has a bunch of co-sponsors including: Hardy, Heck, Beers, Cegavske, Care, Coffin, McGinness, and Woodhouse from the Senate. There are also those from the Assembly that have placed their name on this bill: Anderson, Parks, Ganser, Allen, Mortenson, Beers, Bobzien, Christensen, Claborn, Denis, Goicoechea, Grady, Hardy, Koivisto, Manendo, Marvel, Ohrenschall, Settelmeyer, and Stewart—although I haven’t seen the Assembly’s companion bill yet. Those legislators in bold are main sponsors of the bill.
As soon as I can get a link to the actual bill I’ll post it here. Congratulations to Senator Lee, we’ve been waiting for this kind of legislation for years!!
A.B. 21 Set for First Hearing
A.B. 21 is on the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee agenda for Monday, 2/19. The committee will be conducting a hearing on this very bad piece of legislation starting at 8:30 a.m. If you have not already contacted members of the committee to express your views at this outrageous increase in our CCW fees, plus the other onerous provisions regarding CCW renewals then it’s time you did!
If you are unfamiliar with A.B. 21, please look below where the bill is linked as well as an email from the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association’s Executive Director. As we’ve said before, the bill is really an attempt to generate excess revenue to cover other Sheriff’s costs and a back door approach to deny Nevada citizens the right to carry concealed.
If you wish to go to the committee meeting, it will be held in Room 3138 in the Legislative Building, 401 S. Carson Street in Carson City. The meeting will also be simulcast to Room 4401 in the Grant Sawyer Building, 555 E. Washington here in Las Vegas. I’m going to try to make it as this is really a vital piece of legislation that will affect every person that believes in Article 1 Section 11 of our State Constitution.
If you are unfamiliar with A.B. 21, please look below where the bill is linked as well as an email from the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association’s Executive Director. As we’ve said before, the bill is really an attempt to generate excess revenue to cover other Sheriff’s costs and a back door approach to deny Nevada citizens the right to carry concealed.
If you wish to go to the committee meeting, it will be held in Room 3138 in the Legislative Building, 401 S. Carson Street in Carson City. The meeting will also be simulcast to Room 4401 in the Grant Sawyer Building, 555 E. Washington here in Las Vegas. I’m going to try to make it as this is really a vital piece of legislation that will affect every person that believes in Article 1 Section 11 of our State Constitution.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A.B. 107--You better check your pockets!!
A.B 107--revising provisions concerning possession of weapons at certain locations. What are they getting at here? Well, I'm glad you asked. This bill would add "dangerous knife" to the list of prohibited items/weapons that someone may posses on school property, at an activity sponsored by a school or in a school vehicle. This also includes in a private vehicle on school property.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a whole shopping list of prohibited items in NRS 202.265 (the currrent law). They include explosives, a dirk, a dagger, a switchblade knife, a nunchaku, trefoil, a blackjack or billy club, metal knuckles, a pistol, a revolver, or other firearm. What A.B. 107 proposes is to now include "dangerous knife". What is this item of such concern?? "Dangerous knife" means a knife having a blade that is 2 inches or more in length when measured from the tip of the knife which is customarioy sharpened to the unsharpened extension of the blade which forms the hinge connecting the blade to the handle."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned in the heading, you better check your pockets. I just looked at the little knife that I carry every day--a Winchester lockback with faux stag scales--the blade measures 2 1/8"! This is the same size knife that just about every male in the Western United States carries as a matter of course. We throw these in our pockets every morning along with our change and bills. If you carry a regulation Boy Scout knife you're going to be in BIG TROUBLE!!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The typical "Official" Boy Scout knife's main blade is right at 3". Every Boy Scout, Cub Scout, and Explorer Scout will have to leave his constant companion at home. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's tell the Judiciary Committee that enough is enough! Prohibiting the most common size pocket knife carried by about 90% of the male population is just WRONG!!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact the members of the Judiciary Committee, listed in another post, and let them know how you feel!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Assemblywoman Weber & A.B. 95
Assemblywoman Valerie Weber has sent us an email regarding her bill A.B. 95
We would be glad to notify you as this bill is introduced in committee. We may also need a letter of support or emails as the time draws near for a committee hearing.
Please also note that beginning today, we now have e-agendas on the state legislative web site which I think is a more transparent way for the public to view what legislation is being introduced in each house.
