The 2017 Legislative session had ended, going out quietly rather than the disaster that many of us feared. The only anti-gun bill to succeed was SB 124, which would extend the federal prohibition of possessing firearms for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Effectively, nothing changes as of this provision. It would also require those under extended restraining orders for domestic violence to surrender their firearms or sell or transfer them. This would be required to be through a licensed dealer who would provide a receipt.
The problem with the bar being lowered to a misdemeanor is the easy labeling that is used to target political opponents. As the political prosecution of Bishop Gorman coach Kenny Sanchez shows, it is more important to not be accused of being soft on domestic violence even if an innocent man’s life is destroyed to protect a prosecutor’s career. A permanent loss of a civil right should not be based on a misdemeanor, even if it is domestic violence. Temporary, perhaps, but not forever.
Another proposal was the “extreme protection order” AKA “gun violence restraining order” that would allow law enforcement or relatives to seek a court order to engage in pre-crime and have an alleged dangerous person’s guns taken away. The risk of abuse by a vindictive spouse is high as due process is only satisfied after the guns are taken away. This concept was debuted in California as a response to the Isla Vista shootings in California after Santa Barbara deputies were unable to determine that the shooter was a danger to himself or others prior to the shootings.
In many of the mass shooting cases, there were no firm warning signs (or when they were, they were not acted on), meaning that this new concept is unlikely to save lives that could not be addressed by existing law. It’s a feel-good, do nothing law that helps set the stage for further gun confiscation by eventually painting all gun owners with a broad brush. This is the new Question 1; supporters will likely wait to see the outcome of the 2019 elections before deciding to go through the Legislature or file ballot initiative.
These orders are a bad idea; the evidence is almost always thin and subjective. For instance, one of the deputies I worked with had his guns taken away after a neighbor got a temporary restraining order because the man did his job. The neighbor was a bad mother and let her toddler wander out into the street. The deputy, headed home to his kids, saw the child and returned her to mom with a lecture.
Mom didn’t like being told she was a negligent mother, so she filed a false complaint and restraining order that the deputy was trying to lure her children. The civil deputies came and took the deputy’s personal and duty weapons. He was placed on leave and investigated. The investigation revealed that the woman had exaggerated and lied, which is what she eventually admitted to the judge at the restraining order hearing. The DA filed charges against her for that.
Few of us have the legal protections that a popular deputy sheriff has from lies and justifiable on-duty shootings. A coalition of legislators wanted to roll back the extended civilian protection from frivolous lawsuits after self-defense shootings; all I can characterize this as was a response to the false Black Lives Matter narrative. No one who has been cleared of charges by the criminal justice system should face a lawsuit for acting in self-defense. This was the worst of the proposals. Surprisingly, we did not see any attempt to ban private sales by “fixing” Bloomberg’s epic screw up with Question 1. Nor did we see any “hi-cap” magazine or “assault weapon” bans proposed.
Why? Because Governor Sandoval would have vetoed them and the Democrats had no supermajority in the Senate to override the veto, thank God. They were afraid of the governor’s pen. Some Democrat members of the Assembly do have some sense when it comes to gun control, but in a party awash with anti-gun politics, they cannot be very assertive or push pro-gun causes.
The only protection to avoid even worse bills in the future is to elect conservative Republicans in the mid-term elections. We must elect true conservatives, ones who are not afraid to use their power to get what they want. 2015’s session demonstrated how feckless the RINOs are. Part of the reason we saw Democrats take over the Legislature was voters rebelled against weak Republicans that failed to exploit their gains. They controlled the “Year of the Gun” session and yet the majority of the pro-gun bills died because of RINO opposition.
Adam Laxalt, our attorney general, does not appear to be a cuckservative. Unless Nevadans elect strong conservatives, our state will wither until it truly becomes California East. A Democrat governor and controlled houses of the Legislature will bring that doom in 2019. Ideally, voters will wake up and realize that continuing their liberal voting patterns will lead to the same conditions that forced them to leave California.
The continuing trend of illegal immigration, growth of Democratic-leaning minorities and California ex-pats, and easy voting (early voting and no-effort registration) will lead to further liberal control. The conservative Californians abandoned the state, for the most part, many years ago. Now the liberal-leaning who have been priced out and over regulated are seeking greener pastures. The weight of Clark County’s massive population will pull the state forcibly to the left simply because many of the people who vote for Democrats don’t know any better.
AB 118 extended the ability to receive concealed firearm permits to veterans and service members 18-20. Civilians must be 21 to apply. It’s amazing that this bill moved forward in this legislature, but only for a cynical purpose; no one wants to be accused of voting against the military and vets. Joining the military doesn’t lend any extra maturity or pistol skills to the vast majority of kids enlisting; which is part of the reasoning why these young people are more safe than those who didn’t sign up.
While volunteering for the military is a great thing, it should not create a class that is automatically entitled to more “rights” than civilians. Benefits like the GI Bill are something else; that is more than a thank-you, but a way to train ex-servicemen and/or set them up for success when they get out. Not too much demand for infantry outside of Big Green or the Corps. Even with its limits, AB 118 is a win for the rest of us. More armed citizens willing to take out bad guys and a start at extending the right to carry concealed to all adults.
SB 115, the library gun free zone/open carry revenge bill, was another big win. Former LVCCLD trustee and now Assemblywoman Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod stated that the library district would try to stymie the Flores’ suit appeal with legislation. If the courts ruled that preemption applies to library districts (and it does), it wouldn’t matter because libraries would be gun-free zones just like schools. Sen. Denis, formerly on the board of LVCCLD himself, co-sponsored the bill with the Assemblywoman.
I want to thank Sen. Roberson for being the conservative pitbull this year, a welcome change from last session. He acted like the conservative leader we needed and helped tear Sen. Denis’ lame arguments to ban open carry in the library apart. It seemed like he was ambushed by some of the allegations revealed by Senators Gustavson, Harris, and Roberson, almost as if no one told him what the controversy was about.
In short, open carry is legal in government buildings. A public library posted with a “no guns” sign means that concealed carry is illegal. LVCCLD argued that state preemption of firearm laws didn’t apply to it because the law doesn’t explicitly say it applies to consolidated city-county library districts. That doesn’t matter because the policy in question was never approved via the board of trustees, which the law requires to make an enforceable policy.
SB 115 was about changing the law to avoid having to comply with the law. LVCCLD, a cesspool of anti-gun librarians and half-assed political wannabes, knew it will eventually lose in court. Citizens were using the law against the wishes of the petty tyrants at the library district, so the only solution would be to change the law. The implications of that kind of behavior are ominous.
So now, what do armed citizens and activists do? Go about your normal business. Don’t cause problems, we don’t need a process. The Flores’ case is in the appeals process; it will likely be heard in the next year. The wheels of justice do turn, but they turn slowly. Examples from all over the country have been in favor of gun rights, so don’t fret.
My advice to LVCCLD and other districts is to let the matter drop. There will no more suits, no more controversy, and never any protests or “incidents” to deal with. Just business as usual and perhaps a friendly mom or dad who can stop a terrorist or criminal attack at the library. If LVCCLD had just followed the path of the Henderson library district, it would have saved the district much time, embarrassment, and (public) money in their private war against the handful of open-carry library patrons.
Had SB 115 succeeded with its amendment, it would have made Sen. Denis the first legislator in Nevada history (a Democrat no less) to introduce discretionary campus carry in the form of a parking lot exemption.
All in all, look for the divide to grow in Nevada and across the nation. Unless we can reverse the voting trends, we will lose the state in a few years. Oregon is a prime example of what happens when a liberal population center dominates an otherwise rural and conservative state. Bit by bit, Nevada’s unique independence and freedom will be eroded until we are a state nannied by politicians. Our only hope is to keep conservatives, even if it is a governor playing “goalie,” in office long enough for people to wake up from their liberal trances.