Sunday, June 28, 2015

Recent SOCTUS Decisions Don't Mean Nat'l Concealed Carry

This is about gun rights, not trusting the Supreme Court to enforce our rights, and quashing the rumors that the gay marriage decision equals national concealed carry reciprocity. My opinion is that the Supreme Court’s decisions on gay marriage and Obamacare are outside of their constitutional authority.

Dean Weingarten, from The Truth About Guns, summed it up:
"On June 25th, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that a law’s language doesn’t matter. What matters: what the Justices want the law to say. We have seen this break-down in the rule of law before. The Warren Court was famous for it. During the so-called Roosevelt revolution of the 1930’s, the Supreme Court went down the same path."
In light of the Supreme Court recent decisions, particularly regarding gay marriage, many are using the majority justices’ abstruse logic to apply to concealed carry permit reciprocity. Currently, it is a guessing game to know which state recognizes what other state’s concealed carry permit. Some Americans hold two or more states’ concealed carry permits to have the maximum number of recognized states. Others, who can’t obtain a concealed permit in their state, obtain an out-of-state permit so that they can legally carry concealed when travelling.

All states issue concealed carry permits; whether they do in practical terms (for instance, D.C. and New Jersey) is another matter. While every state recognizes another state’s driver license, concealed carry permits are subject to myriad rules. Nevada’s requirements (amended by 2015’s SB 175) for out-of-state permit reciprocity are training and verification of the permit through the computer. Some states, like California, refuse to recognize any other state’s permit and do not issue non-resident permits.

Headlines like “SCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity” is being confused as some super-secret constitutional magic happened reversing court decisions and state laws overnight. Some poor fool will take this headline as gospel and get arrested on vacation, all while sounding like a lunatic trying to argue with a cop that gay marriage makes concealed carry legal. Too many gun owners see an article on Facebook and Twitter and fail to read the whole thing, much less understand it. Compounding the problem are writers eager to get article views and ad clicks with sensational claims.

Yes, Americans want to carry in all states, as they rightfully should, but sensationalizing a gun-writer’s constitutional logic in a way that will make many think something changed is irresponsible. Even if this Supreme Court decision is eventually favorably applied to the concealed carry reciprocity debate, it must go through many, many trials and appeals before it would be recognized.

Gay Marriage=National Concealed Carry

Essentially, many states are no-carry zones for Nevadans, even though we can legally drive, marry, and work there, while their residents can legally carry. This is the argument that the writers (Bob Owens, apparently started the discussion) are making: 
"By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends 'certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy' accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are 'shall issue' on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. [...] Using the same 'due process clause' argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia." 
In short, since states must recognize gay marriages in other states, then states must recognize other states’ concealed carry permits.

Not really. Owens is just misunderstanding the argument and oversimplifying things. Again, using mysterious logic, the Supreme Court called gay marriage a ‘fundamental human right’ using equal protection of the law as their argument. ‘Equal protection’ extending to homosexuals and marriage is not the same as whether or not a state should recognize a concealed carry permit from another state.

Owens is looking at the wrong part of the 14th Amendment. The part he should be looking at is the Privileges or Immunities Clause which was what helped win McDonald v. Chicago and used to justify the unrestricted right to travel from state to state. One could argue that since non-resident driver licenses are recognized universally from state to state, then a non-resident concealed carry permit should be recognized too. Additionally, Article IV’s Full Faith and Credit Clause could also apply.

‘Equal protection’ of the law, regarding the ‘fundamental human right’ to self-defense, is already affirmed by the Constitution in the 2nd Amendment. The real matter is forcing states to stop restricting non-residents from carrying concealed in their states by making them recognize valid non-resident permits, or at least issuing them to non-residents. If you read the link to McDonald v. Chicago, you’ll probably have a better understanding of what I’m getting at. Again, it goes back to recognizing licenses issued in one state: if all driver and marriage licenses are recognized in all states, then all concealed carry permits should be recognized in all states, not the fundamental human right of self-defense.

