Thursday, July 30, 2015

DoD Trespassing Citizens Guarding Recruiting Centers?

The DoD Officially Trespassing Citizen Guards?

This is a follow-up to last night's opinion piece.

The first reports of armed citizens guarding military recruiting centers were sporadic and isolated. I’m sure once the stories hit national news, all the people who were mulling the idea in their minds decided to make a go for it and provide security themselves. The phenomenon swept the country, to where it became a common phenomenon in virtually every state that doesn’t unnecessarily limit citizens from carrying firearms. It was seen all over Las Vegas. One man said: "Veterans understand it, they're not going to let their brothers in arms, be sitting targets [...] Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force, all of them came out saying thank you, thank you, we appreciate it," Michaels said.

Of course, the police have been called in a few cases. One man was asked to leave a recruiting station on Warm Springs Rd. For the most part, the welcome has been encouraging and there have been no reports of frightened citizens panicking at the sight of armed Americans. While Nevada Carry doesn’t support the open carrying of long guns, this is one such exception, proving that most people don’t mind, and carried properly, don’t start a panic. Guns in the hands of lunatics who don’t care about laws are the problem. There have been many anecdotal reports that military veteran police officers, driving by or called to recruiting centers because of the guards, expressed enthusiastic support for the guards.

Unfortunately, a report from an involved citizen, Ron O of the Good Guy Zone, reported on Wednesday July 29, some guards in the Las Vegas valley starting running into problems. The following is from his post on a private forum 
Yesterday we had an incident at the Rainbow location where a woman in civilian clothing had an Army Sargent tell our guy to leave, and that was AFTER he'd been there for three hours already and several days in a row before that (along with me and others). We speculated that she was DoD. 
Today, an ex marine sniper/LAPD long term LEO and SWAT guy was told by this same women to leave the property on Craig in North Las Vegas. Being a former cop he asked to see her ID and she refused. He left the property and called a guy I was meeting this morning to let him know (the guy who was told to leave yesterday from Rainbow). 
This guy was more than rattled and all but terrified of the DoD. Our plan was to meet up at UNLV (several of us) and then head over to Rainbow to get the official word as to whose authority was being used to trespass us. Under the law only the property owner can do that. [...] 
Soon we had perhaps 10+ Metro and UNLV officers chatting with us. In the meantime we'd reholstered our weapons (with their permission). All but one went inside to interrogate the woman for quite some time. 
Eventually they came out, confirmed that she was DoD, and told us that they had orders from Washington to trespass all of us from their locations across the country. I asked for paperwork and they said she was trying to produce some, being faxed from D.C. apparently. 
I questioned their ability to trespass us without the property owner's written permission. Metro's position was that as a lessee they could trespass from the entire shopping center all on their own, but if another business wanted to invite us over we could then be there instead. I asked them where the military line ended and the rest of the property began. They didn't know.
This was a very calm and cordial discussion, and Metro supported our cause, some stating that they were ex-military as well. They wanted us to wait for the official trespass documents so they could read them to us but I opted to not wait, [...] 
 A third guy showed up long after I'd left and he said there were still three Metro vehicles out front. They told him that the DoD was not going to allow 'you guys' to be on any of their properties any longer, stating a 'negative impact on their mission' and 'possible security concerns because we represented provocation'. [...] 
 So Round 1 is officially completed. According to Metro we are hereby trespassed from every military facility in Clark County. It's only a matter of time before this woman hits all of the stations. As of THIS MORNING, the guys in the UNLV recruiting office had nothing but a kind welcome for all of us. But by 10AM that was over. 
Ron O. also posted videos on YouTube of the incident, but we are currently waiting to publicize those videos. Apparently, this woman has been “running off” citizen guards from around the valley.

Nevada Carry has requested confirmation from the LVMPD of the DoD orders. From the videos and reports, the interaction with the Metro officers was very polite and professional.

Wholesale eviction of citizens, legally armed, from public shopping centers where they are entitled by law to exercise their right of freedom of speech/expression (and presumably use their Second Amendment right as part of, or in, the process), is disgusting. Furthermore, even if the DoD had a compelling reason to stop the citizen guards, there is a far better way to do it. Mysteriously trespassing citizens and failing to take reasonable steps to secure recruiters is totally irresponsible. Maybe they could politely express their concerns and seek middle ground rather than treating well-intentioned American citizens as a threat.

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to stay updated.

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

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Chattanooga and Citizens Guarding the Military

Five US servicemen, four Marines and a sailor were killed in Chattanooga, TN, along with a police officer and civilian injured, on July 16. The murderer can only be described as a lone-wolf jihadist. Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez was a Muslim of Middle Eastern origin. He had a disturbing blog that spoke of Islam and our world being corrupted from his Islamic standards. His father was on a terrorist watch list for some time and his son may have traveled to Jordan to be further radicalized. Islam is a religion that requires faithful Muslims to wage war, jihad, on non-Muslims, so the murderer was only following the dictates of his religion when he launched his attack (though I must point out most Muslims do not follow these particular tenets of Islam). Despite the denials of the White House, which tried to brand this as domestic terror, another mentally ill mass shooting—anything but Islamic terror—this was the second Islamic terror attack we’ve had this year.

By federal law, military personnel are disarmed on base, except for military police and designated security personnel. Any form of carry, even where otherwise legal, is prohibited by federal law in any federal facility, such as a recruiting station. Even though a soldier might have a concealed carry permit, he is prohibited from carrying that firearm on base or while in uniform. In Chattanooga, a Navy officer, carrying a handgun against regulations, shot back to defend his and others’ lives. A slain Marine was rumored to have his own pistol.

