• 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.

2009 CCW Permit Holders Forum, September 15

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

SA-TX wrote:
wrightme wrote:
SA-TX wrote:
More reciprocity. As a TX CHL holder, I've love to be able to CC in NV.

Open carry seems to get you a great amount of attention. A local and an attorney should be able to make Metro respect the law but a visitor only has so much time and burning it in jail or hassling with the police for doing something that is legal isn't a very productive.
Reciprocity would be nice. We currently have none.

Not true. Nevada recognizes 10 states, but not Texas. I find that surprising. I wonder if our minimum age requirement (usually 21, but over 18 for current military or ex-military) makes our law "not substantially similar".

http://nvrepository.state.nv.us/ccw_changes.shtml
No, we do not have "reciprocity." NV recognizes permits from states that have "substantially similar" CCW standards. This is not the same as reciprocity.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

wrightme is 100% correct.

Nevada does NOT have reciprocity. Nevada DOES have a system in place whereby Nevada will recognize some other state's permits IF repeat IF the requirements below are met.

Read the law.

See
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3653

-----------------------------------

Read NRS 202.3688 and NRS 202.3689

-----------------------------------

Reciprocity vs 'Selective Recognition' - splitting hairs? Maybe. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

It is amusing how some non-Nevadans "know" Nevada law better than Nevadans!
 

SA-TX

Centurion
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
275
Location
Ellis County, Texas, USA
imported post

varminter22 wrote:
wrightme is 100% correct.

Nevada does NOT have reciprocity. Nevada DOES have a system in place whereby Nevada will recognize some other state's permits IF repeat IF the requirements below are met.

Read the law.

See
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3653

-----------------------------------

Read NRS 202.3688 and NRS 202.3689

-----------------------------------

Reciprocity vs 'Selective Recognition' - splitting hairs? Maybe. BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

It is amusing how some non-Nevadans "know" Nevada law better than Nevadans!


As you surmised, I was using the term reciprocity generically to refer to Nevada giving validity to out-of-state permits/licenses. Given that Nevada doesn't seem to require anything of the other state, recognition does seem to be the most correct term. I stand corrected.

The original pointof my post was to urge the CC holders to press for more out of state permits/licenses to be honored in Nevada. Hopefully we can all agree that is a worthy objective.

SA-TX
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

I had an interesting thought.

Utah is a state whose permit is accepted in many states, probably the most of any state-issued CCW. That results in quite a substantial revenue stream for Utah I would imagine.

Well, as a resident of Nevada, I'd like to have that benefit instead of the Utahans. My suggestion will be for the state CCW folks to work for recognition of our permit in more places. If we can meet or beat the number that recognize Utah permits, we might just be able to capture that revenue stream for our state instead!!
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
imported post

I dont have the law on it, but I believe that Utah honors ANY valid carry permit regardless of the state or reciprocity agreements. And that is why I ride my motorcycle to Bryce Canyon, or Zion ect. instead of Big Bear, Ca
 

takemine2

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
41
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
imported post

DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote:
I dont have the law on it, but I believe that Utah honors ANY valid carry permit regardless of the state or reciprocity agreements. And that is why I ride my motorcycle to Bryce Canyon, or Zion ect. instead of Big Bear, Ca

You are correct...

http://www.le.utah.gov/UtahCode/getCodeSection?code=76-10-523

Utah Code
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 10 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, Welfare, and Morals
Section 523 Persons exempt from weapons laws.


76-10-523. Persons exempt from weapons laws.
(1) This part and Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, do not apply to any of the following:
(a) a United States marshal;
(b) a federal official required to carry a firearm;
(c) a peace officer of this or any other jurisdiction;
(d) a law enforcement official as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711;
(e) a judge as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711;
(f) a common carrier while engaged in the regular and ordinary transport of firearms as merchandise; or
(g) a nonresident traveling in or through the state, provided that any firearm is:
(i) unloaded; and
(ii) securely encased as defined in Section 76-10-501.
(2) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504(1) and (2), and Section 76-10-505 do not apply to any person to whom a permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued:
(a) pursuant to Section
53-5-704; or
(b) by another state or county.

Amended by Chapter 362, 2009 General Session
 

CowboyKen

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
524
Location
, ,
imported post

timf343 wrote:
I had an interesting thought.

Utah is a state whose permit is accepted in many states, probably the most of any state-issued CCW. That results in quite a substantial revenue stream for Utah I would imagine.

