Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Gun Dealers Holding Guns for 30 Days? (Updated)

One question that has come up as a result of Question 1, universal background checks, is will dealers be regulated by local pawnshop regulations? The controversy in question involves Clark County’s 30-day hold regulation for “pawned” items. Local laws may differ. NRS section at bottom.

Is a federally licensed gun dealer (FFL) a pawnbroker?

Pawnbroker, in the context of firearm dealers and background checks, is defined as one who “deals in the purchase or possession of personal property on condition of selling the same back again to the pledger or depositor.” This questionably applies to consignment sales, as if the gun does not sell, it would be transferred back (not sold) to the owner.

Because gun dealers are not “selling” the gun back to the seller or the one lending it, it is hard to see how this definition would apply. Pawning a firearm certainly would be included under the “who loans money on deposit of personal property” clause.

Where is the “30 day hold rule” and does it apply?

“No property received in the pledge by any pawnbroker or motor vehicle pawnbroker shall be removed from his place of business, except when redeemed by the owner thereof, unless within thirty days after the receipt thereof, it shall have been reported to the LVMPD as herein provided.”
7.12.110 requires reports to be made to LVMPD of items pawned (to identify stolen items being fenced). These sections taken together seems to require that items can be released to a person other than the owner (sold), as long as the item has been reported to Metro.

The purpose of this section is quite obviously to make sure that stolen items are not being fenced as the reporting and delay gives Metro a chance to locate stolen goods.

Is a federally licensed gun dealer (FFL) a “secondhand dealer”?

A "secondhand dealer" is defined to mean ... for purchasing, trading or dealing in any secondhand article whatsoever.

In this case, county codes would require gun dealers “dealing” (facilitating the transfer of privately owned firearms) to hold a secondhand license.

Doesn’t preemption apply?

NRS 244.364(8)(d) allows for ordinary business licensing and regulation of firearm dealers by counties (exemptions for towns and cities exist in their respective preemption sections). Also see below.

State Law (updated)

NRS 647.130
1. ... no property which has a specific mark for identification or is otherwise individually identifiable and is bought by any secondhand dealer may be removed from his or her place of business at which the transaction occurred within:
      (a) Thirty days after the receipt thereof is reported or a record of the receipt of the property is furnished or mailed to the sheriff or the chief of police, if the place of business is located in a county whose population is 700,000 or more; or
      (b) Fifteen days after the receipt thereof is reported or a record of the receipt of the property is furnished or mailed to the sheriff or the chief of police, if the place of business is located in a county whose population is less than 700,000.
Again, this section would not apply to an FFL providing Bloomberg background checks as he is not buying the pistol. There seems to be a conflict or ambiguity (perhaps the wording) that conflicts with Clark County code, which implies that it allows early release as long as Metro is notified. (Thanks to Michelle).
TL;DR

Gun dealers do not need to hold guns for 30 days, especially for Bloomberg background checks, but will need to get a secondhand license in Clark County.


(All citations from Clark County Code unless noted otherwise)

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Why We Lost Question 1


Why did we lose on Question 1 if we have the truth on our side? Answer: You can’t beat someone who cheats.

Bloomberg and his founded groups had every advantage that we did not have; they had money, a complicit media to assist them, and an army of deluded liberals more than willing to do their bidding. We know of the shenanigans at polling places and collecting ballots. We heard the rumors of petition signature gathers being bused in from Washington as soon as their initiative passed. We’ve heard all the lies. 
"...these people [anti-gun reformers] are always well organized and working in harmony and with great enthusiasm, while the simple advocates of the thing that is to be reformed out of existence are unable to sense the danger that impends, and neglect to defend their rights until they suddenly find themselves deprived of them."[1] 
Question 1’s effects will hurt blacks, Hispanics, and women—the target focus of the left—exactly those who benefit most from private gun sales. While the left crows about voter IDs deterring potential marginalized voters, they demand that those same marginalized persons deal with a complicated, confusing process they are not likely to understand, if be aware of at all. But it’s not about reality or the harmful side effects, it’s about gun control.

TL:DR version
  • Massive outspending by Everytown/Bloomberg
  • Apathetic gun owners who did nothing more than vote and post pictures on Facebook
  • California ex-pats and uneducated voters who believed the "yes" commercials 
Gaming Democracy

We need to look at why the initiatives are being used to push gun control. Initiatives are not subject to party-line votes in the legislature or vetoes on the governor’s desk. In a way, initiatives bypass the checks-and-balances system to take the matter directly to the public. Direct democracy was seen by our founding fathers as mob rule. Wisely, they instituted a representative republican form of government that we know today. While initiatives are great tools for the voters to change things, they are subject to abuse. 
Ballot measures bypass the carefully designed deliberative model, and terrifyingly favor the deep-pocketed individuals who can throw the largest amount of money into advertising their cause in the best possible light. Put bluntly, these referendum processes allow even the most blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable laws to be bought by the highest bidder.” (source
Nevadans for Background Checks, the supposedly “grassroots” proponents of the initiative, was nothing more than a fa├žade of Everytown for Gun Safety. They were at work in Washington, Oregon, and in Maine as well.

If enough people go along with something, right or wrong, it becomes law. Many criticize the initiative system as being inflexible; poorly-written bills cannot be changed or deficiencies corrected. Initiatives have emerged as a favorite of gun control proponents because they bypass checks-and-balances. No congress or governor can stand in the way. All it takes is votes. And lots and lots of money.

