Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Assembly Bill 282

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

    Assembly Bill 282

    This bill was introduced on March 16th and looks to be a bill that combines the language of several bills already in the Assembly. This bill includes: qualify with one semi-auto to carry any semi-auto, exemption for military members between 18-21 to get CCW, requiring the county sheriff to perform background check for renewals (AFT exemption fix), CCW confidentiality, and carry/discharge in state parks changes.

    Not sure why they were all combined into this bill. Maybe they feel it will be easier to pass or something. Looks like it already has a lot of support in the Assembly.

    http://leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2...ory.cfm?ID=597

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    They probably did this so they wouldn't have to reconcile multiple passing bills that do similar things. AB 143 and SB 126 for instance. Also, there was a deadline for new bills to be filed just a few days ago. This could be a hedge. If one bill were to fail, having an omnibus bill gives law makers a second bite at the apple before they adjourn for two more years.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 03-22-2011 at 05:24 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SB-126 first hearing in the Assembly Jud Cmte

    House: Assembly

    Committee: Judiciary

    Description: Meeting - Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:00 AM

    Room Number:3138

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

    AB-282 Hearing:

    House: Assembly

    Committee: Judiciary

    Description: Meeting - Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:00 AM

    Room Number:3138

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

    AB-205 Hearing:

    House: Assembly

    Committee: Judiciary

    Description: Meeting - Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:00 AM

    Room Number: 3138

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

    AB-185 Hearing:

    House: Assembly

    Committee: Judiciary

    Description: Meeting - Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:00 AM

    Room Number: 3138

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

    March 30, 2011 is a big day for pro-gun rights in the Assembly Judiciary Committee!

    Please show your support!

    **************************************

    As you know, I've frequented this forum for a long time. Would like to post more legislative information here but, frankly, time is at a premium.

    In addition to the SFA website forums, I am trying to keep the following site updated:

    www.nevadashooters.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69

    Hope no one minds the link being here.
    Last edited by varminter22; 03-25-2011 at 12:19 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    As you all probably know, this bill passed through the Assembly after being ammended to include language that makes the cost of a permit renewal very vague. Minus that language, this bill is still a pretty good bill for CCW. It now has an upcoming hearing in the Senate Judiciary on May 11th. Make sure to contact your reps!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Assembly Omnibus Gun Bill Goes to the Senate

    Assembly Bill 282, the four-point pro-gun omnibus bill brought forward by Assembly Speaker John Oceguera (D-16), will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee this Wednesday, May 11 at 8:00 a.m. in Room 2149.

    As previously reported, the NRA has had some concerns related to the section of the bill which mandates a background investigation on right to carry permit renewals in order to regain the NICS exemption for firearm purchases. According to representatives with the Department of Public Safety, they were told by a legal adjunct with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) that the process for renewing concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits must be as stringent as the initial application process. That has been interpreted by DPS to mean that a fingerprint check on renewals must be completed, hence the insertion of a DPS-requested amendment that statutorily mandates that costs associated with a full fingerprint check be passed on to the carry permit holder when going through the renewal process.

    The reason for the NRA's opposition to this language was a) why must such costs be statutorily mandated since the issuing agencies were charging for the fingerprint checks anyway (assuming that this is what was required for the NICS exemption); and b) there are extreme differences between what BATFE has informed Nevada on what constitutes criteria for NICS exemption and the numerous other states that have received this exemption.

    It is incumbent upon the NRA to use every tool at our disposal to ensure that these criteria are being implemented equally among the states for the protection of Nevada gun owners.

    It was not our intent to hold up AB 282 to the detriment of the other issues contained within this measure - and we won't continue to do so due to the time constraints held by the legislative deadlines, but this matter will continue to be pursued by our Legal Division in the coming months to make sure that Nevada is not held to a higher standard than other states who have attained the NICS exemption or their carry permit holders not be on the hook financially for something that is not a prerequisite.

    [Bold emphasis added]

    Please to contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee below and politely ask that they support Assembly Bill 282.

    Senate Judiciary Committee:

    Senator Valerie Wiener (D-Clark County, No. 3), Chairman
    (775) 684-1422
    vwiener@sen.state.nv.us

    Senator Allison Copening (D-Clark County, No. 6), Vice Chairman
    (775) 684-1475
    acopening@sen.state.nv.us

    Senator Shirley Breeden (D-Clark County, No. 5)
    (775) 684-1457
    sbreeden@sen.state.nv.us

    Senator Ruben Kihuen (D-Clark County, No. 10)
    (775) 684-1427
    rkihuen@sen.state.nv.us

    Senator Don Gustavson (R-Washoe County, No. 2)
    (775) 684-1480
    dgustavson@sen.state.nv.us

    Senator Mike McGinness (R-Central Nevada)
    (775) 684-1442
    mmcginness@sen.state.nv.us

    Senator Michael Roberson (R-Clark County, No. 5)
    (775) 684-1481
    mroberson@sen.state.nv.us

    This alert is posted to www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6757
    Since the 11th hour amendment was added and the bill passed the Assembly, I have discussed this issue at length with the NRA-ILA and many others.

