Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Assemblyman Pat Hickey Appears To Be On Our Side But...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Reno Nevada
    Posts
    41

    Assemblyman Pat Hickey Appears To Be On Our Side But...

    Below is a Email conversation I had with Pat Hickey Reno-R He is the guy who made the wisecrack about Legeslatures carrying on the floor. Mr. Hickey has been a champion for better education but he also appears in favor of our rights. He has a CCW but does not carry regularly nor do I think he has ever open carried.

    The Email exchange is reversed so I would suggest starting at the bottom.



    I will be supportive of them, I'm sure...P

    Sent from my iPad

    On Feb 3, 2015, at 2:21 PM, <removed> wrote:
    Guns in the capital building aside, how would you respond to the current bills being proposed on firearms? I hear there are quite a few this next session such as:

    Guns on campus: AB 2 and Bill Draft 20-242
    Guns during bow-hunting season: Bill Draft 45-561
    Constitutional concealed carry: Bill Draft 15-221


    From: Pat Hickey [removed]
    Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 12:53 PM
    To: <removed>
    Subject:: Re: Thank you!

    I am in full support of Concealed Carry Permits. I was merely trying to be humorous. However, there was once a practice of "leaving your guns at the Bar." Not sure, with uniformed police, we need nine members carrying on the Floor of the Assembly, though.

    Pat

    Sent from my iPad

    On Feb 3, 2015, at 11:14 AM, <removed> wrote:
    Howdy Pat,

    I noticed your comments about members of the Legislature that carry concealed weapons. I was wondering what your opinion on the practice was?

    Thank you for your time,

    <removed>

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Hickey
    ...Not sure, with uniformed police, we need nine members carrying on the Floor of the Assembly, though...
    He's right. We need all of them carrying. These are our state's lawmakers. Their safety is critical, and the fact that they don't take it upon themselves to provide it first is a bit of a bummer. But we don't have it so bad, except for making idiotic remarks about it so that the public gets the wrong idea about it.

    I'd like to see him make a public remark at the end of the Legislative Session about how many were carrying firearms and yet it was another trouble-free Session.
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-03-2015 at 07:20 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471
    "Leave your guns at the bar." WTF are they drinking on the job then? [/sarcasm]

    His reply makes no sense to me. I'm sure the presence of uniformed police helps their security, but when NRS permits employees of a public building to CCW within that building and no law technically prohibits any citizen from open carrying in that building, he needs to get over his personal opinion and go by the laws he is trusted to assist in developing.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    I cant find it so maybe I am wrong. I thought we had a total carry ban on us private citizens in a place that the leg is meeting?So even OC would be a no go?

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    If not allowed to carry, would the uniformed police guards be with them from the time they have to leave their personal firearm locked in a vehicle (hopefully secured parking) until they get back to it? Doubtful.

    Why is it such a hard concept to just let people carry their guns? Duh, the bad guys will do it anyway...
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    In reality, the only thing a gov't official can do to our rights is to oppress them.

    So, best case, any gov't official is neutral to our rights....as the only action that they can take is to try to limit our right or to say that they have jurisdiction over it.

    Even when they vote a pro-2nd vote, they are voting that they can vote on the issue and, hence, is a vote stating that they have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-07-2015 at 12:21 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Reno Nevada
    Posts
    41
    [QUOTE=davidmcbeth;2126358]In reality, the only thing a gov't official can do to our rights is to oppress them.

    Call me young and naive, but I still believe the elected official’s job is to do the will of his constituents. There are laws the bind a man and laws that set him free. There are many bills suggested this session that will expand our rights and I'm gonna talk to as many Senators and Assemblymen as I can to make sure they become law. I don't create a "them and us" environment. At least not on the state level.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    [QUOTE=At Ease;2126894]
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    In reality, the only thing a gov't official can do to our rights is to oppress them.

    Call me young and naive, but I still believe the elected official’s job is to do the will of his constituents. There are laws the bind a man and laws that set him free. There are many bills suggested this session that will expand our rights and I'm gonna talk to as many Senators and Assemblymen as I can to make sure they become law. I don't create a "them and us" environment. At least not on the state level.
    I was pondering your thought.
    "There are laws the bind a man and laws that set him free."
    I was unable to mentally locate a law that actually enhanced liberty. Have I been working nights too long? can someone point one out?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    [QUOTE=At Ease;2126894]
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    In reality, the only thing a gov't official can do to our rights is to oppress them.

    Call me young and naive, but I still believe the elected official’s job is to do the will of his constituents. There are laws the bind a man and laws that set him free. There are many bills suggested this session that will expand our rights and I'm gonna talk to as many Senators and Assemblymen as I can to make sure they become law. I don't create a "them and us" environment. At least not on the state level.
    You know most people are ignorant of what a right is and isn't?

    Hence this issue in respect to RKBA....

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    I was pondering your thought. I was unable to mentally locate a law that actually enhanced liberty. Have I been working nights too long? can someone point one out?
    The only real examples I can think of are state laws that limit or nullify local laws, like preemption laws, when they are done properly.
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-10-2015 at 08:26 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    The only real examples I can think of are state laws that limit or nullify local laws, like preemption laws, when they are done properly.
    But of course, these laws would actually support those local laws or at least acknowledge that they have meaning as they can re-vote and eliminate the preemption laws at any time.

  12. #12
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    But of course, these laws would actually support those local laws or at least acknowledge that they have meaning as they can re-vote and eliminate the preemption laws at any time.
    This is why we need to get pre-emption strengthened to the point that it truly protects us, then write it into the state constitution.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    This is why we need to get pre-emption strengthened to the point that it truly protects us, then write it into the state constitution.

    TBG
    But natural rights supersede constitutions ... which can also be changed.

    That's why I really don't rally around gun laws [I do testify and tell them why they are wrong to even consider goofy ones] ...

    As all of them either a) recognize that our right can be limited or b) limit the right straight out

    Just my viewpoint (and plenty of others).

    What gun bills do is to identify persons who are more than willing to try to suppress our rights. Then I take action against those persons when I can.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-10-2015 at 11:40 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    But natural rights supersede constitutions ... which can also be changed.

    That's why I really don't rally around gun laws [I do testify and tell them why they are wrong to even consider goofy ones] ...

    As all of them either a) recognize that our right can be limited or b) limit the right straight out

    Just my viewpoint (and plenty of others).

    What gun bills do is to identify persons who are more than willing to try to suppress our rights. Then I take action against those persons when I can.
    Well put. Do you ever fear that testifying before the legislature gives them unearned relevance?

  15. #15
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    I cant find it so maybe I am wrong. I thought we had a total carry ban on us private citizens in a place that the leg is meeting?So even OC would be a no go?
    218A.905 says one cannot carry without "legal authority."

    My interpretation is that open carry is banned, but concealed carry hinges upon the signage of their doors per 202.3673.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    218A.905 says one cannot carry without "legal authority."

    My interpretation is that open carry is banned, but concealed carry hinges upon the signage of their doors per 202.3673.
    Believe it or not, but that actually makes sense, legally speaking, in the same way that when written permission is given for carrying on campus (for the privileged elite or highly-publicized rape victim), that written permission always has licensed concealment as a requirement.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •