Thursday, June 22, 2017

Buy Once, Cry Once: Magazines


No-name Glock style mag
A quality magazine is vital to the reliable function of a firearm. While we’re discussing mainly poorly made cheap aftermarket magazines, the problem extends to an engineering level as well. Take the M1 Garand box magazine conversions. Army officials naturally wanted to use the existing 20 round BAR magazine, but it would not function in the Garand. The magazine spring was unable to push the cartridges up fast enough to picked up by the bolt. Two solutions were offered; a new magazine design or lengthening the receiver slightly to allow more time for the stack of cartridges to rise before the bolt began coming forward again.

Some magazines turn out to be total disasters that most in the gun culture know about. The Chauchat machine gun, widely believed to be the worst gun ever, suffered from a magazine that was open to the ingress of mud and debris. The British SA80 program suffered from Radway Green manufactured STANAG 5.56mm magazines that were so flimsy that they, if squeezed hard enough, pinched the cartridges and kept them from rising to the top. The British settled on the EMAG from Magpul, an excellent choice, as it is smooth sided and drops free from certain platforms where other designs will not.

The standard of polymer magazines in the AR platform is Magpul. The current production models are strong, reliable, and overall as bombproof as such a product can be. Various manufacturers with strong quality control make good steel and even aluminum USGI magazines. The key is good engineering and quality control; something that is lost when a product is designed primarily to be cheap. As we now know, a plastic magazine isn’t bad because it’s made of plastic.

Damage sustained after beating
Heck, even discount magazine manufacturer ProMag makes some good magazines, but not the 40 round sand colored AR magazines I bought. Ultimately, the responsibility for owning a crappy magazine lies with me. I bought two of these during a panic because the lighter colored PMAGs were sold out. I could have waited or shopped elsewhere, but I was looking to save a dime and get my high(er) capacity mags NOW.

What I found out was they wouldn’t accept standard M196 tracer cartridges. The bullet protruded from the case ever so slightly more than the M193 and M855. So I relegated them to “fun only.” They worked fine with commercial .223 plinking ammo and M193, but they hated Tula steel cases. Having realized I still haven’t shot all of that junk, I hate it too. Of course, Tula steel has its own problems, but it should be with the rifle, not somehow sticking together in a clean magazine and jamming up the cartridges before even reaching the top of the stack. The steel ran fine in the USGI style and all my polymer mags.

Eventually, I gave up, safed the rifle, sat it down, and smacked the magazine on a rock to produce the dramatic above results. I will compliment ProMag on how easy it was to take off the floorplate, in both busted and functional modes. I also liked their RM-30 Rollermag which uses a polymer roller to help advance the anti-tilt follower. Rumor has it the design was to improve feeding in full-auto guns by aiding with a quick and smooth follower rise. It has a Gen 4 Glock-like stippling to it which feels nice in the hand. The roller itself is unnecessary and doesn’t provide any real advantage, but it’s a cool product and why not shoot it? Still, my defensive magazines for ARs will only be combat tested designs.

I happen to have tried and enjoy the HERA Arms H3 windowed mag (looks futuristic too) and the Hexmag. I got some free Tapco magazines with my DMPS AR purchase a few years ago and they work as well as the PMAGs, just not as comfortable or pretty (or lighter or less bulky). I will also recommend the Magpul Glock magazines, but on the 9mm 21 round version the last round is a stiff fit and a loading tool is recommended. Those crap no-name Glock magazines? They went in the trash after they wouldn't lock into a Glock-compatible 9mm carbine (Gen 3 style for both gun and mags).

So if the bad mags and the nice Rollermag were made by the same company, what went wrong? If you’re buying a cheap magazine, remember that will be reflected in the quality. My recommendation is to buy quality magazines. Look for something that has been well reviewed or from a maker known for quality selling a proven design. Researching good aftermarket magazines is an essential part of homework when buying gun parts.

