Thursday, June 30, 2016

Fudd Leaves Me Speechless

Fuddus Maximus, the pernicious gun-owning pest and nattering 'butter' of gun control support, made an appearance in July's Guns & Ammo magazine. Tom Page, of Boardman, Ohio, decried those vewy very scawy 'assault weapons' on the cover. They even published a 'thank you' added on when the May edition didn't have an AR-15 on the cover. Yeah Tom, keep thinking it's about you. I'm sure that a business decision didn't have anything to do with it.
"It has been reduced to 'Black Guns & Semiauto Pistols.' It's the worst excuse of a magazine that purports to represent the interest of all shooters." Now this Fudd admits he owned, but got rid of, the terrifying, baby killer 'assault weapons', which he ironically also praised. Jerkoff Tom clearly prefers hunting rifles and the wood, non-threatening rifles that Fudds are known for. 
Well Tom, they did feature your favorite Shannon Watts approved type rifle the next month. However, Tom is remiss in noticing that right now 'black guns and semiauto pistols' are really, really, really popular in the gun community. Surplus guns and wood stocked bolt guns have had their day, though they still remain popular. Since the rage right now are the scary 'salt weapons, Guns & Ammo is simply following the market with an occasional foray into other topics. One wonders if Tom of the early 1900s decried the introduction of smokeless powder and semi-autos, longing for the days of trapdoor Springfield conversions and lovely Winchester lever actions. And GD that Browning for his automatic pistol!

Tom also compounds his foolishness by going on to say:
"...although it gives the anti-gunners great ammunition to foster more gun control laws. All black guns are trouble." 
I don't think I need to point out what a total asinine moron this guy is for that statement. Guess what Tom: one day your precious scoped hunting rifle firing a bullet at 2000 FPS will be described as a "high power sniper rifle." Let me know how that works out for you. Tom, it's gun owners like you that cause trouble for the rest of us. Congrats on looking like the dumbass you are in front of America.

*When trying to compose a title, I was literally rendered speechless to describe just how strongly I felt.


Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Few Rules Restricting Tactical Assault Pants in Public in Nevada

We decided to investigate a surprising public safety hazard that most people have overlooked. But in light of recent media reports highly Nevada's lax gun laws, we thought it was time someone investigate the dangers of tactical assault pants.

Nevada gun laws, along with open carry laws, allow people to carry a firearm almost anywhere they like. That might include the Las Vegas Strip, clubs and bars.

Bigh Lameaux, an attorney for Designers for Fashion Sense in America, said Nevada receives an F when it comes to fashion safety.

“The fact is, if these pants make it easier to carry things, then many more Americans would be wearing them. People must realize these pants of war have no place on our streets.”

“Pants with high capacity storage just aren’t needed by civilians. It’s excessive and dangerous. It’s too easy to hide an assault rifle inside them and bypass security. It is unconscionable that Nevada allows such a thing.”

We contacted Five Period Eleven who sells these military-style pants to the public, but they declined to comment. Several fashion control bills, including one that would ban pants with more than four pockets, were defeated in the Senate this week. As the debate in Congress rages, we must decide if this is the kind of country we wish to be, where almost anyone can wear these pants in public. 

Special thanks to the real "Joe Camo," the US Army, and Rob Buck. And no, "Joe Camo" is not editor GC Gates and we were not focusing on that girl's butt. 

Universal Background Checks are Unenforceable and Easily Defeated at Trial

As you may or may not know, we are fighting this very fight in Nevada. Ballot Question 1, a ballot initiative that was funded by Bloomberg's Everytown and MDA organizations along with the local liberal shrews and limousine liberals will be on the November ballot. Basically the idea is to force you to go to a dealer to have a background check done via NICS before transferring a firearm, with limited exceptions. In Nevada, normally DPS does the background checks for dealers and charges $25 per transaction. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for choosing to use NICS for the private party sales, but that will add another layer of confusion for dealers who have never used it, I'm sure.

Here is the issue that I see with these "universal" background checks. First, I will talk about enforcement. I want you to keep in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This means that it is on 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 do something 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 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The entire onus of the investigation lies with law enforcement and the prosecution.

For example, 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.

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, I will talk about the background checks as they apply to prohibited persons. It is unconstitutional to require a prohibited person to present himself for a background check. Yes, I'm serious. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1968, Haynes v. UnitedStates. The reader's digest 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 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination? The courts agreed with him that the law cannot compel him to perform an action 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. 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? These are the very people that this law was intended to keep guns away from and they are already exempt from the requirements of this law!

I believe this law was written to intentionally fail. The left wants it to be unenforceable so it opens the door to push for registration. As the law abiding citizens go for background checks at dealers, their updated 4473 forms will help create more accurate, useful records to show who owns which firearms as of a certain date. Then the forms can be pulled to create the registration database. The next step will probably be confiscation of certain types of firearms. Think it can't happen? California and Connecticut have already been reported to be tracking down owners of certain types of firearms. It's not hard to imagine that being stretched into a nationwide system.


Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Library Lawsuit, Round One: Judge Demonstrates Need for State Preemption

Judge Stephanie Miley denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District today in the lawsuit over the library district’s illegal open carry ban.

NBC News 3 has a good story on the proceedings.

Counsel for the district portrayed the incident as a disturbance rather than the true facts of library staff interfering with Mrs. Flores’ right to open carry in a public building. The district also insists that state preemption laws do not apply to it because it is a joint city-county library district, rather than a city library district.

Flores stated that she was never actually asked to leave the library by the staff. Library administrative staff have conspired for years to illegal prohibit openly carried firearms in their district. There is no basis under state law for the policy the district has in place.

It is unfortunate that Judge Miley chose to play a part in the corrupt Clark County system that has consistently infringed on Second Amendment rights. It is not surprising that this played out, but quite shocking that a judge would clearly ignore the obvious legal arguments showing that the library district is in violation of the law. This kind of behavior, dating since the 1950s, is why enhanced pre-emption was passed in the form of SB 175/240 in 2015.  

In similar cases, particular on essentially the same foundation as this case, Michigan Open Carry v. CADL, have been won on appeal. Instructor Mac pointed out that by the library district’s trustee Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod’s statement that the legislature should take up the issue, she is tacitly admitting the library district does not have the legal authority to ban openly carried firearms. In fact, among the Intermountain West states, open carry is legal in the vast majority of public buildings.

For a summary of the history and issues in this case, please see this post cataloging the topic.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Guns and Alcohol; Bars, Nightclubs, and Private Property

Feel free to share the meme
Carrying a gun in a place that serves alcohol seems a little incongruous at first. Guns and alcohol can’t mix, one might assume at first. Dangerous objects combined with the intoxicating effects of alcohol could easily lead to disaster. Yet is far more nuanced than at first glance. One might also say that alcohol and cars don’t mix either. The fact is, alcohol is not some sort of mysterious elixir that induces violence or causes irresponsibility; it only reveals what was already there.

Nevada law prohibits anyone who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or has a BAC of .10 or greater, from possessing a firearm. No other laws prohibit firearms in bars, clubs, or any other establishment that serves alcohol. Rather than a blanket prohibition, the law is applied on a case-by-case basis against individuals based upon their behavior the same way DUI laws are applied.

 Millions of us routinely drive cars with blood alcohol concentrations less than the legal limit of .08 without problems. Roughly the same numbers of people (in the 10k range) are murdered by guns and killed in DUI accidents yearly. What makes cars different than people? So what makes cars different from guns and that some legislatures prohibit guns in bars, but allow alcohol in drivers? Most Americans would find it absurd that a non-intoxicated driver would be too irresponsible to drive a car after a few drinks.

If we trust citizens to drive vehicles with tolerable levels of alcohol in their systems, why wouldn’t we trust them with their guns? As everyone knows, intoxication is widely variable. One might be unsafe for the first fifteen minutes of a buzz, but fine after four beers two hours later. A small-framed young woman may become legally drunk off one drink whereas an alcoholic who is a big and tall middle-aged man shows no signs of intoxication and two or even three times the legal limit. It’s a fine line.

Everyone's body, regardless of sex or size, absorbs alcohol at a rate of .016 BAC per hour. This is the basic metabolic rate and it is uniform, based on how quickly the liver can process the alcohol and break it down into sugars. The difference is how quickly BAC rises, which is tied to sex, size, and alcoholism, which is why a petite female who seldom drinks will get drunk much faster than a fat alcoholic man. One sip or one drink does not make one a drunk or incapable of exercising good judgement. Having a drink or two does not mean you forfeit your Second Amendment rights the same way you retain your First Amendment right to free speech, all the way to the hospital or jail as the case may be. 

If one were to prevent anyone from driving a car with any measurable level of alcohol in their blood stream or banning parking lots at any place that serves alcohol, American drinkers would become apoplectic. Even with the strict laws regarding DUI, crashes still occur. People still get drunk and fight fist to fist, say nasty things to each other, and make bad decisions that result in children or STDs. We know the dangers of alcohol, yet regardless of the law or consequences, bad things happen by choice.

No Magic Numbers

Take states with 51% laws, such as Texas, where guns are excluded from establishments that derive 51% or more of their gross receipts from the sale of alcohol (generally not restaurants). 51% is the magic number that makes the establishment ‘safe’ for guns? Can’t somebody get just as wasted in a wine bar or at their table as they could if they were getting bottle service? Heaven forbid a drinker is carrying illegally. There is no magic number or set of circumstances that divide the law abiding from criminals, the drunk from the sober, or good behavior from bad.

Bar fights and bad behavior can still erupt without guns as countless news reports and anecdotes can attest. Most crimes happen when the perpetrator is sober (at least from alcohol). There have been several high profile incidents where guns have been fired, either in anger or by accident, in clubs. How often do we find out that the person in question either a, broke the law to bring the gun in, or b, wasn’t supposed to have a gun in the first place (prohibited person, no CCW, etc.)? Does a law dissuade that?

Laws do exist that give business owners and police authority to arrest or remove an armed and/or problematic patron. Trespassing. A business that prohibits firearms will likely tell the gun owner to disarm or leave the property. If that person doesn’t disarm or leave when they are told to “get out”, a trespass occurs. In Nevada, the request must be made orally or in writing. In fact, most ‘no guns’ (even ‘no skateboarding’) signs that are visible cite NRS 207.200, trespassing.

Using state law to prohibit guns in establishments that serve alcohol makes a fundamental judgement based not in fact, but in supposition, on the character of every gun owner and every drinker: that gun owners are too irresponsible to drink while carrying and drinkers are drunks who can’t be trusted with a gun. Interestingly enough, most concealed firearm permittees have a general understanding that if one is going to drink to levels of intoxication, they leave their gun behind.

Public Execution of Private Policy

If bars, clubs, and other businesses choose to exclude patrons who are armed, that is their affair. Every business has a right, within limits, to exclude anyone they want. Trespassing does not necessarily criminalize the why someone did what they did; it criminalizes the violation of private property rights that occurs when one ignores the owner’s request.

Specific statutes, like Texas’ 30-06 and 30-07 gun laws, that exclude gun owners from posted properties are an example of government executing private policies. The business owner made a choice to exclude armed citizens, the same way a private property owner can choose to do pretty much anything that’s legal with their property. That is the business owner’s choice; the government arguably shouldn’t add weight under the penalty of law to that choice.

Taken to an extreme, should governments pass a law allowing bars to limit the ideology of the patrons so a blue collar, union bar can ban Republicans and lessen the chance Debate Night turns into a barroom brawl? Such a law would be an unconscionable abuse of the First Amendment; the Second should be no different. Shoe on the other foot, a law mandating business to admit armed citizens would be a wholesale violation of private property rights.


Also, what’s the point of such a law? Open carriers can be detected, but concealed carriers would presumably remain invisible. If they used their gun in lawful self-defense, what does it benefit society to charge them with a misdemeanor of carrying in a bar? The alternative quite possibly have been a dead innocent person and a murder trial. Or, if a bad guy uses a gun while drinking, is he really concerned about another charge on top of a felony, if not several more?

If someone is a hothead who suffers from lapses of judgement, is the kind of person who will be deterred by a law he isn’t even thinking of? And let’s say there is a law and that hothead leaves his gun in the car. What stops him from going outside to get it? Suddenly, you have a victim faced with a gun and no defense other than raising his hands and hoping for the best.

