Attorney General’s office and the Department of Administration, Risk Management Division
NAC 284.646, 284.650
AG Division of Risk Management, Workplace Violence Prevention Policy
Special risk considerations
“Workplace violence issues generally arise from clients or customers, random acts from outside individuals or groups that are generally directed against the agency with or without apparent reason, from current or former employees, or from personal relationships such as a former spouse or partner, a relative or a friend.”
“Job positions that involve any of the following should be given special attention in regard to prevention and response plans:
Section VI: Definition of Incidents
1. Assault: The intentional use or threatened use of physical injury (impairment of physical condition or substantial pain) to another person, with or without a weapon or dangerous instrument.
2. Criminal Mischief: Intentional or reckless damaging of the property of another person without permission.
3. Disorderly Conduct: Intentionally causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof by fighting (without injury) or violent numinous or threatening behavior or making unreasonable noise, shouting abuse, misbehaving, disturbing an assembly or meeting or persons or creating hazardous conditions by an act which serves no legitimate purpose.
4. Harassment: Intentionally striking, shoving or kicking another or subjecting another person to physical contact, or threatening to do the same (without physical injury). Harassment may also consist of threats to cause damage to the property of another person, or any act intended to substantially harm the person threatened in his or her physical or mental health or safety. It may involve using abusive or obscene language or following a person in about a public place, or engaging in a course of conduct which alarms or seriously annoys another person.
5. Larceny: Wrongful taking, depriving or withholding property from another (no force involved). Victim may or may not be present.
6. Menacing: Intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
7. Reckless Endangerment: Subjecting individuals to danger by recklessly engaging in conduct which creates substantial risk of serious physical injury.
8. Robbery: Forcible stealing of another’s property by use of threat of immediate physical force. Victim is present and aware of theft.
9. Sex Offense:
a. Rape: Sexual intercourse without consent.
b. Public Lewdness: Exposure of sexual organs to others.
c. Sodomy: A deviant sexual act committed as in rape.
Sexual Abuse: Subjecting another to sexual contact without consent.”
“...does not authorize,” but “strongly discourages” carrying concealed weapons. “The duties and responsibilities of positions within the Department do not create the need to possess or use a firearm.”
“The Department of Administration does not grant permission to its employees to carry concealed weapons while on the premises of the public building in which they are employed except as permitted by NRS 202.3673(4)(c). As a result, an employee who possesses a valid concealed weapons permit, and who chooses to carry a concealed weapon on the premises of the building in which they are employed does so outside the course and scope of their employment with the Department of Administration, and does so in their personal capacity only.”
This is the policy Mr. Freedman was referring to.
“All Department facilities shall be marked with signs prohibiting firearms on the premises. The signs shall be posted at each public entrance, and shall state: PURSUANT TO NRS 202.3673, NO FIREARMS ARE ALLOWED IN THIS PUBLIC BUILDING.”
Notice how the entire policy refers only to state employees carrying concealed firearms,
A person who “elects to carry the concealed firearm” “does so at his or her own peril and without authorization of the Department. The Department is also not responsible for the firearm or any consequences arising from the presence of the firearm in the workplace.”
Discipline can result from “exposing, drawing, or firing a firearm,” failure to maintain control of the firearm, and breaking a law involving a firearm.
It is not illegal for public employees to carry concealed firearms at work, unless another law, such as NRS 202.265 which applies to schools applies.
A licensed concealed carrier may not carry a concealed weapon into a public building if it has metal detectors or “no firearms” signs at each public entrance. Public employees are not prohibited from carrying concealed firearms if they are employed at the public building in question (not all public buildings). Average citizens must receive specific written permission to obtain the exemption.
The various preemption statutes each give public (government) employers the ability to regulate or prohibit the carrying or possession of firearms at work. The State has chosen the correct approach, in leaving the choice to the individual employee, while maintaining that the State does not endorse or condone concealed carry and has no liability over the individual employee’s own actions. This policy is far more sensible than most private employers who reflexively ban concealed carry and even firearms in private vehicles.
Dept of Admin, Risk Mgmt
Workplace violence incident reports
1999, AB 166, 3673 re-write
Schools removed due to Columbine? See RGJ 5-6-1999
10-10-1999 Supreme Court gun signs
"O'Driscoll, Bill. "Nevada Lawmakers Shy Away From Gun Laws." Reno Gazette-Journal. June 5, 1999. p. 3
Did Columbine prompt the Legislature to introduce more gun control bills or affect its stance on pending gun bills? "We've hardly discussed it," said Senator Dean Rhoads of Tuscarora. Assemblyman Richard Perkins of Henderson said "Here, most folks believe the concealed-weapons issue has no relevance...But we want to deal with [school violence] in other ways." More gun control laws were not considered "politically palatable," showing that times were indeed changing in Nevada, bringing us closer to the gun-friendly state we are today.
