He Who Panics First, Panics Best

What we are facing in the Great Bump Stock is a war of attrition. In a war of attrition, each side is doing their best to wear down the other side because he who gives in last, wins. After repeated tragedies, Republicans, gun owners, and conservative thinkers are giving in. Unable to defend their beliefs to even themselves, they have become susceptible to the slow, grinding tactics of the “Do Something!” crowd calling for meaningless gun control.

Without having fully tried the pro-gun solutions (armed teachers, staff, and parents in schools) or properly treating the epidemic of mental illness, too many gun owners are starting to wonder if the hoplopaths (gun haters) are right. The tone has changed. Without any counter-balance explaining the pro-gun position, these supposedly “reasonable” folks succumb unconsciously to a form of peer pressure.

Yes, Trump’s bump fire memo is something to worry about. His vague statements have become fact. He has been worn down into “doing something.” He has given the ATF the cover it needs to ban bump fire. Leading by example, the President has shown the public that compromise is okay and by answering the question in the public’s mind as to whether or not the people of the gun should begin giving rights away.

Make no doubt about it, we are headed for a gun control disaster in the near future. Public opinion is shifting away from the staunch “come and take it” attitude under Obama. Today, it is bump fire stocks. Tomorrow, it will be something else. What is happening is that media and social pressure, combined with the NRA’s stance and Republican rhetoric, is signaling to the public that it is time to become more “reasonable” about guns.

Steadfast belief in a conflicting opinion creates psychological tension that only inner conviction can overcome. Without close-held beliefs or detailed knowledge about the contrarian position, the mental conflict between self and society is best resolved by changing one’s opinions. This quiets the inner voice that is asking “Why do you believe X when everyone else believes Y?”

Two other major issues of our time went from “unthinkable” to permissible. If everyone else says gay marriage or marijuana isn’t a big deal, then why should anyone else think differently? Uncritical thinkers and uncurious minds don’t seek out reasons to defend their beliefs because those beliefs are ultimately based on public opinion. They are going along with the flow. But as the public opinion shifts, an ideologically ungrounded person will be pulled and finally shift with the tide.

What we are witnessing is the slow wearing down of gun-receptive public into accepting gun control. Media and hoplopathic (antigun) forces are actively encouraging this via propaganda. Sadly, those who are less susceptible to television brainwashing are being victimized by their reflexive need to mentally “fit in.” Neutral parties can only hold out so long without being pulled one way or the other and the AR-haters are louder.

Unfortunately, Republicans are being worn down as well. A president who truly grasped the slippery slope of appearing “reasonable” on gun control would never have asked the DOJ to essentially propose a bump fire ban. Under congressional and media pressure, the President’s memo, with the NRA’s blessing, amounts to a green light to ban bump fire stocks with political cover.

Many stalwart Trump defenders are saying that this is just a stratagem to appear like he is taking action. It is just that, but with the added danger that he doesn’t care if bump fire stocks are actually banned. If bump fire stocks aren’t banned, we can call it “masterful, 3D political chess.” If they are banned, apologists will excuse it as being necessary to save the rest. Excuses will be made because bump fire isn’t something that most gun owners care about.

Uncritical thinkers, gun owners included, don’t want to admit that their great orange hope isn’t their savior, but just another politician willing to do what is politically expedient. Donald Trump is not a man of deeply-held convictions; rather, he is a negotiator willing to compromise because closing a deal defines success, even if it is ultimately a losing deal. Temporarily mollifying the “do something” crowd with a sacrificial win gives Trump the illusion of success.  

The sacrificial lambs could be offered up to the gaping maw of the starving gun control demon. That demon is always hungry and is always calling for more. As these horrible acts of violence continue, the calls will grow more intense. Compromises and acquiescence to anti-gun bills will snowball, making it easier and easier each time for unprincipled politicians to do what is popular, not what is right.

Fudds who will give up bump fire stocks to make the controversy go away are too ignorant and cowardly to stand on principal. They are perpetuating an “eat me last” philosophy that feeding the monster will make it less hungry; no—throwing meat to the monster only gives it a taste for blood. If the public abandons the gun, then the politicians don’t need to support it. And as compromise becomes the norm, it becomes easier and easier each time to mentally justify giving in to compromise so one does not feel uncomfortable as a contrarian outlier.

