Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: Sb126

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177

    Sb126

    http://leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2...ory.cfm?ID=292

    Bill would do away with the requirement to qualify with and list each semi-auto firearm on your permit. Semi-auto firearms would be treated the same as revolvers are currently, qualify with one - carry any.

  2. #2
    Regular Member phreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    las vegas
    Posts
    14
    Why you would need to qualify with a revolver and semi auto is still odd to me, but at least its a step in the right direction. Maybe in another 5 years it will read; Qualify with any firearm to carry any firearm.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by phreak View Post
    Why you would need to qualify with a revolver and semi auto is still odd to me, but at least its a step in the right direction.
    I hear you on that one, good point!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Uir

    Quote Originally Posted by phreak View Post
    Why you would need to qualify with a revolver and semi auto is still odd to me, but at least its a step in the right direction. Maybe in another 5 years it will read; Qualify with any firearm to carry any firearm.
    It's not odd, it's recognition of the difference between revolver and semi-auto. People should know how to safely load, unload and handle the type of pistol they intend to carry.

    Having it as a REQUIREMENT is wrong. Shooting and safe gunhandling should be taught in the schools.

  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    I believe there is also a bill that is being proposed for constitutional carry and college carry!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I believe there is also a bill that is being proposed for constitutional carry and college carry!
    There is. BDR556 from Senator Gustavson was pre-filed on October 29, 2010. I don't believe it's been turned into an official bill yet, so there's not an AB number for it. Hopefully there will be soon.

    In my opinion, we should all support both of these bills. Assuming we get constitutional carry, there will probably still be a permit process for reciprocity purposes. I'd rather not have the permit process require me to qualify with all the guns I may decide to carry when I travel out of state.
    Last edited by njeske; 02-17-2011 at 12:09 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    While I support both concepts, something to keep in mind is that if we no longer have to qualify on each semi-auto, we might loose reciprocity with states that are not of the same mindset.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    While I support both concepts, something to keep in mind is that if we no longer have to qualify on each semi-auto, we might loose reciprocity with states that are not of the same mindset.
    Are there any states like that except us? The Utah CCW covers many states, and they have no such requirement (they have any revolver and any semi-auto).

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    While I support both concepts, something to keep in mind is that if we no longer have to qualify on each semi-auto, we might loose reciprocity with states that are not of the same mindset.
    There is no other state (other than Commiefornia, which will never enact a reciprocity law voluntarily) that requires qualification with each gun. Arkansas and Texas have qualification provisions similar to what this bill proposes for Nevada and New Mexico limits one to carrying a gun no larger than the caliber and type qualified with. However, no state conditions reciprocity on qualifying with each gun. Most states that have some form of reciprocity law in effect wither unilaterally honor all other states' licenses or provide for the establishment of reciprocity with any willing state without any other conditions.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    Looks like Assembly Bill 143 just got printed today. Same as SB126, but better, because it also includes a provision that your identity is now confidential (whereas the NV Supreme Court ruled last year that it wasn't!)

    SB126 heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing on Wednesday morning 02/16/2011.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    La Paz county, Arizona.
    Posts
    338
    reciprocity should be coming in a yr or two, another Thune type of amendment which will say that those of us with home state ccw's can carry in any other state, meaning we can carry in San Francisco on our NV permit but a San Franciscan would still be kind of screwed because while he could get a non resident ccw he still couldn't carry in San Fran. I cant wait to hear the weeping and wailing of Blamberg & ilk when I carry legally in NYC and Los Angeles.

    WRT to the semi auto tune up, it was blocked by Bernie Anderson & he got termed out so it should be good to go, as far as college carry? I really hope so, I know a really attractive gal that has been working at night at UNR and she has been stalked but even though she is 35 years old and has a ccw and carries everywhere she is treated the same as a freshman goofball, that God forsaken (campus ccw ban ) law has got to go

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by chrsjhnsn View Post
    WRT to the semi auto tune up, it was blocked by Bernie Anderson & he got termed out so it should be good to go, as far as college carry? I really hope so, I know a really attractive gal that has been working at night at UNR and she has been stalked but even though she is 35 years old and has a ccw and carries everywhere she is treated the same as a freshman goofball, that God forsaken (campus ccw ban ) law has got to go
    You should talk to her about attending the hearing for the bill. Her's would be a powerful testimony and hard to refute. It would be hard to justify why the state says that she is responsible enough to carry a weapon on the west side of N. Virginia St., but not on the east side.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordie View Post
    You should talk to her about attending the hearing for the bill. Her's would be a powerful testimony and hard to refute. It would be hard to justify why the state says that she is responsible enough to carry a weapon on the west side of N. Virginia St., but not on the east side.
    Concur.