Military recruiting stations are nothing more than storefront offices. They are unlike even most police stations which are equipped with bulletproof glass and a carbine or shotgun mounted on the wall. It easy to see how the murderer in Tennessee could shoot straight through the front doors. Further away, the shooter crashed the gate at the reserve center and began shooting service members who were outside there. Some reserve centers and most National Guard armories usually have some form of small arms stored on base, but usually kept locked, unloaded in the armory. Sentries guarding military facilities are long-gone, except on the most sensitive of posts. Your average military facility, if guarded at all, is protected by civilian Department of Defense (DoD) security guards and civilian police. Even knowing a terrorist attack was possible, the DoD didn’t even take the basic steps of ensuring at least one person was armed and able to respond.

When ISIS issued a threat to kill military members, the DoD took no substantive action, only telling service members and their families to be alert and consider traveling to their bases in civilian clothing or adjust their Facebooks. In 2014, a Canadian sentry, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, armed with an unloaded rifle, was killed by a Canadian Muslim convert who then went on a rampage inside the halls of Parliament. Luckily, the ostensibly ceremonial Sergeant-at-Arms of Canada Kevin Vickers (a former police officer) was armed shot the murderer as politicians cowered. In Great Britain, an off-duty soldier was beheaded in the street by two Muslim men, who then ranted to passers-by on video about their supposed mission from Allah.

The Commander-in-Chief and the DoD have absolutely insulted our military and have shown how feckless we have grown as a nation. President Obama belatedly ordered flags lowered to half-staff five days after the shootings, despite having the White House turn rainbow colors the night the gay marriage decision was released by the Supreme Court. Americans instinctively lowered their own flags, not waiting for the customary order from the White House. Only after public pressure mounted did the president finally do the right thing. Americans event went as far as arming themselves to guard recruiting centers against further attacks. This is especially evident in the open carry states, such as Nevada, which allow the open carry of pistols and long guns.

Many of these citizens were former veterans and had no problem camping out or standing a watch in front of the shopping malls where the centers were. The Army responded to this by saying to treat the good Samaritan citizens as a threat and to call the police on them. The Marine Corps did the same thing. Considering how a potential attacker might blend in with the citizens, it would be prudent to give some sort of scrutiny to who is outside, along with calling the police for anyone who is behaving badly or unsafely. Yet the intent is clear; the military does not want armed citizens anywhere near its facilities.

Having civilians guarding service men admittedly looks bad for our nation and projects the image that we are defenseless in our heartland—and that is certainly true to an extent. The interior of America is not prepared for a terror attack, let alone responding to a high-profile mass shooting. Thankfully, to date most of the high-profile shooters committed suicide rather than face police or an armed citizen. God help us if a determined and well armed group of jihadis decide to start shooting. While we are a nation of gun owners, too few responsible and capable people carry. Knowing that we are indeed a rather weak target without the governmental fortitude to harden ourselves up, the DoD is obviously embarrassed at having armed citizens outside.

Some Realistic Concerns 

On one hand, the citizens outside the recruiting stations are a rag-tag bunch. Many of them are carrying only pistols. Others have rifles and shotguns, but many are of the hunting variety and not suited to self-defense or combat. One man even had a possibly illegal firearm at the center (an AR-15 ‘pistol’ with a forward vertical grip would be an ‘Any Other Weapon’ requiring registration and approval from the ATF). To top it off, this man didn’t even have sights on his weapon to aim it properly if needed. This incident was pointed out by the noted firearm historian Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons, a very intelligent, patient, and articulate man, starting a furor over his comments (in response to the above linked photo). Unfortunately, his correct insight was misinterpreted as criticism.

From Forgotten Weapons on Twitter, tweet since removed.

These guards are largely symbolic, showing their support for the troops, rather than being meaningful defense. While many are fully prepared and willing to engage another shooter, just as many are woefully unprepared for combat, let alone a self-defense shooting. While the symbolism and the deterrent effect is certainly appreciated by servicemen and Americans, an elderly man sitting relaxed in a folding chair with his fowling shotgun lying against the wall is an easy target. A terrorist would probably snipe the guard from a distance as he sat, unaware of any threat. Photos of the guards show that few are prepared for combat. Almost none have body armor on or are standing behind cover, which might stop a sniper’s bullet. Many are unprepared, inexperienced, and are simply showing up as a sign of moral support. In one incident, a man negligently discharged his firearm, his second offense, and was immediately disarmed by those around him, then arrested. He was clearly an exception and an exceptionally stupid man, while those gun owners around him proved the rule that most gun owners are responsible.

It is very important to recognize that this is an exercise in deterrence. Just like open carry makes a criminal think twice about his target, having armed citizens willing to defend their soldiers will make terrorists think harder. A poorly executed and planned attack, like that of Chattanooga, would likely meet an immediately disastrous fate if attempted again. The symbolism of it all is the important message. We as individuals stand by our service men, even when our White House repudiates them and commanders render warriors impotent. These guards are a warning that Americans are armed, we will shoot back, and we will not tolerate and attack upon our military.

Will the Governments and Brass Respond Properly?

Sadly, these incidents will fade into memory and the citizen guards will return to their lives in time. Soldiers will probably still be disarmed by law without even taking the simple steps of arming select officers and NCOs, allowing concealed carry in certain situations, or even the placing of armed sentries. None of this would amount to what those who fear a military coup are concerned about. Placing dozens and dozens of armed troops on the street, one of the reasons a standing army was so hated by the founding fathers, would certainly arouse suspicion. Several governors have allowed the arming of National Guard troops under their command, something that Nevada Governor Sandoval couldn’t be bothered with.

As a demonstration of our resolve and dedication, Americans guarding these centers have been successful in their mission. In the article referenced above, the military is now discussing was to arm some troops, though the Obama administration’s ability to follow through on this is seriously in doubt. These citizen guards have figuratively bloodied the president’s nose and that of the DoD by showing how ineffective to protect the troops and how distrustful of armed citizens and soldiers they are. The upper echelon’s military have abrogated their duty to protect their troops, leaving it up to citizens who care. This embarrassed them which is why they are retaliating against the guards.


This is what America needs after a shooting and in a crisis: citizens who are involved and willing to stand up in defense of what is right and in defense of those who defend us abroad. Trampling on these guardians and leaving our military to be a bunch of sitting ducks is a travesty to our veterans and active service members. Even if the guards are at most symbolism, it's symbolism that we need. America is composed of individuals who are willing to bear arms for good and we do not wait for our government to make decisions or tell us what to do.

The government’s response to this whole incident is totally disgusting, from the disarming of troops in the private capacity to the distancing themselves from calling this terrorism. Harassing citizens doing a good deed is totally uncalled for and indicative of a government which does not trust its citizens. This is a PR nightmare and an insult to the military and American public. When will this government’s assault on the Second Amendment end? Does the Department of Defense have no courtesy or are they ignorant of decency and tact?

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

Friday, July 24, 2015

Lafayette: Proof Background Checks Aren't a Cure-All

            Lafayette, LA mourns in the wake of its own high-profile shooting. Pundits are quipping about guns being to blame and the need for more gun control, heeding Rahm Emanuel’s advice to ‘never let a crisis go to waste.’ The facts don’t exactly fit the preferred gun control narrative. In the aftermath of the Charleston, SC, church shooting the anti-gun propaganda line is about the so-called ‘Charleston’ background check loophole. This shooting unties all the laces on the background check argument, as the erratic and disturbed John Russell Houser passed one. While his behavior was bizarre and he was probably one who could be accurately described as an asshole, he was not prohibited by law from owning a gun.
The gun Houser used [...] was legally purchased in February 2014 from a pawn shop in Phenix City, Alabama [...] Drew Griffin, a senior investigative correspondent for CNN, said it appears Houser was cleared to buy the gun because he didn't have any convictions for serious crimes. 'He just didn't show up on any of the instant background checks,' Griffin said. (source
         The Truth About Guns is now reporting that Houser was indeed a prohibited person, after being involuntarily committed in 2008. So Houser lied on the ATF form 4473, an easy thing to do. The background check system failed because it didn't have his mental health record in there. Oops. TTAG describes it beautifully: "And even if the ATF had discovered Houser’s lie, there’s almost no chance they would have done anything about it. So this isn’t a story of broken gun laws, but one of a broken system."
          Background checks are being offered to the mainstream public as the panacea for gun violence. For every major shooting to make the news, the anti-gun groups banged the drums over banning private sales using the deceptive tactic of ‘universal background checks’ despite the truth that none of the killers would have been stopped by them. Background checks don’t work if there is nothing in the background to disqualify a person.
            Also, criminals don’t obey the law. You know, like the laws against murder. Real deterrent to those with an abandoned heart... The only deterrent to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. In an earlier post, I wrote about how gun owners like me feel about this. We absolutely hate these shootings and this is why we carry everywhere we can. Feel-good measures don’t keep people alive or stop murderers from murdering. It’s even worse when some use the innocent victims to support their twisted agenda.
            This is a post that I think should be shared across Facebook groups, your Twitter followers, and every person you know who respects gun and private property rights. Why? There is an awful storm on the horizon ready to batter us and prime an unsuspecting public for gun registration. This storm is the universal background check initiative—a name that is a lie of the highest order. The initiative will in actuality ban private gun sales by forcing all sales to go through a federally licensed dealer (which then can be tracked). Merely lending a hunting rifle to a friend will be a crime.
            Because the proponents of this evil are couching it as ‘background checks’, we have to fight to overcome their propaganda lead with the truth that gun rights and private property rights will be destroyed. They call it a ‘universal’ background check because they can’t admit that federal law already requires background checks for most firearms sales and a minority of guns are sold in private sales. “Let’s ban private gun sales and ruin gun shows” just won’t go over that well.
            Many of the petition gatherers’ pitch included something like “You don’t want guys like the kid who shot up that school in Connecticut to be able to buy a gun, do you?” Supporters of the universal background checks implied that the recent mass shootings in America would have been prevented had the so-called universal background checks been in place. By playing on the residual horror, many were swayed into believing that a simple background check could have saved the day and signing the petition. Anecdotal evidence shows that petition gathers and supports have outright lied about the facts to the public when it came to the details of these terrible crimes.
            Adam Lanza, the Virginia Tech shooter, James Holmes, John Russell Houser, and many others should have been mentally incompetent to buy guns, but a poor mental health system let them slip through the cracks. Background checks routinely fail. Ironically, the Brady Check is named after Pres. Reagan’s press secretary James Brady who was paralyzed when he was shot, along with the president, by demonstrably mentally ill John Hinckley Jr. Hinckley was misdiagnosed as simply being immature and sent on his way. He was never adjudicated mentally deficient or committed to a mental intuition (prior to the assassination attempt). Even with modern background checks, Hinckley would have been able to purchase a gun.
            Background checks are simply a deterrent and annoyance for a truly determined prohibited person to overcome. Felons are generally the ones most often stopped, however they frequently turn to ‘straw purchases’ where they have someone who can legally purchase a firearm illegally buy one on their behalf. Did you know that 75.9% of illegally bought/sold guns would not be stopped by universal background checks? That’s because criminals find a way around the law or simply turn to illegal dealers or theft.
            Only about 25% percent of guns, and not the 40% lie that is bandied about, come from private sales that would be regulated by the initiative. Only 14% of illegal guns are bought in private sales—and here’s the kicker: we don’t know how many of those ‘private sales’ were already illegal. As we saw with the willingness of all the mass murder suspects (not to mention ‘petty’ murderers) to violate the existing laws regarding murder, how can we expect criminals to obey the law? This law would simply shackle the law abiding and take us backwards.
            Nevadans just got rid of the worthless Clark County ‘blue card’ handgun registration system. We don’t need to be forced to turn our perfectly legal activity into something that requires government scrutiny. Our gun sales and transfers are tracked already, albeit in a very cumbersome way. All the ATF has to do is scan the form 4473s through an optical character recognition scanner and viola; we have an electronic gun registry. No one has to do anything other than buy or transfer a gun; that’s how they did it in California. This administration has done everything it could to strip our gun rights away—do we want to be one bill away from gun registration?
            Let’s make no mistake: bad people abuse the trust of honest, law abiding citizens selling their guns face to face. However, we cannot let the fact that the minority of private party gun sales are to criminals override the right of innocent gun owners trying to conduct lawful business with one another. Also, it is downright malicious and deceitful to imply that the most horrific, emotional crimes in recent American history would have been prevented if we had a universal background check law. The supporters of this initiative do not care for the truth.

