The NRA recently laid of 60 people. The scandals, suits, and controversy—all products of leadership's making—have taken their toll. Then the coronavirus economic collapse happened. Some worry about the NRA collapsing and going into history, then leaving gun owners without representation. I don't think we've gotten our money's worth from the NRA. Like a parasite devastating a host, only when the host is no longer benefiting the parasite can the victim be free of the one draining its lifeblood. The death process needs to continue until the parasites are gone and the body can heal. A lot of people across the gun community have expressed serious angst over watching the NRA slowly collapse of an illness of its own making. They think we should be making heroic efforts to save it. Sometimes you have to totally tear a thing down to rebuilt it. It's a painful process to watch, like cutting out a tumor or tearing the guts out of a neglected old house. We instinctually recoil when watching our honored institutions burning down. Seeing a behemoth like the NRA self-destruct, even if it or something better may be reborn from the process, it is a time of uncertanity. The fear that all that has been accomplished over the years may disappear is a real one. This is where the old balancing act comes. What of the old, rotten, corrupt system is worth keeping? There will always be a need for institutional gun training as the NRA provides. The NRA will probably continue to provide it or serve as the framework for thousands of trainers across the country. And if not, something will take that place. Nature abhors a vacuum. Legislatively, what good has the NRA really done? The NRA has compromised since 1934. It is arguable whether this was to avoid worse or if they sold us down the river. Because of the money involved, a renewed NRA-ILA could be effective if leadership stops holding them back. Even if the NRA is done for good, groups like the GOA or FPC stand to gain and grow. Grassroots has never been easier before. And worst-case, if the NRA bites the dust and nothing can replace it, the days of the Republic are numbered. We all see the civil war and tyranny storming on the horizon. We'll have to use the Second Amendment sooner or later. Like the tearing down of a house, it's hard to watch, but there's a very slim chance we can turn America around with our a reset. Hey, we all got an opinion. How about mine? It can't be worse than the government's opinion. Yes, I do believe the shutdown is working to "flatten the curve," but continuing the shutdown for a month was asking a lot, all of April a lot more, and if they extend it into May, painful. June would be a bridge too far. The danger here was not so much the virus, but the idea that hospitals would be overwhelmed, dooming people coming in for routine emergencies like heart attacks and accidents. To those that say only 25,000 (at this writing) are dead; that's 25,000 that wouldn't be dead if it weren't for China. That's close to half a regular flu season dead since February 29. You can believe the danger of the virus and at the same time believe that we over-reacted. I disagree with the idea because the numbers are low that the risk isn't there; you can't prove a negative. We never had a nuclear war with Russia, so does that mean all our nuclear weapons and military preparations during the Cold War were not necessary? You see my point. I'm not happy about the way it was done; the death rate for the virus just isn't there. This whole thing could have been done a lot more smartly than it was to create less pain, but with similar results. The virus is not an existential threat to the nation or world; it's not Ebola. For that, quarantine the first city it showed up in. Hell, nuke it. Again, our efforts have worked to avoid this, but extending the shutdown much longer in such a stupid manner is not necessary. We can achieve the desired goals with sensible precautions. We have to for the good of the country. This shutdown is what you get when retarded public officials who care more about statistics than regular people and regular life are in charge. Here are my sensible ideas. Make it mandatory to wear a face covering while in a building that you don’t own. Your mask protects me, and my mask protects you. You don’t need to wear a mask outside or while exercising (or in your car, especially alone). Vulnerable people (the elderly, the immunocompromised) need to remain isolated until the danger is well-past, and then limit their exposure until a vaccine is available. Houses of worship should voluntarily remain closed for another month, then possibly re-open maintaining wide spacing during services and/or creating small groups for in-person services. Home churches were how the Apostles did it. Encourage strangers to keep their distance from each other, like 6-12 feet, whenever possible. Casinos remain closed for an additional month. They concentrate a lot of people into tight quarters. When they re-open, restrictions on crowds in eating establishments should be restricted to 25-50% capacity and generous spacing ensured on the casino floor. Dine-in restaurants should remain closed for another month. After that, they should reopen at 25-50% capacity. All staff must wear masks and gloves at all times. Tables need disinfected, not just wiped, after meals. Bar patrons should be spaced out too. White-collar workers should work from home as much as possible for the foreseeable future. Offices and call centers that need employees to come in should space employees out as much as possible. There’s no reason to have workers in such close proximity. It’s harmful to the company as there could be a lot of sick-outs at once (and lots of civil liability for not taking mitigating steps). No one should be fired for not coming to work for valid health concerns if their employer cannot accommodate them, at least until the risk is much lower. Any retail store or similar business that can maintain social distancing should reopen at a reduced capacity. Employees should wear masks and gloves. This goes for the barbers and beauticians as well. There is no reason Sportsman’s Warehouse or Bass Pro Shops can’t sell clothes, etc. if people are already coming in for guns. Theaters and live music venues, any place where people crowd together, should stay closed. Sorry, no bowling alleys or going to the stadium. Park need to re-open. Staff can close the gates if too many people come in. Police/rangers used to close the place and enforce the closure can enforce social distancing instead, like extra patrols on major holidays. Limit the amount of children on playgrounds at one time and educate parents to keep them away from each other. Keep the schools closed until September. Kids spread disease amongst each other and bring it home. Stop releasing criminals from jail/prison. Make the defense attorneys fight every step of the way and resist any judge’s order to release inmates early until a federal marshal is about to be sent to arrest a prison official. Dump the sales tax on necessary items like food, non-food groceries, fuel, and clothing to ease the burden on the consumer for a few months. Create COVID hospitals specifically for the coronavirus patients. These hospitals will handle only known or suspected pandemic patients to contain the virus and concentrate specialists. Move virus patients to overflow hospitals as necessary. Utilize non-COVID hospitals as usual to support the patients who need regular medical assistance. Keep the homeless wherever they are and don’t release them except to go to jail, rehab, or a mental health facility unless they get a job. Do studies on how the virus is transmitted in ordinary life. Swab door handles, ATMs, and card readers to see where the virus is present. Sample the air in grocery stores. Tell us where the risk really is so we can protect ourselves from the most likely threats instead of fearing everything and everyone. Test anyone who wants a test for antibodies or for the virus. We need to know who has it and who has had it. Tests for SARS CoV-2 should be as easy to get on demand any time in any quantity like STD tests. You can’t know how big the problem is if you aren’t trying to map it. Encourage people to entertain themselves in small groups at home or in parks. Avoid going out to socialize with strangers or in grubby public places. Sure, bars and venues might suffer, but hasn’t it been great to see people in the park, out in the neighborhood, or getting together with their families and friends again? This kind of community what our country desperately needs. Keep international travel shut down for the foreseeable future. Cargo and American citizen repatriation only. We don’t need foreign businessmen or tourists. Crackdown on illegal immigration. Cancel major events with crowds this year. Mardi Gras and Spring Break was a major disaster and spread the disease. Beat the administration of the CDC with a stick. Move as much business out of China as possible and slap them with tariffs to punish the corporations who off-shored there. Reward companies that move factories back to the US with tax breaks. Put factories in Mexico to move the country away from a failed narco state and keep their citizens there as they can have a better life at home. "Public" means a government building (owned by cities, the state, counties, local districts, etc.). This does not mean private property open to the public, like casinos, stores, and other businesses. Do I have to obey ‘no guns’ signs on private property? No, signs do not have the force of law in Nevada on private property. If the owner or management wants you to leave or disarm, you must comply or you can be arrested for trespassing. Nevada Carry recommends taking your business elsewhere and making sure that the owner or corporate management knows they lost your business for denying you the right to lawfully carry. The majority of Nevada businesses are firearm friendly. In Nevada, Walmarts and other business' "request" not to open carry does not have the force of law until someone in authority asks you to leave. A verbal "request" can be ignored, but not a formal or implied warning that you will be trespassed. If you refuse a verbal request, a statement like "then I'm going to call the police," should be interpreted by you that they want you to leave and will have you trespassed. Leave or comply at that point or you will be talking to the police about trespassing. Often the trespassing statute, NRS 207.200, is put on "no guns' signs. It is also on "no skateboarding," "no loitering," and similar signs. All the law says is that you cannot "go upon the land or into any building with the intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant...or to commit any unlawful act." If you have already been trespassed or told to say off the property, that is also prohibited. Merely coming