Synopsis of NVSCA CCW forum meeting Sept 10 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Synopsis of NVSCA CCW forum meeting Sept 10


jpa
09-10-2008, 21:38
The meeting was moderated by Frank Adams, Executive Director of the NVSCA

Our room was situated with about 30 people on the 4th floor, ready to start at 1:30 but the group in Carson City had to find a larger room because they had such a large turnout. In Las Vegas the meeting was run by Frank Adams, Executive Director of the NVSCA. In Carson City, present were Paul Howell, Undersheriff of Douglas County and Captain PK O'Neil, director of the Records and Technology division of the Department of Public Safety. Also present were Assemblywoman. Bonnie Parnell (D-Carson City/Washoe County) in Carson City and Assemblyman. Jerry Claborn (D-Clark) in Las Vegas. The NRA lobbyist for Nevada based out of Sacramento CA was also present in Carson City.

Frank started the meeting with a few simple rules: No arguments for or against the second amendment, gun registration or statements that aren't related to CCW or the NICS check. He made it clear that this isn't the place or time to discuss the Constitution, only the CCW permit process as it's currently implemented.

Frank's first comments were regarding the history of the NICS check and the Brady exemption. The ATF decided that the checks currently done since 2001 aren't enough and they removed the exemption for Nevada CCW holders. The Sheriffs approached the ATF and asked what needed to be done to reinstate it. The Sheriffs then signed a memorandum of understanding to perform the checks needed. AB21 of the 2007 session was meant to permanently implement the checks required by the ATF, but it also included a provision to double the CCW permit fees that go to the sheriff's offices. That bill died in committee and since those checks weren't implemented, the ATF revoked the exemption yet again. Only 16 other states CCW permits qualify for the brady exemption.

Captain PK O'Neil of the DPS Records and Technology explained what the fees are used for. The $25 fee that goes to the state is used to pay for 10 clerks at the DPS Records and Technology Criminal Repository who run the checks for the point of sale. They run a check through Metro's SCOPE system that they must pay a fee to LVMPD to use as well as a regular criminal records check in the state and FBI systems. Expenses all included telephone systems, the computer systems, personnel costs, etc. One of the people speaking during the public comments period suggested that Nevada should cease to be a point of contact (POC) for the NICS system, instead using the FBI national 800 number that is "free." Captain O'Neil pointed out at this point that DPS contacts local law enforcement if they find an active warrant on a subject trying to purchase a gun. He said they average around 40 arrests per month of people with warrants for everything from traffic to homicide. He mentioned that the FBI system does not do this and the Nevada checks are actually more thorough than other states. The speaker also asked about what additional information would be disclosed in a state check vs an FBI check and would the number of significant hits be high enough to warrant the additional expense? The Undersheriff stated that in Douglas county they have had 3 ccw denials based on the background check, and that one slip would be more than enough to give ammo to the anti-gun public to reverse all that we've accomplished so far. Captain O'Neil also stated that in the past 6 months there have been around 100 arrests of CCW permit holders for anything ranging from possession/sale of narcotics to DUI, domestic violence, homicide and possession of a firearm while intoxicated. He indicated there is still a large problem with the last charge, people carrying a weapon while intoxicated.

Another person had a question about why we need a "permit" to carry a weapon and exercise a constitutional right. Frank Adams vehemently admonished him that his forum was about the CCW process as it currently exists, the sheriffs support the right of people to bear arms but the legislature views concealed carry as a privilege, not a right. As the system is currently, there is a reasonable restriction allowed that gives the general public an assurance the person carrying a concealed weapon is a reasonably law-abiding individual.

One issue mentioned was that the forms used by all the sheriff's offices should now be uniform. The form was developed by Frank Adams in conjunction with Sgt. Johnson of the LV Metro PD CCW Detail. Several people proposed revisions to include a checkbox for revolvers (yes or no) rather than listing them, allowing the student to fill out their form to speed up the process while at the range, and removing references to the "use of force continuum and controlling violent encounters." Several speakers asked about the recording of serial numbers, Frank Adams mentioned that this form is uniform and does not have space for serial numbers. He mentioned that LV Metro may ask for serial numbers due to their registration requirement but that if a clerk at any other department asks for serial numbers to inform him so he can speak with their sheriff.

