Thursday, December 29, 2016

How Will the Dems Resurrect Question 1?

How can the Democrats resurrect universal background checks banning private gun sales after their humiliating defeat via the FBI and the Attorney General's opinion? We're also certainly facing a slew of anti-gun bills, not from popular desire, but from Democrats lacking any moral fiber looking to exploit their control over the legislature. This includes magazine bans. This is still Nevada, so not very much is likely to succeed, but with the new, "progressive" Democrat Party, expect them to take any dirty tricks pushing their agenda.

Let's take a look at what they might try and the chances of success.

Background checks background

For reference, remember that the Brady Bill requires background checks on all retail sales by federally licensed dealers (FFLs). States have three options:
  1. Their own Point of Contact center (Nevada and 12 other states)
  2. Use the FBI NICS system (31 states)
  3. Use state center for long gun and federal center for handgun or vise versa (seven states)
The state systems have access to the same data NICS has, plus local records (which the FBI told Attorney General Laxalt are superior to the federal system). Nevada rightly chose this system.

Get the FBI to change it's mind

Not likely. The head of the freakin' background check department said "no" to Nevada for very good reasons. With the incoming Republican Trump administration, this is unlikely to change. Plus there is the whole problem of blame pointing if a federal background check were to fail, lead to a mass shooting, when it could have been prevented by the Nevada system. If something like that were to happen, I'm sure the Democratic legislative caucus would blame "Russian hackers" or something. Maybe FBI Director Comey?

Most likely solution-legislation

Question 1 cannot be simply "fixed" in the 2017 legislative session. 
"An initiative measure so approved by the voters shall not be amended, annulled, repealed, set aside or suspended by the Legislature within 3 years from the date it takes effect." Article 19, Sec. 2 Nevada Constitution
What they can do is approve legislation, and Democrats almost certainly will, a duplicate of the same background check law on file, creating (i.e.) NRS 202.254.1, with the following changes to switch from the NICS system to the state system:

3. (a) the licensed dealer must contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as described in 18 U.S.C. 922(t), and not the Central Repository Nevada Department of Public Safety Point of Contact Center, to determine whether the buyer or transferee is eligible to purchase and possess firearms under state and federal law; 

4. A licensed dealer who agrees to conduct a background check pursuant to this section shall inform the seller or transferor and the buyer or transferee of the response from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Nevada Department of Public Safety Point of Contact Center. if the response indicated that the buyer or transferee is ineligible to purchase or poesses the firearm, the licensed dealer shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor and the seller or transferor shall not sell or transfer the firearm to the buyer or transferee.

This will incur a fiscal impact, which is why the Bloomberg groups didn't put this method on the ballot in the first place, as Nevada doesn't have much money to go around. They ought to have checked with the FBI beforehand.

This leaves us with the problem of two laws on the books with one DOA (Question 1). Of course, that makes it so much easier for a Republican legislature to eradicate it in 2019, god-willing. Question 1 is therefore not "amended" and is basically left alone. But getting really technical, compliance with the new universal background check law would leave you in violation of Question 1. Way to go Democrats...

Switch from state POC to NICS for all background checks?

Not likely. Doing this would have to ignore the irrefutable statement from the FBI (which is true also) that the Nevada system has better records and is superior to NICS. If the anti-gunners are truly about safety (which they aren't), they'd have chosen the state system to begin with and avoid this whole problem. Instead, they looked for a silver bullet that ended up being nothing more than shiny lead. If they tried this, they then have to explain why the inferior federal system should be used to block a handful of private gun sales.

