DPS Waives Certain Background Check Fees

Now that headline got your attention, thanks to New Frontier Armory for bringing this to our attention. Remember Question 1, universal background checks initiative, that tried to ban private gun sales? Democrats are trying to sink governor candidate Attorney General Adam Laxalt by blaming him for pointing out the law is unenforceable. Question 1 also hurt public safety by removing the free, voluntary background check provision. 

The Nevada Department of Public Safety is offering free, voluntary background checks for private gun sale/transfers. In other words, they are waiving the $25 NICS background check fee if someone wants to sell or transfer a gun to someone.

This is being offered as a public service by the state. The botched abortion known as Question 1 invalidated the existing provision for free, voluntary background checks on private sales enacted in 2015. That system was by mail and as of 2015, literally only one person ever used it. 

• These are voluntary; they are not mandatory. Voluntary means “optional.” Optional means you do not have to do it.
• No, this does not mean that Question 1 is being enforced.
• Yes, you can still just transfer or sell guns like you used to do.
• “Free” means the state is not charging $25 to run the background check; the dealer can still charge $25 or whatever for their time and paper work.
• This will require a Form 4473 and the dealer is calling Carson City.
• If you have a CCW and you are receiving or buying a firearm, you still always fill out a form, but you do not have to pay $25 or wait for a background check.
• Yes, you still have to go to a dealer.
• No, you do not have to register a firearm and the ATF Form 4473 isn’t registration*.

By now, everyone in Southern Nevada should know that New Frontier Armory is the place to go. Yes, there are other places to go and I know some of you haven’t bought a firearm from a dealer at all—especially after that boating accident (I don’t actually own any guns either)—but this is our favorite place. Plus the owner actually really does care about the Second Amendment and busts his butt advocating for it, but you already know that, right?

*Yes, we know how it can be used, but we don’t need to confuse people who are already confused.

Question 1 Blame Game About the Governorship

Attorney General Adam Laxalt

The anti-gun machine is hard at work trying to blame Attorney General Adam Laxalt for the failure of Question 1; the anti-gun "background check" initiative that would have banned private gun sales. In an editorial in the notoriously leftist Las Vegas Sun, an unnamed editorial writer, probably part of, or at least well-connected to, Bloomberg Inc. gun control, is trying to blame Laxalt for the initiative supporters own mistakes. This isn't about guns; it's about the governorship. 

As you will recall, the attorney general determined that Question 1 could not be implemented because it required the private sale background checks to be run through the federal NICS system, which is run by the FBI. The FBI told Nevada via the attorney general that since Nevada, by legislation, chose to establish its own Point-of-Sale (POS) contact center in-state for gun background checks, that the FBI is not responsible for running Nevada's Question 1 mandated sales. Some states do split long gun and handgun background checks along state and Federal lines, but none split private and retail sales that way. In short, the FBI will not run the background checks as they are not being paid for it and a Nevada voter initiative cannot force the federal government to do anything.

The FBI refused to be part of Question 1; Laxalt only asked the question and thus the anti-gunner's blame. The anti-gun attorneys, more than likely closely affiliated with the Bloomberg anti-gun groups that have been pushing this law, state by state, made a serious error. They failed to check with the FBI before crafting the text of the law to confirm the FBI would participate. The alleged reason the federal system was chosen was because it is free; supporters feared that the initiative would be defeated if gun buyers had to pay for their own background checks, which is crap because dealers do and the initiative allowed them to charge a transfer fee for having to do the paperwork and make the phone call. Those screaming for a "fix" are the ones that screwed up.

All Laxalt did was uphold the time-honored principle that if one cannot comply with a law or find an alternative to exercise a right, the law is unenforceable. What the frankly stupid crafters of this law did was create a Catch-22; citizens can't buy or sell privately without background checks, but they can't get private background checks in compliance with state law. Laxalt pointed out that well-established case law said "You can't do that." If his opinion was incorrect; why haven't the Bloombergites sued to have it implemented? The reason is, Laxalt was entirely correct and the anti-gunners were wrong. Case law is on our side.

Returning to the blame game, leftists and the anti-gun machine is trying to blame Attorney General Laxalt because he is a strong conservative candidate for governor. Since the anti-gun and Democrat election machines are all part of the same game, opponents of Laxalt want to try to hang the anti-gunnner's failure around the neck of the wrong man. Since Bloomberg Inc. can't admit they made a huge mistake and wasted upwards of $20 million dollars, they are trying to leverage their failure into sinking a Republican candidate. The anti-gun and leftist groups are trying to blame the victim.

