CCW money

imported post

again with the sheriff candidates almost all of them except for the current sheriff were in favor of concealed carry without a permit and open carry as well. I also support this, but my only concern is what happens with a gangbanger over 21 that has a weapon? Currently he would get arrested even if he didnt have a record, which would be good. Of course if it was a felon with a weapon he would be screwed if we enforced the law firmly, but we need some way to still charge them with carrying a weapon so we cancharge them even if it wasnt used in a crime. Maybe charge them if they are a known gangmember or something.Maybe we could still require a permit card, but get rid of the qualification, classes etc...? what does everyone else think?

imported post

LvstudentDoc wrote:

again with the sheriff candidates almost all of them except for the current sheriff were in favor of concealed carry without a permit and open carry as well. I also support this, but my only concern is what happens with a gangbanger over 21 that has a weapon? Currently he would get arrested even if he didnt have a record, which would be good. Of course if it was a felon with a weapon he would be screwed if we enforced the law firmly, but we need some way to still charge them with carrying a weapon so we cancharge them even if it wasnt used in a crime. Maybe charge them if they are a known gangmember or something.Maybe we could still require a permit card, but get rid of the qualification, classes etc...? what does everyone else think?

Click to expand...

If the gangbanger that is over 21 has no record, then he should not get arrested any more than you or I should... Gangbanger or not... If there is no law broken nobody should be arrested.

In my CCW Class there were two admitted gangbangers (I talked to them on break) and guess what they got CCWs the same way I did, because they had no records... They told me and others that they were in a gang, and were getting their CCWs so they could be "legally strapped in LV".

Now were they really gangbangers? I don't know they could have been, they fit the "profile" but with no records they were not yet defined by law as criminals... Unfortunately by keeping our rights we will inherantly give up a bit of what the government and sheep see as increased safety. In reality if a gangbanger is going to carry a gun he is going to if there is a law or not, they do now so what is the difference? The difference is that those of us that are law abiding citizens have to pay $100.25 and jump through hoops so we can exercise our right to carry a gun... It does not stop current gangbangers from carrying anyway...:?

My understanding is, with the current law if you have a CCW and were driving down the street in your car with your girlfriend who does not have a CCW and your gun was in the glove box, she could be arrested for posesion of a concealed weapon without a permit... (I don't know exactly what wording is of what she would be charged with but this is the general idea) :uhoh:

I disagree with ANY registration or ANY type of permit being required...

The 2nd Amendment says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" there is no "except" in there.

imported post

no doubt, but you could see where i am coming from. I guess if they are stupid they can just kill another gangmember, shoot their own dick off grabbing it out of their waistband or whatnot. HOpefully if they did a crime while armed a citizen would smoke them. Oh well we will see what happens in the future.

imported post

Very, VERY well said, SCJeffro.

Vermont and Alaska (and now Arizona) have large cities, crime, etc - and they have Consitutional Carry. Have you EVER heard of 'problems' in those states? Don't you think the (largely) anti-gun media would be broadcasting 'problems' night and day, every three minutes, IF there were problems with Constitutional Carry in those states.

And always remember, as Benjamin Franklin isoften quoted as saying:


[align=center]

Those whowould give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Click to expand...

[/align]

imported post

varminter22 wrote:

Many still charge $105.

And some have actually lowered to the cost to $100.25 - due to a decrease in the cost to process fingerprints.

Out of that sum, $60 goes to the sheriff to process the application. $40.25 (or $45) goes to the NHP for fingerprint processing.

ALL should lower the cost to $100.25. The way I see it. By law, the sheriff cannot charge more than $60. And the cost of fingerprints is to be passed on:

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

(h) A nonrefundable fee in the amount necessary to obtain the report required pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 202.366[http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec366]; and
(i) A nonrefundable fee set by the sheriff not to exceed $60.

Click to expand...

So, in effect, some sheriffs charge $4.75 more than necessary and are "making a profit" not authorized by law. A big deal? Maybe not, but ...

Click to expand...

If/when your sheriff charges $45 for fingerprints, ask him why he doesn't lower the fee to $40.25.

Direct him to the Nevada Dept of Public Safety website (http://www.nvrepository.state.nv.us/fees.shtml) where you will find the "live scan" fingerprint fee is $40.25.

I do not know if every sheriff has the "live scan" technology in place, but I know many have it.

imported post

varminter22 wrote:

I firmly believe Constitutional Carry should be our goal. In our current political climate it probably will not be easy. But should be our long term goal.

Actually, I spoke with one Assemblyman about it; he indicated interest, but much remains to be seen.

Click to expand...

I agree Constitutional Carry should be the goal. One neighboring state will be Constitutional Carry legal very soon and another is working on ULOC to be illegal.

imported post

Found it interesting when some of the money goes to the Sheriff to process the application. "Metro" - was formed on July 1, 1973, by merging the Las Vegas Police Department with the Clark County Sheriff's Department. From that, point on Las Vegas did not have a Sheriff’s department. We have a Sheriff who is over all of the officers however, has no deputies.

imported post

SCJeffro wrote:

My understanding is, with the current law if you have a CCW and were driving down the street in your car with your girlfriend who does not have a CCW and your gun was in the glove box, she could be arrested for posesion of a concealed weapon without a permit...

Click to expand...

You misunderstand Nevada concealed carry law.

imported post

Yard Sale wrote:

SCJeffro wrote:

My understanding is, with the current law if you have a CCW and were driving down the street in your car with your girlfriend who does not have a CCW and your gun was in the glove box, she could be arrested for posesion of a concealed weapon without a permit...

Click to expand...

You misunderstand Nevada concealed carry law.

Click to expand...

OK, please explain, and show the NRS so I can understand it then.

imported post

202.350 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec350

(a) “Concealed weapon” means a weapon described in this section that is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

Click to expand...

NRS 202.350 Manufacture, importation, possession or use of dangerous weapon or silencer; carrying concealed weapon without permit; penalties; issuance of permit to carry concealed weapon; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 202.355 and 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, a person within this State shall not:
...
(d) Carry concealed upon his or her person any:
(1) Explosive substance, other than ammunition or any components thereof;
(2) Dirk, dagger or machete;
(3) Pistol, revolver or other firearm, or other dangerous or deadly weapon; or
(4) Knife which is made an integral part of a belt buckle.

Click to expand...

The law only restricts carrying a concealed weapon upon your person. It is not considered to be upon your person to have a firearm in the glove box.

See AG Opinion NO. 93-14 http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/NVAGOpWhatIsConcealed.pdf

It is our opinion that the language of NRS 202.350 would be narrowly construed to include only those
concealed weapons which are actually on the person or in a container carried by the person.

Click to expand...

imported post

Thanks for the clarification.