Just to clear up any confusion about the universal background check law, which made private gun sales and transfers illegal effective January 2, 2020, let’s have a frank chat. There is still a lot of stupid, bad info floating around there.
To be legal, you must go to a licensed dealer (a gun store), also known as an FFL. That means a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). Some times they don’t have gun stores, but operate out of their homes or gun shows. But if you’re reading this article because you don’t know better, then you probably don’t know any kitchen table FFLs.
You see, the Nevada Legislature passed Universal Background Checks in 2019, known as SB 143. This was to replace Question 1 from 2016 which Attorney General Laxalt found to be unenforceable because the FBI wouldn’t run background checks.
Nevada requires all private gun sales and transfers to be done through a dealer who will call Carson City for a background check (the only except that will probably apply to you is giving a gun to a close relative).
But I have a CCW.
It doesn’t matter if you have a CCW. The background check requirement applies to everybody. You must transfer at a dealer and get a background check called into Carson City. Nevada government believes the CCW exemption does not apply to private sales.
Have Metro do the background check.
No, you can’t do the transfer at Metro. Metro doesn’t do background checks because they aren’t licensed firearm dealers...which is who the law requires to do the check. Clark County handgun registration (“blue cards”) went away in June of 2015, so Metro has no involvement here.
“Do the transfer at the police station.”
Would it be smart for a drug dealer to do a deal in the parking lot of a cop shop?
Walking into Metro and asking them to do a background check and transfer a gun isn’t illegal, it will just make you look stupid to the police. They will tell you to go to a deal. And heaven help you if an officer sees you hand it off in the parking lot. Also, if you plan to break the law, don’t make your illegal gun sale/transfer in the parking lot of a police station.
Do you need a bill of sale from the person?
No, you need to go to a gun store and have them do the transfer. A bill of sale without the proper background check is an admission of guilt.
Sellers: a bill of sale never protected you from someone using the gun criminally or the cops knocking at your door. If you didn’t murder someone, they aren’t going to arrest you for murder simply because a gun you once owned was used in the crime. All a bill of sale did was help point the cops in the direction of the person you sold it to. Sellers, the law puts the requirement on you to get the background check on the buyer, so if you don’t, and you save a bill of sale the police get their hands on at some point, that will be evidence in your trial for breaking the background check law.
Buyers: All a bill of sale will do for you is help implicate the seller in an illegal gun transfer; the gun you bought will probably be seized as evidence. If the gun you bought is stolen, you’re probably not getting a refund. All the bill of sale will do at that point, if you had a background check, is tell the police who sold you the stolen gun.
How do I register the gun in the other person's name?
There is no gun registration in Nevada. If they are not a close relative, take the gun to a dealer (go with the person who is receiving it) and tell them you need to do a private transfer.
To legally comply with the law, you must have a licensed dealer perform the background check. Anything else, unless you fall under one of the narrow exemptions (and if you’re not relatives, it’s highly unlikely), and you’re breaking the law. If you’re breaking the law, don’t be stupid. Don’t post about it online, talk to other people about it, keep any kind of written record, or do it in the parking lot of a police station.
Many of us have all these things in our first aid/trauma kit, but do you know how to use them? Also some basic first aid videos are included.
None of this replaces actual training; this is for informational purposes only. Take a training course today. Your life or someone else's might depend on it.
How to put on an Israeli Bandage
Trauma Dressing / Pressure Bandage
Combat Application Tourniquet (C-A-T) Instructions
How to use the R.A.T.S Tourniquet
How to Create a Make-Shift Tourniquet
Quik Clot Combat Gauze - Directions For Use training
Hands Only CPR Video - Live Training Version
CPR for Infants (Newborn to 1 Year)
How to Give the Heimlich Maneuver
Direct Pressure (funny)
From Mr. Zimmmerman:
The library hosted its monthly meeting today and it was the first time of 2020 to see where this effort to ban firearms was going to go. The local Republican Central Committee group was out in force holding another protest in the parking lot prior to the meeting and this time had Niger Innis of the NRA in attendance and speaking. The library has a requirement to post its agenda publicly 3 days before the meeting and our family had been reaching out to the library staff to inquire about whether the ban was going to be brought up again. We never did receive an answer and, not only that, but when the agenda was posted it showed that the issue would be once again under the guise of the same "code of conduct" agenda item that was attempted in December. They were told back then that this was against the open meeting law so for it to be attempted again was either brazen disregard or incompetence.