Well, as a resident of Nevada, I'd like to have that benefit instead of the Utahans. My suggestion will be for the state CCW folks to work for recognition of our permit in more places. If we can meet or beat the number that recognize Utah permits, we might just be able to capture that revenue stream for our state instead!!

Nice idea, however, Nevada law requires training in Nevada and submission of the application in person (and this often takes several hours to get done).

Utah accepts training done anywhere and applications by mail.

We cannot compete.

Ken
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

CowboyKen wrote:
timf343 wrote:
I had an interesting thought.

Utah is a state whose permit is accepted in many states, probably the most of any state-issued CCW. That results in quite a substantial revenue stream for Utah I would imagine.

Well, as a resident of Nevada, I'd like to have that benefit instead of the Utahans. My suggestion will be for the state CCW folks to work for recognition of our permit in more places. If we can meet or beat the number that recognize Utah permits, we might just be able to capture that revenue stream for our state instead!!

Nice idea, however, Nevada law requires training in Nevada and submission of the application in person (and this often takes several hours to get done).

Utah accepts training done anywhere and applications by mail.

We cannot compete.

Ken

Actually, it is the NSCA that made those requirements - not the legislature via law.

See NRS Ch 202: www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3653

And see the NSCA's "Nevada Concealed Weapon Training Standards" document: www.stillwaterfirearms.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=2
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

CowboyKen wrote:
timf343 wrote:
I had an interesting thought.

Utah is a state whose permit is accepted in many states, probably the most of any state-issued CCW. That results in quite a substantial revenue stream for Utah I would imagine.

Well, as a resident of Nevada, I'd like to have that benefit instead of the Utahans. My suggestion will be for the state CCW folks to work for recognition of our permit in more places. If we can meet or beat the number that recognize Utah permits, we might just be able to capture that revenue stream for our state instead!!

Nice idea, however, Nevada law requires training in Nevada and submission of the application in person (and this often takes several hours to get done).

Utah accepts training done anywhere and applications by mail.

We cannot compete.

Ken


Actually, the NSCA made those requirements - administratively. Not the legislature via law.

See NRS Ch 202: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3653

And see the NSCA's "Nevada Concealed Weapon Training Standards" document: http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=2

So, in theory, the idea is possible. But in practice, perhaps not probable.

In the 2007 legislature, the NSCA introduced AB-21. This bill would have raised the permit application fee (to the sheriff) from $60 (initial)/$25 (renewal) to $125 for both initial and renewal.

I/We (SFA) adamantly opposed AB-21 as it was introduced (with huge fee increases).

In testimony, it was documented that Utah estimated their costs to process a CCW application was about $31.

The NSCA said the Clark County sheriff was losing money - that it cost more than $60 to process applications. When subsequently queried, some (perhaps most?) NV sheriffs indicated $60 was plenty and some agreed with the Clark County sheriff.

In the end, a compromise was struck - to keep the initial app fee at $60, and to raise the renewal app fee from $25 to $60. The bill still failed to pass out of committee, purportedly because the Gov was standing true to his no tax/fee increases pledge.

Although I/we did not/do not want ANY fee increases, we reluctantly agreed to the above compromise because IF the bill had passed, we would still have our NICS exemption - an issue that continues to this day.

AB-21 (2007 session) info here: www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Reports/history.cfm?ID=49
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Concerning the loss of the NICS exemption for NV's CCW permit holders, the NSCA released a statement (see http://www.nvsca.com/CCW_Press_Release.html), quoted here:
NEVADA SHERIFFS’ & CHIEFS’ ASSOCIATION

MEDIA RELEASE
June 10, 2008

BACKGROUND CHECK NOW REQUIRED FOR ALL

PERSONS EVERY TIME A GUN IS PURCHASED

The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has just notified all Federal

Firearms Dealers in Nevada that persons with a Nevada Carry Concealed Weapon permit (CCW)

will no longer be exempt from a background check when they purchase a firearm. Following the

defeat of Assembly Bill 21 in the 2007 legislative session, Nevada residents who hold a CCW

permit will be required to pass the same background check as all other State residents, including

Law Enforcement Personnel, every time a firearm is purchased after July 1st, 2008.



Assembly Bill 21 was sponsored by the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association. This bill

would have changed existing Nevada law to allow local agencies issuing CCW permits to satisfy

Federal requirements. It would maintain Nevada’s exemption from the portion of the Brady Bill

which mandates a background check prior to the purchase of a firearm. Nevada was only one of

16 states whose CCW permits were previously recognized as an acceptable alternative to the

Brady Bill background check requirement.



