CONFIRMED! Blue Card Records Destroyed!

One year ago, June 2, 2015, something wonderful happened for Nevada gun owners when Gov. Brian Sandoval signed Senate Bills 175 and 240 into law. Each bill contained identical provisions enhancing state preemption of local firearm laws, enacting enhanced preemption of local gun laws that also abolished Clark County's handgun registration system ('blue cards'). The bill provided a one year deadline (today, 6/2/2016) for all handgun registration records to be destroyed. Today, we have confirmed that the Las Vegas Metro Police, the sole repository of such records in Clark County, have destroyed all records of registration. 

Theft Crimes Bureau (CCW Unit) and the Records Bureau were involved in the destruction. Interestingly, some records had not been digitized (probably the older records dating from circa 1980). Microfilm and print records were shredded prior to January 1, 2016. Digital records were verified as deleted on May 15, 2016. The full response can be seen below.

Metro's initial response last June detailed that they had not formulated destruction plans immediately after the passage of the bills, but were focused on implementing the cessation of registration and informing gun dealers of the changes to local ordinances.

Formerly, state law prohibited local municipalities from making their own firearm regulations (except regarding discharge of firearms) and handgun registration in Clark County was also exempted, along with a few other odd ordinances. These laws have been enhanced to eliminate handgun registration (‘blue cards’), including their destruction above, and required local governments to take obsolete firearm laws off the books (also completed by the end of October 2015), and clarified language that specifies no existing local laws or regulations regarding firearms are permissible whatsoever.

Full text of LVMPD's reply

We at Nevada Carry would like to thank Officer Larry Hadfield and the other three PIOs, who have fielded over 1,700 requests this year, for providing this information on the anniversary of the passage of the bill. However, given the sensitivity regarding gun registration and the legislated requirement imposed upon the department, Sheriff Lombardo and LVMPD administration should have made this information public without the intense and repeated prompting that was required for this response.

For anyone who doubts, you may contact Metro at either sheriff@lvmpd.com and pio@lvmpd.com. At this time Nevada Carry has no reason to doubt the records were destroyed. Even so, the lack of independent verification or any other form of documentation is disturbing and a gross oversight of LVMPD administration, but again, there is no evidence to indicate any failure to comply or reasons to doubt the destruction of records.

A Look Behind the Scenes of the Metro's CCW Detail

In an earlier post, we looked at the surging wait times for Las Vegas Metro Police (Clark County) to issue a concealed firearm permit, which can exceed the 120 day maximum in some cases. Combined with the closure of the dedicated fingerprint bureau, many citizens have become frustrated with the process. All the evidence indicates that yes, it really does take them this long and no, it is not some sort of government conspiracy, particularly because of matters outside of Metro’s control. With such huge numbers of applications, the CCW detail is nearly overwhelmed when volume peaks (see first post for charts).

Metro receives the most applications and consequently takes the longest time of all Nevada counties to issue a regular permit. It is the fingerprint background check and official court/local record requests, combined with very high volume, that causes the delay. Thankfully, four months is a small price to be paid in a traditional open carry state, unlike California, where someone without law enforcement/judicial employment can wait up to a year just for the preliminary interview and fingerprinting (due to surging demand after Peruta v. Gore).

Increased concerns about mass shootings, crime, and terrorism, along with an increasing belief that the average person should have a firearm for protection has caused a surge in concealed firearm permit applications and wait times. We covered the numbers and waiting times previously, but Sgt. Palmer of Metro’s CCW detail said that the Dept. of Public Safety numbers do not accurately represent the number of permits issued, which were about 1100 in December of 2015. Numbers fluctuate normally from 70 to 100 with a maximum daily number rate of 156 applications. As of April, the average issue time is about 90 days.

As application volume has increased, staff that used to split time between processing initial applications and running the database background checks had to be devoted to just the application process. Suspension and revocations (and their re-instatements) due to arrests or convictions is another factor in delaying initial applicants or renewals. National Firearm Act (NFA) chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign-offs are completed faster, in a 4-6 week time frame as some report, but have less steps as Metro checks local records and the bulk of the other research is done at the federal level.

The process used by Metro is fairly standard across the state and for some portions, in other states as well (though their laws on when a permit can be issued differ). Utah has a substantially similar permit, but issues before the fingerprint results are returned. They will issue if the computer searches come back clear, preferring to rescind a permit if necessary when the fingerprint check and document searches are finalized. This results in their average 60 day window.

Metro uses a Sharepoint database that allows any employee in the CCW detail working on applications to access a given file, sharing the workload amongst the team rather than leaving files entirely under one person’s charge. In smaller counties, files are often managed by only one clerical employee and personally reviewed by the sheriff.