The room was again packed out and we were informed just prior to the meeting that the agenda item for the code of conduct was to be pulled. As the meeting was called to order the chairman announced the same. However, the library still had a public comment sign up sheet which quickly filled to about 20 volunteers. Almost immediately as the public comments began Nye County Commissioner Donna Cox called for a point of order regarding the limitation of 3 minutes for each speaker yet the website showed that everyone was to get 5 minutes. The library staff tried to say this was a typo on the website and that they were quoting from a policy that had been in place for 20 years. That would beg the question: how long was the "typo" on the website, then?
Of all the speakers, only one for actually for the ban and, again, speaking only from feelings. The remainder of the time was spent by all taking the board to task not only on this proposed ban but also for wasting everyone's time by delaying this over and over. Several speakers said they would be coming out for every meeting until a decision was made so the board could not get away with passing something "under the cover of darkness". Once again, my son (8), my wife, my daughter, and I all spoke against the issue. My son covered the importance of protecting his little sister (2) and how he depends on the adult members of the family to provide that protection by carrying their firearms. My wife addressed the hypocrisy of "banned books month" in the library (protecting the 1st amendment) but seeking to destroy the 2nd amendment. She also offered to volunteer to teach firearm safety classes for children using the very books we donated to the library. My daughter spoke to the level of discrimination she was under for obeying the law. Finally, I spoke to how nothing in this meets common sense and then how the White Settlement church situation was settled in 6 seconds by a concealed carry member of the congregation. Obviously, we said much more than what I've summarized here.
More than one person called on the board to stop dragging this out and just make a decision so the people could react accordingly. Even the one person that spoke for the ban had to request multiple times for the boards next steps. The answer was that they were waiting for a "couple more people" to respond to whatever inquiry they had of them and then they were going to take a vote. Interestingly, this meeting had the state librarian in attendance for a presentation after the public comments and the look on her face was priceless throughout the meeting.
4 of the county commissioners were present: Koenig, Blundo, Strickland, and Cox. Their support and the support of so many in the community has been greatly appreciated. I have tried to express that as I speak with different people at each event.
Follow up after the meeting: our family noticed that the minutes from the October meeting were incorrect so my wife went back the library a short while after the meeting. Her interactions with the library director, the one who started this whole process, turned into a 30 minute conversation. In summary, the director expressed that the board has done much good over the years which she posited was indicative of competency in running the library despite what people were saying in the meetings. She then went on to say that she was would like to open discussions with my wife on starting the safety classes that were offered. She then requested that my daughter sit in a slightly different place in the storytime room so that her firearm would not have a child next to it. My wife did an excellent job of addressing her concerns and, frankly, probably made more progress in communicating with the director than I ever would.
Adding fuel to the flames, this WHOLE THING was started for no reason. It turns out that the library code of conduct ALREADY had a provision in it from 2014 banning weapons in the library. That one had everyone scratching their head: why, then, the new effort to ban firearms? So, either they don't know their own policies or it is an admission on their part that what was in place doesn't work. Yet, here we are 3 months after all this started still in the fight. However, it has been great to see the community come together on this issue at what some would consider a small location and small matter. The long and short of it is: we are still carrying at the library and we are still participating in the storytime.
Editors note: As Mr. Zimmerman points out, not only did the library code of conduct already prohibit carrying in the library, the staff and board was unaware of it for months! All while a young lady was innocently violating the policy with impunity. I'm no lawyer, but if the library hasn't attempted to enforce the policy until now, one could argue they are estopped from enforcing it.
