So my renewal CCW permit came in the mail the other day. The good news is that Metro is processing them at below 90 days again. The bad news is that Nevada's process sucks. From what I understand, Utah saves the fingerprint info on file and can just resubmit to the FBI.

Utah is fast; like three days fast. I can forgive them for the new photos thing because they'll take decent self-taken photos at home using a passport photo app. Of course I was sick that day and I looked like an unshaven Yeti...

​I'm personally glad that Metro made sure my fingerprints didn't change. I've recently been exposed to that stuff that made Peter Parker into Spiderman so I was kinda worried of random biological problems.

You'd think that the one part of the Records Bureau that helps people save their own lives and deter crime would be a little better staffed and more efficient. I don't think Lombardo or his predecessors saw empowering people to have a recourse when caught up as victims as a good thing. ​

I'm looking forward to the day Strict Scrutiny sinks the permit requirement altogether. 

​AB 291, Sandra Jauregui’s “quick, use the Mandalay Bay October 1 to get a bunch of anti-gun laws passed” omnibus bill, would reduce the objective limit to carry while drinking from .10 BAC to .08 BAC. This would conform with Nevada’s DUI laws (which was formerly .10). Why exactly this change was proposed, or is needed, remains to be seen.
 
.02 BAC is not much of a difference. I have not heard of any problems with .08 vs. .10 BAC. If there was such a problem, one would assume the subjective portion of the armed person being obviously intoxicated would then apply. However, leftist, bloody-shirt waving hoplopaths taking the advantage of the political situation does not imply reason matters.
 
Going armed while drinking is always a hot topic among firearm instructors and armed citizens. Some states prohibit guns in bars entirely, so Nevada’s “it’s okay if you aren’t smashed” law blows many people away. It can even start arguments online.
 
First things first; no one is talking about using firearms while drinking or getting drunk then hitting the range. We all agree that “hold my beer” is usually followed by a trip to the emergency room or worse. We are discussing holstered handguns that are no more dangerous than a parked car. Everyone has the right to self-defense, even while drinking. Gun rights don’t end at the bar or restaurant door.
 
Common sense should keep most decent people from carrying while they go out and get shitfaced. In my experience, people who like getting drunk in public typically aren't worried about needing to defend themselves with a gun and doing it legally. Either that or they accept the risk that carrying illegally can get them put in jail or their desire to have fun/drown their blues is more important than packing.
 
One November evening, a group of six or so off-duty police officers went to have drinks at a local country bar. Like all of us, they needed to blow off a little steam. Way back when, I did the same thing with my partners. Little did these officers know that some nutjob would come into the Borderline and kill twelve people. I can bet you there are six cops that will never go to a bar with out at least one or two of them carrying after that night.
 
That’s a good lesson to learn; if you are in a group, and even if you are cutting loose, have not only a DD, but a designated carrier. So in the debate of to carry or not while having a drink, let’s use common sense. If you can handle one or two drinks and drive home, you’re probably safe with a holstered pistol. 

AB 291, a bill that would give power to make anti-gun laws to the county commissions, and ban “rate increasing devices,” potentially making felons out of thousands of gun owners, is poised to hit the Senate floor in Carson City for a vote.
 
Clark County officials are already drooling over being allowed to pass their own gun laws, including bringing back the “blue card” handgun registration program, but for all guns. This is all without the bill even being passed out of the legislature. We face a hard battle in stopping it without resorting to the courts because Nevada was stolen by evil, power-hungry politicians and leftist groups.
 
Preemption was passed into law over 30 years ago by a bi-partisan legislature. In 1989, Clark County pushed to have the legislation watered down to preserve the “blue card” handgun registration program, but it inadvertently protected local gun bans, including Reno’s former open carry ban. Now, politicians frustrated with Second Amendment activism and bent on further restricting your rights want to do it at the local level.
 
Preemption was intended to create a uniform system of gun laws across the state; not subject to the emotional whims of local politicians, but up for input and debate from all parts of Nevada. AB 291 could create a hazardous condition of varying gun laws; what is legal to own in one county is illegal in the next. 30 years of protections will go down the drain.
 
Such arbitrary and capricious laws not only violate more than just the Second Amendment. Nevada’s own state protections of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the uniformity of legislation throughout the state. Repeal of preemption would create a large due-process violation and a host of unconstitutional flaws.
 
It’s clear that the Assembly did not listen to the overwhelming cry of the public who oppose this bill. Sheriffs from all but four counties oppose further gun control. This is a bill to specifically give Clark and Washoe county authorities the power to infringe as they see fit. Reach out to your sheriff, especially if you are in the two metro counties, and continue to show the Senate your opposition (also here).
 
