Thursday, December 29, 2016

How Will the Dems Resurrect Question 1?

How can the Democrats resurrect universal background checks banning private gun sales after their humiliating defeat via the FBI and the Attorney General's opinion? We're also certainly facing a slew of anti-gun bills, not from popular desire, but from Democrats lacking any moral fiber looking to exploit their control over the legislature. This includes magazine bans. This is still Nevada, so not very much is likely to succeed, but with the new, "progressive" Democrat Party, expect them to take any dirty tricks pushing their agenda.

Let's take a look at what they might try and the chances of success.

Background checks background

For reference, remember that the Brady Bill requires background checks on all retail sales by federally licensed dealers (FFLs). States have three options:
  1. Their own Point of Contact center (Nevada and 12 other states)
  2. Use the FBI NICS system (31 states)
  3. Use state center for long gun and federal center for handgun or vise versa (seven states)
The state systems have access to the same data NICS has, plus local records (which the FBI told Attorney General Laxalt are superior to the federal system). Nevada rightly chose this system.

Get the FBI to change it's mind

Not likely. The head of the freakin' background check department said "no" to Nevada for very good reasons. With the incoming Republican Trump administration, this is unlikely to change. Plus there is the whole problem of blame pointing if a federal background check were to fail, lead to a mass shooting, when it could have been prevented by the Nevada system. If something like that were to happen, I'm sure the Democratic legislative caucus would blame "Russian hackers" or something. Maybe FBI Director Comey?

Most likely solution-legislation

Question 1 cannot be simply "fixed" in the 2017 legislative session. 
"An initiative measure so approved by the voters shall not be amended, annulled, repealed, set aside or suspended by the Legislature within 3 years from the date it takes effect." Article 19, Sec. 2 Nevada Constitution
What they can do is approve legislation, and Democrats almost certainly will, a duplicate of the same background check law on file, creating (i.e.) NRS 202.254.1, with the following changes to switch from the NICS system to the state system:

3. (a) the licensed dealer must contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as described in 18 U.S.C. 922(t), and not the Central Repository Nevada Department of Public Safety Point of Contact Center, to determine whether the buyer or transferee is eligible to purchase and possess firearms under state and federal law; 

4. A licensed dealer who agrees to conduct a background check pursuant to this section shall inform the seller or transferor and the buyer or transferee of the response from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Nevada Department of Public Safety Point of Contact Center. if the response indicated that the buyer or transferee is ineligible to purchase or poesses the firearm, the licensed dealer shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor and the seller or transferor shall not sell or transfer the firearm to the buyer or transferee.

This will incur a fiscal impact, which is why the Bloomberg groups didn't put this method on the ballot in the first place, as Nevada doesn't have much money to go around. They ought to have checked with the FBI beforehand.

This leaves us with the problem of two laws on the books with one DOA (Question 1). Of course, that makes it so much easier for a Republican legislature to eradicate it in 2019, god-willing. Question 1 is therefore not "amended" and is basically left alone. But getting really technical, compliance with the new universal background check law would leave you in violation of Question 1. Way to go Democrats...

Switch from state POC to NICS for all background checks?

Not likely. Doing this would have to ignore the irrefutable statement from the FBI (which is true also) that the Nevada system has better records and is superior to NICS. If the anti-gunners are truly about safety (which they aren't), they'd have chosen the state system to begin with and avoid this whole problem. Instead, they looked for a silver bullet that ended up being nothing more than shiny lead. If they tried this, they then have to explain why the inferior federal system should be used to block a handful of private gun sales.

Then we get to money. Can Nevada really afford to absorb losing the background check fees? NICS is free to the consumer, despite what the dealer might charge for their transfer service. The Department of Public Safety runs all retail sale background checks in Nevada. Currently, they run around 100,000 a year, totaling about $2.5 million in fees, a sizeable portion of income. Not all of it goes to the Point of Contact system, but is likely absorbed by DPS as a whole.
"The Department has indicated that, if licensed dealers are required to access NICS directly for background checks on all gun sales, this would result in the elimination of approximately 13 positions and a loss in revenue of approximately $2.7 million per year, which is used to support the current operations of the CHR [Criminal History Repository]. This loss in revenue would result in a negative financial impact upon state government, as additional revenue would be required from the State General Fund or other sources to supplant revenues used to support the CHR’s functions." (source)

Nevada Point of Contact background check figures

2010 = 91,104
2011 = 104,299
2012 = 126,276
2013 = 120,919
2014 = 95,427
2015 = 102,305
2016 = 103,589 (through 11/30/2016)

Now how many private sales/transfers will there be? Will there be enough fees coming in to justify the additional workload? One estimate was that it would cost an addition $450,000, which might be recouped in fees, but that's just an estimate. No one really knows how many private sale background checks there would be, but it stands to be a waste of money given the lack of any real return to public safety. It stands to be seen if the more traditional Democrats (the non-progressive, frothing at the mouth liberals) from rural counties really want to pay for something their constituents didn't support.

Will the governor veto gun control bills? Can the Dems override a veto?

Gov. Sandoval is somewhat of a wildcard, being a moderate Republican, but he has shown strong support for the Second Amendment. He successfully vetoed SB 221, passed by Democrats in 2013, which lead to Question 1. He also publicly opposed Question 1. Even if he is a horse-trader, it would be difficult for him to later reconcile in any other election why he suddenly flip-flopped. Odds are he would likely veto any anti-gun legislation again, but he would need your support and encouragement.

The governor has five days to veto any bill, but the legislature can override a veto by a 2/3rd majority vote. If the bill is vetoed, but the legislature is out of session, the governor has 10 days to veto it, where the next session of the legislature (remember special sessions, not just regular) can attempt to override the veto. (Article 4, Sec. 35, Nevada Constitution)

27 Democrats (supermajority)
15 Republicans

12 Democrats
9 Republicans

Republican senate candidate Patricia Farley defected from the Republican Party to become an independant senator who will caucus with the Democrats (she is counted as one). Democrats are still short two votes of a supermajority in the senate which can override vetos.

First, anything can happen, but veto overrides are not exactly common and if the bill is vetoed after the session adjourns, a year or so will pass before there is another chance to override it and plenty of minds can change in that time. Also, all counties but Clark County voted "no" on Question 1 and it failed the popular vote, save for Clark County voters, meaning that there is very little popular support for more background checks in the rural and northern counties. It's not hard to imagine one or more Democrat senators failing to vote along party lines, especially to overturn a veto, when the majority of their constituents oppose the law. Or one can hope.

If all else fails, Nevadans will probably ignore the law to some degree. We already know that law enforcement would enforce it selectively and that in other states, particularly Washington where only one charge has been filed after a murder was committed, don't aggressively prosecute violations. Most people do want to follow the law and will do so, as long as it is not cumbersome, and so most will get background checks out of fear/respect for the system or simply not buy guns privately.

Massive non-compliance regarding other laws, such as magazine restrictions, is already commonplace in Colorado, which restricted magazine capacity to 15 in 2013. Standard capacity magazines can be found openly for sale on gun store shelves. Californians are set to not comply with the ex post facto magazine ban for 2017, and the same behavior has been seen in New York and Connecticut. Nevadans are likely to take a more hostile attitude and totally disregard a magazine ban that no one would dare enforce, unless Scummy Joe Lombardo wants to start pushing a black and white again.

Gun control will probably cause the Democrats to lose their control over the legislature, if not outright flip it again. They don't seem to be aware the reason they got the legislature this year was because of the turnout for the presidential vote and backlash against the RINOs spectacular failure. A successful Republican Trump administration is likely to change many minds to be favorable towards the Republican party. As always, ex-pat Californians who bring their Democrat voting patterns with them, minority groups who have been co-opted by liberal lies, and voter fraud are always a problem. Nevada may be lost, but it will not be lost because of an honest vote.

And hell, worst case scenario, gun owners know what the Second Amendment is for. Democrats seems to fail to remember that in history, an angry and armed populace does not take kindly to tyranny. Just ask the Redcoats that tried to take the arms and ammunition in Concord how that worked out.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Breaking News: Background Checks Stalled by AG

Ballot Question 1, will not be enforceable on January 1, 2017. Attorney General Adam Laxalt has provided this opinion in which he found that citizens cannot comply with the terms of the law. In short, Nevada has chosen a state system and the FBI will not provide duplicate services for private sales. Ballot Question 1 has not been thrown out or delayed from statutory implementation, rather the attorney general has stated that it is not enforceable, meaning that “citizens may not be prosecuted for for their inability to comply with the Act.” While technically illegal, prosecution for a private gun sale is highly unlikely as attempting to comply with the terms of the law (codified as NRS 202.254) would be impossible.

Ballot Question 1, narrowly passed by about 9,000 voters (and only succeeding in Clark County), bans gun sales between private citizens. It was an initiative paid for and marketed by former New York mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Previously, Nevada law allowed free, voluntary background checks for citizens wishing to sell firearms face-to-face. With the revision of NRS 202.254, there are no longer free background checks for private sales and if one wished to get a background check on a private sale, one would have to have a dealer take posession of the firearm and pay $25, as if the firearm was shipped through the mail.

It is believed that the required usage of the FBI NICS system vs. the state system was in part due to gradually "encourage" states to switch to the federal system to better enable a sale/transaction based gun registration system, where gun transfers and sales are used to track who owns a firearm. Without registration, failure to comply with background checks is very difficult to prove.

The Opinion

Basically, the FBI refuses to run background checks on behalf of the Nevada Department of Public Safety, as Nevada has chosen its own Point-of-Contact (POC) center to run background checks (one option of the Brady Bill). This duplicates efforts and federal regulations require all federal or all state (option for a split-system applies only to long guns vs. handguns, not retail vs. private sale).

Since it is impossible for dealers to run background checks as required by the law, and with sales sans a background check banned by law, it would be impossible to privately transfer a firearm  legally. This is a Catch-22 and a deprivation of a right without due process of law, as the opinion noted. Therefore, the law must be invalidated because the law cannot require one to comply with the impossible.

The opinion was based on a question posed by the director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety. The question was whether or not the state had the authority to run checks through the Federal system and charge fees. The FBI was conducted as part of the attorney general's research.
“The Nevada Supreme Court long ago adopted the doctrine that the law does not require impossible acts. When a law imposes a requirement that cannot be performed, a party is relieved of compliance until the obstacle to performance is lifted.” 
The law “operates as a total ban, clearly at at odds with the intent of voters,” which was to create background checks on private gun sales (taking the law at face value). “It is manifestly unjust to criminally penalize someone for failing to perform an act that is impossible to perform.” 
“Because the FBI will not perform the background checks required by the Act, enforcement of its criminal penalties will have the unintended consequence of punishing conduct that is widely and reasonably perceived by Nevadans to be lawful.”


The FBI NICS Section will not perform background checks requested by Nevada FFLs are required by the initiative. The FBI explained “the recent passage of Nevada legislation...cannot dictate how federal resources are applied” and that “private party background checks are the ‘responsibility of Nevada to be conducted as any other background check for firearms through the Nevada [Department of Public Safety].’”

The FBI's has decided that it is not the FBI's responsibility to conduct private background checks for Nevada, but rather that "these background checks [are to be] conducted as any other background check for firearms, through the Nevada DPS..." But the strict language of the initiative itself requires the federal system be used, which does not allow a simple switch of systems based on the FBI's disinterest in participating.

The FBI did not specifically address whether or not the dealer themselves could sign up for a federal NICS account, but the intent of their letter was that they would have no part in private sale background checks. The FBI might change their opinion administratively or in response to legislation, but under the incoming Trump administration and a Republican controlled Congress, federal changes are unlikely.

Anti-Gunners Shot Themselves in the Foot

This language of the poorly-written law and the method chosen, the popular initiative system, doomed Question 1. The law provided no alternative to use the state system (it specifically required the federal NICS system), and per the state constitution, the law cannot be altered for three years, so there is no quick correction. The anti-gun authors didn't plan for the contingency that the FBI would not play along with their scheme. In fact, the same core version of the law has been traveling from state to state since 2012, gradually evolving as each state exposed flaws in the law.

The legislature cannot change the law for three years, no matter what. No correction of "mistake" (more like a fatal oversight). The idea behind the "no-interference" rule for initiatives is to prevent the legislature from undoing the will of the people (or the will of Clark County Democrat voters, as it were). By choosing this method, instead of writing a better law or waiting for Democrat state government trifecta, the proponents set themselves up for failure.

What the Democratic controlled state legislature will likely attempt to do is pass a legislative background check bill with the "deficiency" corrected. Republican Governor Sandoval vetoed such a bill in 2013, SB 221 and opposed Question 1, so that's likely off-the-table. Or they might try to abolish the Nevada Point-of-Contact center and require all background checks to go through the FBI, thus eliminating one of the FBI’s objections.  However, this route would require Gov. Sandoval’s approval and would invalidate the FBI’s quite real point that Nevada has better access to local records, making the Nevada center a better choice, and thus nothing is likely to change.

The FBI illustrates the perfect point about the NICS systems deficiencies:
"State and local authorities serving as POCs are likely to have readier access to more detailed information for processing background checks than the FBI, thus resulting in fewer system misses of disqualified persons and enhancing system responsiveness for non-disqualified persons. The POCs have access to more current criminal history record and more data sources (particularly regarding noncriminal disqualifiers such as mental health commitments) from their own state than does the FBI, and have a better understanding of their own state laws and disqualifying factors. Specifically, the POC for Nevada checks additional databases to include state protection orders, state warrants, state driver's licenses, parole and probation, and SCOPE (which is Clark County, Las Vegas area records). Also, most of Nevada's protection orders are not in the National Crime Information Center File, which is important to note since only the POC has access to these protections orders and if the FBI were processing background checks on private party sales of firearms for Nevada, these protection orders would not be part of the NICS check.
"The state of Nevada can provide a more comprehensive NICS check that is accomplished when a POC access state-held databases that are not available to the FBI. The Nevada DPS is also in a better position for understanding and applying state laws."

This information alone, specifically that the Federal system is inferior, illustrates that the anti-gun crowd is not only ignorant of the background check system, but prioritizes the groundwork for registration over public safety. If the Bloomberg groups truly cared about safety, they would have chosen the superior Nevada system over the federal, but registration is their goal (and making it harder for citizens to buy and sell guns).

Another reason the NICS check may have been required was because it is "free" in that the FBI does not charge a fee, even though a dealer may charge for being the intermediary handling the transfer. Transfer fees are common for mail-order guns, which are required to be sent to a licensed dealer. Such a fiscal impact would have likely caused the initiative to be rejected based on the increased cost to the state and thus NICS was a ploy to get the law passed.

Could this be challenged in court? It could possibly be, an attorney general opinion is not like an opinion from a state Supreme Court that established case law. However, the state will not prosecute technical violations and attorney general opinions are seen by city and district attorneys as official guidance on the law. If one were prosecuted or the law challenged, the defenses would fall on to the argument made in the opinion that the law does not require the impossible.


The opinion concludes: “...Nevadans are not required to perform the impossible and are therefore excused from compliance with the Act’s background check requirement unless and until the FBI changes its position…” Based on this attorney general’s opinion, at this time, Ballot Question 1 and the revised version of NRS 202.254 are unenforceable, though it is still on the books. For all intents and purposes, beginning Jan. 1, 2017 until further notice, private gun sales are still legal in Nevada.

Stay tuned--this is breaking news.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Recall Scummy Joe!

Our brother over at Nevada 2A (NV2A) has started a petition to recall Scummy Joe in his position as Clark County Sheriff in response to his un-American, anti-gun statements to the Las Vegas Sun supporting a standard capacity magazine ban. As of press time, a little over a thousand people have signed it. The goal is 1,500.

We'd start a petition to return all cops to six-shot revolvers and five-shot pump shotguns, but that would be stupid. Wonder if Black Lives Matter might be interested...

Lombardo’s department has been shockingly ineffective at keeping homicides and violent crime at bay. Homicides were up 80% in March of 2016. In October, homicides evened out to a 25% increase over 2015 and a case of dubious self-defense caused a 20 year high for murders. Lombardo says 50% of the homicides are related to gang activity, but some of his changes have been criticized. 

Gang expert Wes McBride, a retired gang detective, said that Lombardo's decision to break up the gang unit helped increase street crime. Metro blames California for exporting it’s gang members (true to a degree), but Metro can’t admit that Las Vegas simply has a gang problem because of the endemic poverty in some neighborhoods. “If they admit to having a local gang problem, they’re seen as being a weak administrator,” said McBride.

 Metro police officers, via their unions, blame the decentralization of the gang unit for making sharing intelligence harder and diverting gang detectives to other types of investigations. Don’t forget the plan to pull detectives into black and whites for a few weeks of patrol to help out on the manpower shortage. Seems no one wants to be a cop anymore and the “more cops” tax just isn’t enough.

Scummy Joe also blames “the increase in firearms.” The increase in the use of firearms? The increase of illegal possession of firearms? Or does he mean “more guns=bad?” That kind of statement is like blaming an increase in car sales for an increase in traffic deaths and DUIs, but logic is not exactly the ken of anti-gunners.

Of course, there are remarkably few prosecutions and convictions for illegal gun possession. Why not create a task force dedicated to targeting crooked FFLs, street gun dealers, and felons in possession of firearms? The DA’s firearm task force is a couple of ADA’s who work on violent crime cases that involve guns, not getting guns out of the hands of bad guys. Sadly, gun laws are seldom enforced.

In the mind of a gun grabber, of which Scummy Joe certainly is one, passing a law, like Question 1, is easier than actually catching criminals and prosecuting them. Banning standard capacity magazines is part of an incremental strategy to ban guns. Police administrations (not your beat cop) don’t like armed citizens because they tend to compete with police’s monopoly of power as the only gun-toters on the street.

Another reason is civilian disarmament is a favorite of governments and police because all gun possession is illegal, and therefore anyone who has a gun is a criminal. For this reason, top cops like disarmament. Anyone with a gun is a bad guy. Patrol cops don’t need to think about it and can’t really wink at grandma who has a magnum in the glove box. It makes their job a lot easier if they can arrest anyone who has a gun in public.

Imagine a patrol officer stops a car full of young black men in a Hispanic neighborhood known for a gang problem. The officer believes the men are ready to do a drive-by, but the gun is legally owned and possessed in the vehicle. The driver, who has the gun, has no known gang ties and is not a prohibited person. Unless the officer actually has probable cause to arrest the driver for conspiracy to commit murder, etc., he cannot arrest the driver for having a gun. Damn you, US Constitution and racial profiling prohibitions! This was a huge problem to California cops—except when the cops just said “screw it” and decided to just arrest everyone and take the guns anyway.

Rather than deal with the gang at its roots, more and more gun control laws were passed. So if an officer found a loaded gun in car, then an unloaded gun, then a unloaded handgun not in a locked container, he could make an arrest. Criminals evolved with the law or simply ran the risk of being caught, so the law had to change until the point that basically thinking about a gun in public became a felony. Instead of treating the underlying disease, gun control only treats the symptoms.

Nevermind that a perfectly law-abiding person just wants to be safe; sorry, thems the breaks. Carry a gun because you drive a truck through George Soros funded riots in Oakland and don’t want to be the next Reginald Denny? Sorry, that’s illegal. All guns are bad you see.

These points are lost on Scummy Joe. In his defense, he actually seems to give a shit about violence, but is unwilling or unable to actually confront the problem which causes gangs. Prosecutors plea bargain things down and criminals don’t do the time they deserve. Our criminal justice system is hopelessly broken precisely because the men who are able to effect change, Lombardo and DA Wolfson, don’t do it. Calling for the prompt execution of murderers, three-strikes, long prison sentences, etc. is politically inconvenient and too much trouble.

Where does the mag ban come in again? Civilian disarmament is unlikely in the United States and would undoubtedly start a civil war, so steps must be taken incrementally. Public opinion has swung well in favor of firearms and continues to rise. What anti-gunners want to do is slowly erode rights and change gun culture. By making guns harder to own, use, and carry, it becomes too difficult for gun owners to keep up and comply with the laws. Eventually, they give in an surrender to the inevitable. Once guns become uncommon and people aren’t interested anymore, there is no public outcry when a ban is called for. Question 1 and this magazine ban is part of that whole plan.

It’s not guns that are the problem and Scummy Joe knows that. The violence in the valley is likely a cause of California criminals coming to Nevada for a cheaper cost of living, to escape California warrants and rap sheets, and also the release of California criminals due to prison overcrowding (known as Jerry’s Kids, after Gov. Jerry Brown). Las Vegas is also where a lot of people move to when they run out of options. Nevada has been the place to run away to for a new start for a long time, the sun and heat, and no state income tax is really appealing. With the amount of poverty in the valley, you’re going to see crime and gangs right along with it. Until society confronts problems that create gangs—a weak criminal justice system, poverty, and ghetto culture—gang violence will be a problem.

If Lombardo had simply been a crappy sheriff, it wouldn’t matter. Street cops and detectives are the heart of law enforcement; the brass could elope to Mexico and no one would probably notice. Instead of just sucking at his job, Lombardo doubled down and jumped on the disarmament train, thinking that Nevada’s slide to a Democrat voting blue state and Democrat dominated legislature was the perfect cover. Nope, sorry. Gun owners and people who actually care about their safety and liberty are fighting back.

-G. C.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Nevada to Ban "High Cap Mags"? Vegas Sheriff Supports It

So Clark County’s casino sheriff shows his true colors: he’s an anti-gunner who cares not for your rights. We suspected it a few months ago when he was telling people in private that he supported Ballot Question 1, banning private gun sales. Now Sheriff Joe Lombardo is calling for a high-capacity magazine ban, vomiting up the same tired bullshit that citizens don’t need or deserve them, hinting at the outright mendacity that “the Second Amendment is for hunting.”

Lombardo told the Las Vegas Sun (a liberal mouthpiece) “I’m a very avid hunter, I was in the military myself, and there’s no need to have a high-capacity magazine for any practical reason.”

Since we’re lacking the whole interview, we don’t know the full remarks of his statement, but this one is asinine. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is primarily intended to ensure that Americans can effectively rebel and kill agents of a tyrannical, abusive government. No Metro intel division, I have no intention of the sort and don’t know anyone who does.

Second, being in the military should have taught Scummy Joe (his new nickname here) that yes, “high capacity” magazines (actually standard capacity, but more on that later), are necessary for average citizens for the same reasons that Metro officers need them. If “high-cap” mags aren’t needed by average citizens, then there is no reason police officers shouldn’t return to six-shot revolvers and dump pouches.

There is no logical reason why any cop, which Scummy Joe ceased to be the moment he stopped pushing a black and white, should not support citizens owning the most effective tools to defend themselves with. The only possible motivations he could have are political ambitions or hatred for armed citizens; Joe isn't dumb enough to believe that a 17 or 30 round magazine is inherently evil. Whatever the case, his opinion is not based in fact and follows the same faulty logic that all gun control arguments seem to follow. 

If Clark County is stupid enough to vote this scumbag back into office in 2018, then this county and Nevada in general is doomed. Mr. Lombardo: you sir stand in violation of your oath to the Constitution and deserve no respect from the citizens you purport to represent or the officers you supervise. Shame on you.

This comment was likely a trial balloon for the legislative session to see what kind of reaction they get. Make sure it’s negative. You can email Scummy Joe at or contact him on Twitter at @Sheriff_LVMPD.

To any legislator or public official actually considering floating this to the legislature because Democrats control it, forget it. Losing Question 1 by a narrow margin woke up Nevada gun owners; any attempt to further turn us into California is going to be fought tooth and nail and will cost you in the mid-terms.

Gun owners: see what happens when you don’t get involved? Don’t let the mistake of Question 1 happen again during this legislative session. Get involved, NOW! More on this later.

Update: Legislators and the president of the Nevada Firearms Coalition oppose any bans. Read more at Newsmax.

Tell the liberal ass-rag the Sun what you think of their anti-gun agenda.

E-mail your submission. Please send letters to the editor to Letters to the editor should be no more than 250 words and include the writer’s name, address and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be printed.



Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Gun Dealers Holding Guns for 30 Days? (Updated)

One question that has come up as a result of Question 1, universal background checks, is will dealers be regulated by local pawnshop regulations? The controversy in question involves Clark County’s 30-day hold regulation for “pawned” items. Local laws may differ. NRS section at bottom.

Is a federally licensed gun dealer (FFL) a pawnbroker?

Pawnbroker, in the context of firearm dealers and background checks, is defined as one who “deals in the purchase or possession of personal property on condition of selling the same back again to the pledger or depositor.” This questionably applies to consignment sales, as if the gun does not sell, it would be transferred back (not sold) to the owner.

Because gun dealers are not “selling” the gun back to the seller or the one lending it, it is hard to see how this definition would apply. Pawning a firearm certainly would be included under the “who loans money on deposit of personal property” clause.

Where is the “30 day hold rule” and does it apply?

“No property received in the pledge by any pawnbroker or motor vehicle pawnbroker shall be removed from his place of business, except when redeemed by the owner thereof, unless within thirty days after the receipt thereof, it shall have been reported to the LVMPD as herein provided.”
7.12.110 requires reports to be made to LVMPD of items pawned (to identify stolen items being fenced). These sections taken together seems to require that items can be released to a person other than the owner (sold), as long as the item has been reported to Metro.