My suggestion to the very pro-Second Amendment county commission is to pass a preemption ordinance that would prohibit any board or agency under the control or supervision of the commission from passing any restrictions on the possession/carry of firearms stricter than state law.
There has been much talk of Second Amendment Sanctuary counties lately and using Nye County, in particular, for private gun sale transfers without a background check. We need to have a look at what the state statutes say because a simple statement or resolution doesn’t affect state law. The sheriff’s statement to refuse to investigate or devote resources does not mean the state or the DA could still press charges. The courts have ways of enforcing the laws that a simple statement by the sheriff or a resolution of the commissioners don’t affect.
The statements in opposition from many sheriffs essentially mean “red flags” and background checks are a low-priority to them. They will be opposing the law in word and in deed. Since they will not be looking for violations or necessarily doing anything about them if they occur, sanctuary counties have some level of safety from prosecution. However, this does not mean they will not enforce the law or that one is free to break the background check laws there.
Non-compliance and non-cooperation by peace officers in sanctuary counties is an exercise of officer’s discretion, general looking the other way, and personal risk and liability to uphold one’s personal values. Sanctuary county officers ignore these laws at their own risk and face the wrath of the State should the anti-gun politicians in Carson City end up with egg on their face. For legal reasons, law enforcement, judges, and district attorneys cannot in good conscience state they will absolutely defy the law.
Refusing to enforce the law, in certain cases, put police in violation of the law. It is illegal for a peace officer or sheriff to refuse to arrest someone when ordered to do so by a judge (NRS 199.270 & NRS 248.060). Contempt (NRS 199.340) is also a concern for refusing to obey court orders or potentially a “red flag” law. This is not to say that a cop might do a really crappy job trying to apprehend someone, immediately release an arrestee on their own recognizance after arrest, or refuse a “red flag” order as too dangerous to serve, etc.
Potential non-compliant patriots looking to sanctuary counties should be concerned about other-county investigations, the DA, and the Attorney General. They have their own peace officer investigators. Nothing I could find limits the jurisdiction of local peace officers to their own counties or cities. Conceivably, officers from an anti-gun county could enforce the laws in a sanctuary county, though I can only see this meeting legal muster if the violator was from the cop’s jurisdiction or if the officer was a state investigator (or part of a state task force).
NRS 171.015 sets the jurisdiction for offenses in the county in which the offense is consummated. If the crime occurs in a county, the trial needs to happen there.
NRS 171.030 allows offenses happening in parts of two counties to be charged in either county. This raises the question of whether or not conspiring (see below) to violate the universal background check law in, say Clark County, is prosecutable there despite the sale happening in Nye County.
When a public offense is committed in part in one county and in part in another or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two or more counties, the venue is in either county.
Conspiracy (NRS 199.480 3.) to violate the background check law could also be charged and this is a charge that might apply in an anti-gun county (for instance the parties live in Clark County and travel to Pahrump to make the sale). The conspiracy to break the law occurred in Clark County and the violation occurred in Pahrump.
From my understanding, this could allow Clark County to charge the conspiracy violation in its courts and even if Nye County doesn’t bring charges for the actual sale/transfer or they come to naught, one can still be convicted of a gross misdemeanor. Worse, depending on case law or judicial interpretation, NRS 171.030 might allow the background check offense to be tried in Clark County, if the conspiracy and sale/transfer is considered to be one “public offense.”
NRS 202.2543* states that the crime is when an unlicensed person sells or voluntarily transfers one or more firearms to another unlicensed person. I italicized “sells or voluntarily transfers” to point out that this is the element of the crime. The sale, the exchange of money for the gun, or physically transferring possession and leaving the new owner alone with the gun, would be the “consummation” in NRS chapter 171.
In my opinion, not getting a background check on the buyer/transferee would only be criminal in the county where it occurred, unless you were on or near the border of another county (NRS 171.035).
Violation of the background check law is a gross misdemeanor or a felony. A “gross misdemeanor” is punishable by more than six months to a year in jail, which allows the defendant to request a jury trial. While a judge can refuse a jury trial request for simple misdemeanor, they cannot for a gross misdemeanor. More on why a jury is important later.
But what if the sanctuary county DA refuses to prosecute violations? Let’s say that a district attorney refuses to file prosecute for political reasons (not because it’s a weak case); the judge may require the state Attorney General, currently anti-gun Democrat Aaron Ford, to prosecute (NRS 173.065). This is a real danger if the sanctuary movement becomes high-profile defiance.
But what if the Attorney General brings prosecution and decides to try for a change of venue, because those conservative, gun-owning people of Nye County will not be “fair and impartial”? A sympathetic judge (all the way to the Supreme Court) may well deem a pro-gun jury that is highly likely to acquit, the law be damned, means the venue should be changed, oh say to Clark County.
NRS 174.455 allows a change of venue, but in order to do so, during jury selection, the jurors state they are opposed the gun control laws. A smart, pro-gun prospective juror will keep his mouth shut about his opinions and appear unbiased.
So if the DA or the Attorney General brings charges to trial, or there is a change of venue, the only thing left to do is to rely on the jury to nullify the verdict.
Jury nullification is a long tradition in English common law where the jury has the right to acquit a defendant if they feel the law is unjust. While trial instructions and courts suppress any attempts to inform the jury of their nullification rights, the right has been generally upheld.
Nullification can be a total acquittal by a unanimous “not guilty” verdict (see O. J. Simpson) or by one or more jurors dissenting from the majority and hanging the jury. A hung jury results in a mistrial. Even if a nullified verdict is set aside, the tone for the new trial is set (that the public is opposed) and the DA must weigh the costs in time, money, and trouble to have a new trial.
In conclusion, if you break this law, you do so at your own risk. A sanctuary county ultimately means nothing other than extreme opposition to the laws, not that prosecution is impossible. I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. If you get caught, don’t be a douchebag, hire a damn good attorney and prepare to take the case to the US Supreme Court.
*Universal background check language taken from Question 1 codified sections for ease of linking as SB 143 has not yet been codified by the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Many of the Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions are nothing more than a blanket statement of support for the Second Amendment and displeasure with the new gun control laws (namely banning private sales under the guise of universal background checks and “red flag” laws).
If you think you won’t get red flagged or in trouble for privately selling or transferring a gun, think again.
Only Elko and Nye County have passed ordinances with teeth that limit the ability of county officers to enforce the law. Both Sheriff Narvaiza and Wehrly are (ostensibly) not enforcing the laws (so they say). Esmeralda County
Douglas County Resolution (paywall, use reader view)
Elko County Resolution will not enforce
Eureka County Resolution
Humboldt County Resolution
Lander County Resolution
Lander County meeting minutes
Lyon County Resolution
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Nye County, Nevada: That the Board of County Commissioners hereby expresses its intent to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Nye County and its intent that public funds of the County not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights or to aid in the unnecessary and unconstitutional restriction of the rights under the Second Amendment of the citizens of Nye County to bear arms;
Both Lincoln County (3/18/19) and White Pine County (3/15/19) passed resolutions, but they are not available online at this time.
I would only comfortably call Nye County “safe” for private gun sales between non-criminals (friends) and Elko County as a close second, because Sheriff Narvaiza’s statements aren’t as clear as Sheriff Wehrly’s.
None of this means that the sheriffs or local police (or state agencies) won’t enforce the laws.
Until counties actively defy, ignore, and nullify laws the resolutions are just feel-good statements meant to appease the public and defy the corruption in Carson City.
The people in this video had multiple opportunities and ample time to neutralize the shooter. Yes, he is an old man, but he did shoot a man twice. The shots could have very easily punctured the femoral artery, probably killing the man before paramedics could arrive. The Active Self Protection video below has some good commentary on what the victims could have done.