The electronic law enforcement database searches takes only minutes. A clear record is obviously easier to process, but someone with a criminal record will need additional research, such as contacting the particular jurisdiction to obtain information on the record/charge. Sorting out near matches also takes time to determine if the listed ‘hit’ belongs to the applicant or someone with a similar name.

Court documentation, rather than the existence of a conviction record in a database, is required, necessitating requesting actual proof. Obtaining court documents to support dismissal of charges or simply ordering hard copies, when electronic ones cannot be provided, take time. One of the two major delays (the other being the fingerprint process) is getting the required paperwork.

Sgt. Palmer and his staff are dedicated to researching the information the best the can, laborious as it can be. “As long as they can meet the requirements, they have the right to the permit and we will take the time to conduct the investigation.”

The fingerprint check, through the FBI is routed via the state Dept. of Public Safety.  Responses can take between 30-45 days. Sgt. Palmer tells us:

“This process can create several problems and is responsible for numerous delays. An example is the state has lost the file or we never received the return. We have to re-submit the prints and/or request why we never received a response. We can only request this once every 30 days. So, once we send the request in, we have to wait 30 days for the response or lack of response to occur. If we don't receive anything in another 30 days, a 2nd request is sent.”

Background checks for law enforcement employees across the country also, at a minimum, take a minimum of two months for many of these same reasons as well. Even in California, an expedited concealed weapon permit can take two months to process.

Some permittees have had their fingerprints rejected because of light prints, damage to their fingertips, or other problems with the Livescan system. Sgt. Palmer says this can quickly increase the time taken to process an application.

“Once the electronic prints are rejected, the person must come in and complete an actual print card. The card is completed and mailed to the state. If the prints are rejected again, we have to request a non-print background check.”

Printing and mailing the car is a matter of how long it takes to physically print the card and ready it for mailing. Mailing time in the Las Vegas Valley is usually two business days, but in rural parts of Nevada, it can take longer or the permittee would need to come pick-up the permit.

Across the state

Clearly, all counties are different and permit receipt times vary, generally with the smaller counties having the fastest issuance times. This depends on local volume, although much of the delay is waiting on fingerprint records, which will naturally take longer almost uniformly, depending on the volume received. Sheriff Trotter of Churchill County reports that it takes his agency about 30 days to issue a permit. Elko finds it takes three to six weeks for a reply to the fingerprint record requests. Mike Dorson, of the Nye County Sheriff’s Office, told us:

“At our agency it takes approximately 30 minutes to process an applicant once he submits it at our front office window. However he/she may have a long wait depending on his/her spot in line. Every Tuesday afternoon we process 15-25 applicants from Front Sight Firearm Training Institute. Sometimes we have to turn applicants away (due to closing time) and they either return at another time or they mail their applications to us.”

As far as mental health records, the availability is limited. Nye County does not have access to mental health records, while Churchill County has their own local database. Agency master file records will generally indicate if a person was ordered held on “Legal 2000” 72-hour mental health hold. Presumably, that would trigger a more in-depth search.

Conclusion

Sgt. Palmer told us that when he first took his assignment within the CCW detail, he was surprised by the amount of time and work that went into the process. Unfortunately, the nature of the process, the extensive investigations that must be performed, and the amount of work required to document each requirement causes much of the delay. While most citizens can appreciate seasonal volume or tragic events spurring more applications, not knowing what happens once the packet and check cross the counter leads to much consternation.

When the concealed firearm permit process was changed to shall-issue in 1995, there was a concern that 60 days to issue the permit was insufficient, leading to the 120 day deadline. A 60-90 day wait was not unusual for non-weapons background checks then. While the process has been sped up by electronic records and delivery/submission of fingerprints and record checks, the applicant volume has erased those gains.

Short of hiring more records clerks in Clark and Washoe Counties, there is not much more that can be done to accelerate the process. State law could be changed to institute a policy such as in Utah, which would allow for issuance pre-fingerprint background check results. The Dept. of Public Safety could also consolidate operations in a larger bureau, but this would require additional state funds to staff and operate.

By far, the best solution is to enact ‘Constitutional carry’—permitless concealed carry. While open carry without a permit is legal in Nevada, most Americans prefer to carry their firearms concealed. Many who desire to protect themselves don’t want to openly carry a handgun, but are equally dissuaded from the cost of training, the application, and the intimidating process of applying for a permit. It shouldn’t be a crime to put a jacket on over a holstered gun or for a woman to tuck pistol in her purse. Only with the legislature stepping up in 2017 to change Nevada law to catch the wave of new constitutional carry states across the nation will concealed carry become less of a hassle to Nevadans and our oh-so-necessary tourists.