Then we get to money. Can Nevada really afford to absorb losing the background check fees? NICS is free to the consumer, despite what the dealer might charge for their transfer service. The Department of Public Safety runs all retail sale background checks in Nevada. Currently, they run around 100,000 a year, totaling about $2.5 million in fees, a sizeable portion of income. Not all of it goes to the Point of Contact system, but is likely absorbed by DPS as a whole.
"The Department has indicated that, if licensed dealers are required to access NICS directly for background checks on all gun sales, this would result in the elimination of approximately 13 positions and a loss in revenue of approximately $2.7 million per year, which is used to support the current operations of the CHR [Criminal History Repository]. This loss in revenue would result in a negative financial impact upon state government, as additional revenue would be required from the State General Fund or other sources to supplant revenues used to support the CHR’s functions." (source)

Nevada Point of Contact background check figures

2010 = 91,104
2011 = 104,299
2012 = 126,276
2013 = 120,919
2014 = 95,427
2015 = 102,305
2016 = 103,589 (through 11/30/2016)

Now how many private sales/transfers will there be? Will there be enough fees coming in to justify the additional workload? One estimate was that it would cost an addition $450,000, which might be recouped in fees, but that's just an estimate. No one really knows how many private sale background checks there would be, but it stands to be a waste of money given the lack of any real return to public safety. It stands to be seen if the more traditional Democrats (the non-progressive, frothing at the mouth liberals) from rural counties really want to pay for something their constituents didn't support.

Will the governor veto gun control bills? Can the Dems override a veto?

Gov. Sandoval is somewhat of a wildcard, being a moderate Republican, but he has shown strong support for the Second Amendment. He successfully vetoed SB 221, passed by Democrats in 2013, which lead to Question 1. He also publicly opposed Question 1. Even if he is a horse-trader, it would be difficult for him to later reconcile in any other election why he suddenly flip-flopped. Odds are he would likely veto any anti-gun legislation again, but he would need your support and encouragement.

The governor has five days to veto any bill, but the legislature can override a veto by a 2/3rd majority vote. If the bill is vetoed, but the legislature is out of session, the governor has 10 days to veto it, where the next session of the legislature (remember special sessions, not just regular) can attempt to override the veto. (Article 4, Sec. 35, Nevada Constitution)

27 Democrats (supermajority)
15 Republicans

12 Democrats
9 Republicans

Republican senate candidate Patricia Farley defected from the Republican Party to become an independant senator who will caucus with the Democrats (she is counted as one). Democrats are still short two votes of a supermajority in the senate which can override vetos.

First, anything can happen, but veto overrides are not exactly common and if the bill is vetoed after the session adjourns, a year or so will pass before there is another chance to override it and plenty of minds can change in that time. Also, all counties but Clark County voted "no" on Question 1 and it failed the popular vote, save for Clark County voters, meaning that there is very little popular support for more background checks in the rural and northern counties. It's not hard to imagine one or more Democrat senators failing to vote along party lines, especially to overturn a veto, when the majority of their constituents oppose the law. Or one can hope.

If all else fails, Nevadans will probably ignore the law to some degree. We already know that law enforcement would enforce it selectively and that in other states, particularly Washington where only one charge has been filed after a murder was committed, don't aggressively prosecute violations. Most people do want to follow the law and will do so, as long as it is not cumbersome, and so most will get background checks out of fear/respect for the system or simply not buy guns privately.

Massive non-compliance regarding other laws, such as magazine restrictions, is already commonplace in Colorado, which restricted magazine capacity to 15 in 2013. Standard capacity magazines can be found openly for sale on gun store shelves. Californians are set to not comply with the ex post facto magazine ban for 2017, and the same behavior has been seen in New York and Connecticut. Nevadans are likely to take a more hostile attitude and totally disregard a magazine ban that no one would dare enforce, unless Scummy Joe Lombardo wants to start pushing a black and white again.

Gun control will probably cause the Democrats to lose their control over the legislature, if not outright flip it again. They don't seem to be aware the reason they got the legislature this year was because of the turnout for the presidential vote and backlash against the RINOs spectacular failure. A successful Republican Trump administration is likely to change many minds to be favorable towards the Republican party. As always, ex-pat Californians who bring their Democrat voting patterns with them, minority groups who have been co-opted by liberal lies, and voter fraud are always a problem. Nevada may be lost, but it will not be lost because of an honest vote.

