• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ab143

njeske

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
177
Location
Sparks, Nevada, United States
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Reports/history.cfm?ID=349

Looks to be the companion bill of SB126, but it goes a step further and changes the law so that all permit information is confidential. The NV Supreme Court ruled last year that information on issued permits wasn't confidential because the current law only states that the information on the applications is confidential.
 

Loneviking

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
344
Location
Carson City, Nevada, USA
A couple of things that I don't see in this bill nor the Senate bill is when, if passed, these bills will take effect; and also whether those of us who already have a CCW are automatically included. I would expect that we would be, but I don't find any language that assures that.

Varminter22, any idea?
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
A couple of things that I don't see in this bill nor the Senate bill is when, if passed, these bills will take effect; and also whether those of us who already have a CCW are automatically included. I would expect that we would be, but I don't find any language that assures that.

Varminter22, any idea?

Bills without effective dates text become effective on October 1.

I am confident the confidentiality would apply to ALL permits, even those existing before passage of the bill.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
I am confident the confidentiality would apply to ALL permits, even those existing before passage of the bill.

Yeah, I can't see them going to the effort to set up a database toggle for before and after.

You can also pretty much bet that those reporters (and the anti-gunners) will get the last update they can.

The interesting thing is that, in getting those lists, they prove that they don't consider us a threat to safety -- or they wouldn't want to annoy us, would they?
 

Loneviking

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
344
Location
Carson City, Nevada, USA
Bills without effective dates text become effective on October 1.

I am confident the confidentiality would apply to ALL permits, even those existing before passage of the bill.

Thanks for the answer to one question as to effective date. What I was also asking was if those of us with a CCW, after Oct. 1 (or whenever effective) would be able to carry ANY semi-auto whether it's on our card or not. Would the regulations immedietly apply to us, or would we have to wait for our renewl class?
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
What I was also asking was if those of us with a CCW, after Oct. 1 (or whenever effective) would be able to carry ANY semi-auto whether it's on our card or not. Would the regulations immedietly apply to us, or would we have to wait for our renewl class?

Yes, would apply to existing permits. No wait necessary.

Same situation existed when we went to "any revolver" - if you had a revolver on your old permit, you were then qualified with any revolver.
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
No. AB-143 is very much alive.

The cmte almost voted on it - which in itself is sorta/kinda unusual at a bill's first hearing - and literally seconds before the vote, a document popped up from the NACJ. The chairman decided to rescind the motion for a vote and review the new document.

We still have great hope .....
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Well, I do suppose that the NAJC has a rational point. I see they are not categorically against the bill, but see a "flaw" that prevents someone with legitimate need from accessing information. I see the question as "can that NAJC 'need' be addressed in an amendment without losing confidentiality?"
 
Last edited:

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The bill sponsor is looking at that.

Many think the NACJ argument is frivolous as there are ways to subpoena the info.

I hope we find out more soon.
 
Top