In a way, it’s semantics, but I truly feel that Mr. Owens and the thousands of pundits and re-posters are giving out bad information using poor logic; logic that a court wouldn’t start out with.

Tyranny of the Court

Relying on the Supreme Court to decide what is a ‘fundamental human right’ and what isn’t is incredibly foolish and shows ignorance of how a constitutional republic’s government works. The Constitution puts limits on the government; it does not grant privileges or rights to men. Those rights were granted by God and exist without government approval and despite government oppression.

The 2nd Amendment does not read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be permitted.” Instead, it reads “shall not be infringed,” as a prohibition to the government.

Regardless of one’s stance on gay marriage, the unilateral actions of the Supreme Court do not bode well for the 2nd Amendment. Why? Obamacare was another unilateral action, abusing both the Constitution and common sense. 
“The 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell allows for federal subsidies on state healthcare exchanges established by the federal government under the ACA. However, the law itself states that only exchanges established by states would be eligible for subsidies.
 Those arguing on behalf of the subsidies to the exchanges said that the particular passage of the law shouldn’t be read literally.
 In a demonstration of twisted logic, the majority has held that the word ‘State’ should be considered in its ‘context’ rather than its actual meaning. The Court has effectively rewritten the law to save it.” (source
Joel B. Pollack from had this to say
“The dissent, by Justice Antonin Scalia, was blistering.
 ‘Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,'’ he wrote.
 ‘Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.’” 
Justice Scalia and others accused the Supreme Court of acting like a legislature, rewriting a law, something it is not empowered to do. Time and time again, we have seen new practices incorporated by Supreme Court decisions. Take the Miranda Warning. In Miranda v. Arizona, the rapist Miranda’s conviction was overturned because he wasn’t told his confession could be used against him and all the other things we know by heart, thanks to shows like Adam-12. While the 5th Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination was never in doubt, there was no mandate by the police or court to advise a criminal to shut up.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, created the Miranda Warning out of whole cloth: "The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Failure to admonish a suspect with the above before questioning him in custody will make any statements or evidence obtained thereafter inadmissible at trial.

The reason Supreme Court decisions are so important, is that under the concept of English Common Law (as adopted by America), case law (prior case decisions on the topic) are respected. Justice Harlan dissented, calling out Chief Justice Warren for making his own law because he knew that no officer or judge would dare disrespect it. 
"[...] nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities." He also quoted Justice Jackson: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added." 
Miranda Warnings are small-potatoes in the reality of policing and good for Americans in general. However, the way it was introduced was an appalling abuse of law. A judge created it and mandated it; essentially, Chief Justice Warren made a law without the benefit of being elected. He usurped the legislative power as enacted by the Constitution and trusted to Congress alone. In 1776, we complained about King George’s unilateral actions; today we complain about Obama’s regulations, executive orders, and ‘Czars’, while we ignore the men and women in black robes.

Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent in the gay marriage case was centered on the Supreme Court’s lack of authority to decide the issue, recognizing that it properly belonged to the people. 
"Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many casts a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
 "The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial 'caution' and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own 'new insight' into the 'nature of injustice.'" 
The truly frightening thing is that the Supreme Court has the last word on virtually everything. They decide if laws are constitutional. They decide what the Constitution and its amendments apply to. The Supreme Court has basically granted itself the ability to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit. While the balance of cases have been properly decided, this is the august body that granted us Plessy v. Ferguson, making ‘separate but equal’ law until it was overturned in 1954 and Dred Scott v. Sandford, which decided that slaves couldn’t possibly be American citizens.

Plessy and Dred Scott were abominations. The Obamacare decision shows that the Supreme Court will distort the meaning of words and use tortured logic to decide what they want. They make laws and react to politics and public pressure, something which is amazing, given Supreme Court’s impolitic status.

