Nevada Assault Weapon Ban Rumors
Tuesday, Spurlocks Gun Shop in Henderson posted on Facebook that an unnamed highly placed source within the Republican Party:
A very reliable source in Northern Nevada that the legislature is going ahead with an assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban NEXT WEEK and it will almost certainly pass.
To date, we have been unable to confirm this rumor. Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, who confirmed the "sneak attack" of SB 143-universal background checks-had no knowledge of such a proposed bill. No other sources in the know have been able to confirm this information with us at this time. The rumor remains unconfirmed. We will update you should more information become available.
However, several vague Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) have been filed by anti-gun Democrats and promises have been made to ban "assault weapons." It is not clear if these were just campaign promises without the political will or capitol to be passed. However, should such a bill be passed, we have had warning since the primaries in 2018 and no one should caught with their pants down.
Now is the time to stock up on your rifles, receivers, and full capacity magazines. By all means, don't panic buy because of rumors, but don't put off for tomorrow what might be could be banned soon. You should preemptively politely contact your assemblyman and senator to tell them you don't support an assault weapon and magazine ban.
Interesting proposal from an anti-gun Democrat from the other day's article in The Nevada Independent:
Democratic Sen. Nicole Cannizzaro said she’s also submitted a bill draft request through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would allow law enforcement to waive charges against a person found to be carrying a concealed weapon without a permit if the person completes the required eight-hour training course and successfully applies for a legal permit.
This is not constitutional carry. This is just a Bill Draft Request (BDR) we don't have a copy of the proposed language, we don't know if it's an actual proposal or just an idea, and we don't know if it has a snowball's chance. It may never actually become a bill.
It's a good idea and a good first step to other things. Also, it's a great sign our Democrats aren't totally against us, yet.
The potential problems with this bill is that it seems it is discretionary to allow police to choose who they don't arrest or don't recommend charges for. We need the language to determine it. However, for those who have applied and successfully completed the training course, it is a good first step in allowing those who feel they are in danger protect themselves, if they don't feel comfortable openly carrying.
Many legislators (and members of the public) feel gun-shy about letting people carry without training. This only seems to apply to concealed carry and not open carry, perhaps because concealed carry is still regulated and permitted, so legislators incorrectly feel responsible for what "might" happen if they decriminalize concealed carry. We believe that anyone who can possess a firearm should be able to carry in whatever method they choose without prior government restraint.
Cannizzaro is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Follow this link to her webpage and email/contact info.
Two New Pro-Gun Bills
We have two new pro-gun bills introduced, one that would allow guns in community college parking lots and another which would speed up issuance of CCWs to those who have taken out restraining orders against someone.
Both of these bills are poorly written and not very well thought out. They are good attempts, but need work. I would like to remind any Legislators that there are many in the lay firearms community that can provide valuable assistance reviewing their intended laws, before they have the LCB draft them.
AB 202 (John Ellison-R) BDR 15-625
Community college parking lot exemption
This would allow firearms in the parking lots of community colleges (not other schools or universities) if the firearm is stored in a locked contained affixed securely to the frame of the vehicle. This bill is realistic that local community colleges are more firearm friendly than UNR and UNLV, whose regents, presidents, and lobbyists would probably never agree to such a bill.
"Affixed securely to the frame of the vehicle" is too ambiguous. What is the frame? The chassis? The unibody? Does it mean integral part of the car that can't be stolen, like the glove box? How about a box bolted to the floor of the vehicle or the truck bed? What about some safes, which attach with a metal cable to the bottom of the seat frame? If this problem is addressed, it's a good shot at helping protect college students, staff, and visitors.
The language from AB 167 needs to be copied. "Stored in a locked container that is affixed securely to a motor vehicle, other than a school bus."
AB 217 (Joint) BDR 15-860
Gives priority in CCW applications to those with valid protection orders
Those with valid restraining orders (protecting them, not against them) would receive "priority" in concealed firearm permit issuance, ostensibly to speed up the process so they can carry concealed sooner than the 90-120 days in Clark and Washoe Counties. In California, having a restraining order for domestic violence is actually an exemption and defense to carrying a concealed weapon, so this is a good thing.
