Visa's recent statement regarding the new Gun Store MCC code was maybe a little deceptive. They claim that this won't allow insight into line item data of a transaction.
I think Visa is conveniently failing to mention "Level 3 line item data". From the interwebs:
"Level 3 processing and sending line item detail is an advanced method of processing commercial, purchasing, fleet and government credit cards. It involves sending additional fields of data through the processing network. This is up to 12 fields of additional information, much like you would find on an invoice. With the additional data a business can monitor what kind of purchases are made on a company card, where, how much etc. It can also include restrictions, limiting the types of businesses an employee can make purchases. Visa and MasterCard created special rates to support Level 3 data by reducing the transaction cost when level 3 processing data is included with the transaction. This often lowers the transaction cost by up to 40%."
Many smaller merchants are just automatically opted in on this, and they don't even know it. If they are using a turnkey POS system, this is often built right in. For larger merchants (Walmart), they will mostly likely be voluntarily participating in Level 3 data because it lowers their processing rates.
Every year, by July 1 the Dept. of Public Safety updates the list of what states' CCW permits are recognized in Nevada. Permits were added this year. Compare this year's list to 2021's list. 29 states versus last year's draw-down of 21 states. 2022 additions and returning members are: Florida, Mississippi (enhanced), Nebraska, North Dakota (Class 1), Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota (enhanced), and Virginia.
In 2021, someone screwed up and removed Ohio and South Dakota. Florida was reportedly honoring Nevada's permit even though they only honor states that honor their permits. Apparently states that don't respond to Nevada's formal request about training/database standards got dropped last year.
There are two requirements for Nevada to recognize another state's permit: 1. NRS 202.3689 requires training, which some states, like Washington, don't require. 2. The major issue is the issuing state has the permits in a electronic database so that dispatchers and cops can run the permit without having to call the issuing authority.
Remember those blog posts I made where I reacted to the anti-gunners (hoplopaths) gloating that they'd ban guns here, there, and everywhere? They acted like their tide of gun control was a never ending flood. Do you remember where I predicted that once we got a good SCOTUS 2A ruling with strict scrutiny we'd see the end of those restrictions?
Well, we got better than strict scrutiny. Text, history, and tradition is the new standard and it will be abused, but the "no two-step" requirement and the Bruen decision signals that SCOTUS will not tolerate BS from lower courts.
Cases are being sent back to district court to be reviewed under Bruen now. Lawsuits are being filed against other regulations and restrictions. California and New York are going so far off the reservation that courts cannot ignore the BS in the new restrictions and will likely nuke them from orbit. The CCW process, delays, and requirements will end up being so odious that we will go permitless in some states or nationally. Yes, it will take time and the road will be rocky, but it will happen, if we don't fall apart as a nation first.
When these bad gun laws die in court, they die forever. Precedence is forever. Say goodbye to your bad gun free zones. We won, but the antis don't know it yet.
Concealed carry has been totally licensed since 1923. California was a "may issue" state where police chiefs or sheriffs may choose to issue a license to carry a concealed firearm (LTC, or license to carry). The policy on issuance varied widely from county to county and city to city. Some jurisdictions did not issue licenses at all. Issuance was at the sheriff's or chief's total discretion. Subjective standards of "good cause" and "good moral character" were applied in an arbitrary fashion. Those who would be well-qualified in one county or in another state might have been unable to receive a license in another. All of this has changed since the NSRPA v. Bruen Supreme Court ruling that effectively rendered the nation "shall issue." Expect California to resist the ruling any and every way possible until they are shut down in court. At this time the state statutes remain as written.
Those who are issued licenses must obey strict terms and conditions; issuing authorities may place their own conditions on the permit such as time, place, and activity restrictions (i.e. only while taking a deposit to the bank). Licenses are valid up to two years, however, issuing agencies can specify a shorter expiration period. Each firearm desired to be carried must be qualified with and listed on the license.
Most of the exemptions for carrying a concealed firearm in public are to allow someone to transport a cased firearm from home to a shooting activity, gun store, etc. It is illegal to carry a concealed firearm around, even unloaded and locked up, just in case. Unlicensed concealed carry is usually a misdemeanor, unless the gun is not registered to you, in which case it can be a felony. A misdemeanor will cause a five year loss of firearm rights.