Editorial. “A Bit of Hypocrisy from Legislators.” Reno Gazette-Journal. Jan 1, 2000. p. 29
Is it hypocrisy or stupidity or both? Take your pick. But in another of its famous "We are better (more important, more vital) than other people" productions, Nevada legislators (a) passed a law permitting people to carry concealed weapons into public buildings, and then (b) banned them from their own offices and buildings.
The Legislative Commission defended the ban by saying that because the Legislature has its own police force, citizens carrying concealed weapons could only make matters worse if an incident were to occur. It is easy to suspect, however. that legislators also worry about being sitting ducks for unhappy citizens. So let's add sophistry to the hypocrisy and stupidity.
Still not explained is why Nevada needed a law permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons into public buildings. Do citizens need protection there? And from whom? Are government officials apt to take a potshot at them? Or are unhappy citizens apt to take a potshot at public officials?
You may be sure that most public officials do not feel safer because of this law, even though prospective gun-toters have to undergo a background check before getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Supreme Court justices did not feel safer. As permitted under this zany law, they posted signs banning firearms.
Officials at the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation did not feel safer. They posted similar signs.
Ditto at the state Department of Human Resources.
You can expect this list to grow. because more than 13.000 Nevadans legally carry concealed weapons. Of course. it has not been explained either why that many people need special protection from the rest of the population.
But let that pass. These are nervous times. The Legislature has not made them any less nervous — except for itself, of course.
AP. "Signs Posted Forbidding Guns at High Court Building." Reno Gazette-Journal. Oct. 10, 1999. p. 5C
"We consulted with our security police before we decided to post the signs. We didn't think it would be good to allow weapons in the building," said Karen Kavanau, administrator.
On the contrary, "We have the inherent power to do so, but it probably would have created a big issue if I had pushed it," Judge Jack Ames of Elko said.
Bill sponsor Assemblyman Hettrick said his bill was about self-protection, that licensed concealed carriers wouldn't shoot people, but criminals would carry past the signs anyway.
The Legislative Building originally wasn't going to be posted, as their administrator admitted concealed carriers weren't people to be worried about. Police decided against posting "no guns" signs.
Gov. Guinn directed state agency heads to decide signage policies for themselves.
Originally, concealed guns were prohibited in virtually all public buildings in the state, signs notwithstanding. As of October 10, 1999, many state buildings had no signs whatsoever.
As of 04/22/2020, we have had 11 confirmed defensive gun uses by armed citizens in Nevada. While the vast majority of these incidents go unreported, even to police, we track the incidents that make the news or we can personally verify.
This time last year, we were at 10 DGUs, so there is no real statistical difference. None of these instances seem to be related to the COVID-19 crisis so far as we can tell. Here is just a summary of some of the incidents since the shutdown.
Witness tries to intervene with gun after fight-turned shooting, dies
Citizen shoots, kills man fleeing Metro, possibly caught on copter cam
Boyfriend beating girlfriend shot by girlfriend's landlord
Sister-in-law shoots brother-in-law at food truck
CCW shoots man in In-n-Out parking lot
8 News Now
Nothing good seem to happen after midnight.
At 2 AM at the In-N-Out at 9640 W. Tropicana Ave. (no, not the one off the Strip), two men approached a vehicle where a couple were eating burgers in their car. Words were exchanged and shots were fired. One of the men who approached the car is dead. The man in the car, a concealed firearm permittee, was fine.
Police have preliminary called it self-defense. Additionally, the girlfriend of the dead man tried to hide the gun. Also, a gun store was burglarized in the area, but it's unknown if the two incidents were related.
Chalk this one up to an alert armed citizen who probably saved his own life and that of his wife/girlfriend. The surviving bad guy ran away and called police, which is why everyone who is involved in a defensive gun use should call 911 as well, as soon as it is safe to do so.
Get on record, at least by reporting first. If the bad guy is the only person who calls 911, that starts setting the narrative in a way you don't want. All you have to say is something like "I've been attacked. I defended myself. Send help," etc. What exactly you say is something you need to consider and discuss with your instructor and attorney, but be sure to call it in.
