Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: AB-282 Omnibus bill

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    AB-282 Omnibus bill

    Assembly Bill 282 In Conference Committee
    Take Action Now!

    May 30, 2011

    Plagiarizing three bills that were introduced much earlier, Assembly Speaker John Oceguera’s (D-#16) Assembly Bill 282 seeks to:

    (1) ensure that Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit holders’ names and addresses remain confidential*1;

    (2) revise Nevada state law to allow the carrying of any semi-automatic pistol, like you can with a revolver, once you have qualified with a semi-automatic pistol*2;

    (3) allow carrying of firearms in Nevada state parks*3; and

    (4) statutorily mandate a background investigation (which is currently being done by all Nevada sheriffs) for CCW permit renewals for the purpose of reinstating the NICS exemption for Nevada, thus ensuring that permit holders do not have to go through a point-of-contact check for every firearm purchased, as long as the permit is valid*4.

    This four-point omnibus bill addresses issues that are very important to Nevadans. So, what is the problem? The problem is two-fold:

    (1) As amended and passed by the Assembly, AB-282 contains language that removes the current $25 fee cap on renewal applications and will give the sheriffs carte blanche to use creative cost accounting methods and charge fees in any amount they desire!*5 The NSCA has said this will likely result in fee increases – which will not be uniform throughout the state. Also note the NSCA has said they are not seeking fee increases in 2011. So, who is? The Speaker is not saying. All attempts to discuss with him have been met by extreme resistance.

    (2) As amended and passed by the Assembly, AB-282 contains language that will mandate fingerprints for renewal applications. Yes, we all know we are currently being charged for renewal application fingerprints. But current Nevada law does not require nor authorize it! Renewal fingerprints are being ‘required’ (perhaps unlawfully) by the NSCA*6 under the false premise it must be done in order for our permits to qualify for the NICS exemption. In accordance with the Federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) and regulation (27 C.F.R. § 478.102(d)), fingerprints are NOT required. Indeed, many states do not require fingerprints and continue to enjoy the NICS exemption! As only one example, Kansas just this year repealed their fingerprint check for renewals AND was recently awarded the NICS exemption.

    In the Senate, at Stillwater Firearms Association’s (and Gun Owners of America’s) request, Senator Elizabeth Halseth (R-Clark #9) brought forth an amendment to reinsert the $25 fee cap. As so amended, the bill passed the Senate unanimously!

    The Assembly did not concur with the Senate’s amended bill. And the Senate did not recede from its amended version.

    AB-282 is now in the hands of a Conference Committee – three members from each house – to attempt to resolve the differences. The Conferrees:

    Senators:

    Mike McGinness (R-Central NV Dist) (Senate Minority Leader)
    mmcginness@sen.state.nv.us
    775-684-1442

    Allison Copening (D-Clark #6) (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee)
    acopening@sen.state.nv.us
    775-684-1475

    Ruben Kihuen (D-Clark #10) (Member, Senate Judiciary Committee)
    rkihuen@sen.state.nv.us
    775-684-1427

    Assemblymen:

    John Oceguera (D-#16) (Speaker of the Assembly)
    joceguera@asm.state.nv.us
    775-684-8595

    Pete Goicoechea (R-#35) (Assembly Minority Leader)
    pgoicoechea@asm.state.nv.us
    775-684-8573

    William Horne (D-#34) (Chair, Assembly Judiciary Committee)
    whorne@asm.state.nv.us
    775-684-8847

    Please call/email the above conferees urging them to adopt the Senate version of AB-282 and remove the fingerprint mandate on renewal applications.

    Time is of essence. The 2011 Legislature will end June 6. Things are moving fast.

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

    *1 CCW Confidentiality is a provision of Assemblyman David Bobzien’s (D-#24) AB-143 which passed both houses and is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature. Was also the intent of Senator Don Gustavson’s (R-Washoe #2) SB-175 which passed the Senate but died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee chaired by Assemblyman William Horne (D-#34).

    *2 “Any semi-auto” is a provision of Assemblyman David Bobzien’s (D-#24) AB-143 which passed both houses and is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature. Also the intent of Senator James Settelmeyer’s (R-Capital Dist) SB-126 which passed the Senate and received a “do pass” recommendation from the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

    *3 Carry in state parks was the intent of Assemblyman Ed Goedhart’s (R-#36) AB-185 which died in Assemblyman William Horne’s (D-#34) Assembly Judiciary Committee without even being heard.

    *4 Restoral of NICS exemption was the intent of Senator Don Gustavson’s (R-Washoe #2) SB-279 which passed the Senate but died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee chaired by Assemblyman William Horne (D-#34) without even being heard.