Open Carry Harassment at Clark County Fair

A Las Vegas woman was illegally removed from the Clark County Fair and Rodeo for openly carrying her handgun peacefully. A security guard first approached her and told her that the fairgrounds were “private property.” She reported that she was approached by two LVMPD officers who escorted her to vehicle. The officers told her the fair was a “private event” and that she could not have a firearm there. When she attempted to explain the state preemption ordinances which protected her right to bear arms, she said “I got was the ‘deer in headlights’ look.”

Irony of ironies, this all happened during the live cowboy re-enactment featuring blank pistol and shotgun shots. A security guard also attempted to stand in front of another citizen videotaping the encounter, apparently colluding with the illegal acts. One guard jokingly commented that the footage could be sold on Fox News. She was told by the guards: "this 'private company' [presumably CC Fair Inc.] had a no open carry law and then quickly corrected himself and said policy. Them he said that this 'private company' leased the land from the county which somehow automatically made the fair a 'private property." 

As readers are aware, state law prohibits local authorities from regulating firearms, except for unsafe discharge. Additionally, state law only prohibits concealed firearms in public buildings where posted or metal detectors are present at each public entrance (NRS 202.3673). The Clark County Fairgrounds are owned and operated by Clark County Parks and Recreation. The Fair itself is operated by a non-profit corporation, Clark County Fair Inc.

Additionally, a non-profit corporation created to operate a county fair on public fairgrounds only barely meets the definition of a private event. Non-profit corporations are usually used for events of this type as a way to insulate the county from any liability or responsibility from actually operating the event. Clark County Fair Inc. was founded by volunteers. The most solid date for establishment is in 2011. Before that, we have been unable to conclusively determine who operated the fair. CC Fair Inc. it was reported in 2009 that it receives approximately $25,00 t0 $75,000 in grants from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (a local government entity). It appears that CC Fair Inc. operates the fair on an unofficial basis for the county.

It would not be inappropriate for a private event operator to choose to exclude persons from their event. However, it is illegal for local authorities, as a condition of using public facilities, to prohibit firearms at an event. It would also be illegal for police officers, on only their own initiative, to prohibit and eject lawfully armed citizens. Based on the county approved rules and state law, it is hard to see how a citizen could be legally prevented from openly carrying a firearm.

The fair rules and regulations do not prohibit firearms and there is no mention in the agreement with the county, or the vendor handbook, as approved by the board of commissioners, to allow exclusion of fair patrons for bearing arms. It is interesting how government officials find it permissible to take punitive actions against citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights, but they would never consider interfering with anyone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

It is curious why LVMPD officers are not aware of the changes to state law that protected this armed citizen’s behavior. Park police even specifically acknowledged the applicability of state preemption laws to parks. This event is just one of several in recent months where LVMPD acted illegally because of the officers ignorance of state law. Thankfully, this even did not result in an illegal arrest.

120 Days to Get a CCW from LVMPD? What Takes So Long?

Clark County residents are in an uproar over the closure of Metro PD’s Cameron St. fingerprint bureau and the resulting massively increased wait times at the headquarters office. For those who have applied for a concealed firearm permit, the Cameron St. location provided a relatively quick process, whereas a two hour wait (or longer) at headquarters is not uncommon.

The headquarters office on Martin Luther King Blvd. was recently remodeled to add more windows to increase the number of citizens served, exasperating citizens during the interim, some waiting over 5 ½ hours to be served. The Cameron St. location was closed to the public to create a home for the traffic bureau, which is leaving what will soon become the new Spring Valley Area Command at 8445 Eldora Ave, near Cimarron and Sahara.

The time it takes LVMPD to issue concealed firearm permits has been an extreme point of frustration for Clark County residents who have routinely been facing waits of 100-120 days for a permit to be issued. NRS 202.366 requires that the sheriff must issue a permit (or deny it) within 120 days. The number of active permits in the county have grown by approximately 6,000 in the past year and almost doubled since 2010. 58,234 permits were active in Clark County as of March 1^st.

Numbers skyrocket

It wasn’t until the spring of 2013, following the Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, CT, that wait times between application and issuance jumped to the three month range. Before then, the average turnaround time was about two months or less. Even with the abolition of the ‘blue card’ handgun registration system and the staff needed to administer the system being freed up in June 2015, the wait times remain in the three-to-fourth month range.

Currently, LVMPD is taking the full four months (120 days) to issue permits. A few instances of temporary permits being issued have been reported after the 120 day mark. Technically, the sheriff could issue the temporary permit on Day 1, but does not. Other states with substantially similar processes, such as Utah, are issued in half the time (Utah’s permits are administered by the state).

In theory, with the staff freed from their ‘blue card’ tasks, the numbers should decline. Except the only decline was the seasonal summer dip. Roughly 500 permits per month, for a total of about 4,000, have been issued since ‘blue cards’ were phased out. It is not known exactly how many employees process permit applications or how the exact process is performed.

