Thursday's "secret" gun control rally that was to feature Joe Biden has reportedly been moved at the last minute from the Lloyd George federal courthouse in downtown Las Vegas.

GSA (the agency in charge of federal property) denied the permit for the rally due to concerns that it would violate federal law that governs the activities of federal employees concerning elections. It was feared that having the event on the courthouse grounds might violate the Hatch Act. 

It is currently unknown where the event will be held. As always, the anti-gun forces of tyranny want to do everything at the last minute to keep us out of the picture. 

Highly doubtful.

Jimenez Arms, Inc. of Henderson manufactures affordable, small-caliber blowback operated pistols. Many of us have pocket .22s or remember older guns under the "Bryco" or "Jennings" names derisively called Saturday Night Specials. 

Jimenez was sued by Kansas City, Missouri, because, supposedly, its guns were a public nuisance because the cheap weapons are popular with criminals. A disgraced fire captain started the whole thing by illegally selling firearms and surprise, criminals got ahold of them.

These lawsuits against manufacturers are nothing but a cheap attempt at trying to overturn or nullify the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which was intended to shield gun companies from being sued out of business because criminals used the guns. It's sorta like keeping car companies from being sued by ambulance chasers because drivers kill people when they drive drunk or speed.

The company recently filed for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Chapter 7 is usually a liquidation of the business in order to discharge outstanding debts. This is not like Chapter 11 which is generally a restructuring to allow the business to continue and dig itself out.

It appears that business troubles are the issue. The company listed assets of less than $50,000 and liabilities (debts) in excess of $1 million. If I had to guess, the economy has made higher quality handguns more affordable and the market for the small guns has diminished. Everytown's lawsuit didn't put them out of business, but now there's nothing for the bloodsucking leaches to grab at. Maybe bankruptcy was a tactic here?

The Jimenez arms family has a history of bankruptcy. The company began life as Jennings Arms, founded by Bruce Jennings. His father, George Jennings, founded Raven Arms, which manufactured a similar cheap pistol design, loathed by gun controllers. It's worth pointing out at this time that the push to ban Saturday Night Specials in the late '60s, '70s, and '80s was really just a way to disarm blacks, but we'll leave that discussion for another day.

Jennings went bankrupt and became Bryco Arms. A safety flaw in the .380 pistol's design lead to a situation where an idiot pointing the gun at a child unintentionally shot the child. While the design was defective, if idiot followed the cardinal rules of gun safety, namely keeping one's finger off the trigger and never pointing the gun at someone, the child wouldn't have been shot.

After Bryco went bankrupt, former foreman Paul Jimenez bought the company, renamed it after himself, and moved it to Henderson, NV, in 2006. While the company might be going out of business, the venerable JA-22 and its siblings will probably make a comeback, as per the company history. You can't deny people affordable guns just because the price point is attractive to criminals as well. 

I hate to break it to Everytown, but their lawyer's quote in the News Tribune is crap.

The design will surely be resurrected. Other guns will be made and sold. And even if all of the gun companies went out of business, there will still be thousands of JA-series guns out there and millions more. 

Nevada Carry has learned that a hush-hush anti-gun rally is planned for Thursday, 2/20, 8:00 AM to 1:30 PM, in downtown Las Vegas at the Lloyd George federal courthouse. Former Vice President is expected to make an appearance, but at an unknown time. Biden is in Nevada campaigning for the Democratic Caucus on Saturday.

The organizers kept the rally secret from the larger public because they don't want pro-gun activists to attend. They called it "the potential for confrontation," but every pro-gun counter protest in Las Vegas has been peaceful. The truth is that the anti-gunners are annoyed to no end when openly carrying pro-gun people steal their spotlight.

We cannot let them get in front of the cameras and pretend they have more support than they do. If you have some time on Thursday, get downtown!

When: Thursday, 2/20, 8:00 AM to 1:30 PM
Where: Lloyd George federal courthouse, 333 S Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas, NV 89101
Parking: The federal juror duty page has good directions to the Fremont Street garage (you will have to pay), which seems to be the closest reasonable parking.

Be advised the Secret Service will be on scene if Vice President Biden arrives. Security will be tight, especially if armed counter-protesters arrive. Keep in mind President Trump will be arriving in Las Vegas that evening as well.

The anti-gunners will very likely be on the actual grounds outside the courthouse. It is illegal to possess a firearm in a federal court facility. 18 U.S. Code § 930. Don't be an ass and get arrested for contempt of cop; that happened during the Bundy trial. 

The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

Disclaimer for law enforcement: Nevada Carry is merely publicizing information and is not organizing anything. Furthermore we oppose violence and support peaceful speech and assembly.

