Friday, October 28, 2016

Sheriff Lombardo Supports Anti-Gun Question in Private


Don't take for granted that your pro-gun friends know to vote NO on question 1.

We just found out that our Clark County Sheriff, Joe Lombardo, who has officially taken a neutral position, is still speaking in favor of it in private circles.

We found this out from a couple of people who had attended an event recently where he was a speaker.  They took what he said as gospel, even though they were pro-gun people.  

Thankfully, we got to them before they voted and straightened it out.

But this should serve as a warning that we can take nothing for granted.  We need to be evangelists on this thing to everyone we come into contact with.  Go beyond social media.  Ask people at your work.  Even if you think that you might disagree with them on the entire rest of their ballot, don't worry about that.  Try to enlighten them on Q1.  Talk to EVERYONE in your family.  If you conduct a lot of business by email, add "Nevadans, Vote NO on Question 1" to your email sig.

We know that the only way this thing passes is if enough people are in the dark.  

Hit the bullet points:

Why does an out of state billionaire want to BUY a law in Nevada?

If we pass just one more law, criminals will surely start obeying them, right?

Who does this law affect?  The law abiding.  Criminals are amused by our futile attempts to regulate them into compliance.

Get out there and spread the word!  Be an ambassador for the 2nd Amendment!

Thursday, October 27, 2016

A Message From Everytown About Early Voting

Don Turner, of NVFAC, shared a nice gem that Everytown, the supporters of the anti-gun Ballot Question 1, have been sharing with their ilk. The original is on Facebook, we're not going to paste it here, besides, you really should look at our page over there. Anyhow, we though you might appreciate the other message from Everytown. We suspect this version didn't get published earlier because it was written too honestly.  
“Early voting is happening in Nevada right now, which means our fight to make Nevada the next state to ban private gun sales and lock people up for lending guns to friends is already underway.

“It’s a fight we can’t afford to lose--and so we’re pouring millions of dollars into ads spreading lies about this incompetent initiative. And to make matters worse, gun control extremists have been videotaping gun rights supporters videotaping our volunteers breaking electioneering laws and intimidating voters.

“Defeating the NRA in Nevada is absolutely crucial to our success in spreading the forerunner to gun registration. It would deal a relatively minor blow (because let’s face it, the law is unenforceable unless you’re a total moron), and do nothing to stop their Second Amendment.

“This is one of two astroturf gun control fights of this election. If we win, Arizona,Florida, New Mexico, Virginia; you’re all next! It’ll prove we’ve got billionaires funding us and the deluded, dishonest, stupid, and crazy supporting us and eventually, we’ll ban all guns everywhere! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.”
The "voter intimidation" they mentioned? That was a group of truly grassroots individuals, on their own initiative, standing outside the 100ft line, supporting gun rights. Apparently, prospective voters were so enthusiastic about voting no on question one, that after a while, the orange shirts had to walk away so they wouldn't hear it. So thank you Nevada for demoralizing the liars into making this (well, the real) desperate message. They're scared. Let's close the gap and VOTE NO ON ONE! Tell your friends!

Oh, by the way Everytown, we'll see you this weekend and everyday until polls close on Election Day. You might want to warn your volunteers to behave themselves and respect the electioneering laws. If we see them break the law, we'll film it and then we'll publish the footage. Heck, we might just even make a private person's arrest.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Anti-Gun Question 1 Early Voting Shenanigans

Those Question 1 supporters seem to have an issue with truth, ethics, and quite probably the law. At the advent of early voting this past weekend, shenanigans were afoot.

In recent days, there have been reports of mysterious “No on One” yard signs disappearing from front yards and vacant lots (while other election signs remain). At the Albertsons on Stephanie and Horizon Ridge in Henderson, several “Yes” signs were posted on private property fronting the road and main entrance to the parking lot. Just outside the 100 foot “no electioneering” zone, but still unethical. Kinda like sticking a “Vons” sign into Albertsons grass. Thankfully, the management of Albertsons saw the conflict and potential association with their business and quickly removed the signs after a complaint.

At the early voting trailer at Silverado Ranch and Eastern (Target) on Saturday, 10/22, the Moms Demand Action/Everytown gun control ghouls were stumping for “yes” votes way too close to the polling place and the line. Our friend J. L. was kind enough to provide video and photographs from the location. He said the orange shirts “took a long pause while I was recording them. The [election] staff was eyeballing me and they eventually rerouted the cones and line to be compliant. They all knew it was wrong.”