            We are the grassroots. We have to spread the word to our friends, our families, the media, and even strangers now. Spread the word or we will lose our right to sell our private property to each other and take the first step towards gun registration. Learn more about the initiative.

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

Thursday, July 23, 2015

How Gun Owners Feel About the Lafayette Shooting


Gun owners hate mass or high-profile shootings as much as anyone else does. None of us secretly enjoy the death of others; in fact, preventing or stopping such events is very much the reason many of us carry regularly. That fact is lost on gun-haters, the uninformed, and the media who can’t seem to understand that good guys carry guns too. Well, maybe they understand why uniformed good guys carry guns, but not private citizens. The right and responsibility to defend oneself is an unfamiliar concept to many on ‘the other side’ of the issue. I can’t imagine how they would react if citizen shot a would-be James Holmes or a teacher took down a school shooter.

Hearing the news of the latest shooting to make national news in Lafayette, LA, I cringed and groaned inwardly. Not another one. More people dead at the hands of another human being for no reason at all. We hate it. It's another excuse for the media and the anti-gunners to blather and spread lies about the inanimate gun being the cause of all this. Gun owners also hate how this makes us look bad because the media are putting the focus on the wrong people. Guilt by association here is as dumb as saying all Honda drivers are drunk because a Honda Civic driven by a drunk sideswiped you.

All the details aren’t out yet, but I’ll bet that no one in the theater was carrying a gun to shoot back. Perhaps if someone did start shooting back at these murderers, they would end faster, with fewer casualties, and give pause to the bedroom whack-jobs out there. Now does Louisiana state law give ‘no gun’ signs the force of law? I’m not sure RS 40:1379.3(O) strikes me as no, but it also seems ambiguous. Thankfully we don’t have this non-sense in Nevada. In a lot of places, ‘no gun’ signs tend to frighten away the less hardy conceal carriers and discourage almost all open carry. Many of the corporations that post the signs think that they will force robbers and gangbangers to pause and go elsewhere or at least leave their gat in the car.

I’m sure a lot of firearm prohibitions have to do with liability concerns because people can die, but heaven forbid the company get sued without a way to shift blame elsewhere. The policies are defended with stupid answers, offending the law abiding citizen that the company didn’t have to worry about in the first place. Managers and security guards enforce the policies that get many in their professions killed each year during robberies. At the end of the day, its one human being or a small group making these decisions and playing games with our lives. Why would disarming the law-abiding, especially the trained and licensed, be considered a good thing? Are they concerned that without the signs, there will be an outbreak of Chipotle Ninjas twirling their fully automatic machine pistols on their finger tips? Sure, some jackwagon might have an accidental discharge (of the firearm nature) in the bathroom, but that’s less likely to happen than some grandma creating an extra drive-thru entrance into the dining room.

This concern about liability (which is stupid, I’m sure someone will sue the theater anyway in our litigious society) is what angers gun owners. Some faceless corporation considers its pocketbooks to be more valuable than human life and is na├»ve enough to think slapping a sign on a door is going to work. Guess what? Criminals walk right past that sign with guns to do their evil along with a lot of good citizens who place a higher value on not being dead than obeying an asinine restriction.