One explanation for the long wait times is that more and more Nevadans are waking up to the need to defend themselves. Lt. Randy Sutton of Metro stated that there is a “secret army” of concealed carriers that terrorists and criminals need to be wary of. The surging interest for personal safety creates and obvious bottleneck that the department is ill-prepared to handle. Yet again, some improvement should have been made, at least incrementally, with the burden of ‘blue cards’ removed. Washoe County, the next largest issuer of permits, was last documented issuing at about 70 days.

Stats

As the charts indicate, the rate of permits issued does not exactly correlate with the sudden spike of applications post-Sandy Hook (Dec. 2012). The violent spike in volume would logically overwhelm staffers not used to average volume tripling. However, the application volume falls off again to about average levels before rising up to double the pre-Sandy Hook average.

If the high volume of applications burdening the staff were the problem, the wait times and application rates should correlate. Except they don’t. Volume falls way off to a level that past averages don’t justify. Clearly, the CCW detail could handle the volume in the past with a 90-day return rate. It’s not the amount of work.

More data is needed, specifically application/issuance dates to get a more uniform sample.

Wait time numbers are anecdotal, coming from various private forums where wait times are tracked. Issuance/received time is the 'Received' date used; it was impossible to tell apart issuance vs. received date in some cases based on lack of clarification. Issuance date, where explicitly listed, was used. Mailing time and weekends allows for a margin of error of 2-4 days between issuance and receipt. Stats here (spreadsheet). 

What takes so long?

Many applicants, in between fits of tearing their hair out, obsess over what takes so long for the permits to be approved. 500 permits per month would equal 25 permits per workday. What is in contention is how long it takes to work one application.

The FBI uses IAFIS (Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System) to scan and search fingerprints for matches among criminal records. “The average response time for an electronic criminal fingerprint submission is about 27 minutes, while electronic civil submissions are processed within an hour and 12 minutes.” CT Carry has this information on their state’s process, which states the FBI response can be up to 24 hours. Clearly, while a response is pending on one set of fingerprints, other portions of application processing can be done.

Some have pointed out that other licenses, such as a real estate broker license, requires essentially the same background check process, and yet takes less than a month to receive approval. LVMPD also tends to approve National Firearms Act (NFA) forms within about two weeks (fingerprints and application is processed by the ATF), which one would imagine is held to much the same scrutiny as a concealed firearm permit.

Some testimony from the 1995 legislative session when Nevada adopted a ‘shall-issue’ system gives us a little more info, though it is 20 years old. 

“Mr. Cooper said the issuance of those concealed carry weapons permits requires one full-time clerk together with a part-time employee.  He said the process is ‘laborious,’ consisting of a background check and clerical time which could take from 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours for each permit.”

“Lt. Cavagnaro added an FBI fingerprint check could take a minimum of 90 days.  He said a background check could vary from ‘10 minutes for a local person to several days for someone from out of the state.’

“Senator McGinness asked Mr. Cooper if he believed an FBI fingerprint check was always necessary.  Mr. Cooper answered the fingerprints would have to be submitted if the applicant's prints were not already on file.  He admitted if a person moved to Clark County from out of the state, ‘...it could take from 60 to 90 days to follow up.’  Mr. Cooper said reviewing an application from a long-time resident of a county would be far more simple and take less time.” 

"Mr. Griiser [NRA-ILA] addressed the subcommittee again, saying: "I have testified in over 30 states...and I have never heard anybody testify that it takes 90 days for an FBI background check to go through."  He said in the state of Arizona the average wait, with a background check, is 10 days.  Mr. Griiser stated he believed setting a 60-day time limit would be sufficient. 

Mr. DeBacco, who testified earlier regarding this aspect of the legislation, said the repository submits approximately 60,000 to 70,000 civil fingerprints cards each year to the FBI, and the average turnaround time on licensing and employment issues is approximately 60 to 90 days.  He said the testimony in that regard is accurate.  Senator Porter indicated Nevada is the fastest growing state in the country, which may account for the lengthy turnaround time.  Mr. DeBacco said the fingerprint check is a 'labor intensive process,' and is a much more inclusive process than a simple background check."  

This was prior to the introduction of the IAFIS system in 1998.

We don’t really know what takes Metro so long. The numbers just don’t make sense. Ultimately, unless LVMPD or another agency is willing to shed light on exactly what they do, we can only make an educated guess. Hopefully, we can win constitutional carry in the 2017 legislative session.

Update: Metro said that the DPS provided stats may be inaccurate and the actual number of permits issued higher.

Updated: What’s up With Metro and Handgun Registration? (Revised)

Update: Several reliable sources and several different gun stores are confirming that they have heard from LVMPD that they are honoring the changes to preemption. The gist is that LVMPD Firearms Detail has contacted the gun shops in question and advised them officially that registration and waiting periods are over with. Additionally, they have ordered remaining forms destroyed. We are attempting to get official confirmation, but confidence of this word is high.

