Tuesday, Spurlocks Gun Shop in Henderson posted on Facebook that an unnamed highly placed source within the Republican Party:

To date, we have been unable to confirm this rumor. Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, who confirmed the "sneak attack" of SB 143-universal background checks-had no knowledge of such a proposed bill. No other sources in the know have been able to confirm this information with us at this time. The rumor remains unconfirmed. We will update you should more information become available. 

However, several vague Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) have been filed by anti-gun Democrats and promises have been made to ban "assault weapons." It is not clear if these were just campaign promises without the political will or capitol to be passed. However, should such a bill be passed, we have had warning since the primaries in 2018 and no one should caught with their pants down.

Now is the time to stock up on your rifles, receivers, and full capacity magazines. By all means, don't panic buy because of rumors, but don't put off for tomorrow what might be could be banned soon. You should preemptively politely contact your assemblyman and senator to tell them you don't support an assault weapon and magazine ban.

Interesting proposal from an anti-gun Democrat from the other day's article in The Nevada Independent:

This is not constitutional carry. This is just a Bill Draft Request (BDR) we don't have a copy of the proposed language, we don't know if it's an actual proposal or just an idea, and we don't know if it has a snowball's chance. It may never actually become a bill.

​It's a good idea and a good first step to other things. Also, it's a great sign our Democrats aren't totally against us, yet.

The potential problems with this bill is that it seems it is discretionary to allow police to choose who they don't arrest or don't recommend charges for. We need the language to determine it. However, for those who have applied and successfully completed the training course, it is a good first step in allowing those who feel they are in danger protect themselves, if they don't feel comfortable openly carrying.

Many legislators (and members of the public) feel gun-shy about letting people carry without training. This only seems to apply to concealed carry and not open carry, perhaps because concealed carry is still regulated and permitted, so legislators incorrectly feel responsible for what "might" happen if they decriminalize concealed carry. We believe that anyone who can possess a firearm should be able to carry in whatever method they choose without prior government restraint. 

Cannizzaro is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Follow this link to her webpage and email/contact info.​

We have two new pro-gun bills introduced, one that would allow guns in community college parking lots and another which would speed up issuance of CCWs to those who have taken out restraining orders against someone. 

Both of these bills are poorly written and not very well thought out. They are good attempts, but need work. I would like to remind any Legislators that there are many in the lay firearms community that can provide valuable assistance reviewing their intended laws, before they have the LCB draft them. 

AB 202 (John Ellison-R) BDR 15-625
Community college parking lot exemption
​This would allow firearms in the parking lots of community colleges (not other schools or universities) if the firearm is stored in a locked contained affixed securely to the frame of the vehicle. This bill is realistic that local community colleges are more firearm friendly than UNR and UNLV, whose regents, presidents, and lobbyists would probably never agree to such a bill.

"Affixed securely to the frame of the vehicle" is too ambiguous. What is the frame? The chassis? The unibody? Does it mean integral part of the car that can't be stolen, like the glove box? How about a box bolted to the floor of the vehicle or the truck bed? What about some safes, which attach with a metal cable to the bottom of the seat frame? If this problem is addressed, it's a good shot at helping protect college students, staff, and visitors.

The language from AB 167 needs to be copied. "Stored in a locked container that is affixed securely to a motor vehicle, other than a school bus."

AB 217 (Joint) BDR 15-860
Gives priority in CCW applications to those with valid protection orders
Those with valid restraining orders (protecting them, not against them) would receive "priority" in concealed firearm permit issuance, ostensibly to speed up the process so they can carry concealed sooner than the 90-120 days in Clark and Washoe Counties. In California, having a restraining order for domestic violence is actually an exemption and defense to carrying a concealed weapon, so this is a good thing.

​This bill does not specify what "priority" means nor does it tell the sheriff what he needs to do to prioritize the protectee's application. There would be no effective way to determine if a sheriff was complying or if "priority" from the sheriff actually met legislative intent. Putting protectees' applications a few days ahead in the cycle might meet the letter of the law, but not actually help anyone or do what the author is asking.

A better solution is to specify that temporary concealed firearm permits shall be issued (temps are currently may issue) upon verification of basic database searches that can be completed by staff while the protectee waits. A basic records check using state and federal databases shouldn't take more than 20 minutes. This provision exists and is occasionally used, though very rarely. Temporary permits are usually issued only at the 120 day deadline when part of the background check is incomplete. If the person can openly carry during this time, there is no reason they should be denied a temporary permit to conceal.