on private property to do your business is not trespassing, unless you have been warned about it before. Signs quoting NRS 202.3673 are referring to government buildings. "Public" means a government building (owned by cities, the state, counties, local districts, etc.). This does not mean private property open to the public, like casinos, stores, and other businesses. Signs referring to "no guns" with the NRS 202.3673 statute are wrong. Private buildings with metal detectors also aren't legally gun free zones (though they may kick you out). Also know that this law only applies to concealed carry. Can I open carry at the mall? Can I open carry at a casino? Yes, legally you can carry on private property (except private schools and day-cares) even if there is a 'no guns' sign. However, most indoor malls and casinos will ask you to disarm or leave the property. All they can do is ask you to disarm or tell you to leave. Failure to do so would be a trespassing violation. The only private property where, by law, open carry (any possession of guns) are banned are private schools and child care facilities.
Why Child Care Facilities? This includes in-home daycare, day and overnight camps, and daycare business per NRS 432A.024. A daycare within a business, such as casino would be off-limits, but not the larger business housing the daycare.. Unfortunately, an unprofessional group of bounty hunters attempted to arrest a wanted person and believed that she was at a children's day care. The incident was disturbing to the children and to the owner. The owner then contacted Assemblywoman Smith who, in 2007, successfully had the law amended to prohibit firearms in child care facilities. Click here for the citation from the legislative minutes. To see what is and isn't a licensed child care facility, visit this DPBH webpage and look for the current list under the 'Resources' right-hand sidebar and click 'Providers.' Contract post offices that are part of something else and not operated by USPS employees, like a window at a 7-11, are not federal gun free zones. Indian Reservations Firearm carry on Indian reservations is a gray area. Some reservations in Nevada do permit concealed carry with a valid concealed firearm permit, however, it may vary. Tribes cannot enforce tribal law on non-tribal members, though they can enforce state and federal law. You may be trespassed from the reservation and have your firearm confiscated. One should contact individual reservation authorities for clarification of their regulations. Can I open carry in a bar? Can I drink while open carrying? There is no law against carrying open or concealed in bar or while drinking, however, it is a crime to be in possession of firearm when one’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is .08 or greater (NRS 202.257). AB 291 (2019) changed this from .10. Does Nevada have a law that protects me if I keep a gun in my car at my workplace? No. Employers and private property owners may enforce their own internal regulations regarding firearms and you may face discipline, including termination, for breaking their rules. Nevada Carry recommends that a weapon in a vehicle be kept within a locked container or compartment when unattended or children are present. Firearms should always be under the direct physical control of their owner when not locked away. If you choose to carry a firearm concealed on your person against your employer's rules, make sure it is totally concealed and no one knows about it. Can you open carry on the Strip or Downtown Las Vegas/Reno? Yes. Casinos will likely ask you to leave or disarm if you are discovered carrying, but the only penalty is trespassing if you refuse to comply. Open carry is legal and police/security cannot stop it on public roads/sidewalks. Southern Nevada/Las Vegas Open Carry members have carried openly en masse several times in both Downtown and on the Strip. Can my HOA or landlord ban me from openly carrying? That depends on your CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions) and the terms of your lease. There is no legal authority, other than trespassing on common property (clubhouses, pools, etc.), that would apply. The only repercussions would be civil fines under CC&Rs or eviction by a landlord. The following is my rough/first draft thesis on open carry and why it "disappeared" after the Wild West days. This law denounces not as harm Though commonplace and the preferred method of carrying a handgun, concealed carry suffered from a negative reputation as a “pernicious practice” and “evil habit.” This demonization was due to concealed weapons’ associations with passionate violence and sudden homicides. A culture that tolerated and often encouraged easy violence blamed not the hearts of men for crime, but the effects of an inanimate object in the pocket for influencing men to kill. This violence and supposed deception justified many legal decisions against concealed carry, but supporting open carry. Concealed carry has generally always been common, as much as, if not more than, open carry. Open carry was often not as widespread as imagined because of negative attitudes towards carrying guns. In many places until the shall-issue wave of concealed carry laws in the 1980s and 1990s, carrying a gun was seen as a suspicious, if not outright criminal, practice. Concealed carry’s historical tarnished reputation so demonized carrying a gun, it discouraged many from carrying