What does the NSRPA v. Bruen Second Amendment Supreme Court Opinion mean immediately in California?
The major change is that counties can no longer deny permits for "good cause." Self-defense and "because I want to" is good enough. It will take time for the changes to trickle down and sort themselves out.
At the local level, there will probably be extreme delays due to pent-up demand for permits and small numbers of staff devoted to the permit details. In many jurisdictions this will be deliberate. Expect counties like San Francisco to do this on purpose. Morality qualifications, like too many police contacts or calling 911 on your neighbors too often, may be used to disqualify people, and this may need to be fought in court.
At the state level, expect legislation to complicate and frustrate the CCW process, including higher fees and other "requirements." Expansion of gun free zones will probably expand. All of this will have to be dismantled in court, however the opinion will probably result in those laws being thrown out.
Note that nothing changes in the immediate term for out-of-state residents. There is no recognition for your out-of-state permit and no real way to get a California permit. This will probably all shake out and change in time.
California does not recognize ANY state's carry permit and does not issue licenses to carry to non-residents.
Implications for Nevada are minimal at the moment, we are shall-issue. California will be forced to issue CCWs now. Pending further analysis of the opinion, it appears that strict scrutiny needs to be applied to the 2nd Amendment and lots of bad gun laws will come down with this standard. This is the greatest opinion on the 2A ever and will have major positive effects in eroding gun control.
No new updates since 2019, just a new map provided to us by federal authorities.
The National Park Service would like us to remind shooters that up in the northwest valley off of US 95 (milemarker 103) is now Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. Target shooting is prohibited in this area.
The nearest shooting area is approximately past milemarker 105 (Lee Canyon Rd.), though the area really isn't suited for it. It is sandwiched between Red Rock land on one side of the highway and on the east side, the Nellis range isn't too far off the road. Cold Creek (the prisons) is a popular spot just further north. Shooting spots are located uphill from the prisons where the hills on the north side of the road begin.
Given that the Attorney General is a Democrat and in league with the courts, I wouldn't be surprised to see a ruling favorable to the judges' position. That is, "We have vague judicial powers and that means we can make rules about our courthouses, including about carrying guns." The NRS makes no such allowance. Only in bizarre land where the judges can literally make up the law and twist facts is it so. We covered this.
If the AG doesn't affirm the court's powers (which is plausible if they are fair), here's what can happen:
1. The opinion affirms that courthouses, or the actual court portion can be off-limits if a judge decrees it.
2. Finds that the judges have no such power, but that the Legislature does, which leads us to:
Any way the AG finds, the Legislature will be looking at a bill to ban firearms in courthouses. It will probably pass. Our goal as advocates is to see a safe storage requirement at the doors, like lockboxes, and additional security measures to provide a credible defense against active shooters.
Unfortunately this will be an argument to attack state preemption of firearm laws, so whatever you do, it is critical you vote Republican across the ticket (hold your nose) and deny the Democrats the ability to pass bad gun bills.
No. NRS 202.265 prohibits firearms on school property for parents, teachers, and students, including the parking lot, without special permission from the school principal or college president. Permission is rarely granted, especially in Clark and Washoe Counties and the college system. A concealed firearm permit does not make one exempt. Parking lot carry is illegal, even if the gun stays out of sight in the vehicle. This law also applies to child care facilities (daycares).
This law was originally enacted in the 1980s because of gang members bringing guns to high school. Colleges were added when they lobbied to be included although there was no similar safety concern. Child care facilities were added by a liberal Democrat after a bounty hunter searched a daycare and frightened the owner, though no harm resulted.
“I would support that with training, if and only when they received appropriate training,” Lombardo, who is running for governor, said in an interview Tuesday with the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “I would not mandate it. I would put it on a volunteer basis.”
Well, he's making the right noises. Now for him to follow through and to get CCSD to allow it.
Sisolak did the little annual Bloomberg June anti-gun rally BS and spouted off the line de jour on gun control. Nothing new, but we have to point out that he is so unoriginal and his party in such lockstep on tyranny that he made the same statement everyone else with a"-D" after their name is saying.
The arguments by our side have already been made and the tyrant's side doesn't care. No more arguing, no bargaining. No more boating accidents. As the Firearm Policy Center says, "Fuck you. No."
Clayton E. Cramer
Gun Free Zone
The War on Guns
The View From Out West