Partisan politics is replaced with sound-bite politics. Let’s face it, people today have too much going on in their lives to truly care about a system that often changes despite their wishes or input. Americans feel disconnected from their political process and don’t spend a great deal of time educating themselves on the topics. 
"It is quite clear that the greater park of the public knows little or nothing about the merits of the question presented. As in all such matters the bulk of the populace will doubtless remain inarticulate, unorganized, and incapable of self-expression. It will probably in the future as in the past continue to be a prey of vociferous groups which make up in noise what they lack in principles and intelligence which frequently succeed in accomplishing their designs because the public as a whole has no adequate method of defending itself and protecting its interests."
 "It appeals to a considerable number of people who know nothing about guns, and it is swallowed whole by that portion of the public who do not think about what they read or hear but who are ready to accept almost any strong and readymade idea which is handed to them for consumption in tablet form."[2] 
A law that flaunts the constitution passed by a margin of about 9,000 people who voted largely out of ignorance and deception is why the Founding Fathers eschewed direct democracy. Less than 1% is still a loss, but is far from a mandate and the closest difference in any of the Bloomberg initiative races.

Where an inflexible initiative and short blurbs about the issue go wrong is they turn the initiative into a form of mob rule. You’re either for it or against it; there is no middle ground and no mediation. If a poorly written initiative is passed, as many, many problems with Washington’s I-594 background check law have been found, there is no remedy, aside from the courts, to address those issues in the short term. Once the people have spoken, there can be argument with the law that they have passed, for good or for bad.

Money

The only major donor to reverse course was Steve Wynn, but it was too little, too late. Let’s hope he can atone for his mistake by making an equally large donation to the Nevada Firearms Coalition. As you can see from the Secretary of State page, many donors, including Nevadans with more money than sense, helped by this feel-good piece of tyranny. 
“Nevada in particular has become an expensive battleground. Bloomberg has personally donated nearly $10 million to the effort there, and Nevadans for Background Checks had collected $14.3 million as of Oct. 18. That is nearly triple the $4.8 million that the leading opposition group, NRA Nevadans for Freedom, had received, all from the NRA.”[3] In fact, as of Nov. 4th, the totals were $15,852,790.11 contributed, per the Secretary of State, including $3.5 million from Michael Bloomberg himself
Casinos, attorneys, and various gaming and Vegas business people poured tons of their own money into supporting the initiative. Why? Background checks have nothing to do with casinos and it’s doubtful that they are concerned with stopping violence in the Valley, as what happens far off The Strip is unlikely to affect tourism. The answer is that supporting a gun control initiative shows obedience to the casino Sheriff Lombardo. It’s classic Nevada backscratching; if the casinos support gun control, which Lombardo supported in private, he is likely to be more favorable to their security needs.

Why Nevada and what’s next?

Far more is at stake than just Nevada. Rural states with large, Democrat-leaning urban populations; Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Maine were targeted successfully because of demographics. Gun control supporters think they can win here and start a domino effect across the nation because they are taking advantage of Nevada’s composition.

Comparing to the neck-and-neck race in Maine as the results came in, Nevada shows a deep divide. Clark County, with its urban population with a huge percentage of liberal-inclined California voters, swayed the vote. The common thread with defeat is a tradition of shooting and hunting. There was a similar urban vs. rural pattern in Washington in 2014. A lack of knowledge of guns is what equals a fear of it and susceptibility to accepting gun control. The large percentage of Black and Hispanic voters who tend to paradoxically vote for gun control while being victimized disproportionately by crime also probably helped this latest infringement “win.”

In Nevada, over ¾ of the state’s population lives in Clark County, derisively known as East California. Essentially, it’s gaming the system. With their millions of dollars the small TV and newspaper market can be dominated with adverting that supports gun control. There is no large, spread-out rural population that thinks differently which can balance the vote. Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, and Virginia are the next soft targets because they are so similar.

Why didn’t the NRA stop this?

The NRA was the only major group to fight the initiative. The Nevada Firearms Coalition (including its PAC Nevadans for State Gun Rights) suffers from low membership and limited funds. Nevada’s population is highly transient, largely disconnected from the community as a whole, and highly individualistic. The incredible narrowing of the lead of Question 1 in the polls and the close vote show that the true grassroots efforts by individual gun owners and NVFAC members showed that the Silver State’s gun owners are motivated to protect their rights.

One criticism I will offer of the NRA is the failure to anticipate and counter Bloomberg’s strategy early on (let’s face it, the Bloomberg groups are the driving forces in American gun control now). Back when the ballot initiative strategy debuted in Washington during the 2014 election seasons, the NRA leadership should have fought hard in the early stages of petition gathering. Clearly, the NRA and gun owners have learned as this battle has gone on; Nevada may have just been an unfortunate narrow loss, but perhaps Arizona might benefit from the lessons learned.

Larger is the issue of state-level groups and individual involvement. Nevada’s individual gun owners made the most of what we had, but it wasn’t enough. Sadly, gun owners don’t view themselves as a community as do members of political parties or religious groups. They don’t have the same belief of the actual volunteer anti-gunners who truly believe they are doing good and, ignorant of history and human nature, that additional laws and restrictions will stop violence. Gun owners tend to be individualistic and conservative, and so they generally don’t involve themselves in the political process as they view it as interfering with other’s rights and viewpoints.

