Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 126

Thread: I went to the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs CCW forum.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    I went to the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs CCW forum.

    Let me start off by saying I realize this forum is for OC, I do feel that this is relevent however, if for no other reason to show the importance of OC, and the pressure that it puts on the Lawmakers.

    That being said, I had no idea that it was even scheduled for, I believe last thursday. but I got a reminder from the NRA and saw that it stqarted in 45 mins. cleared my schedule and hopped on my two wheel transpo. I had questioned myself briefly, while rushing around. What was so important about this meeting, but I pushed through and showed up a littlew late maby 6 mins.

    Upon arrival I chose a seat next to Glenn from Bargain Pawn, and immediatly set my jacket down, and went to the front to speak, (motorcycle rides, even short ones do that to you.) When it was my turn, I asked the Under Sheriff what type of entity the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association is? And where their "Lawmaking power comes from?" Under what authority do they have Veto power over DPS or a constitutional Sheriff? (not quite in those words.)

    I got schmoozed, once the U.S. realized his responses were not cutting it, he turned it over to the other dude who started off with "The Sheriff's and Chief's Association was formed in 1953 whithin the public interest......Blah blah......" They had no answers.

    I intend to find out several things:
    Are the NVSCA a lawmaking body?
    If so are they imune from answering to we the people?

    If this peaks anyones interest, PM me and I will let you know where we are going, and what you can do to help.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    I am in Dave. Let me know.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Darn, I really wanted to be there. I had it on my calendar. But necessary business kept me away. Thank you for representing our interests. Please keep us posted and let us know how we can help you.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    The sponsering Senetors were: Lee, Hardy, Beers, Settelmeyer, Iknow that Bob Beers is no longer active, but I think the others are. If we can talk to these Senators and let them know that the only change has been:

    We lost reciprocity with Utah,
    We lost reciprocity with Florida

    Gained reciprocity witha couple.

    No net gain that I can see.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    The NSCA is a Nevada non-profit corporation. See NV SecState: http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/Cor...fA%3d%3d&nt7=0

    The attending legislators were not "sponsors" but merely attendees of the forum.

    The forum came into being (about four years ago) at the urging of Senator John Lee.

    NSCA website: http://www.nvsca.com/

    NSCA Bylaws: http://www.nvsca.com/bylaws.asp

    The NSCA is NOT a law making - nor elected - body. However the legislature has given them specific duties, such as developing the CCW Training Standards, and approval of the list of states' CCW permits that Nevada will honor. See NRS Ch 202.
    Last edited by varminter22; 01-25-2012 at 08:37 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    It is beyond me why they don't allow a Utah CCW that requires a class be taken but they allow Arizonia that I can get in the mail that doesn't require me to have training as long as I have my State CCW.

    Utah is one of the best CCW's and second only to Florida for the number of states that allow CCW with the active CCW card.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    It is beyond me why they don't allow a Utah CCW that requires a class be taken but they allow Arizonia that I can get in the mail that doesn't require me to have training as long as I have my State CCW....
    UT does not have a live-firing requirement.

    AZ permits require proof of training that includes a live-firing exercise. Your ID CCW is proof of training, though I can't find if ID requires live-firing in their training. Good question.
    Last edited by MAC702; 01-25-2012 at 06:32 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    The sponsering Senetors were: Lee, Hardy, Beers, Settelmeyer, Iknow that Bob Beers is no longer active, but I think the others are. If we can talk to these Senators and let them know that the only change has been:

    We lost reciprocity with Utah,
    We lost reciprocity with Florida

    Gained reciprocity witha couple.

    No net gain that I can see.
    FL and UT were lost back in 2009.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    It is beyond me why they don't allow a Utah CCW that requires a class be taken but they allow Arizonia that I can get in the mail that doesn't require me to have training as long as I have my State CCW.

    Utah is one of the best CCW's and second only to Florida for the number of states that allow CCW with the active CCW card.
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    UT does not have a live-firing requirement.

    AZ permits require proof of training that includes a live-firing exercise. Your ID CCW is proof of training, though I can't find if ID requires live-firing in their training. Good question.

    You can use your home state permit to get AZ as proof of training if your home state required training. I was not able to use my PA permit so had to use my NRA Basic Pistol.
    States don’t have rights. People do.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    The NSCA is a Nevada non-profit corporation. See NV SecState: http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/Cor...fA%3d%3d&nt7=0

    The attending legislators were not "sponsors" but merely attendees of the forum.

