Pro Gun Group choices?

varminter22 · Jan 15, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
I would like to see the minuets of those meetings, do you have them?

Also on 1-13 2013, at 6:54 pm varmenter wrote:

If they do not even show to the committee meetings how can you call it a fight?

"Backroom" meetings is not the right word.

As you might expect, meetings between various groups and legislators are quite common on any/all bills being considered. There are no official minutes.

For example, I attended a meeting concerning AB-282. Attending were two from NSCA, two from NRA, myself from SFA, Asm Oceguera, Sen Settelmeyer, and Sen Lee. SFA and NRA were at great odds with NSCA; a very 'interesting' meeting, indeed. There are no official minutes. And I can tell you that if it weren't for SFA and NRA, AB-282 would have turned out MUCH different (NOT in our favor.)

And just because one person, lobbyist, or group is not listed as a testifier does NOT mean they were not there working the issue.

I realize it is quite a distance from Vegas to Carson, but recommend attending in Carson if/when one can make the trip. It is definitely a learning experience.

varminter22 · Jan 15, 2013

CowboyKen said:
It give the organization a level of legitimacy they cannot have, in my eyes, without it.

I never quite understood that. As far as I know, federal 501(c)x status is NOT required. For example, I know of a Nevada non-profit corp that was solely such (for over 20 years) until very recently they decided to become a federal 501(c)x.

Becoming a 501(c)x confers no special status that I know of. It does, however, allow the org to purchase items sales tax free, as I recall.

But then, I don't claim to be an expert on such matters.

At any rate, NVFAC has been a legitimate Nevada non-profit corporation since it was formed and filed with the Nevada Secretary of State.

Click to expand...

CowboyKen · Jan 16, 2013

varminter22 said:
CowboyKen said:

It give the organization a level of legitimacy they cannot have, in my eyes, without it.

I never quite understood that. As far as I know, federal 501(c)x status is NOT required. For example, I know of a Nevada non-profit corp that was solely such (for over 20 years) until very recently they decided to become a federal 501(c)x.

Becoming a 501(c)x confers no special status that I know of. It does, however, allow the org to purchase items sales tax free, as I recall.

But then, I don't claim to be an expert on such matters.

At any rate, NVFAC has been a legitimate Nevada non-profit corporation since it was formed and filed with the Nevada Secretary of State.

Click to expand...

Larry,

IANAL!

As I understand it, being a "Nevada non-profit Corporation" does not do much and only requires that you file as such with the Secretary of State. It is kind of like stating an intention I think.

On the other hand, to obtain tax exempt status from the IRS is more challenging. You must file the appropriate form, 1023 or 1024, which contains a great deal about the organization, its intentions and purposes and its finances. Once a determination letter is received the entity can file with Nevada for tax exempt status in Nevada and is exempt from federal tax. Until then it must file and pay US income tax as any other corporation would.

I think I referred you to IRS publication 557 before. This is the minimum reading for an officer/board member of a tax exempt organization and if you have not read it I think you should. The Secretary of State of Nevada also has some worthwhile publications including: http://ag.state.nv.us/publications/manuals/Guide to NonProfits.pdf.

I hope this helps.

Ken

Click to expand...

varminter22 · Jan 16, 2013

CowboyKen said:
varminter22 said:

CowboyKen said:

It give the organization a level of legitimacy they cannot have, in my eyes, without it.

Larry,

IANAL!

As I understand it, being a "Nevada non-profit Corporation" does not do much and only requires that you file as such with the Secretary of State. It is kind of like stating an intention I think.

On the other hand, to obtain tax exempt status from the IRS is more challenging. You must file the appropriate form, 1023 or 1024, which contains a great deal about the organization, its intentions and purposes and its finances. Once a determination letter is received the entity can file with Nevada for tax exempt status in Nevada and is exempt from federal tax. Until then it must file and pay US income tax as any other corporation would.

I think I referred you to IRS publication 557 before. This is the minimum reading for an officer/board member of a tax exempt organization and if you have not read it I think you should. The Secretary of State of Nevada also has some worthwhile publications including: http://ag.state.nv.us/publications/manuals/Guide to NonProfits.pdf.

I hope this helps.

Ken

Click to expand...

A Nevada non-prof must operate in accordance with Nevada law.

IF 501(c)x status is not desired nor required, what is the big deal? How does it make an org any more "worthy"?

Again, IANAL, and it has been a whle since I reviewed the applicable publications.

Its over now. I hope your 501(c)x concerns have been taken care of. NVFAC IS a 501(c)4.

Click to expand...

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 17, 2013

wrightme said:
The NRA was fighting the backroom deals.....

And, no, they are/were NOT 'for' the NVSCA having any role in it whatsoever. You are simply incorrect with your allegations.