And hell, worst case scenario, gun owners know what the Second Amendment is for. Democrats seems to fail to remember that in history, an angry and armed populace does not take kindly to tyranny. Just ask the Redcoats that tried to take the arms and ammunition in Concord how that worked out.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Breaking News: Background Checks Stalled by AG

Ballot Question 1, will not be enforceable on January 1, 2017. Attorney General Adam Laxalt has provided this opinion in which he found that citizens cannot comply with the terms of the law. In short, Nevada has chosen a state system and the FBI will not provide duplicate services for private sales. Ballot Question 1 has not been thrown out or delayed from statutory implementation, rather the attorney general has stated that it is not enforceable, meaning that “citizens may not be prosecuted for for their inability to comply with the Act.” While technically illegal, prosecution for a private gun sale is highly unlikely as attempting to comply with the terms of the law (codified as NRS 202.254) would be impossible.

Ballot Question 1, narrowly passed by about 9,000 voters (and only succeeding in Clark County), bans gun sales between private citizens. It was an initiative paid for and marketed by former New York mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Previously, Nevada law allowed free, voluntary background checks for citizens wishing to sell firearms face-to-face. With the revision of NRS 202.254, there are no longer free background checks for private sales and if one wished to get a background check on a private sale, one would have to have a dealer take posession of the firearm and pay $25, as if the firearm was shipped through the mail.

It is believed that the required usage of the FBI NICS system vs. the state system was in part due to gradually "encourage" states to switch to the federal system to better enable a sale/transaction based gun registration system, where gun transfers and sales are used to track who owns a firearm. Without registration, failure to comply with background checks is very difficult to prove.

The Opinion

Basically, the FBI refuses to run background checks on behalf of the Nevada Department of Public Safety, as Nevada has chosen its own Point-of-Contact (POC) center to run background checks (one option of the Brady Bill). This duplicates efforts and federal regulations require all federal or all state (option for a split-system applies only to long guns vs. handguns, not retail vs. private sale).

Since it is impossible for dealers to run background checks as required by the law, and with sales sans a background check banned by law, it would be impossible to privately transfer a firearm  legally. This is a Catch-22 and a deprivation of a right without due process of law, as the opinion noted. Therefore, the law must be invalidated because the law cannot require one to comply with the impossible.

The opinion was based on a question posed by the director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety. The question was whether or not the state had the authority to run checks through the Federal system and charge fees. The FBI was conducted as part of the attorney general's research.
“The Nevada Supreme Court long ago adopted the doctrine that the law does not require impossible acts. When a law imposes a requirement that cannot be performed, a party is relieved of compliance until the obstacle to performance is lifted.” 
The law “operates as a total ban, clearly at at odds with the intent of voters,” which was to create background checks on private gun sales (taking the law at face value). “It is manifestly unjust to criminally penalize someone for failing to perform an act that is impossible to perform.” 
“Because the FBI will not perform the background checks required by the Act, enforcement of its criminal penalties will have the unintended consequence of punishing conduct that is widely and reasonably perceived by Nevadans to be lawful.”


The FBI NICS Section will not perform background checks requested by Nevada FFLs are required by the initiative. The FBI explained “the recent passage of Nevada legislation...cannot dictate how federal resources are applied” and that “private party background checks are the ‘responsibility of Nevada to be conducted as any other background check for firearms through the Nevada [Department of Public Safety].’”

The FBI's has decided that it is not the FBI's responsibility to conduct private background checks for Nevada, but rather that "these background checks [are to be] conducted as any other background check for firearms, through the Nevada DPS..." But the strict language of the initiative itself requires the federal system be used, which does not allow a simple switch of systems based on the FBI's disinterest in participating.

The FBI did not specifically address whether or not the dealer themselves could sign up for a federal NICS account, but the intent of their letter was that they would have no part in private sale background checks. The FBI might change their opinion administratively or in response to legislation, but under the incoming Trump administration and a Republican controlled Congress, federal changes are unlikely.

Anti-Gunners Shot Themselves in the Foot

This language of the poorly-written law and the method chosen, the popular initiative system, doomed Question 1. The law provided no alternative to use the state system (it specifically required the federal NICS system), and per the state constitution, the law cannot be altered for three years, so there is no quick correction. The anti-gun authors didn't plan for the contingency that the FBI would not play along with their scheme. In fact, the same core version of the law has been traveling from state to state since 2012, gradually evolving as each state exposed flaws in the law.

The legislature cannot change the law for three years, no matter what. No correction of "mistake" (more like a fatal oversight). The idea behind the "no-interference" rule for initiatives is to prevent the legislature from undoing the will of the people (or the will of Clark County Democrat voters, as it were). By choosing this method, instead of writing a better law or waiting for Democrat state government trifecta, the proponents set themselves up for failure.

What the Democratic controlled state legislature will likely attempt to do is pass a legislative background check bill with the "deficiency" corrected. Republican Governor Sandoval vetoed such a bill in 2013, SB 221 and opposed Question 1, so that's likely off-the-table. Or they might try to abolish the Nevada Point-of-Contact center and require all background checks to go through the FBI, thus eliminating one of the FBI’s objections.  However, this route would require Gov. Sandoval’s approval and would invalidate the FBI’s quite real point that Nevada has better access to local records, making the Nevada center a better choice, and thus nothing is likely to change.

The FBI illustrates the perfect point about the NICS systems deficiencies:
"State and local authorities serving as POCs are likely to have readier access to more detailed information for processing background checks than the FBI, thus resulting in fewer system misses of disqualified persons and enhancing system responsiveness for non-disqualified persons. The POCs have access to more current criminal history record and more data sources (particularly regarding noncriminal disqualifiers such as mental health commitments) from their own state than does the FBI, and have a better understanding of their own state laws and disqualifying factors. Specifically, the POC for Nevada checks additional databases to include state protection orders, state warrants, state driver's licenses, parole and probation, and SCOPE (which is Clark County, Las Vegas area records). Also, most of Nevada's protection orders are not in the National Crime Information Center File, which is important to note since only the POC has access to these protections orders and if the FBI were processing background checks on private party sales of firearms for Nevada, these protection orders would not be part of the NICS check.
"The state of Nevada can provide a more comprehensive NICS check that is accomplished when a POC access state-held databases that are not available to the FBI. The Nevada DPS is also in a better position for understanding and applying state laws."

This information alone, specifically that the Federal system is inferior, illustrates that the anti-gun crowd is not only ignorant of the background check system, but prioritizes the groundwork for registration over public safety. If the Bloomberg groups truly cared about safety, they would have chosen the superior Nevada system over the federal, but registration is their goal (and making it harder for citizens to buy and sell guns).

Another reason the NICS check may have been required was because it is "free" in that the FBI does not charge a fee, even though a dealer may charge for being the intermediary handling the transfer. Transfer fees are common for mail-order guns, which are required to be sent to a licensed dealer. Such a fiscal impact would have likely caused the initiative to be rejected based on the increased cost to the state and thus NICS was a ploy to get the law passed.

Could this be challenged in court? It could possibly be, an attorney general opinion is not like an opinion from a state Supreme Court that established case law. However, the state will not prosecute technical violations and attorney general opinions are seen by city and district attorneys as official guidance on the law. If one were prosecuted or the law challenged, the defenses would fall on to the argument made in the opinion that the law does not require the impossible.


The opinion concludes: “...Nevadans are not required to perform the impossible and are therefore excused from compliance with the Act’s background check requirement unless and until the FBI changes its position…” Based on this attorney general’s opinion, at this time, Ballot Question 1 and the revised version of NRS 202.254 are unenforceable, though it is still on the books. For all intents and purposes, beginning Jan. 1, 2017 until further notice, private gun sales are still legal in Nevada.

Stay tuned--this is breaking news.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Recall Scummy Joe!

Our brother over at Nevada 2A (NV2A) has started a petition to recall Scummy Joe in his position as Clark County Sheriff in response to his un-American, anti-gun statements to the Las Vegas Sun supporting a standard capacity magazine ban. As of press time, a little over a thousand people have signed it. The goal is 1,500.

We'd start a petition to return all cops to six-shot revolvers and five-shot pump shotguns, but that would be stupid. Wonder if Black Lives Matter might be interested...

Lombardo’s department has been shockingly ineffective at keeping homicides and violent crime at bay. Homicides were up 80% in March of 2016. In October, homicides evened out to a 25% increase over 2015 and a case of dubious self-defense caused a 20 year high for murders. Lombardo says 50% of the homicides are related to gang activity, but some of his changes have been criticized. 

