Nevada has a New State Firearms Association!

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Sep 26, 2011

When Bob Irwin is involved, it is for personal gain.
The NRA Fumbled the lawsuit in NLV (Hanes)
We have a ton more Tyranny here, than you have up North, Which is exactly why the NRA deals with you (Path of least resistance.)
If You want to be in our shoes, Keep sucking up what they are feeding you. Dont worry gun registration is not so bad.... Notice the attention they give registration, before you ever say the word "RIGHTS" to someone in Clark County..... Yes, that goes for YOU !!!!

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DVC said:
No, because they ACTIVELY WORKED AGAINST US, attempting to undermine what we were doing, because they didn't want it done until THEY got around to it, if ever.

Did you sleep through the whole Heller and MacDonald thing . . ? Or were you getting all of your news from American Rifleman?

You are welcome to support anyone and anything you choose. For me, I'll keep an eye on it, and if proven wrong -- as I would really love to be -- then I will support it. But I've been watching the NRA since 1972, and just plain don't see any reason to trust them or anything they touch as far as civil rights. They are the supreme gun safety group, but they are not as strong on our rights as they paint themselves being.

I never said if I support it or not. And, your comments were beyond "if proven wrong -- as I would really love to be.."

It sounds like you have questions to take to their board.

And, the Second Amendment is not a recognized civil right.

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
When Bob Irwin is involved, it is for personal gain.
The NRA Fumbled the lawsuit in NLV (Hanes)
We have a ton more Tyranny here, than you have up North, Which is exactly why the NRA deals with you (Path of least resistance.)
If You want to be in our shoes, Keep sucking up what they are feeding you. Dont worry gun registration is not so bad.... Notice the attention they give registration, before you ever say the word "RIGHTS" to someone in Clark County..... Yes, that goes for YOU !!!!

You have me wrong. I do not do such.

What organization would they have worked with down south? The NSRPA? They tried.

varminter22 · Sep 26, 2011

Originally Posted by DVC
No, because they ACTIVELY WORKED AGAINST US, attempting to undermine what we were doing, because they didn't want it done until THEY got around to it, if ever.

Did you sleep through the whole Heller and MacDonald thing . . ? Or were you getting all of your news from American Rifleman?

You are welcome to support anyone and anything you choose. For me, I'll keep an eye on it, and if proven wrong -- as I would really love to be -- then I will support it. But I've been watching the NRA since 1972, and just plain don't see any reason to trust them or anything they touch as far as civil rights. They are the supreme gun safety group, but they are not as strong on our rights as they paint themselves being.

It sounds like you have questions to take to their board.

Now THAT is a great idea. DVC, why don't you direct your comments and questions to the NFC Board? Request clarification and statement(s).

DVC · Sep 26, 2011

varminter22 said:
Now THAT is a great idea. DVC, why don't you direct your comments and questions to the NFC Board? Request clarification and statement(s).

Statements mean little, and clarification will come by watching what they do.

I would really like to be wrong about them, you know. It would be nice if they live up to your hopes. But having been led down that road a couple of times in the past, I've become really familiar with the onramp, and this one looks awfully familiar.

We already even have a test for them -- the elimination of Clark County's registration scheme, and who gets that done. If NFC steps up and gets to work on it, great. Since they are a start-up, I give them 60 days to get into gear, and another month to make visible progress. If they mealy-mouth and weasel-word the idea, or aren't busy with this by then, that will show what they really have in mind.

When I did my initiative drive in Arizona, I started as a solo act. Arizonans for Defense Rights was me for the first week. I did radio and TV interviews, and a week after I registered it with the state I had picked up 3,000 signatures, quiet logistics support from a MAJOR Arizona corporation, and had volunteers circulating the petitions in every county in the state. Within three months, I had the state so afraid that the initiative would pass that they brought back a perennially-rejected CCW permit bill and passed it. 20 years after that, they passed Constitutional Carry, and got the state out from between victim and defense.