If bars and clubs want to prohibit weapons they have every right do so. Yet time and time again we have seen killers take advantage of a gun-free zone to kill. Both men and women have been attacked and killed after leaving bars, often on the way to their cars, hypothetically before they might reach their gun. Should non-drinkers carrying guns be disarmed too? Or those who know they can handle their alcohol and carry their gun at the same time? Bartenders show discretion on who not to serve at a certain point, so staff can show the same level of discretion to armed club goers.

Frankly, some establishments are patronized by gang members and thugs where a multitude of past incidents have occurred. One can make an argument that disarming patrons, with a capable armed security force, is an effective deterrent to would-be murders and terrorists. But note that an effective screening process is required to detect weapons and capable armed force able to respond. A half-assed wanding and a single security guard with no more than the basic state required training won’t do. If everyone coming in is disarmed, there must be a plan and credible resources to stop a worst-case threat like in Orlando.

For establishments without security screening, just how the heck will they detect a concealed firearm? In Nevada and most states, private persons have no right to demand to see a permit. In most cases, concealed weapons go undetected without incident at a dramatically higher rate than anyone would believe. Many bars and restaurants in Nevada also have no problem with patrons openly carrying. This once again goes to show the problems are with the person, not the gun.

Alcohol does have the ability to impact judgement, but is that impact so severe we must set a ‘zero’ level for carrying guns, far lower than we do with driving? Laws do not prevent crime and a law that criminalizes what is now ordinary, innocent behavior would only serve to punish those who seek to protect themselves. The mere appearance of guns and alcohol being incongruent doesn’t mean the actually are. Discretion on both the part of the citizen carrier and staff/security is key to keeping everyone safe while respecting the right to armed self-defense.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Library District Trustee Wants You Defenseless

Editor’s Note: For more background on the issue, including the legal issues at hand and the past history, please see this post cataloging the relevant articles on the issue.

A Las Vegas-Clark County Library District trustee just stepped all herself, well, figuratively in the library open carry lawsuit case. Only Trustee Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod, also a Democratic candidate for the Assembly, spoke publically. She told the Las Vegas Review-Journal
“I think it’s going to be something we’re going to have to take up in the Legislature to make that distinction (regarding where libraries fall when it comes to open carry). [..] I think it was a complete oversight. [...] I worry about open carry in areas where I bring my children, [...] I’ve been going to the library with my daughter since she was 3 months old. It’s a place people would assume would be weapon-free.” 
Instructor Mac said Bilbray-Axelrod's admission that she would like to legislate to make it illegal to open carry in a library is a tacit acknowledgement that what they library district and LVMPD was illegal.

Challenging open carry in a public building by creating a new law, such as a library, with no history of threats or special security concerns, is unlikely to survive in court. Had this been a concern for Nevada legislatures, the matter would have been addressed in the past. In this case, Bilbray-Axelrod is playing partisan politics with citizen’s rights and lives; nothing unusual for a Democrat.

Secondly, Bilbray-Axelrod’s concerns about children are totally unfounded. If she is so concerned about firearms being around her children, she should not take them outside, much less to a store, park, or shopping mall where countless unseen concealed carriers and possibly even open carriers could be present; not to mention armed criminals.  

Libraries are not some sort of magical safe space where danger does not lurk. Time and time again we have seen murderers and terrorists exploit gun free zones to kill unarmed victims. Bilbray-Axelrod would have mothers and fathers defenseless in the face of a killer all because she doesn’t like guns or citizens who can fight back against evil.

So let me get this straight: there have been zero problems (except what LVCCLD did itself) and she thinks there is a problem with the law? The Henderson Library District made the correct decision to follow the law as written. No other library, even those with policies on paper, have made an issue out of open carry.

The law was written deliberately to exclude open carry. With very few exceptions, Nevada and many western states recognize that it is unconstitutional to regulate open carry. Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, just to name a few states, allow the open carry of firearms in libraries. There have been no known incidents of unsafe discharges, abandoned firearms, or other bad behavior by legally armed citizens in any of these states.

Challenging open carry in a public building by creating a new law, such as a library, with no history of threats or special security concerns, is unlikely to survive in court.

It must be remembered that for years the library district has pursued this policy in direct contravention to state law, depriving citizens of the right to bear arms under both the state and federal constitutions. As the recent decision in Peruta v. Gore by the Ninth Circuit District Court of Appeals showed, many court cases have found that open carry is the constitutionally protected method of carry.

A multitude of communications have been sent to the library over the years, so any claim that this was unintentional is a lie. The library’s general counsel, Gerald Welt, stated in a private conversation, later recounted on Facebook, that the library district was aware of the law and would have to be sued. The district is being represented in this case by Bailey-Kennedy.

Bilbray-Axelrod was present when a group of citizens and Assemblywoman Shelton warned the library district it faced a suit if it kept up its illegal behavior. Now the taxpayers are on the hook for the intransigence of these unelected trustees and protected bureaucrats.

Clark County taxpayers out to be shocked and outraged at the willingness of the library district and its trustees to waste public money pursuing an obviously illegal policy and infringing on citizens’ right to effective self-defense.

Nevada Carry's original post breaking the story: Library Has Mom Illegally Arrested for Legal Openly Carried Gun; Suit Filed

Friday, June 17, 2016

Illegal Conceal Carrier Shoots at Car

The suspect's booking photo from LVMPD
Thursday night, Stephen Howard, 44, tried to apprehend a shoplifter and shot at the suspect's car. The Las Vegas Sun has the story. He was arrested on carrying a concealed firearm without a permit (NRS 202.350, a felony), unsafe discharge of a firearm (NRS 202.285), and traffic warrants. Bail is a combined $14,930.

There are several lapses in judgement here that are not surprising. Someone who would choose to carry illegal and commit a felony, rather openly carry, which is legal, clearly shouldn't be carrying a gun at all. This was highlighted by the fact that he compounded his mistake by shooting a car.

No circumstances have articulated why it was necessary for a private citizen to intervene with Target security to try to arrest a shoplifter. There was no apparent threat to life. This was not Mr. Howard's store. Unless you or a loved one were a victim, you probably shouldn't attempt to apprehend anyone who isn't an immediately threat to life or limb. Too much risk and liability.