    Women are force multipliers in the victims'-rights movement.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    La Paz county, Arizona.
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordie View Post
    You should talk to her about attending the hearing for the bill. Her's would be a powerful testimony and hard to refute. It would be hard to justify why the state says that she is responsible enough to carry a weapon on the west side of N. Virginia St., but not on the east side.
    when/where is the the hearing?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721

    strong support in hearing

    http://www.rgj.com/article/20110216/NEWS11/110216022

    Only one person spoke against it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    Just saw that article and came here to post about it. I'm glad it saw so much support. I'm still hoping that this is merged with AB143 so that we get the best of both bills in final passage.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    Yeah, he must have stopped reading when he got to the first time semi-automatic was mentioned in the bill and instantly raised his Brady objection flag. Did he even know what they were talking about? He said, “Automatic weapons are for killing people.“ Well yes, did you think we were going to create guns that tickle an attacker into submission? Asinine comments like this amaze me.

    He went on to say, “Nevada has to step up to the plate. We are no longer the Wild West.“ I agree. All things considered, things were pretty safe back then. More people died from disease than by gunshot. The myth that the streets were rampant with gun fire non-stop during American westward expansion is something that is greatly exaggerated by Hollywood. While I don't have the exact figures to quote, I'm reasonably certain violent crime is much worse today than it was in the 1880's. So yes, Nevada does need to step up to the plate. We need Constitutional Carry and Campus Carry as well as this long overdue overhaul of the CCW qualification process.

    If I could have my way, every adult capable of safely handling a weapon who is not mentally ill or a convicted felon/domestic abuser or habitual user of drugs/alcohol would be issued a firearm suitable to their ability within 6 months of their 18th birthday. They would be issued a holster and ammunition as well as a cleaning kit and would be required to keep this firearm maintained, loaded and on their person whenever they are in public. They would be given 50 self defense rounds every 2 years; replacement self defense ammo on an as-needed basis. Each month they would receive 200 rounds of range ammo and get a day of range time at a state owned range in their county.

    Those wishing to purchase their own firearm may do so, but must surrender their publicly issued firearm to their county armory. Those who choose to own their own firearm would be eligible for an tax credit each year, but are responsible fore their own maintenance range and ammunition expenses. Anyone having malfunctions with their publicly issued firearm may visit their county armorer for repair service at any time.

    Furthermore, a requirement for receiving a high school diploma would be one semester in safe handling and maintenance of firearms, and an additional semester of firearms marksmanship and proficiency.

    I know i'm not a fan of entitlement programs, but I'm down for this simply because we're all entitled to self defense.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by njeske View Post
    There is. BDR556 from Assemblyman Gustavson was pre-filed on October 29, 2010. I don't believe it's been turned into an official bill yet, so there's not an AB number for it. Hopefully there will be soon.

    In my opinion, we should all support both of these bills. Assuming we get constitutional carry, there will probably still be a permit process for reciprocity purposes. I'd rather not have the permit process require me to qualify with all the guns I may decide to carry when I travel out of state.
    Not here to nit pick , but just so someone does not mis-title a letter, I beilieve that Gustavson is a senator now.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    Not here to nit pick , but just so someone does not mis-title a letter, I beilieve that Gustavson is a senator now.
    You're right, he is. In my defense, he was an Assemblyman when the bill was pre-filed since the the November elections hadn't taken place yet. The BDR list still references the author as "Assemblyman." Nevertheless, my post has been updated.
    Last edited by njeske; 02-17-2011 at 12:11 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    The guys in the T-shirts could have cost us, just for not being dressed properly.

    Someone who is representing an organization should be in suit and tie (with or without coat), someone representing himself should be in "business casual" and NOBODY should wear anything that could be considered "Bubbawear" (T-shirts, hats, cammies, etc).

