vegaspassat
Regular Member
Interesting that his secretary didn't know anything about it. I was thinking it likely that their computer system was taking a while to update or something.
-
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.
-
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.
SB 176 Constitutional Carry
- Thread starter Loneviking
- Start date
DooFster
Regular Member
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
Plus, it seems exceedingly unlikely to pass unanimously, with Senator Segerblom's as chair.
Last edited:
varminter22
Regular Member
Yes. And I think Segerblom is holding the hearing in hopes it will become an anti-gun forum.
Citizens were outraged when Segerblom disallowed the pro-gun voice(s) at his "Informational Hearing on Gun Violence" last Friday. He said the pro-gun people would get their chance to speak "next week." It turns out he meant that chance would come at the hearing for SB-226, SB-137, and SB-223.
Nevada: Pro-Gun Bills to be Heard on Monday [March 25, 2013]
Several pro-gun measures that would improve Nevada firearm laws will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, March 25 at 9:00 a.m. Please contact Committee members using the information provided below and urge them to support Senate Bills 226, 137 and 223.
More at: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...lls-to-be-heard-on-monday.aspx?s=&st=10492&ps=
We MUST show pro-2nd Amendment support!
BBJCaptain
Regular Member
I watched the hearing and there was a few that talked in support but of coarse they paraded every law enforcement department in the state ( in uniform of coarse ) except NHP in opposition of all 3 bills. After it was over then they let the NRA rep talk for about 20mins. I was amazed at how gun illiterate all the Dems seemed to be especially the one representing Ford. He had no clue what anything on, in or around a gun was. He was trying to describe something he didn't like on an AR (assault weapon, his words) and it looked like he was trying to make a make believe snowball. I think he was trying to describe a magazine.
How they can sleep at night ruling on something they know absolutely nothing about is beyond me. It's really sad that is the best the other side cares to vote into office.
BBJ
varminter22
Regular Member
Agreed.
Senator Gustavson did a good job of presenting the bill.
Am surprised that no one mentioned the obvious - that there are no problems with Constitutional Carry in states where it is the law.
Senator Gustavson did a good job of presenting the bill.
Am surprised that no one mentioned the obvious - that there are no problems with Constitutional Carry in states where it is the law.
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
Senator Gustavson did do a good job. I had originally planned to make a comment on SB137 to the effect that it had worked in Arizona, Vermont, Alaska, and Wyoming, but they only allowed for public comment on SB 137 on the "AGAINST" side. I suppose someone or I could have raised that point in the unannounced general "gun violence" pro-gun hearing that occurred afterwards but they ran out of time again.
Of course, there were a lot of issues to address from that "gun violence" hearing. I do think Mr. Utz had a very well stated testimony during that portion.
Last edited:
DVC
Regular Member
Gee, ya think . . ?
Anyone who kept track, how many minutes if the pro-civil-rights side get for the other two, and how many minutes did the antis get to lie about it?
You really gotta admire a bunch of guys carrying guns who stand up and say that they should be the only ones who can carry guns.