openly, even though it was legal. Today sensible people find it laughable to think that merely placing a weapon under clothing would make someone more liable to be violent, yet in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, many believed just this. Notorious gunmen, criminals, and other undesirables hid their guns just as they concealed their evil intentions. This idea didn’t come from nowhere. Pre-Civil War Southern society had a nasty habit of dueling or fighting over matters of honor. Duels were considered the dignified way of handling disputes while brawls in the street or the heat of the moment were considered low brow. By the mid-19th Century, dueling died out as the younger generations thought them silly. Rather than pre-arrange a duel, the post-dueling society men fought in hot blood. No matter how the dispute or insult was settled, violence in defense of honor became a Southern cultural norm. As Southerners made their way across the frontier all the way to California, their fighting culture came with them. In mining camps, prairie cattle towns, and out on the range men fought each other over minor pretexts, much as they do now, except then, fights that lead to murder were much more common and almost socially acceptable. Refusing to fight to defend one’s honor was considered cowardly. Non-lethal fights often and easily turned into murder as the taboo against casual violence was weak. As words deteriorated into fists, or even before that, someone would draw a weapon carried in their clothes and assault or kill the other. The problem of senseless murders was exacerbated by the refusal of juries to return guilty verdicts. Usually the barest excuse for self-defense would result in a jury acquitting the killer. For instance, a man would pick a fight, the other guy would reach for a pocket pistol or knife, and the instigator would shoot first, claiming self-defense because the other guy was reaching for a gun. The best way to compare this culture to today would be as if police didn’t investigate and prosecute gang murders because society places little value on the lives of gang members. Outside an often ambivalent ghetto culture, American society is horrified by inner city violence. It didn’t matter that the only reason the victim was going for a weapon was because of the instigator. Sometimes, men were acquitted because the bare fear the victim who reached into his pocket “might” have had a weapon. Juries would accept the defense because the killer had a fear, remote as it might be, that the other party was armed. Eventually, society stopped condoning what amounted to little more than legal tricks to excuse murder. “Going for the pocket” became the bane of carrying concealed weapons and blamed for the ills associated with “pistol toters.” Today, this is known as a “furtive movement” and back then it was called the “hip pocket defense.”. One example is the death of Jim Courtright in 1887 in Texas. “Short dropped his hands, as if to smooth his vest. It was no time for movements even remotely suspicious. In such times as this, many a man in Texas has committed suicide by reaching abruptly for his handkerchief! Going for a gun, whether one was there or not, could lead to shots being fired. This mere possibility often created reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. As society became tired of juries acquitting on such thin grounds, justifiable homicide laws began to change. Defenses such as “I shot first as he might have had a gun,” were thrown out. An unreasonable, unsubstantiated fear was no longer enough to avoid a murder or manslaughter charge. A bare fear is not sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person and that the person killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge. Banning concealed carry also had another effect in the courtroom. If concealed carry was illegal, then it could not be presumed the victim had a gun simply because it was possible he was armed. A concealed weapon law meant that the law presumed the victim was unarmed and the killer must have known in fact otherwise. And if a man was killed “reaching for his pocket” and no gun was found, then the killer could be convicted because not only was the man unarmed, the killer had no right to suspect the killer was armed. In other words, banning concealed carry took away a lot of excuses. At the same time, justifiable homicide laws came into effect, requiring among other things, if you started a fight, you had to back down and decline to fight any further before you could assert self-defense. The judicial system was also becoming more effective and stronger on the frontier. As a result of these reforms, convictions for murder went up and “honor violence” began to go down. As society tamed, easy killing was looked down upon along with carrying a gun. Family life replaced wild living on the frontier and the kind of undisciplined culture that permitted violence and shooting disappeared as families and the middle class wouldn’t tolerate lawlessness. By the end of the 19th Century, it was considered uncivilized to fight and kill over insults and matters that could be settled in court or shrugged off. These legal reforms and social changes probably had more effect on stopping impulsive violence than gun control, as men predisposed to killing knew that they stood little chance of getting past tougher juries. Mere prohibitions have only worked to keep the honest, honest. Small fines could be paid off and often were, judges reluctant to jail men as the town would have to bear the cost of feeding and housing a prisoner. If the law couldn’t keep everyone honest, then the dishonest criminal would be the only one carrying, or at least open carry would make it obvious who was armed, so the thinking went. Support for concealed weapon laws came from those “who believed that there would be fewer deaths if combatants were forced to ‘fight fair’” without weapons.