Frank also mentioned the fact that all the sheriffs are in agreement to recognize each other's approval of CCW instructors in their own county. For instance if Mike from Nye county were to take a CCW class at The Gun Store in Las Vegas, the Nye county sheriff's office would contact LV Metro to see if the instructor at The Gun Store was approved by the Clark county sheriff. If so, the training would be recognized in Nye county. He asked that if anyone has an issue with the training being recognized, please contact him and he will address the matter with the sheriff of that county. Several instructors also wanted to know of the statutory authority of the sheriff to refuse to accept qualification sheets when they "qualify" themselves or immediate family members. Sgt Johnson of Metro also addressed this, stating there's a conflict of interest in certifying yourself that you are proficient in shooting. He said the sheriffs prefer that another instructor qualify yourself and your immediate family, but he neglected to mention any legal authority to refuse the qualification sheet on an individual basis. The Undersheriff also mentioned that just like LEOs have to qualify in the presence of another instructor, so should CCW permit holders and instructors. He again mentioned that there is discretion afforded to the sheriff in approving the instructor but failed to note any statutory authority to not approve an individual qualification. (Note: I also couldn't find any such authority in NRS 202.)

There was a question about whether a resident has to have a Nevada CCW if they have a recognized out-of-state permit. The undersheriff of Douglas county said there is no conflict as people may have "dual residency." (NOTE: NRS 202.3688 specifies residents must have a permit issued by their sheriff within 60 days of becoming a resident.) The instructor who posed the question said people were curious as they don't have to qualify with each weapon if they have a Utah permit, for instance. The undersheriff expressed his support for a "concealed firearm permit", not a concealed
semi-automatic or revolver permit. In his opinion, if you have a permit and have qualified with one weapon, you should be allowed to carry any. Frank also expressed his support of removing the requirement to qualify with each individual weapon and indicated that if such a law were proposed, the NVSCA would probably support it.

An instructor asked what statutory authority a sheriff had to charge for issuing a new permit when a permitee comes to add additional firearms to his permit. The undersheriff stated that there is a section of the NRS that allows the sheriff discretion in charging a fee to issue a replacement permit with all the new firearms added to the list. (NOTE: I was unable to find any
such reference in NRS 202.) Another questioner asked if they could make their permits look "more awesome" as he held up his bright green laminated index card from Douglas County that is his ccw permit. The undersheriff jokingly told the speaker that he no longer had a ccw permit and the technology to print the cards with holograms such as Metro and Washoe county use is very costly. PK O'Neil expressed the possibility of the state issuing ccw cards for the counties that don't have the funds to buy their own card printer systems.

Frank Adams mentioned the fact that Nevada currently recognizes 10 states' ccw permits and will be publishing a new list this November as required by law. They are constantly reviewing other states' laws and permit process to see if they meet the criteria to be recognized in state and will be added if they do. While the state provides the list of permits recognized in Nevada, they don't have a list of states that recognize the Nevada permit. The Lt. in charge of the Metro CCW detail referred the audience to www.handgunlaws.us and the Undersheriff also cautioned everyone to double-check with the local law enforcement or state police wherever you happen to be traveling to verify the legality.

Ray Duensing Jr, Libertarian candidate for US House District 1 (Clark county) appeared briefly to challenge the constitutionality of recording citizens' fingerprints and requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm. He was admonished several times by Frank Adams and when he had no other comments relating to CCW as the system is currently implemented, he left the meeting.

osiruscyn
09-10-2008, 22:06
The fact that the blue cards couldnít be discussed there is ridiculous. It's not surprising though since it seems hat only Sgt. Johnson was there and not one undersheriff, or Gillespie himself bothered to attend. Gillespie was given a D rating by the NRA during his run for Sheriff. He does not like having citizens own handguns and i think only does nothing about the CCW process because he knows he will face an immediate onslaught of **** and will not win a re-election.

