• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Assembly Bill 282

njeske

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
177
Location
Sparks, Nevada, United States
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/76th2011/Reports/history.cfm?ID=597
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
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:

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

njeske

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
177
Location
Sparks, Nevada, United States
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!!
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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!
 

njeske

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
177
Location
Sparks, Nevada, United States
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.
 

VegasGeorge

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
50
Location
, ,
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!
 

SoLasVegas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
120
Location
Las Vegas, ,
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?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
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:

Lostlittlerobot

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
260
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
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:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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!)
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
The question is:

See recent email exchange here:

http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/p...minter22/AB282/Compend_Spkr_and_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:
Top