You claim that The NRA does not support the impermissible delegation of the sovereign power of the State of Nevada to the NVSCA, yet their complete silence on this issue is "Tacit Approval" of the same. You also have provided no cite in this matter. Since you claim an action,(they are fighting,) there should be evidence of that action. Sufficient evidence of such action will cause me to apologize and shut up!...

wrightme said:
The portion in bold is a flat out lie. It wasn't anything like 'knew they didn't have to.' If showing up was a decision at all, it was that they knew there was no point in even attempting to oppose it. And, no, that does NOT mean you can assume that they used that as any criteria, that is simply my take on how the committee meetings DID operate with a hostile chair.

I will let you explain this one further as it appears to be an admission the NRA knew they were powerless. I can address it after you clarify your point.

wrightme said:
If, as you claim, you are not 'anti-gun org,' stop assuming they were in cahoots with the NVSCA. They weren't.

I suggest that you send a NORA request to DPS asking for the emails between the DPS and NRA, as well as the emails between DPS and NVSAC. I believe you will be forced into further denial. or realization that the NRA in fact has not opposed the NVSCA involvement in our Govt. I remember when you were arguing that the NVSCA was not a law making body and how slow you were in realizing . (in spite of the fact they are written into the NRS. as such) It appears that you have extra time and just want to argue.

The only thing I am alleging is inactivity on one matter. I see none and challenge you to support your arguments of action with facts.

wrightme · Jan 17, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
You claim that The NRA does not support the impermissible delegation of the sovereign power of the State of Nevada to the NVSCA, yet their complete silence on this issue is "Tacit Approval" of the same. You also have provided no cite in this matter. Since you claim an action,(they are fighting,) there should be evidence of that action. Sufficient evidence of such action will cause me to apologize and shut up!...

The mere fact that you are not aware of any specifics, doesn't prove they were approving of it.

wrightme · Jan 17, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
I will let you explain this one further as it appears to be an admission the NRA knew they were powerless. I can address it after you clarify your point.

Are you seriously not aware how much of a stone wall Bernie was?

DTOM said:
I suggest that you send a NORA request to DPS asking for the emails between the DPS and NRA, as well as the emails between DPS and NVSAC. I believe you will be forced into further denial. or realization that the NRA in fact has not opposed the NVSCA involvement in our Govt. I remember when you were arguing that the NVSCA was not a law making body and how slow you were in realizing . (in spite of the fact they are written into the NRS. as such) It appears that you have extra time and just want to argue.

The only thing I am alleging is inactivity on one matter. I see none and challenge you to support your arguments of action with facts.

If you want to NORA, go right ahead.

First point, the NVSCA is NOT a lawmaking body. That does NOT mean that they haven't been given de-facto capabilities that appear to allow them to act as one. The fact that they are written into NRS, does not automagically turn them into something that they are not. Cite the NRS if you want to go over what the legislation has created.

But, specifically on SB237, you do understand that this was the bill that provided for ANY recognition of other state permits, right? Further, the Mar21 meeting was 'no action' on SB237. The verbiage that put NVSCA into it wasn't added until the Apr4 meeting. I was able to find email where someone else was attempting to find out what the amendment was. It wasn't known until about 2 weeks later that the NVSCA even was written in.

And, I am incorrect on one point. Bernie was in the Assembly not Senate as chair. If I recall accurately, the amendment about the NVSCA wasn't known until well after the Senate committee mtng on the 4th. In Assembly, it got amended to strike the 'any semi-auto,' and IIRC, leaving that in would have been a show-stopper for gaining recognition. And, getting the NVSCA out would have stopped recognition, as I recall.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 18, 2013

You talk a good game, but you won't talk me into complacency... There is an impermissible delegation of the sovereign power of the state occurring, protect it if you want. I, and Mac's $20.00 are going to give it Hell. thought I was going to file tonight, worked on it for a couple hrs. more. I might file Sat. for gun appreciation day.

Vegassteve · Jan 18, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
You talk a good game, but you won't talk me into complacency... There is an impermissible delegation of the sovereign power of the state occurring, protect it if you want. I, and Mac's $20.00 are going to give it Hell. thought I was going to file tonight, worked on it for a couple hrs. more. I might file Sat. for gun appreciation day.

I am good for 20 bucks as well. Happy to hand it over sat nite on freemont.

wrightme · Jan 18, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
You talk a good game, but you won't talk me into complacency... There is an impermissible delegation of the sovereign power of the state occurring, protect it if you want. I, and Mac's $20.00 are going to give it Hell. thought I was going to file tonight, worked on it for a couple hrs. more. I might file Sat. for gun appreciation day.

My desire isn't to 'talk you into complacency.' My only goal is to point out where you have made an incorrect assumption.