[1] They were proven wrong about the bans. Gun control such as this was practically new territory and we can excuse those who in untried times exercised magical thinking to believe concealed weapon bans would keep men from packing heat. Morally, open carry meant no gun was being hidden. It was the honorable (and generally legal) way to carry a gun. By contrast, concealed carry for the reasons stated above meant that one was trying to get an unfair advantage on someone or that evil intentions, not just the gun, were being concealed. If you had nothing to hide, then why hide your gun? [1] Roth, Randolph. American Homicide. 2009 p. 219 “…[carry concealed weapons is a] savage practice. Arms for self-protection may be needed by travelers and by persons living in unfrequented localities, but in all such cases they should be carried openly, as weapons of defense.”[1] There is nothing savage about putting a shirt or a coat over a gun. What is savage is escalating trash talking into murder and then, as a society, largely turning a blind eye to the behavior. Now, only among the dregs of society are the impulsive and gang or drug-driven nightclub, bar, and drive-by shootings “acceptable.” Open carry was more common in the Old West and in bygone days, but it was not as common as Hollywood would have one believe. It was more common than today by virtue of the fact that more people carried guns more often. A good explanation is that open carry then was roughly as common as it is now in states where open carry thrives. Open carry has always been a largely rural phenomenon as city dwellers, for many reasons, prefer to carry concealed. Horsemen and cowboys often needed a weapon that could be fired at short range from the saddle or to kill a runway horse dragging its rider to death. Open carry was often a fashion symbol or icon of manhood in the frontier west in a period that lasted at least from the California Gold Rush to the late 1860s. “After we had been in the town of Nevada City three or four months, the first ball was given. There were twelve ladies present and about three hundred men. The costumes were eccentric, or would be now. At that time it was the prevailing fashion for the gentlemen to attend social gatherings in blue woolen shirts, and with trousers stuffed into boot-tops. Every man was’heeled’ with revolver and bowie-knife.”[1] Mark Twain said of his time in Nevada: “I was a rusty looking city editor, I am free to confess—coatless, slouch hat, blue woolen shirt, pantaloons stuffed into boot-tops, whiskered half down to the waist, and the universal navy revolver slung to my belt. But I secured a more Christian costume and discarded the revolver. The prevalence and popularity of open carry varied from time and place. Some places it was a wide-spread practice, whereas in others it was not. It was tied directly to the actual or perceived necessity to carry a gun. For instance, in a violent frontier town, both kinds of carry were common, whereas in cities and pacified settlements few had a need to carry a gun at all. Family men didn’t get drunk and shoot it out in saloons and few felt the need to go heeled in small towns with little crime. Again, this is much like today where those in good neighborhoods with quality police feel that they don’t need to be responsible for their own safety. Open carry declined as early concealed weapon laws increased. Quite probably, the general vilification of handguns lead honest people to hide their guns and take their chances with the lax laws. As the example from Mark Twain shows, there was a time when open carry was common and no one was ashamed of it. Something changed after the Civil War, the resulting “Wild West,” and it was most likely society’s attitudes towards guns, lead no doubt by a growing resentment to the toleration of violence. While pocket guns in small calibers were commonly offered in the early-to-mid 20th Century, and apparently quite popular, defensive handguns for civilians enter a decline in the first two decades. By mid-century, most gun magazines, catalogs, and ads have dropped all but scant mention of the average person carrying a firearm for protection. Markets were target shooters and police. Self-defense was generally either a home pistol for burglar protection or an “off-duty” concealed weapon for police. Reading these publications alone would lead one to believe that legal (or at least non-malicious) concealed or open carry was non-existent. Additionally, the same editorial cries for gun control or pistol/carry bans from the last century virtually disappear from periodicals until the Kennedy assassination and the crime wave of the 1960s and 1970s. Until very lately, few very Americans would openly admit that they carry a gun for self-defense because for so long it was assumed that carrying a gun was unnecessary, dangerous, and something that only bad guys did. Police were just a phone call away. It is a shame that carrying a