THe part where Sgt. Johnson said that the discretion for self qualifying and qualifying family members was up to the sheriff is because it isnít explicitly stated in the NRS. Thatís what happens when they assume.

There is no fee to metro to use scope. If that was the case then they would be making a **** load of money from all the other agencies that access the program. I use it daily and run about 150 people a day. If the courts had to pay for that then the courts would be broke.

The state system is run by DPS as it is so there shouldnít be a fee except for the personnel to run the checks. Period. DPS operates the repository for all criminal information. It's their job. It's just a way for them to make more money is all it is.

The FBI system is also free and does not cost to use. The fact they say they have to pay for this is ridiculous. I also use NCIC everyday and while there are audits in place to ensure that the system is not abused, there is no billing for it. That would result in massive amounts of money being paid to the FBI to use their database by every law enforcement agency in the country.

Was he saying that the FBI database doesnít notify local agencies of warrants when there is a hit or was he saying that the FBI database doesnít show the warrants? The FBI database is THE database used for all electronic warrants. Once itís issused is immediately entered into NCIC and is active. That's what every law enforcement agency uses when they run for warrants. That way it's centralized.

jpa
09-10-2008, 23:38
The fact that the blue cards couldnít be discussed there is ridiculous. It's not surprising though since it seems hat only Sgt. Johnson was there and not one undersheriff, or Gillespie himself bothered to attend. Gillespie was given a D rating by the NRA during his run for Sheriff. He does not like having citizens own handguns and i think only does nothing about the CCW process because he knows he will face an immediate onslaught of **** and will not win a re-election.

THe part where Sgt. Johnson said that the discretion for self qualifying and qualifying family members was up to the sheriff is because it isnít explicitly stated in the NRS. Thatís what happens when they assume.

There is no fee to metro to use scope. If that was the case then they would be making a **** load of money from all the other agencies that access the program. I use it daily and run about 150 people a day. If the courts had to pay for that then the courts would be broke.

The state system is run by DPS as it is so there shouldnít be a fee except for the personnel to run the checks. Period. DPS operates the repository for all criminal information. It's their job. It's just a way for them to make more money is all it is.

The FBI system is also free and does not cost to use. The fact they say they have to pay for this is ridiculous. I also use NCIC everyday and while there are audits in place to ensure that the system is not abused, there is no billing for it. That would result in massive amounts of money being paid to the FBI to use their database by every law enforcement agency in the country.

Was he saying that the FBI database doesnít notify local agencies of warrants when there is a hit or was he saying that the FBI database doesnít show the warrants? The FBI database is THE database used for all electronic warrants. Once itís issused is immediately entered into NCIC and is active. That's what every law enforcement agency uses when they run for warrants. That way it's centralized.

I think we'd probably have a better chance fighting the registration at the local level if we kept up enough pressure on our commissioners. Either that or get TOTAL state preemption on firearm regulations. I agree that the registration system is BS and a waste of taxpayer money, but you know that Metro's going to come up with some stories of crimes that were solved because of it and they'll leave it intact. Sgt Johnson and his LT were both there, but you're right, it doesn't seem there was much interest from their dept. I also noticed the other sheriff's depts were conspicuously absent. I think the missing sections of the law need to be addressed, especially the matter of arbitrarily deciding who you can and can't qualify and randomly setting the fee for what amounts to a duplicate card(limited to $15 by state law).

I can neither confirm nor deny the fee to metro regarding scope queries. I'll ask the accounting assistant at work who handles all our bills if we pay them anything. We too average around 100 inquiries a day in my dept. I also don't think that firearm purchasers need to foot the bill for the entire records and technology division of DPS. Add in the other costs I mentioned and it does look like we're footing the entire bill for fingerprinting school teachers, police applicants, day care workers, taxi drivers, as well as arrestees.