This bill does not specify what "priority" means nor does it tell the sheriff what he needs to do to prioritize the protectee's application. There would be no effective way to determine if a sheriff was complying or if "priority" from the sheriff actually met legislative intent. Putting protectees' applications a few days ahead in the cycle might meet the letter of the law, but not actually help anyone or do what the author is asking.
A better solution is to specify that temporary concealed firearm permits shall be issued (temps are currently may issue) upon verification of basic database searches that can be completed by staff while the protectee waits. A basic records check using state and federal databases shouldn't take more than 20 minutes. This provision exists and is occasionally used, though very rarely. Temporary permits are usually issued only at the 120 day deadline when part of the background check is incomplete. If the person can openly carry during this time, there is no reason they should be denied a temporary permit to conceal.
The bill also changes various reporting requirements for prohibited persons from 5 days to 3 days.
Private Gun Sales Post SB 143
SB 143 does not take effect until Jan. 2, 2020, unless back-room shenanigans take place or the unreliable Supreme Court finds some way to contort the law. Stocking up via private sales should take place as soon as possible; don't delay.
SB 143 essentially implements Question 1. The chief difference is that SB 143 requires private background checks use the state, rather than the FBI system. Dealers will still charge for their time to run the checks and do the paperwork, which will run $25-100.
The Brady exemption for CCW holders that applies to dealer sales/transfers now, will not apply to private background checks. This creates a two-tired system for background checks at the dealer.
Dealer retail sales (or receiving an online purchase shipped to the dealer)
A private person wishes to sell a firearm to another private person, they must first appear in person at a licensed dealer who will conduct the background check through the existing federal NICS protocol. Sales can still be arranged online and at gun shows. Between the request of the background check and the actual sale/transfer of the firearm, the licensed dealer takes possession of the firearm. If the background check is delayed or denied, the owner needs a background check to get the gun back from the dealer.
The exemptions to the law are:
Those are the only exemptions; there are no other exemptions whatsoever. Sales/trades between CCW holders are not exempt from this law and must proceed to the dealer as above. There is no provision to do background checks through law enforcement.
How Gun Sales Will Work After Jan. 2, 2020
How to Borrow a Gun after Jan. 2, 2020
How Not to Get Caught Making an Illegal Private Sale
The law is basically not enforceable unless you or the other guy makes a confession, runs his mouth, or the other party is a snitch/undercover cop.
Two New Gun Bills
AB 153 (Joint) BDR 15-119
Firearm safe storage
This bill amends Nevada's current firearm storage law to add language that prohibits "negligent storage" when the person knows that there is a substantial risk a child could access the firearm in violation of the statute. Presumably, this is intended to address the increase of guns bring brought to Clark County schools.
"Negligence" is undefined, but the bill does not impose additional, unreasonable obligations on Nevadan gun owners and leaves the determination to the jury (or judge). It adds essentially a duty to reasonably ensure firearms are not accessible to children. This kind of law is much preferable to California's law which runs afoul of Heller and requires guns be stored essentially useless.
We would like to see actual firearm safety training in schools (stop, don't touch), because poor parents who allow their kids to bring guns to school won't follow the law or teach their children. Clark County schools have a parenting problem, not a gun problem. Education can help stop that problem and also educate kids about real gun safety and perhaps save lives in the process.
AB 167 (Joint) BDR 15-97
School parking lot exemption
This bill would allow firearms in parking lots of schools, colleges, and universities in vehicles operated by concealed firearm permittees. This is essentially the same bill we've seen in past sessions to decriminalize guns in school parking lots.
No one deserves to become a criminal because they drop their kids off at school with a gun in their car. Also, parents shouldn't be forced to disarm on their journey simply because one stop includes a school. This is a good bill and is certainly not a campus carry bill.
The "Fix" is In: SB 143 Signed Into Law
On Feb. 15, 2019, just five days after being publicly introduced, Gov. Sisolak signed into law SB 143, which bans private gun sales effective Jan. 2, 2020. SB 143 was rushed through the Legislature, waiving all normal rules and procedures, to make a political point around the anniversary of the Parkland school shooting, which had nothing whatsoever to do with Nevada or private gun sales.