Gang expert Wes McBride, a retired gang detective, said that Lombardo's decision to break up the gang unit helped increase street crime. Metro blames California for exporting it’s gang members (true to a degree), but Metro can’t admit that Las Vegas simply has a gang problem because of the endemic poverty in some neighborhoods. “If they admit to having a local gang problem, they’re seen as being a weak administrator,” said McBride.

 Metro police officers, via their unions, blame the decentralization of the gang unit for making sharing intelligence harder and diverting gang detectives to other types of investigations. Don’t forget the plan to pull detectives into black and whites for a few weeks of patrol to help out on the manpower shortage. Seems no one wants to be a cop anymore and the “more cops” tax just isn’t enough.

Scummy Joe also blames “the increase in firearms.” The increase in the use of firearms? The increase of illegal possession of firearms? Or does he mean “more guns=bad?” That kind of statement is like blaming an increase in car sales for an increase in traffic deaths and DUIs, but logic is not exactly the ken of anti-gunners.

Of course, there are remarkably few prosecutions and convictions for illegal gun possession. Why not create a task force dedicated to targeting crooked FFLs, street gun dealers, and felons in possession of firearms? The DA’s firearm task force is a couple of ADA’s who work on violent crime cases that involve guns, not getting guns out of the hands of bad guys. Sadly, gun laws are seldom enforced.

In the mind of a gun grabber, of which Scummy Joe certainly is one, passing a law, like Question 1, is easier than actually catching criminals and prosecuting them. Banning standard capacity magazines is part of an incremental strategy to ban guns. Police administrations (not your beat cop) don’t like armed citizens because they tend to compete with police’s monopoly of power as the only gun-toters on the street.

Another reason is civilian disarmament is a favorite of governments and police because all gun possession is illegal, and therefore anyone who has a gun is a criminal. For this reason, top cops like disarmament. Anyone with a gun is a bad guy. Patrol cops don’t need to think about it and can’t really wink at grandma who has a magnum in the glove box. It makes their job a lot easier if they can arrest anyone who has a gun in public.

Imagine a patrol officer stops a car full of young black men in a Hispanic neighborhood known for a gang problem. The officer believes the men are ready to do a drive-by, but the gun is legally owned and possessed in the vehicle. The driver, who has the gun, has no known gang ties and is not a prohibited person. Unless the officer actually has probable cause to arrest the driver for conspiracy to commit murder, etc., he cannot arrest the driver for having a gun. Damn you, US Constitution and racial profiling prohibitions! This was a huge problem to California cops—except when the cops just said “screw it” and decided to just arrest everyone and take the guns anyway.

Rather than deal with the gang at its roots, more and more gun control laws were passed. So if an officer found a loaded gun in car, then an unloaded gun, then a unloaded handgun not in a locked container, he could make an arrest. Criminals evolved with the law or simply ran the risk of being caught, so the law had to change until the point that basically thinking about a gun in public became a felony. Instead of treating the underlying disease, gun control only treats the symptoms.

Nevermind that a perfectly law-abiding person just wants to be safe; sorry, thems the breaks. Carry a gun because you drive a truck through George Soros funded riots in Oakland and don’t want to be the next Reginald Denny? Sorry, that’s illegal. All guns are bad you see.

These points are lost on Scummy Joe. In his defense, he actually seems to give a shit about violence, but is unwilling or unable to actually confront the problem which causes gangs. Prosecutors plea bargain things down and criminals don’t do the time they deserve. Our criminal justice system is hopelessly broken precisely because the men who are able to effect change, Lombardo and DA Wolfson, don’t do it. Calling for the prompt execution of murderers, three-strikes, long prison sentences, etc. is politically inconvenient and too much trouble.

Where does the mag ban come in again? Civilian disarmament is unlikely in the United States and would undoubtedly start a civil war, so steps must be taken incrementally. Public opinion has swung well in favor of firearms and continues to rise. What anti-gunners want to do is slowly erode rights and change gun culture. By making guns harder to own, use, and carry, it becomes too difficult for gun owners to keep up and comply with the laws. Eventually, they give in an surrender to the inevitable. Once guns become uncommon and people aren’t interested anymore, there is no public outcry when a ban is called for. Question 1 and this magazine ban is part of that whole plan.