Most of the sheriff’s in Nevada have not actually come out and said they will not be enforcing the private gun sales ban (universal background checks) or “red flag” laws. If we take a look at what they have actually done and said, the results are surprising. Villainized Sheriff Allen of Humboldt County argues a reasonable position and joined a suit against AB 291. Many have hinted at non-enforcement and expressed their opposition to the law. Notable staunch supporters are the Clark and Washoe County sheriffs.
None of the statements of non-enforcement or opposition mean that sheriffs, local police departments, or state agencies will not enforce the laws anyway. Judges and district attorneys also have to be considered, but almost universally will not comment on such matters publicly.
The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is more good feelings and words than actions. Only time will tell how law enforcement will respond to the laws. Here are words from the sheriffs directly.
Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong: “"The challenge is this; when I as a friend sell a gun to a friend and if there is no background check done, that’s a crime according to this bill; however, how is law enforcement supposed to know that a crime has been committed because something wasn’t done, how do we even know that the sale took place?" [source]
Churchill County Sheriff Richard Hickox: (on red flags) "Please rest assured, we the Churchill County Sheriff’s Office, under my guidance, will not be coming to collect your firearms unless so ordered by the courts after you have received your due process." [source]
Clark County (LVMPD) Sheriff Joe Lombardo: “The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, headed by elected Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, said in a statement [to the LVRJ] it is obliged ‘to uphold and enforce’ city, county and state laws.” [source]
Douglas County Sheriff Dan Coverley: “This law is not unconstitutional. I think this is going to be difficult for me to enforce ... but for me to say that I'm not going to enforce the law is incorrect and I don't think that I have that authority.” [source]
“I do not plan on putting any effort or resources into enforcing it, primarily because it’s unenforceable.” [source]
Elko County Sheriff Aitor Narvaiza: Elko County Resolution will not enforce including the sheriff.
“We’re going to follow the Constitution, we’re going to follow all the state laws, and gun laws; we’re just not supporting this bill." [Read the whole thing]
On red flags: “Based on an allegation without any due process we as law enforcement can go to your residence and take your firearms. This bill is a bad bill and this bill will get people hurt on both sides.” [source]
“For us to get your guns, there has to be due process. It’s the only law on the books where you can lose your firearms without doing anything wrong, just based on an allegation. That to me is very unconstitutional.” [source]
Esmeralda County Sheriff Kenneth Elgan: “I, Sheriff Kenneth N. Elgan, am opposed to any legislation which would infringe upon a citizens God-given right to keep and bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law and I will certainly not stand silent while the citizens of Esmeralda County are turned into criminals due to unconstitutional actions of the Nevada Legislature or Governor Sisolak.” [source]
Eureka County Sheriff Jesse Watts: "It is the position of this Sheriff, that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians." [source]
“‘Nowhere in my letter does it say I am not enforcing the law,’ Watts said Tuesday.” [source]
On red flags: Joined the law suit (Facebook page)
Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Allen: unclear on background checks. Opposed Question 1.
On red flags: Allen has been the center of controversy for saying: “I do oppose this law. However, it’s my not my job to oppose a law; my job is to enforce the law.” [source]
“The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office has no interest in taking firearms from law abiding citizens who are exercising their second amendment (sic) right to bear arms in our country."
"Sheriff Allen said, 'These laws, which we oppose, should not have the potential to impact citizens under ordinary circumstances. … The Red Flag law only pertains to someone wanting to commit severe violent acts involving the risk of death to innocent people or a serious mentally ill individual threatening or wanting to do harm [to] themselves or others.' He said that in his 35 years in law enforcement, he can think of only two instances where the 'Red Flag' could have been applied."
"He said internally the Sheriff’s Office will have policies in place to administratively review any potential application for an order from someone making the request. After the Sheriff’s Office reviews, he said, the Office will have the district attorney’s office review the application before it is taken to a judge. The sheriff said the law specifically says that all other means must be exhausted before it comes to carrying out a judicial order. He also said law specifically states that if taking action to enforce the order is too dangerous to the deputies, the community or the individual, the order does not have to be served."