The Sun's editorial exhorts Laxalt or "someone" with power to force the alleged mandate through. "Leave no stone unturned. Pursue all viable options. Figure. It. Out." In other words, they want the legal and legislative processes ignored to fix their mistake. Break the law to enforce the law. Madness. What they would like someone to do is to force all private sales to go through the state system in violation of what Question 1 explicitly requires or force all private sales to stop.

Democrats do have the power to implement the fix, but they refuse. Question 1 came up because Governor Sandoval vetoed the legislature's private gun sale ban in 2013. A ballot initiative is hard to overcome--it's set in stone for three years. If the Democrats were serious about fixing it, they would have proposed a legislative fix. They could require Nevada to switch to the FBI system entirely or pass an enforceable duplicate version of the law changing the requirement from the federal to the state system. But Democrats and anti-gunners know they are on thin ice. Sandoval would certainly veto such a bill as he did before. Democrats barely hold a majority and cannot override a veto without senators crossing party lines. 

On top of that, they know, despite their lies, that Question 1 passed with a slim margin of support, only about 9,000 more "yes" votes and only succeeding in Clark County. In every other county, Question 1 failed. Looking demographically at the state, where Clark County is an urban area filled with Californian expats and minorities that lean Democrat, it is not surprising that these folks who are unfamiliar with gun laws could be swayed by a massive campaign of lies and misinformation. $20 million bought something far less than a mandate.

This is like Republicans saying that the Anti-Minority Initiative should be implemented, the 14th Amendment be damned, because 50.45% of Nevadan's voted yes to disenfranchise certain races, then blaming the attorney general for daring to uphold established legal principles. With less than 1% of the vote, Question 1 was hardly a mandate. You don't shove something down the public's throat that half the voters opposed.

It's time to listen to the 548,732 disenfranchised voters and ignore the anti-gunners who are making this an issue to torpedo Laxalt's upcoming campaign. If Democrats win the governorship in 2018, Nevada will be lost and begin its transformation into California East. No one will be left to stop the bevy of unsupported, anti-gun laws that will be crafted without abandon. If Nevada is to remain the state we've known, the only option is to vote for Laxalt and Republicans.

-GC

AG Opinon on Question 1 Infographic

Based on the opinion by the Attorney General.

Icons designed by Freepik used under license.

Breaking News: Background Checks Stalled by AG

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

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

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

The Opinion

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

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

The opinion was based on a question posed by the director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety. The question was whether or not the state had the authority to run checks through the Federal system and charge fees. The FBI was conducted as part of the attorney general's research.

“The Nevada Supreme Court long ago adopted the doctrine that the law does not require impossible acts. When a law imposes a requirement that cannot be performed, a party is relieved of compliance until the obstacle to performance is lifted.” 

The law “operates as a total ban, clearly at at odds with the intent of voters,” which was to create background checks on private gun sales (taking the law at face value). “It is manifestly unjust to criminally penalize someone for failing to perform an act that is impossible to perform.” 

“Because the FBI will not perform the background checks required by the Act, enforcement of its criminal penalties will have the unintended consequence of punishing conduct that is widely and reasonably perceived by Nevadans to be lawful.”

The FBI


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

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

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

Anti-Gunners Shot Themselves in the Foot

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

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

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


The FBI illustrates the perfect point about the NICS systems deficiencies:

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

"The state of Nevada can provide a more comprehensive NICS check that is accomplished when a POC access state-held databases that are not available to the FBI. The Nevada DPS is also in a better position for understanding and applying state laws."

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Stay tuned--this is breaking news.

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

Safe Nevada: Getter a Better Poster Boy

The Las Vegas Sun’s The Sunday (p. 20) interviewed Jim Dunlap, a police association president who is the current poster boy (literally, he’s on the flyers) for the Bloomberg backed group (Safe Nevada, the head of the snake in this case) supporting Ballot Question 1. Ballot Question 1, also called universal background checks, would ban private gun sales and transfers, criminalizing even lending a hunting rifle to a trusted friend. Dunlap supports taking away your gun rights and does a piss poor job of supporting his argument. We find him laughably stupid. Here are some of his comments from his interview and our rebuttals.

If this saves one life, doesn’t it make sense? Isn’t that what laws are for, public safety?

No supporter of universal background checks has ever shown that banning private gun sales has ever saved a life. California and New York have such systems and yet violence still plagues urban areas there. Another law will not stop crime, nor deter criminals.

If background checks on sales of dangerous items makes sense, why don’t we prohibit habitual drunk drivers from driving cars? Why don’t we require that every time you sell a car, let a friend borrow your car, or let your friend work on your car, you have to meet the person at the DMV to get a background check to make sure they aren’t a dangerous drunk driver?

As easily searchable information shows, Dunlap is a traffic cop who well knows the danger of cars. Does he support mandating helmets for everyone riding in a car? Mandatory speed limit restrictions? Breathalyzers in cars? Dropping the DUI limit to .05 BAC? If it saves one life, doesn’t it make sense?

No one has shown any benefit to these laws and in the absence of any significant gain, sacrificing freedom with the real risk to gun rights that increased gun control brings, this law is not worth it.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin

Let’s say someone, acting in anger, tries to get a firearm. They can’t go to a dealer because they’d have to undergo a background check, so they go to the internet or a gun show and get a weapon relatively quickly, then go back and do a heinous crime.

This argument is two-fold, indicating a belief on Dunlap’s part in waiting periods. It’s highly likely that he supported the old Clark County “blue card” system with its three-day waiting period. First, statistics have proven that waiting periods don’t work to reduce gun deaths. Murder and suicide are largely impulsive acts uninfluenced by the availability of weapons.

“Relatively quickly” is misleading. Gun shows may seem like they happen every weekend, but they don’t. One who wanted to commit murder with a gun, mid-week, would have to wait until the magic weekend with a gun show, drive there, pay to get in, find a private seller (rarer and rarer at gun shows these days), and buy a gun, then drive back and commit the crime. Same with buying a gun from an internet classified ad; hope someone responds, drive, meet, exchange, then drive back and commit the crime.

Someone in the heat of passion isn’t going to do that. They will use whatever means are available to them while they are angry; fists; knives, blunt objects, etc. And if they are cold blooded enough to seek a firearm, laws are unlikely to prevent them from obtaining one. Even with private sales being banned, there is certain to be someone who hasn’t heard or doesn’t care about the law, willing to sell to sketchy individuals

And how about the multitude of now-criminals who obtained guns legally after passing a background check? This law will do nothing to stop crimes with guns already legally owned by future criminals.

The criminal element, the people who are involved in the black market, they sell only to people they know. That’s why cops use confidential informants to buy drugs. And even within those organizations in the drug trade, and when you have a confidential informant, trying to purchase a gun is even more of a challenge, because use or possession of a firearm with those crimes comes with heightened penalties. So how do you find someone to buy a gun from on the black market? If you did find someone dealing guns illegally and said, “Hey, you got a gun I can buy?” They’d probably say, “Are you a cop?” So that just won’t happen. People see it on TV shows, but it doesn’t happen.

This is an argument to vote no! Dunlap basically just denied that criminals and drug dealers use the “black market” of gun shows and the Internet...which he fretted over earlier. The answer is in response to a question that those who can't go to dealers will turn to the "black market," which Dunlap says is is make-believe. 

So here Dunlap just admitted that criminals 1, buy/sell from people they know; and 2, it’s hard for cops to buy guns in stings. He admits that police can’t easily enforce existing laws on illegal gun sales because criminals are savvy to undercover busts. Um, so how are police supposed to detect and arrest people who are buying amongst themselves secretly, taking precautions to avoid being caught by the police? 

Okay, I guess what Dunlap is trying to say is that some random person won't go to the mysterious "black market", approach a shady looking gun leaning against a lamp post and ask to buy a gun. Dunlap apparently doesn't know how the "black market" works. Just like with a lot of drug deals, the buyer already knows the seller or is part of a network that can direct the sale without the help of a bazaar or directory (gun show and Internet, respectively). The "black market" is a series of connections and knowing the "guy who can get things" or a guy who knows him. Think of Morgan Freeman's Red from The Shawshank Redemption. 

Now, for some random guy who wants a gun but doesn't know anyone, all he has to do is still place an ad. I'm sure he's going to be willing to find someone who doesn't care about the law (either maliciously or otherwise) who will sell anyway. Not to mention the tons of people who will have no clue that this law passed.

What people need to understand is that crimes are generally reported to us (as opposed

to officers rooting them out). Are we going to go door to door and ask, “Did you sell a gun to someone who shouldn’t have one?” No, we’re not, anymore than we go door to door asking, “Are you selling illegal drugs?” If people report to us that guns were sold illegally, we’d respond. And as with any situation, we prioritize our calls for service.

Who is going to report an illegal gun sale? Washington state only denied 50 dealer background checks in 14 months and no one was arrested. As we have pointed out time after time, the only way to enforce this law is with a sting or a confession. 

So let's say the Bullfrog County Sheriff gets a phone call that Mr. Joe Blow sold his 1946 Schenectady Arms Co. 16ga shotgun to his neighbor Earl Hogwaller to dispatch some pesky ground squirrels. If neither man confesses, Bullfrog County has to prove that neither man conducted the sale through a dealer and prove that Hogwaller never owned the shotgun all along. As John pointed out, proving a case without a confession is darn near impossible. 

Bad Reporting of Question 1 Money Sources

Democrats, liberals, and statistics all have one thing in common: they’d rather give money and buy what they want rather than honestly try to change minds. If they can lie, bluff, and bluster, they’ll do it. NBC Ch. 4 in Reno has a segment called “Ask Joe” where reporter Joe Hart answers questions from viewers. One viewer asked where the money for Ballot Question 1 was coming from. First, he covered the supporters.

Everyone should know now that Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety is the force behind this across the country. It’s like the aliens in Independence Day: they keep moving from purple state to purple state spending money abusing the initiative process to get uninformed voters to give up their rights. In a stellar, courageous, and detailed investigation, Joe called the spokeshole for the supporters to ask them where the money came from. Conveniently, the spokeshole didn’t tell him that most of the money came from out of state and from very rich donors.

Where is the money coming from? Well, Everytown for Gun Safety has spent/given about $1.7 million so far—that’s not grassroots. Not to mention the bunches of millionaires, billionaires, and multimillion dollar corporations contributing money. My two local favorites are: 

• Gary Ackerman, owner of Ford Country in Henderson
• Adam Kutner (TV injury attorney)

 Check out the contributor reports here. See if you know any of the names or recognize any addresses. Of course, since being an actual journalist is too hard, Joe never bothered to pull the data from the Secretary of State’s website that would show his emphasis on “2,000 donors of less than $1,000 (to imply it was a grassroots funded measure). Well, maybe he did, but didn’t care. I don’t know what his political ideology or take on Ballot Question 1 is, but his “investigation” sucked. You failed to mention where most of the money came and about the bunches of prominent people who gave $1,000 or more. 

Gun owners have a huge machine, powered by mindless zombies who throw money at anything they don’t like. It’s a shame that gun owners don’t spend their money to tell other people what they should do and think that sending the NRA $35 a year for a magazine is helping out the cause. Not to mention all those wealthy gun owners and Second Amendment supporters who have been cowed into hiding their support for gun rights.

Unfortunately, that means commercials with some guy you’ve never heard of trying to imply law enforcement thinks more unenforceable laws are a good idea. Plus they have the media firmly in their pocket, but it’s nice when we catch “journalists” at their deceitful games. And Joe, it’s okay if you’re biased. Just admit it any at least think objectively, even if your segments really aren’t, but don’t pee on our legs and tell us it’s raining. Misleading and omission of critical facts is lying Joe. 

Vote No on Ballot Question 1.

Dirty Journalism: The Gun Registration Freudian Slip

The following images show that the media knows, but won’t openly admit, that Ballot Question 1 is about gun registration and is actively trying to cover up that fact.

The image above is a link posted on Facebook on August 17, 2016 at 1:48 PM. The Review-Journal article can be viewed here. The article itself was last updated at 6:05 PM the same day. Ostensibly included in the updates between 1:48 and then was changing of the title. This is the actual original URL (try clicking on it):

http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/election-2016/nevada-ag-adam-laxalt-opposes-gun-registration-ballot-measure 

Now:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/election-2016/nevada-ag-adam-laxalt-opposes-gun-background-check-ballot-measure

Below is what the link looks like now: 

Notice that ‘registration’ is mentioned nowhere in the text of the article or the source code. While I apologize for not catching it earlier and preserving images of the original article, it’s obvious that the title including “registration” was altered. With actual paid editors and all the time in the world to report, Wesley Juhl and his editors should have caught this Freudian slip before it went to press. Thanks to basic human psychology, it took six hours for someone to notice that the headline told the truth. If this wasn't a cover-up, then why didn't the RJ admit it's 'simple error' with a correction?

We’ve just caught local media manipulation of the truth. Ballot Question 1/universal background checks do not work without gun registration. I’ve explained why this is likely a front for registration based on reporting of dealer sales/transactions.

To generate the sentences describing the link and the title, Facebook pulls the information directly from the source page. It is not input from the link poster or summarized by Facebook. It is the original content. 

-GC

Universal Background Checks are Unenforceable and Easily Defeated at Trial

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

Here is the issue that I see with these "universal" background checks. First, I will talk about enforcement. I want you to keep in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This means that it is on the prosecution and by extension, the police, to prove that you have committed a crime. What would be the crime they would be enforcing? The crime would be failing to obtain a background check. The police have to have probable cause that you did NOT do something in order to arrest you for failing to get a background check.

Then the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you haven't completed a background check. It's difficult enough proving that you actually did do something let alone trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did NOT do something. Keeping in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty, you don't have to tell them what FFL you used to get a background check. You don't have to tell them what date you transferred the firearm. You are free to exercise your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The entire onus of the investigation lies with law enforcement and the prosecution.

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

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

Second, I will talk about the background checks as they apply to prohibited persons. It is unconstitutional to require a prohibited person to present himself for a background check. Yes, I'm serious. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1968, Haynes v. UnitedStates. The reader's digest is that a man who was a convicted felon was caught in possession of an unregistered NFA firearm. He successfully argued that requiring him to register the NFA firearm is akin to forcing him to make an open admission to the government that he is a felon in possession of a firearm. Remember that 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination? The courts agreed with him that the law cannot compel him to perform an action that would amount to confessing to committing a crime.

While the Supreme Court did not invalidate the law requiring the registration of NFA firearms nor did they invalidate the prohibition on felons possessing firearms, they agreed that the law requiring registration could not be enforced against convicted felons. How hard do you think it would be for a defense lawyer to make this same argument for his client previously convicted of a disqualifying offense (domestic violence, felony, etc), subject to a protection order or adjudicated mentally ill? These are the very people that this law was intended to keep guns away from and they are already exempt from the requirements of this law!

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

-John

Domestic Violence; A Deceptive Case for Gun Control

Supporters of Ballot Question 1—universal background checks, which will ban private gun sales—like to quote statistics that (correctly) point out Nevada has the highest rate of domestic violence in the nation. They also like to quote the fact that domestic killings often involve guns, and guns in the home increase the potential for such guns to be used in domestic violence. These are all facts, but bare facts by themselves without context is disingenuous. For gun control groups, domestic violence is just another scare tactic to advance their agenda of gun disarmament and not an actual concern of theirs.

The proponents of banning private sales are targeting women using fear to garner support. They make statements to the effect that “States without private-party background checks on gun sales have higher rates of domestic violence.” Correlation does not imply causation. True, Nevada is at the top of the list for domestic violence, but nothing ties domestic violence to private gun sales. Implying that a lack of background checks on private gun sales is related to domestic violence is a false comparison. It’s like saying that “States with legalized gambling also have a higher chance of legalized prostitution" to specifically call out Nevada.

Women victimized by domestic violence don’t need to be victimized again by those with a political agenda. Not only are these women intimidated by their abusers, they are further intimidated by the scare tactics of groups like Nevadans for Gun Safety. What these groups do is take advantage of a woman’s fear of being abused or being subjected to further abuse and say to them “If only we could ban private sales, your ex-husband couldn’t hurt you.” It targets their basest fears and theoretically is an easy sale.

As contributor John pointed out, domestic violence is a crime of passion which cannot be predicted, detected, or stopped by laws. 

“Most domestic violence killings are crimes of passion. Someone doesn't plan out in advance that they're going to kill their spouse while they argue over money or bills or the kids or whatever. The argument starts, it escalates and they lose control and grab a gun they already own and use it to kill someone they are angry at in the heat of the moment.” 

How would banning private gun sales, selling a gun the same way to private persons sell a car, stop or reduce domestic violence? In statistics kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, murder in domestic violence cases was less than 1%.   

“In 2002 family murders were less likely than nonfamily murders to involve a firearm (50% versus 68%). Parents were the least likely family murderers to use a firearm (28%), compared to spouses (63%) or other family members (51%). Among crimes recorded by police, 2% of family violence involved a firearm, compared to 6% of nonfamily violence. A weapon was used in 16% of family and 21% of nonfamily violence.” 

In 2010, about 16 women were murdered by men in Nevada with guns, 45% of the total weapons used. Most women assaulted in domestic violence are assaulted with bodily violence or objects rather than firearms (as the preponderance of domestic violence is non-fatal). Unfortunately, many domestic violence victims choose to remain in an unhealthy situation, perhaps not knowing how to leave, and further expose themselves to danger.

Advocates also fail to ignore the fact that women can and do use firearms to successfully defend themselves against a violent domestic partner, often a man who is large and stronger than they are. Firearms equalize a disparity in strength between the sexes.