Returning to the question of healthcare and gay marriage being ‘fundamental human rights’, what about the fundamental right to self-defense? If the Supreme Court has authority to recognize fundamental human rights, it surely has the authority to enforce them (as it has in other cases). Then why does the Supreme Court allow the 2nd Amendment to be trampled so? 
“Yet unlike marriage, unlike subsidized health Insurance, SCOTUS has allowed states to, in fact… INFRINGE! Hell, some states have made it pragmatically impossible to carry a weapon on your person. So clearly, when it comes to even using the Constitution as a guideline, the SCOTUS has jumped the shark. Regardless of where you line up on same-sex marriage, or even if you personally want free healthcare, there is no arguing that the SCOTUS has displayed an unprecedented use of power when compared to the entirety of American history.” (source
Justice Scalia points out the problem exactly: “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”


Even before the gay marriage decision, the blogosphere was alight with criticism for the tactics of Roberts’ court based on the Obamacare decision. 
“The Roberts Court has become an activist court willing to compromise their ethics to legislate from the bench. The statue’s wording, “established by state,” was clear and precise. Roberts twisted legal theory to achieve his politically desired goal. What a shame!
 Americans are staggered in disbelief at Roberts’ atrocious decision. The duplicity of Chief Justice Roberts in his twisting mental gymnastics to rescue Obamacare, once again stokes the public outrage and growing distrust in what was the last bastion of institutional respectability. The hopes and expectations of justice by millions of American citizens have vanished.
 With Roberts’ Supreme Court decision, Americans feel suppressed and assaulted by an ever increasing governmental apparatus.” (source
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal which challenged a ban in San Francisco of requiring guns to be stored useless (unloaded and locked) despite ruling that such a ban was illegal in DC v. Heller. The Supreme Court failed to uphold its own case law. Nick Leghorn of The Truth About Guns was dumbfounded, stating: 
“The court’s inaction means that the decision goes unenforced and local jurisdictions are able to make up their own rules as they go along. Given the court’s reluctance to actually step up and enforce their own decision, disappointments such as this one will continue to be the norm, as lower courts re-define what the Supreme Court stated very clearly in their decision.” 
Everyone hopes that Peruta v. Gore will be the case that the court takes up to finally say there is a right to bear arms in public and that concealed carry permits must be ‘shall issue.’ Even if they do take the case and find favorably, who is to say that they will enforce it or it will even mean anything? Might a later court come along and throw it out the window?

Had gay marriage been decided the other way, no doubt gay America would be criticizing the decision, yet they would have the proper and effective recourse of the ballot box and legislature. Unfortunately, both the liberals and conservatives are using the courts in place of public persuasion and legislation; they way sweeping changes like socialized medicine, taxation, and social changes are expected to be made. Republican leadership, rather than presenting a better solution to the healthcare problem than Obamacare, challenged the law in the court and lost twice.

For anyone on any side of a debate, do you really trust nine people, un-elected by anyone, to make decisions on a vital topic that you care about? And why are we taking such vital matters to a court which could make a final decision, either way, with the only recourse being the difficult process of amending the Constitution?

The Supreme Court cannot be trusted to do the right thing when it uses the wrong logic. Rights exist inherently and do not need the rubber stamp of a court or government. Obamacare and gay marriage are issues for the people via the Congress, not a court. Their reasoning and they manner in which they made their decisions is the source of the problem. Justice Scalia again: "The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." Do not look to the nine in robes to decide that the 2nd Amendment means what it says.

We cannot expect the courts to confirm, uphold, or enforce our right to keep and bear arms, nor should we. And no, you can't go to California and carry concealed on your Nevada permit yet.

Note: I don’t care what your opinion on gay marriage or Obamacare is. This article is about a Supreme Court flexing its muscles and why the argument that this decision means national concealed carry reciprocity is premature. Comments are disabled as they will naturally digress from gun rights to other issues.

Download the Nevada Carry Kindle Edition ebook. Free if you have Kindle Unlimited, otherwise just 99 cents!

Friday, June 12, 2015

Where Can You Open Carry?