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    The guys in the T-shirts could have cost us, just for not being dressed properly.

    Someone who is representing an organization should be in suit and tie (with or without coat), someone representing himself should be in "business casual" and NOBODY should wear anything that could be considered "Bubbawear" (T-shirts, hats, cammies, etc).
    I think it depends on what kind of t-shirts that they are wearing. Definitely avoid t-shirts that have offensive or overly controversial messages on them.

    I don't agree with the need to wear a suit and tie if you represent an organization. I think that if your organization has nearly 800 members from all over the state, it is appropriate to wear attire that represents your organization.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    It doesn't matter what YOU or I agree or disagree with, what counts is the impression made to the legislators.

    When you are trying to convince someone of your argument, you want your audience to think "this is someone just like me . . .and if he is like me, maybe I can agree with what he is saying." You want them to have their focus on your words, not your appearance. I have never seen legislators in session wearing T-shirts, hats or any other kind of "Bubbawear."

    Lobbyists learned this lesson long ago -- and you won't find them wearing anything but a suit and tie when they are at the Capitol, even when not on the job. They work to maintain an image that doesn't draw the focus of the legislators.

    When you go before any legislative body, you are a walking, talking advertisement . . .you want to be the argument in FAVOR of your point of view.

    "I think that if your organization has nearly 800 members from all over the state, it is appropriate to wear attire that represents your organization. " So, if you are a lobbyist for the trash-collectors' union, you would come wearing stained coveralls? How would this be any worse than wearing a T-shirt?
    Last edited by DVC; 02-18-2011 at 02:43 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    It doesn't matter what YOU or I agree or disagree with, what counts is the impression made to the legislators.

    When you are trying to convince someone of your argument, you want your audience to think "this is someone just like me . . .and if he is like me, maybe I can agree with what he is saying." You want them to have their focus on your words, not your appearance. I have never seen legislators in session wearing T-shirts, hats or any other kind of "Bubbawear."

    Lobbyists learned this lesson long ago -- and you won't find them wearing anything but a suit and tie when they are at the Capitol, even when not on the job. They work to maintain an image that doesn't draw the focus of the legislators.

    When you go before any legislative body, you are a walking, talking advertisement . . .you want to be the argument in FAVOR of your point of view.

    "I think that if your organization has nearly 800 members from all over the state, it is appropriate to wear attire that represents your organization. " So, if you are a lobbyist for the trash-collectors' union, you would come wearing stained coveralls? How would this be any worse than wearing a T-shirt?
    If you can't differentiate between club apparel and stained work garments, then you either belong to a low rent club or you're an idiot.

    Although some lobbyists may wear suits and ties, not all do. I can tell you that at least one has lobbied for our rights for several sessions, is known by most of the veteran legislators by name, and does not wear a suit and tie. I have heard several legislators praise him for his effective efforts and never once did I hear them say that he should wear a suit and tie to be more effective. Club attire was encouraged by some of these same people.

    Although I agree "Bubbawear" is not a great idea, not wearing a suit and tie does not equal "Bubbawear".

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordie View Post
    Although I agree "Bubbawear" is not a great idea, not wearing a suit and tie does not equal "Bubbawear".
    You need to read what I wrote.

    Lobbyists wear suits.

    People who are not official reps wear business casual.

    People who are willing to be considered ignorant, to annoy or even offend our Elect Officials, or be laughed at on the Six O'Clock Follies wear T-shirts.

    Argue all you like -- it's not me that you have to convince, it's THEM, and they aren't all that eager to change the way it's been done since before any of them were elected.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    You need to read what I wrote.

    Lobbyists wear suits.

    People who are not official reps wear business casual.

    People who are willing to be considered ignorant, to annoy or even offend our Elect Officials, or be laughed at on the Six O'Clock Follies wear T-shirts.

    Argue all you like -- it's not me that you have to convince, it's THEM, and they aren't all that eager to change the way it's been done since before any of them were elected.
    Wearing affiliation attire to support the specific viewpoint of a group is not "Six O'Clock Follies T-shirt" apparel. You are out of line.

    You are treading very close to presenting an opinion that Free Speech can be limited by a dress code.
    Last edited by wrightme; 02-21-2011 at 02:32 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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