Gun owners are getting scared and giving in. In the face of persecution, they are abandoning the faith. Like the boastful St. Peter who said he would never denounce Christ, by dawn, these folks with “molon labe” stickers on their pickup truck will betray the Second Amendment three times. If a mere fun accessory is being thrown under the bus, what will gun owners do when persecution begins? Will they stand firm when the ATF is kicking down doors, or will they meekly hand over their guns and criticize those who resist by force as making hunters look bad?

Think I'm nuts about the tone changing? The calls for "common sense gun safety" is being replaced by "repeal the Second Amendment." The rabid hoplopaths are the ones calling to do away with the right to keep and bear arms, but just as every major gun-hater jumped on the Everytown "gun safety" bandwagon, repealing the Second Amendment will be more commonplace until it seems reasonable. 

The high tide of gun rights is beginning to go out. The wheat is being separated from the chaff. Over time, as tragedies continue and we focus on guns rather than a sick society and broken people, more and more restrictions will we face. Stock up now. He who panics first panics best. 

Executive Orders and Loaded Carry in Red Rock Canyon

It’s time to get loaded carry back into Red Rock Canyon. Currently, it's prohibited.

The following is my letter to the various authorities, feel free to use as a base template for your own letter.

With the "Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs" ordering for each new regulation, two must be repealed, President Trump has signaled his intention to cut down on federal regulations. One of those regulations can be the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) prohibition on loaded firearms within the boundaries of Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. Open and concealed carry is legal provided the gun is unloaded (chamber/cylinders empty; no magazine inserted).

Specifically, we would like the Supplementary Rules for Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, published in the Federal Register on May 21, 1993 amended to delete section 1.1 (definition of "unloaded") and amend 3.2 "Weapons" to eliminate all but the prohibition on illegal discharge of firearms. This law clashes with Nevada state law which permits loaded open carry and (licensed) concealed carry.

This regulation is anachronism, overlooked by Congress in 2009 and by the Bush Administration. It was made in a different time and seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the behavior of legally armed citizens. It even refers to Clark County’s defunct handgun registration. By repealing this regulation, not only can a confusing and often ignored rule be eliminated, we can make the legal and natural landscape a little less hazardous for Nevadans and visitors.

The Red Rock loaded carry ban was borne in the 1990s during the Clinton Administration. In 2009, President Obama signed the Credit CARD Act which, codified as 54 USC § 104906, which permits open and concealed loaded carry in National Parks in conformance to state and federal law. There are no prohibitions in National Forests or other BLM lands in Nevada. No adverse consequences have come of the National Park liberalization.

This regulation is pointless and potentially dangerous. Manipulating a gun increases the likelihood it will be unintentionally fired, possibly causing injury in a crowded parking lot or on the side of a highway. Doubtless many citizens innocently violate this obscure regulation. Finally, an unloaded gun makes it less likely a defensive gun use will be successful as fine motor skills, such as those needed to load a gun, often deteriorate under stress.

All we are requesting is that the same laws that permit open and concealed carry of loaded firearms on Nevada’s public lands apply within Red Rock, just as is the case with Lake Mead National Recreation area and Great Basin National Park.

How can this be done? First, the Nevada BLM John Ruhs could remove it via the standard regulatory process (notices and probably a hearing). Second, the BLM Director or Secretary of Interior could mandate it. Third, the president himself could direct his subordinates (see above) to make it happen. This will require public pressure and contact. It starts with your emails. I’ll be asking our partners with the NVFAC and NRA to help draft letters from the organization, but public demand is necessary for the rules to change.

I will be writing Senator Dean Heller, President Trump, and both the BLM national and state director. Will you do the same?

You can try writing your congress-critter, but our lone Republican, Mark Amodei, is in the northern half of the state, and the Democrats certainly wouldn’t be for us.

Email Contacts

John Ruhs, State Director, Bureau of Land Management
jruhs@blm.gov

Matthew Allen, Assistant Director, Communications
mrallen@blm.gov

President Trump
White House contact page (2500 character limit)

Senator Dean Heller
Contact page

Can President Trump Restore Loaded Carry in Red Rock?

Earlier last year, we proposed a way to get loaded carry back in Red Rock. Unfortunately, trying to defeat Question 1 took up all of the energy of the gun rights community. Now, Question 1 has been effectively nullified, but we still lost the state legislature, and considerable energy will have to be spent deflecting bad legislation by encouraging the less-liberal Democrats and Gov. Sandoval to kick gun control to the curb. Nothing good will happen in the legislature for gun rights, I can tell you that. Where we can win is by exploiting the campaign promises and Second Amendment support of President Trump.