It would be helpful to have an attorney present during questioning just to ensure nothing blows back on you. I recommend USCCA to help with attorneys and defense costs should you need one in this situation.
This is a repost from the original in 2015. Given the shutdowns affecting gun stores, it's prudent to see where Nevada's protection of the 2A in emergencies came from.
The Great New Orleans Gun Grab: Descent into Anarchy by Gordon Hutchinson and Todd Masson focuses on the lawlessness in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
The lawlessness described includes that of criminals, looters, and most notably, the police.
New Orleans was the site of systematic and pervasive illegal, unconstitutional seizures of legally owned firearms. Police beat citizens possessing firearms and arrested the gun owners as means of retaliation. Some guns were discarded into canals, others were destroyed, and many were stolen by officers for personal gain.
The horror stories of police corruption, police looting, police murder, and civil rights violations galore are well-know. The New Orleans Police in the aftermath was an ineffectual force acting as nothing more than armed bullies. Defiance of the police did bring swift and severe retaliation in many cases. Armed resistance against tyrannical police abuse would have likely brought an overwhelming assault from mixed local, state, federal, out-of-state law enforcement and military forces. An out-of-control government had its day, failing to protect its citizens from each other, but yet denying them an ability to defend themselves.
The following excerpts are from the book:
Police Superintendent Eddie Compass stated: ‘No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.
The police even stopped private citizens with their vehicles packed, trying to leave the city in the weeks after the storm. Though they were obviously trying to evacuate, the police would pull their vehicles over, ask the passengers if any guns were in the vehicle, and make them unload their belongings on the street until the firearms were found.
The cops would then confiscate the guns, frequently refusing to identify themselves or allow the citizens to copy down the serial numbers. In depositions given to NRA and SAF attorneys, some citizens described their firearms being broken and damaged before their eyes by smashing the guns into the pavement.
A common explanation for the behavior of the cops in New Orleans was that the city as ‘under martial law.’ Thus many people, even the victims of the thuggish and criminal behavior of the police at the time, believed the activities of the police and military units were justified because the city was under such an order[...] Nothing could be further from the truth... In point of fact, there was no martial law order in the aftermath of Katrina[...]
[...] persons purported to be strong defenders of the police, and used half-truths and innuendo to bolster their arguments in the same way they accused the outraged gun owners of ding. They offered the argument that New Orleans had one of the highest murder rates per capita in the nation. The police and National Guard units did not have any way to determine who might or might not shoot them if they came upon an armed citizen, so they had the right to disarm them all.
Culture is Important
The authors point out that gun confiscation was a habit of the New Orleans Police. Such seizures described below are clear violations of the 2nd and 4th Amendment.
For years, it has been common practice for traffic and other divisions of NOPD to demand see receipts proving ownership of any guns in the vehicles that were stopped. If receipts could not be produced, the guns would be taken an the owner told he or she could pick it up at the precinct if they could find a receipt proving ownership.
This is patently illegal and a violation of Louisiana law, which allows the carrying of firearms in a personal vehicle. In Louisiana, the vehicle is considered an extension of the home, and thus a firearm can be carried loaded or unloaded, concealed or in the open, inside the vehicle.
Many people are uncertain of their rights pertaining to firearms ownership. When the poor and minorities have an inherent distrust of the police to begin with, they would allow their guns to be taken with no protest, thus the practice became common, and was almost considered a right by the police in New Orleans. When such a mindset is entrenched, it is a small step across a narrow divide to wholesale confiscation such as occurred in the aftermath of Katrina. Thus was the practice encouraged and accelerated by the hierarchy of command in the New Orleans Police Department.
No doubt, the culture of NOPD contributed to their actions during the hurricane.
To Some, Confiscation is Unthinkable
It’s tough being a firearms enthusiast in today’s culture. There are so many assumptions made about anyone who enjoys shooting and guns, many people actually play down their enthusiasm to avoid being typecast as someone with a lesser intellect. [...] The naysayers and pseudo-intellectuals smile knowingly at gun owners, sneering behind their backs, branding them alarmists, rabble rousers, and ‘gun nuts’[...]To these types, firearms enthusiasts are cartoons; they’re knuckle-dragging, chest-beating, slope-headed Neanderthals.
To these people, the danger of gun confiscation, which removes the people’s right to protect themselves against their own government, is a joke that can never happen.
No Respect For the Law
After being asked what would happen after another devastating hurricane, New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley said: “‘During circumstances like that, we cannot allow people to walk the streets carrying guns. As law-enforcement officers, we will confiscate the weapon if the person is walking down the street, and they may be arrested.’ In direct contravention of newly minted state law, and reaffirming the actions of the police were illegal in Katrina’s aftermath, the police chief promised they would do it again.”