    The forum came into being (about four years ago) at the urging of Senator John Lee.

    NSCA website: http://www.nvsca.com/

    NSCA Bylaws: http://www.nvsca.com/bylaws.asp

    The NSCA is NOT a law making - nor elected - body. However the legislature has given them specific duties, such as developing the CCW Training Standards, and approval of the list of states' CCW permits that Nevada will honor. See NRS Ch 202.
    Since the Sheriffs and Chiefs have Veto power Over the DPS who is the Executive Branch. How is it that you claim they are NOT a Law Making Body? Is it not true that they have the final say over whoe is a law abiding CCW holder in this State, and who is not? (see Bold below)

    NRS 202.3689 Department to prepare list of states that meet certain requirements concerning permits; Department to provide copy of list to law enforcement agencies in this State; Department to make list available to public.

    1. On or before July 1 of each year, the Department shall:

    (a) Examine the requirements for the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm in each state and determine whether the requirements of each state are substantially similar to or more stringent than the requirements set forth in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.

    (b) Determine whether each state has an electronic database which identifies each individual who possesses a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by that state and which a law enforcement officer in this State may access at all times through a national law enforcement telecommunications system.

    (c) Prepare a list of states that meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b).A state must not be included in the list unless the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association agrees with the Department that the state should be included in the list.

    (d) Provide a copy of the list prepared pursuant to paragraph (c) to each law enforcement agency in this State.

    2. The Department shall, upon request, make the list prepared pursuant to subsection 1 available to the public.

    (Added to NRS by 2007, 3150)


    The Sheriffs and Chiefs also have veto power over where Nevada Residents Defend their lives and familys in the U.S.A. (repeat) A non profit Org. has the final say.
    Here is what is Crazy; It is a strech to put DPS in charge of deciding Reciprocity in the first place... Why? Simple reason is DPS is tasked with enforcing laws, not making them. Much less a Non-profit Org.

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    UT does not have a live-firing requirement.

    AZ permits require proof of training that includes a live-firing exercise. Your ID CCW is proof of training, though I can't find if ID requires live-firing in their training. Good question.
    Actually, AZ will accept a permit from a state with a training requirement! If using a permit from another state for the training requirement there is no inquiries made about if it had any live fire component!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    Since the Sheriffs and Chiefs have Veto power Over the DPS who is the Executive Branch. How is it that you claim they are NOT a Law Making Body? Is it not true that they have the final say over whoe is a law abiding CCW holder in this State, and who is not? (see Bold below)
    His statement is accurate. It is also correct that they appear to operate outside of that definition.

    They are NOT a law-making body.

    They DO seem to perform that function, outside of the legal boundaries.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    His statement is accurate. It is also correct that they appear to operate outside of that definition.

    They are NOT a law-making body.

    They DO seem to perform that function, outside of the legal boundaries.
    Can you tell me how the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association is NOT a law making body?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Perhaps a matter of semantics. I think we all agree the NSCA has WAY too much power. Unconstitutional even.

    That said, the NSCA is technically NOT a law making body. But I agree they have overstepped their bounds.

    It not true that they have the final say over who is a law abiding CCW holder in this State, and who is not. Nevada is a shall issue state. In the event a sheriff denies a permit, the applicant does have the option of taking the issue to court.

    I totally agree it is ridiculous (even unconsitutional) for the NSCA to have final approval/veto power over the list of states which Nevada will honor.

    I'm not sure what you mean by your statement:
    The Sheriffs and Chiefs also have veto power over where Nevada Residents Defend their lives and familys in the U.S.A.
    The law (NRS Ch 202) is pretty specific on where one can/cannot carry concealed; and other laws deal with defense of lives/family.

    Again, I think we agree; just a matter of semantics.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    I made the Statement:[B] The Sheriffs and Chiefs also have veto power over where Nevada Residents Defend their lives and familys in the U.S.A.[/B]

    That statement means this. If you, a NV CCW holder go Outside nevada You are at the Mercy of the Unelected Unconstitutional power of the Sheriffs and Chiefs assoc.

    We are not saying the same thing. Also you have not been able to substantiate that the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association is NOT a lawmaking body. Hint. Is it against the law for a Utah CCW holder to carry concealed in Nevada? How did that happen, and who had the final say?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    Can you tell me how the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association is NOT a law making body?
    Why, no, I cannot. Other than to point you to the NV constitution and have you determine if they ARE defined as such.