    *5 Reminiscent of AB-21 of 2007, which was introduced by the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, a non-profit corporation. AB-21 sought to increase the sheriffs CCW permit application fees from $60 initial and $25 renewal to $125 for both! Credible evidence was provided the fee increase was not necessary and the bill did not pass out of committee.

    *6 According to one representative with the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, even if fingerprints are not required in order to qualify for the NICS exemption, the NSCA will continue to insist that a fingerprint check be conducted (in spite of no requirement nor authorization to do so), and the NSCA representative called any state that doesn’t do a fingerprint card on renewals “reckless and incompetent.” If this sentiment is shared by all Nevada law enforcement agencies, that would make them worse than California, whose own issuing agencies do not require fingerprint checks on renewals – and California is not a “shall-issue” state.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    So it looks like AB-143 has been signed by the Governor? At least that's how it appears to me. AB-143 seems to correct the semi-auto qualifying issue and confidentiality issues. So now we don't need to worry about those correct?

    Essentially the only thing left in this bill that's of value is State Park carry (which is already legal through preemption and federal law?) and NICS fee waiver. The detractors are the massive fees that are being artifically created by our government and trying to be passed on to us law abiding citzens. oh and the madantory, expensive, and unnecessary renewal finger printing mandate.

    If everything is true above then this bill needs to die imo. Please advise.
    Last edited by nomidlname; 06-02-2011 at 09:20 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Yes. AB-143 has been officially signed by the Gov and becomes effective October 1, 2011. (And a 'signing ceremony' is scheduled for Friday afternoon, June 3.)

    AB-282 is still alive, currently assigned to a Conference Cmte - three members from each house – to attempt to resolve the differences. The Conferrees:

    Senators:

    Mike McGinness (R-Central NV Dist) (Senate Minority Leader)
    mmcginness@sen.state.nv.us
    775-684-1442

    Allison Copening (D-Clark #6) (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee)
    acopening@sen.state.nv.us
    775-684-1475

    Ruben Kihuen (D-Clark #10) (Member, Senate Judiciary Committee)
    rkihuen@sen.state.nv.us
    775-684-1427

    Assemblymen:

    John Oceguera (D-#16) (Speaker of the Assembly)
    joceguera@asm.state.nv.us
    775-684-8595

    Pete Goicoechea (R-#35) (Assembly Minority Leader)
    pgoicoechea@asm.state.nv.us
    775-684-8573

    William Horne (D-#34) (Chair, Assembly Judiciary Committee)
    whorne@asm.state.nv.us
    775-684-8847

    Please call/email the above conferees urging them to adopt the Senate version of AB-282 (with fee cap) and remove the fingerprint mandate on renewal applications.

    Time is of essence. The 2011 Legislature will end June 6. Things are moving fast.
    Last edited by varminter22; 06-02-2011 at 09:49 AM. Reason: correct date

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    Essentially the only thing left in this bill that's of value is State Park carry (which is already legal through preemption and federal law?) and NICS fee waiver. The detractors are the massive fees that are being artifically created by our government and trying to be passed on to us law abiding citzens. oh and the madantory, expensive, and unnecessary renewal finger printing mandate.

    If everything is true above then we are fighting for NICS waiver only... everything else is already law except the bad stuff correct? Please advise.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    BTW, I would very much like to thank you guys (stillwater firearms) for your help in crushing AB-21 in 2007. You guys have been working extremely hard for us law abiding citizens. Thank you!


    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Minu.../Final/268.pdf

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    On a related note, this bears citing from that pdf....

    Kelly Connolly:
    The NSCA is not subject to the Open Meeting Law, and I think if the Committee looked at the process to do that, we would save more time in this Committee with citizens coming forward. We would be able to address issues with them directly. They did vote to allow the waiver for the NICS to expire a couple years ago. People lost that NICS exemption. We got less than a ten-day notice as FFL dealers. It was very frustrating.
    Chairman Anderson:
    I would note that private groups who convene together get to do so. Only public groups and governmental groups are subject to the Open Meeting Law.
    To remind everyone of what this is about, a non-profit organization (the NSCA) that is not subject ot the Open Meeting Law, sets the standards for CCW permit class requirements.
    "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
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    On a related note, this bears citing from that pdf....



    To remind everyone of what this is about, a non-profit organization (the NSCA) that is not subject ot the Open Meeting Law, sets the standards for CCW permit class requirements.
    I'm confused about these bills. I understand that state park carry is already legal (open or concealed carry) due to the settlement with the federal lawsuit over state parks.

    AB 143 was signed, so semi auto listing will be a thing of the past October 1st.

    SB 126 is on Sandoval's desk. I don't understand why this one is being passed, it appears to be identical to AB 143 except you will only be able to carry a firearm that you "own". So if you are borrowing a firearm from a friend or family member, according to SB 126, you can not legally carry that firearm.