One women, forced to go through New Jersey’s byzantine gun permitting process, was killed by her violent ex. The proposed background check law is so poorly written that it forbids anyone from lending a gun to a person who might be at risk without going through a background check, even just overnight. If a gun is lent because of an immediate threat, the law would require it be done in the heat of the moment and handed back as soon as the situation has ended. So if anyone needs a gun outside of business hours when the Brady Point of Contact center is closed, or if the local gun stores aren’t open that day, a woman who urgently needs a gun will not be able to arm herself.

Gun control advocates cannot win based on the facts, so they must resort to hyperbole, outright deception, and fear tactics to scare a woefully uninformed population into voting away their rights.

Reader Ryan pointed out that the Lautenberg Amendment prohibits those convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms. Nevada has a similar provision of state law. John said "The problem is that nobody hunts the convict down to find out if he has guns already and orders him to turn them in or otherwise dispose of them (sell them, give to family, etc)."

Even Michael Bloomberg’s highly biased anti-gun publication, The Trace, admits that far too often, those convicted of domestic violence are never required to surrender their firearms. So if the system is broken, tell us again how just one more law will help?

Get Your No On Ballot Question 1 Bumper Sticker

Nevada Carry has a webstore at Cafe Press! Get your 'No On Ballot Question 1' bumper sticker there. Prices are as low as Cafe Press will allow. Disclaimer: NevadaCarry is not a PAC nor non-profit (unless you mean it's operated at a loss).

www.cafepress.com/nevadacarryofficial

Bloomberg Trolls Seeding Online News Comments

Those who follow Nevada's largest newspaper, The Las Vegas Review-Journal, online might have noticed something about the comments section on any topic that touches on the upcoming Ballot Question 1, universal background checks, which would ban private gun sales. That little something is the short-lived commentators who fearlessly shill in favor of the initiative using catch phrases like "common sense gun laws", etc.

A tactic that leftists, including the Bloomberg backed anti-gun groups is to use their practically unlimited money supply to inject their highly biased and factually inaccurate viewpoints into articles via the comment sections. The actual things said are really nothing more than the same regurgitated talking points and favorite myths, lies, and fallacies that are common to pretty much any organized anti-gun organization (be it Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign, or other fringe groups). The accounts are private and past Bloomberg trolls have seemed to disappear with their comments being scrubbed from existence.

Let's take a look at the latest local commentator, NVLisa (her DISQUS profile name), who we suspect to be the latest paid Bloomberg troll. NVLisa seems to be targeting only background check, gun, shooting, or domestic violence related posts. Of course her profile is private because it would be a shame if everyone could more easily connect the dots to her motivation and bias. Note that she joined on April 26, 2016, the day Clark County District Attorney (a Democrat) announced his support for banning private gun sales. What follows is a little taste of 'her' work.

Editor's note: We actively scrub the occasional anti-gun commentator who tries to spam the blog with their garbage. Differing viewpoints are welcome here, but vapid illogical and false statements are removed. 

Domestic disturbance cited by police in teen’s shooting Tuesday night

DA Wolfson endorses initiative to mandate background checks on gun sales

Man arrested in fatal shooting at mobile home park

FBI director expresses concern over murder increase in US cities, including Las Vegas

Politics NOW - 4/24/16

This commentator sums up the whole thing quite well (hats off to whoever you are Mr. or Ms. Knees:

Clark County DA Wolfson Supports Banning Private Gun Sales

The LVRJ had short blurb shilling for Ballot Question 1, Universal Background checks, which would ban private gun sales by requiring all gun sales to proceed through a dealer. This is widely believed to be the first step in a sale/transaction based gun registration system.

DA Wolfson vomited up the same liberal, anti-gun propaganda lines that have been used in one variation or another all over the place this cancer has been found. Frankly, it seems like another 'cut and paste' article from a press release.

“As a prosecutor, I know that it is all too easy for criminals who are prohibited from buying guns to get them online where background checks are not required," the paper quoted him. I kid you not; this exact phrasing can be found in all sorts of similar endorsements.

Hey you lying dumbass, you don't buy guns online. Stop spreading the myth that there is some sort of Amazon.com of guns. Of course, this is the same guy who will call his plea bargains part of his "conviction rate." Yeah...

Online guns sales work two ways: One, you arrange a face-to-face meeting with the buyer/seller just like a classified ad in the paper (but I guess "Ban the Classified Ad Loophole!" doesn't have the same ring). Two, you can order the gun shipped to a federally licensed dealer who then runs the standard Brady Check. Gangbangers aren't getting guns dropped off at their houses. It doesn't work that way.

Wolfson is the kind of person, as a Democrat and a prosecutor, who loves new laws that he can use to lock people up. In Clark County, the criminal justice system has always been hungry to regulate guns. Look at the fight it took to get rid of blue cards! It doesn't matter to Wolfson if he can never enforce the law. Aside from a sting operation or a confession, there is no way to enforce this law! Of course, that's without gun registration. Now if guns were registered, then it's really easy to check and see when the registration was changed and check that against the corresponding background check records.

But nah, it's not about registration, Bloomberg and his anti-gunners say (they've been caught saying otherwise). Then why do they want private checks to use the federal background check system while dealer sales still use the Nevada system with better local records? Why are they pushing this in every state they can? Yes, this is gun registration at it's finest.

These laws simply don't work. California has had a version of this law in one form or another since the early '90s, but its criminals are still awash in guns. Washington's example has been a dismal failure, stopping a fraction of the numbers caught in retail sale Brady checks. So Mr. Wolfson, please shut your mouth, start prosecuting actual criminals, and go work on your TV show.

Read more at www.ballotquestion1.com

Vote No On Ballot Question 1 (Universal Background Checks)

The Secretary of State has announced the ballot initiative to ban private gun sales as  Ballot Question 1 (Universal Background Checks). Readers will know that this initiative is a sham, gun control measure.

Learn more at NevadaCarry.org

(Carson City, NV; April 11, 2016) – Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske announces two initiative petitions have qualified for inclusion on the 2016 General Election ballot.  The Background Check Initiative will be listed as Question Number 1 on the ballot, while the Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana will be listed as Question Number 2. 

Members of the committees that will prepare the arguments for and against the passage of each ballot question have been selected by Secretary Cegavske.  Each ballot question has two committees: one committee is comprised of citizens who favor approval of the ballot question, while the other committee is comprised of citizens who oppose the question. 

Vote no. Tell your friends to vote no. Stop this before it leads to more gun control and gun registration.

UPDATED: Westside Armory Responds to the Background Check Controversy

Last month, Bloomberg Business published a story after spending three days in Westside Armory. The owner, Cameron Hopkins, was a former gun journalist and he invited a friend, Paul Barrett, to observe what went on inside a real, Nevada gun store. The whole piece turned out to be nothing more than a thinly veiled push for the universal background check initiative. After the outrage in social media, Hopkins realized that Barrett had used their relationship to promote Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda. Hopkins admitted that he was not pleased with being taken advantage of someone he thought was a friend.

While we are sympathetic to Hopkins for being so blatantly used by a tool of America’s nanny, the apparent innocence that area gun dealers have shown when talking to the media about background checks is concerning. Three gun stores too many have made comments that, they claim, were taken out of context to support background checks. Gun owners and dealers need to be more careful speaking to the media on the topic. The Nevada gun community has demonstrated that it has little tolerance for those that would compromise on gun rights.

This was a big lesson that Hopkins learned firsthand. Several members of a grassroots gun rights group spoke with Hopkins at length and discussed the article and the initiative. 

Update 3/14/2016: Mr. Hopkins, in a relayed email, requested that we retract his article that he shared with some of our associates. Hopkins stated that the article "serves as a reminder that there was a problem. I’d rather let this wither on the vine, so I’d rather not remind people there was a problem." Mr. Hopkins has been invited to comment.

Rant: Westside Armory, Open Carry, and Thank-Yous

Normally, I’m not one for rants on this blog, but several things have stuck in my craw lately so I have to get them off my chest.

Westside Armory hosted a reporter from Bloomberg Business for three days. Bloomberg Business is former New York mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s legitimate reporting arm. Bloomberg is a leading financial news business, but Bloomberg’s affiliated The Trace is an anti-gun rag which is used to spread agitprop under the guise of being objective. In all fairness, the article is un-sensational and rather even handed, yet it clearly tows the company line of gun control and pro-universal background checks. Why did they pick a gun shop in Nevada? Oh, that’s right, the anti-gun groups Bloomberg is funding are pushing the UBC initiative here.

Westside Armory’s owner Cameron Hopkins, told Bloomberg he had no objection to universal background checks, which would ban private gun sales by requiring owners to obtain a background check with licensed dealers like Hopkins. If the initiative passes, that means that dealers like Hopkins gets to charge people for the privilege of selling their guns. Dealers will make money if the initiative passes. Numerous other statements in the article imply that Hopkins is okay with compromising when it comes to the Second Amendment. I’ll let you judge his words on your own, but I’m not okay with that.

