Assemblyman Pat Hickey Appears To Be On Our Side But...

At Ease · Feb 3, 2015

Below is a Email conversation I had with Pat Hickey Reno-R He is the guy who made the wisecrack about Legeslatures carrying on the floor. Mr. Hickey has been a champion for better education but he also appears in favor of our rights. He has a CCW but does not carry regularly nor do I think he has ever open carried.

The Email exchange is reversed so I would suggest starting at the bottom.

I will be supportive of them, I'm sure...P

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 3, 2015, at 2:21 PM, <removed> wrote:
Guns in the capital building aside, how would you respond to the current bills being proposed on firearms? I hear there are quite a few this next session such as:

Guns on campus: AB 2 and Bill Draft 20-242
Guns during bow-hunting season: Bill Draft 45-561
Constitutional concealed carry: Bill Draft 15-221

From: Pat Hickey [removed]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 12:53 PM
To: <removed>
Subject:: Re: Thank you!

I am in full support of Concealed Carry Permits. I was merely trying to be humorous. However, there was once a practice of "leaving your guns at the Bar." Not sure, with uniformed police, we need nine members carrying on the Floor of the Assembly, though.

Pat

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 3, 2015, at 11:14 AM, <removed> wrote:
Howdy Pat,

I noticed your comments about members of the Legislature that carry concealed weapons. I was wondering what your opinion on the practice was?

Thank you for your time,

<removed>

MAC702 · Feb 3, 2015

Pat Hickey said:
...Not sure, with uniformed police, we need nine members carrying on the Floor of the Assembly, though...

He's right. We need all of them carrying. These are our state's lawmakers. Their safety is critical, and the fact that they don't take it upon themselves to provide it first is a bit of a bummer. But we don't have it so bad, except for making idiotic remarks about it so that the public gets the wrong idea about it.

I'd like to see him make a public remark at the end of the Legislative Session about how many were carrying firearms and yet it was another trouble-free Session.

jfrey123 · Feb 6, 2015

"Leave your guns at the bar." WTF are they drinking on the job then? [/sarcasm]

His reply makes no sense to me. I'm sure the presence of uniformed police helps their security, but when NRS permits employees of a public building to CCW within that building and no law technically prohibits any citizen from open carrying in that building, he needs to get over his personal opinion and go by the laws he is trusted to assist in developing.

Vegassteve · Feb 6, 2015

I cant find it so maybe I am wrong. I thought we had a total carry ban on us private citizens in a place that the leg is meeting?So even OC would be a no go?

MAC702 · Feb 6, 2015

If not allowed to carry, would the uniformed police guards be with them from the time they have to leave their personal firearm locked in a vehicle (hopefully secured parking) until they get back to it? Doubtful.

Why is it such a hard concept to just let people carry their guns? Duh, the bad guys will do it anyway...

davidmcbeth · Feb 7, 2015

In reality, the only thing a gov't official can do to our rights is to oppress them.

So, best case, any gov't official is neutral to our rights....as the only action that they can take is to try to limit our right or to say that they have jurisdiction over it.

Even when they vote a pro-2nd vote, they are voting that they can vote on the issue and, hence, is a vote stating that they have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

At Ease · Feb 9, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
In reality, the only thing a gov't official can do to our rights is to oppress them.

Call me young and naive, but I still believe the elected official’s job is to do the will of his constituents. There are laws the bind a man and laws that set him free. There are many bills suggested this session that will expand our rights and I'm gonna talk to as many Senators and Assemblymen as I can to make sure they become law. I don't create a "them and us" environment. At least not on the state level.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Feb 10, 2015

At Ease said:
davidmcbeth said:

In reality, the only thing a gov't official can do to our rights is to oppress them.

Call me young and naive, but I still believe the elected official’s job is to do the will of his constituents. There are laws the bind a man and laws that set him free. There are many bills suggested this session that will expand our rights and I'm gonna talk to as many Senators and Assemblymen as I can to make sure they become law. I don't create a "them and us" environment. At least not on the state level.