For current information, click the link to be redirected to the Open Carry page at

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Thoughts: LVRJ and Metro Blue Card Article UPDATED

As you know, Nevada Carry was the first source to break the news that enhanced preemption had been signed into effect, in the form of SB 175 and SB 240, eliminating the Clark County handgun registration scheme (‘blue cards’) and a host of illegal local firearm regulations. The person, who got the news to the editor of Nevada Carry, was Don Turner, of the Nevada Firearms Coalition. The Coalition and its PAC were the only real organizations that fought for any sort of firearm reforms in Nevada this year, along with the lesser-known, but equally dedicated, Stillwater Firearms Association. Like a broken record, the NRA sent out an email blast essentially taking credit for the victory, when they made a handful of token appearances in Carson City this year and did nothing at all to halt the petition gathering for Bloomberg’s background check petition.

This morning, the Review-Journal posted an article titled “Metro will no longer cite or arrest for failing to register handguns”, which many on social media rightly questioned, calling it misleading, as if Metro were doing the public a favor.

As followers of this blog are aware, LVMPD failed to make any kind of definitive announcement until apparently late on June 9th, and then internally only. Only on the 10th, did it make the announcement public. The Review-Journal briefly covered the demise of blue cards in this sole blurb: “The measure also ends Clark County’s ‘blue card’ ordinance, a decades-old law requiring registration of handguns, and establishes ‘state control over the regulation of policies concerning firearms.’” To be fair, in coverage of the legislative session and sheriff’s race, they did cover the issue in more detail, but this is the extent of their treatment to a very big issue for Clark County gun owners.

The old media dropped the ball on the issue of preemption. They ignored years of police abuses when it came to Second Amendment rights. The gun-rights fireworks in the Legislature this session were treated largely as a sideshow to the other business, marginalizing the true conservative and independent right. Now the old wag has picked up the scent of this story, given it a shake between its jaws, and apparently dropped it, despite raising concerning questions about Metro’s behavior.

Such as:
  • Why did they dump the press release after hours when they would be unavailable for comment?  
  • Why would the Sheriff’s lobbyist Chuck Callaway refuse to comment to the media on the sheriff’s ‘support’ for eliminating the program?
  • Why wasn’t PIO director Laura Meltzer unsure on what the department’s stance on the issue was?
  • Why was there confusion after the governor signed the bill? It was pretty damn clear and Metro knew exactly what was coming down the pike?
The Review-Journal is getting at something, but it needs to step up its journalism game a bit and not just roll over for the sheriff. The article never went into the background of the issue. Why does this matter to Nevadans? Why is it a good thing? The headline, taken at face value, can be taken either as good thing, or a bad thing. The AP articles on SB 175 and SB 240 were focused primarily on the domestic violence misdemeanor conviction prohibition for firearm ownership/purchase (which only mirrored existing federal law) and changes to concealed firearm permit reciprocity and improvements to justifiable homicide.

Readers deserve to know the history of a police department that abused its authority, ran a costly program that was burden to gun dealers and the public, as well as provided dubious investigative value. Metro has never provided much in the way of evidence to support the program, just a smattering of arrest statistics and a story here and there about some random case that was closed using the database. By the way, stolen guns can be tracked without gun registration. All owners have to do is report them stolen, the same way they would report any other item of serialized stolen property.

The LVRJ missed most of the story and is doing a disserve to the public and its readers. For those who don't follow gun-rights issues, why does this matter? Why is this an important issue to the public? Nevada Carry will bring you this information and fill in the blanks that the old media won't fill in.


It’s clear that I take exception to the short article the Review-Journal published this morning. To be fair, this is more my bailiwick and not theirs. Yet it’s clear from the tremendous dialogue in their comments section that it has stirred a public debate and there is great interest in the subject matter that the newspaper didn’t fill.