The purpose of this section is quite obviously to make sure that stolen items are not being fenced as the reporting and delay gives Metro a chance to locate stolen goods.

Is a federally licensed gun dealer (FFL) a “secondhand dealer”?

A "secondhand dealer" is defined to mean ... for purchasing, trading or dealing in any secondhand article whatsoever.

In this case, county codes would require gun dealers “dealing” (facilitating the transfer of privately owned firearms) to hold a secondhand license.

Doesn’t preemption apply?

NRS 244.364(8)(d) allows for ordinary business licensing and regulation of firearm dealers by counties (exemptions for towns and cities exist in their respective preemption sections). Also see below.

State Law (updated)

NRS 647.130
1. ... no property which has a specific mark for identification or is otherwise individually identifiable and is bought by any secondhand dealer may be removed from his or her place of business at which the transaction occurred within:
      (a) Thirty days after the receipt thereof is reported or a record of the receipt of the property is furnished or mailed to the sheriff or the chief of police, if the place of business is located in a county whose population is 700,000 or more; or
      (b) Fifteen days after the receipt thereof is reported or a record of the receipt of the property is furnished or mailed to the sheriff or the chief of police, if the place of business is located in a county whose population is less than 700,000.
Again, this section would not apply to an FFL providing Bloomberg background checks as he is not buying the pistol. There seems to be a conflict or ambiguity (perhaps the wording) that conflicts with Clark County code, which implies that it allows early release as long as Metro is notified. (Thanks to Michelle).

Gun dealers do not need to hold guns for 30 days, especially for Bloomberg background checks, but will need to get a secondhand license in Clark County.

(All citations from Clark County Code unless noted otherwise)

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Why We Lost Question 1

Why did we lose on Question 1 if we have the truth on our side? Answer: You can’t beat someone who cheats.

Bloomberg and his founded groups had every advantage that we did not have; they had money, a complicit media to assist them, and an army of deluded liberals more than willing to do their bidding. We know of the shenanigans at polling places and collecting ballots. We heard the rumors of petition signature gathers being bused in from Washington as soon as their initiative passed. We’ve heard all the lies. 
"...these people [anti-gun reformers] are always well organized and working in harmony and with great enthusiasm, while the simple advocates of the thing that is to be reformed out of existence are unable to sense the danger that impends, and neglect to defend their rights until they suddenly find themselves deprived of them."[1] 
Question 1’s effects will hurt blacks, Hispanics, and women—the target focus of the left—exactly those who benefit most from private gun sales. While the left crows about voter IDs deterring potential marginalized voters, they demand that those same marginalized persons deal with a complicated, confusing process they are not likely to understand, if be aware of at all. But it’s not about reality or the harmful side effects, it’s about gun control.

TL:DR version
  • Massive outspending by Everytown/Bloomberg
  • Apathetic gun owners who did nothing more than vote and post pictures on Facebook
  • California ex-pats and uneducated voters who believed the "yes" commercials 
Gaming Democracy

We need to look at why the initiatives are being used to push gun control. Initiatives are not subject to party-line votes in the legislature or vetoes on the governor’s desk. In a way, initiatives bypass the checks-and-balances system to take the matter directly to the public. Direct democracy was seen by our founding fathers as mob rule. Wisely, they instituted a representative republican form of government that we know today. While initiatives are great tools for the voters to change things, they are subject to abuse. 
Ballot measures bypass the carefully designed deliberative model, and terrifyingly favor the deep-pocketed individuals who can throw the largest amount of money into advertising their cause in the best possible light. Put bluntly, these referendum processes allow even the most blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable laws to be bought by the highest bidder.” (source
Nevadans for Background Checks, the supposedly “grassroots” proponents of the initiative, was nothing more than a fa├žade of Everytown for Gun Safety. They were at work in Washington, Oregon, and in Maine as well.

If enough people go along with something, right or wrong, it becomes law. Many criticize the initiative system as being inflexible; poorly-written bills cannot be changed or deficiencies corrected. Initiatives have emerged as a favorite of gun control proponents because they bypass checks-and-balances. No congress or governor can stand in the way. All it takes is votes. And lots and lots of money.

Partisan politics is replaced with sound-bite politics. Let’s face it, people today have too much going on in their lives to truly care about a system that often changes despite their wishes or input. Americans feel disconnected from their political process and don’t spend a great deal of time educating themselves on the topics. 
"It is quite clear that the greater park of the public knows little or nothing about the merits of the question presented. As in all such matters the bulk of the populace will doubtless remain inarticulate, unorganized, and incapable of self-expression. It will probably in the future as in the past continue to be a prey of vociferous groups which make up in noise what they lack in principles and intelligence which frequently succeed in accomplishing their designs because the public as a whole has no adequate method of defending itself and protecting its interests."
 "It appeals to a considerable number of people who know nothing about guns, and it is swallowed whole by that portion of the public who do not think about what they read or hear but who are ready to accept almost any strong and readymade idea which is handed to them for consumption in tablet form."[2] 
A law that flaunts the constitution passed by a margin of about 9,000 people who voted largely out of ignorance and deception is why the Founding Fathers eschewed direct democracy. Less than 1% is still a loss, but is far from a mandate and the closest difference in any of the Bloomberg initiative races.

Where an inflexible initiative and short blurbs about the issue go wrong is they turn the initiative into a form of mob rule. You’re either for it or against it; there is no middle ground and no mediation. If a poorly written initiative is passed, as many, many problems with Washington’s I-594 background check law have been found, there is no remedy, aside from the courts, to address those issues in the short term. Once the people have spoken, there can be argument with the law that they have passed, for good or for bad.


The only major donor to reverse course was Steve Wynn, but it was too little, too late. Let’s hope he can atone for his mistake by making an equally large donation to the Nevada Firearms Coalition. As you can see from the Secretary of State page, many donors, including Nevadans with more money than sense, helped by this feel-good piece of tyranny. 
“Nevada in particular has become an expensive battleground. Bloomberg has personally donated nearly $10 million to the effort there, and Nevadans for Background Checks had collected $14.3 million as of Oct. 18. That is nearly triple the $4.8 million that the leading opposition group, NRA Nevadans for Freedom, had received, all from the NRA.”[3] In fact, as of Nov. 4th, the totals were $15,852,790.11 contributed, per the Secretary of State, including $3.5 million from Michael Bloomberg himself
Casinos, attorneys, and various gaming and Vegas business people poured tons of their own money into supporting the initiative. Why? Background checks have nothing to do with casinos and it’s doubtful that they are concerned with stopping violence in the Valley, as what happens far off The Strip is unlikely to affect tourism. The answer is that supporting a gun control initiative shows obedience to the casino Sheriff Lombardo. It’s classic Nevada backscratching; if the casinos support gun control, which Lombardo supported in private, he is likely to be more favorable to their security needs.