Shooting at a car is a bad idea because it is too difficult to hit the target and if the suspect dies or looses control, a car without a driver is a very dangerous thing. Police are generally discouraged from shooting at suspects in moving cars. It's also illegal for citizens to shoot at a fleeing felon. Read the self-defense laws, please. You are not a cop just because you have a gun and you have no duty to get involve. You can't shoot a fleeing suspect and definitely shouldn't be in a position where they might run you over if you can help it.

This is why training and judgement is extremely important.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Local Pols on Orlando: Dems Mostly Wrong

I’m not going to editorialize too much. What happened in Orlando was a total failure of the federal law enforcement and intelligence community. Florida law disarmed bar patrons, putting them in a perfect defenseless kill zone, where the local SWAT team failed to act immediately and decisively, needlessly costing more lives. Because the shooter’s family, Islamic community, and employer failed to act on his warning signs, 49 people (perhaps more in the future) are dead. 102 families are devastated.

The focus on this being a crime only against gays is wrong; while it obviously was targeted against homosexuals, the factors are too complex to label this as simply a gay hate crime. The shooter’s messed up ideology (of course, he was only following the ways of Islam) and possibly some personal conflict over his sexuality both contributed to this act. This was not just an attack on a gay bar. It was an attack on the tolerant and inclusive American way of life.

Thankfully, many people, gay and straight, are waking up to the reality that the only way to stop a terrorist with a gun is a good guy, preferably several, also with a gun.

Senator Reid-D, who hasn’t met a gun control law he doesn’t like, has a litany of press releases that denounce the NRA, gun owners, and anyone but Islamic terrorists. This one example pretty much sums them all up.

“We are still waiting for Republicans to find the courage to stand up to the National Rifle Association and join with Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of terror suspects. Unfortunately, the so-called negotiations that took place today were little more than a smokescreen by Republicans trying to give themselves political cover while they continue to march in lock-step with NRA’s extreme positions. Democrats are always happy to engage in negotiations, but the talks must be serious and aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists.’

What he meant: It’s the Republican’s and NRA’s fault we can repeal due process and ban guns too! In virtually all of his statements on the topic, everything harkens back to the fact that the ‘solution’ is to ban guns and the Republicans and the NRA are keeping him from doing so. To support his wicked position in total conflict with the Constitution, he quotes Al Qaeda and lies.

Mike Prevatt wrote in the Las Vegas Weekly about a memorial service at the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada. Current and former members of the state legislature were among the speakers who preached a message predominantly about the need for gun control. Some of the speaker’s comments from various sources, including the memorial, follow.

State Senator Pat Spearman-D said “We can honor the innocent victims of these hate crimes by committing our lives to continued activity to enact common sense gun safety legislation…” She also shared this whopper on social media demonstrating her total ignorance and hatred of guns.

Kelvin Atkinson-D posted this absolutely wrong and incredibly stupid statement on Facebook, showing that the truth is so ill-relevant to his intolerant and hateful worldview that he can’t be bothered to spend two minutes searching on Google.

 Assemblyman James Healy-D said on Facebook “It's critical that we only allow representatives in office that believe in equality and believe in responsible gun ownership.”

Congresswoman Dina Titus-D, blamed ‘gun violence’ and ignored Islamic terror. Titus has a history as a Nevada state legislator of being anti-gun and missing the whole point of armed self-defense. I will say that she is one of the very few Democrats I've seen that has a general sense of dignity, compassion, and tenderness. Shame her beliefs suck.

Chaplain Sandy Marks said he has “seen the damage that an AR-15 can do. I’ve been there … I’ve been devastated.” While Marks volunteers with LVMPD as a chaplain, there is no mention of military service available on his LinkedIn profile, so one wonders exactly where he saw those kinds of wounds, considering AR-15s are seldom used in murders. Perhaps he meant people shot by LVMPD officers, though chaplains usually don’t have much to do with a criminal’s body.

Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman was drew intense heat because she didn’t pander and denounce guns. Apparently, telling the truth—that gun laws aren’t the solution to terrorism—was “rebutting” the community. The audience then literally booed her from the stage because she didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear. Perhaps she could have avoided the topic altogether, but in an evening when it seems like all the speakers preached for gun control, this supposedly open, inclusive, and tolerant community should have tolerated another opinion. But when has logic and facts every mattered to the hardcore left?

The Republican side seemed a little more grounded in the reality of the situation.

Congressman Cresent Hardy-R, called the shooting “the worst terrorist attack since 9/11” and said “Last night’s attack is a reminder that we must remain vigilant against the clear and present danger of radical Islamic terrorism.”

Attorney General Laxalt characterized the whole thing properly.

“Yesterday, Omar Mateen, an Islamic terrorist, attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. He murdered fifty Americans on American soil in the name of the Islamic State. The Islamic State called Mateen ‘a soldier of the Caliphate.’

“Calling this attack a hate crime, a mass shooting or an act of violence fails to properly characterize what yesterday’s shooting was--a terrorist attack perpetrated by radical Islamists. Minimizing the attack neither clarifies our duty as a nation, nor targets the enemies that are responsible. It goes without saying that yesterday’s terrorist attack was a hate crime, a mass shooting and an act of violence, in the same way that September 11th was a hate crime, a series of deliberate airplane crashes and also an act of violence. Nevertheless, September 11th was not about generically preventing hijacked plane crashes and acts of violence. Islamic terrorists threaten the American way of life. Our enemy seeks to kill Americans simply for being Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Our duty is to unite as a nation, properly name the enemy and then destroy that enemy.

“President Obama and the political left continue to confuse and distort reality, thereby endangering American lives here and abroad. Leaders must unite – not seek to divide – Americans and Nevadans over the second most deadly terrorist attack on American soil in history.” 

As always, it’s not about the truth, it’s about the agenda. It’s a shame that the poor victims of this tragedy are being exploited to advance gun control and promote political careers. And of course the left ignores the gay man arrested for suspected terrorism in Los Angeles the same day. Doesn’t fit the agenda. I’ll leave you with the following: 

Quit the NRA

The NRA released a statement today that it believes that those on terror watch lists deserve to have their constitutional rights denied, specifically the right to buy a gun. Such a statement should be condemned by those who support freedom because the NRA took the politically expedient route.
I take specific exception to the part where the NRA believes that a sale should be delayed while the investigation is completed. Do they mean the up to three day delay that currently exists when someone has an old parking warrant on their record? Or do they mean the sale is indefinitely postponed until the FBI gives the go-ahead? What exactly is their plan for 'due process'? No one should be added to a watchlist that has no real criteria for being placed on. Kids, senators, and congressmen have been on it for heaven's sake!
The Constitution is meant to protect against a tyrannical government, one that will label citizens who oppose it terrorists or traitors. The Bill of Rights was intended to check the unlimited powers that Great Britain used to brutally suppress the colonists who cried aloud against the abuses of their deaf government. We face a threat from Islamic terrorism; a religion and a mentality that is hateful to the central tenets of its doctrine. We are faced with a war upon our people and our culture. More laws are not the answer.
The murderer in Orlando was under FBI surveillance, but that investigation was apparently pulled at the request of Hillary Clinton's State Department. His father visited the White House and may have met with the president. His ex-wife knew about this plot, yet did nothing. His employer was afraid to discipline him because he was a Muslim. He was not on any watchlist at the time he bought his gun legally, with a background check. This 'solution' would not have prevented this atrocity. 49 people are dead and 102 families torn apart because the government failed to identify and stop a terrorist.
More laws and 'checks' are not the answer. Admitting we have a problem with Islamic terror and utilizing the law enforcement resources we already have are the solution. Additionally, end gun free zones and allow people to defend themselves. No one should have to cower in a bathroom and wait to be shot. You may not succeed, but you deserve the chance to fight back effectively.

The Second Amendment is about the slippery slope. The NRA institutionally does not understand that. They have never understood that, instead willing to give in for the few instead of the rights of the many.The NRA has for too long supported compromise, allowed state-by-state Bloomberg assaults on gun rights, and too often supported outright racist gun laws. Until the NRA gets active in stopping all forms of infringement, it does not deserve your support. An organization that does so little and compromises so much is not worthy of your time and money.

When the time comes for gun owners to be treated as seditious and terrorists, the NRA will support the round-up. Due process means nothing to the NRA; they prefer to allow unchecked government power to say who can and can't own a gun.

While terrorism is a serious concern, putting names on a list or starting investigations without probable cause is a slippery slope. What is to stop the Federal government from declaring all gun owners to be domestic terrorists? Did you click 'Like' on a post about the Bundy Ranch? Now you are a terrorist supporter. Donate to a 'radical' gun rights group like the Second Amendment Foundation? Now you are a financial backer of terrorism. Think that's not likely? How many Japanese-Americans in the late 1930s thought that they would be put in concentration camps by their own country?

Nevadans, we have accomplished MUCH without the NRA. Leave them behind, cancel or don't renew your memberships. Donate to the Nevada Firearm Coalition, Nevadans for State Gun Rights, or work on your own to further gun rights. As individuals banding together, we can succeed at our goals without a bloated, political, and compromised organization. 
For those that criticize me calling out the NRA: What have they done for you lately? Where were they early on when Bloomberg was collecting signatures to ban private gun sales? Why did they trash open carry in 1995? Why didn't they fight harder in 2015 for school carry and constitutional carry? What kind of gun rights organization is this? It's not. It's a political, 'feel good' club for good ol' boys. If you like a $35 magazine to read on the toilet, you can give them your money, but that's all they're worth.

For those that argue we aren't doing anything to stop terrorists from getting guns: How would the proposed laws have stopped this massacre? Answer that question first. Tell me how someone not under active investigation or a prohibited person can be detected and stopped if his friends and family say nothing.

No compromise.


Sunday, June 12, 2016

How to Get a CCW Permit in Nevada

“Concealed firearm” is a loaded or unloaded handgun which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation (NRS 202.3653), this includes in a carried bag/purse. Concealing a firearm without a permit is a felony. Nevada is not a constitutional carry state.

How to Obtain a Concealed Firearm Permit, NRS 202.3657

Part 1
Take an eight hour concealed firearm permit course approved by the sheriff. Out-of-state or military training does not qualify.

Residents: Apply to the sheriff of your county.
Non-residents: Apply to the sheriff of any county (for example, Clark County routinely takes 90-100 days to approve a concealed firearm permit). Visiting America/Nevada? You can open carry! Illegal immigrants cannot possess firearms and non-citizens generally have their permit applications denied.

Part 2
Only one application is needed for every firearm you own and you do not have to list each firearm individually; the 'revolver/semi-automatic' distinction has been abolished as of 2011. The issued permit will cover every handgun you own or acquire.

Part 3
The sheriff shall issue a permit to any applicant who is qualified to possess a handgun under state and federal law and must do so within 120 days or deny the permit for lawful reasons (NRS 202.366). In rare cases, temporary permits may be issued for delayed applications.

​1. Be 21 or older
2. Not a felon, a fugitive, a drug addict, have never been adjudicated mentally ill or committed, not an illegal alien, nor have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (NRS 202.360).

You must also: Demonstrate competence with a handgun by successfully completing a course in firearm safety approved by a sheriff in this State; or successfully complete a course in firearm safety offered by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, community college, university or national organization that certifies instructors in firearm safety. The course must include instruction in the use of handguns and in the laws of this State relating to the use of a firearm and must meet the standards of the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association. Out-of-state permits or military training/discharge does not qualify as in other states.

Note: Make sure the sheriff you are applying to approves your specific handgun course.

Part 4
Your permit shall be denied if you fail to meet the above requirements or at least one of the following is true:
1. You have an outstanding arrest warrant.
2. You have been declared incompetent or insane or have been have been admitted to a mental health facility within the last 5 years.
3. You have been convicted of DUI within the last 5 years or committed to rehab for drugs or alcohol within the last 5 years.
4. You have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor within the last 3 years or are a felon.
5. You have been convicted of a domestic violence crime or have a restraining order against you due to domestic violence.
6. You are on parole or probation or you have a suspended felony against you within the last 5 years.
7. You made a false statement on your application.

Your permit will be suspended or revoked if the sheriff finds out about you being disqualified by anything in Part 4.
See also: NRS 202.3665

Do not sign your application until you are directed to so by a sheriff's employee, unless you have the form notarized.