Go to www.leg.state.nv.us; click on the right hand bottom of the page--> floor schedules-->Assembly or Senate; today's agenda is there; AB 95 is posted; you can download if you wish for you personal viewing or to share with your network. The language in AB95 is adopted from model legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC); I currently sit on the Criminal Justice Committee where this model bill was adopted last July. I am more than pleased to bring this to Nevada to protect our citizens from what occurred in New Orleans (NO) by the NO Police Department in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
Please let me know how we can work together.
Thank you for participating in the legislative branch of government, the one closest to the citizens!
Valerie E Weber
Nevada Assemblywoman
Clark County District 5
Serving SW Las Vegas
Please also note that beginning today, we now have e-agendas on the state legislative web site which I think is a more transparent way for the public to view what legislation is being introduced in each house.
Go to www.leg.state.nv.us; click on the right hand bottom of the page--> floor schedules-->Assembly or Senate; today's agenda is there; AB 95 is posted; you can download if you wish for you personal viewing or to share with your network. The language in AB95 is adopted from model legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC); I currently sit on the Criminal Justice Committee where this model bill was adopted last July. I am more than pleased to bring this to Nevada to protect our citizens from what occurred in New Orleans (NO) by the NO Police Department in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
Please let me know how we can work together.
Thank you for participating in the legislative branch of government, the one closest to the citizens!
Valerie E Weber
Nevada Assemblywoman
Clark County District 5
Serving SW Las Vegas
And here is the link to A.B. 95 (ABD 36-294) http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/BDR/BDR_36-0294.pdf
A.B. 95 Introduced
Assembly Bill 95 has been introduced and referred to the Committee on Government Affairs. A.B. 95 is titled "Emergency Powers Firearm Owner Protection Act" and is a formalization of Bill Draft 36-294. This is a bill that is sponsored by Assemblywoman Valerie Weber. I haven't been able to see the actual text, but I'm lead to believe that this is the bill that will protect Nevada firearms owners from confiscation of their legally owned firearms during an emergency such as happened in Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina.
As soon as the formal bill is published, I'll create a link as well as a link to the Government Affairs committee members.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Link to A.B. 21
I've been asked if I could put a link here to the proposed bill, so here it is:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/bills/AB/AB21.pdf
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/bills/AB/AB21.pdf
Assembly Judiciary Committee
A.B. 21 has not been placed on the Judiciary Committee's agenda yet, but it's not too soon to start emailing the members encouraging them to oppose this bad piece of legislation. Here are the committee members and their official email addresses:
Bernie Anderson <banderson@asm.state.nv.us>
Ed Goedhart <egoedhart@asm.state.nv.us>
Francis Allen <fallen@asm.state.nv.us>
Garn Mabey <gmabey@asm.state.nv.us>
Harry Mortenson <hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us>
James Ohrenschall <johrenschall@asm.state.nv.us>
John Oceguera <joceguera@asm.state.nv.us>
John Carpenter <jcarpenter@asm.state.nv.us>
Marcus Conklin <mconklin@asm.state.nv.us>
Susan Gerhardt <sgerhardt@asm.state.nv.us>
Tick Segerblom <tsegerblom@asm.state.nv.us>
Ty Cobb <tcobb@asm.state.nv.us>
William Horne <whorne@asm.state.nv.us>
It's very important that you let these folks know that this bill will be a burden on the elderly, the single moms, and others. We cannot let Nevada's right to carry turn into a privelege only enjoyed by the elite and wealthy.
More Later!
Bernie Anderson <banderson@asm.state.nv.us>
Ed Goedhart <egoedhart@asm.state.nv.us>
Francis Allen <fallen@asm.state.nv.us>
Garn Mabey <gmabey@asm.state.nv.us>
Harry Mortenson <hmortenson@asm.state.nv.us>
James Ohrenschall <johrenschall@asm.state.nv.us>
John Oceguera <joceguera@asm.state.nv.us>
John Carpenter <jcarpenter@asm.state.nv.us>
Marcus Conklin <mconklin@asm.state.nv.us>
Susan Gerhardt <sgerhardt@asm.state.nv.us>
Tick Segerblom <tsegerblom@asm.state.nv.us>
Ty Cobb <tcobb@asm.state.nv.us>
William Horne <whorne@asm.state.nv.us>
It's very important that you let these folks know that this bill will be a burden on the elderly, the single moms, and others. We cannot let Nevada's right to carry turn into a privelege only enjoyed by the elite and wealthy.
More Later!
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Here's the email that I sent to Mr. Adams yesterday, 2/7/97
Mr. Frank Adams
Executive Director
Nevada Sheriffs's and Chiefs' Assoc.