Since enhanced preemption was enacted Tuesday, June 2, by Gov. Sandoval, rumors have been flying around about what gun store is still doing things the old way and which ones aren’t. Some gun dealers in the affected areas (right now city of Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark County) are adhering to the 72-hour waiting period and issuing blue cards. Others rightly objected and aren’t. Henderson, which is fully and immediately complying with the law, has no issues reported.

Calls to substations say one thing, then the PIO/other substation says something else. People are starving for correct information.

Those giving and getting the answers aren’t always as politically savvy as other may be. Desk staff may be misinformed, confused, or suffering from a bureaucratic panic at Metro PD that always falls back on the tried and true tactic of the government, standard-operating-procedures.

It’s very likely that the furor and requests for answers took the department by surprise, before they could have time to adequately prepare training information and make the changes. Of course, the sheriff did support eliminating handgun registration and it was pretty clear this would pass the legislature and be signed by the governor. Perhaps they should have planned ahead.

Nothing has been verified officially, so they remain rumor and third-hand information, but a vague picture is coming together that the right hand might not know what the left is doing. We hope it’s just confusion at Metro, but proof remains to be seen. For now, I urge caution.

Several legislators are interested in the developments and are working their angle with Metro and their respective resources. We have a request for comment in with them. They are pursuing their own investigations presently.

What’s apparent is that we need a formal announcement from the Sheriff or Metro is needed ASAP. The public needs to be reassured that it’s police are aware of the changes to the law and are complying with it immediately, not trying to find a way around it. I retract my earlier statement that Metro isn’t up to something shady and now I want them to prove that they aren’t.

Metro PIO on Fox 5’s “Behind the Badge”

PIO Sheehan of LVMPD spoke on Fox 5’s “Behind the Badge Segment.”From his statement, he’s not a great spokesman about explaining the intricacies of the amended laws, but he did speak the truth. Taking his word as the most official voice from Metro this far, we can surmise that Metro does intent to obey the law and has ceased handgun registration.

Sheehan stated that: “There’s no more gun registration in Clark County. […] You don’t have to register with your local police department. It’s registered at the state level now. The state becomes the repository for all handgun registrations in our state […].”

The latter portion of that statement was incorrect. It appears that Sheehan misspoke and wasn’t fully aware of the text of the bills, confusing the state repository for criminal information (for background checks) with a gun registry. The state of Nevada only retains information on who legally cannot possess a firearm; it does not maintain a gun registry or will be accepting Metro’s records (the records must be destroyed).

While the legislature did reserve the right to regulate registration (among other things) itself, it did not create a gun registry. The legislature proposed nothing of the sort this session, such an idea has no support within the legislators (at least publicly), and would be immediately rejected out of hand by Nevadans. Again, while the legislature regulates registration of guns now, it chose to get rid of the only gun registry in the state rather than expand it.

Sheehan did clear up the rumors about whether or not campus carry an constitutional carry (concealed carry without a permit being required) passed. They did not. It was very good of him to make that clear to the public because people just don’t seem to listen, read, or understand. The readers of this blog aren’t those sorts of people, but nonetheless, many others needed to hear that message less they unintentionally break the law.

One deficiency was that Sheehan did not mention that local laws were repealed immediately, like the county parks ban on guns and North Las Vegas’ local laws. Generally, the police are not going to advertise that a law is no longer in effect. It’s like asking a fireman on for a segment to explain the best way to torch your old Christmas tree in the backyard.

All in all, Sheehan did a pretty fair job of explaining it and the other aspects of the bills, particularly the expansion of the castle doctrine to the car and civil immunity for justifiable homicide. However, shame on Fox 5 and the local media for always turning to their same, tired sources who do a poor job explaining gun laws. A statement from Metro is good, but the true benefit to the gun community needs to be heard. No longer will Nevadans have to worry about confusing local regulations, those who live in other county’s being quizzed about ‘blue cards’, or having to wait for 72-hours to buy a handgun here.

No one got to hear about that. Rumors weren’t quashed, just a brief segment that many probably didn’t see. There are plenty of us who can give the correct information, as we specialize in it, and would love to go into the detail that the public is so dearly starved for. So tell Fox 5 and local media to get better gun commentators, not Bob Irwin of The Gun Store or their attorney friend Bob Massi (who got it wrong before).

Please Don’t Flame Me

As a former law enforcement officer myself, I have to stand up a bit for Metro. They’re probably all in a tizzy over this because so many people are asking questions. Social media is exploding and over 50,000 of you have visited this blog to learn about the recent changes. I would bet that the PIOs are overwhelmed right now, along with desk staff and various supervisors. They are probably swamped with a flood of mundane questions to insisting queries from the public (privately, and in my capacity as a journalist, am one of the latter).