That's what even just one guy can do when the time has come for action. As Heinlein said, "When it's time to start railroading, people will build railroads." It's time for Clark County to shed its diapers and trust its citizens. If NFC (with it's big splash and "big-name" committee) can't make some headway on this in the same length of time that it took to take Arizona from Cop-Only CCW to shall-issue, then what use are they?

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DVC said:
Statements mean little, and clarification will come by watching what they do.

I would really like to be wrong about them, you know. It would be nice if they live up to your hopes. But having been led down that road a couple of times in the past, I've become really familiar with the onramp, and this one looks awfully familiar.

We already even have a test for them -- the elimination of Clark County's registration scheme, and who gets that done. If NFC steps up and gets to work on it, great. Since they are a start-up, I give them 60 days to get into gear, and another month to make visible progress. If they mealy-mouth and weasel-word the idea, or aren't busy with this by then, that will show what they really have in mind.

When I did my initiative drive in Arizona, I started as a solo act. Arizonans for Defense Rights was me for the first week. I did radio and TV interviews, and a week after I registered it with the state I had picked up 3,000 signatures, quiet logistics support from a MAJOR Arizona corporation, and had volunteers circulating the petitions in every county in the state. Within three months, I had the state so afraid that the initiative would pass that they brought back a perennially-rejected CCW permit bill and passed it. 20 years after that, they passed Constitutional Carry, and got the state out from between victim and defense.

That's what even just one guy can do when the time has come for action. As Heinlein said, "When it's time to start railroading, people will build railroads." It's time for Clark County to shed its diapers and trust its citizens. If NFC (with it's big splash and "big-name" committee) can't make some headway on this in the same length of time that it took to take Arizona from Cop-Only CCW to shall-issue, then what use are they?

All of that presumes that the response in NV will be analogous to the response in AZ. Frankly, were it that simple, Clark County registration would already be repealed, given the timeline from initial preemption legislation. Yet it is STILL being worked. You seem to feel that the "one-guy" approach will work, over all the other efforts already expended.

When bills do not get past committee, no matter how strong support for them is, it doesn't matter who supports and who doesn't. Campus Carry had plenty of support, AND logic, AND facts. It passed the Senate with bipartisan support. It got sat upon in committee by the chair. Why didn't you put your petition drive where your mouth is and fix that one, if it is so simple?

DVC · Sep 26, 2011

wrightme said:
All of that presumes that the response in NV will be analogous to the response in AZ.

I didn't make myself clear.

I don't expect RESULTS that soon, I just expect to see PROGRESS that soon. The Clark County registration is the most egregious example of Californiaism in our gun laws, and clearly should be the first priority. If they can't be working on it in two months, hard enough to make some progress by the end of the third month, they're not going to be much use to us.

I call this "Irving Syndrome," from the song:

The James Boys was comin' on a train at first sun,
And the town said, "Irving, we need your gun."
When that train pulled in at the break of dawn,
Irving's gun was there, but Irving was gone.

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DVC said:
I didn't make myself clear.

I don't expect RESULTS that soon, I just expect to see PROGRESS that soon. The Clark County registration is the most egregious example of Californiaism in our gun laws, and clearly should be the first priority. If they can't be working on it in two months, hard enough to make some progress by the end of the third month, they're not going to be much use to us.

How much progress have you seen on it since you arrived in NV?
And, who have you witnessed working it already?

It seems as if you are willing to toss them to the curb if they do not take YOUR priority as THEIR priority. Why is that?

DVC · Sep 26, 2011

wrightme said:
Why didn't you put your petition drive where your mouth is and fix that one, if it is so simple?

I'm considering that one and also Constitutional Carry.

The only real problems are the obstacles that Nevada puts in the way of initiative drives and the fact that I travel with my work and when on contract I'm likely to be too far away to run a drive. If I could be sure that my next contract would be in an adjacent state (allowing me to be back on off days), I would launch the drive.