    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/...Docs/index.cfm

    Can you point to the wording of law that creates them as one?
    Unless you can find documentation that defines their role as a lawmaking body, they are NOT a lawmaking body. That is the function of the legislative branch of the Nevada government.
    Last edited by wrightme; 01-26-2012 at 02:55 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    I made the Statement:[B] The Sheriffs and Chiefs also have veto power over where Nevada Residents Defend their lives and familys in the U.S.A.[/B]

    That statement means this. If you, a NV CCW holder go Outside nevada You are at the Mercy of the Unelected Unconstitutional power of the Sheriffs and Chiefs assoc.

    We are not saying the same thing. Also you have not been able to substantiate that the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association is NOT a lawmaking body. Hint. Is it against the law for a Utah CCW holder to carry concealed in Nevada? How did that happen, and who had the final say?
    That is a bit of a stretch.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    I made the Statement:[B] The Sheriffs and Chiefs also have veto power over where Nevada Residents Defend their lives and familys in the U.S.A.[/B]

    That statement means this. If you, a NV CCW holder go Outside nevada You are at the Mercy of the Unelected Unconstitutional power of the Sheriffs and Chiefs assoc.

    We are not saying the same thing. Also you have not been able to substantiate that the Sheriffs and Chiefs Association is NOT a lawmaking body. Hint. Is it against the law for a Utah CCW holder to carry concealed in Nevada? How did that happen, and who had the final say?
    The other states define who can or cannot carry in their state.

    Our state defines who can or cannot carry in our state.

    CCW recognition is an exception to the statute that only allows NV CCW to conceal firearms.


    And, from the NV Constitution:

    ARTICLE. 3. - Distribution of Powers.

    Sec. 1. Three separate departments; separation of powers; legislative review of administrative regulations.



    Section 1. Three separate departments; separation of powers; legislative review of administrative regulations.

    1. The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments,—the Legislative,—the Executive and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases expressly directed or permitted in this constitution.

    2. If the legislature authorizes the adoption of regulations by an executive agency which bind persons outside the agency, the legislature may provide by law for:

    (a) The review of these regulations by a legislative agency before their effective date to determine initially whether each is within the statutory authority for its adoption;

    (b) The suspension by a legislative agency of any such regulation which appears to exceed that authority, until it is reviewed by a legislative body composed of members of the Senate and Assembly which is authorized to act on behalf of both houses of the legislature; and

    (c) The nullification of any such regulation by a majority vote of that legislative body, whether or not the regulation was suspended.

    [Amended in 1996. Proposed and passed by the 1993 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1995 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1996 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1993, p. 3082; Statutes of Nevada 1995, p. 2972.]

    The question you need to be asking is this: "Is the NVSCA defined as a lawmaking body?"

    If they are not, then they are not a lawmaking body, no matter what you see them do.


    If they are actually 'making laws,' then they are not operating within the Constitution of the State of Nevada. Claiming that 'they make laws' does not make them a lawmaking body.
    Last edited by wrightme; 01-26-2012 at 03:03 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    I firmly believe we are all on the same page regarding the NSCA.

    But in reference to:
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    I made the Statement:[B] The Sheriffs and Chiefs also have veto power over where Nevada Residents Defend their lives and familys in the U.S.A.[/B]

    That statement means this. If you, a NV CCW holder go Outside nevada You are at the Mercy of the Unelected Unconstitutional power of the Sheriffs and Chiefs assoc. ...
    Actually, the NSCA has no power whatsoever to determine where Nevadans can/cannot carry outside the state of Nevada. Each state determines what permits (if any) they will honor.

    Our legislature did, however, give the NSCA veto power over what states' permits will/won't be honored by Nevada. I agree with you this is unnecessary and perhaps even unconstitutional. I agree that a non-elected, non-profit corporation should NOT have that authority.

    I further agree that should be changed by legislative action and/or in court action.

  19. #19
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Under the Full Faith and Credit provision, there should be no argument about this issue. All States should accept all other States permits. Of couse that issue would also be moot if we followed the
    2A.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    I firmly believe we are all on the same page regarding the NSCA.

    But in reference to:
    Actually, the NSCA has no power whatsoever to determine where Nevadans can/cannot carry outside the state of Nevada. Each state determines what permits (if any) they will honor.
    So are you suggesting that it was Florida's idea to end reciprocity with nevada? I know that the Utah people are not recognized here, yet we are there.. so Florida could have done a Utah, I get that. but here is the kicker, if the NSCA had not decided that the Florida program (by extending 2 yrs. ) was disqualified do you believe (please cite if you do ) that Florida woul have never stopped recognizing Nevada? if you think that Nevada's action caused Florida's reaction, as I do then it is the Nevada sheriffs and Chiefs that are the last say, by statute.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by the big guy View Post
    under the full faith and credit provision, there should be no argument about this issue. All states should accept all other states permits. Of couse that issue would also be moot if we followed the
    2a.

