Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Why did Nevada stop honoring non-resident permits?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391

    Why did Nevada stop honoring non-resident permits?

    That's somewhat of a trick question. Technically, it does honor non-resident permits. However, none of the few remaining states on Nevada's reciprocity list issue non-resident permits, except in very narrow circumstances not germane to the general public. It makes me wonder if the publicly stated reasons for dropping reciprocity with states like Arizona, Utah, and Florida were pretext to drop states that issue non-resident permits.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Short answer, they want the revenue generated by issuing non-resident CCW to those who wish to carry concealed in Nevada.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    For the state of Nevada to recognize another state's CCW permit that state must meet the minimum requirements of a Nevada CCW. Those states who's permits are not recognized by the state of Nevada do not meet the minimum requirements under the law of Nevada.

    These are the states who's permits are recognized by the state of Nevada according to the Nevada Department of Public Safety:

    Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Rhode Island, West Virginia

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    Short answer, they want the revenue generated by issuing non-resident CCW to those who wish to carry concealed in Nevada.
    They could increase that revenue even more so if they merely removed the "must take training in NV" ...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    They could increase that revenue even more so if they merely removed the "must take training in NV" ...
    That's the real fly in the ointment. I'm sure Nevada's firearms trainers lobbied for it. They profit while the state very probably, as you note, gets less revenue from license fees that it otherwise would.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    That's the real fly in the ointment. I'm sure Nevada's firearms trainers lobbied for it. They profit while the state very probably, as you note, gets less revenue from license fees that it otherwise would.
    Actually, I've never seen any evidence to suggest any Nevada instructors ever lobbied as you suggest.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Actually, I've never seen any evidence to suggest any Nevada instructors ever lobbied as you suggest.
    And you never will see the evidence because they never had to lobby actual law makers, only the power and money hungry, anti-gun Sheriffs and Police Chiefs association who have been given the power to interpret the requirements of a very broad and vague law.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Actually, I've never seen any evidence to suggest any Nevada instructors ever lobbied as you suggest.
    Legislators don't make a habit of making laws protecting an industry's profit without some sort of lobbying from somebody. The somebodies in question are usually those looking to profit from said laws.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Legislators don't make a habit of making laws protecting an industry's profit without some sort of lobbying from somebody. The somebodies in question are usually those looking to profit from said laws.
    I've never heard nor seen a Nevada instructor lobby on this subject.

    I suspect the "somebody" in question would be the NSCA.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    I suspect the "somebody" in question would be the NSCA.
    National Sporting Clays Association? Why would they lobby to protect local handgun instructors?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    I suspect the "somebody" in question would be the NSCA.
    Whose members departments get significant revenue from the issuance of Nevada concealed permits.

    Not only do they gain revenue, but the NSCA gets to interpret the permit requirements under the law and what states qualify for reciprocity. For example, under the language of the law, the training requirements for Nevada and Utah are virtually identical language but Utah says that general familiarity with firearms is being able to safely load and unload a handgun whereas the NSCA says that it requires range qualification.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    National Sporting Clays Association? Why would they lobby to protect local handgun instructors?
    Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association.

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    National Sporting Clays Association? Why would they lobby to protect local handgun instructors?
    NSCA = Nevada Sheriff's & Chief's Association.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    Whose members departments get significant revenue from the issuance of Nevada concealed permits.
    Wouldn't those departments be getting the same permit fees regardless of where the training is conducted?

    My reading of NRS 202.3657(2)(c) shows an "or". The applicant must "(1) complete a course approved by a sheriff" or "(2) complete a course offered by an organization that certifies instructors in firearms safety". It further says "A sheriff may not approve a course in firearm safety pursuant to subparagraph (1) unless the sheriff determines that the course meets any standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association".