Many in of those who hate guns and those who support gun control are saying “How can we stop this? Why can’t we stop this?” Probably because not enough of these people are shot down before they really get going on their sick spree. We make it too damn easy for them to kill without worrying about being shot in the back of the head by a citizen carrier. It’s not about the availability of guns, or some dude who climbed on to the roof of McDonalds with 30 round magazines. Take away guns entirely and people will use knives and rocks. Heck, some guy in Australia robbed a store with a boomerang. Lock up and treat the mentally ill like we used to and for heaven’s sake, let the good guys carry guns. Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun; if that wasn’t true, no one would be calling the police when in danger.

Also, unlike CNN’s pre-written ‘blame the guns’ opinion article (written on 7/6 and reposted) the gun lobby is not the problem. It is the public, more than ever before, who do not support gun control, having seen the total failures of ‘gun free zones’ and arbitrary restrictions. In fact, a lack of support for gun control is not a ‘problem.’ Gun control is an absurd concept that expects that criminals and the mentally ill will obey the law and be deterred by the threat of punishment. Any law that in any way hinders any law-abiding citizen from defending themself anywhere, anytime, with the most effective weapon possible is an infringement.

States like Texas (actually a very hostile state to gun rights, contrary to popular belief) need to stop giving permission to business and private property to let customers become victims. If a private property owner wants to prohibit guns in their establishment, fine, but don’t give their ban the power of law. Businesses need to stop treating gun owners like criminals. Did all those ‘no gun’ signs in California fast-food joints and liquor stores work before Peruta v. Gore? Do smokers always obey ‘no smoking within 25 feet signs’ (probably more a CA thing than NV)? Those signs aren’t some magic talisman that keeps bad things away. If that was the case, where are the ‘no falling’ signs near stairs, ‘no DUI’ signs in parking garages, and where were the ‘no fire’ signs in the old MGM/Ballys hotel? Maybe I should have slapped a 'no break-up' sign over my front door so it would have kept my girlfriend from walking out one morning, with my key, and not come back.

It is time we hold private business accountable for their gun free zone policies. Boycotts are called for where it is illegal to ignore the sign. Elsewhere, conceal carry if there is no other options for your business (most movie theaters prohibit firearms) or protest out front. Call and speak with the management or corporate. Let them know how you feel and do not stop until they acknowledge that they are creating free-fire zones and turning their customers into helpless victims.

See the follow-up article here.

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Parody: This gun control tactic is hard to shoot down

You may have seen this 'editorial' in the liberal-leaning Las Vegas Sun. While the editorial remains unattributed, we can virtually guarantee that it was written by a universal background check Bloomberg shill. The following is a parody of this obviously biased (and incredibly ridiculous and patronizing) editorial.

This Gun Control Tactic is Easy to Shoot Down

Aside from picking office holders, Nevada voters next year will have the opportunity to help Michael Bloomberg ban private gun sales.

Granted, we can’t always identify “the wrong hands” because (the definition is open to interpretation; Mayor Bloomberg thinks that urban youth are ‘the wrong hands’)  many crimes are committed in the passion of the moment by first-time gun-wielders who might not fit the profile of a gunman-in-waiting. So basically, we really can’t prevent people from shooting each other, but I guess we can make it difficult enough for them to use a brick, a knife, or whatever is handy and deadly.

But as an organization funded by wealthy individuals, we at least can try to keep guns out of the hands of people who, on the face of it, shouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon. It’s an obvious group: everybody who isn’t a soldier, police officer, or bodyguard. And we should probably include felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill who have been identified by the state as having been committed involuntarily to a mental health institution or deemed a danger to themselves or others. Of course, they already obtain guns illegally from street dealers, having someone with a clean record buy them, or just stealing them.

As it stands now, someone in Nevada can buy a weapon from a private party and not register it, thanks to SB 175 and SB 240, the latter which made voluntary private party background checks free. As a result, guns end up in the hands of very trustworthy and well-intentioned people.

With some exceptions, the proposed law would ban private gun sales — they account for about 40 percent of all gun sales (because we cherry picked the statistics and lied—they’re actually only about 15-25% of gun sales) and typically are found at gun shows or face-to-face meetings online — to be forced to meet at a dealer, pay a $25 fee, and fill out forms that are kept around basically forever.

Customers who buy guns from licensed firearms dealers already are required to undergo background checks, which frequently fail because the records are incomplete or the people they are supposed to keep guns away from have no record that can be tracked until after the crime occurs.

The proposed law is known as the Background Check Initiative. It qualified for a place on the Nevada ballot in November 2016 by virtue of a probably illegal petition drive that got 166,779 signatures, the most ever collected for an initiative in this state, because we circulated along with the marijuana petition, and who doesn’t like that!

This should be an easy decision for voters. Who would argue against background checks? Well, those law-abiding citizens who hate tyranny, out-of-state billionaires throwing their weight around, anyone suspicious of this abusive government’s intentions, and people who respect private property rights. Don’t forget those old, privileged white dudes who wrote the Second Amendment. Where’s the harm? Don’t mind the fact that this will lead to registration, just like it did in California. We’ll take the whole confiscation thing one step at a time so we don’t freak you out.

The National Rifle Association is fighting the initiative because they believe in freedom and the constitution. It worries background checks are a veiled effort by the government to build a national registry of gun owners—and they’re damn right! Such a registry would allow the government, when it sees the need and the moment is right, to swoop in and confiscate everyone’s weapons.

Despite that threat, 18 other states have had the Background Check Initiative forced on them by lying, paid signature gathers, which is being promoted by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and its partner, Moms Demand Action. The groups call background checks a no-brainer because their members, organizers, funders, and even the people who wrote the source for this parody article have no brain. These groups like to make up stats, manipulate them, lie, and basically bully anyone who doesn’t hate guns just as much as they do.

Biased and flawed polling shows overwhelming support for efforts to clamp down on who can buy guns. A New York Times/CBS News Poll in 2013 found 92 percent of respondents supported background checks on all potential gun buyers. The findings were echoed in a Pew Research Center poll that same year: 85 percent of respondents supported background checks. These studies were thoroughly discredited. And various other crappy polls show NRA members strongly support background checks.

The only argument to be made against background checks is the notion that the government is trying to compile a list of gun owners. Because it really does have a backdoor gun registry and they really do want to register all guns—just ask Senator Feinstein. But five federal laws that ban a gun registry, easily overwritten by a compliant Congress and signed by a gun hating president, can eliminate the ban.

We hope voters get behind the Background Check Initiative because that will mean they are stupid enough to fall for whatever lie we concoct to sell them gun registration and any other gun nonsense idea we come up with. When are proven liars, when the feds come after gun owners in a nationwide dragnet, we assume word will spread quickly and people can bury their guns in their backyards, stick them in a storage unit, or finally say they’ve had enough and shoot back—exactly what the Second Amendment is there for. Until then, let’s start taking away people’s rights.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Lies About Background Check and Mass Murderers

Profiting from victims’ blood to propagate gun control is nothing new and always sickening. The racist who murdered eight in a church in Charleston, South Carolina, has started a new rallying cry for gun control. 2012 saw the start of the frenzy for ‘universal background checks’, which is just double-speak for banning private gun sales. The impetus for that push had nothing to do with background checks, but rather taking advantage of tragedy. It’s disgusting effect in Nevada is the universal background check initiative, which as SB 221, was vetoed by the governor. Now, Michael Bloomberg’s gun control machine is peddling their toxic wares here. Sadly, the tragedies are exploited by gun banners to hoodwink the unwary into thinking something as pedantic as banning private sales, repackaged with a lie for a name, would somehow stop random acts of violence.

None of the most notable mass shooting suspects in recent American history bought their guns in private sales which would be subject to the provisions of the universal background check initiative. 

Supporters of the universal background checks and the various Bloomberg backed gun control groups like to imply that the recent mass shooting in America would have been prevented had universal background checks been in place. By playing on the residual horror, many can be swayed into believing that a simple background check could have saved the day. Anecdotal evidence shows that petition gathers and supports have outright lied about the facts to the public when it came to the details of these terrible crimes.

In this most critical season for our gun rights, here is the ammunition you will need to respond to the liars, frauds, and brainwashed who will do anything deceptive to sway votes to their side. When they say “X shooting could have been stopped by universal background checks,” here is your response. Remember to share this will anyone you know. There can never been enough people who know the truth.

Dylan Roof is the man who killed nine people in a church in Charleston. Roof legally purchased the pistol used in the murders, despite it being illegal for him to do so. Roof was an unlawful user of narcotics, a disqualifier for purchasing a firearm. He was in fact a prohibited person and had to lie on his background check form, the ATF 4473 (see below).

“He used drugs heavily a lot,” Mullins said. “It was obviously harder than marijuana. He was like a pill popper, from what I understood. Like Xanax, and stuff like that.”

Roof unlawfully possessed without a prescription for Suboxone, a pain reliever. This caused him to be arrested on felony charges—another lie on the background check form—a few months before the shootings. Due to an unfortunate clerical error, this information was not properly entered into a criminal record database. When his instant background check was delayed, the examiner reviewing the file manually never saw that record. Without a denial within three days, the sale can proceed.

The approval of the sale within three days is a safety measure included in the Brady Law intended to protect an individual’s freedom and the presumption that they are innocent until proven guilty. This is not a flaw, but an intentional design in order to prevent the frequent misidentifications by the background check system from unintentionally denying someone the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, politicians see this as an opportunity to call for more background checks and further restrict citizens’ rights. One of the calls is to extend the three day wait for approval to allow a more comprehensive record search or to eliminate the due-process safety provision entirely. Ideally, gun banners would like a ‘delay’ on a background check result in no sale until a specific approval comes through from the FBI. This would discriminate against those who have been subjected to identity theft or have a name too similar to that of a felon.

Thankfully, Senator Grassely got it right:

“It’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale,” he said in a statement. “The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws. The American people, and especially the victims’ families, deserve better.”[ii]

Adam Lanza was profoundly mentally ill. He was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and possibly undiagnosed schizophrenia. Additionally, he refused medication and psychiatric therapy. His behavior was bizarre, to say the least. Though his mother did reportedly contemplate institutionalizing her son, she did not take any formal steps to follow through with that. Nancy Lanza basically was letting a vicious tiger roam free.

“All of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter’s mother. Additionally, ammunition of the types found had been purchased by the mother in the past, and there is no evidence that the ammunition was purchased by anyone else, including the shooter.” 

Lanza shot his mother as she slept in bed with her own gun and stole the rest. She kept the weapons unsecured from her son, who she knew or should have known was serious disturbed and a threat to others. All weapons were legally purchased.[v] His mother wrote him a check to even buy his own firearm. Adam Lanza would have theoretically been able to legally purchase a firearm, as he was not disqualified under law from buying a gun. 

A Litany of Failures

Washington State was recently the battleground for I-594, a background check initiative that was the model in every way of 'ours.' Shortly before the election, a high school student shot four classmates. The murderer, 15, obtained the gun from his father. In 2002, his father, a prohibited person, illegally bought the pistol by lying on the ATF sales form and passed a background check. This senseless tragedy was a double failure of law and more proof that background checks are not a cure-all for violence.
The Virginia Tech shooting victims were not saved by the state mental health system or by background checks. The also verifiably mentally ill suspect, Seung-Hui Cho, who had been subjected to a mental health hold for being a danger to himself or others, was able to purchase his pistols through a dealer, “easily” passing a background check. Universal background checks would not have helped here either. Nidal Hasan, a Muslim and former US Army major, who engaged in a terrorist attack against his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009, legally purchased his weapon from a gun store. Despite the fact that he was under suspicion for bizarre behavior, anti-American sentiment, and seeking ties to Al-Qaeda he still passed an instant background check when buying the weapon. James Holmes, who shot up a theater of moviegoers watching the “Dark Knight Rises” Batman premiere in Aurora, CO also legally bought his guns from retail outlets. All of his weapons were bought from retail dealers who required background checks. According to a spokesman for Bass Pro Shops, where the Aurora suspect bought his guns:
"Based on the records we have reviewed, personnel in our Denver store correctly and fully followed all federal requirements with respect to the sale of one shotgun and one handgun to the individual identified in this incident. Background checks, as required by federal law, were properly conducted, and he was approved. Again, our hearts go out to the victims and their families. We also offer our support and appreciation to the law enforcement and emergency response professionals and all others who responded to give aid to these innocent victims."

Aaron Alexis, who killed 12 and injured 3 more, in his shotgun attack on the Washington Navy Yard, bought his shotgun after passing a background check In Arizona, Jared Loughner, the man who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011 had his personal shotgun taken away by his father, who was alarmed at his son’s bizarre behavior. Yet that didn’t stop him from murder and the killer didn’t need the internet or private sales to buy guns. He bought his pistol used in the attack back in 2010 from aretail store. In the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, both under 18, utilized a straw purchase, obtaining guns through an adult friend and also through a corrupt dealer. Both methods were already illegal and not necessarily subject to the universal background check. Not to mention that both were already prohibited by law from purchasing firearms by virtue of being under 18. Sales of firearms to minors in Nevada is already a crime.

Lastly, in the recent cowardly ambush murders of the LV Metro PD officers Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck along with the armed citizen who tried to intervene, Joseph Wilcox, it was the accomplice wife who legally bought the guns for her husband who, as a felon, could not purchase or possess firearms, a so-called 'straw purchase,' something that a background check couldn't prevent. Doubtless, there are plenty of examples where criminals obtained guns illegally through private sales by duping an honest, unwitting law-abiding gun owner. Yet the most sensational crimes were not committed with guns obtained that way. Let’s make no mistake: lots of bad people abuse the trust of honest, law abiding citizens selling their guns face to face. However, we cannot let the fact that the minority of private party gun sales are to criminals override the right of innocent gun owners trying to conduct lawful business with one another. Also, it is downright malicious and deceitful to imply that the most horrific, emotional crimes in recent American history would have been prevented if we had a universal background check law. The supporters of this initiative do not care for the truth.
Learn more at

Thursday, July 16, 2015

We Must Be Alert to the Threat of Islamic Terror

          This article is controversial. I am pointing out that we must be aware of Islamic terror bringing a gun battle to our streets and that by carrying a gun that we may not have to be defenseless if we are caught in the crossfire. Additionally, I personally feel the need to highlight the fact that Islam indeed calls for violent jihad against unbelievers. Please don’t mistake this article as a personal attack against individual Muslims or a call to violence. If you’re stupid enough to think the solution to the problem is violence, I’d love to be the first to vote you off the island.

