Comments (15) | Add a comment
Little opposition to bill on weapons permit confidentiality
Tools
CARSON CITY -- Little opposition was expressed at a hearing Monday for a bill that would make all information pertaining to Nevada concealed weapons permits confidential.
Backers of AB143 argued such confidentiality is a safety issue because thieves could find out who has concealed weapons permits -- and presumably guns -- and target those homes for burglary.
The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman David Bobzien, D-Reno, and others also would ease requirements for obtaining a concealed weapons permit and is similar to SB126 pending in the Senate.
Both proposals allow gun owners to qualify for a certain type of weapon, such as a revolver or semi-automatic, instead of individual guns as currently required. AB143 goes further in addressing the confidentiality issue.
The Assembly Judiciary committee took testimony Monday but did not vote on AB143.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Question is why would a thief break into a home that is known to have a weapon unless that thief is on a suicide mission?????
Also, how many low level thief's know how to find the information if it was available?
I want my thief to know I have a gun and that will be the last thing he learns when he comes in uninvited...
Hey Jack, I don't worry about communist behind the trees. I'll watch out for looney liberals.
@Jack.Webb: Oathbanger wants to interpret the Constitution.
So do you, Jack. Add me to the list.
@sayeed: My weapons are quickly available for defense. That does not mean I'm careless. You can keep yours unloaded and locked in a safe. Good luck when the bad guys come for you.
The notion of not publishing the address so that the gun(s) will not be stolen is non-sense. Your gun is either being worn or in the safe. If you are storing your gun in a non-secure area (night stand), you don't deserve to own a gun.
I have zero tolerance for careless gun owners.
The newspapers love to violate privacy and print people's names in their paper, where they live, how much they make, how many weapons they own. Then there is the phone company which charges YOU money NOT to publish your phone number and address. How about we make a law that makes it illegal to violate your privacy by publishing personal information without express legas consent. Then we could sue the RJ or the phone company when they print our private information. After all RightHaven loves to sue if someone if they even link to one of the RJ's stories.
A small step in the right direction to stop this nonsense of having to have every firearm listed on the back of one's concealed handgun license. Someday maybe we will get our freedom back and like people in Vermont, Arizona, and Alaska we won't have to have government permission to exercise our natural right of self preservation. Permit??? We don't need no stinking permit!!!
I am so reassured to know that paranoid right-wingers, who imagine communists behind every tree, are armed to the teeth.
"n7v.blogspot.com wrote on February 28, 2011 01:46 PM:
Maybe the Legislature should require Communists to wear a red star on their shirts?"
Now, as always, the "communists" are in the poster's head.
Oathbanger wants to interpret the Constitution.