Background

For gun owners, Red Rock is a unique carve-out in Nevada because it is the largest swath of land open to the public where carrying loaded firearms is prohibited. The red rocks and sandstone cliffs of Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area that dominate the western skyline of Las Vegas is a BLM-administered area, separate from the National Park System, which does allow firearms. Long have local gun owners bemoaned the outmoded regulations without attempting to solve the problem. Congress won’t remedy this right on their own, but we can ourselves.

Readers are aware that state law prohibits local and state agencies from making their own firearm laws, including state parks, except for regulation unsafe discharge of firearms. Some may be familiar with the change to federal law under President Bush’s tenure that permitted firearms in National Parks (including recreation areas like Lake Mead) as long as the weapons are carried in accordance with state law.

Specifically, loaded firearms are prohibited in Red Rock. Ammunition and magazines/clips cannot be on or in the weapon, except for legal hunting as permitted. The excerpt regarding weapons is below, while the full Supplementary Rules are here. The penalty is up to a $1000 fine and/or 12 months in federal prison (43 CFR 8360.0-7).

How stupid is it that you can have a gun, and even carry it on your person, but it has to be unloaded? The rules will not prevent a criminal from carrying illegally or prevent illegal target shooting. There is no benefit of this rule and the few seconds spent loading a gun could be the few seconds that give a bad guy the advantage or allow a cougar to strike. On top of that, it is immoral to effectively disarm the citizens who won’t carry at all because they don’t understand the nuances of the law.

Legal basis

These rules were added shortly after Red Rock’s official inception as an NCA. The supplementary rules for Red Rock were published in the May 21^st, 1993 edition of the Federal Register, which is the federal government’s journal. Federal law allows the interior secretary (via the BLM’s state director) to make supplementary rules and orders for the national conservation areas under his jurisdiction (43 USC § 1701). Often, there will be public comment periods and hearings before the agency decides on new rules, regulations, and actions.

Federal law is broken down into three main segments: The United States Code (USC), roughly analogous to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS); The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); and internal federal agency regulations, which are published in the Federal Register. Agencies are authorized by Congress to make regulations in their area of operation, such as the ATF’s various administrative rulings. Now to make specific ‘park’ rules, based on the unique needs of the given area, the BLM’s state administrator can make supplemental rules (43 CFR 8365.1-6), as long as the public is given notice of the proposal and time to make comments.

Other places

No other federal ‘parkland’ in Nevada prohibits legally carried self-defense weapons, loaded or unloaded, including the two other conservation areas, Sloan Canyon (south of Henderson), and the Black Rock Desert. Sloan Canyon is managed by the Southern Nevada BLM office, which manages Red Rock.

Only two other Conservation areas, the Wallace Forest in Idaho and the San Pedro Riparian area in Arizona, have firearm possession prohibitions. Both are outdated as well (2000 and 1989, respectively). Even in California, the ‘Lost Coast’ conservation area allows loaded open carry under that state’s quirky carry laws. As mentioned earlier, National Parks and Wildlife Refuges allow firearms in accordance with state law (§ 512. pg. 31 “Credit CARD Act of 2009”), though guns are still prohibited inside federal facilities (18 USC § 1930).

How to remedy

The public should be allowed to carry firearms loaded for self-defense, not just in light of the Second Amendment, but because of the dangers inherent in today’s world. One should not be forced to be disarmed or carry a ‘neutered’ unloaded gun because of an outdated regulation. Heaven forbid anyone is attacked by a cougar or coyote, not to mention potentially being the victim of a crime at, or to/from, Red Rock. The right to loaded self-defense should not disappear because someone crosses an invisible line into a wild desert park. There is nothing inherent in Red Rock that makes visitors any less susceptible to danger.

Taking into consideration the state laws of Nevada and no prohibition on other federal recreational lands, Red Rock’s loaded gun ban is an anachronism. 1993 was a different time in America. Handgun ownership and self-defense carry was not nearly as popular as today and “shall issue” concealed weapon permit laws had yet to come to Nevada and sweep across the nation. As more and more people recognized the need for self-defense weapons and the attitudes in the country have changed, it is time that unusual, out-of-touch regulation disappear.

