Press release on SB 367.

See the Review-Journal article: "Bill would allow multiple charges for felons with guns."

SB 367

This is a sentencing enhancement bill that targets carrying firearms and other weapons when engaged in certain crimes and drug-related activities. Part 2, which is applicable to CCW, would count each gun, prohibited item, or "Metal-penetrating bullet" as defined by NRS 202.273. It does not appear to change the penalty for CCW to a category B felony as Section 2 does to the drug violation enhancements.

"Armor piercing handgun bullets" are already prohibited by state law and banned at the federal level. This isn't much of a practical issue (but a constitutional and moral one) as most persons are carrying lead and copper jacketed bullets.

NRS 202.273
“Metal-penetrating  bullet”
4. As used in this section, “metal-penetrating bullet” means a bullet whose core:
(a) Reduces the normal expansion of the bullet upon impact; and
(b) Is at least as hard as the maximum hardness attainable using solid red metal alloys, and which can be used in a handgun. The term does not include any bullet with a copper or brass jacket and a core of lead or a lead alloy, or a bullet made of lead or lead alloys.

The full list of enhancement violations is:
NRS 202.257 Possession of firearm when under influence of alcohol
NRS 202.260 Unlawful possession, manufacture or disposition of explosive or incendiary device
NRS 202.262 Possession of explosive or incendiary device in or near certain public or private areas
NRS 202.273 Unlawful manufacture or sale of certain metal-penetrating bullets: Exceptions; penalty.
NRS 202.277 Changing, altering, removing or obliterating serial number of firearm
NRS 202.300 Use or possession of firearm by child under age of 18 years
NRS 202.350  Carrying concealed weapon without permit (and more)
NRS 202.360 Ownership or possession of firearm by certain persons prohibited

So while the firearm portion of the bill is stupid and bad on principles, it would affect only those carrying multiple firearms or AP handgun rounds. Additionally, as Nevada law has no exemption for peaceably transporting firearms enclosed in cases, which is considered technically concealed, this bill would potentially allow the prosecution of an otherwise law-abiding citizen for moving container of firearms from his car, the shooting range, etc. 

It appears there is a dueling bill that would address many of the same subjects without the extra gun crap shoved in it:

SB 412
Senate Committee on Judiciary
Analysis: A better version of SB 367 with only applying sentencing enhancements to carrying a firearm while engaged in certain drug related activities. Various changes enabling stiffer penalties for crimes have been proposed as well.

Here is a current look at how the anti-gun bills are going. Get in there and vote! The positive gun bills need a vote too!

Legislation page (follow bill number to overview page)
How to vote/comment on a bill

Leaving your opinion on bills is very important. It shows that Second Amendment supporters still care and helps us demonstrate that the astroturf comments by the antis aren't the only opinion out there. Nevada is still purple; overwhelming public opposition can and has gotten bills killed before. Also, a bill with a ton of negative comments may persuade Governor Lombardo to veto any bills. For the pro-gun bills that will probably never see the light of day, leave a comment as well; we can't let the antis portray pro-gun stuff as unpopular or lie in the comments.

Yes, you will need to create an account and leave your information, including email and address, but this is done to discourage spam voting. It's a good thing. If you are concerned about privacy, just list your name and give your local post office as General Delivery for the address. Take the time and leave some comments. 

1. Go to the overview page for the bill in question.
2. Scroll to the bottom to Public Opinions and click the "Submit Opinion or View Opinion Stats for [bill number."
3. Clock the "login/register to submit an opinion" button.
4. Login or register.
5. Input your opinion, any comments, and be sure to input the correct support/oppose/neutral option in the drop down at the top. Click submit.

​Legislation page (follow bill number to overview page)

This bill bans guns at/near "election centers" and changes the definition of some receiver related stuff. Be sure to read the text.

​Voting
Two violations to the voting part: Part 1, have a gun at a polling place, a misdemeanor. Part 3, have a gun for the purposes of "intimidation" and other stuff, a felony. Part 3 is too broad and punitive.

Cue the stories and whining of Democratic voter registrars and volunteers complaining about people with guns at polling places who have caused no problems ever, except scaring weak-minded statists. "We want to steal the vote and having people with guns around makes it more difficult."

Part 1. The right to self-defense doesn't stop at a polling place and specifically because of election violence, driven by the left, the public should be permitted to be armed there. There is no special or compelling reason other than "feelings" or the desire to disarm the public to subject them to tyranny when voting. There is no security at most polling places that are worth a damn. Even if there is security, the public could be assaulted while waiting in line and disarmed. Additionally, leaving firearms in vehicles makes them vulnerable to theft.

I seriously doubt that under Bruen banning firearms for self-defense at a polling place would withstand scrutiny.

Part 3. Why is this necessary if for part 1? What if the people who want to intimidate do it 101 yards away? Second, how is the state going to prove it was done with "the specific intent to disrupt, interfere...?" Second "monitoring" the vote is a protected right. Third, "monitor" is also overbroad and begging for an unconstitutional smackdown. Basically, the left wants to eliminate a visible reminder, the armed protestor, from the public consciousness and voting. But hey, the elections are secure, right?

Receiver
The first version of the 80% "ghost gun" bill was poorly written so this is intended to change that. Nothing substantively changes in the law as far as you and I are concerned, but this looks like it's intended to head off legal challenges. Good luck with that. 

I don't Lombardo signing either of these bills and vetoing them both. If these bills pass and he doesn't veto then there is no reason to vote for him in 2026. And if you're wondering where "kitchen sink Sandy" comes from, it's the assemblywoman's habit of throwing everything or seemingly random anti-gun stuff into bills.