It’s not guns that are the problem and Scummy Joe knows that. The violence in the valley is likely a cause of California criminals coming to Nevada for a cheaper cost of living, to escape California warrants and rap sheets, and also the release of California criminals due to prison overcrowding (known as Jerry’s Kids, after Gov. Jerry Brown). Las Vegas is also where a lot of people move to when they run out of options. Nevada has been the place to run away to for a new start for a long time, the sun and heat, and no state income tax is really appealing. With the amount of poverty in the valley, you’re going to see crime and gangs right along with it. Until society confronts problems that create gangs—a weak criminal justice system, poverty, and ghetto culture—gang violence will be a problem.

If Lombardo had simply been a crappy sheriff, it wouldn’t matter. Street cops and detectives are the heart of law enforcement; the brass could elope to Mexico and no one would probably notice. Instead of just sucking at his job, Lombardo doubled down and jumped on the disarmament train, thinking that Nevada’s slide to a Democrat voting blue state and Democrat dominated legislature was the perfect cover. Nope, sorry. Gun owners and people who actually care about their safety and liberty are fighting back.

-G. C.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Nevada to Ban "High Cap Mags"? Vegas Sheriff Supports It

So Clark County’s casino sheriff shows his true colors: he’s an anti-gunner who cares not for your rights. We suspected it a few months ago when he was telling people in private that he supported Ballot Question 1, banning private gun sales. Now Sheriff Joe Lombardo is calling for a high-capacity magazine ban, vomiting up the same tired bullshit that citizens don’t need or deserve them, hinting at the outright mendacity that “the Second Amendment is for hunting.”

Lombardo told the Las Vegas Sun (a liberal mouthpiece) “I’m a very avid hunter, I was in the military myself, and there’s no need to have a high-capacity magazine for any practical reason.”

Since we’re lacking the whole interview, we don’t know the full remarks of his statement, but this one is asinine. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is primarily intended to ensure that Americans can effectively rebel and kill agents of a tyrannical, abusive government. No Metro intel division, I have no intention of the sort and don’t know anyone who does.

Second, being in the military should have taught Scummy Joe (his new nickname here) that yes, “high capacity” magazines (actually standard capacity, but more on that later), are necessary for average citizens for the same reasons that Metro officers need them. If “high-cap” mags aren’t needed by average citizens, then there is no reason police officers shouldn’t return to six-shot revolvers and dump pouches.

There is no logical reason why any cop, which Scummy Joe ceased to be the moment he stopped pushing a black and white, should not support citizens owning the most effective tools to defend themselves with. The only possible motivations he could have are political ambitions or hatred for armed citizens; Joe isn't dumb enough to believe that a 17 or 30 round magazine is inherently evil. Whatever the case, his opinion is not based in fact and follows the same faulty logic that all gun control arguments seem to follow. 

If Clark County is stupid enough to vote this scumbag back into office in 2018, then this county and Nevada in general is doomed. Mr. Lombardo: you sir stand in violation of your oath to the Constitution and deserve no respect from the citizens you purport to represent or the officers you supervise. Shame on you.

This comment was likely a trial balloon for the legislative session to see what kind of reaction they get. Make sure it’s negative. You can email Scummy Joe at or contact him on Twitter at @Sheriff_LVMPD.

To any legislator or public official actually considering floating this to the legislature because Democrats control it, forget it. Losing Question 1 by a narrow margin woke up Nevada gun owners; any attempt to further turn us into California is going to be fought tooth and nail and will cost you in the mid-terms.

Gun owners: see what happens when you don’t get involved? Don’t let the mistake of Question 1 happen again during this legislative session. Get involved, NOW! More on this later.

Update: Legislators and the president of the Nevada Firearms Coalition oppose any bans. Read more at Newsmax.

Tell the liberal ass-rag the Sun what you think of their anti-gun agenda.

E-mail your submission. Please send letters to the editor to Letters to the editor should be no more than 250 words and include the writer’s name, address and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be printed.