    Tbg
    agreed!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    So are you suggesting that it was Florida's idea to end reciprocity with nevada? I know that the Utah people are not recognized here, yet we are there.. so Florida could have done a Utah, I get that. but here is the kicker, if the NSCA had not decided that the Florida program (by extending 2 yrs. ) was disqualified do you believe (please cite if you do ) that Florida woul have never stopped recognizing Nevada? if you think that Nevada's action caused Florida's reaction, as I do then it is the Nevada sheriffs and Chiefs that are the last say, by statute.
    Certainly agree the NSCA has overstepped its bounds on many occasions - including on this issue.

    Note that Nevada does not have a "reciprocity" system. What we have is a system to allow for honoring other states permits - if other states' law are "substantially" similar to ours. And that is where the problem is in your example above.

    Your point is well taken here.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Certainly agree the NSCA has overstepped its bounds on many occasions - including on this issue.

    Note that Nevada does not have a "reciprocity" system. What we have is a system to allow for honoring other states permits - if other states' law are "substantially" similar to ours. And that is where the problem is in your example above.

    Your point is well taken here.
    And I cant find the NRS on that system. So I ask if the NSCA set that rule? If so then they are making at least policy? No? Which in this case would be the same as law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    And I cant find the NRS on that system. So I ask if the NSCA set that rule? If so then they are making at least policy? No? Which in this case would be the same as law.
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-2...#NRS202Sec3689

    NRS 202.3689 Department to prepare list of states that meet certain requirements concerning permits; Department to provide copy of list to law enforcement agencies in this State; Department to make list available to public.

    1. On or before July 1 of each year, the Department shall:

    (a) Examine the requirements for the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm in each state and determine whether the requirements of each state are substantially similar to or more stringent than the requirements set forth in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.

    (b) Determine whether each state has an electronic database which identifies each individual who possesses a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by that state and which a law enforcement officer in this State may access at all times through a national law enforcement telecommunications system.

    (c) Prepare a list of states that meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b). A state must not be included in the list unless the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association agrees with the Department that the state should be included in the list.

    (d) Provide a copy of the list prepared pursuant to paragraph (c) to each law enforcement agency in this State.

    2. The Department shall, upon request, make the list prepared pursuant to subsection 1 available to the public.

    (Added to NRS by 2007, 3150)

    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.

    (Added to NRS by 1995, 2726; A 2005, 596)

    NRS 202.3653 Definitions. As used in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:

    1. “Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

    2. “Department” means the Department of Public Safety.
    3. “Permit” means a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.

    4. “Revolver” means a firearm that has a revolving cylinder with several chambers, which, by pulling the trigger or setting the hammer, are aligned with the barrel, placing the bullet in a position to be fired. The term includes, without limitation, a single or double derringer.

    5. “Semiautomatic firearm” means a firearm which:

    (a) Uses the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to extract a fixed cartridge and chamber a fresh cartridge with each single pull of the trigger; and

    (b) Requires the release of the trigger and another pull of the trigger for each successive shot.

    (Added to NRS by 1995, 2721; A 1997, 1175; 1999, 850; 2001, 2579; 2005, 596; 2007, 3151)
    Last edited by wrightme; 01-27-2012 at 01:56 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-2...#NRS202Sec3689




    NRS 202.3653 Definitions. As used in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:

    1. “Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

    2. “Department” means the Department of Public Safety.
    3. “Permit” means a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.

    4. “Revolver” means a firearm that has a revolving cylinder with several chambers, which, by pulling the trigger or setting the hammer, are aligned with the barrel, placing the bullet in a position to be fired. The term includes, without limitation, a single or double derringer.

    5. “Semiautomatic firearm” means a firearm which:

    (a) Uses the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to extract a fixed cartridge and chamber a fresh cartridge with each single pull of the trigger; and

    (b) Requires the release of the trigger and another pull of the trigger for each successive shot.

    (Added to NRS by 1995, 2721; A 1997, 1175; 1999, 850; 2001, 2579; 2005, 596; 2007, 3151)
    I'm missing something here. How did we get from "the department" to the NCSA?

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •