Sunday, April 15, 2018

They Want to Take Away Preemption

Don’t like the law? Are lawsuits hampering your ability to pass symbolic ordinances to emotionally satisfy the intellectually challenged? Are unruly citizens trying to take safety into their hands? Just change the law!

Remember last year when the Las Vegas Clark County Library District tried to make libraries into gun-free zones like schools? That was because citizens dared standup to their long-standing illegal gun ban. They posted “no guns” signs as if they were some magical rune that would ward off crime, but also kept legal concealed carry out. When armed citizens dared openly carry, they told gun owners to pound sand and had a mom arrested.

Now, we are depending on the judiciary to do the right thing and respect the law. Will they? We don’t know. If California and the Ninth Circuit are any indication, gun owners and armed citizens cannot expect the courts to bail us out every time.

Legislation is no bulwark either. A Democrat trifecta (governor and both houses of the legislature) can wipe preemption off the books, all in the name of “doing something” about gun crime. In the wake of October 1’s Mandalay Bay shooting combined with the manufactured post-Parkland hysteria every weak-kneed Republican and Democrat sucking at the liberal machine’s teat will fall all over themselves to “do something.” For a lawmaker, that means making new crimes and repealing past protections.

Democrats want to take away state preemption. Yvanna Cancela has requested a bill to that effect, probably because Las Vegas and Clark County couldn’t pass a pointlessly symbolic ban of bump fire stocks. And they wouldn’t stop at mere symbolism either; despite harsh penalties, Leon County, Florida, passed it’s own local gun ordinance.

We need to take the offensive. Let’s hit back and make preemption stronger. Put the law-breaking politicians in jail and keep them out of public office forever. Make them too terrified to even propose this stuff. Not only do the statutes need to be amended (or better yet, compiled into a single statute to remove ambiguities) that preemption applies to all government entities, we need to increase the penalties.

Prosecutorial discretion needs to be strictly limited. Hoplopathic statists like DA Wolfson would never prosecute a violation of preemption. Instead, men like him and his predecessor would jump through hoops (as the last Clark County DA and Attorney General) did to justify local infringements. I propose:

  • Willful or knowing violations of preemption is a gross misdemeanor;
  • A conviction or guilty plea results in disqualification from public office forever;
  • And the DA must refer to the grand jury if the DA doesn’t indict.

Long term, let’s amend the constitution to include preemption as in New Mexico. The process will be longer and more difficult, but it will be just as difficult to undo. As things stand now, a perfect storm of gutless or morally bankrupt politicians can rush bills through as Florida did. Surely a gang of Democrats will gut Nevada’s protections next year, given the chance.

Without Adam Laxalt as governor, we stand no chance. A Republican majority in the Legislature gives us hope, but is no guarantee. Nevada turns bluer every day as ill-informed Californians evacuate east and illegal immigration and illegal voting continues unabated. Chaos and civil war is only a matter of time; the Democrats and forces of darkness want you disarmed.
The sober warning that hoplopathic politicians need to remember is that when you have disenfranchised conservatives, ruined them economically, and subjected them to crime and violence, this pseudo-minority will be desperate. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. Our nation was founded precisely because Parliament and King George utterly ignored the wishes of the colonies and reduced them to desperation. When you’ve taken away from the people the soap box and the ballot box, only the cartridge box is left.

Sunday, April 1, 2018

Ammo Found at Easter Egg Hunt

According to a post on Facebook made early Saturday afternoon, Henderson mom, Kari Campbell made a disturbing discovery during an Easter egg hunt. Apparently, some prankster put pistol cartridges, pro-2A patches, and NRA stickers in Easter eggs and hid them in the tall grass of the neighborhood park. By now, the original post must must have been scrubbed (based on the anti vs. pro gun debate raging in the post comments), but we’ve preserved it in all its hysterical glory.

Looks like either 9mm or .380 ACP, what do you think?

The theme of the complaints, other than kids might have eaten the rounds (not likely), was your typical mad-mom non-sense about “common sense” gun confiscation, March for Our Lives was last week, etc. One lady got shouted down for suggesting that there were only three or four such eggs and no one got hurt, considering the parents were following along with their children as they picked up the eggs.

Lavonia Desimone said on Facebook “This is the kinda stuff you find in the ghetto, not in a nice neighborhood like this.”

Spokeswoman Renee Banks said “Cadence has strict policies prohibiting firearms in its community parks. Both open and conceal [sic] carry firearms are prohibited. We certainly don’t support leaving ammunition and hateful material in a park. This was a fun event, meant for the enjoyment of children, and was not intended to be a venue for a mean-spirited, political prank.”

Henderson police investigated and booked the ammo, eggs, and the other stuff as evidence. They told Campbell that since no one got hurt, it was unlikely any laws were violated. She didn’t take it well.

Well, you magnificent bastards who did this, I salute you. Happy Easter!

More photos at the new blog.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Response to CCSD's Exam of Gun Permission Policy

Though it is late in coming, we welcome CCSD’s policy examination of allowing willing participants to carry handguns on campus and dramatically reduce the risk of mass shootings. We sincerely hope that they will adopt a sensible, well-thought out, practical policy that is as inclusive of as many teachers, staff members, and parents as possible.

We do note a tone of trepidation and fear in the memo. Administrators have nothing to fear from people who willingly seek to protect themselves and others at schools. Concealed carriers are among the most law abiding segment of the population. Firearm accidents by concealed carriers at schools are extraordinarily rare.

A reasonable interpretation of state firearm preemption laws, NRS 202.265 (school firearms ban), and public employer law would conclude that schools have the ability to dictate guidelines to its principals and staff regarding carry on school ground. NRS 386.360, dating from AB 346 of 1989 which created the first school gun ban, required trustees to set rules granting permission to carry firearms on campus. It is unclear if any ever did that, however, this law was repealed and no longer exists. What is clear is that no reasonable interpretation of the law allows conditions to be set upon non-employees carrying on campus, other than permission is required.

The memo raises several concerns. Here are our responses:

Types of weapons: concealable handguns should not be restricted in any manner. Rifles and shotguns would require secure storage and are not practical for all but police officers or dedicated security officers to possess.

Schools have no business dictating what type of handgun, caliber, cartridge, etc. should be allowed other than the firearm can be completely concealed. Some may feel comfortable with just a .22 Magnum revolver, which would be better than nothing.

Background checks: A valid concealed firearm permit and standard hiring background check would be sufficient. Pre-carry background checks cannot identify ill-intent of anyone. For instance, there is no background check that can detect if a teacher is trying to sleep with his or her students.

Training: Any additional training should be tactics and skill based. If legislators (in particular) or local officials want to add on additional training requirements, the curriculum should be uniform and practical. For instance, marksmanship requirements and an action-style shoot. Example:

Grouping of six inches or less at 25 yards
Shoot the head of a hostage-type target at 10 yards (length of a class room)
Fire/don’t fire exercise using simulator or live-action exercise

Such criteria could be the responsibility of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, as the CFP and instructor criteria is, or DPS. This way, it is uniform across the state and something that can help reduce the fears that people might have that a poor shooter might hit an innocent student instead of the bad guy. Certainly prior law enforcement experience or being a veteran should not be a requirement to carry.