            James Holmes, the psychotic murderer of twelve and injured 70 others watching a Batman premiere in a theater in Aurora, Colorado, was convicted on all counts today. Earlier in the day, a gunman, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a naturalized Kuwaiti-American, shot a police officer and murdered four US Marines. As a younger man working at my suburban California law enforcement agency, it was only after the Aurora shooting that the attitude in the department changed to “carry everywhere.” You see, in our county of farms and suburbs, we felt safe. The crazed gunman changed that mindset.
            Aurora was when my partners and a large part of America’s gun owners realized the need to protect themselves. Today, Americans and citizen carriers in particular need to heed the signs of the times and protect themselves. This new threat isn’t from some crazy, young white kid. We have known about them since the Columbine tragedy.   
            We must now be aware of a new threat to America and prepare to defend ourselves against Islamic terrorists who plan to wage war against the United States. It is not an isolated phenomenon like the mentally ill massacre perpetrators we have seen, it is a war driven by Islamic theology. Denying that Islam is behind these attacks is as foolish as saying our absolutely criminal handling of the mentally ill isn’t responsible for the mass shootings we’ve seen in recent years. As we have identified disturbed young men off their meds with too little supervision, we must identify the source of this new threat against us.
            Today America must wake up and face the reality of widespread Islamic terror coming to our shores. More and more indicators that the Tennessee shooter was a Muslim engaging in his own private jihad are emerging. ISIS praised the attacks and took credit for it. It is impossible to ignore this information. In this new phase in the War on Terror, we are facing an enemy who is bent on conquering the Middle East and bringing war to our shores. Twice this year, we have seen such-lone wolf attacks upon our shores.
            Only by the grace of God have we been spared a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11. Such spectacular and complicated attacks are very far and few in between. Much more likely is the ‘lone-wolf’ style attack we saw today against symbolic soft targets. The next organized terrorist attack is likely to be a mass shooting style event, probably targeting a school, sporting event, or mall. We have been warned about these ‘lone wolves’, American residents who self-radicalize and take jihad upon themselves. From Boston, to Texas, and Now Tennessee, we have seen it firsthand.
            This is not a call to arms against Islam; rather it is a call to awareness of a new threat. Citizen carriers expect the threat to be a burglary, a robbery, or at the extreme, a mall or school shooting. In Charleston, we saw a Christian church shot-up by a racist targeting blacks, spreading the evil of mass murder (with a gun, rather than a bomb) in a new way. As our schools and theaters have become targets, our society at large is becoming a target. Three Islamic terror attacks in a little over two years are not coincidence, but evidence of a pattern of jihad against America.
            The attackers will not always target Marines or conventions insulting their prophet. They will not be as inept as the people arrested by the FBI over this Independence Day period. What if instead of planes on 9/11, they used guns? Gun attacks are very popular overseas. Charlie Hebdo is a prime example, where a Parisian police officer begged for his life before being shot. A Metro officer or state trooper would certainly not go down that way. 147 were gunned down at a Kenyan University. We are not just looking for bombings, hijacked planes, random lone-wolfs, or the crazy white guy off his meds. The next major terrorist attack will likely be with guns striking a soft, civilian target, like a school.[1]
            Today, we were caught unaware. We shouldn’t have been. Those Marines should have had a fighting chance. We don’t know the circumstances of their deaths in any detail to play Monday morning quarterback, but none of them had a concealed weapon (it’s illegal on military bases) and there was no sentry watching over them with his M16.
            American gun owners must carry now and expect these kinds of threats—rifle and large scale shootings—in addition to what we have already planned for. No target is too soft, as we have seen... As the tide of Islamic radicalism creeps over the Middle East, their rhetoric splashes across the Atlantic to stain our nation. Our enemies within are beginning to rise up.
            Of course, this isn’t a call to a pogrom or a warning that the elderly Muslim couple down the street is dangerous. You could be getting your tinfoil hat all in a bunch over them when the disturbed kid next door stops taking his meds and the voices suggest he goes out and shoots up the mall. Be vigilant against a new threat; don’t be a vigilante.
            We are not facing mere terrorism. Rather, this is the dawn in an unfortunate era of jihad against America and the West. ISIS and the radical elements of Islam have declared war on us. The Quran even calls for Muslims to engage in jihad—to kill kaffirs, unbelievers. Meanwhile, our feckless president refuses to decisively engage these monsters, even failing to call ISIS and Islam the scourge that it is. Lord only knows what is motivation is, but the president is putting America in grave danger and has already cost American lives. Our president can’t even call the Fort Hood attack an act of Muslim terror, thought the suspect himself admitted it was jihad.           
“It’s clear to anyone [...] that the world’s enemy is radical Islam. But sadly, it’s more not just ‘radical Islam’. Let’s stop being politically correct. Islam itself is a problem. Millions of Muslims who aren’t ‘radical’ support and even celebrate intolerance and terrorism. [...] Call it Islam…call it radical Islam…call it Jihad…call it fundamental Islam. The fact is Islam is producing hate, intolerance and death.” (Wayne Allen Root
            Admittedly, these are harsh words. Yet we find the truth in the Quran, the Islamic scriptures which unambiguously call for violence and slaughter for those who don’t believe. 
And kill them wherever you find them, and get them out from whence they got you out. And the sedition is worse than the killing. And do not engage in war with them at the forbidden mosque until they engage in war with you in it. So if they do engage in war with you, so kill them; likewise it is the reward of the infidel. [...] And engage in war with then until there be no sedition and the religion be to Allah. 2:191-193
 I will cast a terror into the hearts of those who became infidels. So chop on their necks, and chop off every finger from them. 8:12
 And engage in war with them until there will not be sedition and the religion will be completely to Allah. 8:39[2] 
            I am aware my words are very controversial. I am pointing out the truth about Islam, the Quran’s role in Islamic terror, and the face of a new threat to our country. While some may find it difficult, we must separate the peaceful Muslims from the actual jihadists. In America, our First Amendment right to freedom of religion allows Muslims to be Muslims. We sacrifice any credit we have by calling for their deportation, arrest, or genocide based on religion. That is downright un-American. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, we judge men on the content of their character. I saw some pretty vile comments being made about Muslims on Twitter today. Don’t paint all Muslims with the same brush. Saying all Muslims is violent because the Quran calls for jihad is like calling all Christians who sin hypocrites because the Bible tells us not to.
            I caution you to carry your gun everywhere you legally can because you never know when danger will strike or its face. It need not be a robbery. It could be the recruiting office next to the pizza joint you’re having lunch at. While you can’t use a gun to stop a bombing, you can use a gun to stop a mass shooting. Maybe if more gun owners started carrying, we could intimidate those crazy white guys and jihadists into staying home.

[1] An excellent, but highly upsetting, fictional account of what one gun writer believes such an attack would look like is posted at The Truth About Guns and highlights our unpreparedness.
[2] Verses taken from: The Generous Quran, An accurate, modern English translation of the Qur'an, Islam's holiest book. Copyright 2009. Used by permission of Usama Dakdok Publishing LLC.