    While I/we still have concerns with the amendment (528); specifically,

    (1) the “actual cost” language (no one seems to know the actual costs involved), and
    (2) the possibility the bill’s requirements may unnecessarily exceed the NICS exemption requirements as specified by 18 U.S.C. § 922(t) and 27 C.F.R. § 478.102(d),

    at this juncture we believe AB-282 is worthy of support; any necessary changes will be addressed in the 2013 Legislative Session.

    SFA letter in support of AB-282, May 11 Sen Jud Cmte Hearing:

    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph..._May9_2011.pdf

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    I tuned into the online meeting feed too late to see if there was any action on AB282. Did anyone else happen to see it, and if so was there any movement on it?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    We hoped the bill would go to committee work session.

    But, AB-282 received an "amend and do pass" recommendation.

    I think the only amendment was to move up the effective date to July 1 (instead of October 1). (Which is a good thing considering a Las Vegas newspaper is said to want to publish CCW permittees' names.)

    Much remains to be seen, but maybe - just maybe - this will be an opportunity to get to the bottom of our concerns.

    For example, I believe the citizens deserve to know what the costs are - and what the costs will be!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    Thanks for the update. Despite the renewal cost language, I think this is a really good bill for us and hopefully it passes. If they to tweak it some more in the 2013 session, so be it. A July 1st effective date is much preferred to October 1st since I know there's newspapers that would love to get their hands on the full list of permits issued. The less time they have the better.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50
    Yes, I strongly support this Bill. I know that the cost issue is important to some, but I think getting the rest of the law changed is more important. The worst that can happen is that some Sheriff might jack the fee up to an unreasonable amount. But anyone who could afford to buy a gun and keep proficient with it would be able to pay it. Then we could work to get the fees eliminated or set to a reduced amount. Let's get this Bill passed!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, ,
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by VegasGeorge View Post
    Yes, I strongly support this Bill. I know that the cost issue is important to some, but I think getting the rest of the law changed is more important. The worst that can happen is that some Sheriff might jack the fee up to an unreasonable amount. But anyone who could afford to buy a gun and keep proficient with it would be able to pay it. Then we could work to get the fees eliminated or set to a reduced amount. Let's get this Bill passed!
    And what if some sheriff decides that the fee should be $1,000? How about $10,000?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by SoLasVegas View Post
    And what if some sheriff decides that the fee should be $1,000? How about $10,000?
    The language of the latest amendment reads "actual costs." they would have a hard time showing the average costs being $1000 or more. for that matter they would have a hard time showing actual costs more than $25 or $50.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    The language of the latest amendment reads "actual costs." they would have a hard time showing the average costs being $1000 or more. for that matter they would have a hard time showing actual costs more than $25 or $50.
    So far, they haven't responded to ANY questions about "cost." I believe the last go-round on that specific was from Rory Reid at the urging of the NRA.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    The language of the latest amendment reads "actual costs." they would have a hard time showing the average costs being $1000 or more. for that matter they would have a hard time showing actual costs more than $25 or $50.
    Well, yes and no.

    Recall AB-21 of 2007. The NSCA, at the request of SOME sheriffs, perhaps most notably Clark County, wanted to raise the initial AND renewal fee to $125.

    Research indicated that was not necessary. And we defeated the proposal.

    When estimating the costs involved, it is not difficult to inflate the "actual" costs - to their benefit.

    If AB-282 (as currently amended) is enacted, you WILL see a fee increase. Exact amount is not known.
    Last edited by varminter22; 05-16-2011 at 11:47 AM.