I've talked to a couple of people here who might take up the job, and I would of course give them all the help that I can.

It has been suggested that the first initiative drive needs to be to make the initiative process easier! It has been pointed out that this one would have broad support from across the political spectrum, from other ad hocs who gave up their own drives when they saw how hard it was. With realistic requirements, the initiative process can be useful here.

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DVC said:
I'm considering that one and also Constitutional Carry.

The only real problems are the obstacles that Nevada puts in the way of initiative drives and the fact that I travel with my work and when on contract I'm likely to be too far away to run a drive. If I could be sure that my next contract would be in an adjacent state (allowing me to be back on off days), I would launch the drive.

I've talked to a couple of people here who might take up the job, and I would of course give them all the help that I can.

It has been suggested that the first initiative drive needs to be to make the initiative process easier! It has been pointed out that this one would have broad support from across the political spectrum, from other ad hocs who gave up their own drives when they saw how hard it was. With realistic requirements, the initiative process can be useful here.

So, just to be clear, while you complain about how those here haven't been able to be effective, while comparing that to how effective YOU have been in the past, you now voice your understanding that you are comparing an apple to a sloth.

You complain about what has been going on here and how we are doing it. Yet you just state that how YOU prefer (or were effective) isn't effective here. So, what was wrong with what we (those in NV) have been doing?

DVC · Sep 26, 2011

wrightme said:
How much progress have you seen on it since you arrived in NV?
And, who have you witnessed working it already?

It seems as if you are willing to toss them to the curb if they do not take YOUR priority as THEIR priority. Why is that?

Well, unless you can point to something which is a higher priority and which has not been addressed, I think you'll answer your own question.

Do you see what the Clark County law really is? It's a beachhead for two invading forces. To the hoplophobes, it is the exception to Nevada's
"wide open" gun laws, while to us it is the most obvious remnant of the old victim-disarmament legal code.

With most of the population of the state under that rule, gun registration is "normal" in Nevada, and this gets in the way of everything else that we might want to do. We want campus and Constitutional Carry, we want a "Made in Nevada" law, but we have to deal with the mindset of the people down there who think that the government is SUPPOSED to control guns. Some of those are government officials. Getting rid of the registration scheme will free the most people in the shortest time, and thus do the most good for the state as a whole.

Even though you and I are not subject to it, we are still affected, the same as someone in Elko benefits from the win in Sparks over OC in parks.

So, do you see any higher priority?

DVC · Sep 26, 2011

wrightme said:
So, just to be clear, while you complain about how those here haven't been able to be effective, while comparing that to how effective YOU have been in the past, you now voice your understanding that you are comparing an apple to a sloth.

You complain about what has been going on here and how we are doing it. Yet you just state that how YOU prefer (or were effective) isn't effective here. So, what was wrong with what we (those in NV) have been doing?

I feel like I'm trying to explain to you what salt tastes like.

Tel you what, you file any of the following, and I will give you all the support I can:

Campus Carry

Constitutional Carry

"Made in Nevada"

Give it a try. The cool thing about the initiative process is that ANYONE can file, even your new association. Don't wait for me to do it.

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DVC said:
Well, unless you can point to something which is a higher priority and which has not been addressed, I think you'll answer your own question.

How so? My question was to you, asking what you had seen done by whom towards something. Answering "what is higher priority" does not answer what YOU have seen. What have YOU seen?

DVC said:
Do you see what the Clark County law really is? It's a beachhead for two invading forces. To the hoplophobes, it is the exception to Nevada's
"wide open" gun laws, while to us it is the most obvious remnant of the old victim-disarmament legal code.

And? Do you really think I do not see this exactly like it is? If so, WHY do you see me as not seeing "what the Clark County law really is?"