Nor do gun owners have the same craven tenacity to inflict their political will upon others at all costs. Unfortunately, the dismissive attitude, especially early on “It won’t pass; the NRA will defeat it” cost us in the end. Apathy on the part of gun owners was the killer. If you own guns and voted “yes”, didn’t vote, or this is the first you’re hearing of this: fuck you, you are part of the problem. Yes, we swear now. Get off your ass, get involved, educate people, and do more than virtually masturbate online about how you are going to wage civil war against gun controllers.

Posting a photo of your holster on Facebook with an “I voted” sticker on it isn’t helping. Who did you educate? How much did you donate? How many protests did you go to? Did you vote Democrat in the legislative races (more gun control there)? There is only about two-dozen serious, hardcore supporters of gun rights in Nevada (in this battle and more). We all fought in different ways; some on the phone, some knocking on doors, some hitting the voting sites, and some educating online (as I have since 2014). Why didn’t you give/do more? If we had double the core of activists, we might have won.

Activism is more than just putting pictures and bitching on social media. For those of you who did nothing more than vote, you bear this failure upon your shoulders. Liberty needs intense active support to succeed and nothing more than laziness to turn into tyranny.

Why do people vote for such garbage laws?

Ignorance is the easy answer. Most simply don’t know better. As for the rest, there is an unwillingness to admit that (relatively speaking) nothing can prevent violence. Perhaps the prohibitionists cannot even comprehend the nature of evil and therefore look not to the failings of the soul, but to the failings in the law, police, government, etc. Rather than being an unpredictable, uncontrollable tragedy, had just one particular thing been done, it could have stopped the crime. That “one thing” is often another law, which they naively expect criminals to obey.

Anti-gun voters and politicians see the law as some sort of supernatural guarantee. It is an often empty guarantee of safety through deterrence via the threat of punishment. Even if the unpredictable nature of man claims a life, the law is a “promise” that the killer will face justice. Whether that promise is kept or not doesn’t matter; like an ever-forgiving cuckold, liberal and anti-gun voters are ever willing to forgive those that betray their words. Passing a law is “doing something”, whether the action truly achieves its stated objective or not. Anti-gun laws like Question 1 are only symbolic, talismanic acts that will temporarily absolve them of the collective societal guilt of violent crime.

So why do people put faith in gun control laws? Laws are predictable. They are black and white, firm, finite answers. It provides a certainty to them. Gun control is just an easy answer; a tool to dissuade the honest and perhaps add an extra penalty, if that, to criminals. The nitty gritty facts that existing illegal possession/acquisition laws are not enforced escapes them or are of little consequence as long as they “feel good.”

The mere knowledge that a law against the action exists is their comfort. They presume the law to always be right and bulwark against evil. The law should hold terror for those who do wrong; almost like garlic or a crucifix to a vampire. Ever hold a copy of the penal codes? Often it’s thick and heavy book, far more so than the Bible (and less forgiving), even though their onion skin pages are so similar. Gun control is a religion without a god and supporters congregants who neither read nor pray over their scriptures, but merely sing the hymns with empty hearts.

Passing a law will not assuage their grief. Like any other empty gesture, it is a short, hollow comfort that is rarely ever borne out with positive results. Evil a phenomenon that cannot be restrained by law, only met with counter force. Like a flood, evil will constantly seek the cracks in whatever dam we erect and spill out.

The anti-gun cannot accept that evil men are incapable of being restrained. Because they cannot accept this simple truth and abhor the reality that violence can only truly stop determined violence. This denial leads them to believe that if there are enough laws and restrictions, the chains and fetters will be too heavy to resist. In the end, it is a fundamental mistaken understanding of human nature.

Success

The success of this fight is that we fought so hard and well despite overwhelming odds. While privately we admitted we would probably lose, we became cautiously optimistic towards the end. Our optimism was not misplaced despite the loss. 9,000 votes; less than 1%. We narrowed it down to that from a near 60/40 defeat. This margin was secured almost entirely by true grassroots efforts. The NRA only provided commercials, facilities, and materials. It was the involved gun rights activists who made Everytown and Bloomberg fight like the devil to get their money’s worth.

Their loss in Maine and the narrow margin here does not bode well for them elsewhere. Had the NRA and the apathetic gun owners understood what was at stake and how to fight, we could have easily handed them their asses. Perhaps the next states in the antis’ sights can deliver the knockout punch.

Conclusion

Gun owners are now alert to the schemes of the enemies of freedom, but it came at the cost of our private property rights, the continued erosion of gun rights, and another major step towards national gun registration. An uneducated half of the electorate, too stupid to think critically or investigate the issue deeper, brought tyranny upon the other half and unwittingly upon themselves as well. Until educated voters vote with their minds and not with their emotions, gun control fanatics will find the gullible to take their bait.

Despite losing Question 1 and the legislature, we still have a Republican governor and Republican control of the federal government. We should now work to make sure the Democrat legislature’s attempts at more gun control are brutally suppressed and vetoed as well as getting national concealed carry reciprocity and reductions in NFA items (silencers, short barreled rifles/shotguns) at the federal level.




[1] Goddard, Calvin. "This Pistol Bogey." The American Journal of Police Science. Vol. 1, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1930), p. 182
[2] Frederick, Karl T. "Pistol Regulation: Its Principles and History. Part I." The American Journal of Police Science. Vol. 2, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1931) pp. 441-442

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Evasion and Unenforceability of Universal Background Checks/Question 1

This information is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Non-compliance with the background check law (effective Jan. 1, 2016) is at your own risk. You will have to make a personal choice regarding your liberty and your property, notwithstanding the tyranny of the uneducated minority who barely passed an unconstitutional law.