Open carry vs. concealed carry: Teachers openly carrying is not a good idea. Concealed firearm permittees should be permitted to carry concealed on campus. However, future legislative changes should remove restrictions for any parent or other authorized person on campus from carrying any way they wish. Employer restrictions on teachers, staff, and volunteers should be the only restrictions on mode of carry.

Liability: Individuals should assume the risk if they carry and misuse a firearm on campus. Individuals misdeeds should remain the problem of the individual. Future legislative changes can address liability better. In the short term, the state policy should be looked to as an example.

A few items of note. First, the “teacher” who negligently discharged a firearm is also a reserve police officer, a detail that gets buried in most stories. He should have known better to draw a firearm at all. This man should be fired from both teaching and policing and arrested for unlawful discharge of a firearm and potentially child endangerment. Not every qualification and precaution will ensure safety, but the very small risk is worth the benefit.

Second, the other teacher that went nuts in his classroom could happen anywhere. A teacher committing a violent, criminal act on campus is no different than a teacher that molests a student. The act is the responsibility of the criminal, ensuring the district had no way of knowing of criminal proclivities beforehand. Financial liabilities for accidents and criminal misuse pale in comparison to the priceless cost of human lives.

Guns in the hands of good guys save lives. We cannot afford to continue throwing up arbitrary barriers to allowing willing participants to stop mass murderers. Nevada needs to drastically amend NRS 202.265 to allow parents, teachers, and college students to defend their lives with the most effective means possible.

Practical Suggestions for Ending Teacher Disarmament

School districts in Nevada are talking about arming teachers. Most people who are opposed to concealed carry in schools are mostly concerned about the potential side-effects. What if a student disarms the teacher? What if the teacher fumbles the gun and negligently discharges? What if the teacher is a bad shot and wounds a bystander? The rest are simply vehement hoplopaths and don’t deserve a seat at the table; this goes for teachers’ unions, which are firmly entrenched in the tail-chasing sniff circle.

All too often, schools, colleges, and universities refuse to exercise their discretion in allowing responsible people to carry guns purely out of fear. No administrator wants to lose their job or cost their institution money. The time has passed for us to sacrifice our students’ lives over such petty fears as careers and budgets. We must implement the one practical solution that does hold promise; good guys with guns.

First, no one is talking about mandating all teachers carry guns. That is hype meant to discredit the idea of ending the long prohibition of letting teachers, parents, and staff fight back with the most effective means of doing so. For 29 years, teachers, professors, staff, college students, and parents have been disarmed because Clark County wanted a law to arrest gang members who brought guns on campus. Since very few Americans carried regularly at that time, no one thought to exclude law abiding adults from the ban.

After many tragedies, we are finally waking up to the reality that we must have people on campus who can fight back with guns; unfortunately, police cannot always be there and cannot be guaranteed to enter the fray. An armed teacher or parent can be in the thick of it and do some good. It would cost schools very little to simply stop objecting to campus carry laws or refusing permission to carry on campus.

Liability is probably the number one concern for administrators who might otherwise grant permission. Unfortunately, money and personal consequences override the safety of students. Its financially and career-wise safer to say “no guns” than to say yes.

Financially, school districts or the state should suck it up; even in Nevada, we give enough money to education that even if there were an increase in premium, it’s worth it to avert a mass killing. What would really be nice is for insurers to realize that risk isn’t going up and just leave premiums alone, but asking bean counters for this is like asking a personal injury attorney to get an honest job.

State law ought to require that insurers not use armed staff and parents as a basis for premium rating. If the legislature wants, they can really make life miserable for insurance companies. Second, for self-insured schools, absolve them of any liability by statute. Any misdeed by an armed teacher, staff member, or a parents is the individual’s problem. Money saved and one excuse gone.

Finally, solid decision making guidelines need to be set forth. Ideally, a simple change in law allowing concealed carry on campuses without prior approval would be the law. End of story, no one needs permission, so an administrator nervous about losing his job won’t be able to use that as an excuse to deny permission to carry. If we cannot get a simple bill passed, a bill should specify the exact conditions, as few as possible, to be satisfied and grant authority.

Discretion should be strictly limited. Have a concealed firearm permit? Meet any extra criteria? Permission is guaranteed under the law or shall-be given. The flaw in Florida’s new law is that it requires both school and sheriff’s permission; one or both can sink the ship. Anti-gun administrators or politicians can easily quash requests to carry. Children’s lives should not be at risk because a principal wants to virtue signal or is empty-headed about safety.

Secrecy needs to be paramount, and not just so would-be killers don’t know to target who first. Parents, teachers, and staff who have permission to carry should have their information shielded. This may need to be a part of state law. The current vague standards in place for K-12 schools allows a principal to grant permission in the form of a letter, a single copy, to the person, while retaining that information in their mind.

That would not be subject to a public records request. As we have seen in the past, unscrupulous reporters have created CCW databases. Democrat operatives or Everytown employees could do the same to shame teachers or administrators. One fear of administrators, from the colleges down, is that if they grant permission, they will be exposed ridiculed, disciplined, or even fired. We have to alleviate that concern.

As a side note, all “blue card” handgun registration information was public information. Until the database was destroyed, anyone could have requested specifics on what hands guns anyone in Clark County owned, including police.

Any additional training should be tactics and skill based. If legislators (in particular) or local officials want to add on additional training requirements, the curriculum should be uniform and practical. For instance, marksmanship requirements and an action-style shoot. Example:

Grouping of six inches or less at 25 yards
Shoot the head of a hostage-type target at 10 yards (length of a class room)
Fire/don’t fire exercise using simulator or live-action exercise

Such criteria could be the responsibility of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, as the CFP and instructor criteria is, or DPS. This way, it is uniform across the state and something that can help reduce the fears that people might have that a poor shooter might hit an innocent student instead of the bad guy. Certainly prior law enforcement experience or being a veteran should not be a requirement to carry.

We cannot let misplaced feelings and ideas about guns and the law-abiding people who carry them stand in the way of our children’s safety any longer. Fear is not an acceptable excuse for taking no action to allow adults to carry at schools. Nor can we let a hodgepodge and subjective system for allowing teachers to defend themselves limit that right. Let no anti-gun organization masquerading as a gun safety group tell us our children are better off undefended.

Friday, March 16, 2018

Long Gun Protests Don't Do What You Think They Do

Long gun protests are counter-productive because they antagonize through an implied threat of violence, whether the threat is intended or imagined. In most cases, adding long guns to protests against gun control is nothing more than flamboyant punctuation of our indignation. The media’s fake moral outrage and the public angst over spree killings manifested against guns has rightly fired up most gun owners. With the NRA, GOP, and Trump turning their backs on us, it feels like no one is fighting for the one right that protects them all. The gains of the past two decades seem to be slipping away through our fingers.

​All of us are angry. Righteous indignation can produce a lot of good results, but blindly reacting to these protests in haste is only destructive to our side. Sometimes, it’s easy to feel as if a sufficient quantity of moral indignation will sway the arguments and undecided minds in our favor. It is satisfying to proclaim to the world that we will defend our right to bear arms with our lives, if necessary. We can show the misguided and deceptive that we feel as vehemently over our side of the debate as they do, but willing to make the final sacrifice for liberty’s greater good. But we’re preaching to the choir.
Implied by the long guns in our rallies is the very fact we will resist gun confiscation by force. Demonstrations of resolve work to wear down an opponent who is unwilling or unable to overcome the resistance the other poses. It’s usually non-violent and political in nature, something the anti-gunners are winning at. The mushy hearts and minds unable to fathom defending themselves against tyrant or teen killer are scared by angry men with guns.

Facing off with long guns against deluded and na├»ve gun control supporters is counter-productive because it subconsciously sends the message “We’ll kill you too.” These hoplophobes and hoplopaths take the implied threat personally. Media and the gun control apparatus exploits the imagery of AR-15s, Gadsden flags, and “come and take it” signs as support for their argument that gun owners are dangerous. The ignorant and ill-informed take away that impression because it is an overreaction to what is nothing more than the misguided expression of grief, fear, and a desire to end senseless violence.
We are seen as unreasonable; these children are protesting for their safety, and we’re showing up with rifles? We must remember the people in the middle aren’t aware of what’s behind these astroturf protests and walk-outs. They are unable to see the connection of exploitation of the tragedy to push “assault weapon” bans and more. By standing off across from the with rifles, we become the threat to them. Like it or not, the weapons that have been demonized are seen as not a guarantee of freedom, but tools threatening death to them.

From time to time, long gun carrying groups hold open carry protests outside of state legislatures or local government offices, usually in response to gun control measures. The implication in these protests is that the rifles the participants are shouldering could easily be turned against legislators. The message is: “If you try to take away our guns, we will resist you and kill you with these very guns.” It is a subtle and indirect threat that the ultimate power of the people, as our forefathers exercised and intended to preserve for us, is to resist and remove an abusive government.

For gun owners, long gun protests only work if the other side can be persuaded by what is essentially an implied threat of armed violence—usually the government. The sheep holding signs and wearing orange don’t see a message of resolve the same way a politician in the statehouse sees hundreds or thousands of armed citizens on the lawn. Legislators know they can be voted out or worse, should they ignore the will of the people. For moms, students, and snowflakes, long gun counter-protests don’t persuade, they polarize the same way someone asking to have a conversation about “common sense gun laws” polarizes us.

Both groups at these events are like a married couple yelling at each other over their relationship. The messages being sent to the other side are contradictory and totally ignore what the other side is trying to say. What goes ignored is the subconscious reasons both sides are there; anti-gunners expressing moral outrage over violence (directed towards guns) and gun owners expressing their opposition to more gun control. It’s an exercise in satisfying the need to act out loud and in public to express inner turmoil—sometimes it feels good to tell the other guy off. But neither group is listening to each other.

Two messages are being sent and neither is on the same wavelength. “Do something about all this violence,” often manifested as “more gun control, now!” because politicians and the media portray guns as the sole cause and solution of mass killings. Gun owners are saying “We resist you and your support/proposal for more gun control!” with the unstated insinuation being “…by violence, if necessary.”

I’m against the idea of any sort of counter-protest now. Why validate the other side (in their own minds) at all? By showing up to their usually underwhelming victim-disarmament celebrations, we send the message that they’re getting under our skin or that they must be doing something right if those gun nuts show up. We have to stop reacting to them and make them react to us. Gun owners have to get out of the feel-good mindset of counter-protesting and hitting the enemy in ways they don’t expect and can’t counter. For instance, where are the discounts on CCW classes or range time for teachers? We’ve got more than enough vets, servicemen, and cops on our side.

But it worked in Texas! Well it didn’t in California. In Texas, long gun open carry rallies, protests, and walks were generally done to show how idiosyncratic it was that Texas allowed long gun open carry but prohibited unconcealed holstered handguns. The rifles and shotguns had a direct connection to the message being sent; not a superfluous and colorful addition that convinces no one of anything they didn’t already believe.

For the public who was unaware of the debate and before media coverage of the phenomenon was widespread, the sight of men and women carrying, and slinging rifles was startling. Some were alarmed and alienated by behavior, as the intense pressure from groups like Moms Demand Action showed. Negative media coverage harmed open carry in Texas.

Open Carry Texas and similar groups did not win open carry for Texas; licensed open carry was passed in spite of the rifle-toters by the work of extremely dedicated lobbyists who convinced legislators that handgun open carry was not a threat to Texans. If the long gun open carry activists did anything to gain handgun open carry, it was creating a desire to end their silly antics.

Malevolent hoplopaths organizing anti-gun protests and their true believers are the enemy, but the drones duped into the crowd are not fully aware of the consequences of the proposed actions. Children, indoctrinated in public schools, and the poorly informed public are swayed by a biased media that salivates over the photo-op of a lifetime. They see a man with a rifle and see a threat that further alienates them from our side. Their minds will never be changed if gun owners play into the stereotypes that they are fed.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Breaking: 5,000ft Hunting Ban Proposal Origin

Are evil forces trying to drive target shooters deep into the Nevada desert, their two-wheel drive sedans and PreRunners to be stranded, putting money into the pockets of off-road towing companies? No. The Wildlife Commission proposal to ban hunting discharge of firearms within 5,000 feet of residences come from a multitude of complaints about bad hunting behavior and is driven primarily by game wardens’ complaints that they are effectively powerless to do anything about it.

Read the rest at the new blog on the website.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

One mile shooting ban? Take Action!

NDOW wants to ban hunting within 5,000 feet of a residence statewide. Is this a set-up for a target shooting ban?

The Wildlife Commission wants to ban discharge of a firearm within 5,000 feet of a residence while hunting. The NRA-ILA pointed out that this could affect many areas where the act of hunting is safe, but the point of fire is within an arbitrary zone, rather than shooting itself being hazardous. Hunters shooting in a safe direction shouldn’t be subjected to a bureaucrat’s whim.
But I don’t hunt, you might say. If you live in urban Washoe County, you know that you have to be 5,000 from anything to go target shooting. Like many things with guns, it’s not the obvious we have to worry about, but how the law can be abused. What if this is a set-up to creating a new state law governing target shooting?

If this regulation makes it into state law, it’s not unreasonable to expect an anti-gun legislature using this as a basis for a state law for target shooting. “We do it for hunting; why not do it for target shooting?” Assemblyman Ira Hansen said: "NDOW seems to think they are now the Legislature!" Many other legislators are shocked that the commission is going this far.

Nye County doesn’t have any arbitrary restriction. Many common areas in Clark County would be out-of-reach for all but those with 4x4s. Ranges are crowded and expensive as it is. If you’re from Las Vegas, Reno, or California, you know that shooting areas get pushed further and further out as time goes by until it’s a pain to go shooting. Shut down the bureaucrats!

Discharge of firearms needs to be left with local authorities who know their areas best and are more responsive to local residents. We cannot afford to give hoplopaths and anti-hunters an inch. Take action before March 16th!

Nevada Carry has a public records request in to NDOW to find out where this proposal came from.

Saturday, February 24, 2018

It's Beyond Time for Campus Carry

Arm all teachers? The idea sounds insane when your kid’s elementary school teacher can’t back out of her driveway without knocking over the garbage cans. No one is seriously suggesting that. What is being suggested is that we stop making it illegal for those teachers (and parents) to carry concealed at schools. We allow teachers to shoot back rather than die helplessly.

Nevada’s school gun ban was created because of armed students, generally gang members, not teachers. Teachers, staff, parents, and college students were never a problem. In fact, in 1989, school shootings were an unheard of as a phenomenon. Self-defense carry was at an all-time low among Americans. We don’t live in those times any more.

What we need to do is ultimately repeal the prohibition for adult college students, parents, teachers, and staff to carry handguns on campus. If schools and districts wish, they can require additional training beyond the concealed firearm permit course, such as regular qualification, for teachers and staff who will carry regularly. That way, only proficient shooters who are able and willing to engage the shooter without unnecessarily threatening students.

Contrary to the assumption of many, no one is seriously suggesting using teachers as a counter assault force.Armed teachers can
  • Barricade themselves in the classroom, then kill the shooter as he tries to come in the door.
  • “Pop out” of a classroom or hiding place and ambush the shooter as he comes around the corner or into the room.
  • Return fire if confronted by the shooter while evacuating.

Coach Aaron Feis, who was also a concealed carrier (off-campus of course), shielded two students with his body. He should have been allowed to carry and shoot back. We’ve heard the stories of brave, unarmed people saving lives by sacrificing theirs too many times. Allowing schools to remain gun-free zones is tantamount to sanctioning these murders. If there were an epidemic of school fires, would anyone seriously consider opposing fire safety reforms?

What can I do?

Teachers, if you have a good relationship with your principal and you know they may be receptive to such a thing, have a discussion about getting written permission from your principal to carry a concealed handgun on campus. You must have a permit, of course, but this will allow you to legally do so. The risk is that virtually no district will allow this and will immediately discipline, likely terminate, both of you. However, getting fired is better than death.

What the permission slip will do is prevent prosecution if you are found out or have to use the gun. One Nevada principal allergy gave permission to a staff member to carry on campus. The principal denied it, of course, calling the “note” a forgery. The news story seems to have gone down the memory hole, but a few of you can probably recall reading about it. No doubt—as several people have told me—principals across the state are already giving secret permission. God bless them and keep it up.

On a larger scale, continue to talk to your administrators and trustees about changing school policy to allow teachers, staff, and parents to be armed on campus. Policies can be simple enough to allow permittees to leave the gun in their locked vehicle; at least it’s something and would keep concealed carry parents from being prosecuted for driving through the parking lot.

Parents, I encourage you to talk to and write your principals and trustees. If you have a good relationship with principals, ask for permission to carry, even if only in your car in the parking lot. Help them understand the issue and help change their minds. Vote for campus carry friendly candidates.

College students, you can apply for campus carry now. Though permission is rarely granted, by applying you are at least helping to show that there is demand for it. When everyone is told “don’t bother, they never grant permission,” it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We’ve created a helpful application packet to make the process easier (see the blog post as well). Be sure to talk to your campus presidents, administrators, and trustees. Don’t forget your fellow students—take a classmate shooting.

We have to do something to save lives and those things are not the same, tired gun control talking points that are about disarmament. It’s time to channel our energy into pressuring political changes and helping educating teachers, administrators, and the public on the reality about concealed carriers. 

Friday, February 23, 2018

Active Duty Military and Non-Resident CCWs

If you are active duty military, do you need a Nevada issued concealed firearm permit? Exactly when do you become a resident of Nevada for the purposes of needing concealed carry? The regulations, NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, don’t offer any guidance, so we have to look at other Nevada statutes and case law. The only easy answer to this one isn't what you may have hoped for.

Many wonder if they can carry on their “home” state permit while stationed in Nevada. Sometimes, they even have a Nevada driver’s license. Normally, new residents have 60 days to convert an out-of-state permit to a Nevada permit…by taking the class and applying from scratch.

This question often comes up when a serviceman or woman (or their spouses) wonder if they need to replace their out-of-state permit with a Nevada permit when they (or their spouse) is stationed here. First, temporary duty (TDY) wouldn’t count, but a permanent change of station (PCS) would. We’re not going to debate car registration, voting, and driver’s licenses, but rather, we’re going to look at what could get someone in trouble for carrying concealed.

Nevada offers one permit to both residents and non-residents, so don’t think there are two classes. Non-residents just get to apply to any sheriff in the state, which usually means Clark County.

Legal Residence 
NRS 10.155 states: “Unless otherwise provided by specific statute, the legal residence of a person with reference to ... any other right dependent on residence, is that place where the person has been physically present within the State or county, as the case may be, during all of the period for which residence is claimed by the person.”

In regards to drivers’ licenses NRS 482.103, living in Nevada and having a job (the military) in Nevada would seem to qualify one as a resident. 
“1.  ’Resident’ includes, but is not limited to, a person:
(a) Whose legal residence [see above] is in the State of Nevada.
(c) Who physically resides in this State and engages in a trade, profession, occupation or accepts gainful employment in this State.” 
So if you qualify for a driver’s license, then you probably qualify as resident under NRS 202.3657 and you need a Nevada concealed firearm permit.

Clear Counsel Law summarized the finding of Aldabe v. Aldabe:  
"the Court found that evidence of 'mailing address, voting registration, school attendance, medical care, business and financial affairs, auto and operators’ licenses, taxes, wills, and employment”' all in Nevada as well as a 'declared intention of Nevada residence and performed continuous daily activities in Nevada' supported a finding that a person was a Nevada resident. 
50 U.S. Code Chapter 50, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, doesn’t really help. A legal brief from Creech Air Force base does rely on the military domicile concept (basically tax/voting purposes). What is essentially says (regarding driver licenses) is that if you are claiming Nevada as your residence for tax benefits on your paycheck, then you are a Nevada resident.

This area is a quagmire. Even the Creech brief says “maybe” in answers. Like the Gun Free School Zones debacle, it’s a gray area. So what’s the brass tacks bottom line?

If you are in Nevada and own a house or have a driver’s license, get a Nevada permit. That's the easy answer. If you get are detained and found to be carrying concealed, chances are the officer may not understand half of this. You may have some explaining to do if the officer questions why you have a Nevada DL but an Idaho CCW. A cop might let you go because whatever you did wasn’t that bad and they’re giving you professional courtesy for being in the service. Or they might be a vet and inter-service rivalry rears its ugly head. But as always, officer and prosecutorial discretion is not a plan.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Angry About All the NRA/Trump/GOP Tough Talk?

Let’s talk about divisiveness. I’ve taken heat from some people who are upset that I am criticizing President Trump, the Republicans, and the NRA for their stance and behavior on gun control lately. Myself and quite a few other Americans are displeased by the NRA’s and the GOP’s willingness to entertain and put forth what amount to gun control proposals. I have even been to the point of crassness to express my extreme displeasure and hope that hyperbole gets some people’s attention.

I do not believe that the NRA is working in our best interest. I do not believe that President Trump or the Republicans understand the issue of gun rights. Combined with intense media pressure and tactics from the Left, the NRA and Trump will give in to anti-gun demands in order to appear “reasonable.” As a result, this behavior will lead to the tide shifting towards ever increasing gun control as the Left wins victories and the will to fight on the Right subsides.

If we were not in danger, we would see the NRA, Republicans, and Trump standing firm on gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity would have passed and no one would be entertaining a pointless bump fire ban. American support for gun rights is at an all-time high. Republicans control Congress (narrowly). Yet despite all this, concessions are being made all with the NRA’s blessing. The cuts being made to liberty are shallow, but they will inevitably lead to infection.

I am tired of infringements without winning any benefits. “Negotiating” when what is nearest and dearest to your heart is being threatened is not “negotiating”; it’s begging. Insulting the sacred cows of the Party, the NRA, or the President insults the angry gun owners because it suggests that they might be wrong. No one wants to bet on the wrong horse or believe that they put their hope and faith in the wrong entities. It’s frightening to believe that those who claim to be watching out for you, aren’t.

If you are offended by my opinion of Trump, the NRA, or the Republicans, I accuse you of being ignorant of history and human nature. You are too thin-skinned and unwilling to think critically on this topic. You are comfortable deceiving yourself into thinking infringements and capitulation to the Left is somehow protecting you from worse. You do no understand the issue. You do not “get it.” I’m sorry for you. It hurts to see someone that you trusted betray you. I get it, but don’t go into cognitive disassociation because coming to terms with a frightening reality (and future) will cause you more pain.

Some times we have to throw off our cherished thing in order to move forward once it has failed us. The Founding Fathers really did not want to stop being Englishmen, but they had no choice. We cannot live in denial any longer. Living in denial and ignoring what can no longer be ignored will only cost us our last chance of turning around the ship of state. Our rights are being chipped away, one by one, with the NRA and our political leadership helping suggest those that “people don’t care about” to be sacrificed first.

Now, if you choose to disagree, please do so after careful and critical thought. Please explain to me, in detail and with evidence, why you think what is transpiring in Washington is political mastery. Tell me why we should give something up with nothing in return. Think logically and rationally, don’t blindly rush to the defense of some person or organization. So I’m happy if you’re offended; maybe it’ll get you to reflect on why.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

He Who Panics First, Panics Best

What we are facing in the Great Bump Stock is a war of attrition. In a war of attrition, each side is doing their best to wear down the other side because he who gives in last, wins. After repeated tragedies, Republicans, gun owners, and conservative thinkers are giving in. Unable to defend their beliefs to even themselves, they have become susceptible to the slow, grinding tactics of the “Do Something!” crowd calling for meaningless gun control.

Without having fully tried the pro-gun solutions (armed teachers, staff, and parents in schools) or properly treating the epidemic of mental illness, too many gun owners are starting to wonder if the hoplopaths (gun haters) are right. The tone has changed. Without any counter-balance explaining the pro-gun position, these supposedly “reasonable” folks succumb unconsciously to a form of peer pressure.

Yes, Trump’s bump fire memo is something to worry about. His vague statements have become fact. He has been worn down into “doing something.” He has given the ATF the cover it needs to ban bump fire. Leading by example, the President has shown the public that compromise is okay and by answering the question in the public’s mind as to whether or not the people of the gun should begin giving rights away.

Make no doubt about it, we are headed for a gun control disaster in the near future. Public opinion is shifting away from the staunch “come and take it” attitude under Obama. Today, it is bump fire stocks. Tomorrow, it will be something else. What is happening is that media and social pressure, combined with the NRA’s stance and Republican rhetoric, is signaling to the public that it is time to become more “reasonable” about guns.

Steadfast belief in a conflicting opinion creates psychological tension that only inner conviction can overcome. Without close-held beliefs or detailed knowledge about the contrarian position, the mental conflict between self and society is best resolved by changing one’s opinions. This quiets the inner voice that is asking “Why do you believe X when everyone else believes Y?”

Two other major issues of our time went from “unthinkable” to permissible. If everyone else says gay marriage or marijuana isn’t a big deal, then why should anyone else think differently? Uncritical thinkers and uncurious minds don’t seek out reasons to defend their beliefs because those beliefs are ultimately based on public opinion. They are going along with the flow. But as the public opinion shifts, an ideologically ungrounded person will be pulled and finally shift with the tide.

What we are witnessing is the slow wearing down of gun-receptive public into accepting gun control. Media and hoplopathic (antigun) forces are actively encouraging this via propaganda. Sadly, those who are less susceptible to television brainwashing are being victimized by their reflexive need to mentally “fit in.” Neutral parties can only hold out so long without being pulled one way or the other and the AR-haters are louder.

Unfortunately, Republicans are being worn down as well. A president who truly grasped the slippery slope of appearing “reasonable” on gun control would never have asked the DOJ to essentially propose a bump fire ban. Under congressional and media pressure, the President’s memo, with the NRA’s blessing, amounts to a green light to ban bump fire stocks with political cover.

Many stalwart Trump defenders are saying that this is just a stratagem to appear like he is taking action. It is just that, but with the added danger that he doesn’t care if bump fire stocks are actually banned. If bump fire stocks aren’t banned, we can call it “masterful, 3D political chess.” If they are banned, apologists will excuse it as being necessary to save the rest. Excuses will be made because bump fire isn’t something that most gun owners care about.

Uncritical thinkers, gun owners included, don’t want to admit that their great orange hope isn’t their savior, but just another politician willing to do what is politically expedient. Donald Trump is not a man of deeply-held convictions; rather, he is a negotiator willing to compromise because closing a deal defines success, even if it is ultimately a losing deal. Temporarily mollifying the “do something” crowd with a sacrificial win gives Trump the illusion of success.  

The sacrificial lambs could be offered up to the gaping maw of the starving gun control demon. That demon is always hungry and is always calling for more. As these horrible acts of violence continue, the calls will grow more intense. Compromises and acquiescence to anti-gun bills will snowball, making it easier and easier each time for unprincipled politicians to do what is popular, not what is right.

Fudds who will give up bump fire stocks to make the controversy go away are too ignorant and cowardly to stand on principal. They are perpetuating an “eat me last” philosophy that feeding the monster will make it less hungry; no—throwing meat to the monster only gives it a taste for blood. If the public abandons the gun, then the politicians don’t need to support it. And as compromise becomes the norm, it becomes easier and easier each time to mentally justify giving in to compromise so one does not feel uncomfortable as a contrarian outlier.

Gun owners are getting scared and giving in. In the face of persecution, they are abandoning the faith. Like the boastful St. Peter who said he would never denounce Christ, by dawn, these folks with “molon labe” stickers on their pickup truck will betray the Second Amendment three times. If a mere fun accessory is being thrown under the bus, what will gun owners do when persecution begins? Will they stand firm when the ATF is kicking down doors, or will they meekly hand over their guns and criticize those who resist by force as making hunters look bad?

Think I'm nuts about the tone changing? The calls for "common sense gun safety" is being replaced by "repeal the Second Amendment." The rabid hoplopaths are the ones calling to do away with the right to keep and bear arms, but just as every major gun-hater jumped on the Everytown "gun safety" bandwagon, repealing the Second Amendment will be more commonplace until it seems reasonable. 

The high tide of gun rights is beginning to go out. The wheat is being separated from the chaff. Over time, as tragedies continue and we focus on guns rather than a sick society and broken people, more and more restrictions will we face. Stock up now. He who panics first panics best. 

Saturday, February 10, 2018

What the Left Will Target in 2019?

Clark County's other "newspaper"
The raging dumpster fire that is the Las Vegas Sun is Southern Nevada’s progressive mouthpiece shouting out orders to the leftists of East California. They blatantly run propaganda pieces that announce what the Democratic machine and Gun Control Inc. are going to be pursuing in the next legislative session. Rest assured, the future of gun freedom in Nevada hinges on this election. Marching orders have been delivered in the open: 
“Although it’s highly unlikely that any action to curtail the NRA and gun manufacturers will happen at the federal and congressional level in the near future, Nevada lawmakers need to be ready with a package of gun-safety legislation during the 2019 session.” (source; don’t click)
 “So law enforcement and security officers need our help in fighting for reasonable gun control measures. These would include a ban on bump stocks and high-capacity magazines, as well as expanded background checks for gun purchases.” (source, don’t click)
 I’d bet money that someone with Bloomberg wrote this or at least directed the copy. Can we get a sportsbook to start a line? Let’s take a look at what this liberal rag has announced as the plan of attack: 
  • Standard capacity magazines
  • Preemption
  • Universal background checks (Question 1)
  • Concealed carry reciprocity
  • Bump fire stocks
  • Tracers

 They hate the fact that liberal city councils and county commissions (Reno, Las Vegas, Clark and Washoe Counties), can’t make emotion-based ordinances to infringe on the Second Amendment. In their world, things would start with banning private sales at the local level, banning 10+ capacity magazines, bump fire stocks, tracers, and probably a return to Reno-like bans on carry. Liberal hypocrites could knee jerk and signal virtue to their heart’s content.

We’ve already seen the miserable excuse for a sheriff, “Scummy” Joe Lombardo shill for magazine capacity bans and that was before that nutjob Paddock decided to enter the asshole hall of fame. This week, the literally-dying Sun decried tracers, which weren’t actually used to attack the crowd (and the jury is out on whether or not he actually tried to explode the fuel tanks). Pro-tip: tracers are for machine guns to make your shooting more accurate and psyche out your enemy.

I don’t defend tracers on the level of fun. I can’t afford a machine gun and I don’t shoot at night. Tracers to me are to mark the last three rounds of a magazine. For those of us who can own a machine gun, it’s your right to own that to resist an oppressive government. That is the bit that scares progressive hoplopaths.

The only solution is to vote Republican across the ticket in 2018. Hold your nose, turn out on Nov. 6, and do it. Keep Nevada from turning into California. With Adam Laxalt as governor, we can hopefully withstand another four years. We'll need them to prep for what's coming.

Monday, January 22, 2018

The NRA are a Bunch of Loser Cucks

In the dark days of December 2012, following the Sandy Hook school massacre, Wayne LaPierre told the media that the NRA wanted to offer “meaningful contributions” to school safety. The mainstream media salivated like dogs, expecting LaPierre to finally get on board with draconian gun control. Instead, he said that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. The NRA proposed armed guards in school and Congressional funding for armed school police officers.

The media was overwhelmed and mocked the suggestion. Congress instead pushed forward with a slate of gun control bills, including the Manchin-Toomey bill that the NRA actually helped write behind the scenes. Miraculously, none of the gun control went forward. Americans had already come to the conclusion that gun control was the problem. From then on, campus carry was the hot issue; allowing teachers, parents, and college students to shoot back.

The NRA had it’s hand in every major gun control defeat in 100 years. In the 1930s, they compromised on the National Firearms Act to save pistols, which they did, but gave up everything else. There was no organization to send an attorney to represent gun owners in the Miller case. From then on, and especially in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban, the NRA compromised.

Now the NRA and its defenders would argue this was to save something; staunch opposition with no give would have resulted in worse. Instead, the NRA basically gave up its second-best looking daughter to the marauding band so it could keep the number one daughter unmolested. Today, the NRA was so afraid of machine guns being banned and more bad legislation (AWB, mag restrictions, etc.) in the wake of the October 1 attack that they sold bump fire up the river.

No, the NRA isn’t playing some grand game of strategic, 3D chess. They are doing what they have always done; compromise and lose. Being tone-deaf to the American public and their members, the NRA instead listened to the whining of the Bloomberg-ites, the media, and wishy-washy anti-gun politicians. All of the above hates the NRA; nothing will change that. Throwing bump fire to the wolves was not a delaying tactic to save the family, it was giving the wolves an appetizer.

The NRA opposed the landmark Heller case that affirmed the Second Amendment applies outside the home; not because they disagreed with their ideals, but because they were afraid that a negative Heller decision—the opposite of what we got—would eliminate the right to carry. They were afraid of losing. People might argue about strategy and risk, but you’ll never win the Superbowl if you don’t show up in Minneapolis.

The NRA is like a beaten down dog that keeps licking Master’s hand, hoping that Master will stop beating and kicking it. When you’ve been on the defensive for nearly a century, you don’t know what victory is anymore. All you know is compromise and loss. So like a cuckhold husband who feels “empowered” watching another man sleep with his wife, the NRA is a willing accomplice to the gun control agenda.

When the NRA is weak, it gives spineless politicians political cover. Countless politicians have parroted the NRA’s line about bump fire stocks instead of saying “Shall not be infringed.” Now is precisely the time to get loud, get angry, and absolutely humiliate and shame the Democrats and the Bloomberg Kool-Aid drinkers for lumping millions of gun owners in the same boat with that perverted SOB Paddock. Rather than standing firm and proud with “four million” members and a bunch more behind them, the NRA cowers, begs, and pleads. “Take my daughters, but don’t hurt me! No, my wife doesn’t cheat on me; other men are just a fetish we have.”

If the NRA is full of such cowards at a time when support for gun rights is at its highest in modern times, what will they do when we have a hostile president and Congress? It’s almost as if they are afraid that the Second Amendment will have to be used for its intended purpose. When that day comes, you can bet the bunch from Reston won’t be in the lead.

Friday, January 12, 2018

No, the Emails Don't Mean Paddock Was an Arms Dealer

Certain backchannels of the Internet are abuzz with rumors that the October 1 murderer was an illegal arms dealer. Awkwardly phrased emails in a recently released search warrant application are what they claim as support. There is no reasonable evidence to support this assertion. It is a fantasy of the small minded.

Ideas are often accepted because they appeal to a pre-existing cognitive bias; a person prefers a certain explanation because it either does not conflict with, or confirms, his or her world view. In this case, someone deeply suspicious of government and police rejects explanations that this was a random or near-random act of terror. To them, in this theory, Paddock was an illegal arms dealer selling weapons for the CIA (or whoever) and was assassinated because he threatened to leak the scheme or was killed when the weapons sale went bad.

These emails, phrased as sales or advertising copy, are the theorists evidence. You have to be stupid or willingly ignorant to believe that these are nefarious, covert messages to an underground customer or middleman.

The emails, from the warrant application: sent: “try an ar before u buy. we have a huge selection. located in the las vegas area.” sent back: “we have a wide variety of optics and ammunition to try.” sent back: “for a thrill try out bumpfire ar’s with a 100 round magazine.”

It’s fairly obvious that Paddock was emailing himself. The “central park” address theme is consistent. The syntax in the messages is consistent. The content of the messages are consistent. But what was the purpose of the emails?

Paddock may have been making notes for himself, disguising their origin and purpose with their odd phrasing. He may have imagined that this would throw off any NSA algorithms scanning emails for keywords.

He may have been sending semi-coded messages to Danley. Playing off the email keyword scanning concern, he may have been saying “Lots of ARs in Las Vegas, where I’m planning to attack. Lots of ammo and optics. Going to use bumpfire rifles and 100 round magazines.” This phrasing is obvious and incriminating, or at least highly suspicious, while the messages as sent just sound odd.

Danley and Paddock may have been communicating with each other, using one or more shared email accounts. You may recall that disgraced (and anti-gun) General Petraeus communicated with his lover to share classified information by using a shared Gmail account where they saved messages to each other as drafts, to avoid any surveillance software picking up sent messages.

Paddock meticulously planned his attack to be as covert as possible, leaving few, if any, traces of his motivation behind. We can only infer what his motives were. One thing is for sure; baseless conspiracy theories mislead us from focusing on the real problems of casino and event security, the abysmal performance of Metro’s SWAT team, and law enforcement’s reluctance to share accurate information.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Armed Man in Lyon County Antagonizes Utilities Staff, Upset at Reaction and Arrest

Lyon County logo
 According to a random guy on YouTube, rural Lyon County is a hotbed of civil rights violations! Just kidding… I wish it were April Fools’.

As the RGJ reported, a Dayton man annoyed county employees at the Dayton Public Utilities by filming video, not answering reasonable questions, and then got upset when someone who had the phone shoved in her face, quite naturally, took the phone he was filming with away from him. Then he threw a fit, got his phone back, hung around the building, and was arrested.

Anthony Passalacqua, a self-described EMT (he also claimed he was in the Army and “was in law enforcement”), was arrested on charges of brandishing and trespassing. Passalacqua apparently was openly carrying a pistol as well, which Sheriff McNeil affirmed to the RGJ was indeed legal.

“First Amendment Auditors,” as these people who make videos call themselves, engage in entering public buildings or public spaces and filming until they are either confronted by police or security, or someone asks them what they are doing. Usually, the “auditor’s” obdurately rude reaction escalates the encounter into what they term a “violation”.

The video is cringeworthy and the comments even worse. After strolling around the parking lot, describing where he is, Passalacqua enters the office.
Anthony Passalacqua, c. Lyon County Sheriff via RGJ

He is fairly quickly questioned as to why he is filming. When met by the officer manager, he immediately goes outside as if he was intimidated. Instead of saying “First Amendment Audit, ma’am,” instead he is defensive, asks his own questions, such as “Who are you that I have to answer to?”, and reiterates essentially “you’re in public, this is a public building,” etc. One of his snarky rejoinders is: “Why don’t you write to Congress and tell them to change the First Amendment?”

Passalacqua called his “audit” a “fail” because someone questioned why he was doing and why. I guess with the bar that low, it makes all the open carry clarification encounters that end in “sorry, you were right,” failures too. Education in pursuit of compliance does not seem to be one of the “auditors’” interests, a marked difference between these YouTubers and gun rights advocates.

Things go pear-shaped when Passalacqua  goes into a second office. Inside, he puts the camera very close to the woman’s face, she pushes the camera away. A natural reaction, I would argue. He claimed, via text on the video, that she was blocking his exit, and immediately screams “Do not touch me!” Only audio of this incident is available and it is important to note that the video was edited. During the “scuffle” Passalacqua screams, “Do not approach me, you are making me in fear for my life.” Note: taking a phone from someone does not constitute a threat to life nor does it meet the definition of “theft.”

Passalacqua also said: “Nevada law says that in the presence of two or more people I’m allowed to defend myself.” That is incorrect. He is misquoting one of the brandishing statutes (which ironically can be construed against Passalacqua). It is, in fact, illegal to cause a disturbance in a public building and given the Passalacqua’s behavior, I would bet a jury would find that he precipitated the entire incident and overreacted to any alleged wrong done to him.

Mike Workman, Utilities Director, came out and ensured the phone is returned within about a minute. Rightly, Workman calls out Passalacqua’s behavior, saying “You can’t treat our staff that way.” Workman had a very valid point. Passalacqua was upset that the staff asked reasonable questions about what he was doing, which Passalacqua refused to answer. That is his right. However, the disconnect is in a total disrespect for civility. These “audits” are about causing trouble, not finding it. Human nature and honest mistakes of law or facts does not constitute tyranny. It would be entirely another thing for staff to get upset if Passalacqua was filming them fudging overtime slips or stuffing petty cash into their pockets.

The rabid anti-government “First Amendment audit” crowd would have you believe that merely asking a question about someone filming in a frankly suspicious manner is a violation of the Constitution. They probably think security asking a guy who set up a camera tripod in the State Museum to take it down for safety reasons is worthy of treason charges. I do not think that office workers, even though they are public employees, should be held to the same standards of calm circumspection as police officers are.

The office manager articulates her concerns as a person—not an employee of the government—but an average human being who has a legitimate concern about her safety. Is this a disgruntled customer, angry over his increased sewer rates, who is going to follow staff home? “Who are you and why are you filming?” is a lawful question. It’s not violation to ask and entirely reasonable to expect a satisfactory explanation.

Normal folks, unware of this person or these “audits” would instinctively be unnerved and think of their safety. Passalacqua could have honestly answered and left it at that. Had Passalacqua stated he was seeing how staff reacted to his filming as part of a “First Amendment audit,” that likely would have been the end of it, aside from raised eyebrows and stifled giggles. But he didn’t.

The only thing I would consider problematic on the part of the county employees is taking the camera, but that is a natural response under the circumstances. A cop should know better; an officer worker who just happens to work for the county does not have that higher expectation of decorum. Given the confrontational and suspicious nature of the individual, I can excuse the behavior, which is something that would almost certainly happen between exclusively private individuals.

I would argue that asking what someone is doing is a minimal intrusion into their privacy and upon their supposed right to film, additionally, if they refused to answer, in these days of mass shootings and terrorist attacks, that lacking an answer such as “First Amendment audit, ma’am,” would constitute reasonable suspicion (at least the encounter) that such a person may be up to no good.

For example, other than police car enthusiasts or “auditors,” what other good explanation is there for videotaping the secure parking lot and exit of a police station? A reasonable person would give an answer satisfactory enough that the average person would recognize the person isn’t planning to ambush officers as they leave on patrol or shoot up county offices.

Frankly, if this man was doing a “First Amendment audit” of his local park by intrusively filming young girls, he would have gotten off light if all that happened was his phone was snatched away. Government officials should take note not to grab the camera, if only to deprive inconsiderate individuals like this anymore ammo.

Per Passalacqua’s YouTube video page, he claims that deputies were concerned his phone was a disguised pistol (they do exist). This was an overstatement, but they also did not shoot the armed man and returned his phone, video intact. Being “aggressive and hostile” will result in one getting zero leeway from police. In other words, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don’t be a jerk and you won’t be treated like one.

“First Amendment Auditors” often display incredible rudeness and indifference to polite social behavior. Passalacqua was no different. While the First Amendment excuses all kinds of words, one still owes his fellow citizens basic common courtesies; none of which Passalacqua exhibited. He became enraged that his discourteous and bellicose attitude and actions naturally inflamed human emotion and provoked a reaction. He went looking for trouble and provided the ingredients to cause it.

I have encountered these kinds of people before; their sole intent is to antagonize law enforcement, public officials, etc. into something salacious their rabid YouTube fans can get excited over. “Auditors” rely on the presence of the camera, their out-of-place appearance in whatever particular space, and their intransigent behavior to generate a response that, to them, constitutes a “violation.” Asking a question constitutes a “violation”, ignoring the “auditor’s” question constitutes a “violation”, standing nearby and watching constitutes a “violation”…

One YouTube commentator called for Mr. Workman to be executed. Nothing illegal happened in this video other than Passalacqua’s own behavior. These people hate government so much that they strain at gnats to find something to rail against. These videos are nothing more than fuel for ignorant, anti-government hatred; pornography for their sedition fantasies.

At the end of the day, the rule of law is nice, but it is nothing more than an artificial human construct. Our ability to freely film, to yell, and to not answer questions relies on the simple fact that we as a whole reserve those rights for when they are necessary and exercise them courteously. Bad behavior makes it impossible for the rest of us to have nice things. The history of gun control is rooted firmly to this principle; sure, we have Second Amendment, but a violence society or notorious killings get us bad gun laws.

Behavior like this impairs the ability to correct actual violations of important civil rights, particularly gun rights. It did not help gun rights supporters that Passalacqua was armed, but he is not characteristic of gun rights advocates. Noted advocates in Nevada also film, but with discreet, purpose-made body cameras and are always respectful, while maintaining their rights.

Of course, the gun rights advocate’s goal is to seek correction to actual injustices rather than from a self-serving motivation to portray oneself as a victim. Passalacqua’s passion, tempered with knowledge and respect for his fellow citizens, is badly needed in the gun rights community, where we fight actual willful and wanton violations of the law where appointed officials laugh in our faces.

Hopefully, in the wake of this incident and the internet freedom fighters’ threats, Lyon County doesn’t need to post stupid “no guns” signs (which prohibit concealed, but not open carry). If they do, the blame lies with Passalacqua.

Nothing untoward happened here; a man with a camera and a dangerously little amount of knowledge about his rights, and plenty of folks online cheering him on, made a little trouble. In a time where true tyranny is peeking over the horizon, and troubles are rearing their ugly head, we do not need a normal reaction to boorish behavior conflated into government malfeasance.

Californians Buying Ammo in Nevada?

Beginning Jan 1. 2018, it is illegal to import ammunition into California. See text of Prop 63 or this article for details. That means while you can buy it here, you can't bring it back into California. However, it is perfectly legal to use high capacity magazines and ammo in Nevada. California laws cannot be enforced outside of California. But California can and does spy on buyers here.

Buying what you can't get in California in Nevada? Be smart about it. Definitely don't buy firearms; that can bring federal charges and ruins private sales for the rest of us. CA DOJ agents have been known to unscrupulously surveille Nevada gun shows to identify California buyers purchasing items prohibited in California and then have them stopped by CHP or local law enforcement once they have crossed the border. If you are at a gun show or Nevada retailer, be very careful not to give these agents any probable cause.

Agents have typically identified Californians by clothing that announces that one likely is a California resident. They then follow the suspects, observe their purchases, follow them to their vehicle (bearing California plate), and once the vehicle crosses the border, marked units make a traffic stop. Of course, getting into a Nevada resident's vehicle (or a rental) that didn't immediately go back into California would ruin that scheme.

Developing a case requires constant, continuous surveillance to maintain a "chain of custody" of the prohibited items in the possession of the "suspect." Such surveillance would be thrown off if the "suspect" went back to their hotel room for an extended period of time or if the ammo or item was handed off multiple times at the gun show, especially to a Nevada resident. Agents also don't have days to keep people under constant observation, so those on multi-day visits, versus immediately going back to California would make the agents' probable cause difficult to establish.

Only idiots talk to the police and give them consent to search. Remember the phrase “I don’t answer questions and I don’t consent to searches.” Anything you can be twisted and used against you.

Any identified or suspected California DOJ agents or California police officers "on the job" out of state would have their cover compromised if gun show patrons loudly pointed out these petty tyrants and demanded the show operators eject these persons from the show. Local police have also been rumored to have escorted such agents out.

Nevada retailers are better off not asking Californians about where they're from or what they're buying. California has filed frivolous law suits against retailers out-of-state before. 

If you are breaking a tyrannical, unconstitutional law, be smart about it and be prepared to face the consequences. 

Monday, January 8, 2018

AP: We're not saying police are giving guns to crooks...

Imagine the ridiculousness of the following rhetorical headlines:

“Ex-WSP cruiser used by drug dealer.”
“Woman raped by taxi driver in former Seattle PD car.”
“Capitol Police sell cars to convicted drunk drivers.”
“Former Police Interceptor used in highway suicide attempt.”

That’s what the Associated Press has done in its “guns sold by law enforcement” article. The article seems to imply that Washington law enforcement agencies are selling guns directly to disturbed folks. The lurid headlines like “Baby Shot in Car Seat” draw the eye away from the easy to skip over the details that these guns were sold to dealers, traded for new guns, or auctioned off. This might be news to the AP, but not to any gun enthusiast.

It’s common for law enforcement to dispose sell or trade-in their used firearms for new models; the old guns are then sold to the public through licensed dealers. When Glock was new to the American market, it made a business model out of this. Police trade-in guns provide a high-quality handgun at a lower cost than an equivalent new model and often have collector value as well. This allows departments to get new guns very cheaply; a bonus in the days of cash-strapped municipalities.

Likewise confiscated firearms are sold to the public as well. It’s a practice actually mandated in several states. These confiscated guns aren’t “crime guns” in that they are murder weapons dripping blood. Instead, they are usually taken from prohibited persons, for concealed weapon violations, or other reasons. Non-weapons are disposed of by police all the time.

I argue that the whole point of the article, as Zerohedge either missed or deliberately skewed, is to discredit these practices.

The “journalists” who prepared this article omitted one important fact: each person who bought the gun from a dealer (again, a dealer, not the police), would have to pass a background check. So either the persons involved:
  1. Passed a background check, then went nuts or became criminal;
  2. Passed a background check that failed to catch their prohibited status;
  3. Had someone else buy the gun illegally (a straw purchase); or,
  4. Stole the gun;
  5. Bought the gun secondhand in an illegal private transaction.

 Such facts are inconvenient to the narrative. Imagine the figures and stories if the story was about what criminals, looneys, and bad actors did with factory-direct firearms! Read the details of the incidents carefully. They have been cherry picked to involve—key word “involve”—a gun that somehow came from local police.

Found a gun, not the murder weapon.

Merely owned a shotgun that happened to be a former police weapon.

Stole a car, didn't threaten anybody with the gun, just had it.

How did the felon get the gun? Did pass a flawed background check? Did some buy the gun for him in a straw purchase? Did someone else buy it, then sell it illegally in violation of the unenforceable universal background check law? Five years passed; did he buy it legally when he was not a felon?

Felon in possession of a stolen gun.

Domestic dispute, no weapon involved. Just happened to find a cheap .22 rifle that was disposed of by police.

Also owned 15 other guns, not sold by local police.

The hoplopathically-biased liberal media doesn’t want the public to own guns. They would love to get guns out of public hands and paint an innocent police program, one that brings money to the departments, new weapons into officer’s hands, and gives the poor a cheap way to protect themselves, as well as make the police look like monsters. Such misleading and malicious “journalism” ought to fall under libel laws. The mainstream media is dying a little more each day because of their constant penchant for lying and promoting their progressive agenda any way they can.