Is California going to liberalize concealed carry in the near future with this new bill? Nope. Ain't gonna happen. The underlying idea is more intriguing though; a sort-of Second Amendment Sanctuary law, an actual with-teeth law, in California.

California Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, a Republican from Big Bear, represents much of the territory of San Bernardino County that borders Clark County and Arizona. This very rural, desert part of California has traditionally been very conservative. In many of the rural, undeveloped areas, one can even openly carry (though most people wouldn't be out there to begin with). 

Obernolte has proposed Assembly Bill 2206 to allow cities and counties to allow non-California residents with a valid license to carry a concealed firearm (that's Californian for "CCW") to carry across the state line into the Golden State. This bill is a form of reciprocity. 

Though it stands a snowball's chance in Hell getting past the very anti-gun state legislator and Gov. Newsom--who doesn't like guns because his dad was an abuser who threatened his mom with a gun--this bill is fairly ingenious. You see, it doesn't force reciprocity on the entire state, just those places that want to allow it. California is led around by mostly San Francisco and the westside of Los Angeles that wouldn't dream of allowing guns unless they had to.

Currently, California's concealed carry scheme is entirely local. If your sheriff or police chief is cool, you can get a CCW without much trouble. This bill would allow gun-friendly cities and counties to allow non-Californians to carry on their out-of-state permits in the sanctuary city or county.

In this case, the proposal is supported by Needles, which points out it is just across the river from Arizona. In fact, Needles has more than a passing desire to switch states. An Arizonan would be allowed to legally carry concealed across the state line in Needles. This could also conceivably apply  anywhere else in the state, if the city council or the county board of supervisors okays it. 

The language in the bill would also allow Californians to carry concealed in these sanctuaries on a non-California permit. Don't believe me? Read the bill for yourself.

Needles also wants to be exempted from California's stupid new ammo purchasing laws that say out-of-state purchases, except when shipped to a dealer, be stopped. The nearest gun dealer is over 100 miles away from Needles, so most cross the river and buy ammo in Arizona or Nevada and import it illegally.

Now, again this bill stands virtually no chance in passing. Legislators will find out that it would allow Californians to carry in little pro-gun enclaves across the state on an out-of-state permit. It would be a dangerous step towards freedom. The California Legislature is so out of touch and utterly batshit insane this bill will never pass.

It's still nice to hope and good to see that some legislators across the wall haven't given up the fight. 

WTOP: Virginia lawmakers reject assault weapons ban

Lots of people with opinions said that the protests in Richmond, Virginia, over gun control didn't work. These Internet pundits naysayed the whole thing and claimed the 15-20k people that showed up to peacefully protests did so for naught because the bills kept moving through the legislature.

Of course the bills would continue to move through the legislature. A lot of these bills were virtue signalling or a willingness to show donors (Bloomberg) that these tyrants were serious. We had several proposals last year in Nevada that went nowhere or were stopped.

The strategy of gun control is an incremental strategy. Virginia will end up with a private gun sale ban and red flag laws this year. The headline is that the "assault weapons" ban has been shelved until next year; the state is punting for a study from the crime commission. The crime commission, if their study is honest, will find that "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes, despite their high profile use in mass shootings. Handguns have been and always will be the murderer's gun of choice.

Hoplopaths in the Dominion State will try again for an AWB next year, hopefully when they can get more support. Moderate Democrats wouldn't approve the bill in the Senate, so it's dead for now, but the proposal is going to be a zombie one (or a vampire; you choose the metaphor). 

The protests did work, along with the Second Amendment Sanctuary stuff. For the Kool-Aid drinkers, they'll maintain faith in their tyrannical ideas right up until the bullet enters their skull or the rope drops, but for others, like the moderates, they can be scared by pissed off citizens with guns.

Protests work because they remind the powers that be that the populace is armed and will use their guns. It's an implied threat without being violent or breaking the law. No, the protests didn't make the hoplopaths give up entirely, but it did stop one of the worst bills for now and buy everyone time. 

The time bought should be used to buy guns and ammo, train, and organize. Maybe a year from now there will be more resistance to gun control making it even less viable to pass it. At least another year gives people time to prepare.

The San Francisco Chronicle recently submitted public records requests to every sheriff in California requesting information on CCW permits. Sheriff Honea of Butte County was the only sheriff that publicized the request. The Chronicle editor criticized this, saying she had to up security.

Sheriff Honea only released the basic data, refusing to disclose things like addresses, but now the newspaper used to cover up bums on the feces covered streets of Frisco has every CCW holder's name. That includes my friends and relatives. The Chronicle editor stated that this will only be used internally to gauge trends. Pardon me if I don't believe that.

Across the country, newspapers have requested information regarding CCW permits. The most notorious abuse of this was the case of the Journal News in New York. It made an interactive map of permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties, down to the house. A lawyer then revealed the information about journalists who published public information. The Roanoke Times, in Virginia in 2007, published a list and deleted it the next day. 

