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.
Support Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research (old articles, clippings, photos), links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc. Please email regarding one-time donations.