Be sure to provide a passport style color photo of you from the front. One may be taken of you by the sheriff. You will also pay fees of not more that $60 to the sheriff (FBI fees will be extra).

The sheriff will fingerprint you. You will be 'run' through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, and through the FBI database (NRS 202.366).

Be sure to carefully review and follow all the instructions on the application form. Refer to the sheriff's instructions for how each office handles the actual application and fingerprinting process, which may vary slightly from above.

If your application is denied, you may appeal in district court for the county in which you applied (NRS 202.3663).

The process can take up to 120 days, especially in Clark County. Be prepared to wait and open carry in the mean time.

Unless suspended or revoked, a permit is valid five (5) years from the issue date. Plan the renewal in advance, as in Clark County, renewal application processing can take between 90-120 days.

Complete the process as above for applying for a permit, except the fees are $25 and the class is four (4) hours (NRS 202.3677).

When You Get Your Concealed Firearms Permit

Check the information on your card! If it is incorrect, call the sheriff's office immediately.

You must carry your permit and proper ID (such as a driver license) when carrying a concealed firearm. Both the permit and proper identification must be presented if asked by a peace officer (no duty to first inform). A violation is an infraction punishable by a $25 fine (NRS 202.3667). Note that this does not require you to carry your concealed firearm permit when carrying openly. Nevada does not require you to notify a peace officer that you are carrying a firearm, but out of courtesy and for your own safety, if you are being detained, you may choose to inform the officer you are lawfully carrying a concealed firearm.

Changes and lost permits
If your permanent address changes (i.e. you move), you must notify the sheriff in writing within 30 days. If your permit is lost, stolen, or destroyed, you must within 30 days, submit a written statement to the sheriff that your permit was lost, stolen, or destroyed and pay a replacement $15 fee. Should you recover your original permit, you must return the duplicate permit and notify the sheriff in writing within 10 days (NRS 202.367).

Guns Carried
For permits issued on or after July 1, 2011, any owned handgun, semi-automatic pistol or revolver, can be carried concealed by a permittee. If the permit was issued before July 1, 2011, the permit will list the specific authorized handguns that can be legally carried. There is no legal opinion whether that requirement for pre 7/1/2011 permittees would still have legal force or is actively being enforced. All 'listed weapons' permits will expire on July 1, 2016 and licensee's renewals will cover any handgun the permittee owns.

As a licensed concealed carrier, is my personal information public record?
No. Bare statistics, such as how many permits have been issued are permissible public records, but personally identifying information is only available to law enforcement officers/agencies in their official duties (NRS 202.3662).

Can I get a temporary concealed firearm permit?
In theory, yes. Practically, they are issued very rarely to those who have taken the course of instruction and applied for a permanent permit, usually when a clerical error delays the issuing (or denial) of the permanent permit beyond the 120-day deadline. Issuing temporary permits is solely at the discretion of the sheriff and the expiration date is set by the sheriff.

Background Check Exemption
Most Nevada permittees qualify for an exemption from the requirement to undergo the background check (as they've already been vetted) when buying a firearm from a dealer and paying the $25 fee. The Form 4473 is still completed and a copy of the permit is needed for the dealer's records.

For permits issued on or after July 1, 2011, the permittee would be exempt from the Brady Bill background check when buying from a licensed dealer. Permits issued before this would be invalid because the ATF decertified the state after it was revealed some sheriffs were not complying with certain renewal requirements required to qualify for the exemption. This would not qualify to avoid the duty to obtain a private-sale background check if the universal background check initiative (Ballot Question 1) passes in 2016 or if those background checks would still be free.

Non-residents and non-resident permits (reciprocity)
Recognized states are set by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association pursuant to state law. If you hold a recognized permit on the reciprocity list, and you do not reside in Nevada, you may legally carry a concealed firearm in Nevada.

Nevada residents must hold a Nevada-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm. Non-resident or out-of-state permits are not recognized for Nevada residents. There is no specific exemption for military members or their spouses.

If you have recently become a resident of Nevada and hold a non-resident or out-of-state permit, there is a 60 day grace period if the sheriff of your county has not issued you a Nevada permit. For example, if you hold a concealed firearm permit from Arizona, but you live in Laughlin, it would be illegal to carry a concealed firearm in Nevada using an out-of-state permit.

Please note, that the requirements for recognition of non-resident permits have recently changed and some states may have been added or dropped.

Our state, our rules.
Holders of a non-resident concealed firearm permit must abide by the same restrictions in carrying a concealed firearm as they would as if they held Nevada concealed firearm permit (NRS 202.3688). On the plus side, Nevada's concealed carry laws are among the most relaxed among the states that require a permit. You can carry in bars and drink alcohol (don't get intoxicated), in cars, and signage doesn't have the force of law.

Where is concealed carry illegal?

Federally prohibited places 
  • Firearms, loaded or unloaded, concealed or openly carried, are prohibited in the following places:
  • Inside federal facilities (including courthouses and offices like a Social Security office);
  • On military bases (military personnel should refer to DoD policy and post orders);
  • ​Post Office property (includes the parking lot), but not post-office windows in stores (contract stations), 39 CFR 232.1(l);
  • VA hospitals/facilities including federal veterans' cemeteries (carrying).

Firearms are banned in "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties" and includes essentially all parts of federal court facilities (18 USC § 930). 'No weapons' signs must be posted at federal facilities in order for someone to be convicted (but you may be arrested).

On National Park Service lands (National Parks, Monuments, etc.), the only restrictions on firearm carry are state and local laws (54 USC § 104906). If you can carry legally outside the park, you can carry legally inside the park. The park buildings (visitor centers, offices, etc.) are still federal facilities and off-limits to firearms.

Red Rock National Conservation Area is 'special' and does not allow loaded firearms (no magazine/clip inserted, no rounds attached to the weapon or in the chamber). It is not a part of the National Park System and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. More in this article and sign the petition here. National Forest lands in Nevada have no ban on the carry of firearms.

State prohibited places

All firearms are prohibited in the following places:
  • On the premises of a public school, on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, or a child care facility without written permission of the college president, school principal, or head of a public child care facility, including in the parking lot (NRS 202.265).
  • A private in-home child care facility, except by the homeowner(s) or residents. [Ibid.]
  • The legislative building or wherever the legislature is conducting business (NRS 218A.905).

