First-Degree Murder Charges for Right for This?

Click here for video

A 13 year old was shot by store clerk Raad Sunna while attempting what appears to be a robbery. Police say the assailant was grabbing at marijuana paraphernalia. In the video, he does turn towards the wall and appears to be possibly reaching for items. However, it is a very brief period of time. It took me several reviews of the video to catch that. One would be within reason to perceive the quick dash behind the counter as a robber's charge to the register.

The assailant was not shot running out of the store. He was only just barely turning around, probably once he realized that Sunna had drawn and aimed his firearm. He was shot in the back because Sunna, operating under extreme stress, did not have time to realize what was going on. Self-defense expert Massad Ayoob explains it beautifully.

Ayoob also mentioned that this information, which would have been so crucial for the homicide detectives and prosecutors to understand, is rarely taught to law enforcement. Had the officers and deputy DA's in question known this, they would not have over-charged, or charged at all, Sunna. God willing, a jury will realize that Sunna felt he was facing a robbery.

Looking at the video, I believe that reasonable doubt exists. Certainly, premeditated murder, malice aforethought, does not exist. Metro and the DA appears to have overcharged. At the time that Sunna draws, the assailant is still running towards him. The assailant is running behind the counter dressed like a robber. Sunna had every reason to believe it was a robbery and that the assailant was rushing to attack him. 

“Back in the 1970s, my friend and colleague John Farnam did tests which proved that the average person—not just a shooting champion—can fire four shots in one second from a double action only handgun with a long trigger stroke for each shot, and five shots in one second from a semiautomatic pistol with a short-reset trigger.”

“Now, let’s examine it from the attacker’s side. He is lunging at his victim, probably not the first time he’s done something like that, and now something unexpected happens; the victim comes up with a gun! Instinct tells him to turn away from danger, and what we know now about human reaction time shows he can start that turn in a quarter of one second, or even less. As a rule of thumb, a human being can pivot his torso a quarter turn in, oh, a quarter of a second. That’s 90 degrees, and if his side was angled toward you, the defender—something common in the ‘body language’ of human-on-human assault—the lateral midline of his body has passed your gunsights in 0.25 of one second. The human can do a half-turn, 180 degrees, in half a second. That means that even when the bad guy is square-on when you started shooting, he can his back square to you in 0.50 of one second."

“The third thing we have to factor in is the shooter’s reaction time to the unanticipated change of events when the attacker suddenly turned away. Reaction time to anticipated stimulus runs plus/minus a quarter of a second. But the shooter firing in self-defense does not anticipate a sudden break-off of the assailant’s attack; after all, if he or she thought the attacker was going to suddenly stop attacking, he or she would not have fired at all."

“Reacting to unanticipated stimulus therefore takes far longer, meantime, the original justified action—in this case, firing as fast as one can stop the threat—is still taking place. By the time the finger comes off the trigger, several shots may have been fired.”

Watch the video, what do you see? 

[1] Ayoob, Massad. Deadly Force; Understanding Your Right to Self-Defense. "Chapter 7: Furtive Movement Shootings and Other Widely Misunderstood Events." 2014.

Scanning the Crowd; Clubs and Gun Scanning Tech

Security is a hot topic at the Nightclub and Bar Convention here in Vegas. Nightclubs seem to recognize the danger of mass shootings, particularly after the Islamic terrorist attack at Orlando's Pulse nightclub.

Current security for nightclubs involving wandings and metal detectors. These method can create choke points which slow down entry to the club and create standing lines that make great soft targets for terrorists or murderers. In an earlier post, we looked at the Westgate's integration of microwave radar that can scan a crowd for concealed weapons that can eliminate these check points or scan the waiting partygoers.

The best defense against an armed shooter is another armed individual (a good guy) returning fire. Unfortunately, nightclubs don't really deal with too many true terrorist or mass shooting threats. What they do have to deal with is gang violence and intoxicated individuals getting offended and going for a gun. When this happens, you can have more than the intended victim injures, as happened this weekend at the Cameo nightclub in Cincinnati where at least 15 bystanders were hit.

Shooting in a club is shooting fish in a barrel, even if you don't mean to be a mass shooter. Any well-trained citizen carrier knows (or should know) not to fire unless you background is clear. Take cover if there is an innocent who may be hit. NYPD officers and the unfortunate security guard in Henderson could probably have benefited from keeping this foremost in their mind. A defensive gun in the club, even for the gun owner who only got dragged their against their will by a loved one, is a bad idea for the above reasons. Of course, getting to/from the club is a whole other story and often, it isn't the venue that is dangerous, but what's outside. Just ask the people raped, robbed, and murdered in casino parking garages.

Nightclubs do have a security problem, especially those that cater to criminally inclined elements of society. Alcohol, drugs, lots of people, and men competing for women is a bad mixture. We know the incidents that have happened here in Las Vegas. One can't blame a nightclub operator for banning firearms in their venue and searching for them; they can't very well profile and exclude customers who look like they might be the type to carry illegally or be gangbangers. Most of the gun owners I know would never associate with the nightclub crowd. Many clubs attract gang members and people prone to violence, thus the need for gun bans and searches. Sorry, but it's a reality.

The Cameo seems to be one of these kinds of clubs and has had problems in the past. It would be easy to write off the Cameo for having an apparent gang or cultural problem; as uncomfortable as it seems, time and time again we see these kinds of clubs having these kinds of problems. It's cultural. While we cannot fall into the old, racist trap of disarming minorities, we have to realize that business owners have a right to ban guns and institute firearm searches for their patron's safety. I don't begrudge clubs for doing this.

What should the gun owner do? Well, don't patronize a club. It's a cliché in the self-defense community: the first rule of winning a gunfight is avoiding places you're likely to get into a gun fight. Don't want to be disarmed? Don't go to the club, or if you do go, accept the risk. For the real safety concerns that these places have, it's a trade-off. I will say that it should never be against the law to carry against a business owner's wishes, signs/security or not, unless you have been asked to disarm or leave; then it is trespassing. Clubs also have a duty to provide adequate security to stop or significantly deter violence and ideally have trained, armed security able to respond to stop a shooter.

Most self-defense advocates would probably not have a problem with clubbers being wanded while in line. Where we draw the line is casinos or other venues employing intrusive scanning technology to ID and accost legally armed citizens who are carrying for self-defense. Walking the floor of a casino or out in private pedestrian areas like the Linq are not at all like clubs. In those areas that are open to the public, citizens should be allowed to discreetly carry. To date, there is an unstated understanding that a person minding their own business with no evil intent can carry concealed until they go into a "problem location" like a club or concert.

Private property owners, club/bar operators, and the gaming industry needs to understand that the vast majority of people carrying on their property will never cause a problem. While clubs have specific problems and businesses are within their rights to take reasonable steps to ensure security, they do need to realize that lines are a soft target and customers may be victimized to/from the venue. Again, there has to be a trade off. We're find with clubs having restrictive security, but none of that is necessary or justified (or will matter a damn) in other places.

Ultimately, a responsibility and liability for security of disarmed people should fall to club owners for packing people into such a small place and feeding them what Weaponsman calls Judgement Juice. If you are going to put fish in a barrel, make darn sure no one is carrying and that you can keep people from being shot. As for other businesses, don't try to see through our clothes if we're carrying. Disarming the law-abiding doesn't keep anyone safe, so don't get any ideas about scanning people as they come in through the doors of Target.

The Unsafe Strip

@carmenchan/Twitter

News outlets are calling this weekend “chaos on the Strip” in the wake of a burglary where burglars in pig masks terrorized Bellagio in a bizarre incident as they performed a heist at the Tesorini store. The burglary was originally thought to be a shooting as the noise from the glass being broken sounded like gunfire, however, no guns were found. Later that Saturday, a shooting in an RTC bus traveling along the Strip left a person dead and another injured.

One of Las Vegas’ biggest secrets is how fraught with violence the Strip really is. Granted, if you are sober and not engaged in criminal activity (namely pimping and drug dealing) or a gang member, you will probably be fine. However, tourism officials and the gaming industry would like you to think that the Strip is as safe as Disneyland with the addition of booze and skimpy clothing.

Ocean’s Eleven (the Steven Soderbergh version) recounted three supposedly unsuccessful casino robberies. Thieves often hold up casinos’ cages or sportsbooks. It’s no more unusual than a bank robbery. Casinos, downtown Las Vegas, and the resort corridor in Paradise have all fallen victim to these kinds of incidents over the years.

Many in the firearms community discount then need for a firearm while out on the town in Las Vegas. That it is unnecessary and potentially hazardous if you are drinking. Casinos and the other various business generally discourage firearms due to concerns about liability and drunks or a fear of frightening tourists from places where guns are uncommon and thus scaring away gaming dollars.

The reason so few casualties occurred in the bus shooting incident was because the shooter was on the second level of the double-decker bus towards the back. At midday during cool, Spring weather, buses are generally fairly empty. Many passengers were able to evacuate the bus to safety since the shooter was so isolated from other passengers and the exits. Had the shooter chosen the first level and near an exit, the bus passengers would have been trapped and shot like fish in a barrel.

One bus driver complained to KNTV “Who is going to protect the bus drivers?” Many bus drivers carry concealed weapons against policy. RTC and Metro cannot put armed guards or police officers on every bus. Why not empower drivers and passengers to defend themselves? Unfortunately, no one with the ability to affect widespread change will take any such steps. It would not be surprising at all to see the Democrat controlled legislature try to prohibit firearms on public buses. This is not a solution, but instead an expansion of victim disarmament zones.

Nevada law does not prohibit guns in casinos or tourist areas, either openly or concealed. All private property owners can do is trespass a citizen who refuses to disarm or leave. Essentially every casino and major tourist property prohibits firearms, requiring them to be checked with security. Open carriers find themselves bearing the brunt of this ban for obvious reasons. Concealed carriers and off-duty/retired cops are almost never detected or bothered. Most security officers practice a “see no evil” policy creating an environment where concealed carry is de facto permitted in casinos.

What police brass, politicians, and many gaming executives fail to understand is the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The Westgate Las Vegas Resort, formerly the Las Vegas Hilton, will be purchasing and evaluating a microwave radar system that will scan guests for concealed firearms. The device, which looks like a small electronic box, can be mounted above entry doors and can see through clothing and people to identify those who are carrying a gun. The system is far more efficient than a metal detection system as it can scan entire crowds without creating a choke point as conventional security checkpoints do.

The Westgate is mum about how they will employ it. It’s hard to see them stopping every guest carrying a concealed pistol, especially if that person plans to lock it up in their room. Security officers intercepting a guest with such intentions would surely be alienating to customers. Unless casinos adopt a monolithic draconian anti-gun policy, individual casinos like the Westgate will likely face severe backlash from the gun community if gun owners who simply don’t want to become victims of Strip violence are accosted and disarmed by casino security.

What’s most likely is that the technology would be installed in specific area, such as the entrance to nightclubs and concert venues, where metal detectors and security are already present. These venues tend to attract certain people who, often aided by alcohol or drugs, are likely to engage in violence. This would create a less intrusive security screening checkpoint and move people in and out more efficiently.

Gamblers, shoppers, restaurant diners, casual drinkers, and tourists strolling the Strip are not a security threat. A Big Brother type system scanning bodies for concealed firearms will do nothing except offend legal citizens who want to spend money or create so many false positives that the system is useless. It does nothing in public areas, such as sidewalks, where no one can prohibit carrying a firearm even openly. Simply knowing someone is armed does no one any benefit. Real security, including allowing citizens to have the tools to react against a threat, will not only deter violence but save lives as well.

Armed casino security is not a panacea. Casino security staff ranges from highly competent officers at near police quality to rent a cops who have their guns stolen. Many security officers take their firearms training seriously and are true assets to the gun community. Generally, when security falls to the hands of individual officers, they operate with discretion. No doubt that these quality officers would, if they were in a position to do so, try to end a mass shooting. Yet just like police, security cannot be everywhere and there is often no security on the Strip itself, on buses, or when going to/coming from a casino.

Citizens and tourists should never be disarmed because a board room succumbs to anti-gun hysteria, conflating everyone who carries a gun with gun violence. Too many businesses post “no guns” signs or setup security theater, such as metal detectors with staff merely going through the motions, for reasons they cannot explain. Perhaps it is a notion of liability that our litigious society encourages or simply a business superstition that signs are some sort of talisman warding off crime. Tourists aren’t scared by armed citizens; many assume that since this is the United States or the West, that it is as common as seeing celebrities in Malibu. At the worst, they see it as boorish and unnecessary.

As this weekend has shown us, despite the 99% of the time everything is copacetic, 1% of the time a gun will be needed in the hands of a good guy to save the day. Casinos need to remember that concealed carry (and open carry as well) is harmless. It is the criminal, terrorist, or psychopath that you cannot deter or detect that is the threat. Make people feel safe on the Strip by letting them take their own defense into their own hands. Let terrorists, criminals, and would-be murderers know that any shooting spree in Las Vegas will be a short one.

The mundane aspects of security focus on drunk patrons behaving badly or the criminally inclined adhering to their criminal nature. At the more common extreme, gang members, drug dealers, and pimps causing violence on the Strip, like the shooting/car crash of several years ago. This weekend’s events were certainly uncommon, but it has happened before and will happen again. Instead of focusing closely on prohibiting guns as a panacea to violence, police and casinos need to focus on multivariate threats such as the car attacks that have become common in Europe. The tourist packed sidewalks are a repeat of the Nice tragedy waiting to happen.

So all tourists and visitors to the Strip are reminded that it isn’t a safe place. It’s not terribly dangerous either, but there is no reason to go there unarmed. Furthermore, the gaming industry should be on notice that disarming customers does not make anyone safety, it just makes it easier for a killer to take lives.

2 Dead in Home Invasion Robbery; The Future with SB 254

Imagine two men breaking in to your home, duct taping up you and your spouse. Imagine those first few moments of fear, worry, and rage. But instead of sitting still and engaging in unproductive self-loathing for letting the bad guys get the drop on you, you break your bonds and manage to get to your gun. Minutes later, one assailant is wounded and the other dead. Your wife is injured, you’re stunned and deafened by the gunfire, and the police find you with duct tape still on your body.

That part is truth; thankfully, no one died. It happened Monday night in northwest Las Vegas. At least two men broke into a home and restrained the couple inside. The second man, shot in his butt, drove himself to the hospital where he was contacted by police. Another man lay dead in the backyard. The circumstances may reveal more nuance than a random attack, but the fact remains that if Nevada Democrats have their way, the wounded robber and the family of the dead criminal could sue the homeowner. That’s right: save your life and get sued. 

SB 254, introduced just last week, would repeal entirely the civil immunity protection from lawsuit when you legally and justifiably injure or kill someone in self-defense. Just imagine the outcome Monday night if the gun owner hadn't been willing to risk his home and whatever money he had to fight a lawsuit and decided not to pull the trigger. 

Imagine a lawyer concocting some story to get a sympathetic jury to place fault on a gun owner who was just trying to protect his family or stay alive. We have seen far too many examples lately where politically motivated prosecutions targeted armed citizens and police officers for shooting in self-defense. We have seen judges and juries both tainted by their own biases and fail to do the right thing. Civil immunity when no law was broken exists to spare someone who did no wrong from vindictive criminals who want to gamble that their lawyer can tell a better story.

Democrats do not like gun owners who defend themselves, period. Anything they can do erode the rights of gun owners and dial back the protections of Nevada law furthers their goal of eventual gun disarmament. They would rather have citizens too afraid of being sued to defend themselves. Death of the innocent is preferable to self-defense. All this bill would do is encourage frivolous lawsuits and make Nevada a more dangerous place.

They did not create a discretionary exemption, where cases that were clearly ambiguous could be reviewed by a judge for a lawsuit. Instead, they threw the whole thing out. This is a clear shot at Republican Senator Roberson, who sponsored 2015’s SB 175 which added the very protection Democrats are seeking to repeal. It’s personal with them, just with the SB 115 library open carry bill.

Share your comments with the legislators here. (SB254, “against”)

How SB-115 Will Eventually Get us Campus Carry

Senator Mo Denis has painted himself into a corner over SB 115 by calling libraries “educational institutions” any tying them so closely to schools, by invoking children. He has adamantly claimed that it was an “oversight” that libraries were not included in NRS 202.265, the law which prohibits firearms at schools, colleges/universities, and child care facilities. Such a statement is false and would be seen right through by an appeals court or future legislature.

Libraries are not schools and far from it. There is no controlled access as in a school and poor supervision. Children are not mandated by law to be in a library daily. The adult-to-children ratio is nothing like the (probably) ten or twenty-to-one ratio in schools. Depending on the location, the library may have more adult patrons than children. Most kids are in school for the first half of the library’s business day. A library is no more like a school than a park is.

The facts are plain; there is no rational reason to prohibit legally armed adults from carrying self-defense handguns on campus. In particular, the work of Dr. John Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center proves this. The merits against campus carry are demonstrably false and every argument used to defeat them can be used to defeat SB 115.

If the bill were to hypothetically pass, while gun owners might have lost the battle, we will have won the war as Senator Denis has sown the seeds for us to win campus carry and further gun rights. Whether it we win in the halls of the Legislature or in court, every possible amendment has a path to victory for campus carry and even repealing SB 115. Let me be clear: every argument that applies for campus carry applies to libraries, given Sen. Denis’ assertion. If passed into law, SB 115 will be the foundation for how campus carry is passed in Nevada.

Amendments

There almost certainly will be an amendment that will “solve” some objections. Here are a few solutions that only “work” for them if they don’t mind becoming absurd, hypocritical liars or handing pro-gunners a win. Remember, you can’t amend future consequences.

1.      Exempt library parking lots from the prohibition.

This amendment would allow citizens to leave their firearms secured in the vehicles in the parking lot or simply extend the library prohibition to inside the actual building.

Logically, as libraries are the same as schools (according to the bill’s supporters), library and parking lots would both have to be exempted. This would have to be extended to cover schools, colleges/universities, and child care facilities, exactly what SB 102, the parking lot protection bill, was meant to do. SB 102 was quietly smothered because it’s “campus carry lite” nickname scared the legislators.

If only library parking lots/grounds were exempted, this would be political hay for campus carry supporters to humiliate the anti-gun legislators and hang their hypocrisy around their neck. And hypothetically, if SB 115 becomes law, after a few years of nothing bad happening because of guns safely in library parking lots, there will be plenty of ammo, excuse me, evidence, to use to pass a campus parking lot protection bill (“campus carry lite”). Imagine how stupid they would look claiming libraries are the same schools as schools, but “different” enough to allow guns stored in parked cars at the libraries, but not a school.

So for whoever reads this blog for Senator Denis, here’s the short version:

• Exempt library parking lots only, become hypocrites and have it used against you in future campaigns. Eventually, it will be used to get school parking lot protection passed.
• Make library gun free zones and exempt library and school parking lots, giving the pro-gunners a huge win and make you guys look stupid for killing SB 102.

Pass SB 115 and SB 102 (campus parking lot protection) together as-is and reconcile them later on.

Although we’d prefer to have SB 102 and see SB 115 languish and die, this outcome, in and of itself, would be a huge win for pro-gunners. While we lose libraries, we win school parking lots; that’s a huge win that starts to untie the campus carry (and library) knot, making campus carry all the more possible in the future. Just like anti-gunners want to incrementally chip away at gun rights, we can incrementally exploit their own hubris to rebuilt what was stolen from us.

The recent additions to NRS 202.265, child care facilities and (hypothetically) libraries would look really ugly at the inevitable state Supreme Court hearing. Particularly in that child care facilities were added because of a single, isolated incident almost arbitrarily and there is the whole ugly backstory of SB115’s origin. The truth about LVCCLD and it’s illegal behavior would unravel the whole “libraries are schools” lie.

Not to mention, there is a good shot of either open carry becoming legal, if historical precedent is upheld, and/or concealed carry if the United State Supreme Courts affirms that as a Second Amendment right. Check out the Ninth Circuit’s Peruta decision and the Nichols v. Brown California open carry case.

TL;DR (too long; didn’t read):

• Hand pro-gunners a huge victory and help get full campus carry passed in the future.

Ban firearms in all public buildings, or allow local authorities to do so discretionarily.

Doubtlessly, as was hinted at in the Feb. 28 Senate Judiciary Hearing, many other entities have tried to get this into the law. Senator Denis, to his credit, was smart enough to know that this option would never fly. He immediately disclaimed that was his goal and launched into a pack of lies about how this was about schools, educational institutions, the children, etc. So this amendment would make him look like a hypocrite. Had he gone this route, he would have had to bring up the incidents with open carriers, which would have led to the ugly truth coming out. It was easier to lie about an “oversight.”

There are far too many rural counties, with their own largely Republican senators, to obstruct a bill like this. Not to mention this would essentially be a partial dismantling of SB 175, preemption, and bring literally every politically active gun owner out of the woodwork to fight it. Signing such a bill would be a personal affront by Gov. Sandoval to SB 175’s author, Sen. Roberson, and make enemies within the Republican party.

Such an amendment would be a solution in search of a problem, the problem ironically being LVCCLD breaking the law. By and large, firearms are already effectively prohibited, one way or another, from places they arguably don’t need to be.

Using Utah as an example, this is basically courtrooms, jails, mental hospitals, etc. Arizona public buildings can discretionarily ban firearms, but, as must the above Utah locations, provide secure storage. Utah allows open and concealed carry, by permittees, in all schools, colleges, and universities and most public buildings, including libraries.

If all firearms were banned on the premises of public buildings, this would put huge swaths of the public in legal and physical danger. Many refuse to visit any public building in downtown Las Vegas without a firearm, even if they have to lock it in the car. Not to mention every public building’s parking lot and grounds would be off-limits to legal firearm carry, creating massive “gun free zones.”

Such an amendment would fly in the face of the Nevada Constitution, which protects the inalienable right of "defending life and liberty" and "the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense." Banning firearms, that were previously legally carried and caused no problems, inside, say the restroom of a public park or at the DMV, would fly in the face of the Constitution.

It would also violate the legal tradition of the frontier states, and in the case of open carry, many state Supreme Court rulings. Eventually, the courts would dispose of this amendment in a suit that revealed as many ugly facts as would be revealed as outlined in #2.

Of course, the rural local governments and their constituents would probably oppose this vociferously. Don’t forget, this could, and probably would, be extended to include the parking lots, grounds, and trail of even huge county parks. It would be very politically costly to try to get this passed and be as galvanizing as Question 1 was to gun owners. Want to get Nevada gun owners more politically active? Try this and see where you are come the 2019 Legislative Session.

Oh yeah and if a parking lot exemption were added, it would have to cover schools too, for the reasons above. You can exempt “some” buildings and not others for arbitrary reasons.

TL;DR:

Lose your “libraries are schools” moral authority. Endure angry phone calls/emails.
Get sued, lose eventually.
Very politically costly and probably impossible to pass.
Or pass get school parking lots exempted too, then see above.

Allow libraries/libraries districts to make their own blanket policies instead of individual exemptions.

Senator Denis kept misleading the committee during the Feb. 28 hearing by implying that the board of trustees could approve their own policies. Senator Becky Harris correctly pointed out that NRS 202.265 only allows individual exemptions, not a general written policy of yes/no/maybe. Disingenuously, Denis tried to imply otherwise.

Individual libraries or districts having different policies was something that state preemption, had anyone bothered to follow it in this case, was meant to deal with. Preemption ended patchwork polices and regulations that were impossible to know without extensive prior research. This is confusing and legally hazardous.

If libraries like LVCCLD didn’t care about the existing law and willfully and malicious broke it, what makes you think they will pass a far policy. You can bet that LVCCLD will never allow anyone except their armed security guards have guns, the same for most urban libraries. Like the school exemption, the discretionary policy exclusion will be a joke.

Campus carry in California used to be legal, but when the state was temporarily shall-issue, campus carry was banned, but special permission could still be granted. Now, California legislators want to remove the ability of school administration to grant special permission for staff to carry simply because some school districts are granting permission. With anti-gun legislators here proposing bills like SB 254, the bill that would allow someone you shot in justified self-defense sue you, how long until they dismantle special permission here?

But remember, if libraries are like schools, then if libraries can make blanket policies allowing guns, schools will have to be allowed to make blanket policies allowing guns too.

Just as the whole backstory of how LVCCLD broke the law and abused open carriers shows, anti-gunners will change the law anytime gun owners exercise their rights and use the law to support their cause. Policies will become ever more strict or disappear entirely as people exert their rights. You don’t trust a lion who says he’ll eat you tomorrow. Rights don’t need permission.

Equal Protection/14^th Amendment Lawsuit

Now for the legal stuff. Having a patchwork of arbitrary policies where some do and some don’t get approved is frowned upon by the court. The 14^th Amendment guarantees “equal protection under the law.” So if things follow the usual pattern, guns will be illegal at urban libraries and legal at rural ones. Some very special people will get permission, but most won’t. This sounds a lot like what happened in California, where some counties were no-issue, some counties were may-issue, and some counties were shall-issue for CCWs.

Can you imagine a library trying to explain why simply being in Las Vegas makes a legally armed citizen much more inclined to violence than someone living in Ely? Or how the ambiguous language of the statute creates disparate policies between districts/counties that are often unfairly applied and ultimately deny citizens the right to bear arms? Wouldn’t it be fun to tell the Supreme Court about how LVCCLD broke NRS 379.040 when making unauthorized policies or how they completely disregarded state preemption?

Especially if Peruta wins in court, this kind of  system won’t win in court. Combined with the above state constitutional arguments, a lawsuit has a great chance of success and irrevocably damaging gun control efforts in this state, perhaps nationally.

TL;DR:

• No one will believe that libraries can fairly administer the policy.
• 14th Amendment lawsuit. Lots of analogues based on different issues.
• State constitutionality questions and Supreme Court case (see #4).
• Library policy bans inevitably exposes them publicly as frauds.
• School districts can create blanket policies (or will in the future) 

5.      Let SB 115 die and tell LVCCLD (and any other library so inclined) to drop the issue.

Had LVCCLD just quietly respected the law from the beginning, or at least June 2015, this would never have been an issue. There never would have been a humiliating series of blog articles, the board of trustees being called out, no newspaper coverage, and no embarrassment for Senator Denis.

They could have just quietly chosen to allow open carry, informed staff and security of the law, and moved on with life. This live-and-let-live approach worked for Henderson. But no, ego and literal hatred for guns got in the way. Bureaucrats broke the law with the apparent blessing of the trustees.

My humble suggestion would be to let SB 115 die and re-train the staff. Leave open carriers alone. There will be no more lawsuits, no embarrassing hearings, no library secrets revealed in the press (and there are plenty coming), and no protests.

Conclusion

Ideally, we would love to see concealed carry in public buildings decriminalized totally, but America needs another decade before guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is fully destigmatized, no matter how much money Mr. Bloomberg spends. Remember, if any of this ever goes to the Supreme Court and we win, that’s a forever thing. Can’t beat that trump card! The best thing for Denis and Bilbray-Axelrod and the libraries is to simply let SB 115 die. If not, pro-gunners will win, even if it is only a moral victory. 

SB-254, Save Your Life and Get Sued Bill

A whole host of anti-gun legislators want to deprive you of your civil immunity in justified, legal uses of deadly force (self-defense shooting) and subjected you to a hellish ordeal so a criminal or his family can score some cash from your misfortune. Under current law, if you legally shoot someone in self-defense, your attacker or his surviving family cannot sue you. Democrats hate that fact. Having a majority, every last stop of honor and decency has been removed from the Democrat’s agenda.

SB-254 is a bald-faced attempt at turning you into a helpless victim, not only to the legal system, but your assailant as well. The anti-gunners want you too terrified by the consequences of being drug into court by an unscrupulous attorney to carry or use a gun, should your life depend on it. They would rather have you dead, beaten, or raped than, heaven forbid, one of their potential voters from not to show up at the polls.

While castle doctrine and no duty to retreat isn't yet under attack, this is the first step in dismantling your right to armed self-defense. Remember the lesson of If You Give a Mouse a Cookie…

Tell them NO! We cannot let them get away with their unceasing bullshit. Comment on the bill now! And in 2018, make the Democrats pay for their relentless anti-gun, anti-American agenda and send them packing their office.

Comment anonymously and vote here (select SB254 and “Against”)

The Total Bullshit of SB115, the Library Gun Free Zone/Open Carry Revenge Bill

Well, Nevadans have spoken and called “bullshit” on SB 115, the library gun free zone/open carry revenge bill. At 621/Against to 89/For (as of Tuesday, 3/8 at 7 PM), Nevadans do not want libraries to become free fire zones for criminals.

I noticed an odd pattern: many of the comments to the Legislature mentioned open carry, which aside from this blog, I didn’t see mentioned anywhere in the media. Hmm… Where did they get that little tid-bit of information? Seems to me word has been spreading in the library community asking people to comment on the bill along with a “preview” of what the bill says.

The only logical place open carry came from to make it into these comments are people inside the libraries, particularly LVCCLD, with working knowledge of the issue. Funny how even these library folks know this is about the open carriers who stood against the multiple and continuous violations of the law and not some “oversight” like Senator Denis keeps trying to claim.

Most of the “for” comments are boilerplate crap I won’t bother with, but here are some gems I thought were worth sharing. Watch the video for commentary and be sure to stop by and read the comments in full yourself. Maybe even leave one!

“My husband and I offer support to SB115. My husband works for LVCCLD on Tropicana near Boulder Highway. As the Ast Branch Mgr and tallest guy in the place, he's often called to support security in trespassing patrons who violate library policy. His car has been vandalized twice (keyed all down the sides and tires slashed), both on days (or the day after) he has trespassed patrons with serious infractions. Being a librarian shouldn't be a job that carries risk of serious harm. As an employee of the district, and as a wife, we want libraries to be a safe, weapon-free zone.”

“I'm a librarian, and I can tell you that guns and dangerous weapons have no place in or near a public library (or any library for that matter). The public library is considered a safe zone for children and for adults. We cannot compromise the safety of our libraries by allowing firearms or dangerous weapons in or near our libraries. Absolutely not. If a guard has permission to carry, that is fine, but it must be confined to those people who obtain special permission. This is just COMMON SENSE, people!”

“There should be a gun free zone for all Libraries. We as Americans should be guaranteed areas that safe from fanatical people who feel they must pack weapons to defend themselves. We no longer live in the Wild Wild West and require a pair of 6 shooters strapped to each leg as Nevada Firearms Coalition would have you believe. We live in a polite society that one would hope could debate a problem or instance with words and not bullets. There are plenty of other places that the gun radicals can pack their guns openly and intimidate the mass populous--the library should not be one of them. ALL Public buildings should be off limits to weapons.”

“I don't like carrying of any weapons anywhere concealed or open. There is zero chance I would ever need a gun in a library: Zero. Or anywhere else. There are no boogeymen. They don't exist. There is no need for guns. I am for their restriction at every turn. People that have guns scare me. There is no such thing as a good guy with a gun just a-holes who want to shoot something someday.”

“I believe it was an oversight that public libraries were originally omitted from this law, so this correction is long overdue. There is no real need for a person to carry weapons in the library, and their presence is a danger to children, and to those whose mental issues alter perceptions. I don't believe this law infringes on anyone's right to own and bear weapons appropriately, but it will help keep the public library safe and welcoming to all.”

“Just as firearms are not allowed in schools because children are constantly present, there is absolutely no reason firearms should be allowed in libraries. The risk far outweighs any benefit, and citizens, especially children, are always safer when guns are not in their vicinity. Opponents of this bill use the possibility of terrorist activity as their reasoning for carrying guns in libraries, but accidental shootings and gun deaths are much more of a threat. In addition, a potential criminal could steal the gun away its owner, especially those owners with limited gun experience, which defeats the purpose of using the gun for protection. Not only is it unsafe, open carry is intimidating to other patrons and employees of the library. Libraries are and should remain a safe, open space that everyone in the public can access, but allowing guns in libraries diminishes this experience.”