Confusing the Issue for An Agenda's Sake

In a recent editorial, the Sagebrush urges its readers not to support AB 2, a bill that would keep law-abiding gun-owning Nevadans from accidentally turning into criminals simply by permitting them to have a firearm in their vehicle only on school campuses. The editorial alleges that the bill will “only deepen the dangers associated with gun violence.” How will it do so? Does the mere presence of an object induce others to act?

The bill requires that the firearms be kept in the vehicle and locked away when unattended.

The sole intent of this bill is to keep people who arm themselves while driving from unintentionally committing a crime when they take their children to school or attend their own classes. That’s it. Under current law, if a driver with a gun in his center console were to turn into a school parking lot to turn around, rather than make an illegal U-turn, the very act of driving on to school property with a gun in the console would be a misdemeanor. Does that sound like a fair law to have?

The Sagebrush doesn’t even have to enter the debate on whether the right armed self-defense extends itself to schools. Nonetheless, it did anyway and totally mixed up the intent of AB 2 with campus carry.

Furthermore, “adding CCWs to the mix” would not “serve to create a climate of vigilantism.” The legal carry of firearms off-campus, open or concealed, in Nevada has not lead to a spate of vigilante violence. Vigilantism originally began as a duty of every person to act as the unofficial watchmen of their community, which continues today as a citizen’s arrest. In Sparks in 2013, Michael Landsberry, a teacher and Air National Guardsman, gave his life attempting to stop a school shooting. Is trying to save the lives of children or oneself ‘vigilantism’?

In the Sagebrush’s opinion, they would rather see students and teachers die helplessly, less a police officer accidentally mistook the good guy for the bad. This argument is absolutely ignorant. Do police off-campus in shooting situations routinely confuse the good and bad guys to the point where they shoot innocent people? The author of the editorial is apparently unaware of extensive police training for just this sort of incident. There is no reason, no excuse, to deny an individual the right to defend themselves by ‘putting it in the hands of professionals.’

Do we turn over fire safety to fire fighters, tear down our smoke alarms and give away our fire extinguishers? If professionals should be the only ones in the life saving business, the Red Cross needs to stop CPS training, Automatic Electronic Defibrillators need pulled from the walls, and first aid kits turned in.

The Sagebrush is trying to confuse the issue at hand. They are mixing one thing (concealed carry on campus) with AB 2, which is nothing of the sort.

The assertion that “There is no unique benefit to allowing [firearms] in locked cars” is a blatantly false one. It’s entire intention is to keep mothers, fathers, and students who want to be able to defend themselves against violence from accidentally committing a misdemeanor simply because they turned into a school parking lot with a firearm in their car.

Nothing about having a firearm in a school parking lot makes it more dangerous than it is anywhere else. A firearm is an inanimate object—alone it can do no harm.

The Sagebrush does make a salient point: a firearm in a locked car “will not be able to protect you in case of an emergency” (presumably that emergency is a school shooting). Getting guns out of the car and into the holsters of responsible concealed-carriers does increase school safety.

Since we’re on the topic of firearms on campus, let’s look at the Virginia Tech shooting of 2007, where 32 were killed and 17 injured. Shouldn't one of those 49 victims had the opportunity to defend themselves, instead of run, hide, and pray that they wouldn't be shot? What changes life and death on university grounds? Do firearms in off-campus life also make students feel uncomfortable?

If you don’t like firearms or think they should be at schools, fine. Yet publishers should not deliberately confuse facts and make false assertions to further their own institutional dislike of firearms. The Sagebrush’s total disregard for the facts of AB 2 is reckless and irresponsible and they have additionally demonstrated a callous disregard for human life, by suggesting that students, teachers, and parents should be defenseless.

Why Nevada is a Battleground

This is a response to a Las Vegas Sun article: "Why would gun control advocates see Nevada as a source of hope?" (2/10/2015)

In 2014, Washington State’s I-594 initiative on universal background checks on firearm sales and transfers, basically outlawing private gun sales, with a roughly 60/40% vote. I-594 was the brainchild of former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s many-headed gun control groups, including Every Town for Gun Safety and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. A similar petition is headed for the 2016 ballot in Nevada. Why is Nevada the next big battle ground for gun control?

First, we need to look at why the initiatives are being used to push gun control. Initiatives are not subject to party-line votes in the legislature or vetoes on the governor’s desk, as Gov. Sandoval vetoed the universal background check bill in 2013. In a way, initiatives bypass the checks-and-balances system to take the matter directly to the public. Direct democracy was seen by our founding fathers as mob rule. Wisely, they instituted a representative republican form of government that we know today. Why initiatives are great tools for the voters to change things, they are subject to abuse.

If enough people go along with something, right or wrong, it becomes law. Many criticize the initiative system as being inflexible; poorly-written bills cannot be changed or deficiencies corrected.