Yes, there is an impermissible delegation of power to a Non profit org. At that time, fighting that would have brought recognition to a halt. It also would have halted 'any revolver,' which paved the way for 'any semi-auto.' There is NO doubt in my mind that if those battles had been fought, we would NOT have gotten recognition through Judiciary under Bernie Anderson.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 18, 2013

wrightme said:
My desire isn't to 'talk you into complacency.' My only goal is to point out where you have made an incorrect assumption.

Yes, there is an impermissible delegation of power to a Non profit org. At that time, fighting that would have brought recognition to a halt. It also would have halted 'any revolver,' which paved the way for 'any semi-auto.' There is NO doubt in my mind that if those battles had been fought, we would NOT have gotten recognition through Judiciary under Bernie Anderson.

I accept the excuse for "at that time." but here we are five years later, no mention no observance by the NRA of the ID,and zero push back. Meanwhile touting themselves as the "go to guys for our gun-rights" My point is there is some usefulness, but you have to watch the Org.'s to make sure they are speaking/working for you! to me I would rather things stayed the same than side step our constitutional process.
I saw on CNN This whole Gun grabbing stance has been "good" for the NRA to the tune of 250,000 new members. remember if the NRA is too successful, we won't feel like we need them. it benefits them to "appear busy"

Thanks Vegas Steve I will make sure you and Mac get copies of the pleadings etc.

wrightme · Jan 18, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
I accept the excuse for "at that time." but here we are five years later, no mention no observance by the NRA of the ID,and zero push back. Meanwhile touting themselves as the "go to guys for our gun-rights" My point is there is some usefulness, but you have to watch the Org.'s to make sure they are speaking/working for you! to me I would rather things stayed the same than side step our constitutional process.
I saw on CNN This whole Gun grabbing stance has been "good" for the NRA to the tune of 250,000 new members. remember if the NRA is too successful, we won't feel like we need them. it benefits them to "appear busy"

Thanks Vegas Steve I will make sure you and Mac get copies of the pleadings etc.

I submit that if you haven't heard 'push back,' it is because you have NOT been in the discussions with the NRA in subsequent legislative sessions. Sorry, you are simply wrong in your allegations. Just because you have not heard anything, does NOT mean the NRA is either complicit, or ambivalent towards it. Seriously, it isn't the current available change. "Any Semi-auto" was available, and is now a reality. If you have the NVSCA in the mix as your personal bugaboo, get in touch with the NRA reps and ask them about it, as opposed to tossing out false allegations.

The subsequent session was spent mostly on Castle Doctrine. We got 'castle doctrine lite,' instead of what we wanted. But, if you truly feel that effort spent to remove the NVSCA from the ccw recognition statute will bear fruit, feel free to spearhead that effort. I don't think it will bear fruit. I do believe the NRA thinks that too. Sometimes, we don't get even what we are fighting for; much less what we think isn't capable of being won.

In the specific of the 2007 session and 237, the goal was to get recognition of other state permits, which we didn't have. In addition, we were working to get 'any revolver' and 'any semi-auto' for the NV CCW permits, instead of qualifying with each separate revolver and semi. We DID get recognition, and got pushed back to 'any revolver' and didn't get 'any semi-auto.' At that point, either we swallow the poison and get the recognition and 'any revolver,' or we pull the bill.

We got recognition and 'any revolver.' Hopefully we can eventually get rid of the NVSCA in that role of 'agree to recognition.' I fully agree that they should NOT have that role, and I am firm in my statement that the NRA also wants that. Now, the question remains, 'is time best spent getting them out of statute, or in some other place.' Neither we locally, nor the NRA, can spend time and money on all issues each year. I know locally, we would list our wants, and whittle them down to a list of 'think we can get progress on this year.' The NRA does that too.

Oh, the 'at that time,' isn't an excuse. It was the reality with Bernie in the Asm chair. If he didn't want it to the floor, it didn't get heard in committee. It WAS that totalitarian for him. Without the poison pill, which got stuck in there, likely directly from Frank Adams, I have no doubt that Bernie would have sat on it, by himself, or from pressure from Frank Adams. And then we would have had to wait 2 more years to introduce it again, if at all. Seriously.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 19, 2013

You put that very well,

I understand that Bernie is tough. But now not only do we have to pass stuff through the "Bernies" of the Legislature, but we have a new authority that answers to no one!
We traded our right to redress grievances, and our govt of, by and for the people for a few States, and to eliminate the bothersome act of qualifying with our weapons.

I am not trying to change your mind or the NRA's as everybody has different priority's.

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Rhode Island
South Carolina*
West Virginia
Whoopie!

If I am Soooo wrong as you say why have you not put up even 1 shred of evidence to the effect. I know we have been here before and you are in it for the argument. just look at wrightme's posting history.... is there no one he won't fight with?

wrightme · Jan 19, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
You put that very well,

I understand that Bernie is tough. But now not only do we have to pass stuff through the "Bernies" of the Legislature, but we have a new authority that answers to no one!
We traded our right to redress grievances, and our govt of, by and for the people for a few States, and to eliminate the bothersome act of qualifying with our weapons.