NRS 202.3673 ​(concealed carry only) prohibited areas:
  • The secure area of an airport (for instance, employee-only areas or past the TSA checkpoints).
  • Inside a building of a public airport (open carry is legal outside of the secure area).
  • Inside a public building (government building) with either 'no guns' signs or metal detectors at each public entrance (open carry may be legal). See below for more details.​
The Legislative Counsel (the state legislature's attorney) found in this opinion that open carry is legal in public areas of public buildings. Concealed carry is legally restricted in more locations than open carry is.

Two Important Exceptions to Public Buildings

Per NRS 202.3673(4)(c) Permittees who are employees of a public building may carry a concealed firearm in that posted building, however, the state preemption laws, allow local authorities to make their own policies regarding firearms. So while a permittee may carry legally inside the building, they can be disciplined or fired if they carry in violation of their employer's ban on carrying firearms.

If the permittee has received written permission from the person in control of the public building to carry a concealed firearm, they may do so, but permission is rarely granted. Employees in a public building (except a school) can carry concealed, but are not exempted from their employer's policies which may ban firearms.

Do I have to obey ‘no guns’ signs on private property?
No, signs do not have the force of law in Nevada on private property. If the owner or management wants you to leave or disarm, you must comply or you can be arrested for trespassing. Making sure that the owner or corporate management knows they lost your business for denying you the right to lawfully carry is a good course of action. The majority of Nevada businesses are firearm friendly.

​Can I carry concealed on private property or in my home?
No. Concealed carry without a permit is illegal everywhere in the state. While it is unlikely you will be arrested for carrying a concealed firearm without a permit on your own private property, it is not legal. See NRS 202.350 1.(d)

Can I carry concealed at the mall? Can I carry concealed at a casino?
Yes, legally you can carry on private property (except private schools and daycares) even if there is a 'no guns' sign. However, most indoor malls and casinos will ask you to disarm or leave the property if you are discovered. All they can do is ask you to disarm or tell you to leave. Failure to do so would be a trespassing violation.

Can I carry concealed in a bar? Can I drink while carrying?
There is no law against carrying openly or concealed in bar or while drinking, however, it is a crime to be in possession of firearm when one’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is .10 or greater. NRS 202.257

Do I need to carry my blue card with me when I carry my gun?
No. The 'blue card' system has recently been abolished. A blue card was never a license to carry a firearm, simply a receipt of registration. Concealed carry requires a concealed firearms permit.

Does Nevada recognize my state’s permit?

I have a non-resident permit from another state, but I live in Nevada. Can I carry concealed?
No. You must have a Nevada permit to carry a concealed firearm if you have reside in the state, but new residents have 60 day grace period until they must have a Nevada permit to carry concealed legally in Nevada.

I'm from Arizona or another constitutional carry state and don't have a permit. Can I carry concealed in Nevada? No, you must have a concealed firearm permit in your home state or a non-resident state that Nevada recognizes, or one from Nevada. Open carry does not require a permit.

Concealed carry is better than open carry because surprise will work to my advantage.
The idea behind this is that an openly carried weapon may make the carrier a primary target of the criminal/terrorist. The concealed carrier would blend in with the crowd, and then draw at when it was to their advantage.

This assumption is generally false in the absence of evidence that an openly carried weapon leads to victimization. Abundant evidence is available that open carry is indeed a deterrent to crime. Concealed carry lacks that deterrent factor. The 'gray man' element, appearing unremarkable and blending in with the crowd, only has application when one may be specifically sought out; such as in the case of a police officer. The desire not to be spotted carrying a firearm or otherwise identified typically comes from the police influence in the concealed carry training world.

The advantage of concealed carry lies in the fact that it may be possible to carry in places where open carriers would be shunned or asked to leave, such as casinos. Legally speaking, the advantage is with open carry, yet due to modern sensitivities, the discreet option of undetected concealed carry would prevent any debates with anti-gunners or objections to having the weapon on private property where the owner/management might prohibit it. Also, given one’s choice of dress or activities, concealed carry may be more appropriate.

The debate is largely a matter of taste and environment. A citizen carrier with anti-gun customers or friends may want to protect themselves without alienating others. Some may feel uncomfortable carrying openly. Whatever the choice, it is a personal one and not to be judged or criticized.

Open carry and concealed carry each have their own unique advantages and disadvantages; neither is inherently superior to the other. Both methods complement each other and allow for flexibility in self-defense.

Get more details at the Concealed Carry page of

Training? Contact your local gun store or range for recommendations or ask your sheriff’s office for a list of certified instructors that they recognize (but not endorse). 

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Peruta v. Gore, Part II: The Ninth Circuit Ruling

Editor’s note: This is the second part of a two-part piece on Peruta v. Gore and open carry vs. concealed carryPlease read case the opinion in its entirety for full insight to the majority’s opinion and the minority’s dissent. Only excerpts will be provided here.

An en banc ruling with the full panel of the Ninth Circuit District Court of Appeals was held, largely at the behest of California's Democrat Attorney General and Senate candidate, Kamala Harris. This overturned the pro-gun earlier ruling, which determined in the absence of legal open carry in California, concealed carry could not be prohibited, turning California into a de facto 'shall issue' state. This only applied in counties where the sheriffs had the moral fortitude to honor the opinion, rather than continue to infringe on the right to bear arms and stall until this decision affirmed their cowardly behavior. 

The insulting and maddening gist of the majority’s opinion: 
“The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of ‘good cause,’ however defined — is necessarily allowed by the  Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.” 
“If there is a Second Amendment right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, and if that right is violated, the cure is to apply the Second Amendment to protect that right. The cure is not to apply the Second Amendment to protect a right that does not exist under the Amendment.” 
Being so biased against the right to armed self-defense, the willingly ignorant fools in black dresses myopically ignored that the Second Amendment simply states “the right to bear arms […] shall not be infringed.” No method is specified or banned, but the encroachment upon the right to bear arms is specifically banned.