In order to maintain this status, Nevada agencies would have been required to conduct a full

criminal background check on every individual who applies for either an initial CCW permit or a

permit renewal. The present Nevada law, which has been deemed as inadequate by the Federal

Government, only requires the full criminal background checks at the time of the initial CCW

permit application. The permit is good for five years. The BATFE exemption would have allowed

the holder of a CCW permit to purchase an unlimited number of firearms without completing

additional background checks.



The proposed Assembly Bill would also have increased fees from the present $60.00 initial

application fee and $25.00 renewal fee to a cost of up to $125.00 for both the initial and renewal

applications. Now, based on the defeat of AB 21 and the loss of the exemption to the Brady Bill

background check, everyone who purchases a firearm will be required to pay the $25.00

background check fee every time a firearm is purchased.



While the Nevada CCW permit was never intended to serve as an exemption from the

required Brady Bill background check, the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association has

diligently worked to preserve its status while attempting to recoup actual costs incurred

for the application and renewal process for CCW permits. A letter was sent by the U.S.

Department of Justice to all licensed Nevada firearms dealers on May 30th, 2008,

outlining the new requirements.





FRANK ADAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

P.O. Box 3247 Mesquite, NV 89024

Office:1-866-266-9870 or Cell: 702-379-6591



It is true the NSCA introduced AB-21 (2007) which would have allowed us to maintain our NICS exemption when purchasing a firearm from an FFL.



HOWEVER, the NSCA obviously left out some facts.



The NSCA was initially ADAMANT about raising the CCW permit application fees from $60 (initial) and $25 (renewal) to $125 for both initial and renewal.



After adamant opposing testimony from groups (such as SFA) and individuals,

and

after testimony stating that Utah documented their cost to process applications at $31,

and similar testimony concerning other states' low cost application fees,

and

after being reminded of Gov Gibbons' pledge to veto any bill containing tax or fee inclreases,

THEN the NSCA suggested a compromise of leaving the initial app fee at $60, but raise the renewal app fee from the current $25 to $60 (same as current initial app fee.)



The compromise was written into an amended AB-21. And, I personally would have accepted it since itpresumably costs virtuallythe same to process initial and renewal apps AND we would have maintained our NICS exemption.



Purportedly because of the Gov's pledge, AB-21 did not garner enough votes to pass out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.



So, yes, had AB-21 become law, it would have preserved our NICS exemption.



Taken a step further, IF the NSCA had not pressed for the fee increase, it is extremely likely the bill would have passed the committee and the entire Assembly/Senate, and would have become law and thereby preserved our NICS exemption.



As I alluded earlier in this thread, there was plenty of testimony to suggest the current $60 fee is plenty to process an application. Indeed, many sheriffs subsequently agreed (but NOT Clark County!)



A tangent: Some sheriffs argued that since it costs them (they think)more than $60 to process an app, the taxpayer should not subsize the extra costs. I respectfully disagree. Even if it does cost a few dollars over and above the current $60 fee to process an application, I submit that is okay and is truly a benefit to the public (taxpayers).



Think about that for a moment. Fact: Officer safety is a big concern. Fact: Law abiding citizens have and do come to the aid of law enforcement officers. (See http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=30&issue=003) Fact: Bad guys do not care about firearms/CCW laws. Fact: Law enforcement officers need not worry about CCW permit holders and/or civilians lawfully open carrying. Question: If a CCW permit holder saves just one officers life, is that not worth the small difference between the current fee and the actual cost? (Providing, of course,if we assume some sheriffs cannot process an app with the same efficiency as other sheriffs and states.)

Indeed, it is a benefit to the public in general.



The NSCA states


the Nevada CCW permit was never intended to serve as an exemption from the

required Brady Bill background check ...
Well, maybe. But I've seen no evidence to suggest it was intended to not serve as an exemption.



I believe the CCW permit fee AND the Brady fee amount to a tax and an infringment on a God given, Constitutionally guaranteed right. Having said that, I will continue to support sensible "shall issue" CCW law until we can one day restore our rights in accordance with thetrue and original meaning of the 2nd Amendment.







 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,712
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
imported post

timf343 wrote:
Are weapons allowed? I think the assembly building is off limits, but is that only when the legislature is in session?


Here is the text of 218.542.