Basics

Know who you’re dealing with. Ideally, sell between friends to avoid a sting operation. Do a little research if this person isn’t a stranger to make sure they aren’t a cop, investigative reporter, or an anti-gun activist. Does their email show their full name? Can you find a Facebook profile? Lookup their phone number. Be aware that at a gun show an undercover cop could be hovering right over your shoulder or you might be buying from one. Don’t get stung.

If it’s an online ad, only discuss the gun, the price, and where to meet via email, text, or messenger. Agree to meet in a public location “to make arrangements on which licensed dealer to use.” Do not discuss online or via text message not going to a dealer. Those words could come back to haunt you. Conduct your sale in a discreet location where no one is likely to call the police because they see a gun and cash. Be smart and never actually say anything out loud that, if recorded, could be used against you in court, such as “So is it okay if we don’t go to a dealer to get a background check?”

Discuss the price of the gun, show your CCW or license, but do not fill out a bill of sale or allow the other person to copy down your information. Exchange the money and gun. Make as few references to selling the gun or breaking the law as possible. One cannot beat video footage of handing off a gun in exchange for cash, but one can make an audio only recording ambiguous. The idea is to create reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge or jury.

Don’t sell to someone sketchy. If they seem like a criminal or up to no good, pass on the sale. Don’t risk aiding a criminal because of a stupid law. Use your head like you’ve always done.

Defenses in court

If you are arrested, do not talk to the police. Remain silent. Demand an attorney, even if it is a public defender. Police can and will use anything you say to use against you. They cannot make you contradict yourself later in court if you don’t provide a statement to them to begin with. Never, ever talk to the police (more examples below).

Keep in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This means that it is the duty of the prosecution and by extension, the police, to prove that you have committed a crime. What would be the crime they would be enforcing? The crime would be failing to obtain a background check. The police have to have probable cause that you did not comply with the law in order to arrest you for failing to get a background check.

Then the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you haven't completed a background check. It's difficult enough proving that you actually did do something, let alone trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not do something. Keeping in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty; you don't have to tell them what FFL you used to get a background check. You don't have to tell them what date you transferred the firearm.

You are free to exercise your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination—do exercise it. The entire onus of the investigation lies with law enforcement and the prosecution. Don’t start talking to the police when they begin asking questions or waive your Miranda rights. Again, it is entirely up to the prosecution to prove that you did not indeed go to a dealer. You don’t have to “help” them by telling them anything. The more you talk, the tighter the net your words will weave to trip you up. You can’t explain anything away or throw them off the trail.

Further on, we’ll explain how easy it is to accidentally make a case against yourself, but first, let’s look at how hard it is for the prosecution to prove a case against someone who remains quiet. All you have to say is that you did obtain a background check and it’s up to the prosecution to prove you didn’t; that’s hard to do.

Nevada currently has approximately 740 licensed FFLs. There are 365 days in a year. Remember that FFLs keep their records in their "bound book" per ATF regulations. Some may have converted to electronic bound books if issued a variance by the ATF, but this is not yet the norm. That means someone has to physically go and paw through their bound book and possibly the 4473 forms at each dealer to prove that a record does not exist. So they would have to reasonably ensure that they inspect every record at every dealer in the state.

If law enforcement/prosecution do not check every dealer or check every record, they leave the door open for the defense to create a reasonable doubt that the one record at the one dealer that they did not inspect could be the form proving that the background check was completed. Remember that by federal law, the NICS system may not be used to create a registration of firearms or gun owners. This means that under federal law the identifying records on their end must be destroyed after the background check is completed. The man-hours required to attempt to prosecute a single violation of this law would be ridiculously prohibitive.

Second, it is unconstitutional to require a prohibited person to present himself for a background check. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1968, Haynes v. United States. The reader's digest version is that a man who was a convicted felon was caught in possession of an unregistered NFA firearm. He successfully argued that requiring him to register the NFA firearm is akin to forcing him to make an open admission to the government that he is a felon in possession of a firearm.  Remember that Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? The courts agreed with him that the law cannot compel him to perform an action (registration) that would amount to confessing to committing a crime.

While the Supreme Court did not invalidate the law requiring the registration of NFA firearms nor did they invalidate the prohibition on felons possessing firearms, they agreed that the law requiring registration could not be enforced against convicted felons. A mandatory background check and NFA registration accomplish the same thing—requiring a person to provide evidence against themselves for a later prosecution. How hard do you think it would be for a defense lawyer to make this same argument for his client previously convicted of a disqualifying offense (domestic violence, felony, etc.), subject to a protection order or adjudicated mentally ill?

If you are charged for lending a gun in Clark County, bring up in court District Attorney Wolfson’s statement at the Mob Museum’s Question 1 forum where he stated “We’re not going to charge people for lending a weapon to a friend.” That might sway a jury and humiliate the district attorney’s office.

How could this happen to me?

“Background check” enforcement stings are not likely to happen. In the vast majority of cases, failing to get a background check is an additional charge to other crimes or to prosecute the person who supplied a gun used in a crime. Unless the anti-gun climate dramatically worsens, law enforcement doesn’t have the time or inclination to proactively enforce the law. Heck, they don’t even enforce the gun laws that have already existed. However, for a cop who wants to make the arrest, it’s pretty easy to get a confession.

Why? People like to talk. Most people are fundamentally honest and feel that honesty is the best policy. Some think they can talk their way out of anything (usually stupid criminals). For the rest of us, we were raised to be honest and fair and we expect other people, including the police, to give us the same courtesy in return. The honest folk don’t understand that their best intentions can be manipulated against them. So remain silent!

