Nevada Firearms Coalition Progress ?

wrightme said:

Do you have something to work on towards legislative goals, or are you just here to attempt to undermine the efforts of others?.

Click to expand...

How can I undermine what can't be detected?

Show me something to support, and I will support it.

wrightme said:

If you don't like the NRA or affiliated organizations, then go join another or start your own.

Click to expand...

I did.

We got concealed carry for the people of Arizona, ultimately leading to Constitutional Carry.

And the NRA tried to close us down, even though two former BOARD MEMBERS (Colonel Cooper and Neal Knox) were supporting us.

To the best of my knowledge, the NRA is the ONLY national gun rights organization that has been active in the legislature here in Nevada

Click to expand...

. . .and the result has been . . .what . . ? What successes can you point to which the NRA won for us? Or, to be more fair, what campaigns have they fought on our behalf? The only activity that I have seen from the NRA in Nevada is membership tables at gun shows.

If I'm guilty of "eating our own" because I refuse to accept nebulous answers to the simple question which began this thread, what do you call it when your "national gun rights organization" has tried to throw monkey wrenches into every campaign or case which has made progress in the last 40 years? When they support Project Exile's enforcement of unconstitutional law? When they help HARRY REID get re-elected? When they SUPPORTED the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN VICE PRESIDENT?

From an article written by NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth, American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968 (Pg 22-24):

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

""The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts."

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."

"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun."

"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns."

Where in ANY of that do you find justification for calling the NRA a "gun rights organization"???

This policy has continued:

"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud." —NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999

“Cutting a special deal at the expense of the First Amendment with lawmakers who have decided for now to stop gutting the Second Amendment reveals an NRA that is unprincipled and will be weaker for it in the long run” – Wall Street Journal, 6/16/2010

wrightme said:

Do you have something to work on towards legislative goals, or are you just here to attempt to undermine the efforts of others? If you don't like them, then don't bother with them. But, it is bad form to attempt to knock them down.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was definite bad form when the NRA tried to knock down Gura, and when they tried to have Arizona gun show promoters prevent us from gathering signatures at their shows.

Oh, wait, YOU think it's bad form for me to not let those things get swept under the rug, or to ask why their state "coalition" isn't doing anything . . !

I'm remind of the time, about 25 years ago, when Colonel Cooper had commented that NYPD was only getting an eleven percent hit rate on the street -- they sent him an angry letter, proudly claiming a SIXTEEN percent hit rate!

I'm also reminded of the 1940 confrontation in HCT Dowding's office, between Air Vice Marshal Keith Park (11 Gp) and Trafford Leigh-Mallory (12 Gp), over 12 Gp's failure to protect 11 Gps airfields from Luftwaffe bombers. Leigh-Mallory complained that the criticism was "highly unfair," and that it was "better to get fifty bombers after they drop than ten enroute to the target," to which Park bit out "You're not GETTING fifty bombers! You're not even getting TEN!"

So until NVFAC starts acting like 11 Gp instead of 12 Gp, I'm going to continue to point out that fact.

DVC said:

It's more fun pointing at a bad organization here.

Click to expand...

Which is against the rules here.

DVC said:

Yes, it was definite bad form when the NRA tried to knock down Gura, and when they tried to have Arizona gun show promoters prevent us from gathering signatures at their shows.

Oh, wait, YOU think it's bad form for me to not let those things get swept under the rug, or to ask why their state "coalition" isn't doing anything . . !

I'm remind of the time, about 25 years ago, when Colonel Cooper had commented that NYPD was only getting an eleven percent hit rate on the street -- they sent him an angry letter, proudly claiming a SIXTEEN percent hit rate!

I'm also reminded of the 1940 confrontation in HCT Dowding's office, between Air Vice Marshal Keith Park (11 Gp) and Trafford Leigh-Mallory (12 Gp), over 12 Gp's failure to protect 11 Gps airfields from Luftwaffe bombers. Leigh-Mallory complained that the criticism was "highly unfair," and that it was "better to get fifty bombers after they drop than ten enroute to the target," to which Park bit out "You're not GETTING fifty bombers! You're not even getting TEN!"