Click to expand...

I was pondering your thought.

"There are laws the bind a man and laws that set him free."

Click to expand...

I was unable to mentally locate a law that actually enhanced liberty. Have I been working nights too long? can someone point one out?

davidmcbeth · Feb 10, 2015

At Ease said:
davidmcbeth said:

In reality, the only thing a gov't official can do to our rights is to oppress them.

Call me young and naive, but I still believe the elected official’s job is to do the will of his constituents. There are laws the bind a man and laws that set him free. There are many bills suggested this session that will expand our rights and I'm gonna talk to as many Senators and Assemblymen as I can to make sure they become law. I don't create a "them and us" environment. At least not on the state level.

Click to expand...

You know most people are ignorant of what a right is and isn't?

Hence this issue in respect to RKBA....

MAC702 · Feb 10, 2015

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
I was pondering your thought. I was unable to mentally locate a law that actually enhanced liberty. Have I been working nights too long? can someone point one out?

The only real examples I can think of are state laws that limit or nullify local laws, like preemption laws, when they are done properly.

davidmcbeth · Feb 10, 2015

MAC702 said:
The only real examples I can think of are state laws that limit or nullify local laws, like preemption laws, when they are done properly.

But of course, these laws would actually support those local laws or at least acknowledge that they have meaning as they can re-vote and eliminate the preemption laws at any time.

The Big Guy · Feb 10, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
But of course, these laws would actually support those local laws or at least acknowledge that they have meaning as they can re-vote and eliminate the preemption laws at any time.

This is why we need to get pre-emption strengthened to the point that it truly protects us, then write it into the state constitution.

TBG

davidmcbeth · Feb 10, 2015

The Big Guy said:
This is why we need to get pre-emption strengthened to the point that it truly protects us, then write it into the state constitution.

TBG

But natural rights supersede constitutions ... which can also be changed.

That's why I really don't rally around gun laws [I do testify and tell them why they are wrong to even consider goofy ones] ...

As all of them either a) recognize that our right can be limited or b) limit the right straight out

Just my viewpoint (and plenty of others).

What gun bills do is to identify persons who are more than willing to try to suppress our rights. Then I take action against those persons when I can.

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Feb 11, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
But natural rights supersede constitutions ... which can also be changed.

That's why I really don't rally around gun laws [I do testify and tell them why they are wrong to even consider goofy ones] ...

As all of them either a) recognize that our right can be limited or b) limit the right straight out

Just my viewpoint (and plenty of others).

What gun bills do is to identify persons who are more than willing to try to suppress our rights. Then I take action against those persons when I can.

Well put. Do you ever fear that testifying before the legislature gives them unearned relevance?

Felid`Maximus · Feb 12, 2015

Vegassteve said:
I cant find it so maybe I am wrong. I thought we had a total carry ban on us private citizens in a place that the leg is meeting?So even OC would be a no go?

218A.905 says one cannot carry without "legal authority."

My interpretation is that open carry is banned, but concealed carry hinges upon the signage of their doors per 202.3673.

MAC702 · Feb 12, 2015

Felid`Maximus said:
218A.905 says one cannot carry without "legal authority."

My interpretation is that open carry is banned, but concealed carry hinges upon the signage of their doors per 202.3673.

Believe it or not, but that actually makes sense, legally speaking, in the same way that when written permission is given for carrying on campus (for the privileged elite or highly-publicized rape victim), that written permission always has licensed concealment as a requirement.

Assemblyman Pat Hickey Appears To Be On Our Side But...

At Ease

Regular Member

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

jfrey123

Regular Member

Vegassteve

Regular Member

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

davidmcbeth

Banned

At Ease

Regular Member

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

davidmcbeth

Banned

The Big Guy

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member

MAC702

Campaign Veteran