Let’s say a woman is pulled over for speeding. She has a gun in the glovebox that he boyfriend gave to her because someone is stalking her after work. Before reaching for her insurance registration, she informs the officer the gun is in the glove box, so the officer retrieves it.

Officer: Is that your gun?

Woman: No, it’s my boyfriend’s. He gave it to me because of this creepy guy at work.

Officer: When did he give it to you?

Woman: Day before Valentine’s Day.

Officer: Did you get a background check at a dealer before he gave it to you?

Woman: No, he just gave it to me in the morning before I left for work.

Officer: Do you have a restraining order? Has this creepy guy threatened you?

Woman: No, I just felt unsafe because of the way he followed me in the parking lot.

That woman just admitted she committed a violation of the universal background check law. She has provided the officer the day of the offense (Feb. 13, 2017—after the law took effect), she admitted that there was no background check, and she admitted that there was no immediate danger, just a vague unsettling feeling. She is not married, even though she lives with her boyfriend, so the family exemption does not apply.

The law does not require malice; it is a mala prohibitum crime where simply failing to obey is criminal, not what one’s intentions were when they disobeyed the law. If the officer recorded this, he could have an easy arrest (probably a citation and release) that meets all the elements of the crime. Would the prosecutor file charges? Depends on where our country goes from here or what kind of district attorney we have.

How gun traces work

Let’s say police go looking for a particular gun for whatever reason. A very inefficient gun registration system with more holes than fishnet underwear exists now and law enforcement will use it to get a pretty good lead to track you down, should they want your gun. The same procedures will be used to work background check cases as well as confiscation. If you use your gun in a non-permissive environment or in an illegal way—the morality of the use aside (say in a gun-free zone)—you will be the target of a criminal investigation.

The police will trace the serial number, which will lead them to the distributor who sold the gun to the dealer, and the dealer’s copy of the Form 4473 will lead them to the original buyer. If you are one person away from the original buyer, especially if they personally know you, have a bill of sale, or there are records online, consider yourself one confession or tip away from arrest. Buying anonymously at a gun show, with maybe a cursory glance at a CCW or license, is fairly safe. If you bought on Facebook, off a gun forum, or in any place the data could be preserved, don’t be surprised if you are tracked down based on that information.

For universal background checks, this is important if the original buyer is contacted. You don’t want anything connecting you to him or for either party to admit there was no background check.
You are more insulated if there is one, or several buyers, between you and the original purchaser. Remember, a bill of sale given to police will identify you just as well as gun registration would. Don’t keep evidence lying around; don’t do bills of sale if you’re not complying.

Bills of sale and crimes with your old gun

If you have a bill of sale on guns you sold in the past, destroy them. Do not unwittingly assist future gun registration and confiscation. No one will think you are a suspect if there is a crime with your old gun; just tell the police that you sold the gun legally (at the time), when you sold it, and give vague information about the buyer (if they are confiscating guns and not trying to track down a psychopath or gangbanger). Police will have to prove you knowingly sold the gun to a prohibited person or gang member, knew it was going to be used in a crime, or that you really shot the person. Having owned the gun used in the crime is not enough to make you a suspect or even convict you in a sane legal system (which we still have at the moment).

If you have that fear, you need to learn more about real criminal investigations and prosecutions. Quickly, let’s examine the issue of guilt over having sold someone a crime gun. Would you feel guilty if the person who bought your car was an alcoholic and killed some while driving drunk? Of course not, but you would regret the innocent person’s death. Were you responsible in anyway? No. The new owner made a choice to misuse the property you sold them. The only possible way for you to be in any way the least bit culpable is if you knew beforehand their intentions.

With a gun, one’s former legal and moral due diligence was to not sell to a person they knew to be a gang member or otherwise ineligible to own a gun. Before Facebook banned gun sales, buyers there could be quickly vetted on the basis of what their profile contained. Making a subjective judgement about a potential buyer is beyond the ability of any computer system and even human judgement is fallible. The new law provides no penalty for knowingly selling a gun to a gang member; the only thing the proponents of universal background checks care about is that the buyer/transferee pass the background check.

“Boating accidents” and other mishaps

Let’s imagine it’s the future and the Gun Confiscation Task Force knows you own guns and has a very good idea of exactly what guns you own. You decide to surrender your dealer-bought guns, but they want the ones you bought privately. “We know you bought an AR-15 rifle from ‘eugenes_ghost’ from COLT15.com in October of 2014. Where is that gun?” What do you do? Remember, you can’t deny owning it.

This is where your “boating accident” story comes into play: “You see, Special Agent, I went fishing with my guns one day and when the boat capsized, all my guns fell in the lake.” ATF agents know the joke and won’t find it funny. Your best defense is to simply state that you sold the guns legally, long ago, you don’t remember whom to, and you did not keep a bill of sale. Invoke your right to silence immediately after that and say nothing no matter what else they say. Never change your story.

Conclusion

Keep your mouth shut. Don’t put anything in writing. Vet who you sell to/buy from. Without compliance, they can’t make the unconstitutional gun laws work. As always, use this information and disobey the law, wrong as it is, at your own risk.


Wednesday, November 9, 2016

The Truth About Question 1

The biggest question is, why did  a billionaire from New York City, Michael Bloomberg, buy a gun control law in Nevada? Why did he do it in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Maine as well? We know from various statements and other sources that the ultimate goal is gun registration and ideally an Australian gun control scheme complete with confiscations.