1. Humans in catastrophic disasters will abandon their normal, socially enforced behaviors while taking advantage of the structure of former social patters and intuitions.
With the situation in New Orleans being about actual, day-to-day survival, social mores against theft, robbery, and personal property went out the window. It was an ‘every man for himself’ attitude for many. Many looters, kept in check by the watchful eyes of society and in fear of the police, acted upon their urges, unrestrained by the former deterrent factors.
This behavior extended to the police, who gave up any pretense of judicial law-and-order policing. From the stories of police murder, desertion, and police engaging in looting, it was clear the department existed in name only. For unknown reasons, police engaged in bizarre thuggery, coupling their ordinary duties with incompatible illegal behavior.
Though the world no longer resembled what it did before the storm and 21st Century American life, law, and justice temporarily vacated New Orleans, the power of the badge still held sway. There could be no reprisals because the police apparatus, though broken, disloyal, and dysfunctional, still existed. If an armed citizen resisted the patently tyrannical abuses of the police, there were plenty more who would kill or arrest that citizen and to continue their usurpation of authority.
2. Existing police culture will dictate police response in a crisis.
As the authors point out, New Orleans Police already engaged in discriminatory and unconstitutional searches and seizures. At a whim, they could violate two constitutional amendments in one act. When disaster struck, police already felt entitled to take guns away from the citizens because they had done so before without resistance.
Police departments across the nation have been identified as having pervasive patterns of discrimination and other violations of civil rights. New York City is known for its abuse of ‘stop and frisk’, while New Jersey State Troopers were at the center of the ‘driving while black’ controversy. LAPD was placed under a federal consent decree over concerns about use of force against minorities.
Citizens must act before the crisis to ensure that their police will treat citizen’s civil rights with respect both before and after the crisis.
Personally, I believe that most line police officers aren’t really against the right to keep and bear arms, but either misinformed by their superiors or have so much experience with criminals carrying guns, that their brain automatically lumps armed citizens into the ‘bad guy’ category.
3. Paramilitary organizations will follow orders and citizens will generally submit to authorities.
It was a rejected defense in Nuremberg, nonetheless, humans will defer to authority, especially if they are conditioned to it. Since the atrocities of WWII and war crimes in Vietnam, both the military and police have been told to disobey any illegal orders. Yet in the case of the police, it still goes on.
Ever wonder why a cop won’t let you drive up a street that’s been closed due to an emergency or crime? “It’s for your safety.” More often than not, he’s been told that no one is to go up the street and he is not in a position to question his orders. Half the time, he might not even know why he’s doing what he’s been told to do. Maybe it’s a good thing he’s not letting you drive through a raging forest fire or past the crazy guy on his roof with a sniper rifle. Other times, it’s for a vague, poorly thought out reason.
4. ‘Public safety’ will always be the rallying call.
The police likely they argued they were following orders under a mistake of fact (about martial law) in the good of public safety. “If it’s good for the public, then it must be permissible,” the specious logic goes.
The putative goal of gun confiscation was to protect the public from gun violence. A police apologist could argue that the intent was to take guns away from criminals. Yet seizures targeted people who refused to evacuate, critics of Mayor Ray Nagin and Gov. Blanco, and law-abiding citizens. Anecdotes show this to be the case time and time again.
While the police were taking guns from the ‘good guys’, they were not protecting the public. Crime was rampant. Neighborhoods organized militias and home and business owners kept armed watch. The National Guard even withdrew from their checkpoints after nightfall. The police took away the public’s self-defense ability while unable or unwilling to provide police protection.
5. Mission creep is a big deal.
Most cops actually care about public safety. They don’t throw in the towel after their first shift directing traffic in a cold rainstorm. Cops want to put the bad guys in jail.
The problem is that like any job, the actual goals are subordinated by the daily work. Protecting the public is done by writing up traffic violations and arresting people. It’s easy to see things as tickets that need written and looking for a felony arrest to make yourself look good to the sergeant.
Think of your job, especially something that deals with people in bad situations. You try to help, but soon everyone is just a name or number and just another problem. You want to do whatever needs to be done to make them leave you alone. It’s the day to day clouds that obscure the horizon of our true purpose at work.
Giving the NOPD cops the benefit of the doubt, they were trying to make things safer. More bad logic: Gun violence problem? Get rid of the guns. Too hard to take guns from the bad guys? Take them from the good guys; good guns make easy victims.
I highly doubt a majority of American law enforcement would cooperate with a nationwide gun confiscation. First, most cops respect the constitution and the right to self-defense, even though their-day-to day policing can suffer from tunnel vision. Second, the fear of an armed rebellion and guerrilla war is a major deterrent.
Isolated incidents will occur, but in the majority of major catastrophes in America, this is an outlying event. Nothing remotely like this happened in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Andrew, 9/11, Northridge Earthquake, or even to the Koreans famous for defending their businesses during the LA riots.
What happened in New Orleans was a perfect storm, pardon the pun. A corrupt, unethical police department was presiding over absolute chaos and the powers that be felt they had to contain the violence by any means. The rotten police culture, the pervasive pattern of gun confiscations pre-Katrina, the shock of the event, the collapse of organized society, day-to-day survival, and misconceptions about martial law all combined to create the atmosphere of tyranny.
In New York and Connecticut, nothing has happened, despite huge numbers of non-compliant gun owners. Politically, it is dangerous and many of the line officers wouldn’t go along with the scheme.
Could it happen again or nationwide? Yes, but the above conditions would probably need to be met. Nationally, a cadre committed to disarmament and willing to risk casualties could make effective strides in confiscation.
The most dangerous thing of all is a culture shift that would make gun owners out to be the bad guys and any police action against them seem justified.
FB (not spelling out the name to fool their algorithms) recently announced a new policy where they will disable "certain" posts regarding anti-shutdown protests. This will include Events using FB's tool.
What is disturbing about this is that FB has been in contact with state governors' offices regarding the issue, though everyone is denying that there was any actual take down request or order.
This is what they said the communication was about: "Facebook reached out last week to learn more about Nebraska's social distancing restrictions, and the governor's staff provided already publicly available information about Nebraska's 10-person limit and directed health measures." (CNN)
I'd like a transcript or recording of that call to see what really happened. I wouldn't be surprised if FB came up with the idea and it was enthusiastically supported by government.
A FB spokeshole told CNN: "Unless government prohibits the event during this time, we allow it to be organized on Facebook. For this same reason, events that defy government's guidance on social distancing aren't allowed on Facebook."
So basically, the tech giant is saying "we're banning the posts because it's promoting an illegal activity," but it's okay where it isn't illegal. Zuckerberg's troll is ignoring the whole unconstitutional angle of banning peaceable assemblies and redress of grievances. Also, if they have now drawn a nexus to the state where they could be argued in court as agents of the state. A savvy lawyer would and put FB on the hook for civil rights violations.
What is frightening about this is that social media and big tech could target all sorts of protests. Imagine if they feel they want to take down a pro-gun protest? Right to life? Religious freedom? All some liberal governor has to do is make an off-the-books phone call to FB and ask them to come up with some policy to squash it.
Big tech needs to be held out to the public square standard. FB has made itself so ubiquitous that it has become essentially a private utility. And if you argue "it's their website, they can do what they want," then any private person or business should have every right to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
So develop those other channels of communications. Visit this blog by subscribing to the RSS feed (if that's your thing) or book mark this. At least submit to the newsletter so I can put out information to you if Facebook takes us down.
Open carry itself isn’t a faux paus, unless you’re walking into a place you legally can’t have a gun. There are a few thing socially that the gun community and the public can agree on as bad behavior while openly carrying a gun.
1. Carrying a long-gun
Don’t carry a long-gun in public. This might be appropriate at some political protest, but for average, everyday carry, you do not need a long-gun. If things are that spicy, why are you going to Walmart?
In Texas, the open carry movement bringing guns in Target and other businesses scared people and caused a lot of businesses to turn on open carry. Then, in the wake of the El Paso Walmart shooting in 2019, after some jerk brought an AR pistol into another Walmart in Missouri for attention, Walmart and a bunch of other stores banned open carry of handguns.
Long-gun open carry tends to frighten people. Keep long-guns at home, or only carry them openly in rural or wilderness areas or in/around events where it’s clear guns are to be expected, like the range or a gun show.
2. Pulling your gun out in public (not in self-defense)
Drawing a gun to show people it is a terrible idea. It’s unsafe and someone could easily mistake that for brandishing or think you are about to shoot someone. You could end up dead or in jail. If the gun accidentally goes off, your negligence is still a crime even if no one is hurt. And if they are, you’ll be on the hook for civil damages.