Read the whole thing. The sheriff makes some excellent good points and explains in detail what he will do to protect citizens from abuse and his opposition to the law in general.
Claimed to be first sheriff to join NevadaCAN’s red flag lawsuit. [source]
Despite the hullaballoo, he seems to be the most reasonable and open so far. His interpretation of the law seems to imply that before seizure the requirement for the constitutional standard of probable cause would have to be met.
Lander County Sheriff Ron Unger: “It's coming down the pike to where not only on our rights to own and bear arms but it's on the Fourth Amendment, your right to illegal search and seizures
that's coming down.”
"There's a lot of loopholes in that SB 143. There's a lot of stuff that -- that they're saying law enforcement will do this and law enforcement will do that. A lot of it is a burden of proof that falls in here. I can sell you a gun right now today and -- and we're not going to do a
background check. And you could take that gun and go to Reno and do whatever you did. How are they going to prove that I own that gun? There is no gun registration." [source]
On red flags: “They're trying to make it to where law enforcement can go into somebody's house without due process of law and seize and confiscate their guns. And what that essentially does is put a target on every single one of our deputies because somebody knows they're coming over there, they're going to be ready for them and they're not going to give them the guns. … We -- we need to stop all of this. We need to take a stance and say we're not in it. And that's what I'm here to do. [source]
Lyon County Sheriff Frank Hunewill: “In terms of being a Second Amendment county, yes, we would support that. What you’re doing is sending a message that we’re not going to go out and violate someone’s Second Amendment rights as a sheriff’s office.” [source]
Mineral County Sheriff Randy Adams: "While we can’t pick and choose which laws we can enforce, this law [SB143] is poorly written. I don’t agree with the law as it is poorly written, unenforceable as written and therefore my department won’t be wasting our already limited resources enforcing this.” [source]
Nye County Sheriff Sharon Werhly: "Even if I were inclined to participate, the infrastructure is not in place to transfer firearms in this manner...I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law and certainly won't stand silent." [source]
Pershing County Sheriff Jerry Allen: “I am in opposition of this law as your elected representative, even though I am additionally opposed to it personally…I will not use the authority granted to me by the State of Nevada and the residents of Pershing County to infringe on the People’s right to Keep and Bear Arms, absent the actual commission of a violent Felony crime or valid court order.” [source]
Washoe County Sheriff Darin Balaam: “I believe in an individual’s right to bear arms, and I support a citizen’s right to legally possess firearms. However, we also have a responsibility to protect the public from criminal misuse of firearms.” [source]
White Pine County Sheriff Scott Henriod: “I believe that the new law is unenforceable. I’m sure there are many residents of the State of Nevada who own guns that have changed hands several times. There are no records of these transactions. In any criminal case, the burden to prove that a crime has been committed lies with the state. Without records of ownership, the state will not be able to prove the case that a firearm has transferred hands. This leaves law enforcement with a law that they cannot enforce." [source]
Don’t forget that in addition to sheriffs, there are police departments too. Only Clark and Carson City have consolidated departments, and Clark has four city police departments and an ungodly number of other law enforcement agencies.
The “Nevada Sheriffs’ Letter to Constituents,” signed by all 17 sheriffs, means nothing. It is a perfunctory statement of support for existing rights. It does not promise to oppose gun control or any specific resolution.
These laws put law enforcement in a bad spot. On one hand, the laws are tools to stop the next mass shooting or put the ghetto gun dealer in jail. Not entirely by accident, they put average citizens under the spotlight. You and I can’t buy guns privately anymore to avoid paperwork that might be used by a future tyrannical government to confiscate our guns because some douchebag bought a handgun privately and killed his ex-wife with it. We have to worry about crazy girlfriends or Antifa relatives (or Internet randos) red-flagging us out of revenge.
