Did you know that Nevada has its own gun-free micronation? That's right, one-acre of the Dayton Valley is the gun-free and independent Molossia, the creation of President Kevin Baugh. The video explains it better than I can.
I took a trip there and documented my findings, but could not clear customs so I didn't try to enter (and I don't smoke weed so you guess why).
Under "Customs Regulations", "Firearms, ammunition, explosives, drugs and tobacco are all prohibited."
I did some research to see if this was just because drugs are illegal and Baugh is a non-smoker, but apparently the Republic of Molossia is a progressive republic and progressives see guns as bad. Sorta like California, except Baugh doesn't take himself as seriously as California takes itself.
The reason I don't think the gun-free zone is just a sensible anti-assassination precaution because Molossia's April 2018 newsletter praised the March for Our Lives rally in Reno, which the Baugh's attended in support.
Readers are reminded not to attempt an invasion of Molossia because the President may very well hypocritically own firearms for his defense like Nancy Pelosi has armed bodyguards and also as Nevada does not recognize Molossia's independance, the Storey County sheriff will kick your ass.
A Las Vegas resident was detained by LVMPD Friday Sept. 14 while he was wearing a plate carrier (chest rig vest), his Glock, and an extra magazine. Per the citizen, YouTube username Pizzazz Picasso, stated he was detained and handcuffed. The citizen has not (as of yet) explained why he was out on the street with a plate carrier and a GoPro camera. Disclaimer: we do not have the full video, we do not have the bodycam video, and we do not have the 911 call and radio traffic.
There are two issues here:
Wearing a plate carrier in public will generate negative attention; something that any reasonably intelligent person should expect. Wearing a plate carrier in public is more than likely done deliberately to get attention from the public or the police. Because of today’s sad state of affairs, the average person is likely to think there is something dangerous or illegal afoot when they see someone wearing tactical gear for apparently no reason.
One’s belief of what is constitutionally permissible or what “should” be considered un-alarming by society does mean everyone else thinks the same way. The ideal is not reality. People tend to take away negative experiences more than they do positive ones. The discreet open carry in the grocery store that they probably didn’t even notice won’t stick in their memory as much as a guy on a street corner in a “flak jacket” arguing with a cop.
Open carry as a reasonable, normal, everyday practice is harmed when people tote rifles or wear unnecessary tactical kit and then become indignant when the police respond. People ignorant about the Second Amendment and open carry do not understand what we gun folks intrinsically understand. We might regard a plate carrier as “different strokes,” like wearing a kilt, but they see it as highly usual and an indication of danger.
If there is no reason to do it, don’t do it. Elsewhere I have discussed a similar issue of long-gun open carry protests and the problems they present. That being said, it does not excuse LVMPD from rising to the take the bait and illegally detaining someone.
Open carry is not a reason to be detained, even if it is weird or appears unethical. A call of a man wearing a plate carrier alone is not reasonable suspicion for a detention; perhaps the caller exaggerated Will's behavior. If the caller claimed Will was brandishing, police would have additional grounds, though wisely taken with a grain of salt, to effect a brief detention to establish if there is a crime.
We have to realize that the average person's opinion is the legal standard; not that of a well-informed cop or regular open carrier. Officers are obligated by most departments to contact the suspicious individual. Officers and departments must stop treating open carriers as suspicious persons without additional justification.
Ideally, if the caller is honest that the person is not doing anything dangerous or obviously illegal, the dispatcher should not put in a call for service and educate the citizen. Here’s how a citizen contact should go:
Officer: “Uh hi, we got a call. What’s going on?”
Citizen: “I’m just openly carrying and exercising my rights.”
Officer: “Okay cool. Take care.”
Citizen: “Thanks, have a nice day.”
Of course, if the cops roll up and you can immediately tell you’re going to get a ride up and down the justice shaft, it’s probably a good idea at that point to just shut up and think of your lawyer’s phone number.
Using the above cooperative model, the police did its due diligence and no one’s rights or feelings were hurt, except the ignorant citizen who called police. A really dangerous person would start running away or shooting at the police; they would not be compliant and talk about their rights.
The more you talk and the more you go round and round with the police, the more you appear like a troublemaker and the less like a freedom-loving citizen. Cops will not respect you for running your mouth making excuses, “explaining” things to them, or trying to argue. Trying to litigate your case on the street is something that criminals do and an officer will regard you with the same low opinion.
If you are doing nothing wrong and not provoking authorities, you will get more respect from police and better respect for your rights if you use them. These “confrontations” continue because we allow them, first by provoking them, then by sticking around and arguing them out. The Hiibel decision came about because Mr. Hiibel refused to “identify himself.” As a result, in Nevada all one has to do when detained by police is give their name, not an ID card. All Nevada officers should be aware of the Hiibel case.
By not jaw-jacking with officers, this already waste of time call becomes a bigger waste of their time. If all they get is “I’m exercising my rights by openly carrying,” and at most, a name, they will eventually be conditioned into that response in the future. You will not change the officer’s mind or his opinion of you by telling him how “badass” cops are, how you vote, or how much you secretly want them to like you.
Things like unnecessary tactical kit and long-gun carry are bad ambassadorship to the rest of the public. Even if it isn't actually trolling the police, that is what many see these instances as. Open carriers are portrayed poorly because there was no need to tote that rifle or wear that vest. An argumentative person decked out with tactical gear arguing that it's his right doesn't make a sympathetic character. We all remember Rosa Parks, not some angry teenage boy who yelled at the bus driver.
Las Vegas’ own KNPR featured concealed carry on the Friday Sept. 7th edition of “State of Nevada.” Guests included CCW instructor Maggie Mordaunt, Nevada conservative and NRA Membership Committee board member Niger Innis, and author Craig Collins. Collins was the anti-gun Fudd, author of Thunder in the Mountains: a memoir subtitled “A Portrait of American Gun Culture.”
At 13 years old, Collins was injured in a shooting accident where he shot himself in the foot after an negligent discharge. Collins shares hallmarks with emotional hoplopaths who have experienced a gun tragedy. He shot himself and had a harrowing journey to the hospital. His research has been centered around examining gun accidents. He has the intelligence and ability to think rationally about guns, but the emotional aspect prevents him from using those tools to come to the correct conclusions. His experiences and his coping mechanisms force him to come to an assumption that he already wants to believe.
In his interview, Collins simply gets guns all wrong. Listening to him was nearly intolerable because everything he said was incorrect or warped. Very little of what he said stands up to scrutiny. Collins denied that he is anti-gun, rather “I am anti-150k gun casualties in the United States,” and believes that it is more likely for someone to be harmed in violence, suicide, or an accident with a gun than use one positively in self-defense. He is completely wrong.
The CDC statistics on death and injuries are frequently used to showcase gun deaths and injuries. The WISQARS database records 14,415 gun homicides and 22,938 suicides in 2016 and 88,702 gun injuries from assaults and 4,357 injuries from self-harm (i.e. suicide attempt, negligence). That's a little over 100,000 criminal gun uses resulting in death or injury a year and 130,000 or so total “bad things from guns” in 2016.
Even with the most conservative estimate of defensive gun uses (in the 100,000 range), bad things with guns are generally a wash compared to saving lives and stopping crimes. But recently the expert in defensive gun use estimates Gary Kleck confirmed that there are at least one million defensive gun uses annually, perhaps as many as 2.4 million. Most defensive gun uses never result in a shot being fired. [source]
Collins no longer owns a gun, implying it is because hunting is poor in his now-home of San Diego, but as a Fudd, he might own a rifle or shotgun if he lived elsewhere. “I just don’t think that [handguns] are really great defense systems. They're cumbersome, they're dangerous and if you really want to protect your home the best thing to do is get a dog.” What an awkward way of saying he doesn’t believe in private handgun ownership.
Collins seemed to be a wealth of ignorance, misinformation, and propaganda, discounting the usefulness of handguns for self-defense. “These guns that they're making for concealed carry are actually quite dangerous. They smaller...not much bigger than a credit card...these are 9mm guns and they'll kill you just as dead as any other gun.” He complained about subcompact pistols with “hair-triggers” being put in pockets and purses. Purse and pocket carry is a bad idea, but nothing will insulate the world from ignorance and stupidity.
He sends a mixed message on the design or the user being the problem of the gun. Most production firearms, especially the subcompact concealed market, do not have “hair-triggers,” but factory triggers of around 4-5lb weight. This is totally standard. Collins is clearly complaining about striker fired guns, which, if handled negligently, as he handled his rifle, can be fired more easily than a long, heavy double-action trigger.
Collins might be a fan of NYPD weight Glock triggers, as he blamed LA County Sheriff's negligent discharge problem on striker fired guns. This totally ignores the training problems that led NYPD to adopt the heavy triggers (officers accustomed to placing their finger on revolver triggers couldn't unlearn that habit after the switch to Glock).
Frankly, there are vastly more deaths and injuries from bad drivers than there are firearm accidents. Collins' statements on women carrying guns in their purses borders on misogyny; a common anti-gun argument is that women are not safe with firearms.
Much of Collins work focuses on firearms accidents and irresponsible gun use, forming a large portion of his book (I have not read it). In researching his book, Collins said that he learned the “wild” West was extraordinarily violent. Statistically, it was, but not so much in reality as one journalist debunks:
The homicide rate was high in these towns because the population was very small. Even one murder in a town with only a few dozen residents leads to a high homicide rate. These towns were violent, but not nearly as violent as some imagine.
The notorious town of Bodie, California, had an astronomical homicide rate far in excess of even today’s Chicago; however, the town only had 29 killings in a five-year period. Chicago had 2,562 in the past five years. A small population inflates the ratio of homicides, but does not adequately represent the risk to the public nor the nature of the killings. A bare number cannot tell the story of why men killed.
Many frontier killings were done in the heat of passion among persons known to each other, usually in bars or disputes over gambling—there was little risk of today’s random violence. I wrote a little more about this in a post on the history of concealed weapon laws. We can’t look at homicide rates outside of context or extrapolate facts from the past that are no longer applicable to modern America. Using Old West violence as an influence on modern gun control is like studying wagon accidents to reduce traffic deaths.
The fact that rough, single men, usually intoxicated and surrounded by a frontier society that was permissive to violence generally goes ignored by the lightweight gun control authors, much like minority violence is ignored today. Collins complained to the San Diego Union-Tribune that the CDC doesn't track “who’s doing the shooting.” It's probably good (for hoplopaths) that they don’t because blacks, at 12-14% of the US population, disproportionately commit the majority of murders in the country.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of all homicides committed between 1980 and 2008, 47.4 percent of the victims were black while 52.5 percent of all offenders were black. Of all felony murders during the same time period, blacks accounted for 44.1 percent of those murdered while accounting for 59.9 percent of the offenders. Blacks accounted for 56.9 percent of all gun homicides. [Source]
We know who commits the murders/suicides and we know why. Families weakened by welfare—where the state replaces the need for traditional family ties—results in poor parenting, absent fathers, and gangs substituting for intimate relationships while drugs are used as an escape. Mass shootings have pointed to a general breakdown in civility between people and a huge crisis in mental health care. Vast economic changes have altered rural America, leading to the suicide spike for white men in those areas.
Addressing the murder/suicide causes requires an uncomfortable discussion about the causes that we can no longer have in America. It is an inhumane disserve, and indeed racist (in the case of minorities) to ignore root causes of violence and let it go on unchecked because speaking the truth is distressing. The only way to solve a problem is to openly admit its cause. We cannot, as Collins did, misrepresent fact and abuse logic to blame inanimate objects for human factors. Firearms are far more a tool for good than for evil or misfortune.
 Kessler, Glenn. “Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West.” Washington Post. April 29, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/29/rick-santorums-misguided-view-of-gun-control-in-the-wild-west/
We all probably know someone in our lives that is an emotional thinker. How they “feel” is more important than facts. Critical thinking is subordinate to emotions in these people. Decisions are often made in a way that resolves internal, emotional conflicts by deflecting the pain. There are two main types of emotional hoplopaths; the traumatized and the irrational. The traumatized exhibit psychological damage, locking their reasoning up. The irrational have little or no ability (or desire) to think critically. Both are often guilty of ignoring evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
These emotional thinkers are not able to properly deal with their emotions. Those of lower intelligence will react impulsively, often out of anger or overwhelming sadness. These irrational individuals cannot use reason to reconcile how they feel with how they interact with guns. Traumatized and higher intelligence persons use perverted logic to come to a false conclusion; that is a negligent discharge was not caused by the shooter, but because the gun was faulty.
The average emotionally driven person will engage in activism to resolve inner feelings on guns and violence. “If I go to this anti-gun rally, it will make me feel better when I think about gun violence.” That’s a choice that isn’t made with much thought; the decision to join the cause is made reflexively as the unconscious motion to scratch an itch. Emotion calls for an action that will resolve the internal conflict; not necessarily solve the problem.
The emotional hoplopath’s dislike of guns can be emotional, based on personal experience or simply opinion. It can also be based out of ignorance (again, there is always considerable overlap), such as they have no experience with guns and are conscious largely only on the negative aspects of firearms. They have “knowledge” of firearms that is not a constructive or especially factual knowledge, but based on their experiences, direct or inferred. These would be the folks horrified by media reports of gun crimes.
An emotional hoplophobe may have experienced tragedy involving guns or may have been traumatized at a young age. The emotional generally have been so conditioned by living in, for instance, a violent, gang infested neighborhood, that their perception has been entirely altered. Some have undergone mental changes due to the effects serious psychological trauma. The thought skills to rationally think about guns are there, but the emotional aspect prevents them from using those tools. The conditioning aspect of constant exposure to negativity is difficult to overcome from without and least likely to be altered by positive reinforcement.
