ThatIsAFact
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 44
The following editorial appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on March 26, 2007.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-26-Mon-2007/opinion/13368633.html
EDITORIAL: Concealed carry permits
Reciprocity bill a good idea
Law-abiding Nevadans who go to the trouble and expense of submitting their fingerprints, posing for a police mug shot, undergoing a thorough background check and demonstrating that they can handle a handgun safely and effectively can obtain a state permit to carry a concealed weapon, conditional on good behavior.
But if they try to use that permit to carry a weapon out of state, they're usually out of luck. Nevada won't honor most other states' permits, so those states generally return the "favor" by declining to recognize ours.
Now come state Sens. John Lee, Warren Hardy, and Bob Beers with Senate Bill 237, which would require the attorney general's office to annually list those states with permit requirements equal to or more rigorous than Nevada's. Permits from states on the list would then be honored by Nevada police, in the perfectly reasonable expectation that most of those states would reciprocate by honoring ours.
Mr. Lee says the permits of 14 other states would probably be honored if the bill passes. Nevada's sheriffs and police chiefs opposed earlier bills, which included no provision to make sure other states' permit requirements equal our own. But this bill resolves that problem, according to Frank Adams of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association.
Mr. Adams did object to a provision in the bill which would eliminate the requirement that permit applicants pose for police mug shots. That was a good provision, but it appears Mr. Lee may sacrifice it in exchange for police approval.
Another wise provision in SB237 eliminates the requirement that permit applicants qualify at the range with each individual weapon they may wish to carry, instead requiring them to qualify only with the type of weapon they wish to carry -- revolver, pistol or both. That makes good sense. If you can safely handle one revolver, there's no reason to believe you'll have trouble with a similar firearm that happens to have a different serial number.
Some are confusing this with another bill that would increase fees for concealed carry permits and mandate more frequent renewals. But that's Assembly Bill 21 -- proposed by the police, actually. None of that is in SB237.
Now, for the record, this set-up is not ideal. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. The only state that's currently got this right is Vermont, where residents can carry concealed firearms without any permit, out-of-state visitors can carry concealed firearms without a permit, and crime rates (surprise!) are enviably low.
So long as we're going to have some kind of permit system, however, Senate Bill 237 is a huge step forward. It will instill a healthy level of doubt and fear in the minds of would-be felons that the newly arrived visitor they're targeting just might have a powerful steel dissuader on hand.
SB237 is one of those rare piece of legislation which appears to be all to the good. Go for it.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-26-Mon-2007/opinion/13368633.html
EDITORIAL: Concealed carry permits
Reciprocity bill a good idea
Law-abiding Nevadans who go to the trouble and expense of submitting their fingerprints, posing for a police mug shot, undergoing a thorough background check and demonstrating that they can handle a handgun safely and effectively can obtain a state permit to carry a concealed weapon, conditional on good behavior.
But if they try to use that permit to carry a weapon out of state, they're usually out of luck. Nevada won't honor most other states' permits, so those states generally return the "favor" by declining to recognize ours.
Now come state Sens. John Lee, Warren Hardy, and Bob Beers with Senate Bill 237, which would require the attorney general's office to annually list those states with permit requirements equal to or more rigorous than Nevada's. Permits from states on the list would then be honored by Nevada police, in the perfectly reasonable expectation that most of those states would reciprocate by honoring ours.
Mr. Lee says the permits of 14 other states would probably be honored if the bill passes. Nevada's sheriffs and police chiefs opposed earlier bills, which included no provision to make sure other states' permit requirements equal our own. But this bill resolves that problem, according to Frank Adams of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association.
Mr. Adams did object to a provision in the bill which would eliminate the requirement that permit applicants pose for police mug shots. That was a good provision, but it appears Mr. Lee may sacrifice it in exchange for police approval.
Another wise provision in SB237 eliminates the requirement that permit applicants qualify at the range with each individual weapon they may wish to carry, instead requiring them to qualify only with the type of weapon they wish to carry -- revolver, pistol or both. That makes good sense. If you can safely handle one revolver, there's no reason to believe you'll have trouble with a similar firearm that happens to have a different serial number.
Some are confusing this with another bill that would increase fees for concealed carry permits and mandate more frequent renewals. But that's Assembly Bill 21 -- proposed by the police, actually. None of that is in SB237.
Now, for the record, this set-up is not ideal. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. The only state that's currently got this right is Vermont, where residents can carry concealed firearms without any permit, out-of-state visitors can carry concealed firearms without a permit, and crime rates (surprise!) are enviably low.
So long as we're going to have some kind of permit system, however, Senate Bill 237 is a huge step forward. It will instill a healthy level of doubt and fear in the minds of would-be felons that the newly arrived visitor they're targeting just might have a powerful steel dissuader on hand.
SB237 is one of those rare piece of legislation which appears to be all to the good. Go for it.
