• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Nevada Firearms Coalition Screws up again

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Wrightme: You keep insisting that people who do not agree with you set up a 2-A booth at a public school. suggesting that is against the rules on this forum as it is against the law (ZERO TOLERANCE.) Also see NRS 207.190 that is your Cite Please seek help!

DTOM, what was your intent with this cryptic post? Who do you see as violating 207.190, and what is it you felt was relevant about that NRS about coercion?
***************************************************************************************************************************
Wrightme: You keep insisting that people who do not agree with you set up a 2-A booth at a public school. suggesting that is against the rules on this forum as it is against the law (ZERO TOLERANCE.) Also see NRS 207.190 that is your Cite Please seek help!

What? I have not said for anyone to break any laws. What law do you claim makes presenting information illegal on school property?

I have not insisted that people who do not agree with me, to do such. I have asked if they would.


I pointed that out, as carry is prohibited there. But, it is a perfect place to share information where it is needed.


What point do you attempt with your 'cite?'
NRS 207.190  Coercion.

1.  It is unlawful for a person, with the intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which the other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to:

(a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of the other person’s family, or upon the other person’s property, or threaten such violence or injury;

(b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder the person in the use thereof; or

(c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force.

2.  A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 shall be punished:

(a) Where physical force or the immediate threat of physical force is used, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.

(b) Where no physical force or immediate threat of physical force is used, for a misdemeanor.

[1911 C&P § 475; RL § 6740; NCL § 10424]—(NRS A 1967, 522; 1979, 1455; 1995, 1239)

Who do you claim is doing that?
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
Nope.

Simple really. Their decision to participate at the Wild Fest does not mean that.

That decision added to the record of the organization does mean that. What little effect they had on the legislature lost us rights this year. Couple that with the FACT that every other meeting or event they have held has been at an ANTI establishment. With the lone exception being them changing the grassroots meeting to Stoneys only after we pressed them on it. Couple that with the FACT that they dont follow the by laws of the org that they set. And it all adds up.

The best thing they could do is FOLD. Let Stillwater go back to actually getting things done. End of story. I dont have a big dog in this hunt anymore. I told turner to remove me from the rolls. Yet I wont stand by and watch them pretend to be something they are not, and take money from folks.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
That decision added to the record of the organization does mean that. What little effect they had on the legislature lost us rights this year. Couple that with the FACT that every other meeting or event they have held has been at an ANTI establishment. With the lone exception being them changing the grassroots meeting to Stoneys only after we pressed them on it. Couple that with the FACT that they dont follow the by laws of the org that they set. And it all adds up.

The best thing they could do is FOLD. Let Stillwater go back to actually getting things done. End of story. I dont have a big dog in this hunt anymore. I told turner to remove me from the rolls. Yet I wont stand by and watch them pretend to be something they are not, and take money from folks.






Sigh.


I was one of those in Stillwater doing that......... They didn't have the resources to put to the legislative efforts.

Much of what we did accomplish was WITH the NRA representative.
 
Last edited:

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
Sigh.


I was one of those in Stillwater doing that......... They didn't have the resources to put to the legislative efforts.

Much of what we did accomplish was WITH the NRA representative.

I know that. I stopped being a stillwater member when nvfac came along. And I stand by my statement. Stillwater got more done. The Big Guy has got more done and he is one person. And apparently the nvfac didnt have the resources.

This is directly from the nvfac web site. Please list one by one of these bullet points what they have done to fulfill any of these. When I directly inquired about something as simple as holding a match, they have a match director, I was shut down. Told it was a unsafe thing for them to do. I have the email I can post it. That was just one thing. I cant see any action on any of these points.

http://www.nvfac.org/PurposeandObjectives.aspx


Purpose and Objectives
The Nevada Firearms Coalition is dedicated to the ownership and safe use of firearms for self-defense, competition, recreation & hunting

To these ends our purposes and objectives are:

To be the statewide association promoting the ownership and safe use of firearms for self-defense, competition, recreation and hunting.
To safeguard the rights of the citizens of Nevada to keep and bear arms in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Nevada, to enhance these rights and to promote favorable public sentiment thereof.
To educate members and others in the legislative processes, and to alert them of legislative proposals which affect their rights and purposes.
To coordinate, sponsor, and/or conduct competitive events.
To sponsor and/or conduct matches for the selection of teams to represent the State in the National Matches and/or other matches approved by the Board of Directors.
To sponsor and/or conduct firearms training and education programs for firearms safety, self-defense, competitions, recreation and hunting.
To promote the education and development of youth in marksmanship and firearms safety.
To promote the ideal of sportsmanship in the shooting sports.
To encourage the construction and professional management of shooting ranges throughout Nevada, to assist member organizations and/or governments in Nevada in the procurement and development of such ranges, and to hold, lease and/or operate such ranges.
To advance the ideals and purposes of the National Rifle Association and other organizations which reflect these purposes.
To further the ideals and programs of other organizations whose goals are: patriotism, conservation and other worthwhile purposes, and who support the general objectives of the Coalition.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I know that. I stopped being a stillwater member when nvfac came along. And I stand by my statement. Stillwater got more done. The Big Guy has got more done and he is one person. And apparently the nvfac didnt have the resources.
Then you were a member of SFA under false expectations. The NFC didn't 'replace' SFA. They were still part of the process last session.




This is directly from the nvfac web site. Please list one by one of these bullet points what they have done to fulfill any of these. [/QUOTE]

Nope, not my yob to prove or disprove items that I haven't been worried about. As I have mentioned many times, I fully expected them to focus solely upon the legislative session. They did. Whether they meet your desires or not, isn't my concern. But, it is obvious that your desires are unable to be met by some group that you are not running. Signing out of this waste of time.
 

vegaspassat

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
626
Location
united states
And yes, this has been an utter waste of time for you. Fruitful for me (to understand how useless nvfac really is), but a waste for you (trying to defend a lost cause).
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I've tried my best to stay out of this. And it is NOT my intent to get embroiled in this discussion.

But I must say it is distressing to read the several detractors of NVFAC. Perhaps it is best to simply agree to disagree.

But I believe - firmly believe - NVFAC is a worthy organization. Indeed, NVFAC was baptized under fire in the 2013 legislative session. Unfortunately, the session was largely a 'defensive' session for Nevada gun owners. But NVFAC was instrumental in fighting the several horrible and draconian bills. NVFAC was even selected as "grassroots organization of the year" by Citizen Outreach.

Folks here don't always agree on all things and how to approach the many issues before us. Although we have it pretty good here as compared to many states, there is much work to be done in Nevada.

I sure would like to repeal all unconstitutional and/or unnecessary draconian gun laws in one fell swoop. But, alas, that won't happen, so we keep chipping away.

But we here DO agree on most things. Like Reagan said, those that agree with you 80% are your friends. And his 11th commandment, don't speak ill of your friends. (Paraphrased) Sometimes that is forgotten here.

Again, I do not desire to get embroiled in this seemingly endless discussion. But feel free to contact me if desired.
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
But I must say it is distressing to read the several detractors of NVFAC. Perhaps it is best to simply agree to disagree.

Only a detractor because they dont seem to stand for us at all. Cant follow the goals or by laws they have, you were at the meeting when the Big Guy was shut down against the very rules they set. Refuse to get involved in any of the real work being done. Tired of hearing the we can do more when we have more numbers. In the face of proof that it doesn't always take numbers.
 

vegaspassat

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
626
Location
united states
Unfortunately, the session was largely a 'defensive' session for Nevada gun owners. But NVFAC was instrumental in fighting the several horrible and draconian bills.


You mean like the campus carry bill? And I'm sure sb221 passed, but was vetoed by the gov, because of nvfac's efforts. Constituents calling the gov's office had nothing to do with that. it was mostly because of nvfav's defensive power. Who do I write my check out to again?
 
Last edited:

CowboyKen

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
524
Location
, ,
As far as I can tell so far they have accomplished exactly none of their stated goals. Mr. Turner could not even get his buddy Bob Irwin elected. I know, he didn't have enough support from us.

Ken
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
You mean like the campus carry bill? And I'm sure sb221 passed, but was vetoed by the gov, because of nvfac's efforts. Constituents calling the gov's office had nothing to do with that. it was mostly because of nvfav's defensive power. Who do I write my check out to again?