The bill was intended to be introduced secretly Monday night just before the 8 AM Tuesday hearing supposedly to take pro-gun activists by surprise. The intent was to pass the bill through a joint session of the judiciary committees to limit public comment and debate. That is exactly what was done, except we learned of it beforehand and were able to make a good showing at the joint hearing. Attendees reported that hundreds of pro-gun activists showed up to just dozens of anti-gun ones bussed in.
The way the bill was introduced and passed was entirely dishonesty, undemocratic, unconstitutionally, and possibly illegal. It is clearly the work of a tyrannical one-party government that does not care what 49.55% of voters thought.
2016's Question 1 passed by .45%, or 9,899 votes and lost in every county but Clark County. This initiative was not a mandate of the people and SB 143 was not enacting this mandate. Attorney General Laxalt did the right thing in checking with the FBI. There has been a consistent implication that he and Gov. Sandoval delayed implementation; that's not true. Laxalt followed the law while the writers of Question 1 failed to check with the FBI and wrote a bad law. SB 143 was nothing but a "fix" for the poor work of the Bloomberg groups pushing the law.
SB 143 is unconstitutional. Article 19, Sec. 2, 3. of the Nevada Constitution prohibits the legislature from amending, annulling, repealing, setting aside, or suspending a ballot question for 3 years from when the ballot question takes effect (in this case, Jan 1, 2017). Common understanding would mean that they must wait until Jan. 2, 2020 to “fix” the law, but they are acting under the interpretation that they can pass it now and it will be effective after the deadline. Sadly, our corrupt Supreme Court which clearly does not care too much for gun rights will likely side with their cronies next door. Other appeals or tricks could be used to make background checks effective sooner.
On Recent Criticism
Some have criticized recent blog posts as too unprofessional, the language too salty, or the frank expression of frustration with our tone-deaf legislature that is hell-bent on restricting our rights for political purposes. I’m pissed off and you should be too.
Profanity adds emphasis and emotion. It gets attention and convinces the reader that the author is serious in a way that polite discourse cannot. Studies have shown that deliberate use of profanity in speeches increase the perception of intensity and believability is tied directly to the passion that cussing conveys.
As far as the ad hominem attacks and insults; what respect do liars, fraud, and tyrants deserve? If they go so far as to outright trample the constitutions and the will of darn near 50% of the state merely to virtue signal, why should I worry about being nice to them? We have tried being polite and arguing with reason and logic. That has failed. They do not care about truth or facts, only their political agenda. By calling them the sons-of-bitches they are will not turn them off us. They already hate you and me.
In five years, there has been no other grassroots alternative to represent the voice of the activist Nevada gun owner. No one from the community has become a public voice to articulate how we all feel as a whole. My message is not degraded by strategic profanity. Those who want to listen and be persuaded will be. I am perfectly capable of writing well-documented and reasoned essays, but we’ve been there and now here we are.
Once when working for the sheriff’s department, I was set upon by a large, angry man who seemed determined to beat me to a pulp. My calm, cool, stoic demeanor failed to convince him that violence was a bad course of action. But when I yelled in my command voice “Get the fuck back in your car or I’ll split your skull with my ticket book,” (all steel, not the basket-weave ones) he stopped in his tracks. Being nice can work against you if that’s all you can be.
We know that private background check laws are ineffective. We know that this bill will not deter criminals. The studies and statistics are plain; criminal do not get the majority of their guns from online classifieds or gun shows. No background check can detect the evil in the human heart.
Democrats and gun banners do not care about facts. They want to ban guns, period, or at least make it as difficult as possible for you to own, shoot, and acquire them. Even if you don’t believe in the Devil, evil is at the heart of all gun control. Evil is a conspiracy all its own, working off of the naive good thoughts of manipulated teenages, the mental and physical scars of shooting victims, and the power-hungry nature of politicians. Leftists claim to know what’s best for you, and if you disagree with them, ultimately they will persecute you, jail you, and kill you for not going along.
Banning private gun sales is entirely about cutting off a source of firearms the government cannot trace. Deep behind the push for “universal background checks” is the later moves in this chess game where all the dealer transactions must be reported and recorded in a registry. Then, they will want the dealers to scan in their Form 4473s to track past gun purchases. You might even be required to register what you have at home. They’ll cross check those 4473s to see what you have and if you reported it.
We need guns the government does not know about so that they cannot take them from us. Off-the-books guns in the hands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens is a bulwark against tyranny. Our founding fathers knew this and included the Second Amendment for this explicit reason. Coming just off a bloody war of revolution fought largely by militiamen with their own weapons. American civilian ownership of firearms is to kill those who would tyrannize you.
Nevermind convenience or low prices. That’s all nice, but it’s not why I’m opposed.
Not all of us are going to go out tyrant hunting and killing politicians and bureaucrats. Not everyone will stand-up to the armed arrest/confiscation teams by going down in a blaze of glory upon a pile of hot brass. Those options are last resorts that encourage us to engage in legal, democratic solutions to avoid them.
Sure, there will be a hot portion to the coming civil war, but not all of it is the stuff of action-fiction. Some of us will bide our time, just trying to survive, and protect our families from the rabid hordes of Leftist thugs that might be mobilized against us at any time. Mob violence is a hallmark of tyrannical and socialist regimes. We’ve seen Antifa on the streets; in a socialist dystopia, this will be one of the main means of keeping people in line.
So let’s not pretend the hoplopaths in Carson City and Washington care about your rights or even your safety. Our opinions do not matter; we do not write the donation checks and have no influence. They want to virtue signal and look like they’ve done something (and keep their party donors happy). Remember that the Second Amendment and unknown guns owned by the anonymous is specifically for to kill those that would kill you or otherwise subject you to tyranny.
The time for niceties, reason, and politeness have died.
The SB 143 Clusterfuck Committee Hearing
Universal background checks is about as disingenuous as a gun control law as they go. Supporters say it’s about getting the guns out of criminals hands, but studies have shown that most guns don’t come from the non-existent gun show or online “loopholes.” The laws wouldn’t even affect the felons, etc. who buy the guns, just the hapless seller. More studies have shown that background check laws don’t affect gun violence in any meaningful way.
Banning private sales is a scam to help enact gun registration. Every manner of lie and half-truth is being used to sell them. Their ministers of propaganda trucked in gullible high school students and Asm. Jauregui whined about the unrelated Route 91 massacre (Paddock passed background checks). Sure, they found a few cherry picked cases of private sales gone bad, but a lot of the conversation has been generic gun crimes and mass killings. Note: virtually all mass killers had background checks done as they bought their guns from dealers.
The lying was disgusting. Pretty much every politician that got up there lied. What's worse is that their decision was made a long time ago. This was no debate; it was a symbolic circle jerk of tyrants going through the motions. Gov. Sleestak grandstanded while looking like a washed up old man, lecturing as chief virtue signaler. I actually feel bad for the poor, deluded and brainwashed teenagers that have become the useful idiots for the Leftists.
The way SB 143 was introduced was a shame. To throw vigilant gun-rights activists off-guard, they hoped to keep the meeting and bill a secret until the night before the hearing. This way, all the support would be for them while it looks like gun owners didn’t care. They could ram it through committee and floor votes while our heads were still spinning. But we caught them.
Also, the state constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending or altering ballot initiatives (recall Question 1) for three years from the date the initiative takes effect; in this case, Jan. 1, 2017, so they cannot act until Jan. 2, 2020. Jan. 2, 2020 is the effective date of SB 143. A plain reading of the constitution indicates that the Legislature must leave the law totally alone until the three year mark; not take action now and make it effective at the three year mark. They don’t care.
Passing laws using disingenuous means and by contorting the law into what they want it to say is not how American democracy is supposed to function. Essentially, the 80th Session of the Nevada Legislature is behaving much like the British Parliament did in the 1770s. Rule of law, respect for those they represent; bah! When you’re corrupt, you don’t care.
So if the legislature wants to cut corners and cheat, where do they get off expecting that the public follow the rule of law that punishes innocent behavior? If they disrespect the law and circumvent it, then what obligation do we have to studiously obey it if our “masters” and examples openly disregard it? “Because if you don’t, you’ll get fine and go to jail/prison,” is what they say. “Obey or die; do as we say, not as we do.” The mantra of tyrants.
Rumors abound that controversial gun bills will be introduced in this manner during this session. If so, even more cause will exist to simply ignore these unconstitutional laws for being passed in an arbitrary manner totally out of harmony with the law and legislative tradition. The more crap they ram through without following the traditional process and totally casting aside the opinions of half of the state, the more reason gun owners will have to simply ignore these bad laws.
My message to these politicians is that if you want to pass laws in such a way, then be prepared when citizens don’t care about your laws and cops won’t enforce them. Washington sheriffs are a current example of such a revolt. Legislators can make all the laws they want, but it does no good, and in fact harms the democratic and legal process, if the honored process of the rule of law is abused. If you don’t care about the law, then why the hell should we?
But thanks to all you patriots who testified in opposition and turned out to show support for gun rights. Nice work; keep it up. Remember that not a single person who opposed the bill was paid to be there nor were gun owners bussed in, unlike the bunches of anti-gun lemmings that were there to make the Democrats feel a little less like scum-sucking sons of bitches ramming this garbage down our throats.
SB 143: Universal Background Checks
SB 143 is the attempt to fix the fatal flaws to 2016’s Question 1 Universal Background Check ballot question that would have banned private sales. This was the bill that they attempted to introduce in secret and passed to the surprise of gun owners.
Question 1 was deemed unenforceable by Attorney General Adam Laxalt because the FBI refused to conduct the checks for Nevada, as there was no funding for them. Nevada has its own Point of Contact center in Carson City that runs firearm background checks for sales/transfers by dealers. The proponents of Question 1 knew that the voters would not pass the law if they were going to be charged for background checks, so the proponents wrote that everything would go through the FBI. They did not check and see if the FBI would do this for free. This was confirmed by a district court opinion.
SB 143 will make it illegal for private persons to sell, lend, or transfer firearms among each other. All sales, gifts, and temporary transfers will have to go through a licensed dealer, who will charge for their time to transfer the firearm. An ATF Form 4473 will be required, which can later be tracked as a form of gun registration. The next logical step is gun registration maintained every time a gun is sold or transferred, as in California.
Article 19, Sec. 2, 3. of the Nevada Constitution prohibits the legislature from amending, annulling, repealing, setting aside, or suspending a ballot question for 3 years from when the ballot question takes effect (in this case, Jan 1, 2017). Common understanding would mean that they must wait until Jan. 2, 2020 to “fix” the law, but they are acting under the interpretation that they can pass it now and it will be effective after the deadline. SB 143 is unconstitutional. Sadly, our corrupt Supreme Court which clearly does not care too much for gun rights will likely side with their cronies next door.
Interesting find in the Nevada Revised Statutes:
“This section was proposed by an initiative petition and approved by the voters at the 2016 General Election and therefore is not subject to legislative amendment or repeal until after November 22, 2019.” NRS 202.254, 202.2541, 202.2543
Numerous studies have shown that background checks don’t actually keep criminals from getting guns and gun show or Internet classified ads don’t account for the majority of where criminals’ guns come from. This will make it illegal for a boyfriend to give his girlfriend a gun or for hunting buddies to lend each other their rifles. It will make it easier for the future tyrannical government that is obviously one or two elections away to identify who owns what guns and take them.
The Nevada Legislature, aside from a true handful of them and Gov. Sleestak are corrupt, amoral self-serving politicians desperate to virtue signal and cover up the Bloomberg group’s mistake. They have egg on their face, a desperate Democratic party to please, and will do anything to make it look they have an interest in stopping crime. Make no mistake; a law like this will be exploited to harm you, jail you, or kill you in the future.
Predictions: SB 143 will pass out of committee despite opposition on a party-line vote.
Further on background checks as they stand today.
Tell the legislators how you feel! Be sure to select SB 143. "Oppose!"
Clayton E. Cramer
Gun Free Zone
The War on Guns
The View From Out West