Nothing is wrong with buying a new magazine to try it out, just don’t rush out and buy cheap or untested magazines in bulk and expect them to run flawlessly. Buying a cheap magazine saves you no money when you end up throwing it away. There is a reason why Ruger made Mini-14 magazines are $34.99 or so and most owners are happy paying factory price. Reliability is better and more important than a deal. If cost is what you are looking for, wait for a sale or buy in bulk.  Buy once, cry once. Don’t waste your money.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Scalise Congress Shooting; What Could Have Happened and Informed Speculation


What follows is a fictional, alternative history look at how the attack on the Republican baseball team could have gone. Actual and altered quotes are noted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, gunman James Thomas Hodgkinson opened fire and killed 16 members of the Republican Congressional Baseball team at the Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, Virginia. Two senators, 12 congressmen, and two others, a lobbyist and congressional staffer, were among the dead. The team was meeting for an early-morning practice in preparation for what was supposed to be today’s game. The game is an 80 year old tradition meant to unify the often divided members of Congress and raises money for charity.

This political massacre is the only mass killing of American politicians and the first killing of a member of Congress since the death of Leo Ryan in Guyana in 1978 by members of the Jonestown Cult. Of the 35 elected members of Congress are on the Republican team, 17 were present. All 19 senators and congressmen present were wounded. Several more members of the team were absent from practice due to prior commitments and one missed a ride to the game. Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia and Rep. Mike Bishop of Michigan are the only survivors. 
“If this had happened in Georgia, he wouldn’t have gotten too far,” Loudermilk said.“I had a staff member who was in his car maybe 20 yards behind the shooter, who was pinned in his car, who back in Georgia carries a 9-millimeter in his car… He had a clear shot at him. But here, we’re not allowed to carry any weapons here.” [actual quote] 
Loudermilk’s statements are incorrect, but illustrate his belief that a legally armed person could have stopped the killings. Virginia recognizes all state’s concealed weapon permits and Alexandria only prohibits the carry of firearms loaded with large capacity magazines, however Washington DC prohibits nearly all from carrying firearms. The District issues permits on a may-issue basis which are difficult to obtain.

“From where he was shooting, the suspect had an unobstructed view through the outfield fence. The victims were sitting ducks,” said Tim Slater, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

Rep. Mike Bishop, who was shot through the arm, recounted his experience: 
“A lot more of us could have walked out of this thing, if one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop and we didn’t have that cover. All it would have taken is a brave person to stand up and take a shot themselves so we could have gotten out of there. Every one of us has been hit — every single one of us. He [the shooter] was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we had return fire right there, he wouldn’t have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank.” [altered quote] 
According to witnesses, Hodgkinson pulled his vehicle onto a path that ran behind the outfield. A jogger told police that the killer asked a member of the team if the players were Republicans or Democrats. Hodgkinson replied “Oh, okay. Thank you,” and left. A few minutes later, shots rang out. Several members of the team who had taken the field were shot. The rest were shot in the area of the dugout. The dugout was a standard municipal park setup, where the waiting teammates are protected from baseballs, not bullets, by a chainlink fence. One congressman was found dead trying to shelter behind a trashcan.

Responding police officers killed Hodgkinson as he tried to flee. Police stated he was armed with an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle topped with a magnified sight, similar to what military troops use. An acquaintance, who declined to be named, from Illinois, Hodgkinson’s home state, reported that Hodgkinson took interest in shooting after the 2016 election. James Thomas Hodgkinson, a Democratic voter and Bernie Sanders volunteer, was reportedly distressed that Hillary Clinton lost the election. Neighbors complained that Hodgkinson would practice shooting too close to their homes in Illinois.

Hodgkinson was charged with domestic battery and for assault with a firearm when he struck his daughter’s boyfriend with a shotgun. Charges were dropped and without a conviction for domestic violence, Hodgkinson was legally allowed to possess and buy firearms. Acquaintances from the YCMA next to the baseball field stated that he often made small talk with them.

Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House Majority Whip, was not present during the shooting after his vehicle was involved in a minor traffic accident on his way to practice. Scalise is usually accompanied by a detail of Capitol Police Dignitary Protection Section plainclothes police officers. Scalise said in a press conference that he wished he could have been there. 
“I travel with armed bodyguard, capitol policemen. They could have stopped this, they could have saved lives. It sounds trite, but it’s true; the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is good guy with a gun.” 
Police say that Hodgkinson had selected his point of assault well, giving him a full field of fire all over the baseball diamond, well out of pistol range of anyone who might fire back. The attack seems to have been well-planned and not within the capabilities of the former licensed home inspector who did not serve in the military. FBI and other law enforcement officials have ruled out additional shooters, but are investigating whether the killer had help planning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thankfully, that is not what happened.

Author and former Navy SEAL Matt Bracken pointed out on social media that had the killer had professional experience or better planning, the outcome could have been far worse. Additionally, it was only through luck that the two Capitol Police bodyguards to Rep. Scalise were present. If this was a group of average citizens, the death toll would have been far higher. Hodgkinson was moving around, trying to get to the players hiding around the diamond. Cover was sparse, as the video from the scene shows. The officers’ actions to engage Hodgkinson gave him something else to deal with, rather than just kill defenseless men. This event illustrates how one or two armed persons, even with handguns, can seriously disrupt a killer’s plans.

It’s also important to note that state law prohibits in parks loaded semi-automatic centerfire rifles with 20+ round magazines that Hodgkinson almost certainly used. In a sense, this should have been a gun-free (at least rifle free) zone. That silly law did nothing to deter Hodgkinson.

Interestingly, various citizens told reporters that Hodgkinson was a frequent visitor to the Alexandria YMCA, which is just across the way from the park. It is highly likely that as Hodgkinson was in the Washington area he learned about the Republican practices while using that YMCA. I will speculate that he came to the area to engage in some sort of violence or other action against the GOP, but didn’t know what or how to do it until he came across this opportunity strictly by chance. 

Hodgkinson's history of violent behavior indicates he likely had anger problems. The liberal dominated media and more leftist dominated online and media sources are responsible for the intense polarization that brought us to this point. Celebrities like Kathy Griffin and others have been virtue signalling for violence against President Trump and Republicans. The rage online and on TV certainly worked to transform the liberal-supporter Hodgkinson into an assassin after countless hours in a vacuum chamber. Perhaps if he had a balanced, unhyped view he wouldn't have reached this point.

I fear we will see more of this violence and sadly, greater "success." Only time will tell if this was our second Fort Sumter moment.


-GC

Liberal Whackjob Shoots up Congress Members


 “The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop and if we didn’t have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us. He was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we didn’t have return fire right there, he would have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank."
-Congressman Mike Bishop, R-MI (8th District)

There are three likely outcomes, legislatively, from this attack. 1, nothing happens except anti-gunners make noise. 2, Congress gets scared and decides to go full retard on gun control, for instance banning AR-15s, etc. and thus sparking a rebellion. 3, Congress realizes that Congressman Bishop pointed out the solution and enacts things like national concealed carry reciprocity, mandates DC becomes shall-issue, and maybe even enforces the Second Amendment with their Fourteenth Amendment power.

What we do know is that the cold Second Civil War that has been brewing has now become hot. Enough leftists enraged by Trump, fueled by the media, and encouraged by virtue signalling have left the reservation. Where will this go? How will it go from here? No one knows. All we can do is prepare. One thing is for certain, none of this is what we want. All we can hope and pray for is that Congress comes to its senses to enact laws that allow Americans to defend themselves.

