• 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.

2013 NV legislative Session

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
The one , ONE thing that the NVFAC drilled into us that they would do for us is Clark county pre emption. And that seems dead. This more than confirms my thoughts that the group was nothing more than getting irwin elected, that did not happen and he resigned. All the talk about events and competition etc. Just talk. I have sent off my resignation.

7 bills left and by my count only one of them good for us. AB195.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The one , ONE thing that the NVFAC drilled into us that they would do for us is Clark county pre emption. And that seems dead. This more than confirms my thoughts that the group was nothing more than getting irwin elected, that did not happen and he resigned. All the talk about events and competition etc. Just talk. I have sent off my resignation.

7 bills left and by my count only one of them good for us. AB195.

The NVFAC cannot prevent the amendment. Do they still support SB226 without the preemption?


And, they cannot, nor did they claim to be able to 'do' preemption. All that they, or anyone, can do, is fight for it. That does not mean it is going to happen.
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
The NVFAC cannot prevent the amendment. Do they still support SB226 without the preemption?


And, they cannot, nor did they claim to be able to 'do' preemption. All that they, or anyone, can do, is fight for it. That does not mean it is going to happen.

Do they support 226? I have no clue. I am not a idiot I know they cant do anything, BUT they made claims that all our money and efforts went that way. I just dont see it.
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
So you are willing to toss them based upon no information?

ABSOLUTELY. Because it has become the order of the day. I have over the last 2 months sent numerous emails to the Leg director. NOT ONE answered. I have left phone messages none returned. In my mind I have been lied to at every turn from them. forget about the leg work for one second. They have not followed through on any of the other programs that we have been told were going to happen. Well maybe they have and just not given out the info. Who knows?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
ABSOLUTELY. Because it has become the order of the day. I have over the last 2 months sent numerous emails to the Leg director. NOT ONE answered. I have left phone messages none returned. In my mind I have been lied to at every turn from them. forget about the leg work for one second. They have not followed through on any of the other programs that we have been told were going to happen. Well maybe they have and just not given out the info. Who knows?

Have you addressed any of those problems with Don Turner? I have found him to respond in a reasonable time to email questions.


When I expressed displeasure with 'CCW on DL,' he presented his case for support because of the pre-emption language. Without it, I assume that support dwindles. Ask him, tell him the leg guy has not been responding.


"lied to at every turn?" No, I disbelieve that completely.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
SB221 and SB277 have been amended.

SB221 now has a list of exceptions for temporary transfers and certain exempt permanent transfers that can occur without a background check. This bill specifies that the government will no longer charge a fee for private person transfer background checks, but the bill now requires a licensed dealer to be involved. SB221 also no longer allows a psychiatrist to order a gun ban without due process.

SB277 is modified so that if a court rejects a petition because the petition was without merit, the restriction is lifted, and it is also modified so that petition is possible before the end of the first 3 years.
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Yeah. The good thing is they are less bad. The bad thing is it increases their chances of passing.

On a different note:

There is a hearing for AB195 tomorrow at 9:00 AM in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
I'm glad it is appreciated!

AB195 ( for early ccw renewals) passed the assembly today and is on to the assembly.

SB76 was also amendmed (but I don't know in what way) and passed the Judiciary Committee.

It did not occur to me until recently, but I have realized another potential issue with the recently amended version of SB226 and one of the potential amendments to SB76. The amendments to these bills would adopt the federal definition of handgun as what is allowed to be carried on the concealed firearm permit.

It appears to me that by strict wording after adopting the federal definitions, the concealed carry of antique handguns like percussion revolvers by permit holders could become unlawful as a result.

This is because under federal law, antique firearms are not considered firearms, and therefore antique handguns are not considered handguns. This will be confusing at best as to whether the law would allow the concealed carry of antique firearms after such a change. State law defines firearms to include antique firearms, but federal law does not.
 
Last edited:

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
I'm glad it is appreciated!

AB195 ( for early ccw renewals) passed the assembly today and is on to the assembly.

SB76 was also amendmed (but I don't know in what way) and passed the Judiciary Committee.

It did not occur to me until recently, but I have realized another potential issue with the recently amended version of SB226 and one of the potential amendments to SB76. The amendments to these bills would adopt the federal definition of handgun as what is allowed to be carried on the concealed firearm permit.

It appears to me that by strict wording after adopting the federal definitions, the concealed carry of antique handguns like percussion revolvers by permit holders could become unlawful as a result.

This is because under federal law, antique firearms are not considered firearms, and therefore antique handguns are not considered handguns. This will be confusing at best as to whether the law would allow the concealed carry of antique firearms after such a change. State law defines firearms to include antique firearms, but federal law does not.

