Fernley City Council To Take Up Gun-Free Zones

Many Fernley residents and Nevadan’s were concerned by the appearance of an item on the Fernley City Council agenda containing mention of ‘gun free zones.’ I contacted the sponsor, Councilman Cal Eilrich, for details. Below is his response (emphasis added): 

"I have been gravely concerned for years regarding declared Gun Free Zones.  They amount to an invitation for a "Killing Field" to either a nut-case or more recently for an Islamic Terrorist.  I believe that if any entity is going to declare a Gun-Free Zone, then they should either also declare, and have in place, a written security plan complete with trained and armed security, either uniformed or perhaps more efficient undercover security. Otherwise, they should be prevented by law to declare a Gun-Free Zone, therefore allowing the public to provide their own personal defense, by carrying concealed.

"The agenda item that I requested is an initial procedure so that the council can here my reasoning for having an actual agenda item, where the discussion and actual voting may take place.  All that we will be voting upon this time is whether the majority of the council wants to officially hear the agenda item and expend staff time to prepare for the actual agenda. 

"I was just made aware this morning that some Fernley Facebook Page patrons are jumping to wrong conclusions and are all up in arms.  I say fine, I hope they show up at the meeting so that they can actually hear my reasoning.  At this time, City Hall is a declared Gun Free Zone, according to the signage on the doors, even though I have complained about this, I have received no briefing, certainly not written, that we actually have a security plan in place. 

"By the way, I have also introduced a Reckless Discharge of Firearms Ordinance in Fernley, to replace one that actually make ALL Discharge of Firearms illegal in Fernley.  The goal is to allow sensible and safe shooting and is an attempt to make the public more educated on providing for a safe backstop. 

"I am a long time firearm instructor for competitive shooting sports, private security and law enforcement.  I am committed to the education of as many people as possible in the safe and proper use of firearms.  I also believe that an armed society is a polite society, as long as laws and common courtesy are promoted and followed.

 "[…] My family and I own and operate the Cowboy Fast Draw Association, based in Fernley, which is the administration and sanctioning body for the national sport of Cowboy Fast Draw.  CFDA has over 4,000 members and 80 CFDA Affiliated Clubs coast to coast.  It's a highly competitive shooting sport that promotes and honors the romance and legend of the American Old West.  We shoot wax bullets with a small powder charge, which makes our competitions possible just about any place.  Shooting USA from Outdoor Channel was just in Fallon, NV covering our World Championship last month.  Through our organization and our system of affiliated clubs we have introduced over 100,000 people to shooting sports at public venues like county fairs, rodeos, and other public events. Many that have had a positive first time experience shooting a firearm, plus many that are children."

As you can see, Councilman Eilrich understands the danger that gun free zones present. Many of our readers in Las Vegas are aware of the battle over open carry in public libraries. The editor cannot comment on the unsafe discharge ordinance as it is a strictly local issue. Regarding the ordinance and the particular nuances to the issue, please see this Reno Gazette-Journal article.

Nevada law (NRS 202.3673)  originally prohibited firearms in virtually all public buildings (1995), then was amended in 1997 to allow concealed firearm permittees to carry concealed in most public buildings (a very sensible provision). In 1999, a few exceptions were added, and in 2007, the current version was passed, prohibiting concealed carry in buildings with ‘no guns’ signs or metal detectors at each entrance.

Currently, open carry is permitted in most public buildings (even signed ones), while concealed carry is prohibited elsewhere. The city of Henderson is a good example of proper signage. Open carry in public buildings can be a thorny issue, as the on-going issues with the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District show.

The city council meeting will be held at city hall at 5PM Wednesday, November 18.

Follow-up article here.

The Benefits of Uniform Gun Laws Statewide

Nevada has a history of borrowing a lot of ideas from California, and not always good ones. In 1948, Clark County instituted the notorious ‘blue card’ system instituted in the hey-day of early Las Vegas was supposedly a measure to counter the influx of eastern gangsters. Know who has the guns, know who the crooks are, or so the thinking went. A quick visit to the Mob Museum in Downtown Las Vegas will quickly dispel that idea. The major cities of the county enacted their own handgun registration and concealed carry laws. North Las Vegas uniquely banned permit-less open carry and carrying a firearm in a vehicle, until finally forced to repeal those laws earlier this year.

June 2, 2015, Gov. Sandoval signed Senate Bills 175 and 240, which contained identical provisions regarding state preemption of firearm laws. While these laws already existed, this had the effect of immediately eliminating the ‘blue cards’ and forcing a few odd local laws to be repealed. News spread rapidly through Las Vegas and its suburbs that gun owners would finally have one less burden to gun ownership. Along with the ‘blue card’ ordinances, any local ordinance, rule, or regulation regarding firearms (except for the unsafe discharge) was declared null and void. The state legislature declared that only they had the power to make gun laws.

45 states have preemption laws on the books which generally prohibit local authorities—cities, towns, and counties—from making their own gun laws. Nevada’s is particularly tough, providing up to triple damages for local regulations out of compliance.

Preemption creates uniformity between counties, cities, and towns eliminating a confusing and hazardous—both legally and for personal safety safety—patchwork of laws. For instance, someone moving from Pahrump to Las Vegas might have unknowingly broken Clark County’s ordinance to register a handgun within 60 days of residency or within 72 hours of acquiring the gun. Along with various other laws or regulations, like Clark County Parks prohibition of guns in their parks and North Las Vegas’ law on the books that prohibited guns in cars, a law-abiding citizen might get caught up in a confusing web.

Rumors were another effect of Clark County’s laws. People repeated laws that weren’t enforced for years, yet things were so confusing, someone who didn’t take the time to understand the subject didn’t know what to think. Many were dissuaded from carrying at all. North Las Vegas has for years been the subject of many persistent and widespread rumors that open carry is illegal.

To make it worse, despite the presence of obsolete laws on the books, police enforced some laws anyway, despite existing preemption laws. Sadly, in North Las Vegas, this behavior continues sporadically even after enhanced preemption was enacted and the local laws repealed.

These laws gave huge latitude to unscrupulous officers over the years to harass citizens, justify profiling minorities, and confiscate legally owned guns under the pretense they were not registered.

History

Why was such a step necessary? It’s important we look at history. Over the years,

The exact way Clark County managed to get an exemption that preserved its handgun registration scheme, and at the time, most of its local carry laws, is shrouded in the research darkness of pre-internet days. An archived document of legislative evidence from the original 1989 preemption laws provides the best insight into those times, but phone calls and backroom conversations weren’t recorded to tell the whole tale.

In 1989, Undersheriff Cooper said that "Las Vegas was becoming a major city with major city problems, therefore, Las Vegas could not be compared to the remainder of the state." Sheriff Moran said: "[...] I think Las Vegas is a very unique city and requires gun regulations that would be impractical in rural areas. [...] Las Vegas is unlike any other city in the world. [...] but there comes a time when even I have to interpret the Constitution as I see fit [...]." Moran’s statement shows the shocking arrogance of law enforcement in Clark County and why LV Metro PD in particular was so dead-set against preemption laws (until Sheriff Lombardo saw the writing on the wall) and for strictly restricting citizens' Second Amendment rights.

Men like Moran and Cooper believed that Las Vegans deserved fewer rights than all other Nevadans, based on their opposition to preemption. While the original text of the 1989 law would have ended all local regulations in any form, just as 2015 change finally did (only 26 years late), an amendment was proposed by Chairman Danny L. Thompson, coming on the heels of a hard letter from Sheriff Moran. By hammering on the fact that Las Vegas was a "major city and faced major city problems," they used their influence to allow Clark County to keep its existing gun-control laws, primarily handgun registration and the waiting period.

The three-day wait adopted in 1965 was touted as a "cooling off" period. Unfortunately, evidence shows that cooling-off periods don't work as intended.

In his 2014 election campaign, Sheriff Lombardo supported eliminating the handgun registration program. His department did not testify against the bills which ultimately eliminated it. The program was estimated to cost up to $2 million a year with negligible benefits.

Local Problems

Local laws also created problems for local governments. Interestingly enough, because of Las Vegas’ large convention business and the opening of the Clark County Shooting Complex required changes in registration laws. First, a visitor bringing a firearm, for protection or for competition, was required to register their handgun with 72 hours of arriving in Clark County. This had to be changed to allow for 60 days of residency so competition shooters wouldn’t unintentionally break the law.

Second, since it was illegal to carry a firearm in Clark County parks, the name of the Clark County Shooting Park had to be changed to Complex. Clark County was given a very narrow exemption in 1989 when the original preemption law was passed to allow for the ‘blue card’ system. Attorney General Cortez-Masto interpreted the legislative intent to allow for Clark County’s park ban on guns, but the ordinance could not be modified in anyway, as only unmodified laws in effect prior to 1989 would still be permitted. So instead of amending the no-guns-in-parks ordinance, the shooting park became a shooting complex as a name change was simpler.

SB 175/240

Senate Bills 175/240 amended the existing preemption laws to eliminate the ‘blue card’ system and erase any vestige of exempted local laws. The wording in each bill was identical. In short: 

“The regulation of the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, carrying, ownership, transportation, storage, registration and licensing of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition in this State and the ability to define such terms is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature, and any other law, regulation, rule or ordinance to the contrary is null and void.” 

Under NRS 244.364 (counties), NRS 268.418 (cities), and NRS 269.222 (towns), no local authority can regulate firearm in any matter, except prohibiting the unsafe discharge. That means unless state law makes it illegal, any local law or rule regarding firearms is powerless. The bills went further, requiring that by October 1^st of 2015, local laws must be repealed, or enhanced civil penalties could be awarded to anyone who was “adversely affected” by the now-illegal local regulations.

As a result, there is no prohibition for visiting a public building openly carrying a firearm in violation of a local rule, no law prohibiting anyone from fishing at Sunset Park with a concealed handgun, and no more standing in line at Metro to register a hand gun.

Why is this important?

This week, the Los Angeles city council required all handguns to be unloaded and locked away, in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s finding in DC vs. Heller, and in July, banned all existing magazines over 10 rounds capacity, despite under state law, grandfathered magazines are still legal. Of the new storage law, city councilman Paul Krekorian said that he expected the city to be sued, expressed the opinion that those defending the Second Amendment and challenging the defiance of existing case law were spoil-sports.

While in Nevada no case has as yet been as extreme as California, the hits keep on coming. In 2013, Gov. Sandoval had to veto SB 221 which sought to ban private gun sales (repackaged as the misnamed universal background check initiative in 2016) passed by a Democrat controlled legislature. In the borderline predominately blue Clark County, with its history of gun control, measures similar to Los Angeles would not be unlikely except for state preemption.

As readers of this blog are aware, the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District has repeatedly and with no legal basis removed patrons legally openly carrying firearms. First, their own policies give them no such authority and secondly, they are prohibited under state law from making any rule to prohibit the legal carry of firearms. In a galling statement made privately, the district’s own council said that the district would not be changing its practices any time soon and he expected them to be sued over it. The taxpayer will have to bear this expense.

It’s not about where guns can be carried or who gets to; it’s about equal application of the law. The Second Amendment is extraordinarily clear “[…] shall not be infringed.” The legislature echoed that sentiment in its enhanced preemption laws. It’s time that all Nevada government entities abide by the law and not force the public, by administrators’ recalcitrance, to pay the legal bills.

UDPATED: Open Letter to North Las Vegas City Attorney Re: Open Carry Incident

The following is an open letter sent to the North Las Vegas City Attorney regarding the recent open carry incident.

It has come to my attention that a citizen who was openly carrying a holstered handgun was illegally and improperly detained recently by North Las Vegas Police officers.

This occurred Sunday, 9/20/2015 at between approximately 5-6PM at the Cheyenne Sports Complex. The citizen involved, Jose, told me the following:

Jose was with two other family members visiting an impromptu truck show at the Cheyenne Sports Complex. Jose was openly carrying a handgun.

At some point, police officers began to arrive. Jose did not witness any illegal activity and is unaware of any reason why the police would be called. Police began shouting, declaring the event to be an illegal assembly and ordering the crowd to disperse.

When police saw that Jose was armed, police approached him, ordering him to put his hands behind his back. Jose complied. When he asked if he was being detained, the officers did not respond. Jose was handcuffed, disarmed, and escorted to a police vehicle where he was handcuffed. Police took his wallet and discovered his concealed firearm permit (CCW). At this point, the officers uncuffed him.

Jose was surrounded by six to seven officers. One officer berated him, telling him that Jose was in violation of the terms of his concealed firearm permit and that the officer was going to cite Jose for open carry in a park, which according to the officer, was illegal per North Las Vegas city code.

Jose attempted to inform the officer that he was incorrect, that state law preempted North Las Vegas’ ordinances, but the officer continued to argue and threaten Jose. Jose was then released, after police escorted him to his vehicle to put away his firearm.

As you are no doubt aware, Senate Bills SB 175 and SB 240, enacted June 2, 2015, altered NRS 268.418 to preempt and invalidate North Las Vegas’ city ordinances regarding possession of firearms. The ordinances were repealed as required by the bills.

Unfortunately, this information was either not made clear to the police officers involved or they manifestly chose to ignore the law, cite repealed and invalidated ordinances. Additionally, based on the information I have obtained, the officers likely engaged in racial profiling and violated the citizen’s civil rights when they illegally detained him. The Nevada gun community is aware of far too many such violations occurring in the history of the North Las Vegas police department.

As a journalist and editor of a website dedicated to educating the public about firearm laws and rights, I do not seek to represent or act on behalf of the involved citizen. I am interested in preserving the rights of individual citizens to enjoy their right to bear arms without infringement from police. I call your attention to this matter to help redress the wrongs committed and to remind your office of the civil penalties for violation of NRS 268.418 (eff. 10/01/2015) and those associated with civil rights violations.

Updated with the response from the city attorney:

City attorney's reply: 

Hello [name redacted] 

I will have to investigate the facts surrounding the incident you describe that occurred at the Cheyenne Sports Complex last Thursday.   

Be assured that my office and the police department are aware of the passage and adoption of SB 175 and 240, and the City appropriately amended our municipal code in August to reflect the recent changes in state law.  

Thank you for your email. 

Sandra

Illegal Open Carry Detention in North Las Vegas

Credit: Jose E. E. T., Facebook

On a Las Vegas Facebook firearm group, a member posted his experience with North Las Vegas police illegally detaining him at the Cheyenne Sports Complex while openly carrying his handgun.

The poster stated: “I was with a couple of friends in the parking lot a cop pass by and just started to tell me put your hands behind your back [...].” His firearm was not confiscated, however the officers did walk him back to his car, presumably to lock the gun in the car.

A full account from the poster is pending as Nevada Carry has requested a full interview for more details of the incident. What can be gleaned is that the poster was detained without probable cause for being in possession of a firearm in a park. He was not arrested or cited, but his was illegally prohibited from openly carrying his firearm.

As readers know, state law prohibits local authorities from regulating the carry of firearms or prohibiting them from local parks. This law was strengthened this year by SB 175 and SB 240. North Las Vegas just recently repealed its illegal firearm laws. Under state and city law, simply carrying a firearm openly in a city park would not be grounds for a detention (and wouldn’t be anywhere else carrying a firearm is permitted). Unless there are details we are not aware of, this was a totally illegal detention and a violation of civil rights.

North Las Vegas police have an incredibly bad rap when it comes to open carry. Before state preemption laws were enacted in 1989, carrying a firearm was highly restricted and per city ordinances, required a concealed firearm permit, despite state law being silent on open carry. After the preemption laws went into effect, sporadic illegal searches, seizures, and detentions occurred for those in violation of city ordinances. People openly carrying were stopped and detained. Firearms carried legally in vehicles were illegally seized. Anecdotal evidence states that minorities were disproportionately affected, profiled, harassed, and discriminated against.

Despite officers’ behaviors changing over time and preemption laws, rumors persisted that it was still illegal to have a firearm in a vehicle or carry one openly. These rumors were conclusively disproved here.

The risk was that a rogue officer who engaged in illegal, unconstitutional acts would still enforce them always existed. Yet the prevalence of these incidents has declined precipitously over the years to the point it has become almost a non-issue. The editor of Nevada Carry and others in the open carry movement have carried openly in North Las Vegas many times without incident. Sadly, racial profiling, open disdain of armed citizens, and unconstitutional and unethical police behavior is apparently once again raising its ugly head in North Las Vegas.

Nevada Carry has asked North Las Vegas police for a comment. 

Assm. Fiore on Metro and Blue Cards

Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, a true champion of 2nd Amendment rights, sponsor of the good gun bills this legislative session, and the rare decent politician, gave me this reply:

"I have received numerous emails from other concerned citizens as well. Unfortunately there is not much we can do because the bill becomes 100% effective until October 1. It is already a law, however, the police cannot be penalized for not enforcing it until that date.  It makes the process rather confusing and frustrating for many people and businesses to comply. Until then we must be patient.

I would suggest contacting Chuck Callaway, police director to the LVMPD.  He should be able to address any other concerns you may have. [...]

I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns. Please continue to be involved in the legislative process.

Sincerely,
Assemblywoman Michele Fiore"

We are still pending official statements from Metro. Hopefully, Metro will not be taking the cowardly and tyrannical position of disobeying a law until they are forced to in October, under threat of enhanced civil penalties.

Under conventional logic, any arrest by Metro enforcing the invalidated law must thrown out of court. There is no act that could possibly excuse any delaying or as speculated behavior by Metro or any Clark County agency. An injunction or appeal on their behalf would be tantamount to tyranny and open defiance of the legislative and democratic process.

This weekend will be the telling time to see if Metro and the County will comply or if we need to take more drastic action to effect change.

-G. C.

BREAKING NEWS: Blue Cards and Local Laws Abolished, Preemption Enhanced

For current information, click the link to be redirected to the Blue Cards page at NevadaCarry.org.

Local Laws/State Preemption

RGJ Opinion Article: John Saludes Gets Gun Bills All Wrong

John Saludes has got the debate on new laws expanding gun rights in Nevada wrong. His recent article in the Reno Gazette-Journal is heavy on emotion, insulting to women, and chock full of the Democratic and anti-gun activist party lines. He tackles SB 175 and AB 148 with little aplomb.

Campus Carry

Saludes takes exception to AB 148, basing his argument on the fact that rape doesn’t really happen all that much on campus, and when it does, legally carrying a gun doesn’t have much of an effect. One rape is too much, Mr. Saludes.

Well that’s not the point. While rape has been the dominant reason used to justify campus carry, it is only one of the justifications. The first justification is that the Second Amendment right to  keep and bear arms does not stop at the campus gate. There is no inherent difference between a campus and the rest of Nevada.

Secondly, the right to self-defense against any threat—be it mass murder or robbery—is just a valid a reason to carry a firearm as rape. Making the debate solely or mostly about rape is narrow-minded and sexist towards men who do not wish to be victimized by criminals. Most of who would like to legally carry on campus simply don’t want their rights to be disenfranchised there or face criminal charges for doing something which is legal pretty much everywhere else in the state.

Mr. Saludes goes on to trivialize those who are victims of abductions and violent rapes by saying date or drug rapes are more common. No one is arguing that an acquaintance rape is the same as Saludes’ ‘rapist waiting in the bushes’ scenario. Does the woman raped by the man in the bushes deserve to have her rights trampled upon because of Mr. Saludes’ opinion?

Then he speaks about the costs to improve security in Idaho, where campus carry has cost over $3.7 million. Why is spending more money on increased security a bad thing? Do we decry more funds to hire more cops?

The implication is that the campuses fear that a licensed and vetted concealed weapons permit holder will suddenly become violent—of course, none of the school shooters in recent history had a concealed weapons permit. Except for perhaps signage, none of the improvements were directly related to campus carry. One could argue that these improvements, which should have been made before campus carry and regardless of campus carry, were made out of base fear.  

Actually, campus carry in Idaho is responsible for improving safety infrastructure.

Here are some of the improvements from the Idaho Statesman: 

“A fiscal note accompanying the legislation predicted minimal ,fiscal impact associated with posting signage at public entertainment facilities.,
 But the schools say they have had to add new staff, provide for training and purchase new equipment. Costs this budget year include:

• Boise State University: $1.4 million for an assistant director for event security, a chief of campus police and public safety, a director of emergency management, a security technology manager, armed and unarmed officers, administrative support and purchase of metal detectors, signs, a security vehicle and ballistic vests. 

• Idaho State University: $809,000 for four senior security officers, six dispatch officers, an emergency manager, metal detectors, firearms for security officers and protective/response equipment. 

• University of Idaho: $580,000 in addition to the existing contract with the Moscow Police Department. Costs cover a new security system manager, security cameras, hardware and software related to new equipment to monitor entrances and exits. 

• College of Western Idaho: $285,000 for an armed school resource officer contracted from a local department and equipment. 

• North Idaho College: $622,000 for unspecified personnel, a campuswide exterior surveillance system and enhanced electronic access on doors. 

Boise State spokesman Greg Hahn said the concealed-carry law prompted the university to look at campus security overall and embark on a multiyear effort to improve it. The school relies on the Boise Police Department to handle serious campus incidents.
 ‘As the city gets bigger and the campus gets bigger, and with this change, knowing that weapons are going to be allowed on parts of campus, does it make sense to turn (campus security) into a larger police force and ultimately armed security?’ Hahn asked. ‘Certainly a piece of it had to do with the gun bill, but we've been hearing requests for more campus safety at all levels.’” 

So in reality, these improvements were spurred by an increased awareness of campus security in light of campus carry, not because of campus carry. Again Saludes gets it wrong, taking the headline, but not the substance, following the same, tired tactics of the anti-gun crowd.

Hypocrites

Saludes then tries to persuade the legislators by calling them out. "Citizens entering the Nevada State Legislature first see a sign stating ‘No Firearms’ unless appropriate authorization is given. [...] Taking away the standard at colleges, yet keeping it at the legislature is pure hypocrisy."

Why yes, that is hypocrisy. The legislators, nothing more than citizens themselves, do not deserve extraordinary protection. NRS 218A.905 (8) is their special carve-out to protect themselves. The hypocrisy lies with the legislators, not with campus carry.

Domestic Violence

Saludes stated in testimony regarding SB 175 he lived as a child with a domestic violence convict that his father invited to live with his family after the convict's release from prison. The man was convicted of killing his wife. I feel compelled to point out there is no way to verify this story, nor would I want to intrude on Mr. Saludes’ childhood.

Saludes describes the man as a "gentle, humble man and the last person on earth that would kill someone. He was an artist who painted pictures." He goes on to say "I have come to realize that domestic violence happens for a variety of reasons and many times instantaneously. [...] That's what happened with this individual that led to his incarceration."

The unpredictable nature of these incidents is exactly the point. There is real way to prevent them. The only possible way would be through the use of science-fiction author’s Philip K. Dicks’ Pre-Crime to identify murderers. Guns aren’t the issue; ask the men and women who were beaten with fists, stabbed, kicked, or struck by cars.

Mr. Saludes wants guns to be confiscated from domestic violence suspects, not merely banning them for buying weapons. It sounds reasonable, but the circumstances that surround domestic violence accusations are nuanced and often not as cut-and-dried as it may seem.

Another problem lies with the fact that all too often, domestic violence accusations are baseless and the bar for successful prosecution too low. Prosecutors, judges, and juries are often biased against males. Perjury and refusing to drop a domestic violence case for lack of merit are also systemic problems, as this article points out.

It is commonly accepted that men are more often than women charged with domestic violence. Part of this is truth, and part of it is bias. There is a huge problem with false reports of domestic violence and the disproportionate destruction it can wreak on someone’s life.

"Domestic Violence restraining/protective orders are usually handed out freely by magistrates and judges applying the 'It’s better to be safe than sorry' mentality in these matters which has systemic and lasting consequences in future employment, constitutional rights, and reputation for, men, and their children, even if they are not found guilty."[1]

With both genders taken into consideration, there are over one million false accusations of domestic violence per year.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)) already prohibits misdemeanor domestic violence convicts from possessing or purchasing a gun.

Should the right to own a firearm be lost by the commission of a misdemeanor? Imagine if a non-injury DUI conviction that cost you a night in jail and a huge fine cost you your gun rights forever. Should a crime with a threshold so low as a misdemeanor mean a life time loss of gun rights? All other crimes that make one a prohibited person are felonies. With such a large number of false accusations and plea deals being rampant, a misdemeanor is too low of a bar to be set.

Returning to the background check debate, something else Mr. Saludes is a fan of, background checks can’t screen out a someone who has the potential to attack their partner. Background checks only search for previous convictions and there are no statistics to suggest that lots of men who murder their women partners with guns do so by illegally buying guns in private sales. It’s all about irrationality as Saludes pointed out. The gun used in domestic violence crimes is almost always already owned.

It’s emotional horror of domestic violence that Saludes and anti-gun activists use to rally support to their cause. What kind of heartless person says no to reducing domestic violence?

And if I hear “common-sense gun laws” ones more time, I’m going to vomit.

-G. C. 

---

[1] http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-statistics-laws-and-information-for-men/