So Virginia Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe misspoke and added "million" to the 93 people who die from a bullet a day. He left out that most are (60 odd) suicides, not homicide. Not only do Democrats lie, but they stoop to exploiting tragedy to advance their evil gun control agenda. How would this have gone if no bodyguards were present? The overwhelming majority of Americans have no one nearby to protect them. Had this been anyone other than politicians (or if this dude was a pro) there would have been countless dead. Let's hope that now it happened to them that the Republicans in Congress understand the only thing that stops bad men with guns are good men with guns and reinvigorate the Second Amendment. Concealed carry reciprocity now!

Friday, June 9, 2017

The 2017 Legislative Session

The 2017 Legislative session had ended, going out quietly rather than the disaster that many of us feared. The only anti-gun bill to succeed was SB 124, which would extend the federal prohibition of possessing firearms for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Effectively, nothing changes as of this provision. It would also require those under extended restraining orders for domestic violence to surrender their firearms or sell or transfer them. This would be required to be through a licensed dealer who would provide a receipt.

The problem with the bar being lowered to a misdemeanor is the easy labeling that is used to target political opponents. As the political prosecution of Bishop Gorman coach Kenny Sanchez shows, it is more important to not be accused of being soft on domestic violence even if an innocent man’s life is destroyed to protect a prosecutor’s career. A permanent loss of a civil right should not be based on a misdemeanor, even if it is domestic violence. Temporary, perhaps, but not forever.
Another proposal was the “extreme protection order” AKA “gun violence restraining order” that would allow law enforcement or relatives to seek a court order to engage in pre-crime and have an alleged dangerous person’s guns taken away. The risk of abuse by a vindictive spouse is high as due process is only satisfied after the guns are taken away. This concept was debuted in California as a response to the Isla Vista shootings in California after Santa Barbara deputies were unable to determine that the shooter was a danger to himself or others prior to the shootings.
In many of the mass shooting cases, there were no firm warning signs (or when they were, they were not acted on), meaning that this new concept is unlikely to save lives that could not be addressed by existing law. It’s a feel-good, do nothing law that helps set the stage for further gun confiscation by eventually painting all gun owners with a broad brush. This is the new Question 1; supporters will likely wait to see the outcome of the 2019 elections before deciding to go through the Legislature or file ballot initiative.

These orders are a bad idea; the evidence is almost always thin and subjective. For instance, one of the deputies I worked with had his guns taken away after a neighbor got a temporary restraining order because the man did his job. The neighbor was a bad mother and let her toddler wander out into the street. The deputy, headed home to his kids, saw the child and returned her to mom with a lecture.

Mom didn’t like being told she was a negligent mother, so she filed a false complaint and restraining order that the deputy was trying to lure her children. The civil deputies came and took the deputy’s personal and duty weapons. He was placed on leave and investigated. The investigation revealed that the woman had exaggerated and lied, which is what she eventually admitted to the judge at the restraining order hearing. The DA filed charges against her for that.

Bullets Dodged
Few of us have the legal protections that a popular deputy sheriff has from lies and justifiable on-duty shootings. A coalition of legislators wanted to roll back the extended civilian protection from frivolous lawsuits after self-defense shootings; all I can characterize this as was a response to the false Black Lives Matter narrative. No one who has been cleared of charges by the criminal justice system should face a lawsuit for acting in self-defense. This was the worst of the proposals. Surprisingly, we did not see any attempt to ban private sales by “fixing” Bloomberg’s epic screw up with Question 1. Nor did we see any “hi-cap” magazine or “assault weapon” bans proposed.
Why? Because Governor Sandoval would have vetoed them and the Democrats had no supermajority in the Senate to override the veto, thank God. They were afraid of the governor’s pen. Some Democrat members of the Assembly do have some sense when it comes to gun control, but in a party awash with anti-gun politics, they cannot be very assertive or push pro-gun causes.

Future Danger

The only protection to avoid even worse bills in the future is to elect conservative Republicans in the mid-term elections. We must elect true conservatives, ones who are not afraid to use their power to get what they want. 2015’s session demonstrated how feckless the RINOs are. Part of the reason we saw Democrats take over the Legislature was voters rebelled against weak Republicans that failed to exploit their gains. They controlled the “Year of the Gun” session and yet the majority of the pro-gun bills died because of RINO opposition.
Adam Laxalt, our attorney general, does not appear to be a cuckservative. Unless Nevadans elect strong conservatives, our state will wither until it truly becomes California East. A Democrat governor and controlled houses of the Legislature will bring that doom in 2019. Ideally, voters will wake up and realize that continuing their liberal voting patterns will lead to the same conditions that forced them to leave California.

The continuing trend of illegal immigration, growth of Democratic-leaning minorities and California ex-pats, and easy voting (early voting and no-effort registration) will lead to further liberal control. The conservative Californians abandoned the state, for the most part, many years ago. Now the liberal-leaning who have been priced out and over regulated are seeking greener pastures. The weight of Clark County’s massive population will pull the state forcibly to the left simply because many of the people who vote for Democrats don’t know any better.

Success

AB 118 extended the ability to receive concealed firearm permits to veterans and service members 18-20. Civilians must be 21 to apply. It’s amazing that this bill moved forward in this legislature, but only for a cynical purpose; no one wants to be accused of voting against the military and vets. Joining the military doesn’t lend any extra maturity or pistol skills to the vast majority of kids enlisting; which is part of the reasoning why these young people are more safe than those who didn’t sign up.

While volunteering for the military is a great thing, it should not create a class that is automatically entitled to more “rights” than civilians. Benefits like the GI Bill are something else; that is more than a thank-you, but a way to train ex-servicemen and/or set them up for success when they get out. Not too much demand for infantry outside of Big Green or the Corps. Even with its limits, AB 118 is a win for the rest of us. More armed citizens willing to take out bad guys and a start at extending the right to carry concealed to all adults.

The Library

SB 115, the library gun free zone/open carry revenge bill, was another big win. Former LVCCLD trustee and now Assemblywoman Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod stated that the library district would try to stymie the Flores’ suit appeal with legislation. If the courts ruled that preemption applies to library districts (and it does), it wouldn’t matter because libraries would be gun-free zones just like schools. Sen. Denis, formerly on the board of LVCCLD himself, co-sponsored the bill with the Assemblywoman.

I want to thank Sen. Roberson for being the conservative pitbull this year, a welcome change from last session. He acted like the conservative leader we needed and helped tear Sen. Denis’ lame arguments to ban open carry in the library apart. It seemed like he was ambushed by some of the allegations revealed by Senators Gustavson, Harris, and Roberson, almost as if no one told him what the controversy was about.

In short, open carry is legal in government buildings. A public library posted with a “no guns” sign means that concealed carry is illegal. LVCCLD argued that state preemption of firearm laws didn’t apply to it because the law doesn’t explicitly say it applies to consolidated city-county library districts. That doesn’t matter because the policy in question was never approved via the board of trustees, which the law requires to make an enforceable policy.

SB 115 was about changing the law to avoid having to comply with the law. LVCCLD, a cesspool of anti-gun librarians and half-assed political wannabes, knew it will eventually lose in court. Citizens were using the law against the wishes of the petty tyrants at the library district, so the only solution would be to change the law. The implications of that kind of behavior are ominous.

So now, what do armed citizens and activists do? Go about your normal business. Don’t cause problems, we don’t need a process. The Flores’ case is in the appeals process; it will likely be heard in the next year. The wheels of justice do turn, but they turn slowly. Examples from all over the country have been in favor of gun rights, so don’t fret.

My advice to LVCCLD and other districts is to let the matter drop. There will no more suits, no more controversy, and never any protests or “incidents” to deal with. Just business as usual and perhaps a friendly mom or dad who can stop a terrorist or criminal attack at the library. If LVCCLD had just followed the path of the Henderson library district, it would have saved the district much time, embarrassment, and (public) money in their private war against the handful of open-carry library patrons.

Had SB 115 succeeded with its amendment, it would have made Sen. Denis the first legislator in Nevada history (a Democrat no less) to introduce discretionary campus carry in the form of a parking lot exemption.

Conclusion

All in all, look for the divide to grow in Nevada and across the nation. Unless we can reverse the voting trends, we will lose the state in a few years. Oregon is a prime example of what happens when a liberal population center dominates an otherwise rural and conservative state. Bit by bit, Nevada’s unique independence and freedom will be eroded until we are a state nannied by politicians. Our only hope is to keep conservatives, even if it is a governor playing “goalie,” in office long enough for people to wake up from their liberal trances.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Is the Defensive Display of Gun Legal in Nevada?


Several states have laws that allow a firearm to be drawn or displayed in self-defense to deter a threat against life. This protects someone who draws their gun or even points it at an attacker, but does not shoot them, because the gun successfully convinced the bad guy that pressing the attack would be hazardous to their health. This is the most common form of armed self-defense and is rarely reported. Protections include holding a gun down by the leg, at the low ready, or even in a position aimed and ready to shoot. Without such legal protections, one might be excused for killing someone in self-defense, but guilty of another crime for a defensive display of a gun.

In most places, common sense prevails. Even though Nevada doesn’t have such a law, most likely because the Legislature has always assumed Nevadans and our legal system will make reasonable decisions, the legal concepts exist throughout state law.

First, to kill in self-defense, “the danger” must be “so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary,” NRS 200.200. Bare fear (for example just saying “I was in fear for my life” when you weren’t) is not a defense. “It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge,” NRS 200.130.

Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured, NRS 193.240. The methods of permitted resistance are not specified, but it could be anything that hinders or obstructs the crime. This can’t be taken to the extreme. Yes, killing a shoplifter will prevent them from stealing, but it is not reasonable for the crime and a threat to life is required to justifiably kill.  Without this statute, it could be considered assault to grab the hand of a robber trying to snatch a purse and shove him away or fight off someone who jumped you.

A threat is criminal harassment when one “without lawful authority” threatens to “cause bodily injury,” NRS 200.517. “Lawful authority” is discussed below. A threat is a “declaration of an intention or determination” and can be made verbally or non-verbally; we can all agree that a gun pointed at you is implying a threat of being shot. A threat becomes wrong when one indicates they are going to do something illegal to you, often to intimidate.

A threat is not wrong when it is used to deter someone by indicating you intend to use legal force. In a way, you are saying: “If you do that thing you are not supposed to do, I will take this legally permitted action to prevent you, so please reconsider your actions and stop before I must act.” A warning is nice, but is not required.

Now how does drawing a weapon in order to prevent a crime come into play? Brandishing is essentially displaying a weapon in a way that draws attention, often in a manner to intimidate maliciously, usually as an implied threat. Here we run into a contradiction in state law because “drawing or exhibiting” a weapon in self-defense is not prohibited, but aiming it at a person in self-defense is not exempted by the second statute.

NRS 202.320, the brandishing section, prohibits drawing or exhibiting a weapon “in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense” in the presence of two or more persons.
NRS 202.290, “aiming”, stipulates that it is illegal to aim “any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being.” Intent or malice is not referred to in this section.

Brandishing prior to 1967 called for a punishment of not more than $500 or up to six months in jail. “Aiming” became a gross misdemeanor, with the stiffer punishment of up to a year in jail, in 1989, effectively making “aiming” double the original punishment of brandishing. So, aiming is the worse crime.
Obviously, a gun pointed at someone is more intimidating than waiving it around and an accidental shot while aimed at a person could very well prove deadly. The Legislature wanted to punish people who drew guns and those who pointed them at people for malicious purposes, otherwise it would be legal to maliciously threaten someone with a gun, as long as you didn’t shoot them.