Mesquite, NV
Dear Mr. Adams:
I have just become aware of your association's proposed bill now before the Nevada Assembly. To say that I'm upset, is putting it mildly! The proposal that the sheriff's be allowed to charge "up to" $125 for the issuance of a new CCW permit and the same amount for the renewal process is beyond belief. This is exorbitant!
Surrounding states charge much, much less. Arizona's charge is $65 for new or renewal; Utah is $59 for new and $10 for renewal; Idaho is $20 for new and $15 for renewal; Oregon is $65 for new and renewal is $50; and California is $100 for new and $25 for renewal. As can be seen if the NSCA is granted this increase then Nevada will be charging the most of any surrounding state!
There are many shortcomings to our current CCW law, but the fee is not one of them, especially considering that we have to pay an additional $45 to the Nevada Department of Public Safety for our background check.
In addition the proposed change to require those renewing their permit to go through the entire process all over again is intolerable! I am not aware of any other state that requires the same schooling and fees for a CCW renewal as it does for the initial issuance. I cannot see any justification, other than as a revenue generator, for putting this burden on those who have already proven their worthiness.
I will oppose this bill. I will encourage my friends in the shooting community to oppose this bill. I will contribute money to hasten its defeat.
Sincerely:
Michael S. Lussem
Here is his response sent to me today 2/8/07
Mr. Frank Adams
Executive Director
Nevada Sheriffs's and Chiefs' Assoc.
Mesquite, NV
Dear Mr. Adams:
I have just become aware of your association's proposed bill now before the Nevada Assembly. To say that I'm upset, is putting it mildly! The proposal that the sheriff's be allowed to charge "up to" $125 for the issuance of a new CCW permit and the same amount for the renewal process is beyond belief. This is exorbitant!
Surrounding states charge much, much less. Arizona's charge is $65 for new or renewal; Utah is $59 for new and $10 for renewal; Idaho is $20 for new and $15 for renewal; Oregon is $65 for new and renewal is $50; and California is $100 for new and $25 for renewal. As can be seen if the NSCA is granted this increase then Nevada will be charging the most of any surrounding state!
There are many shortcomings to our current CCW law, but the fee is not one of them, especially considering that we have to pay an additional $45 to the Nevada Department of Public Safety for our background check.
In addition the proposed change to require those renewing their permit to go through the entire process all over again is intolerable! I am not aware of any other state that requires the same schooling and fees for a CCW renewal as it does for the initial issuance. I cannot see any justification, other than as a revenue generator, for putting this burden on those who have already proven their worthiness.
I will oppose this bill. I will encourage my friends in the shooting community to oppose this bill. I will contribute money to hasten its defeat.
Sincerely:
Michael S. Lussem
Here is his response sent to me today 2/8/07
Mr. Lussem;
Thank you for your input. The reason this bill was requested in the first place was due to an issue that arose with BATFE. They determine that in order for Nevada to retain its Brady Check exemption for CCW permit holders. this change needed to be made. What the exemption allowed was a waiver of the background check and fee for the background check which is required when a person purchases a weapon. It was the CCW permit holders that demanded that the exemption be retained and the Sheriffs worked out an interim agreement with BATFE to retain the exemption by complying with their addition requirements. The agreements promised that the Nevada law would be changed in this legislative session to accommodate the required modifications to retain the exemption. If the CCW permit holders are satisfied with being treated like all other citizens and pay the Brady Check fee each time they purchase a weapon, it may be possible to eliminate the need for this legislation.
The new bill reads "actual cost up to $125.00" for each agency. This now includes and will include with the charge the costs for the Nevada Criminal History and the F.B.I. finger print check. Currently, the costs for the Nevada Criminal History check and the F.B.I. check comes out of the $60 that is charged for the new application. In order to satisfy the BATFE and keep the exemption to the Brady Check, the renewal process needs to be the same as the original application. This currently leaves less than $15.00 to pay for the costs incurred by the local Sheriff's Offices to process the original application permits. At current costs with the needed change in the background procedure, the renewal fee would not even cover the cost of the Nevada Criminal History or the F.B.I. charge. Since the Legislature and the local County Commissions have elected not cover the costs of the permitting process with citizen's tax money and the CCW permit is not something everyone is required to have, the costs of processing must be covered some how. Just as we have many other "user fees" for other specialized activities, we have a user fee for the CCW permit process.
I believe that some of the states that you quote in your email are not exempted from the Brady Check. Therefore they are not subjected to the same background requirements Nevada is if we want to keep the exemption from the Brady Check for CCW permit holders.