The emotional aversion usually results in hate and activism, while ignorance typically is limited to only expressing one’s opinion. Lacking awareness of their own emotions or the control that emotion has is another major difference between ignorance and emotional aversions. Emotional types are rather like egocentric individuals trying to be introspective; thoughts critical to their established beliefs make them uncomfortable, so deep thought is avoided.
An example is a man who lost his son in a gang murder; rather than blame his son’s membership in a gang, blames easy access to guns. Personal responsibility for violence (or avoiding it) causes an intense conflict when the person or a loved one is to blame, or at least contributed, for the trauma. No one wants to be at fault for their problems, nor do they wish to besmirch the memory of a loved one. Trying to ban guns is an easier task (and requires less painful emotional introspection) than addressing the root causes of crime. Admitting that someone had a drug, temper, or gang problem requires an acceptance of personal blame that must be avoided to preserve the person’s ego.
Likewise, blaming an individual group for its contribution to violence is also unacceptable to many. African-Americans are statistically the most homicidal race in America and account for the majority of violence. Poverty, gangs, and drugs are endemic among lower-class blacks and all contribute to crime and victimization in that community. Yet admitting that the black community has a problem with those things is a de facto accusation against the community. Though it is true that drug abuse and gang violence is out of control in black America, anyone who points out that factor is labeled a racist. Instead of trying to eliminate the roots of black drug use, poverty, and gang membership, it is more politically correct for lawmakers to target guns in the quest for ending inner city violence.
Lawmakers look at problems and provide a solution using the tools at their disposal; legislation. Often, the actual solution is beyond the control of a legislator. They cannot control how aggressively police and prosecutors combat crime using the laws at their disposal. They cannot control social factors that influence the individual’s decision to engage in criminal behavior. But by writing a law, effective or not, it satisfies their emotional drive to “do something.” It is the classic problem of “when the your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” When the new law proves effective, another one is called for, promising to be the next cure.
To change emotional thinking, we have to identify the thought processes that lead to the emotional decision. Identification of what’s really going on inside the mind allows for the formulation of effective strategies to challenge the emotional thought process. For instance, someone who based their opinion on gang murders from the evening news may have their mind changed by regularly seeing stories about successful defensive gun uses and the positive aspects of the shooting sports.
Think of a prisoner raised from birth in solitary confinement. Every time the door opens, he is blinded by daylight, kicked, and sprayed with a hose. If light brings with it pain and humiliation--the prisoner having no concept of the joys of the outside world--can we blame him for hating light? All of us (perhaps even ourselves) had an emotionally based opinion changed by being exposed to the balance of an issue that we were missing.
This interruption in emotional thinking will not take place if one is never exposed to opposing viewpoints or the positive aspects of a negative subject. Additionally, if one deliberately ignores the other side and/or mentally blocks its effect, there will be no interruption. Imagine the prisoner ignoring the cries of his cellmates to look out the door at the beautiful world outside. The emotionally bound thinkers consciously or unconsciously choose to keep information contrary to their emotional conclusion from their thought process.
Why some are like this, I don’t know. The best quote on the topic comes from Robert A. Heinlein: “Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion--in the long run these are the only people who count…” However, there is a fraction of emotional hoplopaths that are beyond our reach.
The hoplophobe is ignorant of guns and afraid is therefore afraid of them; whether this results in hoplopathy is dependent on the individual.
An example of a hoplophobe would be a New Yorker who, back home, is verbally aggressive when someone is rude or inconsiderate. Westerns tend to be slightly more quiet, reserved, and non-confrontational. This New Yorker is afraid to vocalize her frustrations (yell at people) because “you all have guns out here and I’m afraid someone will pull one out and shoot me.” This isn’t true, however, she combines her experience of a more aggressive culture with the armed culture of western America and imagines that we would respond as one might have in the days of the bygone Wild West.
Most hoplophobes are ignorant persons who never actually manifest their ignorance and fear as hatred of guns. Where the transition from simple ignorance, hoplophobia, to hoplopathy lies would be if the New Yorker joined an gun control group and did more than just vote and express her opinion privately. The second chief difference between -phobia and -pathy is what actions one takes.
The ignorant have no depth of knowledge to draw from or lack the mental tools to think critically. Those with limited access to information are the people who pro-gun thoughts never occur to because there is no exposure to other ways of thinking or information. Their store of gun knowledge is either empty or filled with useless junk. The first group have a deficit of correct information and the second are those who also lack an ability to retain and process information. These latter group simply are not intelligent and make their minds up based on what others tell them; in other words, stupid people.
A limited frame of reference prevents new information from challenging assumptions. This can be a personal choice of excluding information outlets or until recently, no alternative sources. The structure of pre-Internet media is a perfect example of this. Nightly reports of drive-by shootings, school massacres, and politicians and “experts” explaining how guns are dangerous creates a unified wall of opinion and negative reinforcement. Groups like the NRA were generally treated as “fringe” by the media and society for most of our lives.
Those who are informed and thus influenced by the media are like the winds and tides; powerful because they have mass, yet they do not control their own direction are at the mercy of far more powerful forces. The sheep that get their news without thought and have their opinion shaped by the mainstream media can literally be described as changing their politics with the tide. This ignorance breeds aversion because years of negative reinforcement is unbalanced by anything positive.
However, the ignorant who lack informed knowledge (vs. the stupid) can be converted to pro-gun positions the most easily. Many have uninformed knowledge based on the media, but personal exposure to gun owners or experiencing a life-changing event can lead them to viewing guns as defensive tools, not makers of mayhem. Thankfully, many can be redeemed in today’s information society. Examples abound of those who grew up in the suburban areas of anti-gun states becoming ardent Second Amendment supporters simply because they were exposed to new knowledge. These converts are very rarely emotional thinkers.
Since the 1990s, we have seen the destruction of the mass media narrative and the erosion of the monolith that much of the public would not question. Factual information about guns and gun violence was limited to specialist publications that the disinterested would not take the time to buy or seek out. Alternative news sites, blogs, and the sharing of ideas and discussions that social media has facilitated made it much easier for an average person to have access to contrary viewpoints. As a result, in the last twenty years there has been a dramatic shift in public opinion against gun control.
The other division are the stupid; those that Heinlein would define as “can’t think.” The reasons could be many; low intelligence, poor education, no interest in all but base pleasures and necessary work, or disinterest in anything even slightly intellectual. Those who might care rely on those in authority to do the thinking for them. They have been told by the news, a politician, a clergyman, or a respected relative that guns are bad or had bad experiences themselves. No mental structure exists for processing contrary information and weighing out which is more likely to be correct. To be cynical, this is the block that if they are involved in gun control at all, it is as mere votes, cheap labor (signatures or demonstrators), or human props.
The main difference between the first two groups and the antagonistic is that the former two generally don’t know any better or simply do not possess the ability or access to information to think critically about the topic.
To be continued...
Want campus carry? Start asking for permission. We’ll help (but no promises). Not for K-12 schools!
State law allows for the presidents of Nevada’s public colleges and universities, known as the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), to grant written permission to carry firearms on campus. Unfortunately, most of the time permission to carry for self-defense is denied. The standard is so stringent, that even corrections officers attending classes have been denied permission. Unless it is highly likely that you will be victimized and can prove it, permission will be denied. NSHE policy effectively denies Nevadans their right to self-defense.
It’s time to change all that. For too long, Nevadans have been dissuaded from applying simply because “How do I apply?” is met with “Don’t bother, they don’t approve anybody.” You can help change that by asking for permission and showing that yes, there is a demand for students and citizens to defend themselves on campus.
Nevada Carry is providing a form, that includes hold harmless language and release of liability, to help you apply for permission to carry a concealed handgun on campus and/or store it in your car. The goal is to one, show demand exists, and two, track the process and exact reasons for denials, along with the persons involved.
If people are asking and being told “no” in secret, we can’t know the reasoning or persons behind the decisions. So if you apply for permission, please email us all copies of correspondence with the university officials, including denials. PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. This is a process; you will probably be told no, but that is part of how we start to change things.
NSHE’s Policy Terms
Presidents have discretionary authority, subject to the conditions set by the Board of Trustees. It is a highly restrictive “may issue” policy. The duty of the president is to:
An NSHE institution President who receives a written request from an individual to carry a concealed weapon on the campus must consider, investigate, and evaluate each request on a case by case basis, giving individual consideration to each specific request, and must make a determination on each request according to a need standard.
Permits are may issue and require a specific “need” under the most stringent interpretation of the word. Determining factors are:
1. a specific risk of attack presented by an actual threat;
2. a general risk of attack presented by the nature of the individual’s current or former profession, as established by actual evidence of increased risk of attack on such individuals; or
3. a legitimate educational or business purpose.
The application is reviewed. Often campus police call for an interview and any documentation regarding specific threats are requested. In most cases, a denial is then issued. Anyone who is denied has the right to request an appeal.
Read the full policy here. Most approvals are for non-carry reasons, such as class educational displays. Carry permission is granted mostly to security personnel, armored car drivers, and off-duty law enforcement teaching on campus.
For the average person to get permission for self-defense carry, the standard is far and beyond “good cause,” but practically requires that an attack has already happened or one is highly likely to be attacked. Elevated, but non-specific threats, or a general concern for one’s safety is not considered good enough to get permission to carry.
Self-defense because of what could happen is as good as reason as any to apply, so if that’s all the justification you wish to put on the form, why not? Asking for permission to carry after you have been victimized is no good. If NSHE wants to deny people, they will. What victim of random crime anticipates that they will become a victim in the near future? Do only those with verified death threats against them or abusive spouses deserve protection?
Recently, a woman was kidnapped at an UNLV parking garage and sexually assaulted at gunpoint. Once again, campus police failed to protect a student from being attacked. All the campus gun ban did was ensure that this woman was an easy target. However, she was able to grab the suspect’s gun, after being assaulted, and managed to get away. Opponents of campus carry say that the student will just be disarmed by an attacker; they never talk about the victim getting the bad guy’s gun. This situation should never have happened. As originally proposed, colleges and universities were never meant to be gun-free zones.
The historical record is clear; legal guns on college and university campuses have never been a problem. Legislators did not originally seek to deny concealed carriers the ability to carry on campus, but rather allowed it to happen as carrying a handgun legally was uncommon. Authorities were to use their discretion to the benefit of gun owners and not to deny practically every request.
Armed citizens and members of the educational community must be involved in the elections and actions of the Board of Regents. Regents who are friendly to gun owners can help create quality policies without resorting to the difficulties of the legislative process. Continue reaching out to students, teachers, and professors about the Second Amendment and the gun culture.
2017 is not 1989. Handguns and self-defense carry are popular in America and once again they are recognized by the majority as not only a right, but sometimes as a necessity. The old conventions about who carries are gun and the risk of accident vs. probability of a defensive gun use have changed. Old policies created under a paradigm that no longer exists and enforced today for political reasons need to be eradicated or altered to reflect today’s reality.
About the Form
The form is unofficial and not approved by NSHE. It was not written or reviewed by an attorney and none of this is legal advice. It is simply to help interested citizens apply in an uniform manner that might get some traction with NSHE officials. One who applies is strictly doing so on their own. Nevada Carry makes no guarantees and accepts no liabilities. We are not making a promise that you will get permission or that any of this will work.
What will probably happen is a denial. After receiving that, appeal because you can. Fight them every step of the way. Politely and respectfully, of course. If you list merely self-defense, it would be helpful to include statistics and a personally written statement about the dangers of random crime and how armed citizens can protect themselves. Tell them the things we tell each other about good guys with guns. If we can’t change their minds, then we can provide them with the undeniable truth. Make them articulate in detail why they are denying you.
Then we can work on getting the Trustees to change their policy and one day, legislation to undo the law altogether. Again, apply, appeal, and provide Nevada Carry copies of all correspondence. PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.
Please do not apply to any campus that you do not attend or have business at.
On Facebook, a person asked if he could shoot the feral cats that harass him and his pets. Rather than feel a true threat of death or serious injury, the poster seemed annoyed with the animals and the lack of help his landlord and animal control could give him. His solution seemed to be to shoot the cats.
There are two laws that might apply, in our case, shooting in a built-up area like a city. Some areas exempt lawful self-defense against animals, even in defense of property (pets are legally property). Pest control is not a topic of this blog; we are not discussing the aspects of animal cruelty killing feral animals, but rather self-defense against animals.
Discharge of firearm laws vary widely from location to location. In many cases, there is no explicit exemption for even shooting a criminal in self-defense, though it is generally understood to be an exception using common law and common sense, even before justifiable homicide laws. Animals make things a bit murky though.
“Self-defense” is not defined by state law. A common understanding would be protection of one’s self, family, or property, depending on the circumstances. Self-defense is a valid defense to many crimes, articulated by case law, statutes, or simply by prosecutorial, judicial, or even a jury’s discretion. It is unlikely that someone who shoots a truly vicious animal that is or is about to attack would be prosecuted.
The consideration that should be made is the actual danger; is anyone likely to sustain serious injuries or be killed? If it is legal to shoot an animal in defense of one’s own animal, is the predator a credible threat to kill or seriously injure the other animal? Discretion must be used. The threat of the animal should be greater than the danger of a stray bullet. Would neighbors or a jury find the actions reasonable?
Let’s examine the local laws where there may be an express “dangerous animal” exception.
Clark County (unincorporated areas)
Discharge of firearm prohibited in all built-up areas and the below is not an exception to the discharge ordinance. The below section is an animal cruelty exception that may be interpreted as a defense.
It is unlawful for any person to fire upon any animal unless:
(C) In necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person;
(D) The animal is venomous or known as dangerous to life, limb or property;
Excludes: 1. The discharge of any gun above described by any person within the city limits or without the city limits but into or across the city limits, while in the defense of the said person's life or the lives of his family or the same person's home or property.
Title 7, Ch. 1
All sections exempt: The discharge of a firearm by any person in the necessary defense of himself, his family or property.
in case of necessary defense of self, family or property
Note that “self-defense” is not defined nor is property referenced.
"One who discharges a weapon in lawful self-defense"
The discharge of a firearm by any person in the necessary defense of himself, his family, another
person or property.
Person lawfully discharging a firearm in protection of life or in self-defense as defined in Nevada law; [property not mentioned]
Necessary self-defense or the defense of one's family or property.
Any person lawfully discharging a firearm in protection of life or property.
This section shall not apply...to any person lawfully discharging a firearm in protection of life or property or livestock.
Washoe County (unincorporated areas)
2. This section does not apply to:
(c) To any person lawfully discharging a firearm in protection of life or property.
White Pine County
The discharge of a firearm by any person in the necessary defense of himself, his family or property
The moral of the story is that you shouldn’t go around shooting animals unless they are attacking you or another person or your pets (where legal). Even where legal, before killing animals to protect pets, livestock, crops, etc. or even just to cull nuisance animal populations, consult with animal control and your local authorities.
Ironically, I had never been to a gun show in California until the August Crossroads of the West in beautiful seaside Ventura. Like the deep-sea fishing trip my father promised, we never made it to a gun show. I did however get all the AWB-era gun magazines and catalogs that he fed our small milsurp collection, promptly thumbing them to death.
I was pleasantly surprised with the atmosphere inside, despite the usual scummy gray skies of a Southern California summer.. It was like a gathering of oppressed, like-minded individuals thumbing their noses at the government. I even saw at least one person openly carrying a GI-style M1911.
80% lowers, the uppers, and the parts to finish them dominated the room. Nevada’s own Polymer 80 Glock style guns were everywhere and interest was intense. Incidentally, my retired cop buddy was chatting it up just the day before with a gorgeous 20-year old woman about her Polymer 80 build and meeting up at the show. Sadly, we did not cross paths with her.
California’s recent banning of the “bullet button” created the surge in alternatives to keep an AR unregistered. Some tables showed off locks that only dropped the magazines when the upper and lower were separated, while the parts bazaar sold clever work-arounds like pistol grip fins and angled foregrips. Tables of featureless AR-15s equipped with Thordsen stocks looked pretty good, despite their strange device-less muzzles.
Surplus, antique, and just plain older guns were far more evident than newer guns. Whole collections of US GI rifles in varying makes and grades were available. Perhaps the wackiness of California laws made such displays more viable or more prominent than in other states, where it feels like hunting a quality surplus weapon is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Of course, private sales are illegal and have been for twenty years or so, requiring the buyers to move over to an FFLs table, who would then hold it for the ten-day waiting period (and report the sale to the state). One unique aspect was that the smaller ammo venders are now required to put up a physical barrier in front of their ammo, which meant the table venders put chicken wire across their display boxes or even just aluminum foil.
Even with the utterly ridiculous and tyrannical obstacles thrown up by the state, there was a pretty decent crowd. It was far more popular than a typical Las Vegas mid-summer gun show. Many of the sellers remarked that they would continue sell, just to fight the good fight, and to annoy the anti-gunners.
Despite my best efforts, I saw no undercover California DOJ agents slinking through the Reno aisles looking to bust Californians trying to smuggle ammo home. Agents have typically identified Californians by clothing that announces that one likely is a California resident. They then follow the suspects, observe their purchases, follow them to their vehicle, and once the vehicle crosses the border, marked units make a traffic stop.
I was hoping to identify one, follow them around, stymie their efforts, and see if I couldn’t get Reno PD to arrest them for something. Oh well. Instead, I picked up a couple minor things, got a great deal on some books, and had a great conversation with two guys about Little Bighorn.
Reno was miserable at the end of July, choked with smoke as it was. The gun show offered an indoor respite from the misery, but as usual (mainly because I was unwilling to spend several thousand dollars filling up my gun safe) I felt a little unsatisfied when I left. I didn’t see much that was new or see any particularly remarkable deals. Compared to Reno (and Las Vegas shows) the Ventura show had a better overall atmosphere.
There are too many FFL tables at gun shows, often taking up much of the floor and constituting the majority of gun sold. These guns are rarely sold at a discounted rate and don’t compete with the big online “we-ship-to-your-FFL” houses. If I am paying retail, I’d rather do it from my gun stores of choice and support the existence of a brick-and-mortar gun store. I didn’t come to a gun show to see an entire gun store laid out on tables; I came for private sales.
Secondly, there is a disappointing lack of private sales going on. The Reno show at least had part of a whole wall filled with private sellers rather than them being scattered haphazardly through the hall. Paranoid or not, many of us prefer to buy guns without the hassle of paperwork and background checks. A gun show is the perfect meeting place for buyers and sellers to come together and make great deals in a way that would thwart future registration via Form 4473.
The dearth of private sales may be related to factors beyond anyone’s control. Those who remember gun shows from the pre-AWB era as better than today with a wider selection, better deals, and better private sellers are constantly complaining about today’s gun shows. My personal theory is that all the “good” guns like WWII surplus and cheap guns of yesteryear have become collectables and are being held on to.
It may also be generational; the 60 and 70 year old men who sold guns to today’s 40-60 year old men are now mostly dead, their gun collections waiting to be liquidated when the Baby Boomers get too old to enjoy them. Perhaps in 10-15 years we will see a resurgence of cheap, quality guns being sold off in large numbers as men and women get rid of the stuff that the kids don’t want to inherit. Then of course it could just be the Internet moved the market to private forums and sites like Gunbroker, etc.
This is the first take on my thesis for my forthcoming book on the general history and topic of open carry. past to present.
This law denounces not as harm
With the so-called victory for open carry and the Second Amendment in Young v. Hawaii, many are no doubt curious why open carry is called the constitutionally approved method of carrying a gun, while concealed carry often requires a permit. Though society seems more comfortable with concealed carry, courts at least claim that their preference under the law is open carry. The huge discrepancy has to do with the history of violence in the South and in the Old West.
Though commonplace and the preferred method of carrying a handgun, concealed carry suffered from a negative reputation as a “pernicious practice” and “evil habit.” This demonization was due to concealed weapons’ associations with passionate violence and sudden homicides. A culture that tolerated and often encouraged easy violence blamed not the hearts of men for crime, but the effects of an inanimate object in the pocket for influencing men to kill. This violence and supposed deception justified many legal decisions against concealed carry, but supporting open carry.
Concealed carry has generally always been common, as much as, if not more than, open carry. Open carry was often not as widespread as imagined because of negative attitudes towards carrying guns. In many places until the shall-issue wave of concealed carry laws in the 1980s and 1990s, carrying a gun was seen as a suspicious, if not outright criminal, practice. Concealed carry’s historical tarnished reputation so demonized carrying a gun, it discouraged many from carrying openly, even though it was legal.
Today sensible people find it laughable to think that merely placing a weapon under clothing would make someone more liable to be violent, yet in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, many believed just this. Notorious gunmen, criminals, and other undesirables hid their guns just as they concealed their evil intentions. This idea didn’t come from nowhere.
Pre-Civil War Southern society had a nasty habit of dueling or fighting over matters of honor. Duels were considered the dignified way of handling disputes while brawls in the street or the heat of the moment were considered low brow. By the mid-19th Century, dueling died out as the younger generations thought them silly. Rather than pre-arrange a duel, the post-dueling society men fought in hot blood. No matter how the dispute or insult was settled, violence in defense of honor became a Southern cultural norm. As Southerners made their way across the frontier all the way to California, their fighting culture came with them.
In mining camps, prairie cattle towns, and out on the range men fought each other over minor pretexts, much as they do now, except then, fights that lead to murder were much more common and almost socially acceptable. Refusing to fight to defend one’s honor was considered cowardly. Non-lethal fights often and easily turned into murder as the taboo against casual violence was weak. As words deteriorated into fists, or even before that, someone would draw a weapon carried in their clothes and assault or kill the other. The problem of senseless murders was exacerbated by the refusal of juries to return guilty verdicts.
Usually the barest excuse for self-defense would result in a jury acquitting the killer. For instance, a man would pick a fight, the other guy would reach for a pocket pistol or knife, and the instigator would shoot first, claiming self-defense because the other guy was reaching for a gun.
The best way to compare this culture to today would be as if police didn’t investigate and prosecute gang murders because society places little value on the lives of gang members. Outside an often ambivalent ghetto culture, American society is horrified by inner city violence.
It didn’t matter that the only reason the victim was going for a weapon was because of the instigator. Sometimes, men were acquitted because the bare fear the victim who reached into his pocket “might” have had a weapon. Juries would accept the defense because the killer had a fear, remote as it might be, that the other party was armed. Eventually, society stopped condoning what amounted to little more than legal tricks to excuse murder.
“Going for the pocket” became the bane of carrying concealed weapons and blamed for the ills associated with “pistol toters.” Today, this is known as a “furtive movement” and back then it was called the “hip pocket defense.”. One example is the death of Jim Courtright in 1887 in Texas.
Short dropped his hands, as if to smooth his vest. It was no time for movements even remotely suspicious. In such times as this, many a man in Texas has committed suicide by reaching abruptly for his handkerchief!
Going for a gun, whether one was there or not, could lead to shots being fired. This mere possibility often created reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. As society became tired of juries acquitting on such thin grounds, justifiable homicide laws began to change. Defenses such as “I shot first as he might have had a gun,” were thrown out. An unreasonable, unsubstantiated fear was no longer enough to avoid a murder or manslaughter charge
A bare fear is not sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.
Banning concealed carry also had another effect in the courtroom. If concealed carry was illegal, then it could not be presumed the victim had a gun simply because it was possible he was armed. A concealed weapon law meant that the law presumed the victim was unarmed and the killer must have known in fact otherwise. And if a man was killed “reaching for his pocket” and no gun was found, then the killer could be convicted because not only was the man unarmed, the killer had no right to suspect the killer was armed.
In other words, banning concealed carry took away a lot of excuses. At the same time, justifiable homicide laws came into effect, requiring among other things, if you started a fight, you had to back down and decline to fight any further before you could assert self-defense. The judicial system was also becoming more effective and stronger on the frontier. As a result of these reforms, convictions for murder went up and “honor violence” began to go down.
As society tamed, easy killing was looked down upon along with carrying a gun. Family life replaced wild living on the frontier and the kind of undisciplined culture that permitted violence and shooting disappeared as families and the middle class wouldn’t tolerate lawlessness. By the end of the 19th Century, it was considered uncivilized to fight and kill over insults and matters that could be settled in court or shrugged off.
These legal reforms and social changes probably had more effect on stopping impulsive violence than gun control, as men predisposed to killing knew that they stood little chance of getting past tougher juries. Mere prohibitions have only worked to keep the honest, honest. Small fines could be paid off and often were, judges reluctant to jail men as the town would have to bear the cost of feeding and housing a prisoner.
If the law couldn’t keep everyone honest, then the dishonest criminal would be the only one carrying, or at least open carry would make it obvious who was armed, so the thinking went. Support for concealed weapon laws came from those “who believed that there would be fewer deaths if combatants were forced to ‘fight fair’” without weapons. They were proven wrong about the bans. Gun control such as this was practically new territory and we can excuse those who in untried times exercised magical thinking to believe concealed weapon bans would keep men from packing heat.
Morally, open carry meant no gun was being hidden. It was the honorable (and generally legal) way to carry a gun. By contrast, concealed carry for the reasons stated above meant that one was trying to get an unfair advantage on someone or that evil intentions, not just the gun, were being concealed. If you had nothing to hide, then why hide your gun?
 Roth, Randolph. American Homicide. 2009 p. 219
…[carry concealed weapons is a] savage practice. Arms for self-protection may be needed by travelers and by persons living in unfrequented localities, but in all such cases they should be carried openly, as weapons of defense
There is nothing savage about putting a shirt or a coat over a gun. What is savage is escalating trash talking into murder and then, as a society, largely turning a blind eye to the behavior. Now, only among the dregs of society are the impulsive and gang or drug-driven nightclub, bar, and drive-by shootings “acceptable.”
Open carry was more common in the Old West and in bygone days, but it was not as common as Hollywood would have one believe. It was more common than today by virtue of the fact that more people carried guns more often. A good explanation is that open carry then was roughly as common as it is now in states where open carry thrives. Open carry has always been a largely rural phenomenon as city dwellers, for many reasons, prefer to carry concealed. Horsemen and cowboys often needed a weapon that could be fired at short range from the saddle or to kill a runway horse dragging its rider to death.
Open carry was often a fashion symbol or icon of manhood in the frontier west in a period that lasted at least from the California Gold Rush to the late 1860s.
After we had been in the town of Nevada City three or four months, the first ball was given. There were twelve ladies present and about three hundred men. The costumes were eccentric, or would be now. At that time it was the prevailing fashion for the gentlemen to attend social gatherings in blue woolen shirts, and with trousers stuffed into boot-tops. Every man was’heeled’ with revolver and bowie-knife.
Mark Twain said of his time in Nevada:
I was a rusty looking city editor, I am free to confess—coatless, slouch hat, blue woolen shirt, pantaloons stuffed into boot-tops, whiskered half down to the waist, and the universal navy revolver slung to my belt. But I secured a more Christian costume and discarded the revolver.
The prevalence and popularity of open carry varied from time and place. Some places it was a wide-spread practice, whereas in others it was not. It was tied directly to the actual or perceived necessity to carry a gun. For instance, in a violent frontier town, both kinds of carry were common, whereas in cities and pacified settlements few had a need to carry a gun at all. Family men didn’t get drunk and shoot it out in saloons and few felt the need to go heeled in small towns with little crime. Again, this is much like today where those in good neighborhoods with quality police feel that they don’t need to be responsible for their own safety.
Open carry declined as early concealed weapon laws increased. Quite probably, the general vilification of handguns lead honest people to hide their guns and take their chances with the lax laws. As the example from Mark Twain shows, there was a time when open carry was common and no one was ashamed of it. Something changed after the Civil War, the resulting “Wild West,” and it was most likely society’s attitudes towards guns, lead no doubt by a growing resentment to the toleration of violence.
Until very lately, few very Americans would openly admit that they carry a gun for self-defense because for so long it was assumed that carrying a gun was unnecessary, dangerous, and something that only bad guys did. Police were just a phone call away. It is a shame that carrying a gun for self-protection against predators was stigmatized to the point that we still feel the effects today. Bizarrely, now many are ashamed to openly carry our guns, lest people judge or harass us, while we are perfectly content to hide our guns the same way criminals do.
Many various state court cases found that open carry was constitutionally protected (an excellent summary is in the Peruta v. Gore en banc opinion), but concealed carry was not. Though the actual reasons vary case to case, the reasoning was based in the idea that concealed carry was a dishonest thing to do and a root cause of much violence. Open carry suffered no such stigma as it is too hard to cast aspersions about an open carriers intentions if everyone can see the gun (unless you are a 21st Century hoplophobe).
As urban life increases population density, it is easy to imagine a variety of reasons, both rational and irrational, why some sort of regulation on who may carry concealed weapons would seem desirable. Especially as a village becomes a city, it becomes increasingly difficult to know whom to trust. In such a setting, the temptation might be strong to make sure that arms are clearly visible. Conflict with someone who is armed will probably be more dangerous than the same conflict with an unarmed person, hence it would be best to know in advance of an argument if someone is armed or not.
Neither method of carry is inherently more violent that the other. Concealed carry was simply more common in general and thus was associated with violence. Only by perception was concealed carry considered evil; psychologically there is a connection of a hidden gun to an ambush. Without strong evidence against open carry, justices could not manipulate the Constitution to ban it. Open carry provided a convenient way to ban concealed carry as one method of carry was left available, though many were dissuaded from practicing it.
It was schizophrenic time where concealed carry was damned, but many still did it anyway, too dissuaded by the damnation heaped on gun-toting in general to carry openly. It was as if the justices and legislators knew society had cowed to the hysterics of the hoplophobes.
Open carry was not as prevalent historically for three main reasons; first, the demonization of carrying a gun. Carrying a gun had gotten a bad rap, that even though many ordinary people in numbers far greater than legally armed citizens today thought it necessary to carry, that they felt they would be shamed if they carried openly. Because of violence and the wrong reputation attached to carrying a gun, an openly carried gun in their minds made them as much as a target for judgement as a dirty, low-down pistol-toting thug.
Two, it was easier to slip a gun into the waistband or pocket. Concealed carry being more common was most likely a function of clothing and fashion being different from today. It would have been easier to drop a gun into a large pocket or into the waistband than it was to strap on an old-fashioned leather holster. Modern holsters that are small, light, and comfortable did not exist and the equivalent solution would be to drop in a pocket-liner holster.
Three, where carrying a gun concealed or openly was illegal, many carried concealed illegally because it was, or so they felt, it was necessary to go armed. These erstwhile law-abiding citizens were prevented from legally carrying and had to carry concealed because there was no other way. Society had so unfairly lambasted the criminal misuse of guns that the legitimate carrying of guns was something to be kept secret.
Additional factors are the increase in modern policing, better communications technology to call for help or spread the word of a crime, increased urbanization, larger and denser populations leading to a safety-in-the-herd effect, and the broad social changes that toughened attitudes towards casual violence and considered carrying a gun “silly” and unnecessary.
For reasons of technology, criminal justice reforms, economic prosperity, and social reasons, the majority of the 20th Century was a remarkably peaceful and safe time for many Americans. We had the luxury of being able to rely on police for the most part. In areas with little predatory crime, firearm ownership was unnecessary. With this perceived lack of need, little risk, and few consequences for going unarmed, many lost any desire to carry a gun. Until the crime epidemic of the ‘60s-‘90s that brought us shall-issue concealed carry, that owning and carrying guns might be a solution to crime simply never occurred to most, as many still consider it unnecessary today.
Today we know that prohibiting the carry of guns for self-defense does not enhance safety. Open vs. concealed carry is not a debate that has any practical merit in the legal sense. We often carry concealed or refrain from talking about guns because we are afraid what others might think and say about us. While society has gone crazy these last few years, carrying a gun suffers from a negative reputation for reasons that society has forgotten. We are skeptical of carrying guns in public because our great-great grandparents thought it unnecessary and uncouth. The reasons that concealed weapon laws were instituted long ago no longer exist.
Open carry should not suffer because over a hundred years ago, people did not want anyone to carry at all. We should not be hiding out guns because it makes those who have been lulled into a false sense of security by the relative peace and safety of our time consider open carry “old fashioned” or odd. The decades of shame for having the audacity to carry a gun, especially where people can see it, needs to take its place on Boot Hill.
This debate between open carry and concealed carry is pointless. Among armed Americans, it is a matter of personal preference, comfort, and situation. Legally, hoplopaths have and will offer up open carry as an "alternative" because they are afraid if concealed carry is respected as a full constitutional right, it will lead to more people carrying. Open carry can be the "out" for the justices, who know full well leftist legislatures like California and Hawaii will never implement it. Perhaps someday soon the Supreme Court will call the leftists' bluff and affirm that bearing arms "shall not be infringed."
The final report by LVMPD on the October 1 Mandalay Bay mass shooting is out. This marks the general end of the local investigation. There is no motive for the killer. Early reports of leftist media in the killer’s home leaked by detectives was not reported. No political connections were found. His girlfriend told police the killer did not discuss politics or gun control.
All Sheriff Lombardo said was that he (now) considers this a terrorist attack (as opposed to a criminal mass murder). "It had an influence on a certain demographic of people intended to cause harm." It's shame no one in the press conference asked a follow-up question. Did Lombardo mean "demographic" as country-music-concert-goers or as the type of people who listen to country music?
The report also speculated the Ogden/Life is Beautiful connection may have been a rehearsal. If that certain demographic meant mainly country music fans; usually conservatives whites who voted for Trump, it fits the earlier suggestion of political terrorism. If the downtown connection was a dry run, then Paddock was not simply looking for a crowd to mow down. He wanted a specific crowd to kill. Yet some of the killer's Internet searches make one curious if he truly examined other venues for just a mass killing.
As it was, this monster's final twist of the knife was to leave no clues as to why. So, by his fruits we must know him. The killer had an abandoned and malignant heart. He was a cruel coward intent on inflicting death and evil. As has been speculated, he was a near genius intent on delivering death and destruction on the largest and most diabolical scale he could imagine.
To quote Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, some people just want to watch the world burn. This “motive” has everything in common with most mass killers, each trying to score the largest body count and most infamy. Just the kind of thing you’d expect from a messed up son-a-bitch. His relatives said he threw himself into everything he did with passion; mass murder, as diabolical as it is, would receive the same attention as he gave to learning to fly.
His supposed motives were multivariate: revenge/harm to the casino industry, a blackeye for guns and the gun community, wreaking mayhem on a world he’d grown to despise, and fulfilling some sort of sick intellectual fantasy of murder; one careful and smart enough to leave nothing but an unfulfilled mystery. Perhaps being mentally ill, he wanted to deliver as much hurt to as many people/groups as possible.
The killer was not the only coward that night. By all accounts, the failure of early LVMPD officers to storm the killers suite, instead remaining in the hall on the floor below, was cowardice. There has not yet been a satisfactory response to explain why the officers did not charge the room. On a personal level, I cannot condemn the officers for wanting to stay alive. Yet they are sworn to protect the public. The public expects its police to sacrifice their lives to save innocent citizens, especially in the ultimate worst-case scenario like a mass shooting.
As public servants sworn and paid to give their lives, if necessary, the officers should have been ready to make that sacrifice. They should have charged the gunman’s door, sending a fusillade through the doors at the killer, in the hopes that the killer turned away from his attack on the helpless concert or chose to end his life at that point. Any distraction or diversionary attack may have saved lives and injuries on the ground. Time and time again, we have seen police (or armed citizen) intervention prematurely end these horrific acts.
In Parkland, the Broward County deputies stayed outside while officers from neighboring areas charged the arena. Post-Columbine, police tactics are supposed to reflect the first responding officers charging in to end the situation, at the cost of their lives if necessary. Police work is not for the faint of heart. Such situations call for gallantry; that is what the public demands of our police. We the public reserve the right to question the honor of men who fail to answer that call.
But in the midst of horror, evil, and timidity, there were heroes that night. Concertgoers used their bodies to shield friends, family, and strangers. Volunteers gave first aid under fire, turned folding barricades into stretchers, and drove the wounded to hospitals. Ever keeping with the American fighting spirit, people even tried to take shotguns from police cars to fight back, if necessary. And let’s not forget the noble guy who flipped the killer the bird while under fire.
The consternation over 3D printing of firearms is nothing more than anti-gun hysteria over the democratization of firearms manufacturing. For some, it is just another attack against the Second Amendment; a talking piece to scare people to get more legislation. To others, which President Trump appears to belong to this other group, they actually believe that 3D printing means gang members, drug dealers, and psychos are going to be mass producing “untraceable” guns and cause mayhem. These are the same people who believe the “Internet loophole” myth that you can order a gun online and have it shipped to your door, just in time for your school shooting or terrorist attack that day.
First off, 3D printing (using that term for computer-controlled machining or manufacturing from raw materials at home) will make firearm ownership possible for anyone under any circumstances. Non-gun makers building their own guns is nothing new. Tinkers have been doing it for years and homemade guns are found online all the time, ranging from cheap zip-guns to actual quality submachine guns. Nevermind downloading 3D blueprints, you can buy a 9mm SMG machining plans book on Amazon.
Even under absolute tyranny clandestine gun manufacture went on. Israeli Jews had secret workshops under the nose of the British and the Polish resistance made their own Sten gun copies to fight the Nazis. You can’t stop the signal.
While many of these garage quality guns can be built by someone who has a machine shop and knowledge, many more struggle to complete 80% receivers with good tools, jigs, plenty of detailed instructions, and while watching a YouTube video. 3D printing, where the computer and machinery do all the work, promise to dramatically lower the skill level required to turn plastic or metal into a gun. Gun manufacture is no longer “magic.”
This is what scares the government, idiots, and control freaks. Suddenly, many gun control regulations are invalid overnight if no one needs a dealer or manufacturer. Government regulation of firearms and disarmament requires a finite supply that can be cut off and rounded up. In the age to come, there can never be a drought of firearms as long as sufficient plastics, aluminum, and steel exists.
Soon, the ease of making whatever you want will nullify the NFA and make it a mockery just like bootleggers did to the Volstead Act. What is the point of licensing dealers and banning machine guns if all you have to do is buy some stock steel and run a program overnight? The ATF could never catch everyone who decided to make themselves a full-auto AR lower or two; when hundreds of thousands of Americans have one, are they going to try to arrest us all?
3D printing offers a final bastion of “untraceable” guns that aren’t tied to a dealer record or registration so that should gun confiscation happen, we are still armed. Police and politicians don’t like it because they can’t trace a crime gun back to the dealer and find, perhaps, a crooked FFL or someone to pin an illegal private sale on. The origin of dealer licensing was to identify who was selling guns to bootleggers, mobsters, and early “motor bandits” and cut off the supply. Since the early efforts of the 1920s, these laws have kept the guns out of the hands of criminals…right?
Of course 3D guns will pop-up in crimes from time to time. In drug and gang violence, machine guns smuggled into the country pop-up occasionally as well. Yet a crackhead robber, a gang member, or a drug dealer is not going to be running a 3D printer and assembling guns. If they had that kind of patience, intelligence, or skills, they wouldn’t be criminals. Sure, they might pay someone to build them, but it is by far easier to steal, buy on the streets, or use straw purchases to get already built guns. 3D guns are for tyrants; a stolen Glock is for the ghetto.
Don’t forget all we’re talking about at the moment is printing receivers—that’s the part that holds the important stuff. Receivers are regulated, while barrels, trigger parts, stocks, etc. are not, though California wanted to subject these major components to background checks so that they might choke off the “fuck you” movement of build-your-own-and-shut-your-mouth. Machining quality barrels at home is a nut that still needs to be cracked. The difficulty of making smokeless powder, jacketed bullets, and cartridge cases to evade ammo bans is another hurdle.
Hoplopaths want to ban everything gun related, but others, again referring to the president, think this is some sort of solution. These pea-brained ignoramuses would probably have voted to ban digital cameras and the Internet because it made child pornography much more available. No, the solution is not to take Snapchat away from your teenager and discuss why sending nudes is a bad idea, the “solution” is to pass a revenge porn law. This current hysteria is King George ordering all the birds in North America killed so that their feathers can’t be used as quills to write nasty letters to the editor about him.
But background checks, blah blah blah… People steal guns all the time. They lie. They send their girlfriend into the dealer. If they don’t have guns, terrorists drive trucks into crowds. Crazy homeless people go on hammer and knife rampages. Impulsive murders are committed with lampstands, rocks, pieces of pipe, and baseball bats. You really think that by banning a “kitchen” and “recipes” you are going to stop people from baking “killer” cookies at home?
But on the positive side, at least the NRA apparently told off President Cheeto on the issue.