If the federal definition of handgun does not include antique firearms or I assume replicas, and NV adopts that definition, then wouldn't that make it legal to carry it concealed without a permit? ...TBG
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Not in this case. That would be awesome if that were the case, but the wording under wording under SB226 creates a confusing set of definitions for its active provisions which conflict with the definitions used under state law. I don't know if it could be interpreted in a new way, but if one were to read the law for understanding based upon its strict reading, it appears to me that the new law will only make it so that it is now impossible to obtain a permit to carry an antique firearm concealed without exempting antique firearms from NRS 202.350.

Nevada defines firearm under NRS 202.253 for the purposes of NRS 202.350, which would encompass black powder firearms, and NRS 202.253 definition of "firearm" under state law would not be repealed. NRS 202.350 prohibits the concealed carry of "pistols, revolvers, or other firearm and any other dangerous or deadly weapon." The new definition of "handgun", according to the language in SB226 ( http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Bills/SB/SB226_R1.pdf ) only applies from NRS 202.3653 to NRS 202.369 (and not to NRS 202.350). The new language of SB226 (and SB76) is intentionally designed to prevent the carry of firearms other than "handguns", because law enforcement was upset that people were lawfully carrying short barreled long guns with their concealed firearm permit. And the definition of "handgun" used (in SB226) is the federal definition.

After the passage of SB226, an antique firearm will still be defined as a firearm under NRS 202.3653 and it will still (arguably) be a dangerous or deadly weapon and thus will not be exempt from NRS 202.350. And even if both of those provisions were struck from NRS 202.350 (which is not happening in the present version of SB226,) the language of NRS 202.350 also describes the terms "pistols" and "revolvers" and these phrases will not necessarily be equivalent to "handgun" under the law. Arguably, a federally defined handgun will be a "pistol" or "revolver", but since "pistol" and "revolver" will no longer be defined under the law and the definition of "handgun" only applies to a section of code outside of NRS 202.350, even the phrases "pistol" or "revolver" could encompass a percussion revolver still if those terms are held to be broader than "handgun." And it seems to me that it is probable that the terms "pistol" and "revolver" would be held to be a types of firearms (as defined under state law NRS 202.253).

In the section where the federal definition of "handgun" will apply, the law will specify that a person with a concealed firearm permit may carry concealed any "handgun" and that all training for the course revolves around "handguns". So after obtaining such a permit one would have a permit to carry a concealed "handgun" (as defined by federal law) but no permit to carry concealed a percussion revolver or a rifle, as neither qualify as a "handgun" under federal law.

The only mechanism I can see that would allow for concealed carry of a percussion revolver would be if the language of the federal definition of handgun was interpreted in a different way than federal courts would.

Under federal law ( http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt ), antique firearms are not held to be firearms:
(3) The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter
gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to
expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm
silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include
an antique firearm.

And a handgun is defined by federal law to be a type of firearm:
(29) The term "handgun" means -
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be
held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in
subparagraph (A) can be assembled.

Under federal law, a percussion revolver is not a handgun, because a handgun is a firearm, and a percussion revolver is not a firearm. Hence why federal law does not prohibit minors from possession of a percussion revolver (NOT A HANDGUN) and why federal law would allow one to be shipped directly to your door from across state lines (NOT A FIREARM).

If the courts of Nevada decided to take the wording of the federal definition of handgun without taking into consideration the wording of the federal definition of firearm, it is possible that the state could hold that a permit applies to a percussion revolver. But this conclusion would seem to an illogical way to read the law based strictly upon wording. Especially because the intent of using the federal definition of a handgun was supposed to be so that if the federal law changed the definition of a handgun, then what the permit applied to would change to be the same.
 
Last edited:

vegaspassat

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
626
Location
united states
Not to get too off topic, but if a precussion revolver is defined federally as not a firearm, then can it be concealed sans permit?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Not to get too off topic, but if a precussion revolver is defined federally as not a firearm, then can it be concealed sans permit?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Not in Nevada. In Texas this is the case based on their definitions which work in a similar fashion to the federal definitions, but in Nevada, firearms are defined under NRS 202.253 in such a way as to encompass antique firearms such as percussion revolvers. Even after the federal definition of handgun applies for what one can carry with a permit, NRS 202.350 will continue to ban concealed carry of firearms as defined by NRS 202.253.

And even if Nevada completely abandoned its own definition of firearm and used federal definitions throughout, NRS 202.350 still bans the carry of any "other dangerous or deadly weapon."
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I foresee lack of enforcement of things that do not technically meet the federal definition. I especially foresee cops who do not know the difference.
 
Top