Nevada CCW no longer recognized by ATF.

[Travieso]

Nevada CCW permits will no longer meet the NICS Background Check requirements set forth by the ATF starting July 1, 2008. Say hello to paying your $25 again.

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Director
Washington, DC 20226
May 30, 2008
OPEN LETTER TO ALL NEVADA FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of an important change to the procedure you must
follow beginning July 1, 2008 in order to comply with the Brady Law,
18 U.S.C. § 922(t).
Beginning July 1, 2008, Nevada’s Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permits will no longer
qualify as an alternative to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check
through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Please note that this change also applies to
pawn transactions. The change is discussed in detail below.
BACKGROUND
The permanent provisions of the Brady Law took effect on November 30, 1998. The Brady Law
generally requires licensed dealers to initiate a NICS background check through the FBI (or the
State in a Point of Contact State) before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed individual.
However, the Brady Law contains a few exceptions to the NICS check requirement, including an
exception for holders of certain State permits to possess, carry, or acquire firearms. The law and
implementing regulations provide that permits issued within the past 5 years qualify as
alternatives to the NICS check if certain other requirements are satisfied. Most importantly, the
authority issuing the permit must conduct a NICS background check and must deny a permit to
anyone prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal, State, or local law.
In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) sent an Open Letter to
all Nevada Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) advising them that the Nevada carry concealed
weapons permit would qualify as an alternative to the background check required under the
Brady Law. ATF’s recognition of these permits as a Brady alternative was based on the fact that
Nevada conducted background checks through NICS prior to the issuance or renewal of these
permits, and denied a permit to anyone prohibited under Federal, State, or local law.
In March 2004, ATF began a review of all States that had permits that qualified as NICS check
alternatives to determine if they still qualified. In May 2005, we informed Nevada State officials
that Nevada no longer met the qualifications. Nevada was not able to adequately address the
deficiencies of the Nevada CCW permit in meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements for
qualifying as a NICS alternative.
- 2 -
Accordingly, on October 17, 2005, we sent an open letter to Nevada FFLs stating that effective
October 19, 2005, the CCW permit no longer qualified as a NICS check alternative.
Subsequently, the Nevada Department of Public Safety and the Nevada County Sheriffs entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding addressing the Nevada CCW shortcomings in qualifying
as a NICS alternative. This Memorandum of Understanding was accepted by ATF as an interim
measure until the shortcomings in qualifying as a NICS alternative could be remedied by the
Nevada State Legislature in 2007 session. Accordingly, on January 5, 2006, we sent an Open
Letter to Nevada FFLs stating that the Nevada CCW permit again qualified as a NICS check
alternative.
The Nevada State Legislature did not enact laws in the 2007 session necessary to remedy the
shortcomings of the Nevada CCW permit in qualifying as a NICS check alternative.
Specifically, the carry concealed weapons permit can no longer qualify as an alternative to the
background check required by the Brady Law.
HOW THIS AFFECTS FFLS
Beginning July 1, 2008, a NICS check must be conducted before transferring a firearm to an
unlicensed person, even if the unlicensed person has a Nevada carry concealed weapon permit.
Because Nevada is a NICS Point-of-Contact State, you will contact the Nevada Department of
Public Safety, rather than the FBI, to conduct this check.
We hope that your transition to this new procedure on July 1, 2008, will not be an inconvenience.
As always, we thank you for your cooperation.
Audrey Stucko
Acting Assistant Director
(Enforcement Programs and Services)


This is 100% a local government problem, the ATF did all they could to extend NV's exemption. I wrote the following letter to our my No Nevada State Senators.



I wrote the following letter to the No Nevada State senators:

Mr. Washington,

I am writing today to express my dismay about Nevada CCW holders and their loss of exemption from the ATF's Instant Background Check, and furthermore, the $25 fee the state charges for these checks. In an open letter to all Nevada FFLs, sent on May 30, 2008 ATF Acting Assistant Director Audrey Stucko detailed that Nevada CCW permit holders would now be subject to the Brady Bill's requirement for a background check beginning on July 1, 2008 due to non-compliance with ATF guidelines. The memo notes several warnings over the past years and opportunities to come into compliance, and yet the state legislature did nothing to enact these changes.

As a registered Nevada voter and CCW holder, I find this neglect reprehensible. Upon further investigation, it appears that bill AB21 introduced on Jan 21, 2007 would have addressed the ATF's concerns, adding the wording of “or the renewal of a permit” to the sections regarding required background checks to NRS 202.3657. Unfortunately, also attached to the bill was a FURTHER fee increase for obtaining and renewing a permit in the state. No action was taken on this bill, “pursuant to Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1,” for which I could find no description. Why would the senate not be able to agree upon/enact such simple changes, without the further fee increases, which are already almost punitive in their excess?

In these trying financial times, this issue becomes very important to me, as well an thousands of other law-abiding Nevada voters who simply wish to exercise the rights granted to them in both the United States and Nevada constitution. The meat of the issue boils down to the $25 background fee that Nevada charges for background checks, which many states do not charge. Why has Nevada chosen to Point of Contact for these checks, instead of using the FBI's free background check service?

I tried to word my letter as carefully as possible, in order to provide you with reference to exactly the issues I'm addressing, and would appreciate a timely, direct and specific response.

Thank you for your time,
Travis


A Link to AB21 can be found here: AB21

A list of Nevada Senators here:
Senate Member Information

A link to the original Arfcom post:
AR15.COM :: Forums :: ATF rejecting NV CCW again

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Kerbouchard]

It's a good letter...Unfortunately, it seems as if anything done will be 'too little, too late', at least for the interim. Hopefully, NV will get everything straightened out with the BATFE as soon as possible.

Good luck.

[Thumper]

Very good letter!

I'm too PO'ed to comment about the $25.00 charge though!

[snowdoctor]

good letter but it has a typo...third paragraph...it should be as well as...not as well an thousands.

[dr_cmg]

Isn't this the second time that Nevada has had this happen? I seem to recall that they lost the exemption a couple of years ago and only got it back about a year ago.

[matiki]

There's a fee for the NICS check without a concealed license? Weird... I've never had to pay one, with or without my CPL on me. Should I feel lucky?

[bobernet]

There's a fee for the NICS check without a concealed license? Weird... I've never had to pay one, with or without my CPL on me. Should I feel lucky?

No, Nevada residents should feel screwed, as we are.

The Nevada DPS forces FFLs to use them as an intermediary for NICS checks, and charge the FFL $25 for the "service" they provide by acting as a middle man.

The whole thing is a crock. The NVSCA used AB21, which would have legislatively dealt with the ATF's issue, to tack on a ridiculous set of fee increases. NV residents can thank Bernie Anderson and the NVSCA for this - as usual.