To be fair, dealers do have to make judgment calls on their customers the same way a liquor store or bar should be denying liquor to people who are already obviously well-beyond drunk. It’s called self-policing and part of responsible citizenship. Self-policing of an industry is a lot more preferable to government regulations, which most gun dealers and Californians will tell you has become excessive. Facebook took away a huge option to self-police when it came to private gun sales and indeed made private gun sales less safe.

Gun owners did some stupid things, like the guy who gave his full name and where he works, while admitting that he intends to carry a concealed firearm at work. We can only hope that if his boss sees the article, that the distributor he works for supports its employees’ right to self-defense.

Several people have asked me about giving Hopkins a chance to clarify his statement, since the Bloomberg article didn’t give exact, detailed quotations in context. We’ve seen this before with local TV news channels. However, Bloomberg’s reporter spent three days in the store. Three days is long enough to gather and reflect the true opinion of the business owner. Three days is long enough to clarify:

“Well actually, only about 15% of guns bought privately would require a background check under the wording of the initiative. The 40% you quoted was a myth that included family transfers that wouldn’t regulated. Plus, the majority of illegal gun transactions come from corrupt dealers, street dealers who sell guns like drugs, straw purchases, and theft.”

But Hopkins didn’t do that, apparently. It appears that he jumped at the chance to get publicity for his business, either unaware or not caring that Bloomberg Business has an agenda to help destroy gun ownership. Not cool. This is the same business that continued to hold guns for 72 hours even after SB 175/240 did away with the local laws requiring the same. It was only after Metro PD sent a letter out a few days later confirming that they were no longer enforcing this did Westside drop their pointless waiting period.

New Frontier Armory, in North Las Vegas, is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and private gun sales. They held the blue card burning party back in July to celebrate state preemption. Their employees know better than to end up in a compromising position with the media and their owner is a pretty cool stand-up dude. They aren’t wanting for business, either.

Now, Hopkins can certainly contact us to clarify his stance and will happily retract our statements, but only subject to our new policy below. We have seen too many businesses whose employees or owners make statements that are either outright support for banning private gun sales, or have been open enough to be taken out of context by biased news media (disclaimer, I admit my bias). Local gun owners need to either say ‘no’ to interviews or make darn sure their words are

New policy: Because it's all too easy for businesses to make damning statements and later retract them, under the claim that they were misquoted or taken out of context, Nevada Carry will assume business meant what they told journalists. Ex post facto apologies must be confirmed by prior proof that the business does not support background checks on private gun sales or the other gun control issue du jour. To businesses, if you put yourself in a position to be misquoted or misconstrued, be very careful what you say. The onus is on you to prove that those were not your words.

Open Carry

You want to open carry? Fine. I don’t care how you dress or if your holster cost $9.99. Just make sure it’s a retention holster and you carry smart. I don’t want any gun snatchings in Nevada (which are exceedingly rare period, so STFU) and I will make it a point to humiliate you if it does happen to you here.

USE A RETENTION HOLSTER, CARRY LOADED, AND PRACTICE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AT ALL TIMES  OR DON’T CARRY OPENLY

Open carry isn’t about looking cool. It’s not something you do to make you look more intimidating to bad guys or someone who might disrespect you. It’s not about getting attention. The people who carry openly for those reasons make the rest of us look bad and endanger our rights.

Also, you want to open carry and make a point, such as when it comes to government buildings? Fine, but do it right. Have the courage to go in. Be knowledgeable about the laws and how to talk to the staff. Record or video your interaction and get the names of everyone you talk to. If the police do something bad, like take your gun or tell you lies about the law, file a complaint so that they can be corrected. Don’t just whine online, leave out details, and expect us to jump up to defend you.

Also, tell people about this website. Spread the word because, and this just isn’t my opinion, it’s a really good central resource for Nevada gun and self-defense laws. We’ve literally be educating and changing thousands of minds here, but we can’t reach those outside the mainstream gun community without word of mouth. One guy, me, pays for this and I can’t afford the advertising and time chasing stories around like the biased and disinterested Review-Journal reporters.

Thank You

I would like to thank my contributors and proofreaders for your help. My friends here at Nevada Carry keep me going when I have to do the heavy lifting and your work to make us a stronger information and news outlet is appreciated.

I want to thank everybody on here who does something for the Second Amendment fight. We all know the core individuals who give them time to volunteer, speak out at public meetings, march, run the FB pages (espcially the mods/admins), websites, etc. It's a very small group, but I'd like to think that our small corps are the vanguard of the Nevada defenders of the 2nd Amendment. With all the gun stores and ranges, it's our daily efforts that are making the biggest impact in keeping the fight going.

-GC