When the Nevada's CCW process was created, it was never designed to allow the circumvention of the Brady Check. When it was placed into effect, we felt like it was a reasonable process that assured a relative measure of safety to the community regarding those individuals that wanted to carry a weapon concealed. The BATFE was the one that allowed the exemption based on our process. When their requirements to retain the Brady Check exemption the Nevada Sheriff's elected not to change our process to meet their standards. They elected to allow every citizen to be treated equally when it came to the Brady Check requirement. However, since the CCW permit holders were so adamant that the exemption be retained, the Sheriffs tried to find away to accommodate their wishes. And that is what has brought us to this point.
I hope some of this information answers your questions. Please let me know if I can be of another assistance. I would be interested in your opinion on whether we should try to retain the Brady Check exemption or whether we should let the exemption lapse and treat every citizen with or without a CCW permit in the same manner. I.E. everyone is required to submit to a Brady Check when they purchase a weapon.
Sincerely;
Frank Adams
Executive Director
Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association
P.O. Box 3247
Mesquite NV 89024
Phone: 866-266-9870
Fax: 702-345-3565
Cell: 702-379-6591
Thank you for your input. The reason this bill was requested in the first place was due to an issue that arose with BATFE. They determine that in order for Nevada to retain its Brady Check exemption for CCW permit holders. this change needed to be made. What the exemption allowed was a waiver of the background check and fee for the background check which is required when a person purchases a weapon. It was the CCW permit holders that demanded that the exemption be retained and the Sheriffs worked out an interim agreement with BATFE to retain the exemption by complying with their addition requirements. The agreements promised that the Nevada law would be changed in this legislative session to accommodate the required modifications to retain the exemption. If the CCW permit holders are satisfied with being treated like all other citizens and pay the Brady Check fee each time they purchase a weapon, it may be possible to eliminate the need for this legislation.
The new bill reads "actual cost up to $125.00" for each agency. This now includes and will include with the charge the costs for the Nevada Criminal History and the F.B.I. finger print check. Currently, the costs for the Nevada Criminal History check and the F.B.I. check comes out of the $60 that is charged for the new application. In order to satisfy the BATFE and keep the exemption to the Brady Check, the renewal process needs to be the same as the original application. This currently leaves less than $15.00 to pay for the costs incurred by the local Sheriff's Offices to process the original application permits. At current costs with the needed change in the background procedure, the renewal fee would not even cover the cost of the Nevada Criminal History or the F.B.I. charge. Since the Legislature and the local County Commissions have elected not cover the costs of the permitting process with citizen's tax money and the CCW permit is not something everyone is required to have, the costs of processing must be covered some how. Just as we have many other "user fees" for other specialized activities, we have a user fee for the CCW permit process.
I believe that some of the states that you quote in your email are not exempted from the Brady Check. Therefore they are not subjected to the same background requirements Nevada is if we want to keep the exemption from the Brady Check for CCW permit holders.
When the Nevada's CCW process was created, it was never designed to allow the circumvention of the Brady Check. When it was placed into effect, we felt like it was a reasonable process that assured a relative measure of safety to the community regarding those individuals that wanted to carry a weapon concealed. The BATFE was the one that allowed the exemption based on our process. When their requirements to retain the Brady Check exemption the Nevada Sheriff's elected not to change our process to meet their standards. They elected to allow every citizen to be treated equally when it came to the Brady Check requirement. However, since the CCW permit holders were so adamant that the exemption be retained, the Sheriffs tried to find away to accommodate their wishes. And that is what has brought us to this point.
I hope some of this information answers your questions. Please let me know if I can be of another assistance. I would be interested in your opinion on whether we should try to retain the Brady Check exemption or whether we should let the exemption lapse and treat every citizen with or without a CCW permit in the same manner. I.E. everyone is required to submit to a Brady Check when they purchase a weapon.
Sincerely;
Frank Adams
Executive Director
Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association
P.O. Box 3247
Mesquite NV 89024
Phone: 866-266-9870
Fax: 702-345-3565
Cell: 702-379-6591
Welcome!
Welcome to Section 11. Hopefully this website will give you information that you can use. We'll be monitoring the current session of the Nevada State Legislature in regards to firearm issues. Currently we are following the bill proposed by the Nevada Sheriff's and Chief's Association, A.B. 21.
This bill seeks to raise the fee for Nevada CCW permits to $125, both new and renewal. Look for more discussion as this site gets built out.
This bill seeks to raise the fee for Nevada CCW permits to $125, both new and renewal. Look for more discussion as this site gets built out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