It takes time to share this kind of complex information through the government. Supervisors have to review it, staff to write it, lawyers to sign off, and somebody important to approve it before it filters out through email and briefings. This is the government we’re talking about here—we all joke about how bureaucratic and slow it can be. Metro (and other officials) must be accurate in their statements and politic in their delivery. Thousands of people must be correctly informed.

For now, we must give the police and government officials time to process this and respond. They should have been astute and prepared for this moment to come, but power, particularly in Clark County, is reluctant to release its grasp. For nearly 26 years, Clark County clung to its exemption, fighting any release. Only when public pressure became insurmountable, did Sheriff Lombardo, as a candidate, supported eliminating handgun registration.

Will this sheriff live up to his campaign promise and faithfully uphold the law he was sworn to execute, even if it targets his office and one of his programs? That remains to be seen. With multiple reports of gun stores in unincorporated Las Vegas and the city of Las Vegas being told by Metro to continue complying with waiting period and handgun registration starting to add up to the truth, it appears Metro is defying the law. Too many pieces are falling into place that paint a picture that is rather ugly; Metro intends to break the law and threaten revocation of gun dealers’ business licenses.

Yet we do not have confirmation on this, so I urge caution at this point. We need, no we require, a formal answer. Metro PIO Larry Hadfield responded to my request for a comment for the public and for my readers. I am awaiting an official response from the commander of the firearms detail to clarify what exactly is going on and what Metro’s official position is. Until such time as Metro makes an official statement or refuses (and clear and convincing evidence shows they are not complying), we must keep our reactions tempered.

At this stage, what does going off half-cocked do for us? Operating on misinformation and an incomplete picture is detrimental to our cause. We would waste goodwill and public pressure pushing in the wrong areas.

There are intransigent police departments out there; we’ve see that across the county. In particular, we’ve seen that in the behavior of the park police who have been hell-bent (up to now) to justify their no-guns-in-parks rule.

Perhaps my directly calling them out here has alienated them and they are reticent to speak with someone who has, in their eyes, insulted their honor? I don’t know. What I do know is that an us vs. them does exist with the police. In most places, it is an insidious thing where the police feel they are guardians of an incompetent public, but rather a defense to public criticism that can sometimes be over-stated.

In the various circles I am involved with, I am privy to communications that others have had with, in this case, the libraries and the county park police. There is outright antagonism and the defiance of the right to bear arms in those places. Some of you have seen the various old threads on forums or know someone who has taken up the challenge. They hear, but they do not listen. They see, but they do not perceive. If they will not listen to irrefutable reason, then we must put hooks in their jaws and drag them to comply.

There are some that disagree with the tactics of relentlessly pursuing answers from our public servants and elected officials, that pressing for a response and demanding compliance is in bad form. The only bad form is bad form itself, i.e. threats, bad language, errors in logic, or haranguing those who have no responsibility. Demanding a law enforcement agency or public service comply with the new law as written is not in any way wrong, immoral, unethical, or using poor tact.

Government serves for the benefit of the public. We know the mantras. The government in this country is answerable to the public and must be held to account for every breach of the law they establish and uphold. Those who protect us cannot deny us the right to protect ourselves under the guise of them knowing better. As Americans, it is our duty to petition our government for redress of grievances, else we deserve to suffer under the fate of mundane and petty oppression.

As long as our response is measured, our tone respectful, our words logical, and our actions coordinated, we can effect great change. Yet in such a new environment as enhanced preemption presents us with, we must allow time for news of the change to spread. The apostle Paul, who had scales fell from his eyes, was blind for several days until he reached Damascus. Let us make polite, yet persistent inquiries and respectfully demand that our officials take the law to heart, until we are confident that this new gospel of freedom is heard by all who serve us.

In coming days, we shall know what course to steer; whether rejoicing in our victory and thanking our government for complying so readily, or if holding our public servants and government to account in true American fashion is demanded of us. 

-G. C. (revised from an earlier version this evening)

Assm. Fiore on Metro and Blue Cards

Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, a true champion of 2nd Amendment rights, sponsor of the good gun bills this legislative session, and the rare decent politician, gave me this reply:

"I have received numerous emails from other concerned citizens as well. Unfortunately there is not much we can do because the bill becomes 100% effective until October 1. It is already a law, however, the police cannot be penalized for not enforcing it until that date.  It makes the process rather confusing and frustrating for many people and businesses to comply. Until then we must be patient.

I would suggest contacting Chuck Callaway, police director to the LVMPD.  He should be able to address any other concerns you may have. [...]

I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns. Please continue to be involved in the legislative process.

Sincerely,
Assemblywoman Michele Fiore"

We are still pending official statements from Metro. Hopefully, Metro will not be taking the cowardly and tyrannical position of disobeying a law until they are forced to in October, under threat of enhanced civil penalties.