The rules are not federal law (US Code) and do not require legislation to change, which would have been a pipe dream with the former president. Even though legislation is possible now, it’s easier and more likely to get an administrative change through the Department of the Interior. President Trump’s administration seems receptive to gun rights and undoing federal regulations is one of his campaign promises.

It may be easier than petitioning Washington. A gentle campaign of public pressure through petitioning the state director John Ruhs to amend the Supplemental Rules to allow loaded firearms to be carried for self-defense. Given the administration, assistance from politicians and the White House might make the change a snap.

Congressional pressure presents a problem. The representative for the Red Rock area is Democrat Jackie Rosen, who would probably not go along with us based simply on party politics. Nevada’s sole Republican congressman is Mark Amodei who represents northern Nevada. We also have Republican Senator Dean Heller who may be of assistance.

Public pressure can change things. It may be as simple as a few nice, well-written letters. Imagine if thousands of Nevadan gun owners, hikers, bikers, and concerned citizens petitioned the BLM to restore their right to effective self-defense? A one-day coordinated campaign of three phone calls, one to the Nevada BLM headquarters, one to the White House, and one to the BLM/Interior Department in Washington combined with emails and letters might get some attention.

Currently, a case, Nesbitt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is winding its way through federal court appealing similar regulations on US ACE lands in Idaho. This is within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning that a favorable final ruling (especially a Supreme Court ruling), un-appealed by the government, could be applied as precedence to BLM lands. However, court cases are expensive, difficult, and the justices are anti-Second Amendment.   

Notwithstanding the supplementary rules, 43 CFR 8365.1-7 says that state still law applies, meaning that Nevada’s concealed carry laws and lack of an open carry prohibition or ban on loaded handguns in cars would not be illegal. So there is recognition of state law already in place, though not as specific as one would hope.

We are asking for a small change to the law to bring Red Rock in conformity with other federal areas and the rest of Nevada. We are not asking to allow target shooting with its attendant trash and safety problems.

There will always be the leftists (often involved in environmental and outdoors groups) and anti-gunners who will ill-rationally protest the restoration of gun rights, but rights and truth win over hype and lies any day. On top if it all, guns are already allowed in Red Rock, just unloaded. Many practice ‘California open carry’ where the pistol is on one hip, the magazine on the other, and can be loaded in an emergency with a quick reload and rack of the slide. The unloaded guns haven’t hurt anyone or the wildlife; why would loaded guns make any difference?

So Nevada gun owners; are you on board?

Trump's Henderson Visit and Presidential Gun Free Zones

Presidential candidate Donald Trump is visiting the Henderson Pavilion on Wednesday, October 5 at 11:30 AM (be aware traffic will be nasty if you are near there then). In an open carry friendly state with strict state preemption of local gun laws, this begs the questions; how can guns be kept out.

Honestly, I don't know if the Henderson Pavilion is posted to prohibit concealed carry under NRS 202.3673. Open carry is legal there, regardless, as Henderson does not (and cannot) prohibit it due to state preemption. So how does the Secret Service and police keep some liberal whackjob, mental case, or a terrorist from exploiting our gun laws to assassinate the candidate or other official?

The answer is 18 USC 1752, which is rather broad, but provides admittedly discretionary authority to the Secret Service to protect the event. It  is basically a catch-all section, but surely it's what would be cited should someone insist on carrying anyway and inevitably causing a scene.

Should gun owners try and test the waters? We think not. No need to get on the Secret Service's radar or get proned out to make a point. Just not worth the trouble and you aren't accomplishing anything. Rather, a gentleman's agreement by both sides not to carry and not to go out of the way to harass either side is far. Inside a secure zone, you're about as safe as you're going to get in America, especially with the actual president, not just a candidate, around. Be cool, just don't do it and we can look the other way for maybe this, and only this, kind of thing. Citizens can be a lot more magnanimous towards our government than government can be towards us.

Of course, what kind of activists would we be if we didn't point out the obvious disparity between the protections received by politicians and candidates and the hoi pilloi? On an absolutest platform should you be able to carry around the president? Yes, but it's not worth the trouble to fight it when actually presidential security is probably the one arena where history tells us that such precautions might actually be warranted. We don't have to like it, but then again we certainly don't like people killing our leaders, whether they're popular or not.

Don't carry, don't stage an open carry protest. Just think of November and the Supreme Court, and if you're outside, watch out for the liberals who might try to attack you. Be more worried about places that try to illegally disarm you when there isn't even a single cop around.