Clearly, a firearm being drawn or pointed at another is an unspoken threat of imminent violence (whether malicious or self-defense). NRS 200.275 states that ”the infliction or threat of bodily injury is justifiable, and does not constitute mayhem, battery or assault, if done under circumstances which would justify homicide.” This clause a two-part statement; at first it is general, then it includes specifics.

“The infliction or threat of bodily injury is justifiable” is stating that (for our discussion) that the threat of bodily injury is permitted, “if done under circumstances” where it would be legal to use deadly force in self-defense. The bill summary from AB 190 of 1983 explained the legislative intent: "...circumstances which would justify homicide are also adequate justification for inflicting or threatening to inflict injury." Next, the statute states some criminal violations that explicitly do not apply under the correct circumstances.

Mayhem, battery, or assault is specifically not criminal if it would otherwise be excusable to kill the other in self-defense; essentially to prevent someone who merely wounds their attacker from being charged with a crime that would have been excused had the attacker died. This is clarification to confirm that those specific laws would not apply in this case.

So does the “aiming” section truly prohibit pointing a gun at someone who is trying to hurt you or someone else? On it’s face yes, but this would be overridden by the intent of other sections. If “aiming” was never excusable, it would also create the absurd situation where after a defensive shooting, one would be innocent of homicide, but guilty of pointing a gun at the attacker. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the law cannot create absurdities.

A common-sense interpretation of the law indicates that drawing a gun or pointing it at someone, where the legal justification to actually shoot them exists, is permissible by taking the statutes as a whole. The only “anomaly” in the statutes is the “aiming” section and that is more likely a simple oversight because the Legislature expected judges and prosecutors to use common sense.


What’s the bottom line? If it is truly necessary in defense of life to draw a firearm (or threaten you will use it), whether you aim it at the attacker or not, there is no crime. A threat, whether shouted or communicated non-verbally by the barrel of a gun, that deters a crime is certainly preferable to becoming a victim.

Disclaimer: We are not lawyers or a Supreme Court. This is just informed opinion.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Henderson Mayor Proclaims Nat'l Anti-Gun Day

Credit: Craig Taffeta/Freelance
 Local news will feature tonight and tomorrow small crowds of mostly dour-faced older women in orange t-shirts. Everytown has for its third year now to co-opt the hunter’s safety color orange as a symbol for its annual gun control holiday. My sources reported that the event at Sunset Park, attended by a small open carry counter rally, had the atmosphere of a funeral.

Two proclamations from Nevada politicians were presented, one from Congresswoman Dina Titus, and another by Henderson Mayor Andy Hafen, made under the authority of the city, not individually. His support of this day is essentially an insult to the Second Amendment. One wonders if he would sign a proclamation for “National Hate Speech Awareness Day.”

The proclamation is terrible and one has to wonder if its wording is a clever joke on gun control supporters. With a little curiosity, some research, and critical thinking the “arguments” in the proclamation can be easily debunked and show the ignorance of anti-gunners in framing their side of the debate. The information would only satisfy uncritical minds. It would have been just as effective to express support for the civilian disarmament holiday and filling the rest of the proclamation with “lorum ipsum” or similar non-sense.

Let’s take a look.

Credit: Craig Taffeta/Freelance
First, the violence statistics intended to portray America as an incredibly violent place. To arrive at these statistics, suicide must be included as violence. 93 Americans killed by “gun violence” equals 33,945 deaths annually; this is roughly the total number of deaths by firearms, including suicide. Only about 30 people a day, 10,945 annually, are murdered in the US; a third of the manipulated figure.

Next, "developed countries" allows the anti-gunners to remove the countries with the most homicides and criminal assault with guns to suit their narrative simply because the countries are poor ones. Here's what Gun Facts says about the use of this "statistic": "60% of American 'gun deaths' are suicides and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference." Once again, the key is adding suicides to inflate the stats.