Universal background checks are just a lie sold to a gullible, low-information public to accept temporary safety at the expense of liberty. There is no gun show or internet loophole and background checks can always be done by a dealer between any two parties who want one.

Now Question 1 was sold to the public as “background checks on all gun sales”; an absolute weasel word phrase. The majority of guns sales come through dealers and various studies have shown that private sales of the type Question 1 would prohibit are not the main, or even top source of criminals’ guns. Private gun sales create a problem for gun registration because it is a market that cannot be accurately tracked.

Universal background checks are unenforceable without knowing definitively who actually owns the gun, so by its very nature, a universal background check needs gun registration. Gun registration needs not background checks, but guns to go through gun dealers. A retroactive gun registration requirement would be met with massive non-compliance and outright rebellion, so, as in the case of California in particular, the preferred method to gun registration is via dealer sale/transaction reporting (see the California DROS-Dealers’ Record of Sale).

Once all guns sales/transactions must go through dealers, they are recorded on ATF Form 4473s, which creates a scattered, analogue gun registry now. However, as California does, requiring dealers to report the sales/transactions to the government will gradually create a registry of every new gun sold and every used gun that legally changes hands. Eventually, through sales/trades of used guns, or a winnowing of exemptions (California recently eliminated the exemption for family member trades or sales), virtually all used guns, after many years, will be in the registry as well.

Wrapping up the gun registration rabbit hole, the curious question is: Why did Question 1 require private gun sales/transfers to go through the federal NICS system while Nevada has a more complete state system that has local and federal records? Easy; once enough states have banned private sales and have their checks run through NICS, it is so much easier to have Congress pass a federal dealer reporting, aka gun registration, system built on a foundation of NICS background checks.

Answering the above question about Mr. Bloomberg (and not speculating on his personal motives), the only answer is once again is an insidious plot to gradually introduce a gun registry. In 2013, the universal background checks bills in Congress were shut down and many losses happened in other states, including Nevada. Stymied by politicians and checks and balances, Bloomberg’s hydra-headed gun control groups and the other usual suspects began to exploit weak, ‘purple’ states with large numbers of Democrats. In Oregon, the governor signed a bill into law.

Since so many state legislatures and governors, such as our own Gov. Sandoval, shut down this latest gun control scheme, the anti-gun groups had to find a way around such obstacles. Ballot initiatives don’t have any checks and balances; a bare plurality of voters can even amend state constitutions. Using the guise of public safety, and lots and lots of money, people who don’t understand the issue can essentially be “bought” into voting away their gun rights. That’s what happened in Washington in 2014, and possibly in Nevada and Maine as well. The exploitation of the initiative system by the rich should horrify and enrage all Americans.

As for the law itself, it will bring Nevadans no benefit. Under Washington’s version, only one prosecution has been brought, and that was only after the victim was killed. All this law can be, in practical terms, is an additional charge after the fact (or at the worst, harassment of gun owners). As it stands, prosecutions for prohibited persons attempting to buy guns, or actually being in possession, are dismally low, especially in Nevada. In California, which has had similar laws for many years, background checks did not stop the San Bernardino terrorists (who were actually eligible to buy guns) nor the legions of gang violence of the year.

This law will disproportionately affect women, Blacks, Hispanics, and the LGBT community. Women and minorities have historically been uncomfortable in gun stores and may be deterred from owning a gun because the route they feel comfortable with, buying from a friend or relative, will be non-existent. Additionally, the strict regulation of transfers would prohibit one member of an unmarried, live-in couple using the other member’s firearm without a background check. Even with a legal temporary transfer, the gun’s owner must get a background check himself for the borrower to legally return the gun.

This law is a dog’s breakfast. It is so terribly written that one can look at similar bills in various states from 2013 and see its evolution. The intent is not safety; it’s about gun registration.


Anti-Gunners Buy Ultra-Narrow Question 1 Win


Watch out criminals! Starting January 1, 2017 it’ll be more illegal for you to illegally buy a firearm. We passed another law! Michael Bloomberg (former New York City mayor, gun control advocate, and large sized soda hater) decided that NRS 202.362, which makes it a category B felony (up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine) for felons, gang members, etc. to buy guns or to sell guns to them, just wasn’t enough to keep Nevada safe. Now, thanks to his generous donations and the operations of his inspired gun control groups, it’s double-extra-bad for criminals to criminally acquire firearms.

With the passage of Ballot Question 1, with a stunning mandate of a whopping less than 1% (as of 2 AM) in favor, private guns sales and transfers are now illegal. Give a gun to your boyfriend or girlfriend; illegal! Lend a hunting rifle to a buddy; illegal! Out-of-state visitor borrows a pistol; illegal (and they can’t get a background check either because it’s illegal for dealers to transfer pistols to out-of-state residents). Your cousin buys your old pistol; illegal! Handle your roommate’s gun at home? Illegal!

Criminals, this may or may not apply to you. If you are a prohibited person (generally felons), this does not apply. That’s right, forcing felons to get background checks constitutes an unconstitutional self-admission of guilt! You couldn’t be properly convicted of the crime. And if you have a clear record, nothing will stop you from legally buying the gun and using it later, just ask the majority of high-profile shooting murderers. Or, you can have your girlfriend, buddy, or family member with a clean record go and buy the gun for you. As long no one finds out, it’s not a problem. Be smart! Background checks only stop the stupid.