I am not trying to change your mind or the NRA's as everybody has different priority's.

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
Rhode Island
South Carolina*
West Virginia
Whoopie!

Before that statute was passed, which unfortunately gave the NVSCA veto authority over the list, there was ZERO recognition, so that list you present would not have been possible. The ONLY power they have been given is that of veto over the list that wasn't there before.

DTOM said:
If I am Soooo wrong as you say why have you not put up even 1 shred of evidence to the effect. I know we have been here before and you are in it for the argument. just look at wrightme's posting history.... is there no one he won't fight with?

When someone such as you presented a baseless allegation, I will respond if I choose. The premise was that the NRA basically desired the NVSCA to be in power, with no evidence that the NRA desired such. An absence of information, does not prove something else.

As for 'not a shred of evidence?' BS. The claim was 'supported' by a list of attendees at a committee hearing, that I showed was before the amendment adding the NVSCA was even known about. It is irrelevant to say that the NRA 'supported' adding the NVSCA then, since it wasn't known then. After that, the choice was either 'go forward with the poison pill,' or 'stop and not gain recognition or any revolver.'

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 20, 2013

wrightme said:
Before that statute was passed, which unfortunately gave the NVSCA veto authority over the list, there was ZERO recognition, so that list you present would not have been possible. The ONLY power they have been given is that of veto over the list that wasn't there before

Are you claiming the NVSAC do not have final decision on whether a CCW instructor is approved or not? do you suggest above (by using the word ONLY) that the NVSAC do not set the CCW curriculum, pursuant to the statute?

Are you in competition with Bob Irwin's Guys for the amount of Misinformation you can Spawn?

wrightme · Jan 20, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
Are you claiming the NVSAC do not have final decision on whether a CCW instructor is approved or not? do you suggest above (by using the word ONLY) that the NVSAC do not set the CCW curriculum, pursuant to the statute?

Are you in competition with Bob Irwin's Guys for the amount of Misinformation you can Spawn?

What?

I haven't been speaking of anything other than the bill you brought into discussion.

The other items you now present are also fact, and I don't hold an opinion on those specifics.

Instead of simply blaming others for things you disagree with, maybe you should not spread misinformation if you don't like others spreading misinformation.

It seems that all you desire is to cast aspersions on others, whether accurate or not. How about if the things you bring up about legislation, you get into the the mix and work towards changing it yourself?

As for the CCW instructors, maybe you should read the applicable statute. Where is it defined that 'the NVSCA has final decision on whether a CCW instructor is approved or not?'

NRS 202.3657 Application for permit; eligibility; denial or revocation of permit.

1. Any person who is a resident of this State may apply to the sheriff of the county in which he or she resides for a permit on a form prescribed by regulation of the Department. Any person who is not a resident of this State may apply to the sheriff of any county in this State for a permit on a form prescribed by regulation of the Department. Application forms for permits must be furnished by the sheriff of each county upon request.

2. A person applying for a permit may submit one application and obtain one permit to carry all revolvers and semiautomatic firearms owned by the person. The person must not be required to list and identify on the application each revolver or semiautomatic firearm owned by the person. A permit must list each category of firearm to which the permit pertains and is valid for any revolver or semiautomatic firearm which is owned or thereafter obtained by the person to whom the permit is issued.

3. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the sheriff shall issue a permit for revolvers, semiautomatic firearms or both, as applicable, to any person who is qualified to possess the firearms to which the application pertains under state and federal law, who submits an application in accordance with the provisions of this section and who:

(a) Is 21 years of age or older;

(b) Is not prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to NRS 202.360; and

(c) Demonstrates competence with revolvers, semiautomatic firearms or both, as applicable, by presenting a certificate or other documentation to the sheriff which shows that the applicant:

(1) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety approved by a sheriff in this State; or

(2) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety offered by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, community college, university or national organization that certifies instructors in firearm safety.

Such a course must include instruction in the use of revolvers, semiautomatic firearms or both, as applicable, and in the laws of this State relating to the use of a firearm. A sheriff may not approve a course in firearm safety pursuant to subparagraph (1) unless the sheriff determines that the course meets any standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association or, if the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association ceases to exist, its legal successor.

The NVSCA does set the curriculum, and I have not denied such. But, according to statute, the NVSCA does NOT have final say over who can be a ccw instructor. If they ARE doing such, whoever finds this happening should present a challenge to that act.

Pro Gun Group choices?

varminter22

Regular Member

varminter22

Regular Member

CowboyKen

Regular Member

varminter22

Regular Member

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member

Vegassteve

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member

wrightme

Regular Member