I public called out the reporters, Kimberly De La Cruz and Wesley Juhl on Twitter, for being a little behind the times on the news. I meant to be a little provocative and facetious in my tweets. As this post clearly indicates, I am quite critical of the article which appears to be little more than a regurgitation of the press release. I called the Review-Journal the ‘old media’, a pejorative term for the established newspapers.

Here's the Twitter conversation. I'll let it speak for itself:

I will say that perhaps bragging about getting the ‘scoop’ might indeed be uncouth, but criticizing poor reporting isn’t, and certainly disdaining new forms of journalism is unprofessional. In the future, I will be just as critical of bad news stories, I’ll just be a little more circumspect the way I point them out.

My criticism of the article and the Review-Journal is what I term press release journalism. In this case, a reformulation of a press release forms the bulk of the story. Very little in the way of additional background is added. As readers of this blog know, there is a lot of information on the issue of preemption and blue cards—information I have gleaned myself from Review-Journal articles. If one was paying a $1.50 for a newspaper, don’t they deserve more than that? Even up against deadlines (as I was up against work this morning), the topic deserves to be revisited again in depth.

The reason ‘new’ media, such as blogs, first seen with the Drudge Report, and others like the Huffington Post, Breitbart, the Blaze, even TMZ, succeed is because they break out of the formats that have existed since anyone alive can remember. The bloggers and internet journalists will dig for information and devote time to obscure topics, willingly becoming iconoclasts simply in pursuit of a story. I don’t know why newspaper journalists and local TV reporters don’t do that anymore. Maybe it’s because they try to catch a little bit of everything to appeal to the widest audience. If so, how much effort would it take to simply address the valid points I made above?

Little, if any, investigation, and very little intelligent commentary. Though I disagree with him, John L. Smith of the Review-Journal has taken the time to write thoughtful and detail articles about topics of gun rights early in the legislative session. He even gave polite response to my harsh criticism. Even Fox 5 responded well to my correction. Too often, print and television media seem to miss the ball.

Mr. Juhl is a criminal justice reporter. This is his area of expertise and I’m sure he’s a smart guy. I would expect him to dig a little deeper. Maybe I offended him instead of coming off as a good-natured jab. If I did, I apologize. All that I’m asking is that he do a better job in reporting. Report more than just the press release.  

The problem here is that this turned into small-time narrow focused blogger (it’s true) vs. big-city newspaper reporter. I’m just as valid a journalist as Mr. Juhl is and there is a pretty big body of evidence, published and legal, to prove it. It’s time that the ‘old’ media gets around to respecting the ‘new’ media and realize that it needs to provide content of quality or it will continue to see falling readership and flagging sales.

Update, the Review-Journal did provide more explanation about what happened to blue cards late Thursday afternoon. Perhaps they needed more time to seek Bob Irwin of The Gun Store out to explain it to them.

-G. C. 

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Clark County Parks Gun Ban: It is Done!

Nevada Carry was forwarded a copy of this letter from the Commander of the Clark County Park Police. This confirms that they have seen the light and the former ban on guns in parks is now history. 

Cdr. Michael does have a point. However unpopular, officers must enforce the laws they are sworn to protect. That is a very basic fundamental of modern law enforcement in civilized society. However, discretion is a major element in enforcement.

The exception the author of this letter takes, as well as others in the firearms community, is the attitude seen by law enforcement that any breach of the law must be enforced. As the original post on the park's gun ban detailed, the legal justification for it was a rather large stretch. Literally nowhere else in Clark County was such a ban defended with such zeal, reaching to the level of the Attorney General.

At whose behest would such an opinion be written? Surely District Attorney Roger had more pressing concerns, such as felonies, not simple misdemeanor violations of park ordinances.

The issue seems to stem from an email conversation between Cdr. Michael and a noted Las Vegas open carry activist, Tim Farrell, who was illegally detained for open carrying on the Strip.