While using NCIC isn't exactly free, it is funded through other channels rather than charging departments by their usage. Remember, nothing the government does is free, it's being paid somewhere, somehow by some fee or tax. Also, not every warrant is entered into NCIC. In Nevada they're all entered into NCJIS, however only felony warrants or warrants that are extraditable outside the state are entered into NCIC. Nonextraditable warrants for violent crimes may be entered into NCIC with the NOEX caveat in the MIS field purely for cautionary purposes. His statement about the FBI not notifying local LE was that they don't pick up the phone and tell local LE that there's a wanted person at Joe's gun shop ready for pickup. DPS does.

JimBianchi
09-11-2008, 00:06
JPA, thanks for the thorough run down.

I wish I could have stayed longer, but the needs of a 3-year-old are many and at times, loud.

She slept all the way to the bank and store.

She was tired!

About the blue cards, do you think an email and letter writting campaign is in order?

Would it do any good?

Typically, the county commisioners always side with Metro on policy issues not related to money.

If we can prove it saves money to abolish the Blue Card, maybe they will listen?

digitspaw
09-11-2008, 00:14
Thanks for putting this together, John.

What did you think of that jerk in Vegas who said he was a candidate for a congressional seat? He just wasted time up there spouting off on subjects that were not on the venue.

I wouldn't vote for that turdburglar even if he promised a new handgun for all permitees.:upeyes:

jpa
09-11-2008, 20:50
Thanks for putting this together, John.

What did you think of that jerk in Vegas who said he was a candidate for a congressional seat? He just wasted time up there spouting off on subjects that were not on the venue.

I wouldn't vote for that turdburglar even if he promised a new handgun for all permitees.:upeyes:

While I agree in principle with what he had to say, he picked the wrong place and time to say it and made himself look like an idiot. Not to say that most politicians don't do that at one time or another but he was obviously an amateur.

Slmpickins26
09-13-2008, 06:24
Gillespie was given a D rating by the NRA during his run for Sheriff.



AHHH but you forget. Gillespie was originally given an "F" rating by the NRA. But just before the vote. He somehow convinced the NRA that he didn't understand the questionnaire, and that his aid filled it out. He was then allowed to redo the form. And was given a "D" rating. He still supports "Katrina" style gun grabbing.

Also the "Blue card" issue was up before the state legislature last section. Along with Boulder city's "Break Down Law". But some how Ole Gillyboy weasel it out and it got dropped from the bill.

BTW the average Felon can't even be prosecuted for failure to register their pistola, and or GAT. Thanks to Haynes vs US. (Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88, 88 S.Ct. 722, 725 (1968) ) In a 5 to 1 ruling it states that firearms registration violates their 5th amendment right. The right against self incrimination, and by that making them exempt from prosecution by the law. So another words the only people whom need to abide by the law, and for that matter be prosecuted by it. Is the average law abiding citizen.

Slmpickins26
09-13-2008, 06:40
Oh sorry forgot to add a thank you to jpa fort great write up.

osiruscyn
09-13-2008, 22:47
BTW the average Felon can't even be prosecuted for failure to register their pistola, and or GAT. Thanks to Haynes vs US. (Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88, 88 S.Ct. 722, 725 (1968) ) In a 5 to 1 ruling it states that firearms registration violates their 5th amendment right. The right against self incrimination, and by that making them exempt from prosecution by the law. So another words the only people whom need to abide by the law, and for that matter be prosecuted by it. Is the average law abiding citizen.

this is true, however, failure to register a handgun is only a misdemeanor in clark county. Possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (felon, drug user, mentally ill person) is a felony. I'd rather them get hooked up for another felony rather than a misdo.

tactical9mm
09-14-2008, 02:49
The stated justification for the reasoning behind the requirement to have a permit to carry concealed by Frank Adams is downright silly. "To give the general public the assurance that the person carrying a concealed weapon is a reasonably law-abiding individual".