As for you, legal gun owner; you’re the problem! You with your gun show loophole—yeah, we saw you looking at those antique pistols and those surplus rifles on all three non-FFL tables at the gun show. It guys like you, leaving electronic trails all over gun forums, email, and auction websites who are arming terrorists and drug dealers! Not very many, but some of them. If we just save one life…like full background checks stopped those terrorists in California…wait, they didn’t? They were able to pass a background check and were just too dumb to know better? Well, nevermind that! If we just save one life…

In Washington, we got a bad guy! The guy who sold a gun without a background check to another dude who later murdered a third dude is going to court. Yeah, we’re so gonna burn him with a misdemeanor. That’ll stop people from arming criminals and committing murder. Watch us make an example of that guy! He might even get a year in jail! If they ever find him since he skipped town. That’s a whole one prosecution after only 50 denials (2% of all background checks)--nevermind the fact that universal background checks didn’t stop a murder. That’s not important.

And don’t worry if you sell or transfer a gun to your friends, Clark County DA Wolfson said he’s not going to prosecute you. Heck, he might not even prosecute you even if he does catch you and you’re a real dirtbag. He only filed two prohibited person cases in two years! So you probably got a pretty good chance of not getting busted (instructions on how to not get convicted will follow later this week).

And if you’re worried that this isn’t enough gun control, don’t worry! Everytown for Gun Safety will be back soon with gun violence restraining orders, assault weapon bans, and gun registration. Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Virginia...you’re next! Each win is an encouragement for the anti-gun coalitions and they’ll keep expanding, pushing, and winning until “common sense” gun laws go federal.

Special thanks goes to the uninformed voter, who took the word of a couple of random, retired cops and to vote “yes” based on some scary commercials featuring mostly white dudes buying and selling guns on the street in broad-daylight. Even more thanks is owed to the gun owner who didn’t vote, or didn’t bother to educate themselves on the topic. Remember, posting a meme on Facebook is way better than actually doing something to stop gun control. Thanks to your inaction, we just narrowly lost unlike Maine’s nearly 4% margin to defeat.

Despite the NRA dumping millions in, it was only a fraction of what Everytown, Bloomberg, rich Las Vegas liberals, and out-of-state billionaires spent. The countless hours of volunteers making signs, holding rallies, and manning the polls was naught in the face of all the true believing soccer moms, liberal grandmothers, feminist-studies college students, and the bunches of people getting cash from Everytown. Remember, money can always buy an election!

Now go out there, buy guns privately until New Years, and jack up the prices on everything including the mythical .22LR ammo. We’re confident that thanks to Question 1, Nevada’s gun violence will drop to remarkably low levels, because as always, it’s never the criminal, it’s always the gun.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Final Warning: Vote NO on Question 1


Question 1 is bad for Nevadans, bad for gun owners, and bad for public safety. Vote no on 1.

The biggest question is, why is a billionaire from New York City, Michael Bloomberg, trying to buy a gun control law in Nevada? Why did he do it in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, etc. and trying to do so right now in Maine as well? We know from various statements and other sources that the ultimate goal is gun registration and ideally an Australian gun control scheme complete with confiscations.

Background checks are just a lie sold to a gullible, low-information public to accept temporary safety at the expense of liberty. There is no gun show or internet loophole and background checks can always be done by a dealer between any two parties who want one.

Now Question 1 is being sold to the public as “background checks on all gun sales”; an absolute weasel word phrase. The majority of guns sales come through dealers and various studies have shown that private sales of the type Question 1 would prohibit are not the main, or even top source of criminals’ guns. Private gun sales create a problem for gun registration because it is a market that cannot be accurately tracked.

Universal background checks are unenforceable without knowing definitively who actually owns the gun, so by its very nature, a universal background check needs gun registration. Gun registration needs not background checks, but guns to go through gun dealers. A retroactive gun registration requirement would be met with massive non-compliance and outright rebellion, so, as in the case of California in particular, the preferred method to gun registration is via dealer sale/transaction reporting (see the California DROS-Dealers’ Record of Sale).

Once all guns sales/transactions must go through dealers, they are recorded on ATF Form 4473s, which creates a scattered, analogue gun registry now. However, as California does, requiring dealers to report the sales/transactions to the government will gradually create a registry of every new gun sold and every used gun that legally changes hands. Eventually, through sales/trades of used guns, or a winnowing of exemptions (California recently eliminated the exemption for family member trades or sales), virtually all used guns, after many many years, will be in the registry as well.

Wrapping up the gun registration rabbit hole, the curious question is: Why would Question 1 require private gun sales/transfers to go through the federal NICS system while Nevada has a more complete state system that has local and federal records? Easy; once enough states have banned private sales and have their checks run through NICS, it is so much easier to have Congress pass a federal dealer reporting, aka gun registration, system built on a foundation of NICS background checks.

Answering my above question about Mr. Bloomberg (and not speculating on his personal motives), the only answer is once again is an insidious plot to gradually introduce a gun registry. In 2013, the universal background checks bills in Congress were shut down and many losses happened in other states, including Nevada. Stymied by politicians and checks and balances, Bloomberg’s hydra-headed gun control groups and the other usual suspects began to exploit weak, ‘purple’ states with large numbers of Democrats. In Oregon, the governor signed a bill into law.

Since so many state legislatures and governors, such as our own Gov. Sandoval, shut down this latest gun control scheme, the anti-gun groups had to find a way around such obstacles. Ballot initiatives don’t have any checks and balances; 51% of voters can even amend state constitutions. Using the guise of public safety, and lots and lots of money, people who don’t understand the issue can essentially be “bought” into voting away their gun rights. That’s what happened in Washington in 2014, and possibly in Nevada and Maine as well. The exploitation of the initiative system by the rich should horrify and enrage all Americans.

