Monday, August 8, 2016

Admiral's Yes on One Op-Ed Highly Suspect

Rear Admiral Brian Brannman (ret.) recently wrote an op-ed for the Elko Daily (and elsewhere) supporting Ballot Question 1, which would ban private gun sales. As discussed below, Brannman’s credibility is suspect given a very strange incident he was involved in back in 2007.

The measure is funded and supported in large part by Michael Bloomberg, billionaire and former New York mayor, who is the force behind legion gun control groups. Using the misleading term of ‘universal background checks’, supporters want to force virtually all gun sales and transfers (including temporary loans as short as handing off a gun to another person) to go through dealers and to circumvent Nevada’s state background system.

One of the left's tactics in pushing gun control now is by flooding local media with so-called experts and community leaders lecturing the public. Most of the writings blatantly rip-off or heavily borrow from tired, perpetually repeated talking points circulated by the Bloomberg anti-gun group du jour.
The admiral is just a pawn (willing or unwilling) in the gun control scheme of using ‘prominent’ members of the community to allegedly support banning private gun sales. Supporters think that an admiral lends credibility and that veterans will support the opinions of an admiral. I doubt that many enlisted vets have very many positive opinions of flag officers and their personal beliefs.

An interesting tid-bit from the admiral's history. Brannman is currently the senior VP of Nevada operations and President/CEO of St. Rose Dominican Siena Hospital. Brannman was involved in a bizarre episode in 2007 where he claimed to have smallpox or otherwise have been exposed while on an airline flight. The FBI was called and Brannman was put into isolation while the plane and passengers sat on the tarmac. Charges were not filed by the US attorney’s office after determining that his claim was a hoax. Sources mention, citing a defunct newslink, that apparently blamed the incident on Brannman's “real mental problems” rather than as initially speculated, alcohol. Brannman left the Navy in 2008, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Brannman, a healthcare professional, fails to mention that Nevada’s Point of Sale system checks local mental health records that are often lacking in the federal NICS system. Ballot Question 1 would require that private sales/transfers be conducted by dealers through NICS, while dealer sales go through the Nevada system. This duplicate system benefits no one. By requiring private sales to go through the Federal system, the law erodes Nevada's own laws and set the ground work through a sales/transaction based gun registry.

This law is so stupid that a live-in couple could not share firearms because they are not married. If a boyfriend lends his girlfriend (who he's lived with for the past five years) a pistol because of the guy who stalks her in the parking lot after work, that's a crime without a background check each time. Roommates couldn't borrow guns from each other. Even shooting in the desert with friends and trying out each others' guns might be illegal. Meanwhile, the law lacks any elements which would actually help prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.

Most of Nevada’s sheriffs do not support Ballot Question 1 which lends a lot more weight as they actually enforce the laws and catch criminals. Don’t buy into the Bloomberg tactics of flooding newspapers with supposedly ‘authoritative’ opinion-makers telling you what you can do with your rights. Vote no on Question 1.


  1. A man with factual mental health issues and also an alcoholic is someone I'm supposed to listen to? Yeah, ok