Anyone in legal possession of a firearm is implied to be law-abiding. Keeping and bearing arms is an individual right that was recently reaffirmed by the US supreme court's Heller decision. Bearing arms can either be done openly or concealed, at the discretion of the individual (in my opinion). This is our right as citizens, not our privilege because the legislature wants to cozy up to soccer moms.

I also applaud Ray Duensing JR for his position on this issue. He and those like him who stand by our constitution deserve our support with our votes. If "the legislature" is responsible for turning our rights into privileges then we need to remove those people from office via the electoral process. Replace them with people who believe in the support of our constitution.

Having to pay a fee for the permit application, having to pay private parties for a token "class", having to submit fingerprints, having to sign a waiver of privacy rights for the duration of the permit, having to go through another background check? All of this to allow us to exercise a right that we should already have?

The CCW system as it is now is perpetuating a bureaucracy that is unconstitutional. We, as citizens have a duty to make things right and put an end to the current system. We need to transition from a "shall issue" state to a no-issue state like Vermont, where no permit is required for any type of carry.

The blue card issue in clark county is another black eye in all of our faces. This issue also needs to be addressed, and eliminated.

The best chance we have to do this is by supporting the right candidates, like Ray in clark county. They will fight for us if we fight for them.

Vague17
09-16-2008, 02:00
JPA: Thanks for the report. I appreciate your effort. Good work.

1337-G
09-16-2008, 20:03
JPA: Thanks for the report. I appreciate your effort. Good work.

+1. Thanks :)

jpa
09-16-2008, 20:14
Thanks for the comments, I did the write-up because I knew a few other Nevada members probably couldn't make it and Jim actually had to leave because his daughter got tired and wouldn't sit still. I really wish I would have brought a notepad to take notes, but I didn't think of it until after I was already there.

The point about felons not being required to register is an interesting one, because as osiruscyn mentioned, them being in possession is a more serious state charge and can also be a federal charge. Kinda like charging someone with discharging a firearm in city limits in addition to homicide.

I haven't thought of the best way to really push the blue card issue. I thought of going the local route just because the commission is in session all year round rather than just 120 days every 2 years. I've tried contacting my commissioner (Maxfield) regarding registration and the shooting park but all I get back is a generic email saying my email was put in his read file. I don't think he much cares what anyone thinks at this moment since he's not running for reelection. We may get more support from the legislature since they cover more rural areas and if their counties don't need registration, why does Clark county?

I agree the CCW system is a bureaucratic mess and of questionable constitutionality, but as it stands, I'd rather have to get a permit than not be able to carry at all. As far as Duensing goes, he knew the rules of the forum but chose to disobey them to garner political points. People who act like that very rarely get noticed in the political arena, like a child acting out in a shopping mall. He could have talked things up with other attendees, passed out campaign literature, whatever. Instead he chose to disrupt the meeting and wasted time.

tactical9mm
09-18-2008, 18:29
JPA,

We do have an option to carry without a CCW; Open-carry is the law of the land in our great State of Nevada, and it requires no permit. I've been carrying like this every day for several years now and I haven't had any problems. Part of the reason why I opt to carry openly is because of the ethical concerns that I have with our current CCW process. It is wrong, and I just cant sanction it for myself.

On the subject of Ray; Yes, he did choose to disregard the rules that Frank laid down at the beginning of the meeting. He can be faulted for that, I agree. I still give Ray some props for at least throwing a few stones. Change never happens if nobody makes waves; that's just the way things go.

I would still give Jim my electoral support because we know where he stands, and how seriously and personally he takes things. Nobody and nothing is perfect (except of course for our Glock pistols). I would rather have someone like Ray in office then someone on the opposite or the unknown side of the 2nd amendment spectrum, especially here in clark county.

Thanks very much for your writing on how this event went, incidentally.

Nickmimi
09-24-2008, 10:50
thanks for the great write up