Nevada CCW no longer recognized by ATF.

Nevada CCW no longer recognized by ATF.

This is a discussion on Nevada CCW no longer recognized by ATF. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; 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 ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Nevada CCW no longer recognized by ATF.

  1. #1
    Member Array Travieso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    31

    Nevada CCW no longer recognized by ATF.

    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


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    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.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Thumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    7,341
    Very good letter!

    I'm too PO'ed to comment about the $25.00 charge though!
    ALWAYS carry! - NEVER tell!

    "A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior
    judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his
    superior skills."

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array snowdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    MICHIGAN
    Posts
    1,275
    good letter but it has a typo...third paragraph...it should be as well as...not as well an thousands.
    ----DOC-----

    --people ask why I carry, and I show them this picture. I think it says it all.--

    NRA Certified Instructor--many disciplines

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,808
    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.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    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?
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  7. #7
    Member Array bobernet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    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.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Good: not 2a related but a soldier recognized in a very good way!
    By tangoseal in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 15th, 2010, 01:04 PM
  2. No longer looking for a gun
    By jhuhn918 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 09:24 PM
  3. FLA non-resident permits no longer recognized by LA
    By ppkheat in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: October 20th, 2009, 08:35 PM
  4. Florida and Utah permits may no longer be recognized in Nevada?
    By Kevin Jensen in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: July 28th, 2009, 12:21 AM
  5. Nevada no longer recognizes Utah & Florida permits
    By eethomas in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 11th, 2009, 03:00 AM

Search tags for this page

joint standing rule no. 14.3.1
,

nevada brady bill

,
nevada brady bill rules
,

nevada ccw bill

,

nevada ccw changes

,

nevada ccw law changes

,

nevada ccw qualification

,
nevada ccw rules
,
nevada joint standing rule no. 14.3.1
,

new ccw law in nevada

,
nv ccw laws
,
picture of nevada ccw permit
Click on a term to search for related topics.