I went to the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs CCW forum.

varminter22 · Jan 27, 2012

the big guy said:
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!

varminter22 · Jan 27, 2012

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
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.

Vegassteve · Jan 27, 2012

varminter22 said:
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.

wrightme · Jan 27, 2012

Vegassteve said:
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-202.html#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)

The Big Guy · Jan 27, 2012

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

wrightme · Jan 27, 2012

The Big Guy said:
I'm missing something here. How did we get from "the department" to the NCSA?

TBG

There is the rub.

The only thing I see so far is:

(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.

And, contrary to what seems to be the view of some, most of us KNOW that it smells, and many have attempted to enter into dialogs with NSCA, and with legislators. So far, to no useful end.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 27, 2012

varminter22 said:
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.

You never were able to answer the question regarding florida yet you state that there is a problem with my example.
Let me try one more time.

(A) Do you (Varmenter22) believe that our CCW's are not honored in Florida because of a fundemental Change in Nevada Law? If so what law?

(B) Or do you believe that Florida chooses to not honor NV CCW holders because Nevada stopped honoring Florida permits?

wrightme · Jan 27, 2012

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
You never were able to answer the question regarding florida yet you state that there is a fundamental issue withj my example.
Let me try one more time.

(A) Do you (Varmenter22) believe that our CCW's are not honored in Florida because of a fundemental Change in Nevada Law? If so what law?

Are you aware of what criteria Florida uses?

DTOM said:
(B) Or do you believe that Florida chooses to not honor NV CCW holders because Nevada stopped Honoring Florida permits?

Is that their criteria?

He clearly pointed out that NV does not do reciprocity. THAT is the problem with the example.

Now, let me try THIS once:

Some of you in these threads appear to believe that some of us are defending the NVSCA! We aren't. But, I, like some others, believe it is best to be accurate with statements made about things such as 'Is the NVSCA a lawmaking body.' The answer to that question is, "No, the NVSCA is not a lawmaking body." After that statement is digested, the NVSCA and their actions should be weighed against the definitions of 'lawmaking.' If they are actually performing tasks that fit that definition, then that needs to be addressed, by pointing out that a group that isn't a lawmaking body is performing the function of lawmaking.

njeske · Jan 27, 2012

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
You never were able to answer the question regarding florida yet you state that there is a problem with my example.
Let me try one more time.

(A) Do you (Varmenter22) believe that our CCW's are not honored in Florida because of a fundemental Change in Nevada Law? If so what law?

(B) Or do you believe that Florida chooses to not honor NV CCW holders because Nevada stopped honoring Florida permits?

Florida law says that they honor the permit of any state that honors them. When NV did honor FL for a while, our permits were also good in FL. Within a day or so of us not honoring FL anymore, FL removed NV from the list of states that they honor. It's that simple.

My understanding as to why the NVSCA claims they decided to no longer recommend that NV honors permits from UT and FL is that neither of those states require any training for permit renewals. My own personal feeling is that they didn't want to honor the two most common non-resident permits in the US. Perhaps in order to encourage people to get NV non-resident permits. However if that's the case, they really need to get the law changed so that classes for NV permits can be conducted out of state, and applicants can mail their paperwork in to a sheriff's office rather than applying in person.

Vegassteve · Jan 27, 2012

wrightme said:
'Is the NVSCA a lawmaking body.' The answer to that question is, "No, the NVSCA is not a lawmaking body." After that statement is digested, the NVSCA and their actions should be weighed against the definitions of 'lawmaking.' If they are actually performing tasks that fit that definition, then that needs to be addressed, by pointing out that a group that isn't a lawmaking body is performing the function of lawmaking.

I think that by part C of the NRS you posted they can be viewed as having a effect on our law. That is a fine line to law making, I think they are close.

wrightme · Jan 27, 2012

Vegassteve said:
I think that by part C of the NRS you posted they can be viewed as having a effect on our law. That is a fine line to law making, I think they are close.

Yes, that is the question at the heart of this issue. Specifically, did the legislature write a statute that gives actual lawmaking power to a non-lawmaking body. Or, is a non-lawmaking body doing that function and the legislative and judicial branches are either condoning it, or not addressing it. I don't think anyone who is talking about this subject here will disagree that the NVSCA shouldn't make law, and they shouldn't even look like they are making law.

varminter22 · Jan 27, 2012

wrightme, njeske, and steve nailed it.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 28, 2012

IF OJ Simpson killed two people but did not get convicted is he a murdurer?

Some, are putting more emphises on the "Title" than the reality. If the NVSCA collected data and made recommendations to DPS and the law read: (b). A state must not be included in the list unless the department agrees with the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association that the state should be included in the list.

Then I would say the NVSCA has influence but the Department has VETO power, however since I switched the two it is the NVSCA with the VETO power.

And just like OJ above, Utah folks who were legal before are not legal now By law. Due to a vote by the sheriffs and chiefs . How is that not lawmaking?

Source:http://nvrepository.state.nv.us/Docs/CCW RECOGNITION NSCA Press Release 063009.pdf

varminter22 · Jan 28, 2012

Okay. Lawmaking.

I think we all agree the NSCA has overstepped its bounds.

I think we all agree the NSCA - a Nevada NON-PROFIT corporation - should not have such power.

wrightme · Jan 28, 2012

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
IF OJ Simpson killed two people but did not get convicted is he a murdurer?

Some, are putting more emphises on the "Title" than the reality. If the NVSCA collected data and made recommendations to DPS and the law read: (b). A state must not be included in the list unless the department agrees with the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association that the state should be included in the list.

