Nevada Shooters

Go Back   Nevada Shooters > Main Room > Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Notices

Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms The place to discuss all gun rights issues, pro-gun/anti-gun legislation and general Second Amendment topics. All other topics will be locked.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-17-2017, 10:27 PM   #21
pmn357
uber n00b
 
pmn357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sparks
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrey123 View Post
Nevada doesn't have to comply with Brady, dealers licensed by the ATF do.
That's not really a factual statement since the NV POC system, run by the state, is how FLL's comply with Brady. Whether FFL's use the FBI database, as required under Q1, or utilize the POC, as is the current arraingment and the source of contention; is not established by statute. This is true on both the state and Fed. level.
pmn357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 10:56 PM   #22
jfrey123
I aim to misbehave...

 
jfrey123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sparks, NV
Posts: 6,945
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Default The Democrats and their infamous Q1 screwup

Eh, I don't think my statement was wrong. Nevada doesn't *have* to do anything to comply with Brady, the requirements within the Federal law are on the FFL's dirextly. The state of Nevada decided to interject themselves as the point of contact in the matter, claiming that they can offer better mental health checks within our state. When the FFL calls Nevada POC, the POC still runs the Federal check, satisfying the Federal law.
__________________
Insert witty retort here.
jfrey123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 12:02 AM   #23
Bulleteater
Big Stick policy
 
Bulleteater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 7,672
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Not sure what the nitpick is all about. Under federal law (Brady Act) "FFLs will contact the NICS via either a point of contact (POC) established within their respective state or through the NICS Operation Center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), depending upon whether the state is a POC for the NICS." [Link]

Nevada agreed to be a POC. Period.

As far as private firearm sales in Nevada, per below, the NRS does in fact establish the use of our own state's Central Repository for background checks...

Quote:
NRS 202.254  Private person authorized to obtain background check on person who wishes to obtain firearm; no fee to be charged for background check; immunity from civil liability.
1.  A private person who wishes to transfer a firearm to another person may, before transferring the firearm, request that the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History perform a background check on the person who wishes to acquire the firearm.
I hope this clears up your confusion.
__________________
You have no say in your government...you just get to be governed.
- John Kubiak, to the Guamanians
Bulleteater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 02:31 AM   #24
pmn357
uber n00b
 
pmn357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sparks
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrey123 View Post
Eh, I don't think my statement was wrong. Nevada doesn't *have* to do anything to comply with Brady, the requirements within the Federal law are on the FFL's dirextly. The state of Nevada decided to interject themselves as the point of contact in the matter, claiming that they can offer better mental health checks within our state. When the FFL calls Nevada POC, the POC still runs the Federal check, satisfying the Federal law.
And my statement was not wrong either. In fact, your statement is a non sequitur in reply to my own assertion. There is no statute defining POC vs NICS compliance. Since it is a purely bureaucratic arrangement, it can be changed by bureaucrats just as easily. This is because there is no statute defining which system NV uses. I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. There is no precedent for a state using one system for private sales and one system for dealer sales. There also does not seem to be any reason such an arrangement can't be made. In fact, Florida has a unique system all their own regarding some pawn sales. I am trying to ascertain whether or not NV could not develop it's own unique system as well. If you could cite such a refutation I would find it far more informative than you simply repeating a statement that doesn't really address mine in any way. I am of the opinion that we have not heard the last of Q1 and that the issue will be decided in court. If we had a Dem AG I am convinced the law would have gone ahead already. So, yeah. NV doesn't *have* to do, yadda, yadda, yadda. Thanks for clearing that up.
pmn357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 03:08 AM   #25
jfrey123
I aim to misbehave...

 
jfrey123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sparks, NV
Posts: 6,945
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Default The Democrats and their infamous Q1 screwup

I never said your statement was wrong, I just missed the previous context you were mentioning it in. So if we're basically saying the same thing, then all is good.

I don't think a Democrat AG could've fixed the issue either. As written, the law is unenforceable because the FBI won't do the background check for a NV dealer direct. That's not a partisan issue, that's just the poorly written language Bloomberg used across the nation in various ballot proposals.

I agree we haven't heard the last of Q1, which is why I've tried to correct people in other threads and in real life when they falsely claim Q1 is dead. It's not. The very minute the FBI says they'll play ball, we're up a creek without a paddle.
__________________
Insert witty retort here.
jfrey123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 03:25 AM   #26
DonTom
Obsessed Member
 
DonTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Reno, NV, & Cold Springs Valley, NV & Auburn, CA
Posts: 1,179
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrey123 View Post
The very minute the FBI says they'll play ball, we're up a creek without a paddle.
Perhaps not. Didn't I read something here about how the NV State Constitution does NOT allow a vote on most gun related stuff?

-Don- Reno
DonTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2017, 04:47 PM   #27
varminter22
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,807
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

http://stillwaterfirearms.org/index....eb-we-weave-q1

Oh what a tangled initiative web we weave
Published February 17, 2017, 3:00 a.m.

By Don Turner

As one of the parties named in the public records request on Question One (Q1), I want to share some of the history behind the measure and why it makes a great case study in how NOT to propose and enact legislation. My hope is to convince even those who support the strictest background check parameters for gun sales that Q1 was not the right method to achieve the means.

...

Direct link to the article: https://thenevadaindependent.com/art...tive-web-weave
varminter22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 AM.




2nd Amendment Gun Shop CrossBreed Holsters
New Frontier Armory Fight Focused Concepts
Battle Born Nevada Bracelet
Wild West Guns
Ammo Supply Warehouse Guns and Ammo Garage
Netgirl Enterprises Extreme Ventures
The Peacemakers Firearms Bite the Bullet
The Range 702


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.