So until NVFAC starts acting like 11 Gp instead of 12 Gp, I'm going to continue to point out that fact.

Click to expand...

Do you always live in the past?

So the NVFAC is "holding back information for timing purpooses, am I reading this correct?

wrightme said:

Do you always live in the past?

Click to expand...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I notice that you don't have much to say about the American Rifleman article I quoted, in which the NRA brags about how they've always supported gun control.

DVC said:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Click to expand...

Remembering is one thing. Dwelling on the past and failing to accept that things can change is another thing entirely.

DVC said:

I notice that you don't have much to say about the American Rifleman article I quoted, in which the NRA brags about how they've always supported gun control.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't have a thing to say about something I didn't bother to read in your rant.

wrightme said:

No, I didn't have a thing to say about something I didn't bother to read in your rant.

Click to expand...

I see. You condemn the one who invites you to read the NRA's own words, yet make claims that the NRA itself refutes.

I hadn't realized that this was a religious issue for you, but so be it.

DVC said:

I see. You condemn the one who invites you to read the NRA's own words, yet make claims that the NRA itself refutes.

Click to expand...

No, I simply didn't see the point in reading the things you cite and misrepresent.

DVC said:

I hadn't realized that this was a religious issue for you, but so be it.

Click to expand...

There is no aspect of religious belief in it.

wrightme said:

No, I simply didn't see the point in reading the things you cite and misrepresent.

There is no aspect of religious belief in it.

Click to expand...

Those are long quotes from the NRA's own magazine, from an article written by the NRA's own Executive Vice President saying that the NRA SUPPORTED NFA '34 and was in favor of passage of GCA '68. It's not like I'm taking one sentence or two out of context, or misconstruing what he wrote.

When someone refuses to read something because they know that it might shake their faith, that's RELIGION.

And since it's my policy that the only religion that I will argue is Christianity, this will be my last posting to you on the matter of the NRA or its state affiliate.

DVC said:

Those are long quotes from the NRA's own magazine, from an article written by the NRA's own Executive Vice President saying that the NRA SUPPORTED NFA '34 and was in favor of passage of GCA '68. It's not like I'm taking one sentence or two out of context, or misconstruing what he wrote.

When someone refuses to read something because they know that it might shake their faith, that's RELIGION.

Click to expand...

I have not done that.

DVC said:

And since it's my policy that the only religion that I will argue is Christianity, this will be my last posting to you on the matter of the NRA or its state affiliate.

Click to expand...

However you rationalize it, Thank you.

It looks like this thread got a little off the subject at times. However, it seems the NV FAC board members are having problems scheduling the next meeting. They are talking about meeting next in May. So it seems nothing will happen soon.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if anything happens EVER.

Has anyone heard about any of the Organizations, planning to address the "pocket gun loophole" in Nevada's CCW law? I know I can OC it, but unless it is a belt buckle or something cool, there seems no practicality in OCing something made for your pocket. Nevada CCW is getting better, seems we are still stuck in the dark ages when you consider no legal way to conceal a pistol that is made to conceal.
Here is my pocket pistol: http://gunnuts.net/2011/10/03/heizer-defense-introduces-the-doubletap/

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

Has anyone heard about any of the Organizations, planning to address the "pocket gun loophole" in Nevada's CCW law? I know I can OC it, but unless it is a belt buckle or something cool, there seems no practicality in OCing something made for your pocket. Nevada CCW is getting better, seems we are still stuck in the dark ages when you consider no legal way to conceal a pistol that is made to conceal.
Here is my pocket pistol: http://gunnuts.net/2011/10/03/heizer-defense-introduces-the-doubletap/

Click to expand...

What is it you refer to as the 'pocket gun loophole?'

There is no authorization under law to conceal a firearm, unless it is a "revolver" or a "semi-automatic"..... !

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

There is no authorization under law to conceal a firearm, unless it is a "revolver" or a "semi-automatic"..... !

Click to expand...

Definitions include them under "revolver."

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)

Click to expand...

sweet i missed that.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

sweet i missed that.

Click to expand...

http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Pages/CCW_FAQ.php