As for the law itself, it will bring Nevadans no benefit. Under Washington’s version, only one prosecution has been brought, and that was only after the victim was killed. All this law can be, in practical terms, is an additional charge after the fact (or at the worst, harassment of gun owners). As it stands, prosecutions for prohibited persons attempting to buy guns, or actually being in possession, are dismally low, especially in Nevada. In California, which has had similar laws for many years, background checks did not stop the San Bernardino terrorists (who were actually eligible to buy guns) nor the legions of gang violence of the year. In fact, most imported crime guns in Nevada come from California.

This law will disproportionately affect women, Blacks, Hispanics, and the LGBT community. Women and minorities have historically been uncomfortable in gun stores and may be deterred from owning a gun because the route they feel comfortable with, buying from a friend or relative, will be non-existent. Additionally, the strict regulation of transfers would prohibit one member of an unmarried, live-in couple using the other member’s firearm without a background check. Even with a legal temporary transfer, the gun’s owner must get a background check himself for the borrower to legally return the gun.

This law is a dog’s breakfast. It is so terribly written that one can look at similar bills in various states from 2013 and see its evolution. The intent is not safety; it’s about gun registration.

On the ground, signs and bumper stickers for “No on Question 1” far outnumber the “yeses.” Everytown issued an email recently complaining of gun owners filming “yes” supporters at early voting sites. They left out this was in response to repeated violations by Everytown volunteers of the electioneering laws. The “harassment” was actually discouraged Everytown volunteers walking away from “No” supporters when prospective voters regularly voiced their opposition to Question 1. It was so frequent that “yes” volunteers were demoralized enough to where they remarked to colleagues that they “couldn’t take it anymore” and wandered away.


Unfortunately, many Nevadans and even gun owners don’t know the details of the Question. The various TV ads can create only interest to seek out more information. If Question 1 is passed, it will have succeeded thanks to millions poured in to buffalo voters and because the general ignorance of voters was being exploited. We can guarantee that if Question 1 passes, a slew of gun control legislation and initiatives will follow, including “gun violence restraining orders” and the gradual roll-back of Nevada’s excellent gun laws.


Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Gun Bloggers Agree: Springfield Throws a Hell of a Party


After reviewing press coverage for Springfield Armory’s new product, their Saint AR-15 platform, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the product and the reviews. Granted, I prefer the venerable M1 Garand and shoot my own mixmaster AR-15 (I’m currently in the market for an M1A Scout Squad). Still, the rifle is nothing to write home about.

It’s basically a upper-shelf AR-15 featuring Bravo Company furniture. It looks clean and I’m sure it functions great. Now, I haven’t shot it so I can’t give you a run-down on the gun, but the hype leading up to its debut was just that; hype. Pretty much every major company has its own AR-15 variant, like the expansion of 1911s years back. This is just Springfield’s “Look, I can make an AR-15 too!” Lest I be misunderstood, I’d jump at the chance to own one.

For those of you who saw the Facebook posts, the blog articles, and the website teasing their new platform, you can probably understand why I take issue with the buildup and some reactions are what bothers me. I think that Daniel Terrill from guns.com poked a little fun at the ads: 
“In commercials the rifles are accented by beautiful shooters, who clearly love working out, with sweat glistening on their bodies, covered by tight Under Armour clothing, and ominous electronic music. Standing in deserts and mountaintops, they aim by leveling the fore-end with a fully extended arm — like a pro — before opening fire at an unknown enemy.” 
Patrick R. over at The Firearm Blog, a pretty good joint, seemed more impressed with the awesome shooting experience Springfield setup in the Nevada desert than the rifle, posting a three-part article on it. He was clearly enthralled with our lovely city’s amusements, the helicopter ride, the shooting, and the evening zombie-exploding car events. He had every gun owner’s dream Vegas experience and I don’t begrudge him his experience one bit. TTAG’s article was a bit similar and is all on one page.

On the other hand (pay attention Springfield), are you selling a rifle or a freakin’ Vegas fun package? Press events for guns, cars, and all kinds of stuff tend to be big deals like this, with all kinds of wining and dining in various forms, for whatever you can imagine. But seriously, what the hell? Looks like Springfield was late to the game with ARs (reasons exist) and tried to wow the gun bloggers with an over-the-top event to cover up the fact their new gun has already been done many, many times before. And the bloggers took the bait with their new guns and vacations.

Ruger, probably the closest analogue to Springfield, has its SR-series piston AR platform and even a take-down model. That’s innovation. Slapping BCM parts on an AR-15 doesn’t make an  innovative product. Even the charging handle and the bolt catch are standard; an ambidextrous charging handle and an enhanced bolt catch (with the paddle to lock the bolt back) seem like obvious additions. Coating the trigger part with nickel-boron and reducing the play between the receivers is something, but again, this is just another mid-level quality rifle, not anything super special.


Frankly, it seems like all the praising reviews are from guys that got free rifles or were invited on the Vegas trip. The bloggers were so “wowed” with their free shit that they forgot to tell us that this gun is nothing special and a late addition to the already crowded AR-15 market. I guess all the suspense that lead the gun-owning hoi pilloi to think Springfield was introducing a gun-centric Crossfit-style exercise program was mainly just to stoke the interest of the privileged few gun bloggers. Springfield succeeded there.