The fact of the matter is that no argument is too torturous, no defense too illogical, and no evidence too insurmountable, for them to ignore to promote their political agenda. These ‘justices’, blind to anything but their own biases, prejudices, and the wishes of those in their narrow circle, would do anything they could do to keep Californians disarmed. No doubt they will find an equal excuse to continue to prohibit open carry when the time comes.

While the cases cited in support of the majority opinion all held that concealed carry could be banned, it doesn’t make those cases or this decision right. Those old cases do uphold open carry as constitutional, and therefore above any legitimate legislative reproach. As for the logic behind the cases themselves, reasoning and thinking that has long since changed and been invalidated by historical evidence cannot and should not be used to justify the validity of these old arguments.

This anti-concealed carry attitude is based on a long-standing historical attitude that concealed carry was underhanded, unfair, and only something that criminals did. Coupled with modern attitudes and the lack of any compelling argument that especially licensed concealed carry leads or contributes to criminality, the old arguments hold no water.

The majority justices also use sparse examples and typical foolish anti-gun logic to support the fact that licensed, trained concealed carriers are somehow akin to the bandit roaming coast coach roads in 16th Century England or a poker shark with a Derringer up his sleeve. They ignore the fact that a criminal will concealed illegally anyway, often without a holster or even minimal training. The facts and the experiences especially of the last 20-50 years show the exact opposite. Popular opinion shows concealed carry to be preferred over open carry by most Americans who carry, for various reasons.

While the justices may have a point that "the uncontradicted historical evidence overwhelmingly shows, the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed weapon in public", the plain language of the Second Amendment invalidates that argument. "Shall not be infringed" was as clear in the 'olden days' as it is now and, as the examples from the concurring justices showed, have been consistently ignored by the courts. Such words are extraordinary clear. One would never seriously question the First Amendment's clause "Congress shall make no law..." Or as the dissent opined: "Defining the constitutional right to bear arms narrowly is inconsistent with judicial protection of other fundamental freedoms."

The idea that concealed carry is not constitutionally protected is laughable. Courts contain themselves to prior case law and only deviate from that to logic in the most momentous of cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Had the Warren Court relied on case law, separate but equal would still be the law of the land. Case law is not always right. Being California, the entrenched, liberal-activist justices of the Ninth Circuit would not rule any other way and this was the expected outcome.

It is no less heinous miscarriage of justice, even if phrased well and founded on case law. The trouble with English common law, the system which we practice, is limited by this near total reliance on what was done in the past. Strict textual scrutiny to the Constitution, combined with logic relying upon the totality of facts, should indeed be the guide. "Shall not be infringed" means just that, but the byzantine way the 'justice' system works is to look to an affirm years of poor decisions.

Had the justices wanted to believe that the Constitution means what it says and should be applied literally and strictly, this decision would not have been made. Yet personal and institutional bias came together to ignore contemporary evidence and feelings that invalidated the historical evidence in favor of banning concealed carry. Reaffirming outdated beliefs that have no basis in reality and in direct conflict with the Second Amendment's plain language are an affront to Americans of ordinary intelligence. The concurring justices are nothing more than dottering old fools seeking to preserve the liberal status quo because they lack integrity.

Basing a decision upon old fashioned notions of criminal behavior and beliefs from the beginning of the last Century is wrong. Simply because courts made the wrong decisions for centuries and a long, long time ago some people thought something was bad, doesn't mean we should keep making wrong decisions or believing something that facts do not support.

Had this been a decision about gays or minorities, relying on opinions that gays are all perverts or all minorities are stupid, inferior, violent thieves, protests would be choking the streets of San Francisco. You can't apply 18th and 19th Century beliefs in today's world. 

I want to be clear that the Constitution does not change in light of modern sensibilities or beliefs. The words and meaning stay the same and should be interpreted accordingly. But here the decision was tied to cases rooted in laughably outdated and uniformed opinions. Simply because concealed carry was long considered evil, and no longer is, does not mean that opinion should continue, chiefly in light that all available evidence points to concealed carry as a good thing.

This approach was totally ignored in preferring 19th Century schools of thought. The dissent gets it right: 
"This evidence is of questionable relevance to the issues in this case because it does not
distinguish between firearm violence committed by people who are either concealed carry license holders or are qualified to obtain such a license and firearm violence committed by people who could not obtain a concealed carry license because of either their criminal record or because they have not completed the necessary course of firearms training. 
"There is simply no evidence in the record showing that establishing a licensing regime that allows trained law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public results in an increase in gun violence. Indeed, the only evidence in the record shows the exact  opposite. Amici have provided evidence showing that concealed-carry license holders are disproportionately less likely to commit crimes – including violent crimes such as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon – than the general population, and that the adoption of a concealed carry licensing regime such as the one proposed by Plaintiffs in other areas of the country has either had no effect on violent crime or has helped reduce violent crime." 

With the loss of Justice Scalia, the chances of the Supreme Court doing the right thing and overturning the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and hopefully affirming “shall not be infringed” means what it says, are slim. In fact, many speculate that the reason the Supreme Court has not taken a significant gun rights case recently is because Justice Breyer has been wishy-washy and his conservative colleagues fear he made side against the Second Amendment.

California’s and many jurisdictions’ only hope now resides with the Supreme Court exercising a power not delegated to it by the Constitution, but by itself. While the Second Amendment should be interpreted as clearly as the First Amendment is interpreted is, one cannot bet on this outcome. The Federal Judiciary is essentially a tyranny. Compare many Supreme Court or District Court rulings against the abuses Thomas Jefferson leveled against King George III in the Declaration of Independence. Hope is thin. At that point, only radical action, such as an unprecedented act of Congress or a constitutional amendment could reverse the action.

Now is the time to reform the system. All efforts should be made to politically force change, such as the states or Congress requiring federal judges be retired after ten years and requiring some sort of check on judicial power. Despite one’s own personal opinions, the only chance at filling the vacant ninth position on the Supreme Court is through a Trump presidency. Clinton’s appointee would surely be the most liberal that could pass through the Senate.

Given the dramatic changes to the country in the last eight years, anything short of radical action by the states or Congress would result in civil war and outright armed rebellion if the Second Amendment were eviscerated. Everything must be done to avoid the bloodshed that many conservatives and gun owners are beginning to fear is inevitable. This is it, time to get serious about gun rights or bury them in the backyard.