Partisan politics is replaced with sound-byte politics. Let’s face it, people today have too much going on in their lives to truly care about a system that often changes despite their wishes or input. Americans feel disconnected from their political process and don’t spend a great deal of time educating themselves on the topics. That’s why 30 second TV spots and ‘attack ads’ are such a big deal—short snippets of information is how we get our opinion on new idea, candidates, and new laws.

Where an inflexible initiative and short blurbs about the issue go wrong is they turn the initiative into a form of mob rule. You’re either for it or against it; there is no middle ground and no mediation. If a poorly written initiative is passed, as many, many problems with Washington’s I-594 bill have been found, there is no remedy, aside from the courts, to address those issues, until the statuary period passes when the legislature may alter the law. Once the people have spoken, there can be argument with the law that they have passed, for good or for bad.

Initiatives have emerged as a favorite of gun control proponents because they bypass checks-and-balances. No congress or governor can stand in the way. All it takes is votes. And lots and lots of money.

Money is important. It takes a lot of effort to get the approximately 100,000 signatures to put a ballot on the petition. But backed by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, or in Washington’s case, the founders of Microsoft, hiring signature gatherers is no obstacle.

When the signature gathers go out, they are often paid by the signature. Forget your noble ideas of a concerned citizen rallying his fellow voter to the issue with a rousing argument. Nope. It’s often just a one-sentence question, phrased to be as unobjectionable as possible. Since it sounds reasonable, the citizen signs, usually not bothering to read the description of the initiative printed at the top of the petition page or even the full text, as must be attached too.

In the case of universal background checks here in Nevada, the spiel I received was “Hey, do you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?” Imagine if I said “Sure!” and signed away. Now imagine if that bill was written to say that the right to own guns would be abolished. Wouldn't that be stupid?

That’s an extreme example, but in the case of the initiative here in Nevada, it’s not far from the truth, except in the goal of the petition. Universal background checks will require that all private face-to-face gun sales to go through a licensed dealer who runs a background check through the established FBI system. Currently, it’s perfectly legal to sell your gun to someone without a background check. 150 years and it’s worked for Nevada. Essentially, private gun sales, just like you'd sell your car, would be dead.

Signature gatherers here in Nevada basically pitched the idea that no background checks were done on any gun sales or that requiring checks on private sales would magically stop gang members from selling guns to each other. An example that I heard was the Sand Hook school shooting and how “Wouldn't you want to keep guns out of the hands of people like that?” Well yes, except that murderer killed his mother in order to steal his guns. Most of the infamous mass murderers either passed a background check or they obtained their guns in a way that universal background checks wouldn't have stopped anything.

Nevadan’s should be upset that people are lying and misrepresenting facts to get signatures and ultimately votes. Misleading statistics and out-of-context statements are used to sway voters every election. Just think of any election ad you can remember. It’s all about emotion and making the other person look terrible in as short as time as possible.

With tons of money flooding in, voters can be bombarded with newspaper articles, Twitter links, TV and radio commercials, billboards even. This is the scary part. If one side has more money, they can pump out more ads that skew to their side more than the other. I’ll rephrase that again: whoever has the most money can run the most ads and reach the most people. If voters are being educated by partisan 30 second commercials, are they really informed? Doesn't the idea that hundreds of thousands of people make decisions on a TV commercial scare you?

Now I've been down in the weeds giving out a lot of background information. Nevada itself is a battleground ripe for these new tactics. We have a population that has swollen over the last twenty years, full of those who have left other states. Nevada of the 1950s onward is a mélange of Americans. Most importantly to the gun control crowd, there is about ten percent more registered Democratic voters than Republican voters, and the Democrat party is known for supporting gun control.

Gun control supporters see Nevada as an easy win. We only have two major metropolitan areas and a whole lot of tiny, rural communities.  Northern Nevada is largely Republican, yet are outnumbered by Clark County, home to about 2 million, who vote mostly Democratic. Gun control supporters think they can win here and start a domino effect across the nation because they are taking advantage of Nevada’s composition.

Essentially, it’s gaming the system. Two concentrated areas of voters with the largest block predisposed to vote for you. With the millions of dollars they can easily garner from out-of-state interests and casino billionaires, the small TV and newspaper market can be dominated with adverting that supports gun control. There is no large, spread-out rural population that thinks differently which can balance the vote.

Gun control supporters are taking advantage of Nevada because they can engineer it through deceptive, but not illegal, campaign practices to become a win for them.

Update: Tell the Legislature to Vote 'No' on Background Checks

Initiative Petition No. 2, Universal Background Checks, is before the Committee on Judiciary. Text here.

The legislature can pass the initiative into law or reject it and in doing so place it on the 2016 ballot.

The legislature cannot ‘kill’ the bill. Unfortunately, the various Bloomberg interest groups have found a method where money, propaganda, and obfuscation can sway the votes. Stopped by Gov. Sandoval’s veto in 2013, they subverted our checks and balances system to pervert our initiative system to put this before the public. They can’t bribe politicians, but they can use slick advertising and deceitful social media posts to fool the uninformed.