    Is there more to it than this or is something else going on that we may not be privy to?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    I'm confused about these bills. I understand that state park carry is already legal (open or concealed carry) due to the settlement with the federal lawsuit over state parks.

    AB 143 was signed, so semi auto listing will be a thing of the past October 1st.

    SB 126 is on Sandoval's desk. I don't understand why this one is being passed, it appears to be identical to AB 143 except you will only be able to carry a firearm that you "own". So if you are borrowing a firearm from a friend or family member, according to SB 126, you can not legally carry that firearm.

    Is there more to it than this or is something else going on that we may not be privy to?
    On the carry in state parks issue, I want to re-research a bit more before I spout off. But as I recall, the court issued an injunction preventing the state from enforcing the NAC prohibiting carry in parks PENDING the 2011 Legislative session. In other words, give the state time to make better law. IF AB-282 fails, we may need to hound the state for better NAC. In view of the court case, it would seem like a done deal.

    Will the court issue hold up and basically force the state to re-write the NAC if AB-282 doesn't pass? Not sure, but I hope so. Need to look into that again.

    Why pass SB-126 when AB-143 looked like it was going to be enacted? Well, that is a good thing. Senator Settelmeyer wisely insisted SB-126 continue to move through the process - just in case something went wrong and the other bill failed. A VERY wise move. (BTW, I think the clause "owned by" was simply an error induced by the folks that actually draft the bills.) At any rate, we now have AB-143 signed by Governor Sandoval!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by nomidlname View Post
    BTW, I would very much like to thank you guys (stillwater firearms) for your help in crushing AB-21 in 2007. You guys have been working extremely hard for us law abiding citizens. Thank you!


    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Minu.../Final/268.pdf
    Thank you!

    That was the issue that got our attention and lead us to become active in the legislative arena.

    We were successful in defeating AB-21 in 2007.

    Now we are seeking success in restoring our NICS exemption (without giving the sheriffs carte blanche to determine fees) - among a bunch of other issues too!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    On a related note, this bears citing from that pdf....



    To remind everyone of what this is about, a non-profit organization (the NSCA) that is not subject ot the Open Meeting Law, sets the standards for CCW permit class requirements.
    Correctamundo.

    NSCA is a NV non-profit corporation and therefore not subject to the open meeting law.

    Perhaps a better question would be: Why has the legislature given the NSCA, a non-profit corporation, SO much authority?

    In essence, the NSCA (a non-profit corporation) virtually makes law and regulation.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    On the carry in state parks issue, I want to re-research a bit more before I spout off. But as I recall, the court issued an injunction preventing the state from enforcing the NAC prohibiting carry in parks PENDING the 2011 Legislative session. In other words, give the state time to make better law. IF AB-282 fails, we may need to hound the state for better NAC. In view of the court case, it would seem like a done deal.

    Will the court issue hold up and basically force the state to re-write the NAC if AB-282 doesn't pass? Not sure, but I hope so. Need to look into that again.

    Why pass SB-126 when AB-143 looked like it was going to be enacted? Well, that is a good thing. Senator Settelmeyer wisely insisted SB-126 continue to move through the process - just in case something went wrong and the other bill failed. A VERY wise move. (BTW, I think the clause "owned by" was simply an error induced by the folks that actually draft the bills.) At any rate, we now have AB-143 signed by Governor Sandoval!
    You are correct on the park ruling. I digged into it and the agreement is only for 1 year. I really hope this state park thing gets fixed.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    I thought we had park carry with CCW?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108

    Assemblyman Bernie Anderson

    Quote from the 2007 SB -21 meeting

    This guy need to be removed from Office asap. What a scumbag.

    Chairman Anderson:
    The question about openly carrying firearms on your side was the option of the sheriff; he decided who got to carry and who did not. We did not want to take the right away from people. If you are going to carry a weapon when you are out hunting, you may sometimes carry a sidearm. In trying to set this all up—when we went to the CCWs—we did not want to take away the ability for a person to carry openly. I recognize the Second Amendment and I stand by it, but I do not think that conceal and carry is a Second Amendment right.

    I want you to clearly understand that we have debated some of these issues. You, as a firearms instructor, are familiar with the various discharge methods for the shell casing that often present a different hazard. Just because you have learned to drive a Chevy, a Ford, a stick-shift, an automatic, or a tractor does not necessarily qualify you for every unique vehicle. Firearms have enough differentiation with discharge alone.
    Last edited by nomidlname; 06-02-2011 at 10:30 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by nomidlname View Post
    Quote from the 2007 SB -21 meeting

    This guy need to be removed from Office asap. What a scumbag.

    Chairman Anderson:
    The question about openly carrying firearms on your side was the option of the sheriff; he decided who got to carry and who did not. We did not want to take the right away from people. If you are going to carry a weapon when you are out hunting, you may sometimes carry a sidearm. In trying to set this all up—when we went to the CCWs—we did not want to take away the ability for a person to carry openly. I recognize the Second Amendment and I stand by it, but I do not think that conceal and carry is a Second Amendment right.