Why Nevada and what’s next?

Far more is at stake than just Nevada. Rural states with large, Democrat-leaning urban populations; Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Maine were targeted successfully because of demographics. Gun control supporters think they can win here and start a domino effect across the nation because they are taking advantage of Nevada’s composition.

Comparing to the neck-and-neck race in Maine as the results came in, Nevada shows a deep divide. Clark County, with its urban population with a huge percentage of liberal-inclined California voters, swayed the vote. The common thread with defeat is a tradition of shooting and hunting. There was a similar urban vs. rural pattern in Washington in 2014. A lack of knowledge of guns is what equals a fear of it and susceptibility to accepting gun control. The large percentage of Black and Hispanic voters who tend to paradoxically vote for gun control while being victimized disproportionately by crime also probably helped this latest infringement “win.”

In Nevada, over ¾ of the state’s population lives in Clark County, derisively known as East California. Essentially, it’s gaming the system. With their millions of dollars the small TV and newspaper market can be dominated with adverting that supports gun control. There is no large, spread-out rural population that thinks differently which can balance the vote. Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, and Virginia are the next soft targets because they are so similar.

Why didn’t the NRA stop this?

The NRA was the only major group to fight the initiative. The Nevada Firearms Coalition (including its PAC Nevadans for State Gun Rights) suffers from low membership and limited funds. Nevada’s population is highly transient, largely disconnected from the community as a whole, and highly individualistic. The incredible narrowing of the lead of Question 1 in the polls and the close vote show that the true grassroots efforts by individual gun owners and NVFAC members showed that the Silver State’s gun owners are motivated to protect their rights.

One criticism I will offer of the NRA is the failure to anticipate and counter Bloomberg’s strategy early on (let’s face it, the Bloomberg groups are the driving forces in American gun control now). Back when the ballot initiative strategy debuted in Washington during the 2014 election seasons, the NRA leadership should have fought hard in the early stages of petition gathering. Clearly, the NRA and gun owners have learned as this battle has gone on; Nevada may have just been an unfortunate narrow loss, but perhaps Arizona might benefit from the lessons learned.

Larger is the issue of state-level groups and individual involvement. Nevada’s individual gun owners made the most of what we had, but it wasn’t enough. Sadly, gun owners don’t view themselves as a community as do members of political parties or religious groups. They don’t have the same belief of the actual volunteer anti-gunners who truly believe they are doing good and, ignorant of history and human nature, that additional laws and restrictions will stop violence. Gun owners tend to be individualistic and conservative, and so they generally don’t involve themselves in the political process as they view it as interfering with other’s rights and viewpoints.

Nor do gun owners have the same craven tenacity to inflict their political will upon others at all costs. Unfortunately, the dismissive attitude, especially early on “It won’t pass; the NRA will defeat it” cost us in the end. Apathy on the part of gun owners was the killer. If you own guns and voted “yes”, didn’t vote, or this is the first you’re hearing of this: fuck you, you are part of the problem. Yes, we swear now. Get off your ass, get involved, educate people, and do more than virtually masturbate online about how you are going to wage civil war against gun controllers.

Posting a photo of your holster on Facebook with an “I voted” sticker on it isn’t helping. Who did you educate? How much did you donate? How many protests did you go to? Did you vote Democrat in the legislative races (more gun control there)? There is only about two-dozen serious, hardcore supporters of gun rights in Nevada (in this battle and more). We all fought in different ways; some on the phone, some knocking on doors, some hitting the voting sites, and some educating online (as I have since 2014). Why didn’t you give/do more? If we had double the core of activists, we might have won.

Activism is more than just putting pictures and bitching on social media. For those of you who did nothing more than vote, you bear this failure upon your shoulders. Liberty needs intense active support to succeed and nothing more than laziness to turn into tyranny.

Why do people vote for such garbage laws?

Ignorance is the easy answer. Most simply don’t know better. As for the rest, there is an unwillingness to admit that (relatively speaking) nothing can prevent violence. Perhaps the prohibitionists cannot even comprehend the nature of evil and therefore look not to the failings of the soul, but to the failings in the law, police, government, etc. Rather than being an unpredictable, uncontrollable tragedy, had just one particular thing been done, it could have stopped the crime. That “one thing” is often another law, which they naively expect criminals to obey.

Anti-gun voters and politicians see the law as some sort of supernatural guarantee. It is an often empty guarantee of safety through deterrence via the threat of punishment. Even if the unpredictable nature of man claims a life, the law is a “promise” that the killer will face justice. Whether that promise is kept or not doesn’t matter; like an ever-forgiving cuckold, liberal and anti-gun voters are ever willing to forgive those that betray their words. Passing a law is “doing something”, whether the action truly achieves its stated objective or not. Anti-gun laws like Question 1 are only symbolic, talismanic acts that will temporarily absolve them of the collective societal guilt of violent crime.

So why do people put faith in gun control laws? Laws are predictable. They are black and white, firm, finite answers. It provides a certainty to them. Gun control is just an easy answer; a tool to dissuade the honest and perhaps add an extra penalty, if that, to criminals. The nitty gritty facts that existing illegal possession/acquisition laws are not enforced escapes them or are of little consequence as long as they “feel good.”

The mere knowledge that a law against the action exists is their comfort. They presume the law to always be right and bulwark against evil. The law should hold terror for those who do wrong; almost like garlic or a crucifix to a vampire. Ever hold a copy of the penal codes? Often it’s thick and heavy book, far more so than the Bible (and less forgiving), even though their onion skin pages are so similar. Gun control is a religion without a god and supporters congregants who neither read nor pray over their scriptures, but merely sing the hymns with empty hearts.

Passing a law will not assuage their grief. Like any other empty gesture, it is a short, hollow comfort that is rarely ever borne out with positive results. Evil a phenomenon that cannot be restrained by law, only met with counter force. Like a flood, evil will constantly seek the cracks in whatever dam we erect and spill out.