Mr. Farrell rightfully disagreed that preemption did not allow the park district to continue its unlawful prohibition against firearms in a county park. Cdr. Michael countered that it did so and that the DA agreed. The "intent and authority of the County Code [was] to keep the parks safe from the presence of firearms." Anthropomorphic firearms that go around wantonly killing people, apparently taking on the evil ability to shoot themselves and convince their owners to commit crimes.

The assertion that parks must be kept safe from firearms is laughable, as if there was something about parks that made guns or people more evil than the world outside. Parks do need firearms. The police have no duty to protect you. A few hundred acres of green grass, trees, playgrounds, and ponds do not make someplace any different than anywhere else in the world. Evil does not discriminate.

An enhanced preemption bill, like the ones that passed this year, ended up being defeated in the legislature that year. Probably a little rattled and yet emboldened, the DA went to the Attorney General and managed to get her to fit the park gun ban to wiggle through the exemption that was intended for handgun registration.

Thankfully, all that's moot. Any arrest for legally carrying a handgun in a county park now would be a very bad thing for an officer to do and in October, will get his and his department's pants sued off.

Yet the attitude is pretty clear. Cdr. Michael never wanted you to carry to a gun in the park and probably still doesn't. His attitude is remarkably even, yet bears a faint undertone of being supercilious; that he is forced to acknowledge this truth at last. That attitude is something we have seen with Metro, who scrambled to put out a memo to its officers, only making it public when new media types like Nevada Carry asked for it.

Attitude in policing is at the heart of the issue that we are deciding today. Many in our urban minority communities are rebelling (whether righteously or grossly improperly) against police they view as corrupt and unresponsive to their actual policing needs. Policing can be friendly, targeting those who commit crimes of evil and harm, or they can target those who violate arbitrary laws, made by men who think they know better. The Clark County firearm regulations were in the category of laws made by men who thought they knew better. The boot has tried to lie heavily upon us, but we resisted.

The police are the ones who must enforce the laws. They are the ones who see the immediate value and utility of a law. Having grounds to detain or arrest someone gives them great leeway in being able to effectively do their job. Making it criminal to possess a gun in a park is the perfect way to arrest an undesirable person and preserve the peace that the officer is interested in. While individual officers' opinions vary wildly on the subject of an armed citizenry, the institution of law enforcement does not like armed citizens.

Returning to the concept of discretion, how much discretion would a Clark County park police officer shown an open carrier, ignorant of the very fine print on the very faded, over grown signs at the entrance to Sunset Park? Would they have asked them nicely to leave, or would they have confiscated the firearm and slapped them with a misdemeanor promise to appear citation?

Videos from across the country of places less tolerant to open carry, Texas in particular, give us the answer.

While the vast majority of police officers will suffer in the heat and cold, dodge traffic, and give their lives for us, it is the institution of law enforcement that we must watch like a hawk.

Updated: It's Official! Metro Ceases Enforcing Handgun Registration

Nevada Carry obtained a copy of this internal administrative memo, reportedly circulated to all Metro officers, stating that they will no longer enforce handgun registration. No mention is made of the 72-hour waiting period for gun stores or policies regarding the other elements of SB 175 and SB 240. We are still seeking a comment from Metro.

And the official press release, only 8 days late! 

And this, received today, regarding some additional clarification:

Note that Question Number 2 isn't just the three sections they 'highlighted' in their release and internal memo, but pretty much all the main gun regulations in the county and city of Las Vegas. As an official statement, this is something that we can take to the bank if they attempt to renege. I might not be a hand-written and notarized statement from the sheriff, but it's something. 

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

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)

Friday, June 5, 2015

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.

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.

Clark County Park Police Seeing the Light

A reply was just received from Roy A. Michael, Commander of the Clark County Park Police, regarding the park police’s stance on enhanced preemption, prohibiting concealed carry and possession of firearms in county parks.

This is the commander’s brief email:
“Thank you for the email Mr [redacted].  It appears that the new language will allow open carry and carrying concealed weapons in County Parks, we are in contact with the Clark County District Attorney’s Office to understand the entire meaning of this new language.” 