Sheriffs can’t say, “We’re not going to enforce this on just criminals, you know felons, that creepy kid everyone says is going to shoot up the school, and some no-good scumbag that we’re tacking an extra charge on to. You law-abiding people who simply want no paperwork in case of future gun registration, you’re good.” They can’t say that because it would be introduced in a trial as some sort of bias against said felon, creep, or scumbag as evidence law enforcement is biased.
Sheriffs also don’t want to paint themselves into a corner where they might have to legitimately exercise a “red flag” against an unquestionable nutcase or prosecute Ronny Ruinitall because he keeps selling guns to gang members. The moral stance of a sheriff, regardless of who the suspect is, is to not charge the violation of an unconstitutional law.
If you are, oh say a drug dealer, who gets busted, whether the cops support the laws or not, they will likely charge the suspect with the violation simply to make it harder for them to hit the street again. I see it all the time back home in California. But a sheriff can’t publicly talk about a double standard, but double standards do exist and cops exercise them everyday, for good or bad.
Ultimately, they’re politicians who are out to protect their skin, avoid lawsuits, avoid jeopardizing prosecutions, and protect their deputies from suits and potential criminal charges from the Attorney General. Don’t count on a politician of any kind or stripe to come out firmly on an issue.
Stay tuned! On Monday we look at the truth of counties’ Second Amendment Sanctuary Laws
Washington Examiner: Virginia governor's call for 18-person gun ban force comes under fire
So the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory people will think this means there is going to be an 18-man SWAT team sent out to take guns. Not likely (they'd need more than 18 men especially factoring casualties). I'd bet these positions are going to mostly administrative, or, if they are law enforcement field positions, wind up no worse than California now.
California's DOJ has a fairly extensive firearms enforcement unit. I don't know how big, but enough that they have different teams across the state. What these units do is mostly chase down prohibited persons who have a registered firearm (and often the database is incorrect). They also handle the major cases of bad guys with a lot of guns, truly illegal sales, and hammer the occasional tall nails that stick up.
A friend of mine had an extensive talk with one of the "cool" DOJ gun guys. They don't care about people like you and me, for the most part, and generally try to cut gun owners as much slack as possible because when they're sent out on a political errand, they know it's BS. They'd much rather bag dirtbags.
The current firearm squads as in California aren't much to worry about anymore than we worry about the ATF in general. However, using Nevada for an example, if the Silver State had such a unit, then they might setup private gun sale stings, which could be a problem. Even so, 18 men in any state aren't going out taking people's AR-15s (that's not even a platoon of troops).
Gun control forces get scary when they get big. Let's say the bugaloo commences and evil black rifles are being confiscated. You and I are now targets. In this world, SWAT team raids end up being firefights for the guns and the police suffer horrible public relations. Some departments outright refuse. Random cops are assassinated at traffic lights for merely being a cop. Proactive policing drops, cops stop caring, and police act like they did in LA when Chris Dorner was on the loose, constantly on red alert and lighting up old ladies in sheer terror. It's an ugly future.
Most cops won't go for gun confiscation. About half would use "assault weapon" charges to put extra time on a true bad guy they busted for something else while turning a blind eye to you or eye. This double-standard is real and is why people with CCWs have a slightly greater chance of not getting a ticket. Most cops also know gun control is crap and only accept and use laws that may their job, busting actual criminals, easier.
A quarter of cops (perhaps more than that, depending on geography and ideology) flat-out love the idea of subverting gun control. My cop friends loved finding ways to get around bans or simply break them, bragging that they had broken the California-specific laws in private. These guys are on our side, 100%, and would probably quit in a gun confiscation scenario or actively work from the inside against confiscation.
The other quarter are scary. Some are true believers and some just want to make an arrest no matter what believing that the average person shouldn't have guns. Matt Bracken wrote about these guys. Street cops like this are dying off, but are more prevalent in liberal areas and are usually immigrants from countries and cultures without guns.
A gun control force that scares me is a small unit that is designed to crush opposition. Imagine if the VACDL leaders were specifically targeted by this unit and arrested for possessing assault weapons. Bloggers (like me), people who organized protests, or people who were outspoken on social media get arrested and silenced by these guys. Silencing the leaders and motivators of resistance is a proven tactic to control dissent.