Hopefully, the public will release what utter nonsense this bill is and vote it down. It will be tough fight against the wealthy elite’s billions, which is why we must give everything we have to counter this hypocrisy. Call on your legislators, tell your friends the truth about the initiative, and demand that the NRA fight with us.

They shall never win our rights. They will have to steal it with their time, their lies, with their money. We will bleed them dry. We will fight them at every step; on the public square, in the legislature, at the ballot box. The tide of their deceit may wash over us, but it shall not drown us. We will fight and we will remember. Gun control supporters will pass away, but our rights shall remain forever. We will fight and we will win, no matter how grim the horizon might be. We shall have victory, no matter how long and hard the road may be. 

Let the members of the Judiciary Committee know how you feel. Copy and paste their email addresses into your email 'To' field.

Ira.Hansen@asm.state.nv.us; Erven.Nelson@asm.state.nv.us; Michele.Fiore@asm.state.nv.us; David.Gardner@asm.state.nv.us; Brent.Jones@asm.state.nv.us; PK.Oneill@asm.state.nv.us; Victoria.Seaman@asm.state.nv.us; Jim.Wheeler@asm.state.nv.us; Elliot.Anderson@asm.state.nv.us; Nelson.Araujo@asm.state.nv.us; Olivia.Diaz@asm.state.nv.us; James.Ohrenschall@asm.state.nv.us; Tyrone.Thompson@asm.state.nv.us

Click here to virtually 'vote' against the bill (legislature opinion poll).

More about the background check initative here.

Update: They voted no! Now it's off to the 2016 ballot.

Reason to Carry: Kidnapping attempt at Galleria Mall

18 year-old Toyanell Kuykendall was arrested after he threatened a woman and attempted to kidnap her at knifepoint. The suspect approached an 18 year-old woman at around 3PM in the parking lot of the Galleria Mall in Henderson. After a struggle, the woman escaped unharmed. A few hours later, the suspect was arrested ad booked into the Henderson city jail for assault with a deadly weapon and second-degree kidnapping.

Wisely, the victim did not comply with the threats and fought. Had she submitted to the suspect's demands, who knows what horrors she would have been subjected to. 

This another story in Nevada knews reminding us all why we should carry a gun.

2015 Legislature Bill Draft Requests

This Reno Gazette-Journal article presents a good synopsis of the bill draft requests (BDRs) pending in the legislature. Several good bills here. And the article is fairly presented. More coverage, analysis, and opinion from Nevada Carry will follow when the actual bill text are availible.

Bill Draft 45-561 Assemblyman John Ellison, R, Elko

Bow hunting

Would allow for carry of guns when bow hunting, currently prohibited by NAC 503.144(c).

Bill Draft 15-221 Senator Don Gustavson, R, Sparks

Constitutional carry

Would institute constitutional carry; i.e. no requirement for a concealed carry permit (ala our neighbor Arizona), as long as you would be legally able to own a gun. Exact details unknown without the full text of the bill, but probably similar requirements to open carry or along the lines of what's required to obtain a concealed weapon permit.

Bill Draft 15-522 and Bill Draft 15-97

Concealed carry permit reciprocity

Senator James Settelmeyer, R, Gardnerville and Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, R, Gardnerville want to do away with the arbitrary way the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, legislatively appointed as the arbitrator, determines what states' concealed weapons permits are recognized here. Any state's valid permit would be recognized in Nevada.

Read a letter submitted to the senate in support of constitutional carry.

Bill Draft 15-97

Ending Clark County 'blue card' registry

Senator James Settelmeyer, R, Gardnerville

Would repeal the handgun registration requirement in Clark County, which is antiquated, expensive, and basically useless.

Bill Draft 15-817

Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton, R, Las Vegas

This bill would expand the Castle Doctrine, in that a homeowner who kills an intruder in his home would be presumed to have acted lawfully, rather than having the burden of proof upon the homeowner. This would take Nevada from basically "probably innocent unless proven guilty" to definetly "innocent until proven guilty" in the event of a home self-defense shooting.

Nevada's current justifiable homicide law is fairly strong as it stands, but the more legal protection for the law abiding, the better. 

AB 2 and Bill Draft 20-242

Campus carry

Assemblyman John Hambrick, R, Las Vegas and Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R, Las Vegas

AB 2

Would allow for the carry of weapons on school campuses when in an occupied vehicle, an unoccupied locked vehicle, or in an unoccupied vehicle in a locked container--all when stored out of sight. Text of AB2 is availible.

Bill Draft 20-242

College carry?

Assemblywoman Fiore's bill content is unknown, but we can only hope it allows for carry of weapons on college/university campuses. Rapes, violence, school shootings; why wouldn't someone want to keep good guys from protecting themselves? 

Nevada Carry supports all of these bills.