  14. #14
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    They could probably claim something like... "Our record team has ten people, and it is possible that it would take an hour to process the application and get the reports. They make $60 an hour... So, that is $600 right there... and then when you consider that they retire after 20 years and get full pay and benefits for the rest of their life, double or triple that figure to $1200-$1800."
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 05-16-2011 at 12:19 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    260
    If the bill passes, won't the amount of actual work done decrease? Less typing model, make, calibur. Less typing each additional semi per permit. Less issueing new cards when someone buys a new firearm and adds to their collection, and also wants to be able to carry it for defense. Less work, they can reallocate those workers to something more useful, and shouldn't have to increase OUR costs at all.
    Last edited by Lostlittlerobot; 05-19-2011 at 03:40 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Lostlittlerobot View Post
    If the bill passes, won't the amount of actual work done decrease? Less typing model, make, calibur. Less typing each additional semi per permit. Less issueing new cards when someone buys a new firearm and adds to their collection, and also wants to be able to carry it for defense. Less work, they can reallocate those workers to something more useful, and shouldn't have to increase OUR costs at all.
    That is a logical conclusion. It appears that the information being presented for this bill is either inaccurate, or being interpreted illogically.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    AB 282 Held Up In Senate Due to Potential CCW Fee Increase

    While on Second Reading on the floor of the Senate, Senator Elizabeth Halseth requested that AB 282, the four-point gun omnibus bill introduced by Speaker John Oceguera, be put over until tomorrow so an amendment to the bill could be worked out that would restore the $25.00 non-refundable cap that sheriffs could charge on permit renewals.

    Speaker Oceguera recently sent an e-mail to the Senate stating “It is a simple pass-through, and the amount of the fee is not discretionary as some have claimed.”

    The way this bill is written that is NOT true. Section 4(2)c: reads "Be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee in the amount of the actual cost to obtain the reports required pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 202.366."

    The actual cost to obtain the reports can be construed to include the cost to obtain the fingerprints, the cost for the employee to process the paperwork and any number of other costs tacked on by the local sheriff. This bill does not say the cost of the report itself.

    It's important that each and every Senator get a phone call or email from you asking them to restore the $25.00 cap to make sure that permit holders DO NOT incur additional costs when renewing their permits. Contact them NOW - time is of the essence!


    (And many, many thanks to Senator Elizabeth Halseth!)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    See recent email exchange here:

    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph..._responses.pdf

    I sincerely hope you'll agree and join us in this battle.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    Email sent. Thank you for keeping watch on this legislation.

  20. #20
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    The question is:

    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    See recent email exchange here:

    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph..._responses.pdf

    I sincerely hope you'll agree and join us in this battle.
    After reading this email I only have one question. If the language in this bill does not allow law enforcement agencies to charge whatever they wish, then why not just make the simple change that puts everyones mind at ease about it. Simple, easy and everyone gets what they want. Why is Assemblyman Oceguera fighting so hard to keep the current language if it makes no difference either way? It makes me wonder about his motives.

    TBG
    Last edited by The Big Guy; 05-22-2011 at 02:15 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by the big guy View Post
    after reading this email i only have one question. If the language in this bill does not allow law enforcement agencies to charge whatever they wish, then why not just make the simple change that puts everyones mind at ease about it. Simple, easy and everyone gets what they want. why is assemblyman oceguera fighting so hard to keep the current language if it makes no difference either way? It makes me wonder about his motives.
    tbg
    bingo!
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Stillwater
    To: [All SFA]
    Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 9:45 PM
    Subject: NRA Joins SFA & Nevada Gun Rights Groups in Asking Senate to Amend AB282

    SFA sincerely thanks the NRA-ILA for stepping to the plate and assisting in our quest for proper fee language in AB-282.

    See the recent (May 22) SFA Legislative Update - and much more in the SFA "NV Legislation 2011" forum.

    Please contact the Senate - urge them to reinsert the $25 fee cap for CCW permit renewals - and strike the ambiguous and dangerous "actual cost" language.

    Nevada Senators copy/paste email addresses:

    sbreeden@sen.state.nv.us; acopening@sen.state.nv.us; mdenis@sen.state.nv.us; shorsford@sen.state.nv.us; rkihuen@sen.state.nv.us; jlee@sen.state.nv.us; sleslie@sen.state.nv.us; mmanendo@sen.state.nv.us; dparks@sen.state.nv.us; mschneider@sen.state.nv.us; vwiener@sen.state.nv.us; gbrower@sen.state.nv.us; bcegavske@sen.state.nv.us; dgustavson@sen.state.nv.us; ehalseth@sen.state.nv.us; jhardy@sen.state.nv.us; bkieckhefer@sen.state.nv.us; mmcginness@sen.state.nv.us; drhoads@sen.state.nv.us; mroberson@sen.state.nv.us; jsettelmeyer@sen.state.nv.us

    Senators' complete contact and telephone info here: www.leg.state.nv.us/Senate/Current/Senators/slist.cfm

    Please email and/or call soon - AB-282 is scheduled to be heard, and perhaps an amendment proposed, on Wednesday, May 25.