The anti-gun cannot accept that evil men are incapable of being restrained. Because they cannot accept this simple truth and abhor the reality that violence can only truly stop determined violence. This denial leads them to believe that if there are enough laws and restrictions, the chains and fetters will be too heavy to resist. In the end, it is a fundamental mistaken understanding of human nature.


The success of this fight is that we fought so hard and well despite overwhelming odds. While privately we admitted we would probably lose, we became cautiously optimistic towards the end. Our optimism was not misplaced despite the loss. 9,000 votes; less than 1%. We narrowed it down to that from a near 60/40 defeat. This margin was secured almost entirely by true grassroots efforts. The NRA only provided commercials, facilities, and materials. It was the involved gun rights activists who made Everytown and Bloomberg fight like the devil to get their money’s worth.

Their loss in Maine and the narrow margin here does not bode well for them elsewhere. Had the NRA and the apathetic gun owners understood what was at stake and how to fight, we could have easily handed them their asses. Perhaps the next states in the antis’ sights can deliver the knockout punch.


Gun owners are now alert to the schemes of the enemies of freedom, but it came at the cost of our private property rights, the continued erosion of gun rights, and another major step towards national gun registration. An uneducated half of the electorate, too stupid to think critically or investigate the issue deeper, brought tyranny upon the other half and unwittingly upon themselves as well. Until educated voters vote with their minds and not with their emotions, gun control fanatics will find the gullible to take their bait.

Despite losing Question 1 and the legislature, we still have a Republican governor and Republican control of the federal government. We should now work to make sure the Democrat legislature’s attempts at more gun control are brutally suppressed and vetoed as well as getting national concealed carry reciprocity and reductions in NFA items (silencers, short barreled rifles/shotguns) at the federal level.

[1] Goddard, Calvin. "This Pistol Bogey." The American Journal of Police Science. Vol. 1, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1930), p. 182
[2] Frederick, Karl T. "Pistol Regulation: Its Principles and History. Part I." The American Journal of Police Science. Vol. 2, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1931) pp. 441-442

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Evasion and Unenforceability of Universal Background Checks/Question 1

This information is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Non-compliance with the background check law (effective Jan. 1, 2016) is at your own risk. You will have to make a personal choice regarding your liberty and your property, notwithstanding the tyranny of the uneducated minority who barely passed an unconstitutional law.


Know who you’re dealing with. Ideally, sell between friends to avoid a sting operation. Do a little research if this person isn’t a stranger to make sure they aren’t a cop, investigative reporter, or an anti-gun activist. Does their email show their full name? Can you find a Facebook profile? Lookup their phone number. Be aware that at a gun show an undercover cop could be hovering right over your shoulder or you might be buying from one. Don’t get stung.

If it’s an online ad, only discuss the gun, the price, and where to meet via email, text, or messenger. Agree to meet in a public location “to make arrangements on which licensed dealer to use.” Do not discuss online or via text message not going to a dealer. Those words could come back to haunt you. Conduct your sale in a discreet location where no one is likely to call the police because they see a gun and cash. Be smart and never actually say anything out loud that, if recorded, could be used against you in court, such as “So is it okay if we don’t go to a dealer to get a background check?”

Discuss the price of the gun, show your CCW or license, but do not fill out a bill of sale or allow the other person to copy down your information. Exchange the money and gun. Make as few references to selling the gun or breaking the law as possible. One cannot beat video footage of handing off a gun in exchange for cash, but one can make an audio only recording ambiguous. The idea is to create reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge or jury.

Don’t sell to someone sketchy. If they seem like a criminal or up to no good, pass on the sale. Don’t risk aiding a criminal because of a stupid law. Use your head like you’ve always done.

Defenses in court

If you are arrested, do not talk to the police. Remain silent. Demand an attorney, even if it is a public defender. Police can and will use anything you say to use against you. They cannot make you contradict yourself later in court if you don’t provide a statement to them to begin with. Never, ever talk to the police (more examples below).

Keep in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This means that it is the duty of the prosecution and by extension, the police, to prove that you have committed a crime. What would be the crime they would be enforcing? The crime would be failing to obtain a background check. The police have to have probable cause that you did not comply with the law in order to arrest you for failing to get a background check.

Then the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you haven't completed a background check. It's difficult enough proving that you actually did do something, let alone trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not do something. Keeping in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty; you don't have to tell them what FFL you used to get a background check. You don't have to tell them what date you transferred the firearm.

You are free to exercise your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination—do exercise it. The entire onus of the investigation lies with law enforcement and the prosecution. Don’t start talking to the police when they begin asking questions or waive your Miranda rights. Again, it is entirely up to the prosecution to prove that you did not indeed go to a dealer. You don’t have to “help” them by telling them anything. The more you talk, the tighter the net your words will weave to trip you up. You can’t explain anything away or throw them off the trail.

Further on, we’ll explain how easy it is to accidentally make a case against yourself, but first, let’s look at how hard it is for the prosecution to prove a case against someone who remains quiet. All you have to say is that you did obtain a background check and it’s up to the prosecution to prove you didn’t; that’s hard to do.

Nevada currently has approximately 740 licensed FFLs. There are 365 days in a year. Remember that FFLs keep their records in their "bound book" per ATF regulations. Some may have converted to electronic bound books if issued a variance by the ATF, but this is not yet the norm. That means someone has to physically go and paw through their bound book and possibly the 4473 forms at each dealer to prove that a record does not exist. So they would have to reasonably ensure that they inspect every record at every dealer in the state.

If law enforcement/prosecution do not check every dealer or check every record, they leave the door open for the defense to create a reasonable doubt that the one record at the one dealer that they did not inspect could be the form proving that the background check was completed. Remember that by federal law, the NICS system may not be used to create a registration of firearms or gun owners. This means that under federal law the identifying records on their end must be destroyed after the background check is completed. The man-hours required to attempt to prosecute a single violation of this law would be ridiculously prohibitive.

Second, it is unconstitutional to require a prohibited person to present himself for a background check. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1968, Haynes v. United States. The reader's digest version is that a man who was a convicted felon was caught in possession of an unregistered NFA firearm. He successfully argued that requiring him to register the NFA firearm is akin to forcing him to make an open admission to the government that he is a felon in possession of a firearm.  Remember that Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? The courts agreed with him that the law cannot compel him to perform an action (registration) that would amount to confessing to committing a crime.