    I want you to clearly understand that we have debated some of these issues. You, as a firearms instructor, are familiar with the various discharge methods for the shell casing that often present a different hazard. Just because you have learned to drive a Chevy, a Ford, a stick-shift, an automatic, or a tractor does not necessarily qualify you for every unique vehicle. Firearms have enough differentiation with discharge alone.
    I love how he disproves his own point here with his analogy. If you're qualified to drive a Chevy in the state of Nevada, you're qualified to drive a Ford, or a Porsche, or a Ferrari, or even grandpa's old Studebaker, and for both manual and automatic trans.

    When I got my drivers license, they didn't make me do the driving test in a manual and then again for each Make, Model and Engine Size of automatic transmission car I wanted to drive.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by nomidlname View Post
    Quote from the 2007 SB -21 meeting

    This guy need to be removed from Office asap. What a scumbag.

    Chairman Anderson:
    The question about openly carrying firearms on your side was the option of the sheriff; he decided who got to carry and who did not. We did not want to take the right away from people. If you are going to carry a weapon when you are out hunting, you may sometimes carry a sidearm. In trying to set this all up—when we went to the CCWs—we did not want to take away the ability for a person to carry openly. I recognize the Second Amendment and I stand by it, but I do not think that conceal and carry is a Second Amendment right.

    I want you to clearly understand that we have debated some of these issues. You, as a firearms instructor, are familiar with the various discharge methods for the shell casing that often present a different hazard. Just because you have learned to drive a Chevy, a Ford, a stick-shift, an automatic, or a tractor does not necessarily qualify you for every unique vehicle. Firearms have enough differentiation with discharge alone.
    That was Bernie Anderson's response to my testimony!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Conf Cmte

    And, by the way, looks like the AB-282 Conference Committee is today, June 3, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. in room 3161.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    Wish I could be there but the demands of work are heavy today. Exactly what people like Bernie Anderson count on I guess.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    I thought we had park carry with CCW?
    True, right now, you can legally carry any firearm in a state park as you can anywhere in the state. Unless the law changes, after the out of court settlement expires ( in a couple of months or so), it goes back to the old way.

    The old way is, you can ONLY carry concealed with a CFP or recognized out of state license. This means no open carry. When I'm in Nevada (not too often anymore), I like to carry openly, especially while hiking in a park.

  19. #19
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 09:46 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Here is the latest amendment: www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/Amendments/CA_AB282_R4_CA4.pdf

    Today is the last day. Will see if both houses adopt and pass it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    Gotta be honest here. In it's current configuration I hope it fails. It removed the $25 cap and mandated renewal fingerprinting. And it doesn't give us anything except a fee waiver on NICS back ground checks. Doesn't seem like a good trade off to me...

    2. An application for the renewal of a permit must:
    (a) Be completed and signed under oath by the applicant;
    (b) Contain a statement that the applicant is eligible to receive a permit
    pursuant to NRS 202.3657; [and]
    (c) Be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee equal to the nonvolunteer rate
    charged by the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History and
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain the reports required pursuant to
    subsection 1 of NRS 202.366; and
    (d) Be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee of $25.
     If a permittee fails to renew his or her permit on or before the date of expiration
    of the permit, the application for renewal must include an additional nonrefundable
    late fee of $15.
    Last edited by nomidlname; 06-06-2011 at 09:37 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    To be honest, I'm satisfied that we got "any semi-auto," and confidentiality from another bill. getting the NICS exemption would have been nice, but not by trading away a regulated price for CCW renewal. I'm not comfortable giving someone blanket authorization to set the fee at whatever price they like. The fact remains that our county sheriff is against citizens carrying firearms, the only reason he issues permits is because he has to. If they get their foot in the door on the fee, they'll make it prohibitively expensive for people to get them. This is the tact Chicago is taking. "If we have to allow it, we'll just make it so no one can afford it."
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    So... this is dead now?

    current status as of this morning is...

    Jun 06, 2011
    Conference report adopted by Senate.
    To printer.
    From printer. To reengrossment. Reengrossed. Fifth reprint .
    To enrollment.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    It passed with new language.

    Fee specified as the fee charged for the report + the other.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    dammit. So not only did they remove the $25 cap while leaving the mandantory $25 fee but they added additional fees on top of that as well as the redundant, expensinve, and unnecessary renewal fingerprinting. Awesome!

    But hey! you might be able to get your NICS fee waived if you buy another firearm. renewal... $200+ or NICS fee $25 bucks. As Charlie Sheen said.... "WINNING"
    Last edited by nomidlname; 06-07-2011 at 10:10 AM.

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
  •