    CPO J. L. Rhodes, USN(RET)
    Board of Directors/Chairman, Legislative Action Committee & Unpaid Nevada Lobbyist/Public Affairs Officer/Past President
    (775) 427-4563
    www.stillwaterfirearms.org
    P. O. Box 665
    Fallon NV 89407

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: NRA ILA Alerts
    To: VARMINTER22@charter.net
    Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:00 PM
    Subject: NRA Joins Nevada Gun Rights Groups in Asking for Senate Amendment

    NRA Joins Nevada Gun Rights Groups in Asking for Senate Amendment

    After receiving many e-mails and phone calls from Nevada gun owners over several days, the NRA is joining fellow gun rights groups in asking that Assembly Bill 282, introduced by Assembly Speaker John Oceguera (D-16), be amended on the Senate floor to add back in the $25.00 non-refundable fee that sheriffs can charge on right to carry permit renewals.

    The amended language in AB 282 states that the sheriffs can charge "the actual cost to obtain the reports required pursuant to subsection of NRA 202.356" is troublesome in that it doesn't define what "actual cost" really is. Circulating around the state Capitol is a memorandum written by the Nevada Legislative Counsel (which was requested by Speaker Oceguera to counter the gun community's concerns) that recites the administrative requirements for which the sheriff may charge the fee and concludes that since only these administrative requirements may be included within the fee, the fee is effectively "capped" so the current $25.00 is not necessary.

    However, the NRA has concluded that what could be included as part of the "actual costs" for these things is not defined or limited by the legislative language. Thus, the "cap" is limited only by the ability of a sheriff to justify an expense by reference to how it supports one of these administrative requirements. This includes matters within the sheriff's own discretion, such as whether these administrative requirements mean new staffing, new computers, new infrastructure, etc.

    The current language in AB 282 is likely to result in different fees being charged in different counties for the same things, depending on how efficiently a given sheriff's office operates!

    AB 282 is scheduled to be heard on Third Reading this Wednesday, May 25. Please contact your state Senator immediately and ask him or her to support an amendment to restore the $25.00 non-refundable fee in AB 282 or vote to oppose it in its current form. Contact information for your state Senator can be found here.

    While there are many issues to support in AB 282, the NRA can't turn a blind eye to what this could cost Nevada's gun owners, nor should those issues be used as a means to get gun owners to submit to a fee increase.

    This alert is posted to www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6819

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

    Legislative Counsel Bureau memo, May 19, 2011:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...May19_2011.pdf

    NRA-ILA letter, May 23, 2011, Amend or Oppose:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...May23_2011.pdf

    SFA "Amend or Oppose" letter, May 24, 2011:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...May24_2011.pdf

    AB-282 will (hopefully) be dealt with on the Senate floor Wednesday, May 25, 2011.

    Please continue to call/email the Senate!

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

    An interesting article concerning Nevada Assembly Speaker and "his" AB-282:
    In school, if you are caught plagiarizing, punishments can vary from failing the assignment or class, or even lead to expulsion from school. In the Nevada Legislature, however, there are no punishments when a legislator, especially one in a leadership position, copies the ideas of his colleagues.
    Read the entire article here:
    http://nevadanewsandviews.com/2011/0...aker-oceguera/

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sparks, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    177
    Just watched the live floor session for AB282. Senator Halseth's proposed amendment 780 was adopted via floor vote with what sounded like no opposition. As the previous post states, this amendment reverts the language we're all opposed to regarding renewal permit fees back to the original language stating the fee should be $25. As a side note, it also adds all Republican Senators as co-sponsors of the bill. Looks like good news all around.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    I live in Las Vegas. Yet I am a member of Stillwater Firearms. These guys have been at the frontline fighting for us. I would ask that one way to thank these folks is to send in and become a member.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by njeske View Post
    Just watched the live floor session for AB282. Senator Halseth's proposed amendment 780 was adopted via floor vote with what sounded like no opposition. As the previous post states, this amendment reverts the language we're all opposed to regarding renewal permit fees back to the original language stating the fee should be $25. As a side note, it also adds all Republican Senators as co-sponsors of the bill. Looks like good news all around.
    SWEET! I was astounded at the attitute presented by the Speaker Oceguera against those who opposed the wording of the fee amendment.


    By the way, not just the club SFA, but specifically, varminter22 has put countless hours into correspondence and session time this year, and he does deserve HUGE props for his effective work this (and others) year.


    Sec. 5.5. The provisions of NRS 354.599 do not apply to any additional expenses of a local government that are related to the provisions of this act.
    ??? Not sure what that addition means yet.

    http://leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2...282_R3_780.pdf

    third reading today.
    Last edited by wrightme; 05-25-2011 at 05:24 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

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
  •