Senate Judiciary Committee phone numbers
Chair: Nicole Cannizzaro (D-6), (775) 684-1475
Vice Chair: Dallas Harris (D-11), (775) 684-6502
James Ohrenschall (D-21), (775) 684-6503
Marilyn Dondero Loop (D-8), (775) 684-1445
Melanie Scheible (D-9), (775) 684-1421
Scott Hammond (R-18), (775) 684-1442
Ira Hansen (R-14), (775) 684-1480
Keith Pickard (R-20), (775) 684-1481 ​

​The NVFAC is calling all gunowners help to stop AB291. What they are requesting is for you to contact your sheriff (especially Clark and Washoe counties) and request they contact the Senate Judiciary committee in oposition to AB291.

Our first goal is to make gun owners aware of the unconstitutionality of AB291 with this attached letter. Please share this letter with pro-Second Amendment individuals and others by posting and sharing everywhere you can on social media.

Secondly NVFAC is going to be sending out an alert (link below) urging gun owners and voters to contact their sheriff voicing their opposition to AB291 today and other alerts are pending.

Third, NVFAC-PAC volunteers are gearing up for a full call, email and ENGAGE blitz on the 8 Senate Judiciary  committee members (Dallas Harris, James Ohrenschall, Marilyn Dondero Loop, Melanie Scheible & Nicole Cannizzaro)

If that doesn’t work, a group of us will be organizing a large rally in Carson City of pro 2a voters and other concerned citizens.

Dear Chair Cannizzaro,

The Nevada Firearms Coalition is STRONGLY OPPOSED to AB 291.

Former Assemblyman Danny Thompson (D-LV) in 1989 sponsored the bill to enact statewide preemption for firearms.  It was passed by the Democrat-controlled Assembly and Republican-controlled Senate, reserving power to regulate firearms to the state and not local authorities.
AB291 will revoke a law that has been on the books for 30 years that has ensured law-abiding citizens don’t break the law just because they cross a city or county boundary.

AB 291 as proposed addresses four different subject matters:  1. The elimination of devices that allow a semi auto rifle to be shot faster than its design.  2. The lowering of the blood alcohol limit for firearms possession.  3. Restricting concealed carry in county buildings. 4. Repealing three state laws and granting counties the authority to enact firearms laws more restrictive than state laws.

There are no common threads of similarity between the four subject matters.  Semi auto functions, alcohol level, public buildings, and delegation of authority for more restrictive gun laws are four separate and disparate issues. For this reason, we believe that AB 291 is violation of the Constitution of the State of Nevada. Amendments to current law for the first three subjects  is accomplished by modifying NRS 202. However, to accomplish subject matter 4, three other statutes must be repealed (NRS 244.364, NRS 268.418 and NRS 269.222) and NRS 244.364 being included in NRS 202, clearly violating the single subject requirement found in Article 4 Section 17 of  the Constitution of the State of Nevada.

• Article 1 Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
• 1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.
• Article 4 Sec. 17.  Act to embrace one subject only; title; amendment.  Each law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, and matter, properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title; and no law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only; but, in such case, the act as revised or section as amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length.
• Article 4 Sec: 21.  General laws to have uniform application.  In all cases enumerated in the preceding section, and in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State.
• Article 1, Section 11. Establishes the regulation of firearms as constitutionally protected. AB 291 delegates this protection from the state to the counties. This is a violation of Dillion’s Rules where constitutionally protected rights are protected per state authority and not to be delegated.
• Article 4, Section 17. It is required by the Nevada Constitution that each law must embrace only one subject.
• As defined above, AB 291 embraces FOUR disparate and unrelated subjects and four different statutes.
• The title of this bill is misleading “AB 291 Revises Provisions Relating to Public Safety.” There is no information in the title that would indicate the repeal of additional statues that prohibits counties from making firearms laws, nor identification of the other three disparate subjects included under this general and nonspecific title.
• Although the bill is focused on firearms, the word does not even appear in the title.
• Chapter 202 is titled “Crimes against Public Health and Safety under Title 15 “Crimes and Punishments.”  Yet to accomplish the intent of AB 291 a repeal of portions of Chapter 244 Counties: Government under a completely different Title 20 “Counties and Townships: Formation, Government and Officer” is required.  As well as two other separate and distinct titles mentioned above.

In addition to the above points, the single subject Article 4 Section 17 has been violated due in part that the title of the bill does not relate to the subjects embraced in the act. {Payne, 53 Nev. Wise vs. Bechtel Corp (Nev 1988).

Article 4, Section 21. Requires all laws to be general and of uniform application throughout the state. AB 291 could result in 18 different levels of gun laws throughout the State of Nevada. There are currently 170 state gun laws and regulations. Allowing counties to modify and make these laws more restrictive could result in an additional 2,720 different gun laws in Nevada, without including the existing federal gun laws. This is certainly contrary to the intent of Article 4 Section 21 and places an unfair and unjust burden on citizens. In addition, Nevada citizens are highly mobile and the act of crossing a street from one county to another could result in arrest and confiscation of their firearms, loss of their civil rights, and force them to incur great expenses for defense against their prosecution. All for something that is already legislated in state law.

For these and other reasons, we respectfully request that AB 291 be stricken, or amended to confirm to its original single subject rule; regulation of semi auto enhancement devices.

Sincerly,
Don Turner, President