Hafen then goes on to declare: "mayors and law enforcement officers know  their communities best, are the most familiar with local criminal activity and how to address it, and are best positioned to understand how to keep their citizens safe in line."

In other words, only politicians and police know what’s good for their subjects. Hafen is pretty obviously one of those cops who feels that only his badged buddies are the only people worthy and capable of possessing guns. The arrogance in this statement is incredible and unforgivable.

Hadiya Pendleton’s death tells the uncomfortable truth about American gun violence: in 2013, 90% of black murder victims were murdered by other blacks; about 77% of those were murdered by gun. Hadiya was an innocent bystander killed in what was presumably gang violence. Sadly, it’s considered “racist” to say that black America has a gang and violence problem. Without naming the problem, how can we properly address it?

The 15 year old black girl from Chicago (need I say more?), was murdered by two men, one who had been arrested three times and was on probation for a weapons violation. Probation officials even failed to inform court officials that the man had been re-arrested and violated probation. Both of the killers were black and were trying to kill another man, as NBC reported. “The shooter and confessed to police that Hadiya was not the intended target, police said. The shooting was allegedly meant to be a retaliation for Williams, who was shot last year.” Seems the problem is gang violence and a broken criminal justice, not guns.

The anti-gun crowd and liberal politicians cannot speak the truth that “gun violence” is largely inflated in the US by black-on-black violence. Instead of looking at a history of broken policies that destroyed the integrity of black families and lead to increase in homicide seen dramatically from the ‘60s to the ‘90s, they look at guns. Mental health issues in the crazy white guys that go on shooting sprees are ignored too. Going after guns is “easier” because Democratic power bases aren’t offended by it as they would if the real roots of murder were targeted.

National Gun Violence Awareness day isn’t about anything other than political theater; it’s an excuse to get photos of small groups of the hardcore of gun control supporters in the local news. The speeches at these rallies are all the same pabulum of generic statements about gun control, pity parties of victimhood, and mumblings of support by public leaders who can’t be bothered to actually show up. No one every looks happy or enthusiastic at these things. They feel like a mandated loyalty meeting to re-affirm one’s support to the cult.


My suggestion is that next year, no one should show up and counter protest these sad, deluded folks. Let them look like the pathetic fools that they are, alone in a park, celebrating their willingness to be easy victims.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Some Informational Reminders

Ignorance of the gun carry laws has reared it's ugly head once again. People break the law unintentionally because they were negligent in knowing the law and understanding it. I know it's harsh, but far too many people think they have a grasp on the law when they know just enough to get themselves in trouble. This could all be solved by people reading and understanding. Unfortunately, many people don't take the time to do so or assume they know it all.

There is no excuse for not knowing these things. It's pretty simple:

Public buildings are government owned and operated buildings, not private property open to the public. "No gun" signs do not have the force of law in Nevada; except for concealed carry in public buildings.

Public building examples include:

  • Libraries
  • Police, sheriff, and fire stations
  • City halls and county administration building
  • Courthouses
Open carry is 100% legal in all public buildings but for school/college/university or child care facilities, no matter what the sign or staff says.

So if it's a government building and there are signs or metal detectors at each public entrance, concealed carry is illegal. Don't carry illegally past the signs anyway and certainly don't brag about it online or to the local news media.



Staff in government buildings often don't know the law. The same goes for police. Open carriers may face harassment simply because the staff don't know better. It is your duty, however, to know better. Not taking the time to make certain you understand the law is laziness. 

There is no excuse whatsoever for not properly knowing the law and understanding it. If you do not understand this stuff, you shouldn't be carrying and you sure as heck shouldn't be forcing the issue anywhere. Know before you go or face the consequences. Ignorance of the law and stupid behavior by people who have little to no reading comprehension skills will make winning back our rights more difficult. 

I'm pretty riled up at this stuff, so please don't take it personally.