    The law only gives NSCA authority to approve and set standards for section 1 courses. 202.3657 doesn't give a sheriff or NSCA authority to disapprove of or set standards for a section 2 course, including standards regarding where the course may be taken. I'd say NSCA is pulling this "only what we approve, and we only approve in-state training" rule out of their ***.
    Last edited by randian; 05-06-2011 at 06:51 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Wouldn't those departments be getting the same permit fees regardless of where the training is conducted?
    If they recognize out of state permits, they get zero revenue.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    If they recognize out of state permits, they get zero revenue.
    If that were the goal why bother with the 13 states Nevada recognizes? Shut them all down and only recognize your own permits. That would make Nevada somewhat like Oregon, except Nevada would issue non-resident permits to residents of every state rather than only to residents of neighboring states.

    If you want increased non-resident permit fees, why include impediments like "must train in Nevada" that guarantee less permit revenue?

    The stated goals are contradictory.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    If that were the goal why bother with the 13 states Nevada recognizes? Shut them all down and only recognize your own permits.
    That is what NSCA is trying to do but they are impeded by that nasty old thing called the law.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    they are impeded by that nasty old thing called the law.
    Apparently not, if its members are only approving applicants who take NSCA approved courses.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Wouldn't those departments be getting the same permit fees regardless of where the training is conducted?

    My reading of NRS 202.3657(2)(c) shows an "or". The applicant must "(1) complete a course approved by a sheriff" or "(2) complete a course offered by an organization that certifies instructors in firearms safety". It further says "A sheriff may not approve a course in firearm safety pursuant to subparagraph (1) unless the sheriff determines that the course meets any standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association".

    The law only gives NSCA authority to approve and set standards for section 1 courses. 202.3657 doesn't give a sheriff or NSCA authority to disapprove of or set standards for a section 2 course, including standards regarding where the course may be taken. I'd say NSCA is pulling this "only what we approve, and we only approve in-state training" rule out of their ***.
    Interesting catch. Going to have to follow up on this.....

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    Short answer, they want the revenue generated by issuing non-resident CCW to those who wish to carry concealed in Nevada.
    That's my guess as well. If I remember correctly, they dropped only UT and FL, which we know are the biggest CCW issuers nationwide. Dropping all states would have raised a real big stink, and the states that are left may not have many visitors going to NV. Just speculation on my part.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    For example, under the language of the law, the training requirements for Nevada and Utah are virtually identical language but Utah says that general familiarity with firearms is being able to safely load and unload a handgun whereas the NSCA says that it requires range qualification.
    Saying that being able to safely load and unload a firearm is equal to shooting the same with proficiency is like saying that starting and stopping the engine of a car equals proficiency in driving. Forgetting the fact that we shouldn't have to pass a test to exorcise our rights, you can see that Utah's requirements are not essentially the same or more stringent, which is the requirement under Nevada law.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Texas is a big base of visitors as well.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordie View Post
    Saying that being able to safely load and unload a firearm is equal to shooting the same with proficiency is like saying that starting and stopping the engine of a car equals proficiency in driving. Forgetting the fact that we shouldn't have to pass a test to exorcise our rights, you can see that Utah's requirements are not essentially the same or more stringent, which is the requirement under Nevada law.
    Read the LAW! There is NOTHING in Nevada LAW that requires live fire. I am talking about the LAW, not the regulatory interpretation of the law given by the NCSA.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    That's my guess as well. If I remember correctly, they dropped only UT and FL, which we know are the biggest CCW issuers nationwide. Dropping all states would have raised a real big stink, and the states that are left may not have many visitors going to NV. Just speculation on my part.
    Utah and Florida don't have the same or more stringent requirements as Nevada, therefore they don't meet the requirements under Nevada law. Nevada requires that the applicant fulfill a range portion of the test and demonstrate a minimal proficiency with the firearm.

    I would bet that anti-armed citizen feelings among the NSCA have more to do with the law than revenue.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordie View Post
    Nevada requires that the applicant fulfill a range portion of the test and demonstrate a minimal proficiency with the firearm.
    You keep making this claim, so back it up with a cite from the LAW (not regulation")!

    Hint: you can't because it isn't there.

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
  •