DVC said:
With most of the population of the state under that rule, gun registration is "normal" in Nevada, and this gets in the way of everything else that we might want to do. We want campus and Constitutional Carry, we want a "Made in Nevada" law, but we have to deal with the mindset of the people down there who think that the government is SUPPOSED to control guns. Some of those are government officials. Getting rid of the registration scheme will free the most people in the shortest time, and thus do the most good for the state as a whole.

Of course it will. THAT is why efforts have been made towards that end. Do you not see that?

DVC said:
Even though you and I are not subject to it, we are still affected, the same as someone in Elko benefits from the win in Sparks over OC in parks.
So, do you see any higher priority?

It does not matter if I see one or not. It also does not matter if YOU see one or not. What matters is "what will be effective." Your priority is a route to the end we both desire. That does not mean your priority is the only route to the end we both desire.

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DVC said:
I feel like I'm trying to explain to you what salt tastes like.

Maybe you are falsely assuming that I don't know what salt tastes like.

DVC said:
Tel you what, you file any of the following, and I will give you all the support I can:
Campus Carry
Constitutional Carry
"Made in Nevada"
Give it a try. The cool thing about the initiative process is that ANYONE can file, even your new association. Don't wait for me to do it.

You want to do an initiative effort, go for it. Do you understand that each of those items has had at least one or two attempts through the legislative process this session? And, given what you know about the initiative process, do you feel that such initiative would be an actual useful effort or not?

Which of those legislative efforts did YOU support, and how did you support them? You talk a lot of what others do wrong, and how much better you have done things in the past, but each of those was an existing effort, right?

Further, SB-92 was the 2007 effort to preempt all firearms ordinances other than state, including Clark County registration. That obviously failed when it got amended. You should at least see that the effort was there to provide for full preemption, including preemption of the registration.
UP HERE IN Churcill County, the SFA was supporting SB-92, and getting the information out to the public.
The public in the state wanted full preemption. The LE machine from the south evidently had the "ear" of the legislative branch.
Then, in 2009, only a VERY FEW bills even made it into and past BDR. Of those that did make it to bill, we got nothing even heard in committee. This year was "sea change" by comparison, with some good legislation getting passed, and some getting watered down. Yet, some very good bills still got squashed by committee chairs. If YOU feel that an initiative effort will be effective against that, go ahead.

DVC · Sep 26, 2011

Let me ask you, then, what YOU will consider a sign that this new group is what you think it is, and will be effective?

And how long are you willing to wait for that sign before making up your mind?

Or is your mind already made up, and whatever they do or don't is fine with you?

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DVC, have you at least reviewed the records from SB-92 of the 2007 session to see who did and who didn't support it as written?

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Minutes/Senate/GA/Final/548.pdf

That one specifically is relevant.

The rest can be found: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/74th2007/Reports/history.cfm?ID=260

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

DVC said:
Let me ask you, then, what YOU will consider a sign that this new group is what you think it is, and will be effective?

And how long are you willing to wait for that sign before making up your mind?

Or is your mind already made up, and whatever they do or don't is fine with you?

This isn't about me.

It is about you basically saying that if they don't pick YOUR priority, make it THEIR priority, and act upon it in a few months, they are essentially worthless. Never mind the fact that the LAC is simply one aspect of the org.

Vegassteve · Sep 26, 2011

Trying to send a email to the contact info and it keeps returning errors of fields not filled in. The main info form works the form to contact members of the board does not.

wrightme · Sep 26, 2011

Vegassteve said:
Trying to send a email to the contact info and it keeps returning errors of fields not filled in. The main info form works the form to contact members of the board does not.

I got the same result for the "contact" form.

usmcmustang · Sep 26, 2011

wrightme said:
I got the same result for the "contact" form.

Yeah, I went to their website this morning to find out what's what and get at least a contact address or telephone number... none available. And when one goes to their online contact form to post a message, it gets funking no matter what is or isn't in what field or another. Going to the contact page for the individual board members has the same result. Maybe they don't want to be contacted?????

Nevada has a New State Firearms Association!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member