A Tennessee newspaper also "doxed" gun owners. In Oregon, the Oregonian requested permit holder's names and cross-referenced it with the names of teachers to reveal which teachers were armed. Some teachers were harassed because of it.

Nevada's originally poorly drafted law only exempted information in the application, not the permit as issued or investigations into revocations. This came to a head when the Washoe County sheriff Mike Haley revoked Gov. Jim Gibbons' permit in 2008. It came to light that the governor's instructor Jerry Matsumura improperly endorsed the governor's application. Gibbons did not qualify with every firearm he certified on his permit.

Prior to 2011, one had to qualify with the weapons they wanted to carry. Your CCW card might say "handgun all" on the back; a remnant of the prior system. Gibbons' dilemma changed that and the confidentiality issue for us all. If it didn't happen to someone very powerful, we might not have gotten it at all.

The Reno Gazette-Journal, placed an open records request to find out the exact details of why the permit was revoked. The paper received a tip in 2008 that the governor had lost his permit. Their records request was rebuffed. The RGJ filed suit and the Supreme Court found in Reno Newspapers v. Haley that permit information, including suspension or revocation investigation data, was not exempt under the law. Under the original law, only the application data was confidential.

Now, the court ruled that confidential information, presumably "index information" like addresses and dates of birth that was particularly sensitive, could be redacted. It wasn't opening the floodgates wide. The editor of the RGJ said it was never paper's intent to reveal the identities or information of permit holders at large, merely just to investigate the Gibbons matter.

In this day and age, you can bet that the anti-gun, leftist infested newspapers of this state would do just that. And if not a newspaper, then perhaps one of the Bloomberg groups or the other heads of the hoplopathic hydra. Without Jim Gibbons screw-up, we might all be at risk. 

The short answer to that question is yes, your concealed firearm permit info in Nevada is confidential (except for law enforcement investigations. AB 143 of 2011 amended NRS 202.3662 to protect all of your information, except for law enforcement investigations.

​It is legal for those ages 18-20 to openly carry a firearm in Nevada. No law prohibits it. In Nevada, when it is not illegal to do something, it is legal to do that thing. "A crime is an act or omission forbidden by law and punishable upon conviction..." NRS 193.120 Don’t believe me? Read the NRS for yourself.
 
Confusion about this stems most likely from concealed carry being restricted in general to those over 21 (more this later) and the fact federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) can’t sell handguns unless you are at least 21. It doesn’t help that California and other states have raised the firearm purchase age to 21 as well after the Parkland shooting.
 
The 1968 Gun Control Act made it illegal for FFLs to sell to 18-20 year olds ; see 18 USC § 922(b)(1). In Nevada, until Jan. 2, 2020, it was legal for those under 21 to buy handguns legally in private sales. However, with the enactment of universal background checks that banned private sales, all guns sales must go through a dealer for a background check. Since dealers can’t process a sale/transfer to someone under 21, the perfect storm of denying access to 18-20 year olds to handgun purchases was created. Someone in that age bracket can get around this by having an exempted close relative gift the handgun to them.
 
Now for concealed carry, one must be 21 years or older to have a concealed firearm permit issued to them. NRS 202.3657. You generally are allowed to apply prior to your 21st birthday, such as taking the class <4 months before your birthday and submitting your packet so that permit is approved a short time after you turn 21. Contact your sheriff for details.
 
For those 18-20 who are in the military, or the rare honorably discharged veterans at that age, they can also apply for a concealed firearm permit (NRS 202.3657). This was changed in 2017. If you’re not in the military (active, reserve, or Guard), got a “big chicken dinner” bad-conduct discharge, other than honorable discharge, forget about it. The law requires “under honorable conditions,” so that leaves an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions.

Note that these 18-20 permits are not honored by most states and a lot of the constitutional carry states require people to be over 21 to carry concealed. Nevada does honor Utah's 18-20 permit and go over to FrontierCarry,org to see if Utah does likewise.
 
So once again, it is perfectly legal for someone 18-20 to openly carry. Police are generally educated on the issue and won’t harass you. If they do, politely explain to them or if they refuse to listen, respectfully demand a supervisor. Should worse come to worse, and it probably won’t unless you are pulling some sort of stunt or are major asshole, you file a complaint against the officer when it’s all over and call a civil rights attorney. Don’t worry about the cops busting your chops; open carry has become a non-event in Nevada. 

This question gets asked a lot, even in non-legislative session years (the Nevada Legislature meets every two years in odd years, so 2021 is the next session).

Last year, it was the same thing. What are the odds of a constitutional carry bill this year? Campus carry? Parking lot carry? Etc. So a legislator can propose a bill, and in fact in the last two sessions such bills have been proposed. They went nowhere.

In 2017, the Legislature was controlled by Democrats. We had the ability to deny them a supermajority in the Senate. Gov. Sandoval, at the time, wasn't going to sign anything radical like constitutional carry or campus carry. He was termed out and is a RINO. 

In 2019, we had a Democrat governor an a supermajority in both houses. As you recall, they rammed through background checks, red flags, and crocodile tears Sandra Jauregui's "kitchen sink" gun control bill. We only avoided a repeal of preemption because the NSSF threatened to pull SHOT Show and the unions ran crying to the Legislature. 

With a Democrat governor and Democrat controlled legislature, bought by Michael Bloomberg, we have zero chance of getting a pro-gun bill through. We have every change of seeing whatever abortion they want coming to term, pardon the pun. Nevada's future in 2021 is Virginia today.

The only chance we have to reverse this trend is to elect Republicans and deny the Democrats a majority in at least one house. So you must register to vote, turn out to vote, and vote Republican. If you care about guns, you cannot vote for a Democrat, period. They have been co-opted, except for a single Democrat, Skip Daly. 

Unless we somehow turn around this state, which isn't likely due to demographic trends and a vastly better funded and organized Democratic political machine, these bills won't come to fruition. Hell, our corrupt, broken, and feckless Republican party had the chance of a lifetime in 2015 and they blew it. 

We life in a time when our ideas are correct and popular, but the tyrants who control us (media, billionaires, and corrupt politicians elected by corrupt political machines) are exerting more power. America in 2020 is more like the early 1770s than you know. 

So to finally the answer the question, unless we have a Republican governor and Republican majority Senate and Assembly in 2023, we have no chance of reversing the gun control tide and getting successful bills. 

Michael Bloomberg wasn't wrong when he said that minorities are responsible for much of the crime rate. We reported on this back in 2015 when he first said it and background checks were coming to the ballot as Question 1 in 2016.

Reporters were asked not to reveal the recording or the statement, but word leaked out. And now it's campaign season.

Bloomberg is right about the data. Here's what the FBI says.

"Of the murder victims for whom race was known, 53.3 percent were Black or African American, 43.8 percent were White, and 2.8 percent were of other races." [source] ​"When the race of the offender was known, 54.9 percent were Black or African American, 42.4 percent were White, and 2.7 percent were of other races." [source]

Bloomberg is right, but for the wrong reasons. He advocates stop and frisk without reasonable suspicion, violating people's Fourth Amendment rights. He advocates restricting or eliminating the Second Amendment. He claims he knows better than the average man or non-whites. His attitude is the problem, not the facts.

Aggressive policing is the way to target high crime areas, but not in the heavy-handed manner NYPD has been doing it. Statements like these unfortunately show Bloomberg's racist and elitist attitude. He supports a system that addresses the results of poverty and a broken social/family structure in minority communities. Because the media and politicians like him focus on guns as the source of violence, we cannot address the deeper underlying issues. 

Until we are ready to confront the fact that socialist government policies destroyed black families from the 1960s on, we can't tackle the problem of black boys growing up without fathers or positive male figures in their lives (though that trend seems have begun to reverse in the past decades). Participating in gang and drug culture will get you killed; that chain has to be broken in the minority communities to reverse the high rates of imprisonment, violence, and death.

Except talking about these things is "racist." It's easier to talk about banning guns rather than admitting socialism has failed. No one wants to say that communities have a responsibility for fixing themselves instead of relying on government solutions. And that's Bloomberg's problem; he'd rather use a heavy hand to stop mass shootings and gang/drug violence rather than solve the root problem.

Such tactics should offend minority communities. It might be statistically correct to say if we disarmed minorities, gun murders would drop dramatically, but how many good people would be unable to protect themselves and their families? Saying black males under 30 can't have guns because of gangs is the same as saying white men 18-30 can't own guns or video games because of mass shootings.

Restriction of rights is not helpful in solving problems. Rather, suggestions like Bloomberg's take us back to the days when minorities were barred from possessing and carrying guns because of racist fears that they might fight back. Beyond all of this race stuff is the elitist attitude; men like Bloomberg feel they know better than we do.

The globalist-elitist drive to disarm us is ultimately rooted in that attitude and the knowledge that if we are disarmed, we cannot fight back against their agenda. Bloomberg and his leftist ideas cannot win at the ballot box, so instead he and his cronies are buying legislators and flooding the US and "red" states with immigrant voters to elect Democrats. They can't win on their ideas, so they are cheating. Tyrants are never fair.

Reno: On 2/10/20, two teens rough up a 14 year old boy and threaten him that they'll be back. They come back and break into the house where they get shot. One of the little thugs is in critical condition. More at the RGJ.