NVFAC Legislature ratings

[MAC702]

It seems to me that this right to keep a firearm in your car in the company's parking lot has helped a lot of people across the nation that live in much more stringent areas than Nevadans. So nationally, this is known as a good law with high priority. My gut feeling is that NVFAC is putting far too much emphasis on this law because it is nationally known to have success and help people. Its passing will elevate them nationally while affecting Nevadans very little. Tim is suffering from their involvement in national politics, as usual.

 

[Merlin]

Clearly the problem here is that Tim's answer to the question is more insightful than the question itself.

I had never considered the perspective he presents, but he makes a valid point. And offers a better alternative to boot.

With that said, I would accept the parking lot law if passed, but now that I have heard Tim's alternative, I would prefer it. Maybe we get the parking lot law passed, and later, when there is push back, we can offer Tim's alternative as a compromise (and a fair one at that).

I must say that Tim's answer to that question only reassures me that he is a better option than anyone currently in office. That is the kind of even-handed thoughtfulness that I would like to see in all of my legislators.

Tim, if this one doesn't pan out, please consider a move to my district. William Horne has ran unopposed for awhile now, and he has got to go!

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

It seems to me that this right to keep a firearm in your car in the company's parking lot has helped a lot of people across the nation that live in much more stringent areas than Nevadans....

Notice the law they talk about introducing is not specific to the "companys parking lot", it mentions parking areas open to the public. If you work at the Autozone, and there is a Marie calanders, a radioshack, Ross dress for less, two bars, and a Carls Jr. Do you think that the manager for autozone is going to know where your car is parked, much less what is in your trunk? Or think that he should? Does he think that he controls that whole parking area? If he does, you may have larger problems than leaving your gun in the car.

 

[MAC702]

Notice the law they talk about introducing is not specific to the "companys parking lot", it mentions parking areas open to the public. ....

I caught that the first time, and forgot about when trying to remember why I think NVFAC's priorities are way off on this. This law shouldn't be wasting our time. Instead, it is downgrading the rating of the best pro-gun candidate in the state.

 

[MAC702]

Has NVFAC made any changes to their rating for Tim? Or at least given him an asterisk in the official list or something? ANY kind of further correspondence on the matter?

 

[MAC702]

...A publically held company who is open to the general public should not have the right to ban me from possessing my right to self-defense. What if I am a stock holder?...

I was just rereading this thread. I can't believe I missed this statement last time. I also can't believe this is a footnote. This is huge. I'm going to start a thread because I really want to get some opinions/facts/research on this.

 

[The Big Guy]

Has NVFAC made any changes to their rating for Tim? Or at least given him an asterisk in the official list or something? ANY kind of further correspondence on the matter?

Not that anyone knows and no.

TBG

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

Actually there was corrospondance, however the NVFAC refused to acknowledge a true champion. I elected not to post the corrospondance earlier as I would undoubtedly get PM'd again, with the Your out of context tread, yuou do not understand, etc. But since I am receiving the PM's anyway and there are inquiry's, here is the last bout of corrospondance between the NVFAC and Tim.,

Dear Mr. Farrell,



Thank you for clarifying your answer to Question 5 on the 2012 NVFAC Candidate Survey. I understand and respect your position regarding property rights, and I admire and respect your integrity.



The twelve questions in our survey reflect issues that our members find important in this election cycle. It is important for our members to know where candidates for public office in Nevada stand on those issues. Of course, we want to support candidates whom we think will best support the issues we think are important, so we rate candidates on those issues according to their survey responses.



We see Question 5 as dealing with a Constitutional issue. The Constitution does not stop at private property lines, in the same way that many federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations do not stop there. The Coalition holds self-defense to be a basic human right, and we think that the policies of some employers, both public and private, to exclude guns from their parking lots puts employees who are honest gun owners and carriers at a serious self-defense disadvantage, and jeopardizes their employment at the same time. We think the right of self-defense is important enough to carve out a narrow and limited exception to property rights sufficient to allow for greater self-defense options for law-abiding citizens.



The scope of our survey was limited to twelve specific issues, and was not designed to capture the background of support a candidate such as yourself may have given to important Second Amendment issues. While your responses to our candidate survey qualify for a “C” rating, please remember that the rating is just for the survey. When our members vote, they can - and I expect they will - take into account your record of support for the Second Amendment that is important to all of us.



We may differ about Question 5, Employee Parking Lot Protection, but we respect you and your position, and we wish you every success. We especially wish you well in your campaign for an Assembly seat!



Sincerely yours,



Randy Mackie

And Tims response:

I would like to comment on your response. There are/were some rights so fundamental that even when the framers wrote the Bill of Rights, it never occurred to them that they should have to enumerate them. The freedom to travel is one of those unenumerated rights, as are the rights of private property ownership. If one right can "override" another right, then there is really no such thing as a right to begin with.

Also, I found it curious that parking lot carry is a higher priority for your organization than constitutional carry or campus carry. Today, the worst that can happen to a person who ignores the rules of his employer and leaves a gun in his parked car is that he is fired in the highly unlikely case that his gun, hidden in his locked car, is found. On the other hand, carry a firearm without a government permission slip, or onto a college campus, and you face YEARS of imprisonment! I find the latter to be a far greater cause for alarm to law-abiding gun owners and therefore a much higher priority.

In addition to the above reasons, given the fact that NV is an at-will work state, you can be fired for any reason. Regardless of what the law says, if that same hidden gun is found out, the owner could fire you for smelling bad, coming in late, "poor" work performance, or for any other reason, or no reason at all. This is just feel-good legislation that in reality does very little to actually improve the rights of gun owners.

Lastly, I'm not quite sure that having a gun in a parked car is even definable as self-defense. By definition, self-defense is the use of force to protect oneself from immediate risk of bodily harm. If a situation occurs where a person is able to retreat to the safety of his vehicle, the prudent course of action is to flee the vicinity, not to grab a gun and run back into a chaotic situation where others (including police or other armed citizens) do not know whether you are the shooter or one of the good guys.

I do thank you again for the opportunity to have this dialog and I hope that we can work together despite my unfavorable rating.

 

[MAC702]

Mr. Mackie's response tells me I don't want him representing me.

He said the questions came from "the members." Did they? Or did they come only from the elite members? Same regards to the "core questions" and their impact on the survey rating.

I guaran-gosh-darn-tee that if the members saw this exchange, Tim would have an A rating, no matter what previous ideas would have to be changed.

Is the NVFAC only publishing the rating itself? Are they making ANY effort to actually inform us of the stands of the candidates?

 

[Vegassteve]

Mr. Mackie's response tells me I don't want him representing me.

He said the questions came from "the members." Did they? Or did they come only from the elite members? Same regards to the "core questions" and their impact on the survey rating.

I guaran-gosh-darn-tee that if the members saw this exchange, Tim would have an A rating, no matter what previous ideas would have to be changed.

Is the NVFAC only publishing the rating itself? Are they making ANY effort to actually inform us of the stands of the candidates?

Those questions were never put to or from any member on the line level. The nvfac has in no way communicated with s the members.