• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why did Nevada stop honoring non-resident permits?

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
That's somewhat of a trick question. Technically, it does honor non-resident permits. However, none of the few remaining states on Nevada's reciprocity list issue non-resident permits, except in very narrow circumstances not germane to the general public. It makes me wonder if the publicly stated reasons for dropping reciprocity with states like Arizona, Utah, and Florida were pretext to drop states that issue non-resident permits.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
For the state of Nevada to recognize another state's CCW permit that state must meet the minimum requirements of a Nevada CCW. Those states who's permits are not recognized by the state of Nevada do not meet the minimum requirements under the law of Nevada.

These are the states who's permits are recognized by the state of Nevada according to the Nevada Department of Public Safety:

Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Rhode Island, West Virginia
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
They could increase that revenue even more so if they merely removed the "must take training in NV" ...
That's the real fly in the ointment. I'm sure Nevada's firearms trainers lobbied for it. They profit while the state very probably, as you note, gets less revenue from license fees that it otherwise would.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
That's the real fly in the ointment. I'm sure Nevada's firearms trainers lobbied for it. They profit while the state very probably, as you note, gets less revenue from license fees that it otherwise would.

Actually, I've never seen any evidence to suggest any Nevada instructors ever lobbied as you suggest.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
Actually, I've never seen any evidence to suggest any Nevada instructors ever lobbied as you suggest.

And you never will see the evidence because they never had to lobby actual law makers, only the power and money hungry, anti-gun Sheriffs and Police Chiefs association who have been given the power to interpret the requirements of a very broad and vague law.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Actually, I've never seen any evidence to suggest any Nevada instructors ever lobbied as you suggest.
Legislators don't make a habit of making laws protecting an industry's profit without some sort of lobbying from somebody. The somebodies in question are usually those looking to profit from said laws.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Legislators don't make a habit of making laws protecting an industry's profit without some sort of lobbying from somebody. The somebodies in question are usually those looking to profit from said laws.

I've never heard nor seen a Nevada instructor lobby on this subject.

I suspect the "somebody" in question would be the NSCA.
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
I suspect the "somebody" in question would be the NSCA.

Whose members departments get significant revenue from the issuance of Nevada concealed permits.

Not only do they gain revenue, but the NSCA gets to interpret the permit requirements under the law and what states qualify for reciprocity. For example, under the language of the law, the training requirements for Nevada and Utah are virtually identical language but Utah says that general familiarity with firearms is being able to safely load and unload a handgun whereas the NSCA says that it requires range qualification.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Whose members departments get significant revenue from the issuance of Nevada concealed permits.
Wouldn't those departments be getting the same permit fees regardless of where the training is conducted?

My reading of NRS 202.3657(2)(c) shows an "or". The applicant must "(1) complete a course approved by a sheriff" or "(2) complete a course offered by an organization that certifies instructors in firearms safety". It further says "A sheriff may not approve a course in firearm safety pursuant to subparagraph (1) unless the sheriff determines that the course meets any standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association".

The law only gives NSCA authority to approve and set standards for section 1 courses. 202.3657 doesn't give a sheriff or NSCA authority to disapprove of or set standards for a section 2 course, including standards regarding where the course may be taken. I'd say NSCA is pulling this "only what we approve, and we only approve in-state training" rule out of their ***.
 
Last edited:

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
If they recognize out of state permits, they get zero revenue.
If that were the goal why bother with the 13 states Nevada recognizes? Shut them all down and only recognize your own permits. That would make Nevada somewhat like Oregon, except Nevada would issue non-resident permits to residents of every state rather than only to residents of neighboring states.

If you want increased non-resident permit fees, why include impediments like "must train in Nevada" that guarantee less permit revenue?

The stated goals are contradictory.
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
Wouldn't those departments be getting the same permit fees regardless of where the training is conducted?

My reading of NRS 202.3657(2)(c) shows an "or". The applicant must "(1) complete a course approved by a sheriff" or "(2) complete a course offered by an organization that certifies instructors in firearms safety". It further says "A sheriff may not approve a course in firearm safety pursuant to subparagraph (1) unless the sheriff determines that the course meets any standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association".

The law only gives NSCA authority to approve and set standards for section 1 courses. 202.3657 doesn't give a sheriff or NSCA authority to disapprove of or set standards for a section 2 course, including standards regarding where the course may be taken. I'd say NSCA is pulling this "only what we approve, and we only approve in-state training" rule out of their ***.

Interesting catch. Going to have to follow up on this.....
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Short answer, they want the revenue generated by issuing non-resident CCW to those who wish to carry concealed in Nevada.

That's my guess as well. If I remember correctly, they dropped only UT and FL, which we know are the biggest CCW issuers nationwide. Dropping all states would have raised a real big stink, and the states that are left may not have many visitors going to NV. Just speculation on my part.
 
Top