If you want to show someone in a public setting your gun, turn your body so they can see it in the holster. Only draw it in a private place you control (a home) or on the range, following range protocols.
3. Not using a holster
We’ve discussed this before, but not using a holster makes you look unprepared to fight. It does not instill confidence in the public in your gun handling skills. Your gun is subject to slipping out from the belt or pocket or being snatched. Several open carriers who have lost their guns carried them casually in pockets, etc.
4. Not being situationally aware
When you have a gun on you, you have to be aware of your surroundings and what other people are doing. The open carry snatches I’ve documented mostly have to do with people who are unaware someone is going to try to grab their gun. Boom, the gun is gone, the person has no idea what to do.
Though it has never happened during the modern open carry movement, you don’t want to be the first person who is targeted because he’s an open carrier. See the threat coming and take cover or fight.
Use a retention holster so in a fight or snatch, the gun just can’t be pulled from your holster. Even the best of us can’t always operate at 100% awareness. Turn and look at people coming up to you who might have nefarious intentions. Eye contact solves a lot of problems. Always be prepared to fight for your gun and shoot, if necessary, a snatcher.
5. Grabbing your gun
Like pulling out your gun, don’t grab the grip like you’re going to draw it. People who don’t know that you’re just talking with your buddy and that’s a gesture might think you are going to pull out the gun. If nothing else, it’s cringeworthy.
6. Adjusting your gun
Be careful adjusting your gun/holster in public. People might get the wrong idea, sorta like a guy adjusting his genitals outside his pants. Always do your adjustment in a private area or shielded from view of others.
7. Touching your gun
Try not to touch your gun. Again, someone may get the wrong idea. Use a strong holster, with good retention, on a good belt and it’ll be fine. You could rest your forearm along the butt of the pistol like a cop, but them you look like a cop.
8. Not carrying a loaded gun
Again, we’ve covered this before, but not carrying a loaded gun makes you look like the unprepared person you probably are. Sure, you might carry with an empty chamber, but no one except yourself can see that. An unloaded magazine? Everyone can see that, especially the bad guy who suddenly knows you aren’t ready to fight. Gun fights happen fast. Have a magazine in your gun.
9. Wearing multiple firearms
Okay, you can openly carry multiple firearms and not look like a weirdo, but the people who often carry multiple firearms openly, look like weirdos. If you don’t know how not to look weird while doing it, don’t do it. And if you don’t know that a two-gun man was most often a bad guy, you probably can’t pull off the two-gun Western cowboy look.
ABC 3 Las Vegas coverage
Hundreds of people turned out in three locations to protest the lockdown of Nevada. This was part of "Operation Nevada" lead by the group Reopen Nevada Group. I have no idea who/what that group is. What's clear is they're mad that Sisolak has not committed to following the Trump Administration guidelines to re-open the economy.
A lot of people turned out and it's great to see people questioning the lockdown and exercising their constitutional rights. As Americans, we have a right to do this and must do this in a time when such rights are being challenged by the government. The follow-on effects of a shuttered world under government edict is a valid concern.
Starting a new Greater Depression over this and the social/emotional price we're paying isn't worth minimizing casualties. That is at the heart of what these nationwide protests are asking for. Americans are asking for the one-size fits-all solution to be lifted in favor of something a little smarter and for the ability to make their own decisions. Liberty, after all, is a risky proposition.
However, we cannot call for a return to normal simply because of anti-authoritarianism or a desire for profit/personal pleasure. Nor can we dismiss the threat of the coronavirus because of ignorance, because we feel safe and want to go back to normal, or because we simply think the government/media is lying to us. That is stupid.
There is a happy middle-ground between the two, but first a thought.
People should be wearing masks in these photos. Why? First, it takes away ammo from people who are going to yell and scream about the people infecting each other. Second, it keeps people from potentially infecting each other as they are quite close together in some cases (though outdoor transmission seems unlikely).
Third, by wearing masks it sends the message that the protesters are taking the threat from the virus as seriously as they take their rights. We can responsibly re-open the country and that is through voluntary mass wearing of masks (mandatory in the case of businesses open to the public). For every necessary restriction, there is almost always a reasonable alternative to a clampdown.
For many reasons, we cannot maintain a long-term lockdown. This kind of shutdown of the world will result in widespread rebellion, if not an outright insurrection, in a few more months. We've bought time and flattened the curve. It's time to pull back from the knee-jerk reaction and be more sensible about our restrictions.
I see a lot of friends criticizing the virus as not deadly and the shutdown measures as stupid. Yes, some of the measures are stupid and poorly thought out with little evidence or reasoning to support them.