While the statement could have been more strongly worded, it appears they will also comply with the law. However, knowing these changes were coming down the pike, all county agencies and the District Attorney’s office should have been prepared in advance."

My reply:
“This helps clear up some of the confusion. As you can appreciate, the sudden and great change of these bills created a huge amount of public interest and questions too. I can understand how our local government may have been caught by surprise by all this interest.
"The public’s concern is twofold. One, that local law enforcement and government agencies have gotten word of the changes and are complying. Two, the fear that officials were delaying compliance until the enhanced civil penalties in October would essentially force them to comply.
"Your message has allayed those fears, as far as our county parks are concerned. I will take this as your word that the park police will be comply with this law immediately and will no longer be enforcing the prohibition of firearms in county parks.”
Ladies and gentleman, it looks like the Clark County Park Police got the memo. Let's hold them to their word. We can't be sure that DA Wolfson won't renege in a fit of Clark County gov. regret and revenge, but I think another duck fell in line.

Again, please report any differing communication or experiences to me at
-G. C.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Preemption: Henderson Has Immediate Plans to Comply

Your editor of emailed the Henderson City Council and police department regarding the implementation of the changes SB 175 to city ordinances and police training. 

Excerpt from my letter:
Gov. Brian Sandoval, on 6/2/2015, signed into law new provisions regarding firearms regulations. Senate Bills SB 175 (attached) contains language altering existing statutes (NRS 268.418) that govern the ability of local governments to make or enforce local regulations regarding firearms. These new laws, effective immediately, removed the ability of any local entity to make or enforce existing local firearm regulations (excluding unsafe discharge). Local firearm regulations, including those of the city of Henderson, have been declared null and void. All existing laws, regulations, rules, and ordinances are required to be immediately repealed. Firearm registration (in Henderson’s case, handgun registration as administered by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) has also been abrogated by NRS 268.418. The legislature has required that all firearm registration records be destroyed within one year. I respectfully demand that ordinances 8.98.010, 8.98.020, 8.98.030, 8.98.040 be repealed (though I’m aware they have been superseded by state law), the police department to cease registration of handguns and destroy any Henderson maintained records thereof, and all city law enforcement personnel and volunteers be informed that these ordinances are null and void; therefore being unenforceable.
Rather immediate replies were received from several city officials.

Chief Moers replied: "I appreciate the email. The City of Henderson Police Department will make changes to procedures on all laws that require us to conform with any new law."

Councilwoman Gerri Schroder replied:
"The City Attorney will make changes to city ordinances to comply with all new laws.  I'm cc'ing City Attorney Josh Reid to assist with a response on the procedure to change the ordinances to comply with the new laws.  Mr. Reid is aware of the change in the law and briefed me on this earlier today.
I appreciate you making sure the City of Henderson complies with all new laws.  Please let us know if you have questions."
I was also CC'd by Councilwoman March on her conversation with City Attorney Josh Reid.
Will you ensure that our ordinances conform with state law with regards to the recent legislative changes related to firearms? Thank you" 
Mr. Reid's reply:
"Yes. We discussed this in our staff meeting last week and have the ordinance to remove the firearm registry in the queue.  It takes two Council meetings to pass an ordinance per our Charter.  This will most likely be read into title either the first or second Council meeting in July.  The registration records are held by the County, and I understand that they are aware of the new law and will comply.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.  Regards, Josh"
"Yes Councilwoman Schroeder, this will be on the Council agenda in July.  Regards, Josh"
So the city of Henderson intends to comply immediately (well, at the speed of government) anyway. It's also very pleasing to see such a quick reply to a citizen late in the evening. Henderson is a great example of how cities should address these kinds of matters and police their community. How quickly will the county and other municipalities comply?

Editor's Note: Lots of breaking news on the blog today. I have to point out that the news about the bill being signed was first broken by Don Turner of the Nevada Firearms Coalition, an important part of maintaining the excellent Second Amendment freedoms we have in Nevada.

-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