While the Supreme Court did not invalidate the law requiring the registration of NFA firearms nor did they invalidate the prohibition on felons possessing firearms, they agreed that the law requiring registration could not be enforced against convicted felons. A mandatory background check and NFA registration accomplish the same thing—requiring a person to provide evidence against themselves for a later prosecution. How hard do you think it would be for a defense lawyer to make this same argument for his client previously convicted of a disqualifying offense (domestic violence, felony, etc.), subject to a protection order or adjudicated mentally ill?

If you are charged for lending a gun in Clark County, bring up in court District Attorney Wolfson’s statement at the Mob Museum’s Question 1 forum where he stated “We’re not going to charge people for lending a weapon to a friend.” That might sway a jury and humiliate the district attorney’s office.

How could this happen to me?

“Background check” enforcement stings are not likely to happen. In the vast majority of cases, failing to get a background check is an additional charge to other crimes or to prosecute the person who supplied a gun used in a crime. Unless the anti-gun climate dramatically worsens, law enforcement doesn’t have the time or inclination to proactively enforce the law. Heck, they don’t even enforce the gun laws that have already existed. However, for a cop who wants to make the arrest, it’s pretty easy to get a confession.

Why? People like to talk. Most people are fundamentally honest and feel that honesty is the best policy. Some think they can talk their way out of anything (usually stupid criminals). For the rest of us, we were raised to be honest and fair and we expect other people, including the police, to give us the same courtesy in return. The honest folk don’t understand that their best intentions can be manipulated against them. So remain silent!

Let’s say a woman is pulled over for speeding. She has a gun in the glovebox that he boyfriend gave to her because someone is stalking her after work. Before reaching for her insurance registration, she informs the officer the gun is in the glove box, so the officer retrieves it.

Officer: Is that your gun?

Woman: No, it’s my boyfriend’s. He gave it to me because of this creepy guy at work.

Officer: When did he give it to you?

Woman: Day before Valentine’s Day.

Officer: Did you get a background check at a dealer before he gave it to you?

Woman: No, he just gave it to me in the morning before I left for work.

Officer: Do you have a restraining order? Has this creepy guy threatened you?

Woman: No, I just felt unsafe because of the way he followed me in the parking lot.

That woman just admitted she committed a violation of the universal background check law. She has provided the officer the day of the offense (Feb. 13, 2017—after the law took effect), she admitted that there was no background check, and she admitted that there was no immediate danger, just a vague unsettling feeling. She is not married, even though she lives with her boyfriend, so the family exemption does not apply.

The law does not require malice; it is a mala prohibitum crime where simply failing to obey is criminal, not what one’s intentions were when they disobeyed the law. If the officer recorded this, he could have an easy arrest (probably a citation and release) that meets all the elements of the crime. Would the prosecutor file charges? Depends on where our country goes from here or what kind of district attorney we have.

How gun traces work

Let’s say police go looking for a particular gun for whatever reason. A very inefficient gun registration system with more holes than fishnet underwear exists now and law enforcement will use it to get a pretty good lead to track you down, should they want your gun. The same procedures will be used to work background check cases as well as confiscation. If you use your gun in a non-permissive environment or in an illegal way—the morality of the use aside (say in a gun-free zone)—you will be the target of a criminal investigation.

The police will trace the serial number, which will lead them to the distributor who sold the gun to the dealer, and the dealer’s copy of the Form 4473 will lead them to the original buyer. If you are one person away from the original buyer, especially if they personally know you, have a bill of sale, or there are records online, consider yourself one confession or tip away from arrest. Buying anonymously at a gun show, with maybe a cursory glance at a CCW or license, is fairly safe. If you bought on Facebook, off a gun forum, or in any place the data could be preserved, don’t be surprised if you are tracked down based on that information.

For universal background checks, this is important if the original buyer is contacted. You don’t want anything connecting you to him or for either party to admit there was no background check.
You are more insulated if there is one, or several buyers, between you and the original purchaser. Remember, a bill of sale given to police will identify you just as well as gun registration would. Don’t keep evidence lying around; don’t do bills of sale if you’re not complying.

Bills of sale and crimes with your old gun

If you have a bill of sale on guns you sold in the past, destroy them. Do not unwittingly assist future gun registration and confiscation. No one will think you are a suspect if there is a crime with your old gun; just tell the police that you sold the gun legally (at the time), when you sold it, and give vague information about the buyer (if they are confiscating guns and not trying to track down a psychopath or gangbanger). Police will have to prove you knowingly sold the gun to a prohibited person or gang member, knew it was going to be used in a crime, or that you really shot the person. Having owned the gun used in the crime is not enough to make you a suspect or even convict you in a sane legal system (which we still have at the moment).

If you have that fear, you need to learn more about real criminal investigations and prosecutions. Quickly, let’s examine the issue of guilt over having sold someone a crime gun. Would you feel guilty if the person who bought your car was an alcoholic and killed some while driving drunk? Of course not, but you would regret the innocent person’s death. Were you responsible in anyway? No. The new owner made a choice to misuse the property you sold them. The only possible way for you to be in any way the least bit culpable is if you knew beforehand their intentions.

With a gun, one’s former legal and moral due diligence was to not sell to a person they knew to be a gang member or otherwise ineligible to own a gun. Before Facebook banned gun sales, buyers there could be quickly vetted on the basis of what their profile contained. Making a subjective judgement about a potential buyer is beyond the ability of any computer system and even human judgement is fallible. The new law provides no penalty for knowingly selling a gun to a gang member; the only thing the proponents of universal background checks care about is that the buyer/transferee pass the background check.

“Boating accidents” and other mishaps

Let’s imagine it’s the future and the Gun Confiscation Task Force knows you own guns and has a very good idea of exactly what guns you own. You decide to surrender your dealer-bought guns, but they want the ones you bought privately. “We know you bought an AR-15 rifle from ‘eugenes_ghost’ from in October of 2014. Where is that gun?” What do you do? Remember, you can’t deny owning it.

This is where your “boating accident” story comes into play: “You see, Special Agent, I went fishing with my guns one day and when the boat capsized, all my guns fell in the lake.” ATF agents know the joke and won’t find it funny. Your best defense is to simply state that you sold the guns legally, long ago, you don’t remember whom to, and you did not keep a bill of sale. Invoke your right to silence immediately after that and say nothing no matter what else they say. Never change your story.


Keep your mouth shut. Don’t put anything in writing. Vet who you sell to/buy from. Without compliance, they can’t make the unconstitutional gun laws work. As always, use this information and disobey the law, wrong as it is, at your own risk.