Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Bills that did not make it this year

  1. #1
    Regular Member john-in-reno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    238

    Bills that did not make it this year

    Well Looks like our legislators let us down again, These bills did not make it this time

    Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1, no further action is allowed on these bills.

    AB8 Revises provisions relating to the use of force. (BDR 15-37)
    AB185 Revises provisions governing the possession and use of firearms in state parks. (BDR 35-358)
    AB231 Revises provisions governing concealed firearms. (BDR 15-894)
    SB176 Revises provisions governing concealed firearms. (BDR 15-556)

    AB231 and SB176 would have given us Constitutional Carry, Looks like we elected the wrong bunch of monkeys again!
    Last edited by john-in-reno; 04-18-2011 at 05:51 PM. Reason: Fixed the formating
    http://washoecountygunrights.blogspot.com/

    *** I am NOT a Lawyer, and I DO NOT have any LEGAL EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS ***

    MOLON LABE

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    john-in-reno:

    We here in Georgia are Suffering This Fate as Well..., at least for another Year.

    aadvark

  3. #3
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Didn't those bills get swept up in Oceguera's omnibus gun bill? Did that bill clear committee on time? I have it on good authority that SB 231 will be on the senate floor this week as well.

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    AB231 and SB176 were not in the omnibus. AB231 would have been constitutional carry and would have eliminated the prohibition on concealed carry in 202.3673 marked buildings.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Okay, so what are you going to do about it? Each of you?

    Are you willing to vote for someone of the opposite political party over this? Or vote Libertarian? Or even change your registration?

    No?

    THAT is why these bills died. The "monkeys" know that you aren't going to do anything that will affect them.

    The only nationwide political party which explicitly states that the Second Amendment means what it says in the Libertarian Party, but you're going to keep voting for the same monkeys, and keep getting the same results, and they will keep ignoring the same complaints.

    It doesn't matter how tight your grouping is if it's not on the target.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Actually, much of the problem this year is the same as in last session. Comittee chair. Last session it was Bernie Anderson. This session it was Weiner and Horne.

    The chair holds absolute power in the committee. Unless that is changed, it does not matter who else we vote for.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    Okay, so what are you going to do about it? Each of you?

    Are you willing to vote for someone of the opposite political party over this? Or vote Libertarian? Or even change your registration?

    No?

    THAT is why these bills died. The "monkeys" know that you aren't going to do anything that will affect them.

    The only nationwide political party which explicitly states that the Second Amendment means what it says in the Libertarian Party, but you're going to keep voting for the same monkeys, and keep getting the same results, and they will keep ignoring the same complaints.

    It doesn't matter how tight your grouping is if it's not on the target.
    Last edited by wrightme; 04-19-2011 at 12:59 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    The chair holds absolute power in the committee. Unless that is changed, it does not matter who else we vote for.
    The chair only holds that power so long as the others permit it. If they apply sufficient pressure, the chair will stop stonewalling.

    Remember that the committee chair is just a legislator. He or she has her own bills, or bills that they want to see pass. They need the support of the other legislators to get them through.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    The chair only holds that power so long as the others permit it. If they apply sufficient pressure, the chair will stop stonewalling.

    Remember that the committee chair is just a legislator. He or she has her own bills, or bills that they want to see pass. They need the support of the other legislators to get them through.
    I guess you weren't here last session for Bernie, were you.....
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    I guess you weren't here last session for Bernie, were you.....
    No, but the only time the rule doesn't apply is either when the majority party has an overwhelming majority, or when the chair has no measures he or she wants to pass as much as they want to keep something else bottled up. They call it "horse trading," when they swap votes.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    No, but the only time the rule doesn't apply is either when the majority party has an overwhelming majority, or when the chair has no measures he or she wants to pass as much as they want to keep something else bottled up. They call it "horse trading," when they swap votes.
    Broad-brush.

    Plus, this year, we actually have several bills still advancing through the system.

    Last session, we had nothing, due to committee chairs. This year, we have less than we desired, largely due to committee chairs. But, we have not seen stasis, which is what we got last session. Do NOT make the mistake of broad-brushing our legislators. MANY of them are working very hard at getting bills through, and are good at working with us.

    At the least, give some due credit where it is deserved.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Do NOT make the mistake of broad-brushing our legislators. MANY of them are working very hard at getting bills through, and are good at working with us.

    At the least, give some due credit where it is deserved.
    Don't misunderstand me here. I am not making a value judgment, but simply pointing out that there is usually a way to get a chair to stop blocking, if there is enough interest from other legislators.