NRS 218.542 Unlawful interference with legislative process. Every person who, without legal authority, willfully does any of the following acts, alone or in concert with another, interferes with the legislative process:

1. Prevents or attempts to prevent the Legislature from conducting meetings.

2. Disturbs, disrupts or interferes with, or attempts to disturb, disrupt or interfere with a meeting of the Legislature, any of its committees or any committee or commission created by the Legislature to perform legislative functions at the direction of the Legislature.

3. Withholds, defaces, alters or destroys any official document or record of the Legislature, which conduct interferes with the functioning of the Legislature.

4. Withholds, defaces, alters or destroys any property owned or used by the Legislature.

5. Remains in the legislative chamber, legislative building in Carson City, or any part thereof, or any room in which the Legislature is conducting its business, after being advised that the law or rule of the Legislature requires persons to leave after being asked to do so, and being asked to leave.

6. Prevents or attempts to prevent any member of the Legislature, or officer or employee thereof, from performing his official duties.

7. Coerces or attempts to coerce any member of the Legislature, or officer or employee thereof, to perform any act under color of office, by any unlawful means, threats of violence, fraud or intimidation.

8. Possesses any firearm, explosive, dangerous device or deadly weapon in the legislative building or any other place where the Legislature is conducting its business.

(Added to NRS by 1973, 217; A 1975, 1385)


I suppose it is possible that (8.) could be read:
Possesses any firearm, explosive, dangerous device or deadly weapon in the legislative buildingor any other place

where the Legislature is conducting its business.
If it was interpreted that way, it would only prohibit firearms in the legislative building where the legislature is conducting its business.


But it could also be read:
Possesses any firearm, explosive, dangerous device or deadly weapon in the legislative building


OR

any other placewhere the Legislature is conducting its business.

Under this interpretationthe firearms would be banned at all times at the legislative building, and temporarily at other locations that the legislature might be.

Personally Iwould not want to take the risk.

...


(As for the consideration of whether the building is posted, 202.3673 only applies to concealed firearms, so whether the building is posted is only relevant with reference to concealed firearms.)
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Felid,

There is a sign at each entrance that says no firearms allowed unless you obtain permission.

Permission is requested (and granted or denied) at the desk right inside, manned by a capital policeman.

Whether or not permission is intended only for law enforcement and a "chosen few" or not, I don't know.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

NRS 218.542 Unlawful interference with legislative process. Every person who, without legal authority, willfully does any of the following acts, alone or in concert with another, interferes with the legislative process:

1. Prevents or attempts to prevent the Legislature from conducting meetings.

2. Disturbs, disrupts or interferes with, or attempts to disturb, disrupt or interfere with a meeting of the Legislature, any of its committees or any committee or commission created by the Legislature to perform legislative functions at the direction of the Legislature.

3. Withholds, defaces, alters or destroys any official document or record of the Legislature, which conduct interferes with the functioning of the Legislature.

4. Withholds, defaces, alters or destroys any property owned or used by the Legislature.

5. Remains in the legislative chamber, legislative building in Carson City, or any part thereof, or any room in which the Legislature is conducting its business, after being advised that the law or rule of the Legislature requires persons to leave after being asked to do so, and being asked to leave.

6. Prevents or attempts to prevent any member of the Legislature, or officer or employee thereof, from performing his official duties.

7. Coerces or attempts to coerce any member of the Legislature, or officer or employee thereof, to perform any act under color of office, by any unlawful means, threats of violence, fraud or intimidation.

8. Possesses any firearm, explosive, dangerous device or deadly weapon in the legislative building or any other place where the Legislature is conducting its business.

(Added to NRS by 1973, 217; A 1975, 1385)
It isn't a "blanket."
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

At any rate, I'm confident the legislature building was chosen because it is an appropriate facility and, most importantly, it has the communications equipment to allow video teleconference with Las Vegas.

We need maximum participation!
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

Darn it, completely missed it! I was actually meeting with Metro Police at this time so I wouldn't have been able to make it anyway, but I'm curious to see how it went and what was said. Anyone have any updates?

Tim
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
imported post

Tim, at the risk of sounding negative, you didn't miss to much. there was some discussion abou reciprocity and attempting to make things better, but it was in the context of we the citizensneed to get the laws changed. I had just started my question about metro insisting that we carry the "blue card" and was inturrupted and told it wasn't relevent to the meeting. I finished anyway but came away with the feeling that it was government acting like they want do something, but not really.
 
Top