The bill also changes various reporting requirements for prohibited persons from 5 days to 3 days.

SB 143 does not take effect until Jan. 2, 2020, unless back-room shenanigans take place or the unreliable Supreme Court finds some way to contort the law. Stocking up via private sales should take place as soon as possible; don't delay.

SB 143 essentially implements Question 1. The chief difference is that SB 143 requires private background checks use the state, rather than the FBI system. Dealers will still charge for their time to run the checks and do the paperwork, which will run $25-100.

The law is basically not enforceable unless you or the other guy makes a confession, runs his mouth, or the other party is a snitch/undercover cop. 

AB 153 (Joint) BDR 15-119
Firearm safe storage 
This bill amends Nevada's current firearm storage law to add language that prohibits "negligent storage" when the person knows that there is a substantial risk a child could access the firearm in violation of the statute. Presumably, this is intended to address the increase of guns bring brought to Clark County schools.

"Negligence" is undefined, but the bill does not impose additional, unreasonable obligations on Nevadan gun owners and leaves the determination to the jury (or judge). It adds essentially a duty to reasonably ensure firearms are not accessible to children. This kind of law is much preferable to California's law which runs afoul of Heller​ and requires guns be stored essentially useless.

We would like to see actual firearm safety training in schools (stop, don't touch), because poor parents who allow their kids to bring guns to school won't follow the law or teach their children. Clark County schools have a parenting problem, not a gun problem. Education can help stop that problem and also educate kids about real gun safety and perhaps save lives in the process.

SB 143 is the attempt to fix the fatal flaws to 2016’s Question 1 Universal Background Check ballot question that would have banned private sales. This was the bill that they attempted to introduce in secret and passed to the surprise of gun owners.
 
Question 1 was deemed unenforceable by Attorney General Adam Laxalt because the FBI refused to conduct the checks for Nevada, as there was no funding for them. Nevada has its own Point of Contact center in Carson City that runs firearm background checks for sales/transfers by dealers. The proponents of Question 1 knew that the voters would not pass the law if they were going to be charged for background checks, so the proponents wrote that everything would go through the FBI. They did not check and see if the FBI would do this for free. This was confirmed by a district court opinion.
 
SB 143 will make it illegal for private persons to sell, lend, or transfer firearms among each other. All sales, gifts, and temporary transfers will have to go through a licensed dealer, who will charge for their time to transfer the firearm. An ATF Form 4473 will be required, which can later be tracked as a form of gun registration. The next logical step is gun registration maintained every time a gun is sold or transferred, as in California.
 
Article 19, Sec. 2, 3. of the Nevada Constitution prohibits the legislature from amending, annulling, repealing, setting aside, or suspending a ballot question for 3 years from when the ballot question takes effect (in this case, Jan 1, 2017). Common understanding would mean that they must wait until Jan. 2, 2020 to “fix” the law, but they are acting under the interpretation that they can pass it now and it will be effective after the deadline. SB 143 is unconstitutional. Sadly, our corrupt Supreme Court which clearly does not care too much for gun rights will likely side with their cronies next door.
 
Interesting find in the Nevada Revised Statutes:
“This section was proposed by an initiative petition and approved by the voters at the 2016 General Election and therefore is not subject to legislative amendment or repeal until after November 22, 2019.” NRS 202.254, 202.2541, 202.2543
 
Numerous studies have shown that background checks don’t actually keep criminals from getting guns and gun show or Internet classified ads don’t account for the majority of where criminals’ guns come from. This will make it illegal for a boyfriend to give his girlfriend a gun or for hunting buddies to lend each other their rifles. It will make it easier for the future tyrannical government that is obviously one or two elections away to identify who owns what guns and take them.
 
The Nevada Legislature, aside from a true handful of them and Gov. Sleestak are corrupt, amoral self-serving politicians desperate to virtue signal and cover up the Bloomberg group’s mistake. They have egg on their face, a desperate Democratic party to please, and will do anything to make it look they have an interest in stopping crime. Make no mistake; a law like this will be exploited to harm you, jail you, or kill you in the future.

Predictions: SB 143 will pass out of committee despite opposition on a party-line vote.
 
Further on background checks as they stand today.