Occasionally, an orange shirt stepped over the line into the “no electioneering” zone. One must wonder if it is legal for people to electioneer to people in a long line.

Red circle indicates where boundary marker is. Arrow indicates illegal electioneering.
NRS 293.740 prohibits, "inside a polling place or within 100 feet from the entrance to the building or other structure in which a polling place is located:" 
“(a) For any person to solicit a vote or speak to a voter on the subject of marking the voter’s ballot.
(b) For any person, including an election board officer, to do any electioneering on election day.” 
So under the letter of the law, if you just stand far enough away, but still close enough to harass voters, you’re technically legal, we think. Could the “polling place entrance” definition be extended to the line itself, in the case the line extends beyond the door? The clear intent of those queued up is to vote so perhaps the “entrance” should be considered the line.

Unfortunately, due to the sign being placed on the ground, our friend didn’t know where the 100ft line was until he passed it himself, after the fact, and thus it was not a priority to record violations in this area. On top of this, according to the election workers, our friend said that the property owner knew or permitted the ghouls to try and steal your rights and interfere with voting.

Also not helping is the statute’s confusing language, probably intended to protect someone in a home or business neighboring the polling place, that excludes: “the conduct of a person in a private residence or on commercial or residential property that is within 100 feet from the entrance to a building or other structure in which a polling place is located.” Clear and unambiguous, right? Good job Legislature, you sure know how to write those laws well.

However, depending on whether or not the state and county cares, is NRS 293.730 "Interfering with conduct of election" seems like it might apply: 
“1.  A person shall not:
(a) Remain in or outside of any polling place so as to interfere with the conduct of the election.” 
Merriam-Webster defines “interfere” as “to become involved in the activities and concerns of other people when your involvement is not wanted” (short definition). Uh, sounds like that one lady was quite bothered and along with our friend, the orange shirts’ involvement was not wanted.

Of course, this could just be the ignorance of ignorant supporters who are convinced they are doing the right thing. Old ladies and college girls who are gullible enough to swallow the agitprop probably aren’t smart enough to follow the law. Perhaps if one of the orange shirts’ paid handlers was present (maybe they were), they would have put the kibosh on the activity and moved them to a respectable distance.

In reality, the corporate orange shirts probably couldn’t give a fig for appearances. They are willing to lie, bamboozle, and spend dizzying sums to steal your rights. A little soft election manipulation is nothing. If it’s barely legal, it’s good enough for them. So, illegal? Maybe technically. It depends on case law beyond this journalist’s knowledge and how concerned about election malfeasance the prosecutor is. Unethical? Highly, but ethics was never a concern of Team Statist.

So if you see these folks behaving badly in “no electioneering” zones, get them on video, tell the polling staff, and why not call the police and make a private person’s arrest? Fight back against these petty tyrants, their lies, and their reprehensible behavior. Gun owners color inside the lines until someone comes to take our coloring book away, so we find ourselves above these kinds of things. Why not use the rules to our advantage?

If you do see this stuff going on, please reach out to use via Facebook ASAP.

All photos and video courtesy friend of Nevada Carry, J. L. 

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Comprehensive Background Checks: Ballot Question 1

During tonight's debate, Hillary threw out the term "comprehensive background checks." It's the flavor of the month version of "universal background checks" or banning private gun sales. The whole idea is to get guns into dealers so they can, in the future, pass a law requiring all gun sales to be reported to the government and create an instant gun registration database.

Most guns sold are through retail sources; gun stores or licensed dealers where background checks are required. Guns legally sold face-to-face have never been a major crime problem. Instead, the problem has been criminals who have passed existing background checks, dealers who break the law, illegal street deals no law could stop, the stolen gun trade, and people with 'clean' records buying guns for felons. The initiative wouldn't stop any of these. They call it "comprehensive background checks" or "universal background checks", but in the end, it's an infringement on your Second Amendment and private property rights.
"Federal law already requires background checks for most guns sales."
Ballot Question 1 would require that private, face-to-face, firearm sales be conducted through a federally licensed firearms dealer and the buyer undergo a background check. Currently, Nevada law allows for any two private persons to buy, sell, or transfer a firearm with each other in this state without a mandatory background check. Voluntary private background checks are free. Buyers purchasing from dealers are already required to undergo a background check, which account for the majority of legal gun sales. In the few states where private gun sales have been banned, the illegal gun trade has not been thwarted.
"75.9% of illegally bought/sold guns would not be stopped by comprehensive background checks."
‘Nevadans’ for Background Checks allege that their initiative would “close a loophole in Nevada law by requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, with reasonable exceptions for family, hunting, and self-defense.” By criminalizing currently innocent behavior, the supporters hope to eliminate legal private sales as a source of firearms. There is an unstated implication that this initiative would stop illegal trade in stolen guns, illegal street dealers, or illegal gun transfers to known prohibited persons; something the initiative simply cannot do. Unfortunately, laws never convinced criminals to stop breaking the law. 