Wearing a mask is not stupid (indoors at least). Keeping the casinos closed a bit longer is probably a good idea. The virus is more deadly than the nay-sayers believe. No, it's not just the flu. Influenza doesn't have a case fatality rate of 4%. Yes, young, healthy people are dying of COVID-19. This is virus is dangerous and if you don't believe it you're and idiot and I can't help you.
That being said, you can hold two conflicting ideas in your head. For instance, this isn't the Ebola virus. You can admit that the virus is dangerous and the media isn't just over-hyping it. I get my information from alternative news sources run by intelligent people (no Alex Jones) and think critically about it. Those people are worried and regularly call out the mainstream media for panicking people.
We should be protecting society by taking extraordinary measures and everyone wearing masks, but that doesn't mean government didn't overreact. We're right to question the reaction and demand less-restrictive alternatives. In a free country, we're free to take risks. If this is a war against the virus, we will take casualties. As Americans, we're willing to accept that for freedom.
We'll probably loose 200,000 people by the time this is over if we do everything right. There will be a second wave. All these things don't mean we have to accept 2 million or more dead or put life on hold for two years. I can wear a mask when I shop or buy dinner and still demand that the beaches and national parks re-open.
On Saturday, that was what Nevadans were asking for. Sisolak can lift and modify parts of the shutdown order. If bloggers can propose solutions that protect people but still let business and life go on, surely actual doctors, epidemiologists, and emergency operations planners can figure something out with the science they have access to.
Government control is all about taking the easiest, safest way out. That's why government loves gun control; if no one can own a gun, everyone with a gun is a criminal and they can be punished. The easiest, safest way out is also often the worst and heaviest handed on. We could have nuked Afghanistan and called it a day, but we didn't, and that's a great analogy because going full-bore "Democracy building" has wasted tons of American lives and treasure.
The further this lockdown goes on with no regard to science or the feelings of the people, the further disconnect between government and people will grow. Should this across-the-board policy continue, people will begin to just ignore the ban altogether.
Story at 8 News Now
In what appears to be self-defense, a woman in a food truck shot a man Thursday night, 4/16. The woman, sister-in-law to the dead man, shot the man after he apparently came up to the food truck, got into an altercation, and pulled a gun out.
Bystanders attempted to render first aid to the man and flagged down a state trooper.
In all seriousness, Karl is a cool guy and he's got a good sense of humor. This is epic trolling right here, that's what that is.
In case you aren't familiar with InRangeTV, they perform a lot of mud tests on guns. The joke is about a gun getting the bucket/hose if it won't function properly, a play on the scene from Silence of the Lambs.
It's actually a catchy song once you get over the association with Ted Levine's disturbing tuck scene in the film.
Carl Bussjager's article at The Truth About Guns was just wrong. At least about concluding that semi-autos are machine guns in Nevada. It's hyperbolic and wrong (though the fear is real).
No, an AR-15 is not now a machine gun in Nevada because a federal judge punted the matter to the state supreme court. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. You can read the judge’s decision yourself. He’s referred a question about a state statute to the state court. Although the Obama appointee did punt on the federal law question (PLCAA) which should have doomed the case from the beginning.
I don’t know why judges make decisions like this. Maybe Gordon doesn’t like guns. Maybe he’s worried about his “legacy” or looking bad to whatever liberal might appoint him to some higher office. It’s not like he has to worry about voters (a shame, too).
Carrie Parsons got shot by a murderer and now her parents, blinded by grief, got roped into being the plaintiffs of a lawsuit against Colt. I’m not sure of the details of the case, but if other manufacturer lawsuits are a guide, they’ll foot the bill like folks who tried to sue after the Aurora, Colorado, shooting.
The whole argument is that Colt should have foreseen, back in 1959 when it bought the design from Armalite, that six-year old Steven Paddock was going to put a not-yet-invented bumpfire stock on a semi-automatic rifle and shoot up a concert from a hotel that didn’t exist.
There are three issues:
The PLCAA seems to get the manufacturers out of the jam, but leave the people who sold the gun in the lurch. That’s how I read it, at least.
The PLCCA, or the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is supposed shield manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits that are filed on the basis that “guns are deadly and X criminal used Y gun to kill Z.” Like the beer brewer being responsible for the drunk driver who got into the car and killed the pedestrian. In a sane world, the judge would have quashed the entire case right then and there, but sanity has departed the world and “evil” is now called “good.”
The anti-gun groups and their hoplopathic accomplices in the court system are trying to get PLCCA thrown out so gun manufacturers can be sued out of the civilian arms business.
Two ways to stop that: Congress simply passes a law that says court’s can’t decide on PLCCA because it’s been removed from their jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Second, SCOTUS gets off its duff and enforces the PLCCA by throwing this case and the one against Remington out of Connecticut under the bus. Unless the makeup of the court drastically goes Left soon, they probably will.
But not after the attorneys have made their money suing people.
Secondly, that the AR-15 style rifle can be turned into “a machine gun” is negligent entrustment and everyone should have know about Steve’s Mandalay Bay October Boogaloo somehow beforehand. I guess they forgot to call the FBI’s psychic when he filled out the Form 4473. The judge saw through this, but let’s look at the plaintiff’s stupidity.
“[The plaintiff's] allege that these defendants knowingly manufactured and sold weapons 'designed to shoot' automatically because they were aware their AR-15s could be easily modified with bump stocks to do so.”
I seriously doubt that any serious judge would find Colt liable because someone added on third-party accessory that was within the law at the time and never met the definition of machine gun.
The bump fire stock wasn’t invented until around 2000 (I don’t know exactly when the Akins Accelerator showed up) and it was another 10 years or so before the Slide Fire Systems bump fire stock, copied by others, came out. Colt clearly didn’t and couldn’t foresee this.
Anyone who knows the history of the civilian AR-15 knows that Colt made decisions and modifications, many loathed by collectors, to keep the AR-15 from going full auto. They can’t say “easily modified to full automatic fire.” To make a semi-auto AR-15 into a machine gun you need to do one of several things:
Adding a bumpfire stock, which under federal law most certainly doesn’t meet the definition of a machine gun (and the 2017 definition of machine gun in Nevada), is not easily converting something to fully automatic.
A judge hearing this all before trial is radically different than an actual trial, where the judge or jury determines fact. Gordon didn’t bite. No sane judge who values his reputation would find that Colt made it easy to modify these things into machine guns. A jury is a bit different, but despite a plaintiff’s verdict from a brain-dead jury, the verdict would probably be overturned on appeal.
Finally, we come to the final issue. Basically, the federal judge said “Hey, Nevada’s own PLCAA statute, NRS 41.131, isn’t within the federal jurisdiction, so that needs to go to the state Supreme Court to decide.”
Again, in a sane world the Nevada Supreme Court would throw this out. Again, under state law at the time, bump fire stocks were totally legal. The fact that the 2019 legislature changed the definition of machine gun to specifically outlaw bumpfire stocks is also another damning fact against the case.
The real question is, will the Nevada Supreme Court go full retard or not? We saw them pull stuff out of their asses in the Flores case, but who knows what they will do here. On the surface, the court dismisses the case and every one has a nice day, except the plaintiffs who are stuck with a monstrous attorney bill.
As Clayton Cramer pointed out, the judge (a former attorney) probably allowed this nonsense to go forward is to allow the attorneys to collect their billings. The old maxim goes that no one but the lawyers win in a lawsuit. The plaintiff’s bar and the legal system in Nevada is a corrupt plaintiff-friendly state. The behind the scenes stuff would disgust you if you knew how corrupt it was, but it’s Chinatown.
If they abandon all logic and reasoning and find that Nevada’s PLCCA doesn’t apply and says a trial can go forward, then the plaintiff still has to convince a judge or jury that Colt did wrong. To sum up the argument at trial again, the plaintiff basically has to argue that Colt knew it was basically passing out machine guns to mad men.
By the way, if he did this with a registered machine gun, what then? Interesting question, huh? Paddock had the money, the time, and a clean enough background, to legally buy a much deadlier machine gun. Good think these mass-murderers are generally more diabolical than intelligent.
Finally, the federal bumpfire stock cases that are winding through the system will more than likely say "no, they're not machine guns and the ATF was wrong to declare them so." Then half of this is moot.
So what we’re looking at here is a big nothing burger with a potential chance of judicial stupidity. We may get asinine decisions out of the state supreme court and the trial court, but there is a pretty good chance that those will never survive the ultimate appeals process. I mean, Trump is probably going to get re-elected and Ginsburg isn’t going to last another four years. Worst case scenario; we’ll be disappointed, but not surprised what the Wizards of Carson City come up with, perhaps even the trial court too, and have to wait out the process for the big guns to waffle stomp these plaintiffs down the drain.
Clayton E. Cramer
Gun Free Zone
The War on Guns
The View From Out West