• 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.

Why did Nevada stop honoring non-resident permits?

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
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.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
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.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
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.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
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.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
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.

NRS 202.3657

c) Demonstrates competence with revolvers, each specific semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm, as applicable, by presenting a certificate or other documentation to the sheriff which shows that the applicant:
(1) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety approved by a sheriff in this State; or

(2) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety offered by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, community college, university or national organization that certifies instructors in firearm safety. Such a course must include instruction in the use of revolvers, each semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm and in the laws of this State relating to the use of a firearm. 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 or, if the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association ceases to exist, its legal successor.

NRS 202.369 Regulations. The Department may adopt such regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.

Basically, this means that they can make any rule that they deem necessary while still allowing permits to be issued.

If you pay attention to this line: "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 or, if the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association ceases to exist, its legal successor." you will see that the NSCA can legally require a shooting portion in the application process since they are lawfully charged with establishing the requirements of the permit course.

In your words "READ THE LAW". Stop trying to make it out to be something personal against Utah and Florida. It's not personal, they just don't want to make it easy for people to get a permit, any people.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
Basically, THE LAW says that such course is whatever the NSCA determines it needs to be.
NRS 202.3657 Application for permit; eligibility; denial or revocation of permit.

1. Any person who is a resident of this State may apply to the sheriff of the county in which he or she resides for a permit on a form prescribed by regulation of the Department. Any person who is not a resident of this State may apply to the sheriff of any county in this State for a permit on a form prescribed by regulation of the Department. Application forms for permits must be furnished by the sheriff of each county upon request.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the sheriff shall issue a permit for revolvers, one or more specific semiautomatic firearms, or for revolvers and one or more specific semiautomatic firearms, as applicable, to any person who is qualified to possess the firearm or firearms to which the application pertains under state and federal law, who submits an application in accordance with the provisions of this section and who:

(a) Is 21 years of age or older;

(b) Is not prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to NRS 202.360; and

(c) Demonstrates competence with revolvers, each specific semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm, as applicable, by presenting a certificate or other documentation to the sheriff which shows that the applicant:

(1) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety approved by a sheriff in this State; or

(2) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety offered by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, community college, university or national organization that certifies instructors in firearm safety.

Ê Such a course must include instruction in the use of revolvers, each semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm and in the laws of this State relating to the use of a firearm. 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 or, if the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association ceases to exist, its legal successor.

So, "it isn't there," but it is. It just isn't spelled out.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3653

And, here is the most recent directive document from the NSCA, which is the group defined by statute as the authority on just what constitutes "training", whether we agree with them or not. http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Docs/CCW/Training_and_Instructor_Standards_2010.pdf
 
Last edited:

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
Basically, this means that they can make any rule that they deem necessary while still allowing permits to be issued.

Okay, you quoted the law and like I said, it contains NOTHING that requires range qualification. The range qualification is 100% the interpretation of the NCSA, exactly as I have been saying.

Thank you for proving my point.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Pay attention to the "or". The sheriff's and NSCA only have approval authority for subparagraph 1 courses. They do not have approval authority for subparagraph 2 courses.

Actually, they DO have approval authority for both. Their authority is stated after both are listed, and is not limited to only subparagraph 1 courses.

Whoops!

You are correct, I missed the "for subpara..... 1"

The blanket statement only covers the basic requirements, and not the approval process.

Such a course must include instruction in the use of revolvers, each semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm and in the laws of this State relating to the use of a firearm
 
Last edited:

wrightme

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

But, Nevada does require that the applicant taking a subpara 1 course of instruction MUST complete range time. It just is not defined that way by specific statute.


And, good catch. According to the press release, the UT niggle was only live fire, and it was stated as "required by Nevada law," which I do see now, it isn't "required by Nevada law."

http://www.nvsca.com/pressreleases/CCWRECOGNITIONNSCAPressRelease063009.pdf
Utah’s permit process does not require live fire training that Nevada
law requires

I stand corrected.
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
C2I2- hurting gun owners again

So the Nevada C2I2 (Concealed Carry Instruction Industry) is in bed with the NSCA in order to exclude states that issue non-resident permits from being recognized in Nevada, is this correct?

If it is, the solution is simple - more open carry or maybe the NSCA is made up of some freedom hating statists, and the Nevada C2I2 had nothing to do with it.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
So the Nevada C2I2 (Concealed Carry Instruction Industry) is in bed with the NSCA in order to exclude states that issue non-resident permits from being recognized in Nevada, is this correct?
Huh? Not that I am aware of.

Thundar said:
If it is, the solution is simple - more open carry or maybe the NSCA is made up of some freedom hating statists, and the Nevada C2I2 had nothing to do with it.
Well, I don't know if it is exactly that, but the NSCA has been a bit "intractable" on many such items from my experience.
 
Top