Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Ab143

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

    Thumbs up Ab143

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/7...ory.cfm?ID=349

    Looks to be the companion bill of SB126, but it goes a step further and changes the law so that all permit information is confidential. The NV Supreme Court ruled last year that information on issued permits wasn't confidential because the current law only states that the information on the applications is confidential.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/7...s/AB/AB143.pdf


    Another plus about this version is that it lacks the following part of SB126:
    which is owned or thereafter obtained by the person to whom the permit is issued.
    Last edited by wrightme; 02-23-2011 at 12:31 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    344
    A couple of things that I don't see in this bill nor the Senate bill is when, if passed, these bills will take effect; and also whether those of us who already have a CCW are automatically included. I would expect that we would be, but I don't find any language that assures that.

    Varminter22, any idea?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Loneviking View Post
    A couple of things that I don't see in this bill nor the Senate bill is when, if passed, these bills will take effect; and also whether those of us who already have a CCW are automatically included. I would expect that we would be, but I don't find any language that assures that.

    Varminter22, any idea?
    Bills without effective dates text become effective on October 1.

    I am confident the confidentiality would apply to ALL permits, even those existing before passage of the bill.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    I am confident the confidentiality would apply to ALL permits, even those existing before passage of the bill.
    Yeah, I can't see them going to the effort to set up a database toggle for before and after.

    You can also pretty much bet that those reporters (and the anti-gunners) will get the last update they can.

    The interesting thing is that, in getting those lists, they prove that they don't consider us a threat to safety -- or they wouldn't want to annoy us, would they?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Bills without effective dates text become effective on October 1.

    I am confident the confidentiality would apply to ALL permits, even those existing before passage of the bill.
    Thanks for the answer to one question as to effective date. What I was also asking was if those of us with a CCW, after Oct. 1 (or whenever effective) would be able to carry ANY semi-auto whether it's on our card or not. Would the regulations immedietly apply to us, or would we have to wait for our renewl class?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Loneviking View Post
    What I was also asking was if those of us with a CCW, after Oct. 1 (or whenever effective) would be able to carry ANY semi-auto whether it's on our card or not. Would the regulations immedietly apply to us, or would we have to wait for our renewl class?
    Yes, would apply to existing permits. No wait necessary.

    Same situation existed when we went to "any revolver" - if you had a revolver on your old permit, you were then qualified with any revolver.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    Looks like this bill has a hearing at 9am on Monday the 28th. Let's hope it is met with little resistance.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by njeske View Post
    Looks like this bill has a hearing at 9am on Monday the 28th. Let's hope it is met with little resistance.
    Ahem, I think you mean 8am.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    Ahem, I think you mean 8am.
    Just going by what the AB143 web page says. I just double checked and it definitely says 9am.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Yep, per www.leg.state.nv.us/MeetingDisplay/CalendarOfMeetings/ it is 9 a.m.

    Definitely need everyone's support!

    Email the sponsor(s), thanking them for bring the bill forward.

    Email the members of the Jud Cmte, urging support and passage of the bill.

    Cast your 'vote' and type optional comment: www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Opinion/76th2011/Poll/
    Last edited by varminter22; 02-24-2011 at 08:18 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Yep, per www.leg.state.nv.us/MeetingDisplay/CalendarOfMeetings/ it is 9 a.m.

    Definitely need everyone's support!

    Email the sponsor(s), thanking them for bring the bill forward.

    Email the members of the Jud Cmte, urging support and passage of the bill.

    Cast your 'vote' and type optional comment: www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Opinion/76th2011/Poll/
    Are firearms prohibited at the Grant Sawyer Building; signs posted?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    So did AB143 just get it's first committee death nail? Are we really doing this to gun bills again?

    Snip from http://www.mohavedailynews.com
    The Assembly Judiciary committee took testimony Monday but did not vote on AB143.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 03-01-2011 at 10:08 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    No. AB-143 is very much alive.

    The cmte almost voted on it - which in itself is sorta/kinda unusual at a bill's first hearing - and literally seconds before the vote, a document popped up from the NACJ. The chairman decided to rescind the motion for a vote and review the new document.

    We still have great hope .....

  15. #15
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Does anyone have or know what is contained in this mystery document?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    Does anyone have or know what is contained in this mystery document?
    The Nevada Appeal reported that a problem was seen with the confidentiality clause. Looks like an amendment will be sought to allow discovery of permit info with a court subpoena.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    Does anyone have or know what is contained in this mystery document?
    It ain't no secret!

    Read it yourself at https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/App#/Bill/Meetings/AB143

    Doc is entitled: NACJ + amendment

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Well, I do suppose that the NAJC has a rational point. I see they are not categorically against the bill, but see a "flaw" that prevents someone with legitimate need from accessing information. I see the question as "can that NAJC 'need' be addressed in an amendment without losing confidentiality?"
    Last edited by wrightme; 03-02-2011 at 04:05 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    The bill sponsor is looking at that.

    Many think the NACJ argument is frivolous as there are ways to subpoena the info.

    I hope we find out more soon.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    So add in language that reads "without subpoena or court order" to the language of the bill, problem solved, vote, pass, sign, repeat (especially for university carry).

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8
    how about constitutional carry instead of all this sheeple bleating.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by prairie 360 View Post
    how about constitutional carry instead of all this sheeple bleating.
    untill all 50 states have constitutional carry, I still need my CCW for reciprocity. I would like to not have to part with more funds just to add a firearm and then have to wait for a new card.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 03-06-2011 at 06:25 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by prairie 360 View Post
    how about constitutional carry instead of all this sheeple bleating.
    This is also being worked.

    "All eggs in one basket" isn't a good position to be in.

    And yes, as long as there are states out there with no Constitutional Carry, reciprocity is a rational reason to retain a CC permit system. Whether you are for or against the permit, easing the requirements IS a step in the right direction. It is just not as large of a step as you desire.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  24. #24
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    This is also being worked.

    "All eggs in one basket" isn't a good position to be in.

    And yes, as long as there are states out there with no Constitutional Carry, reciprocity is a rational reason to retain a CC permit system. Whether you are for or against the permit, easing the requirements IS a step in the right direction. It is just not as large of a step as you desire.
    Once we get constitutional carry in, we might want to go the way of Alaska and create a permit stringent enough to receive reciprocity in as many states as possible. The current NV permit is so crappy for reciprocity that we'd be better served by having a Florida and Utah non-resident permit. The only advantage of the NV permit is to carry in NV itself and maybe one or two states that require one to have a permit from their state of residence, but I'm not sure our permit is good enough for those states anyway.

    But in the meanwhile of course, easing requirements is good if we can't get constitutional carry.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 03-06-2011 at 12:31 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    Once we get constitutional carry in, we might want to go the way of Alaska and create a permit stringent enough to receive reciprocity in as many states as possible. The current NV permit is so crappy for reciprocity that we'd be better served by having a Florida and Utah non-resident permit. The only advantage of the NV permit is to carry in NV itself and maybe one or two states that require one to have a permit from their state of residence, but I'm not sure our permit is good enough for those states anyway.

    But in the meanwhile of course, easing requirements is good if we can't get constitutional carry.
    I would hope the ease of restrictions enters. There is no need to place more on us. For my travel needs I have FL and Ut. I would rather have no restrictions though.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •