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.

Sign the petition at Change.org

 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.

Sheriff Lombardo Supports Anti-Gun Question in Private

Alert!  

Don't take for granted that your pro-gun friends know to vote NO on question 1.

We just found out that our Clark County Sheriff, Joe Lombardo, who has officially taken a neutral position, is still speaking in favor of it in private circles.

We found this out from a couple of people who had attended an event recently where he was a speaker.  They took what he said as gospel, even though they were pro-gun people.  

Thankfully, we got to them before they voted and straightened it out.

But this should serve as a warning that we can take nothing for granted.  We need to be evangelists on this thing to everyone we come into contact with.  Go beyond social media.  Ask people at your work.  Even if you think that you might disagree with them on the entire rest of their ballot, don't worry about that.  Try to enlighten them on Q1.  Talk to EVERYONE in your family.  If you conduct a lot of business by email, add "Nevadans, Vote NO on Question 1" to your email sig.

We know that the only way this thing passes is if enough people are in the dark.  

Hit the bullet points:

Why does an out of state billionaire want to BUY a law in Nevada?

If we pass just one more law, criminals will surely start obeying them, right?

Who does this law affect?  The law abiding.  Criminals are amused by our futile attempts to regulate them into compliance.

Get out there and spread the word!  Be an ambassador for the 2nd Amendment!

CONFIRMED! Blue Card Records Destroyed!

One year ago, June 2, 2015, something wonderful happened for Nevada gun owners when Gov. Brian Sandoval signed Senate Bills 175 and 240 into law. Each bill contained identical provisions enhancing state preemption of local firearm laws, enacting enhanced preemption of local gun laws that also abolished Clark County's handgun registration system ('blue cards'). The bill provided a one year deadline (today, 6/2/2016) for all handgun registration records to be destroyed. Today, we have confirmed that the Las Vegas Metro Police, the sole repository of such records in Clark County, have destroyed all records of registration. 

Theft Crimes Bureau (CCW Unit) and the Records Bureau were involved in the destruction. Interestingly, some records had not been digitized (probably the older records dating from circa 1980). Microfilm and print records were shredded prior to January 1, 2016. Digital records were verified as deleted on May 15, 2016. The full response can be seen below.

Metro's initial response last June detailed that they had not formulated destruction plans immediately after the passage of the bills, but were focused on implementing the cessation of registration and informing gun dealers of the changes to local ordinances.

Formerly, state law prohibited local municipalities from making their own firearm regulations (except regarding discharge of firearms) and handgun registration in Clark County was also exempted, along with a few other odd ordinances. These laws have been enhanced to eliminate handgun registration (‘blue cards’), including their destruction above, and required local governments to take obsolete firearm laws off the books (also completed by the end of October 2015), and clarified language that specifies no existing local laws or regulations regarding firearms are permissible whatsoever.

Full text of LVMPD's reply

We at Nevada Carry would like to thank Officer Larry Hadfield and the other three PIOs, who have fielded over 1,700 requests this year, for providing this information on the anniversary of the passage of the bill. However, given the sensitivity regarding gun registration and the legislated requirement imposed upon the department, Sheriff Lombardo and LVMPD administration should have made this information public without the intense and repeated prompting that was required for this response.

For anyone who doubts, you may contact Metro at either sheriff@lvmpd.com and pio@lvmpd.com. At this time Nevada Carry has no reason to doubt the records were destroyed. Even so, the lack of independent verification or any other form of documentation is disturbing and a gross oversight of LVMPD administration, but again, there is no evidence to indicate any failure to comply or reasons to doubt the destruction of records.

A Look Behind the Scenes of the Metro's CCW Detail

In an earlier post, we looked at the surging wait times for Las Vegas Metro Police (Clark County) to issue a concealed firearm permit, which can exceed the 120 day maximum in some cases. Combined with the closure of the dedicated fingerprint bureau, many citizens have become frustrated with the process. All the evidence indicates that yes, it really does take them this long and no, it is not some sort of government conspiracy, particularly because of matters outside of Metro’s control. With such huge numbers of applications, the CCW detail is nearly overwhelmed when volume peaks (see first post for charts).

Metro receives the most applications and consequently takes the longest time of all Nevada counties to issue a regular permit. It is the fingerprint background check and official court/local record requests, combined with very high volume, that causes the delay. Thankfully, four months is a small price to be paid in a traditional open carry state, unlike California, where someone without law enforcement/judicial employment can wait up to a year just for the preliminary interview and fingerprinting (due to surging demand after Peruta v. Gore).

Increased concerns about mass shootings, crime, and terrorism, along with an increasing belief that the average person should have a firearm for protection has caused a surge in concealed firearm permit applications and wait times. We covered the numbers and waiting times previously, but Sgt. Palmer of Metro’s CCW detail said that the Dept. of Public Safety numbers do not accurately represent the number of permits issued, which were about 1100 in December of 2015. Numbers fluctuate normally from 70 to 100 with a maximum daily number rate of 156 applications. As of April, the average issue time is about 90 days.

As application volume has increased, staff that used to split time between processing initial applications and running the database background checks had to be devoted to just the application process. Suspension and revocations (and their re-instatements) due to arrests or convictions is another factor in delaying initial applicants or renewals. National Firearm Act (NFA) chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign-offs are completed faster, in a 4-6 week time frame as some report, but have less steps as Metro checks local records and the bulk of the other research is done at the federal level.

The process used by Metro is fairly standard across the state and for some portions, in other states as well (though their laws on when a permit can be issued differ). Utah has a substantially similar permit, but issues before the fingerprint results are returned. They will issue if the computer searches come back clear, preferring to rescind a permit if necessary when the fingerprint check and document searches are finalized. This results in their average 60 day window.

Metro uses a Sharepoint database that allows any employee in the CCW detail working on applications to access a given file, sharing the workload amongst the team rather than leaving files entirely under one person’s charge. In smaller counties, files are often managed by only one clerical employee and personally reviewed by the sheriff.

The electronic law enforcement database searches takes only minutes. A clear record is obviously easier to process, but someone with a criminal record will need additional research, such as contacting the particular jurisdiction to obtain information on the record/charge. Sorting out near matches also takes time to determine if the listed ‘hit’ belongs to the applicant or someone with a similar name.

Court documentation, rather than the existence of a conviction record in a database, is required, necessitating requesting actual proof. Obtaining court documents to support dismissal of charges or simply ordering hard copies, when electronic ones cannot be provided, take time. One of the two major delays (the other being the fingerprint process) is getting the required paperwork.

Sgt. Palmer and his staff are dedicated to researching the information the best the can, laborious as it can be. “As long as they can meet the requirements, they have the right to the permit and we will take the time to conduct the investigation.”

The fingerprint check, through the FBI is routed via the state Dept. of Public Safety.  Responses can take between 30-45 days. Sgt. Palmer tells us:

“This process can create several problems and is responsible for numerous delays. An example is the state has lost the file or we never received the return. We have to re-submit the prints and/or request why we never received a response. We can only request this once every 30 days. So, once we send the request in, we have to wait 30 days for the response or lack of response to occur. If we don't receive anything in another 30 days, a 2nd request is sent.”

Background checks for law enforcement employees across the country also, at a minimum, take a minimum of two months for many of these same reasons as well. Even in California, an expedited concealed weapon permit can take two months to process.

Some permittees have had their fingerprints rejected because of light prints, damage to their fingertips, or other problems with the Livescan system. Sgt. Palmer says this can quickly increase the time taken to process an application.

“Once the electronic prints are rejected, the person must come in and complete an actual print card. The card is completed and mailed to the state. If the prints are rejected again, we have to request a non-print background check.”

Printing and mailing the car is a matter of how long it takes to physically print the card and ready it for mailing. Mailing time in the Las Vegas Valley is usually two business days, but in rural parts of Nevada, it can take longer or the permittee would need to come pick-up the permit.

Across the state

Clearly, all counties are different and permit receipt times vary, generally with the smaller counties having the fastest issuance times. This depends on local volume, although much of the delay is waiting on fingerprint records, which will naturally take longer almost uniformly, depending on the volume received. Sheriff Trotter of Churchill County reports that it takes his agency about 30 days to issue a permit. Elko finds it takes three to six weeks for a reply to the fingerprint record requests. Mike Dorson, of the Nye County Sheriff’s Office, told us:

“At our agency it takes approximately 30 minutes to process an applicant once he submits it at our front office window. However he/she may have a long wait depending on his/her spot in line. Every Tuesday afternoon we process 15-25 applicants from Front Sight Firearm Training Institute. Sometimes we have to turn applicants away (due to closing time) and they either return at another time or they mail their applications to us.”

As far as mental health records, the availability is limited. Nye County does not have access to mental health records, while Churchill County has their own local database. Agency master file records will generally indicate if a person was ordered held on “Legal 2000” 72-hour mental health hold. Presumably, that would trigger a more in-depth search.

Conclusion

Sgt. Palmer told us that when he first took his assignment within the CCW detail, he was surprised by the amount of time and work that went into the process. Unfortunately, the nature of the process, the extensive investigations that must be performed, and the amount of work required to document each requirement causes much of the delay. While most citizens can appreciate seasonal volume or tragic events spurring more applications, not knowing what happens once the packet and check cross the counter leads to much consternation.

When the concealed firearm permit process was changed to shall-issue in 1995, there was a concern that 60 days to issue the permit was insufficient, leading to the 120 day deadline. A 60-90 day wait was not unusual for non-weapons background checks then. While the process has been sped up by electronic records and delivery/submission of fingerprints and record checks, the applicant volume has erased those gains.

Short of hiring more records clerks in Clark and Washoe Counties, there is not much more that can be done to accelerate the process. State law could be changed to institute a policy such as in Utah, which would allow for issuance pre-fingerprint background check results. The Dept. of Public Safety could also consolidate operations in a larger bureau, but this would require additional state funds to staff and operate.

By far, the best solution is to enact ‘Constitutional carry’—permitless concealed carry. While open carry without a permit is legal in Nevada, most Americans prefer to carry their firearms concealed. Many who desire to protect themselves don’t want to openly carry a handgun, but are equally dissuaded from the cost of training, the application, and the intimidating process of applying for a permit. It shouldn’t be a crime to put a jacket on over a holstered gun or for a woman to tuck pistol in her purse. Only with the legislature stepping up in 2017 to change Nevada law to catch the wave of new constitutional carry states across the nation will concealed carry become less of a hassle to Nevadans and our oh-so-necessary tourists.

Library Has Mom Illegally Arrested for Legal Openly Carried Gun; Suit Filed

A mother legally openly carrying her handgun was unlawfully arrested at the Rainbow branch of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District (LVCCLD) back on March 16. This is the latest incident in a string of Second Amendment abuses by the district which culminated in the defendant, Michelle Flores, being detained in front of her young children. She was also threatened with having her children removed by CPS. Ultimately, Flores’s handgun was seized and she was given a citation for trespassing before being released at the scene.

A lawsuit has been filed by Flores, who is represented by Ashcraft and Barr. A copy of the complaint is available here. Flores seeks damages pursuant to the provisions of SB 175/240 which allow for up to triple damages for any party adversely affected by an illegal firearm ordinance.

Openly carrying a firearm in a public library is legal in Nevada. In fact, several library districts, including the Henderson district and the Washoe District, recognize this fact. State law prohibits government entities from banning firearms from their buildings under state firearm preemption laws. Only the legislature can regulate where and how firearms can be carried. Furthermore, the library’s own Rules of Conduct don’t even prohibit openly carried firearms, only concealed firearms pursuant to state law.

Outside of Nevada, the Seattle, Washington library changed its policies on open carry and the Capitol Area District Libraries (CADL), Michigan, lost a suit for violating state law by preventing the lawful open carry of firearms. Additionally, Texas libraries are not allowed to have firearm bans as well, which includes the state's recent decriminalization of open carry. On the concealed carry end, the Denver Science Museum dropped its concealed carry ban because it was unenforceable per state law. 

The Incident

Flores told us:

"I was inside for about an hour with no issues looking for books for my children. I passed by multiple staff members with no issues. I checked out a few books and was about to exit the library when the security guard began calling after me to tell me firearms are not allowed. I attempted to talk to the hired guard about the law and he summoned a library employee. She brings up an invalid rule the library has that they can prohibit firearms. She then summons the police. No one during this time ever asked me to leave the premises. After the officer’s arrived, I attempted to film the interaction and was instead placed in handcuffs with my phone and firearm taken from me. This all occurred in front of my young children (5, 3, 1). The officers never attempted to find out my side of events.  

"As they escorted me out of the building, one of the officers was asking if I had any family to pick up my children, since I did not they proceeded to call CPS to pick up my children with the threat of arresting me. Fortunately I had a friend on the way who arrived a while after I was outside in cuffs. During the time in handcuffs I was basically forced to take care of my children to ensure they would not enter the parking lot while other patrons were coming to and from the library. Once my friend arrived, he was able to take charge of my children and a 3rd officer arrived shortly after. This officer finally listened to my side of events. The officer that put me in cuffs then comes back to me and says they will release me, and give me a citation but impound my firearm. After numerous phone calls and conversations between the officers and library employees, he then came to tell me I would be trespassed for one year and receive a citation but would retain possession of my firearm."

Flores was released with a citation for trespassing (NRS 207.200). A librarian read her the trespassing statement and banned her from library property for a year. 

Flores's friend arrived to assist her and videotape the encounter. Nevada Carry has reviewed the video. Though her friend was observing the encounter and not interfering, he was ordered to leave the area or disarm. He chose to put his gun in his car. A confrontational officer approached him and said “That gun looks like it’s partially concealed. […] It looks like it’s black under there.” Flores’s friend informed the officer that he had already removed his handgun. The officer asked the friend to identify himself and what he was doing there.

“You’re not involved here, so leave,” the officer said. “Cause you’re not involved with what we’re doing at all, so go ahead and leave here. We’re talking care of business here. Now I’m advising you once. That’s your one warning. I’m going to give you one warning, so leave.” This behavior isn’t unusual. A videographer Mitchell Crooks was beaten in 2012 by an LVMPD officer who was upset with being filmed. An officer suggested that even though Flores’s friend’s holster was empty, he could be considered to be carrying concealed when the officer saw the holster.

The cooler officer called out that he and Flores’s friend already spoke. The aggressive officer then walked away. Flores was then uncuffed and signed the citation. The officers were apparently unaware of state firearm preemption laws. The librarian read the trespassing warning to Flores and prohibited from visiting any LVCCLD library for one year.

The actual illicit policy 

No trespass occurred

Flores was cited for trespassing, a violation of NRS 207.200, despite never actually violating any provisions of that section. The violation has two elements.

Subsection (a) Going into a building "with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act." First, Flores had no intent to vex or annoy the library staff or the patrons. Additionally, there was no alarm or panic, nor did she behave in a disruptive manner, which might constitute other criminal behavior.

Second, Flores did not enter with intent to vex or annoy. Her behavior would have been otherwise unremarkable, save for her handgun. There was no reports of disturbed or alarmed patrons or any other criminal behavior. Had Flores somehow been committing a disturbance, Metro probably wouldn't have taken nearly an hour to arrive.

Most importantly, no unlawful act was committed. The library district has repeatedly cited NRS 379.040 as its authority to illegal ban firearms. That section gives only the board of trustees the authority to make reasonable regulations. The library Code of Conduct, which was last approved by the board of trustees in an unrelated update in Jan. 2011, only prohibits concealed firearms in conformance with state law. The district cites a policy that they have circulated to staff which was never approved by the board of trustees (at least since 2004).

The policy is merely an administrative response when citizens' objections forced them to manufacture something. Since the ‘policy’ was never approved the board of trustees, it is not an enforceable regulation per NRS 379.040. District bureaucrats made up the ban.

The library district's own administrative policy, even if somehow considered enforceable, is specifically prohibited by state preemption of firearm regulation. Such a policy is null and void as the district has no authority to regulate the carry of firearms.

The officers made an arrest on false pretenses at the behest of the library staff. LVCCLD is so bent on illegally prohibiting firearms that it is willing to see mothers with children arrested and to invite a lawsuit, at taxpayer's expense. Unfortunately, Metro police administration placed its officers in this position by failing to properly educate their employees on the legality of open carry and changes in state law. This isn’t the first time Metro illegally interfered with an open carrier because of officers’ ignorance. LVMPD officers also recently ejected a legal open carrier from the Clark County Fair.

The Las Vegas-Clark County Library District knowingly and willfully violated the provisions of firearm preemption. In November, a group of citizens warned the board of trustees that their administrators’ actions were flying in the face of state law. Despite repeated public protest and outcry, the district has continued its abuses and usurpations. 

Library counsel, attorney Gerald Welt, stated in a private conversation, which was recounted on Facebook (see image) that he was aware of the preemption law, but open carriers would still be kicked out and he expected the district to be sued. If these allegations are true, they are totally irresponsible. Taxpayers should not be forced to bear the burden of officials’ malfeasance.

Shouldn't That Be Illegal?

Nevada hasn't overlooked open carry in public buildings as some sort of bygone tradition that legislators have forgotten about. A look at other states, as we have done with Frontier Carry, will show that in the Intermountain West, the ban on openly carried firearms in public buildings is an exception to the rule. Only Colorado expressly allows a blanket ban of openly carried firearms, while exempting concealed carry in those public buildings without security screening. Texas, which recently decriminalized open carry for licensed individuals, enacted open carry of firearms dating from the 19^th Century to prevent blacks from carrying arms.

In fact, an analysis of these states, plus the Idaho Supreme Court case of Re: Brickey reveals that open carry is recognized as the constitutionally protected form of carry. Nevada has prohibited unlicensed concealed carry in one form or another since the early 1900s as have most of our neighboring states. The concealed carry of firearms one hundred years ago was only then just beginning to lose its reputation as something only a thief, bandit, or burglar did. Hiding a gun implied that the person carrying was also trying to conceal criminal intentions. Only with the vilification of guns starting in the 1910s through the 1930s did self-conscious citizens desire to transition to concealed carry.

Yet only rarely are openly carried weapons regulated and almost always in blanket 'all weapons' bans, such as at schools. It is tacitly understood that open carry in all but the most specific of circumstances, is none of the government's business. So no, allowing openly carried weapons in public buildings isn't a legislative oversight, rather it is recognition that government has no power to regulate the open carrying of arms. Nevada's gun laws aren't some error or accident of history.

Members of the public can contact the library district to express their opinion at administration@lvccld.org or 702-507-4400. Operations Director Jennifer Schember can be emailed at Schemberj@lvccld.org.

Oh by the way, learn the truth about:

Vote 'No' on Ballot Question #1 in November

Open Carry Harassment at Clark County Fair

A Las Vegas woman was illegally removed from the Clark County Fair and Rodeo for openly carrying her handgun peacefully. A security guard first approached her and told her that the fairgrounds were “private property.” She reported that she was approached by two LVMPD officers who escorted her to vehicle. The officers told her the fair was a “private event” and that she could not have a firearm there. When she attempted to explain the state preemption ordinances which protected her right to bear arms, she said “I got was the ‘deer in headlights’ look.”

Irony of ironies, this all happened during the live cowboy re-enactment featuring blank pistol and shotgun shots. A security guard also attempted to stand in front of another citizen videotaping the encounter, apparently colluding with the illegal acts. One guard jokingly commented that the footage could be sold on Fox News. She was told by the guards: "this 'private company' [presumably CC Fair Inc.] had a no open carry law and then quickly corrected himself and said policy. Them he said that this 'private company' leased the land from the county which somehow automatically made the fair a 'private property." 

As readers are aware, state law prohibits local authorities from regulating firearms, except for unsafe discharge. Additionally, state law only prohibits concealed firearms in public buildings where posted or metal detectors are present at each public entrance (NRS 202.3673). The Clark County Fairgrounds are owned and operated by Clark County Parks and Recreation. The Fair itself is operated by a non-profit corporation, Clark County Fair Inc.

Additionally, a non-profit corporation created to operate a county fair on public fairgrounds only barely meets the definition of a private event. Non-profit corporations are usually used for events of this type as a way to insulate the county from any liability or responsibility from actually operating the event. Clark County Fair Inc. was founded by volunteers. The most solid date for establishment is in 2011. Before that, we have been unable to conclusively determine who operated the fair. CC Fair Inc. it was reported in 2009 that it receives approximately $25,00 t0 $75,000 in grants from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (a local government entity). It appears that CC Fair Inc. operates the fair on an unofficial basis for the county.

It would not be inappropriate for a private event operator to choose to exclude persons from their event. However, it is illegal for local authorities, as a condition of using public facilities, to prohibit firearms at an event. It would also be illegal for police officers, on only their own initiative, to prohibit and eject lawfully armed citizens. Based on the county approved rules and state law, it is hard to see how a citizen could be legally prevented from openly carrying a firearm.

The fair rules and regulations do not prohibit firearms and there is no mention in the agreement with the county, or the vendor handbook, as approved by the board of commissioners, to allow exclusion of fair patrons for bearing arms. It is interesting how government officials find it permissible to take punitive actions against citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights, but they would never consider interfering with anyone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

It is curious why LVMPD officers are not aware of the changes to state law that protected this armed citizen’s behavior. Park police even specifically acknowledged the applicability of state preemption laws to parks. This event is just one of several in recent months where LVMPD acted illegally because of the officers ignorance of state law. Thankfully, this even did not result in an illegal arrest.

120 Days to Get a CCW from LVMPD? What Takes So Long?

Clark County residents are in an uproar over the closure of Metro PD’s Cameron St. fingerprint bureau and the resulting massively increased wait times at the headquarters office. For those who have applied for a concealed firearm permit, the Cameron St. location provided a relatively quick process, whereas a two hour wait (or longer) at headquarters is not uncommon.

The headquarters office on Martin Luther King Blvd. was recently remodeled to add more windows to increase the number of citizens served, exasperating citizens during the interim, some waiting over 5 ½ hours to be served. The Cameron St. location was closed to the public to create a home for the traffic bureau, which is leaving what will soon become the new Spring Valley Area Command at 8445 Eldora Ave, near Cimarron and Sahara.

The time it takes LVMPD to issue concealed firearm permits has been an extreme point of frustration for Clark County residents who have routinely been facing waits of 100-120 days for a permit to be issued. NRS 202.366 requires that the sheriff must issue a permit (or deny it) within 120 days. The number of active permits in the county have grown by approximately 6,000 in the past year and almost doubled since 2010. 58,234 permits were active in Clark County as of March 1^st.

Numbers skyrocket

It wasn’t until the spring of 2013, following the Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, CT, that wait times between application and issuance jumped to the three month range. Before then, the average turnaround time was about two months or less. Even with the abolition of the ‘blue card’ handgun registration system and the staff needed to administer the system being freed up in June 2015, the wait times remain in the three-to-fourth month range.

Currently, LVMPD is taking the full four months (120 days) to issue permits. A few instances of temporary permits being issued have been reported after the 120 day mark. Technically, the sheriff could issue the temporary permit on Day 1, but does not. Other states with substantially similar processes, such as Utah, are issued in half the time (Utah’s permits are administered by the state).

In theory, with the staff freed from their ‘blue card’ tasks, the numbers should decline. Except the only decline was the seasonal summer dip. Roughly 500 permits per month, for a total of about 4,000, have been issued since ‘blue cards’ were phased out. It is not known exactly how many employees process permit applications or how the exact process is performed.

One explanation for the long wait times is that more and more Nevadans are waking up to the need to defend themselves. Lt. Randy Sutton of Metro stated that there is a “secret army” of concealed carriers that terrorists and criminals need to be wary of. The surging interest for personal safety creates and obvious bottleneck that the department is ill-prepared to handle. Yet again, some improvement should have been made, at least incrementally, with the burden of ‘blue cards’ removed. Washoe County, the next largest issuer of permits, was last documented issuing at about 70 days.

Stats

As the charts indicate, the rate of permits issued does not exactly correlate with the sudden spike of applications post-Sandy Hook (Dec. 2012). The violent spike in volume would logically overwhelm staffers not used to average volume tripling. However, the application volume falls off again to about average levels before rising up to double the pre-Sandy Hook average.

If the high volume of applications burdening the staff were the problem, the wait times and application rates should correlate. Except they don’t. Volume falls way off to a level that past averages don’t justify. Clearly, the CCW detail could handle the volume in the past with a 90-day return rate. It’s not the amount of work.

More data is needed, specifically application/issuance dates to get a more uniform sample.

Wait time numbers are anecdotal, coming from various private forums where wait times are tracked. Issuance/received time is the 'Received' date used; it was impossible to tell apart issuance vs. received date in some cases based on lack of clarification. Issuance date, where explicitly listed, was used. Mailing time and weekends allows for a margin of error of 2-4 days between issuance and receipt. Stats here (spreadsheet). 

What takes so long?

Many applicants, in between fits of tearing their hair out, obsess over what takes so long for the permits to be approved. 500 permits per month would equal 25 permits per workday. What is in contention is how long it takes to work one application.

The FBI uses IAFIS (Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System) to scan and search fingerprints for matches among criminal records. “The average response time for an electronic criminal fingerprint submission is about 27 minutes, while electronic civil submissions are processed within an hour and 12 minutes.” CT Carry has this information on their state’s process, which states the FBI response can be up to 24 hours. Clearly, while a response is pending on one set of fingerprints, other portions of application processing can be done.

Some have pointed out that other licenses, such as a real estate broker license, requires essentially the same background check process, and yet takes less than a month to receive approval. LVMPD also tends to approve National Firearms Act (NFA) forms within about two weeks (fingerprints and application is processed by the ATF), which one would imagine is held to much the same scrutiny as a concealed firearm permit.

Some testimony from the 1995 legislative session when Nevada adopted a ‘shall-issue’ system gives us a little more info, though it is 20 years old. 

“Mr. Cooper said the issuance of those concealed carry weapons permits requires one full-time clerk together with a part-time employee.  He said the process is ‘laborious,’ consisting of a background check and clerical time which could take from 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours for each permit.”

“Lt. Cavagnaro added an FBI fingerprint check could take a minimum of 90 days.  He said a background check could vary from ‘10 minutes for a local person to several days for someone from out of the state.’

“Senator McGinness asked Mr. Cooper if he believed an FBI fingerprint check was always necessary.  Mr. Cooper answered the fingerprints would have to be submitted if the applicant's prints were not already on file.  He admitted if a person moved to Clark County from out of the state, ‘...it could take from 60 to 90 days to follow up.’  Mr. Cooper said reviewing an application from a long-time resident of a county would be far more simple and take less time.” 

"Mr. Griiser [NRA-ILA] addressed the subcommittee again, saying: "I have testified in over 30 states...and I have never heard anybody testify that it takes 90 days for an FBI background check to go through."  He said in the state of Arizona the average wait, with a background check, is 10 days.  Mr. Griiser stated he believed setting a 60-day time limit would be sufficient. 

Mr. DeBacco, who testified earlier regarding this aspect of the legislation, said the repository submits approximately 60,000 to 70,000 civil fingerprints cards each year to the FBI, and the average turnaround time on licensing and employment issues is approximately 60 to 90 days.  He said the testimony in that regard is accurate.  Senator Porter indicated Nevada is the fastest growing state in the country, which may account for the lengthy turnaround time.  Mr. DeBacco said the fingerprint check is a 'labor intensive process,' and is a much more inclusive process than a simple background check."  

This was prior to the introduction of the IAFIS system in 1998.

We don’t really know what takes Metro so long. The numbers just don’t make sense. Ultimately, unless LVMPD or another agency is willing to shed light on exactly what they do, we can only make an educated guess. Hopefully, we can win constitutional carry in the 2017 legislative session.

Update: Metro said that the DPS provided stats may be inaccurate and the actual number of permits issued higher.

Lock Up Your S---! (Guns)

Press briefing this afternoon to discuss responsible gun ownership. There have been 1,694 stolen guns this year. pic.twitter.com/uZzQaxCaOp

— LVMPD (@LVMPD) September 23, 2015

Yesterday, Las Vegas Metro Police reported that 1,694 guns were stolen, year to date. Every so often, we see stories on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media where a gun owner laments their weapons were stolen in a burglary. Even worse than that are the incidents where a child is killed when playing with an unsecured firearm. Gun safety is the responsibility of every owner. Negative firearm incidents in the media lends itself to the false narrative that guns are evil and inherently dangerous. While guns are dangerous, they require direct human manipulation to cause death or injury. In addition to safeguarding your possessions so that they stay yours and so that innocent hands don’t find them, security is of paramount importance.

Guns should be either holstered on your body, under your direct and immediate physical control, or locked away, preferably in a safe. NRS 202.300 makes it a crime to allow a child access to a firearm unless it is “stored in a securely locked container or at a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure.” This allows a wide variety of method to be used, while still requiring responsibility and safety without becoming a draconian restriction like California’s laws.

Off-body carry is especially popular with women, who carry a handgun in their purses. For reasons mentioned in this post, on-body carry is always preferred. Special considerations must be taken if off-body carry is utilized.

1. Keep your weapon (i.e. your bag) under your control at all times. Never let it out of your sight and preferably, within arms’ reach.

2. Do not allow children or anyone you don’t explicitly trust with your weapons to access your bag.

3. Always use a holster that covers the trigger to prevent fingers or object slipping inside the trigger guard.

Home Carry

Many gun owners keep a gun at home for self-defense against burglars—probably magnitudes more than those who carry, openly or concealed, outside the home. Some gun owners feel it is best to carry a firearm on their persons at almost all times, even when at home. Carrying a handgun at home is called ‘home carry.’ There are two schools of thought; one that it is a little much, almost paranoia, and the other that says one never knows when criminals will strike. It’s ultimately a personal choice and partially dictated by the threats you may face. Here is a good discussion why one person thinks it’s a good idea.

Guns stored around the house for self-defense need to fall back on the statement at the top; either on your body or locked away. Now, if you are a young, handsome, single gentleman such as the editor living in a place without children, having a loaded firearm unattended on the dresser in the other room isn’t necessarily a dangerous thing. Yet if a stranger, group of friends, or a child came over, that firearm would need to be locked away. Same thing as if the home was left unattended and the gun didn’t go along with its owner.

Self-defense in the home must balance safety and security with a quick response. Doors can be kicked open in lightning speed and the distance to a bedroom closed before your feet could hit the carpet. Quick-access safes are a good way to keep guns from being stolen and out of childrens’ hands. Browse Amazon’s results here and you’ll find a wide variety of safes. Some can go under the bed, others in nightstand drawers. Key, cipher, code, or even fingerprint access is available.

Safes vs. Cabinets

Any large metal box is not a safe, even though we call it that. A metal box with racks to store guns and a locking door is not a safe, it is a cabinet. A safe is going to be much sturdier, heavier, and have an intricate locking system that will take skills and time to defeat. One of these Stack-On cabinets is a great thing to have and a good bargain, but they will not defeat a serious gun thief and shouldn’t be used to protect collections of great value. Such lightweight cabinets can be easily pried open. Cabinets are mostly for securing guns from children and quick or lazy burglars. Safes should be bolted to the floor or frame of the house and kept within a locked room to prevent thieves from grabbing the safe to crack it elsewhere.

 

Record and take pictures of your guns. Make a full record of your weapons, including your serial numbers, make, model, and caliber. Best to even photograph the weapon and take a close-up of the serial number too. Store them in the cloud or on hidden removable media (in case your computer gets stolen). Paper records can be used too, but should be stored in a fire-proof safe or off-site in case of a fire. A personal firearm log is available as a PDF from LVMPD. If your guns are stolen, report them to the police as soon as possible to aid recovery and help catch anyone who uses them illegally.

Car Carry

When outside the home, citizens should be carrying their handguns, if they feel comfortable doing so, whether concealed with a concealed firearm permit, or carried openly (permit or not). Though in some locations, like casinos, schools, and workplaces, it is either illegal or not practical to carry a firearm. Most workplaces stupidly do not permit workers to have firearms at work, fearing liability rather than letting employees defend themselves.

All forms of carry are illegal in the following places:

• On the premises of a public school, on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, or a child care facility without written permission of the college president, school principal, or head of a public child care facility, including in the parking lot (NRS 202.265).
• A private in-home child care facility, except by the homeowner(s) or residents. [Ibid.]
• The legislative building or wherever the legislature is conducting business (NRS 218A.905).
• Inside federal buildings, at Hoover Dam, and loaded guns at Red Rock National Conservation Area. This includes the Post Office, Social Security Office, and VA hospitals/facilities.

NRS 202.3673 (concealed carry only) prohibited areas:

• The secure area of an airport (for instance, employee-only areas or past the TSA checkpoints).
• Inside a building of a public airport (open carry is legal outside of the secure area).
• Inside a public building (government building) with either 'no guns' signs or metal detectors at each public entrance (open carry may be legal). See below for more details.

In these prohibited areas, leaving your gun in the car may be the only option. Guns are stolen from cars all the time. Everyone has either been victimized or knows someone who has had a vehicle burglary because a bag or something of value was visible in the car. Valuables lying out in a car practically scream “steal me!” to crooks and virtually any bag in a vehicle looks like it’s some sort of mystery-prize goody bag. Leaving stuff visible like that is as bad as leaving your car unlocked.

Lock it. Take it. Hide it.

Now if your car is locked and nothing valuable is visible, you may still be victimized. You don’t want your car broken into and your gun stolen from the glove compartment. Still, this is a risk that many of us take and have to accept, so if a gun is kept in the car, be aware that it may be stolen and you may want to choose a cheap handgun for your car pistol.

Car safes are available in wide flavors. Get one and install it in a hidden place. You can even go so far as to install a locking rifle/shotgun rack in your vehicle, such as in police cars.

Be a responsible gun owner. Note your serial numbers. Keep your guns secured. Teach children gun safety. pic.twitter.com/IJLyxlFKkZ

— LVMPD (@LVMPD) September 23, 2015

Know gun safety, also, know the law. The most important part about owning and carrying a gun is how to use and carry it safely. Visit our safety page.

Updated: What’s up With Metro and Handgun Registration? (Revised)

Update: Several reliable sources and several different gun stores are confirming that they have heard from LVMPD that they are honoring the changes to preemption. The gist is that LVMPD Firearms Detail has contacted the gun shops in question and advised them officially that registration and waiting periods are over with. Additionally, they have ordered remaining forms destroyed. We are attempting to get official confirmation, but confidence of this word is high.

Since enhanced preemption was enacted Tuesday, June 2, by Gov. Sandoval, rumors have been flying around about what gun store is still doing things the old way and which ones aren’t. Some gun dealers in the affected areas (right now city of Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark County) are adhering to the 72-hour waiting period and issuing blue cards. Others rightly objected and aren’t. Henderson, which is fully and immediately complying with the law, has no issues reported.

Calls to substations say one thing, then the PIO/other substation says something else. People are starving for correct information.

Those giving and getting the answers aren’t always as politically savvy as other may be. Desk staff may be misinformed, confused, or suffering from a bureaucratic panic at Metro PD that always falls back on the tried and true tactic of the government, standard-operating-procedures.

It’s very likely that the furor and requests for answers took the department by surprise, before they could have time to adequately prepare training information and make the changes. Of course, the sheriff did support eliminating handgun registration and it was pretty clear this would pass the legislature and be signed by the governor. Perhaps they should have planned ahead.

Nothing has been verified officially, so they remain rumor and third-hand information, but a vague picture is coming together that the right hand might not know what the left is doing. We hope it’s just confusion at Metro, but proof remains to be seen. For now, I urge caution.

Several legislators are interested in the developments and are working their angle with Metro and their respective resources. We have a request for comment in with them. They are pursuing their own investigations presently.

What’s apparent is that we need a formal announcement from the Sheriff or Metro is needed ASAP. The public needs to be reassured that it’s police are aware of the changes to the law and are complying with it immediately, not trying to find a way around it. I retract my earlier statement that Metro isn’t up to something shady and now I want them to prove that they aren’t.

Metro PIO on Fox 5’s “Behind the Badge”

PIO Sheehan of LVMPD spoke on Fox 5’s “Behind the Badge Segment.”From his statement, he’s not a great spokesman about explaining the intricacies of the amended laws, but he did speak the truth. Taking his word as the most official voice from Metro this far, we can surmise that Metro does intent to obey the law and has ceased handgun registration.

Sheehan stated that: “There’s no more gun registration in Clark County. […] You don’t have to register with your local police department. It’s registered at the state level now. The state becomes the repository for all handgun registrations in our state […].”

The latter portion of that statement was incorrect. It appears that Sheehan misspoke and wasn’t fully aware of the text of the bills, confusing the state repository for criminal information (for background checks) with a gun registry. The state of Nevada only retains information on who legally cannot possess a firearm; it does not maintain a gun registry or will be accepting Metro’s records (the records must be destroyed).

While the legislature did reserve the right to regulate registration (among other things) itself, it did not create a gun registry. The legislature proposed nothing of the sort this session, such an idea has no support within the legislators (at least publicly), and would be immediately rejected out of hand by Nevadans. Again, while the legislature regulates registration of guns now, it chose to get rid of the only gun registry in the state rather than expand it.

Sheehan did clear up the rumors about whether or not campus carry an constitutional carry (concealed carry without a permit being required) passed. They did not. It was very good of him to make that clear to the public because people just don’t seem to listen, read, or understand. The readers of this blog aren’t those sorts of people, but nonetheless, many others needed to hear that message less they unintentionally break the law.

One deficiency was that Sheehan did not mention that local laws were repealed immediately, like the county parks ban on guns and North Las Vegas’ local laws. Generally, the police are not going to advertise that a law is no longer in effect. It’s like asking a fireman on for a segment to explain the best way to torch your old Christmas tree in the backyard.

All in all, Sheehan did a pretty fair job of explaining it and the other aspects of the bills, particularly the expansion of the castle doctrine to the car and civil immunity for justifiable homicide. However, shame on Fox 5 and the local media for always turning to their same, tired sources who do a poor job explaining gun laws. A statement from Metro is good, but the true benefit to the gun community needs to be heard. No longer will Nevadans have to worry about confusing local regulations, those who live in other county’s being quizzed about ‘blue cards’, or having to wait for 72-hours to buy a handgun here.

No one got to hear about that. Rumors weren’t quashed, just a brief segment that many probably didn’t see. There are plenty of us who can give the correct information, as we specialize in it, and would love to go into the detail that the public is so dearly starved for. So tell Fox 5 and local media to get better gun commentators, not Bob Irwin of The Gun Store or their attorney friend Bob Massi (who got it wrong before).

Please Don’t Flame Me

As a former law enforcement officer myself, I have to stand up a bit for Metro. They’re probably all in a tizzy over this because so many people are asking questions. Social media is exploding and over 50,000 of you have visited this blog to learn about the recent changes. I would bet that the PIOs are overwhelmed right now, along with desk staff and various supervisors. They are probably swamped with a flood of mundane questions to insisting queries from the public (privately, and in my capacity as a journalist, am one of the latter).

It takes time to share this kind of complex information through the government. Supervisors have to review it, staff to write it, lawyers to sign off, and somebody important to approve it before it filters out through email and briefings. This is the government we’re talking about here—we all joke about how bureaucratic and slow it can be. Metro (and other officials) must be accurate in their statements and politic in their delivery. Thousands of people must be correctly informed.

For now, we must give the police and government officials time to process this and respond. They should have been astute and prepared for this moment to come, but power, particularly in Clark County, is reluctant to release its grasp. For nearly 26 years, Clark County clung to its exemption, fighting any release. Only when public pressure became insurmountable, did Sheriff Lombardo, as a candidate, supported eliminating handgun registration.

Will this sheriff live up to his campaign promise and faithfully uphold the law he was sworn to execute, even if it targets his office and one of his programs? That remains to be seen. With multiple reports of gun stores in unincorporated Las Vegas and the city of Las Vegas being told by Metro to continue complying with waiting period and handgun registration starting to add up to the truth, it appears Metro is defying the law. Too many pieces are falling into place that paint a picture that is rather ugly; Metro intends to break the law and threaten revocation of gun dealers’ business licenses.

Yet we do not have confirmation on this, so I urge caution at this point. We need, no we require, a formal answer. Metro PIO Larry Hadfield responded to my request for a comment for the public and for my readers. I am awaiting an official response from the commander of the firearms detail to clarify what exactly is going on and what Metro’s official position is. Until such time as Metro makes an official statement or refuses (and clear and convincing evidence shows they are not complying), we must keep our reactions tempered.

At this stage, what does going off half-cocked do for us? Operating on misinformation and an incomplete picture is detrimental to our cause. We would waste goodwill and public pressure pushing in the wrong areas.

There are intransigent police departments out there; we’ve see that across the county. In particular, we’ve seen that in the behavior of the park police who have been hell-bent (up to now) to justify their no-guns-in-parks rule.

Perhaps my directly calling them out here has alienated them and they are reticent to speak with someone who has, in their eyes, insulted their honor? I don’t know. What I do know is that an us vs. them does exist with the police. In most places, it is an insidious thing where the police feel they are guardians of an incompetent public, but rather a defense to public criticism that can sometimes be over-stated.

In the various circles I am involved with, I am privy to communications that others have had with, in this case, the libraries and the county park police. There is outright antagonism and the defiance of the right to bear arms in those places. Some of you have seen the various old threads on forums or know someone who has taken up the challenge. They hear, but they do not listen. They see, but they do not perceive. If they will not listen to irrefutable reason, then we must put hooks in their jaws and drag them to comply.

There are some that disagree with the tactics of relentlessly pursuing answers from our public servants and elected officials, that pressing for a response and demanding compliance is in bad form. The only bad form is bad form itself, i.e. threats, bad language, errors in logic, or haranguing those who have no responsibility. Demanding a law enforcement agency or public service comply with the new law as written is not in any way wrong, immoral, unethical, or using poor tact.

Government serves for the benefit of the public. We know the mantras. The government in this country is answerable to the public and must be held to account for every breach of the law they establish and uphold. Those who protect us cannot deny us the right to protect ourselves under the guise of them knowing better. As Americans, it is our duty to petition our government for redress of grievances, else we deserve to suffer under the fate of mundane and petty oppression.

As long as our response is measured, our tone respectful, our words logical, and our actions coordinated, we can effect great change. Yet in such a new environment as enhanced preemption presents us with, we must allow time for news of the change to spread. The apostle Paul, who had scales fell from his eyes, was blind for several days until he reached Damascus. Let us make polite, yet persistent inquiries and respectfully demand that our officials take the law to heart, until we are confident that this new gospel of freedom is heard by all who serve us.

In coming days, we shall know what course to steer; whether rejoicing in our victory and thanking our government for complying so readily, or if holding our public servants and government to account in true American fashion is demanded of us. 

-G. C. (revised from an earlier version this evening)

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.