Under conventional logic, any arrest by Metro enforcing the invalidated law must thrown out of court. There is no act that could possibly excuse any delaying or as speculated behavior by Metro or any Clark County agency. An injunction or appeal on their behalf would be tantamount to tyranny and open defiance of the legislative and democratic process.

This weekend will be the telling time to see if Metro and the County will comply or if we need to take more drastic action to effect change.

-G. C.

Blue Card Results!

Way back in February, I contacted LVMPD to obtain a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on blue card (handgun registration) data. I wanted to know if the system worked to cut down on gun crime. After a long, drawn out battle to get Metro to comply with the law, I finally got a lack-luster response. Basically, the ordinances requiring handgun registration are a paper tiger.

Metro failed to respond to my first request in February. In March, I finally got a reply that said they would work on it and five days later, I got a reply that said essentially “Give us a month to figure it out.” A month came and went, no reply. Then the PIO told me he was working on it. I got fed up with the bureaucratic mess and filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Public Integrity Unit. I also sent an email basically demanding that Metro reply and I accused them of stonewalling.

Amazingly, Officer Roybal, a PIO, came through. Though the responses were moving at the speed of bureaucracy, Officer Roybal was pretty pleasant and cool to deal with. I allege that Metro as an institution would be content to ignore my request. If it wasn’t for my regular emails pursuing this, I doubt I would have received an answer at all.

Despite getting an answer from Metro, my complaint still stands. There is no excuse for Metro’s ignorance of my request and the glacial pacing of obtaining this information. Once the AG’s office processes my complaint, I will ask them to investigate why this took so long for Metro comply with my request and determine if there was any wrong-doing.

Ignoring a first request and then taking over 30 days for a simple database query for numbers is rather ridiculous. From my law enforcement days, it would have taken me about an hour run similar statistics, and maybe a day or two if I had to ask one of the crime analysts for help.

The Stats

How many handguns are registered?

Estimated number of guns registered (total) 1,379,250. Note: these are the numbers of registrations (blue cards), as Metro lack the technology to track weapons which have changed hands.

How many guns were solved using the gun registration database? Metro doesn't track that information. Metro says that the gun registration database is a great investigative tool. Then why don’t they track how many violent crimes are solved or lead to arrests through use of the database?

Arrests (bookings) for possession of an unregistered firearm:

2010    107

2011    87

2012    62

2013    43

2014    41

2014    12 (YTD)

There has been a precipitous decline in unregistered gun arrests in the past years, while gun sales have climbed.

One can draw their own conclusions, but Metro appears to be an agency that doesn’t like the Nevada Open Records Act and its handgun registration system is little more than a filing system.

-G. C. 

Updated: FOIA Request for Information on Clark County 'Blue Card' System

Update: As of this evening, 3/11/2015, still no reply has been received from the LVMPD. An email has been sent to confirm the status of the request. It appears that LVMPD has illegally stonewalled the request. Nevada Carry will contact members of the legislature to inform them of this intransigence and attempt to get this information which is vital to the public in this legislative session so focused on gun rights.

Update: As of this morning, 2/26/2015, no reply had been received from the LVMPD, despite having received a return receipt signed and dated 2/11/2015. This is far beyond the five-day deadline imposed by NRS 239. Several state legislators were contacted and apprised of the situation. They are willing to help obtain the documentation if necessary. However, this afternoon, the PIO unit responded that they had not received any such request. Not very inspiring to think that the police can lose mail. Fortunately, Metro is processing Nevada Carry's email request. We hope they respond within the required five-day time frame this time.

Nevada Carry will share the information received with the Nevada firearms community and the state legislature so that Nevada can make an informed decision on the value of the 'blue card' system.

Recent legislation (AB 127) (among others) has been introduced to eliminate the Clark County handgun registration scheme, aka ‘blue cards’, administered by the LVMPD. Clark County is the only county in the state permitted to have such a program. Sheriff Lombardo agreed in his campaign that the program needs to go away.

Nevada Carry is seeking data on the Clark County handgun registration scheme, ‘blue cards’, as authorized by a Clark County ordinance, and grandfathered under pre-emption by NRS 244.364. Our goal is to analyze the data provided and determine if there is any benefit to this system (does it work?). We seek to also document the size and scope of the registry and its cost to Clark County residents.

Lt. Chuck Callaway, director of LVMPD’s Intergovernmental Services, said to CBS Channel 8 News: "Gun registration is a valuable tool for law enforcement, an investigative tool." All we are asking LVMPD to do is prove it.

On January 26 and 27, 2015, Nevada Carry emailed both the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s PIO and financial crimes (responsible for the blue card system) mailboxes with questions pertaining to the system. Both emails were ignored. No response was received.