Totally unnecessary comment. I have extolled the virtues of citizenry involvement/correspondence and I have profusely thanked all involved. But it is undeniable the NVFAC also played a big part.

As for Campus Carry, are you not aware of what the bill was up against? Have you not seen the lopsided majority of Democrats in our Assembly? It is absolutely ABSURD to suggest Campus Carry did not pass because of NVFAC.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
As far as I can tell so far they have accomplished exactly none of their stated goals. Mr. Turner could not even get his buddy Bob Irwin elected. I know, he didn't have enough support from us.

Ken
Totally unnecessary, untrue, and unrelated comment.

Mr Turner and Mr Irwin were not and are not "buddies." In fact, Mr Turner was instrumental in obtaining Mr Irwin's resignation.

As for goals, we have discussed that ad nauseum.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
There's the problem. Your idea of "best" is if we stop complaining.

Ah, DVC, but I didn't say that.

We've been through this before. For each and every positive point made, for each disagreement, resulting comments oftentimes seem to go downhill, sometimes even resorting to personal attacks. Nothing I can say or do will change many minds here. Hence, perhaps best to agree to disagree.

Like Ronald Reagan said, if someone agrees with you 80% he/she is your friend. He also said something like 'don't attack your friends.' Well, virtually everyone here is in agreement on most (over 80%) of firearms/rights related issues, so what are we to accomplish by beating each other up over this?

We most definitely need to work together towards the common overall goal. Agree?
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Ah, DVC, but I didn't say that.

We've been through this before. For each and every positive point made, for each disagreement, resulting comments oftentimes seem to go downhill, sometimes even resorting to personal attacks. Nothing I can say or do will change many minds here. Hence, perhaps best to agree to disagree.

We most definitely need to work together towards the common overall goal. Agree?

The reasons this argument refuses to go away, is simple:

To recognize the power of the individual, diminishes the power of the collective.

To enhance the power of the collective is to diminish the power of the individual.

So in short we do not have common goals on this subject. You are either advancing individual freedoms and thoughts, or are advancing collectivist ideals. the two are like oil and water!

No one, myself included is speaking of the root of all successes, That would be that no matter what happens in legislature with these bills good bad or indifferent, they are ALL negated by open carry. Open carry is the one simple tool that can offset any damage done by the Legislature NVFAC, Brady campaign etc. That is the common goal that most agree with but we do not discuss that! And very few collectives encourage it, as it is an individual effort.
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Today, Travis and I spent about 10 hours each working on the Sheriffs and Chiefs brief, we have a deadline later this week. The unconstitutional delegation is a complex component in this case, but we are definitely going to make them work. How it relates to this post is this. I ran across some case law from 1967 and there is a quote stating almost (but in lawyer terms) what I said above, here is the quote:

The maxim "EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERERUS", (Probably Latin) the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another, has been repeatedly confirmed in this State.

It has also been repeatedly confirmed on this Forum. (jus sayin) So we have people coming from a independent foundation, and people coming from a collective foundation.... does anyone want to start a productive conversation? or are we the people going to let this thread die?
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
does anyone want to start a productive conversation? or are we the people going to let this thread die?



That would be great but ut is not going to happen with nvfac. I have listed over and over again the fouls they have made. The list of things they have said they will do and have not taken one step to do. It is up to us. The people as individuals to make changes. Your a very good example of that.

Why would they have not been in any way shape or form a part of the lawsuit? Why would they not do something as simple as publicly say they just support it? That doesnt cost them a red cent. yet they didnt. Why? I have a theory. They want dont want to step on the friends in office they have.

They have ZERO interest in us here in the OC forum. They have proven that. It is a fact based on the actions they have taken in the past.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
DTOM and others, the point you are sidestepping is this. The methods are different, the goals are the same. Many here refuse to help, where carry is prohibited. Others choose to help, in spite of that prohibition. I chose the school example to point out the need for sharing information where carry IS prohibited. I also used the example of legislative sessions. Did you miss that? Do you also stop your advocacy there because carry is prohibited?

In many cases, the need is where the 2A is most restricted. Avoid those places, and you are preaching to the choir, and missing where change is needed yet.
Bogus request. You set up a booth in a school.

If the leadership of NVFAC is not to your liking, get new leadership.
 
Top