{"id":15481,"date":"2019-03-19T00:46:06","date_gmt":"2019-03-19T07:46:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=15481"},"modified":"2019-03-19T00:46:06","modified_gmt":"2019-03-19T07:46:06","slug":"the-further-ongoing-assault-of-the-2nd-amendment-in-nevada","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2019\/03\/19\/the-further-ongoing-assault-of-the-2nd-amendment-in-nevada\/","title":{"rendered":"The Further Ongoing Assault of the 2nd Amendment in Nevada"},"content":{"rendered":"

     Additional bills have been introduced to the Nevada Legislature concerning firearms. Some are good (and thus most are unlikely to go very far) such as AB113<\/a> which prohibits sales and use taxes being applied to guns from out of state being delivered by Nevada firearms dealers, AB167<\/a> and AB202<\/a> which would allow people with valid CCW permits to keep that gun in their locked car if they have to park at certain educational entitties or child care facilities, and AB217<\/a> which required CCW permits for those who have restraining orders against others to be prioritized.<\/p>\n

     Some, however are mixed bag. AB255<\/a> allows new residents of Nevada who have accepted and valid CCW licenses issued by other states, in many cases, to continue to be allowed to carry CCW until the expiration of said CCW. However, a provision of this bill creates a burden on Nevada CCW applicants by requiring suicide-awareness be part of instruction needed for getting a CCW. After all, if you are going to eat the barrel of a gun, why bother with a CCW permit?<\/p>\n

     However, another bad bill has been introduced: SB261, which is an attempt to ban “bump stocks”. The wording, however could be interpreted to be wide and sweeping beyond mere “bump stocks” or “gat cranks”, and could apply to any “device that is designed such that when the device is attached to a semiautomatic firearm” that “[m]aterially increases the rate of fire of the semiautomatic firearm”. Not only is “materially increases” vague, but the wording could be interpreted to not just limit devices explicitly meant to provide a full-auto rate of fire, but anything that is designed such that it could<\/em> be used to “martially increase” the rate of fire. “Bumping” is incredibly easy to do and anything from a belt of suspender to a pointed sick could be considered a “device that is designed such that” it “[m]aterially increases the rate of fire”.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

     The bill, as introduced, can be found here, or read below:<\/p>\n

\n

SB261 (2019)<\/a> by <\/a> on Scribd<\/p>\n