As of today, February 7, 2015, Nevada Carry has sent by certified mail a freedom of information request pursuant to the Nevada Open Records Act § 239 et seq. The LVMPD has five business days from receipt of the written request to respond with our request for information (NRS 239.0107). I have included the text of the letter sent to the LVMPD.

None of the information being sought could be reasonably construed as confidential. They are simply facts and figures. We are not requesting any personally identifying information, only statistics. Since the information affects the public, as we are required to register, and it involves the use of public information, it would be hard to imagine why the LVMPD would be reluctant to release this information.

The genesis of the is program was apparently to target mobsters in early Las Vegas’ heyday, according to a 2012 article in the Las Vegas Review Journal.

“Seven decades ago, Lucky Luciano, Frank Costello, Meyer Lansky and their pals from New York decided that Clark County was ripe for expanding mob operations, and organized crime arrived in Las Vegas - complete with armed "soldiers" for protection and muscle. In response, the county adopted the ordinance requiring the registration of handguns. (The idea probably came from California, where some form of handgun registration has been required since at least the end of World War I.) It was assumed that the mobsters wouldn't comply so, with few legal restrictions on search and seizure back then, the new ordinance provided law enforcement with some serious leverage.”

The LVRJ goes on to explain a 2012 attempt to gather information on the program:

“A recent exchange of letters between Gillespie and County Commissioner Tom Collins provided some fascinating insight into Metro's Firearm Registration Unit - and perhaps into the general management practices of the department. 

“The Firearm Registration Unit's database contains information on more than 1 million handguns. You'd think that management might find it useful to know how often this information is accessed, or how many arrests, citations or convictions have resulted from it. How many investigative leads are produced? How many handguns are seized each year for failure to register? 

“If you thought that such information might be a significant management tool, you'd be wrong. To each such question, the sheriff told Collins the information wasn't, tracked.
“Furthermore, because the Firearm Registration Unit isn't a budget line item, the sheriff said he couldn't provide any information on expenditures for either the unit itself or the related data processing. 

So after 60 years of operation, the sheriff seems to know nothing about the program he so vigorously defends. Collins asked for "objective data" that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the handgun registration program had real law-enforcement benefit to Clark County. The sheriff's response: ‘Officers benefit from the use of the database every day. If it did not provide valuable investigative leads, it would not be accessed by the officers.’"

So if officers benefit from the registration database, how do they utilize it and what is the benefit to public safety? What are the numbers of crimes that were solved by the database, particularly violent crimes?

Unfortunately, the LVMPD seems to be stymieing any attempt to learn factual details about the program.

It’s time for the LVMPD step up, gather that information, and provide it to the public. If they support a program that curtails the right of Nevadan’s to keep and bear arms and claim it works, they need to document their beliefs. Government is accountable to the people. Excuses, lazy answers, and failure to document such a large program that is allegedly instrumental to public safety is massively incompetent.

Don't get us wrong. We are not out to skewer the police. Nevada Carry highly supports the police (the author and president is former law enforcement). All we are asking for is accountability and we would like to see this questionably effective program's money and personnel channeled into proactive crime fighting.

We hope for cooperation from the LVMPD and a swift, comprehensive answer to our inquiry. Furthermore, we urge the legislature to pass AB 127 to end Clark County’s handgun registration scheme. Let’s get that money to the cops on the street.

Text of Nevada Open Records request letter:

February 7, 2015

Dear Custodian of Records,

Under the Nevada Open Records Act § 239 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that detail the scope, cost of administration, and violations of the Clark County handgun registration system (‘blue cards’), Clark County Code § 12.04 et seq. as authorized by NRS 244.364.

Specifically, I am seeking the following data from the most recent statistics:

• How many LVMPD personnel are assigned to process or manage the handgun registration system (both full and part time employees)? 
• What is the yearly cost (or budgeted amount) to maintain and administer the handgun registration system? 
• How many handguns were registered in 2014 (or 2013, if last year's data isn't available) and what is the current total tally of registered handguns? 
• How many times, known to the LVMPD, has the handgun registry been used to prosecute gun crimes, i.e. felons in possession, possession of a stolen gun, etc? 
• How many times, known to the LVMPD, has the handgun registry been used to prosecute violent crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, assaults, etc? 
• How many arrests does the LVMPD make annually for failing to register a handgun? 

If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $ 25. However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of Clark County handgun registration. I am a journalist blogger for the gun rights organization Nevada Carry. This information is not being sought for commercial purposes.

If access to the records I am requesting will take longer than a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested records.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law in writing.

Thank you for considering my request.

Fox 5 Behind the Badge Features 'The Right to Self-Defense'

Video from Fox 5 Las Vegas here. 'Behind the Badge' is their regular segment with LV Metro PD. Good to see this on local TV news instead of hype and stories that guns are bad.