    I watched an anti-gun committee chair CALL BACK AND PASS a CCW permit bill which had been actually REJECTED by the committee, because of pressure from fellow legislators who feared that my petition drive would get Constitutional Carry on the ballot -- where it would pass.

    I always try to make an opponent into an ally, to make them see us both as having more in common than not, so I don't go after them with a broad brush -- "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."
    Last edited by DVC; 04-20-2011 at 12:48 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    Don't misunderstand me here. I am not making a value judgment, but simply pointing out that there is usually a way to get a chair to stop blocking, if there is enough interest from other legislators.
    Do not underestimate the amount of pressure applied last session or this session.
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC
    I watched an anti-gun committee chair CALL BACK AND PASS a CCW permit bill which had been actually REJECTED by the committee, because of pressure from fellow legislators who feared that my petition drive would get Constitutional Carry on the ballot -- where it would pass.
    You shoulda done that here this session.
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC
    I always try to make an opponent into an ally, to make them see us both as having more in common than not, so I don't go after them with a broad brush -- "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."
    So I take it then that we do not need to replace all of our legislatures then? Okay.
    "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 DVC View Post
    I watched an anti-gun committee chair CALL BACK AND PASS a CCW permit bill which had been actually REJECTED by the committee, because of pressure from fellow legislators who feared that my petition drive would get Constitutional Carry on the ballot -- where it would pass.
    Can you elaborate on that?

    When? Which anti-gun cmte chair? What CCW bill? What petitition?

    I must have missed something.
    Last edited by varminter22; 04-21-2011 at 09:43 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    I do believe he is referring to how it worked for him, in another state.........
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Do not underestimate the amount of pressure applied last session or this session.
    Having met several of our legislators, I don't underestimate it, or their motivation. However, there obviously wasn't enough pressure -- why not? Was it that we didn't have enough of them on our side? Was it that there weren't enough of them STRONGLY on our side?

    You shoulda done that here this session.
    NV already has a CCW permit scheme, so I don't know if Constitutional Carry would make it as a voter initiative.

    When I started in Arizona, there was NO CCW permit available, only OC. This was our big club to use -- and it was working. We were well on our way toward the 200,000-signature target (which would give us the required 160,000+ to get onto the ballot). The legislators were left with two options: pass a permit scheme or risk seeing Constitutional Carry on the ballot, where it was expected to pass. They brought back the Carson Bill, passed it out of committee and passed it on the floor.

    So I take it then that we do not need to replace all of our legislatures then? Okay.
    Nevada is in the same situation right now that Arizona was in for nearly 20 years. It was the voters of Arizona who realized that they WANTED Constitutional Carry, and convinced their legislators that they weren't willing to settle for less. Some of the legislators were already firmly on our side, just like here in Nevada. The ones who needed to be reached were either weakly pro-gun or were anti-gun. These had to be convinced either that the bill was right and deserving, or they needed to be convinced that they could lose their jobs if it didn't pass.

    Even the most staunchly hoplophobic committee chair will give in to the kind of pressure exerted by colleagues who are fighting to keep their jobs.

    I prefer to bring opponents around to my way of thinking. None of these people are stupid, even if they act stupidly now and then. Given that we are right, all we need to do for most of them is reach them and present that one piece of evidence which is the key to their particular objection.

    There is no ally as powerful as a former opponent.

  16. #16
    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
    Can you elaborate on that?

    When? Which anti-gun cmte chair? What CCW bill? What petitition?

    I must have missed something.
    1990 or 1991(I forget which).

    The Arizona State Senate had rejected the CCW permit bill written by Robert Carson (R-Prescott) every year for the last several sessions. They had done so before I began the initiative drive to re-legalize Constitutional Carry in 1990.

    When they saw how much support the petition was getting, they applied pressure on the committee chair, who told Carson that he should re-introduce his CCW bill.

    Carson (a distant cousin) told me that the petition drive was specifically mentioned as the reason that he was asked to send his bill back to committee. They knew that this was the only way to have any control over concealed weapons -- if the Defense Rights Initiative had reached the ballot, it would pass, and be followed by court challenges to various laws which violated the state constitution by "impairing" possession.

    AZ has greater restriction on where you can carry than does NV, and most of these laws were in jeopardy if DRI was approved by the voters. By passing the Carson Bill, they took the wind out of our sails. Even today, with their Constitutional Carry law, they are able to keep the other laws, at least until they can be tuned (a process now under way).

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    I'm going to be AFK for a few days, due to workload. I'll be back online by the middle of next week.

Posting Permissions

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