Worst of all, convicted felons (and other prohibited persons) could not be convicted of failing to undergo a background check; rather it would be the seller or the innocent buyers who would be convicted. The initiative doesn't even require dealers to notify police when a criminal attempts to buy a gun.

It is already illegal under state and federal law to sell firearms to prohibited persons, including those convicted of domestic violence. The availability of guns does not cause crime. As Everytown for Gun Safety says itself: "falsehoods spread by a vocal few should not be allowed to cloud public debate[...]"
"This will effectively ban private, face-to-face, gun sales and ruin gun shows, without stopping crimes or preventing mass murders."
Comprehensive background checks are not about background checks; they are about limiting private property rights and subjecting sales to government scrutiny in order to eventually register guns. They erode our constitutional rights, impose unreasonable burdens and harsh penalties upon the law-abiding, and provide no mechanism for enforcement or to ensure compliance. Nevada already has a free, voluntary private sale background check process and dealers will currently process a background check if asked to do so.  
"It should really be called 'universal gun registration'."
​Background checks and mandatory transfers through dealers will lead to a gun registry via reporting sales and transactions. As happened in California, all it will take is a single bill passed by the legislature to make it mandatory to report all gun sales/transactions. The initiative is the first step. The next step is to require all firearm transactions to be reported to the state by the dealer (as in the case of California). Lastly, existing firearms that are not already registered would have to be registered to remain legal (several countries have done this). Confiscation will be next.

"About 80% of informal polls show most Nevadans are opposed to more background checks and most Nevada sheriffs are against Ballot Question 1." 

Vote no on Question 1. Your rights depend on it.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Dems Smear Pro-Gun Candidate Nick Phillips

Republican Assembly candidate Nick Phillips is facing Sandra Jauregui, a Democrat, for Assembly District 41, currently held by Republican Vicki Dooling. The Democratic State Party sent out the pictured flyers implying that Phillips opposes background checks on firearm purchases. The imagery and implications made are highly incendiary and border on libel. They clearly imply that Phillips supports arming criminals, which is unequivocally false.

The flyers are referring to Phillips' opposition to Ballot Question 1/universal background checks.
What the Democrats conveniently leave out is that Phillips opposes banning private gun sales, which is the ultimate effect of Question 1, not public safety.

The anti-gun Democrats conveniently overlooked that Nevada has background checks on most gun sales, which are dealer retail sales. Every dealer sale gets a required background check (the Brady Check). Qualifying their assertion to include the minority of gun sales to which they refer, the Dems say "all" gun sales. Damning themselves as the dishonest whores that they are, the Democrats highlight "opposes requiring criminal background checks" with a hooded gunman in the background as if Phillips likes armed crooks.

So what the flyers should say is that Phillips opposes background checks on private gun sales, not all gun sales. He opposes some background checks for some gun sales. This mendacious obfuscation is nothing more than politics at its worse, scare tactics and a smear campaign. Democrats cannot win on truth and ideals so they must lie and manipulate to secure votes. They cannot state the truth that Phillips does not support a law that would criminalize innocent behavior, lead to gun registration, and do nothing to actually prevent criminals from getting guns.

In light of the facts that most criminals do not get firearms in a way that would be regulated by Question 1 and criminals regularly obtain firearms in violation of existing law, this criticism of Phillips is unwarranted and fraudulent. One might suggest that the Democrats be ashamed of themselves, but it is beyond clear that in 2016 any concerns of propriety they once had has been overtaken by a desire to merely conceal the depths of their depravity.

If you live in Assembly District 41, vote for Nick Phillips and vote NO on Question 1.

Photos courtesy of Nick Phillips

Monday, October 10, 2016

Vote no on Question 1: Two Videos

Two videos explaining Ballot Question 1, universal background checks, and why you should vote NO!

Question 1 Explained

Questions and Answers

Monday, October 3, 2016

Trump's Henderson Visit and Presidential Gun Free Zones

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

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

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

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

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

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