Then I would say the NVSCA has influence but the Department has VETO power, however since I switched the two it is the NVSCA with the VETO power.

And just like OJ above, Utah folks who were legal before are not legal now By law. Due to a vote by the sheriffs and chiefs . How is that not lawmaking?

Source:http://nvrepository.state.nv.us/Docs/CCW RECOGNITION NSCA Press Release 063009.pdf

DTOM, the question isn't 'do they make law,' it is 'are they a lawmaking body.'

Those are two very distinct items that are not the same.

They are not a Nevada lawmaking body.

They do appear to have an effect as if they were. We know that.

DVC · Jan 28, 2012

wrightme said:
They do appear to have an effect as if they were. We know that.

So, how about a campaign to surgically remove them from the process?

It would have to cover three things:

1) Remove the influence of ANY outside group on determining rules for CCW,

2) Set criteria for CCW qualification, and

3) Specify that any state whose own standards meet or exceed ours is automatically recognized.

One nail to hang this on is that, by leaving this in the hands of the law enforcement administrators, we are violating the "shall issue" requirement, by giving them the "gun ban loophole."

This might be a good one for an initiative drive. Ask potential signers "Do you believe that an outside group should be allowed to decide who gets to carry a concealed weapon, even from another state whose laws aren't as strict as ours?" The beauty of this question is that the hoplophobes will imagine the NRA, and gun owners will imagine the Brady Bunch!

wrightme · Jan 28, 2012

DVC said:
So, how about a campaign to surgically remove them from the process?

It would have to cover three things:

1) Remove the influence of ANY outside group on determining rules for CCW,

2) Set criteria for CCW qualification, and

3) Specify that any state whose own standards meet or exceed ours is automatically recognized.

One nail to hang this on is that, by leaving this in the hands of the law enforcement administrators, we are violating the "shall issue" requirement, by giving them the "gun ban loophole."

This might be a good one for an initiative drive. Ask potential signers "Do you believe that an outside group should be allowed to decide who gets to carry a concealed weapon, even from another state whose laws aren't as strict as ours?" The beauty of this question is that the hoplophobes will imagine the NRA, and gun owners will imagine the Brady Bunch!

This seems valid. If the OCDO search function really worked like a search function, I do believe there have been many discussions about the role the NVSCA assumes, given the lack of oversight by those who actually write laws. The role the NVSCA does perform has been brought to the attention of the legislative body several times in the past, with hopes that legislation would be 'cleaned up' to clearly define CCW requirements, and take the ersatz power away from the non-lawmaking NPO.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Jan 28, 2012

DVC said:
So, how about a campaign to surgically remove them from the process?

It would have to cover three things:

1) Remove the influence of ANY outside group on determining rules for CCW,

2) Set criteria for CCW qualification, and

3) Specify that any state whose own standards meet or exceed ours is automatically recognized.

One nail to hang this on is that, by leaving this in the hands of the law enforcement administrators, we are violating the "shall issue" requirement, by giving them the "gun ban loophole."

This might be a good one for an initiative drive. Ask potential signers "Do you believe that an outside group should be allowed to decide who gets to carry a concealed weapon, even from another state whose laws aren't as strict as ours?" The beauty of this question is that the hoplophobes will imagine the NRA, and gun owners will imagine the Brady Bunch!

I see where you are going, But why have criteria for CCW. Why let them think you will tolorate infringement.

The reason I argued like I did over the "Lawmaking Body" thing is it is akin to a governing body, the reason I make that point is because of the the the phrase "governed by the consent of the people" Since are representitives were fine shoving this down our throats I have to ask how are we to trust that they have our best interests at heart. we have to let them know that we DO NOT CONSENT to unconstitutional governance, and if our "gun rights orgs." do not take the same stance we will have to eliminate them as well.

DVC · Jan 28, 2012

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
I see where you are going, But why have criteria for CCW. Why let them think you will tolorate infringement.

Because, right now, any argument for Constitutional Carry is countered by the cops, who don't want to lose their de facto control over out of state CCW recognition.

Take away direct involvement, and they simply become another lobbying organization. That will make it easier to get them to see the Arizona model and follow suit. As long as the cops are the recognized-in-law authority on CCW the decision will be AGAINST change.

In 1990, CCW was unlawful in Arizona, except for cops. No permits, no nothing. The state got CCW permits (shall-issue) as a move to spike the petition drive for Constitutional Carry, because the Legislature and the cops were afraid to let it get on the ballot. 20 years later, the Legislature put Constitutional Carry of the Governor's desk, and she signed it.

Nevada has shall-issue CCW -- with the cops deciding who can teach the mandatory courses and what states will be recognized here. As in Arizona, we need to unplug them from the process if we're going to move forward.

varminter22 · Jan 29, 2012

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
I see where you are going, But why have criteria for CCW. Why let them think you will tolorate infringement.

The reason I argued like I did over the "Lawmaking Body" thing is it is akin to a governing body, the reason I make that point is because of the the the phrase "governed by the consent of the people" Since are representitives were fine shoving this down our throats I have to ask how are we to trust that they have our best interests at heart. we have to let them know that we DO NOT CONSENT to unconstitutional governance, and if our "gun rights orgs." do not take the same stance we will have to eliminate them as well.

I certainly agree the goal is Constitutional Carry. I wrote this piece (entitled "Consitutional Carry for Nevada!") on the subject:

http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/p...ws&file=article&sid=217&mode=&order=0&thold=0

I went to the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs CCW forum.

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