A team of 18 men could take down some "tall nails" to cool the fire of a gun control resistance movement. 18 men cannot enforce the law across a state by itself, and if a small team began silencing people, eventually shooting would start. All it takes is one "tall nail" to call for help like whiskey_warrior_556 or the Bundy Ranch.
When the government calls for a paramilitary unit, like the Nazi's Sturmabteilung (SA) to enforce their edicts (likely more than just on guns), it's time to get worried. That unit would be staffed with more than just cops, more likely criminals and disaffected monsters that gravitate to militant Antifa groups. It would be a place for cartel sicarios to get a legitimate job to employ their violent skills where a concern for law, order, and decency wouldn't matter. Also, placing in the unit hungry and desperate people (stupid, collectivists welfare beneficiaries) who will do anything for a job will guarantee orders will be followed.
A real force, not just 18 dudes, is something to really be worried about. These 18 positions are not the first in a vanguard of door kickers. Virginia is already starting to slowly back off, but it's not a retreat, it's regrouping for the future.
Virginia's gun control priorities are: universal background checks (private sale ban), one gun purchase a month, and red flag laws. Those are their priorities and what they are going to go after. They will probably get them, drop the assault weapons ban, and continue the incrementalist approach next session once the Second Amendment Sanctuary furor dies down.
The rally in Richmond will not be false flagged and any really stupid gun control stuff will die down. We protest and rally to show our opposition to the laws. It's a way to scare the anti's without actually firebombing their homes or assassinating them (which may well be the next step in Virginia if they do go full retard).
I'll feel a lot more comfortable with the whole Second Amendment Sanctuary thing when people can buy and sell guns freely and publicly without fear of repercussions in counties like Nye. Like people posting online "no background check" and doing the sales/transfers without repercussions in X rural county.
Sure, the sheriff may not care to investigate, but the DA also has the ability to press charges (and so does the Attorney General). Though, if I recall correctly, in Nevada the prosecution must be in the county where the offense occurred, so the county judge might just throw out the case entirely as unconstitutional. In the 1960s, this happened with open carry in Reno. A judge disagreed with the ordinance, deemed it unconstitutional and threw out a case, and it caused fits across the biggest little city.
Juries are the best bet. Of course, any seller charged with not getting a background check on the buyer will probably be some dirtbag criminal in Clark County. For instance, the first prosecution for Washington's UBC law was the guy who sold a gun to someone who committed a murder. Apparently, both people were not upstanding citizens.
Even DA Wolfson said that normal, law abiding gun owners are not who he's worried about (and probably won't devote much time against). Even so, you don't know who the next prosecutor in the big cities will be or what the political climate might be. You also don't want to flout the law, taking a chance that nothing will come of the sale, only to find out your buyer committed a mass shooting (like Douglas Haig).
Background checks breaking the law are likely to go under the radar. But I'll be a believer when violations happen openly and nothing happens, sorta like how high capacity magazines are still sold openly in much of Colorado, despite the ban. The real test will be with any assault weapon ban or something worse. When those bad things are still openly sold and no one dares or cares to enforce that law in the rural counties, then the 2A sanctuaries will be a success.
But then again, fireworks purchasers are busted regularly by NHP and Metro coming back from Pahrump. Granted most of them are speeding and have the fireworks in plain sight in their car, but cops still enforce it (half-assed, like they take half the fireworks and then wink at the rest). But it's not out of the realm of probability for hostile county LE to enforce the laws once you get back to their jurisdiction. I'd imagine that kind of enforcement would quickly result in an ambush and dead cops (though I bet a lot of Nevada cops would simply balk at the idea in the first place).
Anyhow, the rambling musing is complete. Time will tell with how the 2A sanctuaries shape up, but as the saying goes, money talks and BS walks.
Support Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research, links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc. Please email regarding one-time donations.