gun for self-protection against predators was stigmatized to the point that we still feel the effects today. Bizarrely, now many are ashamed to openly carry our guns, lest people judge or harass us, while we are perfectly content to hide our guns the same way criminals do. Many various state court cases found that open carry was constitutionally protected (an excellent summary is in the Peruta v. Gore en banc opinion), but concealed carry was not. Though the actual reasons vary case to case, the reasoning was based in the idea that concealed carry was a dishonest thing to do and a root cause of much violence. Open carry suffered no such stigma as it is too hard to cast aspersions about an open carriers intentions if everyone can see the gun (unless you are a 21st Century hoplophobe). “As urban life increases population density, it is easy to imagine a variety of reasons, both rational and irrational, why some sort of regulation on who may carry concealed weapons would seem desirable. Especially as a village becomes a city, it becomes increasingly difficult to know whom to trust. In such a setting, the temptation might be strong to make sure that arms are clearly visible. Conflict with someone who is armed will probably be more dangerous than the same conflict with an unarmed person, hence it would be best to know in advance of an argument if someone is armed or not.”[1] Neither method of carry is inherently more violent that the other. Concealed carry was simply more common in general and thus was associated with violence. Only by perception was concealed carry considered evil; psychologically there is a connection of a hidden gun to an ambush. Without strong evidence against open carry, justices could not manipulate the Constitution to ban it. Open carry provided a convenient way to ban concealed carry as one method of carry was left available, though many were dissuaded from practicing it. It was schizophrenic time where concealed carry was damned, but many still did it anyway, too dissuaded by the damnation heaped on gun-toting in general to carry openly. It was as if the justices and legislators knew society had cowed to the hysterics of the hoplophobes. Open carry was not as prevalent historically for three main reasons; first, the demonization of carrying a gun. Carrying a gun had gotten a bad rap, that even though many ordinary people in numbers far greater than legally armed citizens today thought it necessary to carry, that they felt they would be shamed if they carried openly. Because of violence and the wrong reputation attached to carrying a gun, an openly carried gun in their minds made them as much as a target for judgement as a dirty, low-down pistol-toting thug. Two, it was easier to slip a gun into the waistband or pocket. Concealed carry being more common was most likely a function of clothing and fashion being different from today. It would have been easier to drop a gun into a large pocket or into the waistband than it was to strap on an old-fashioned leather holster. Modern holsters that are small, light, and comfortable did not exist and the equivalent solution would be to drop in a pocket-liner holster. Three, where carrying a gun concealed or openly was illegal, many carried concealed illegally because it was, or so they felt, it was necessary to go armed. These erstwhile law-abiding citizens were prevented from legally carrying and had to carry concealed because there was no other way. Society had so unfairly lambasted the criminal misuse of guns that the legitimate carrying of guns was something to be kept secret. Additional factors are the increase in modern policing, better communications technology to call for help or spread the word of a crime, increased urbanization, larger and denser populations leading to a safety-in-the-herd effect, and the broad social changes that toughened attitudes towards casual violence and considered carrying a gun “silly” and unnecessary. For reasons of technology, criminal justice reforms, economic prosperity, and social reasons, the majority of the 20th Century was a remarkably peaceful and safe time for many Americans. We had the luxury of being able to rely on police for the most part. In areas with little predatory crime, firearm ownership was unnecessary. With this perceived lack of need, little risk, and few consequences for going unarmed, many lost any desire to carry a gun. Until the crime epidemic of the ‘60s-‘90s that brought us shall-issue concealed carry, that owning and carrying guns might be a solution to crime simply never occurred to most, as many still consider it unnecessary today. Today we know that prohibiting the carry of guns for self-defense does not enhance safety. Open vs. concealed carry is not a debate that has any practical merit in the legal sense. We often carry concealed or refrain from talking about guns because we are afraid what others might think and say about us. While society has gone crazy these last few years, carrying a gun suffers from a negative reputation for reasons that society has forgotten. We are skeptical of carrying guns in public because our great-great grandparents thought it unnecessary and uncouth. The reasons that concealed weapon laws were instituted long ago no longer exist. Open carry should not suffer because over a hundred years ago, people did not want anyone to carry at all. We should not be hiding out guns because it makes those who have been lulled into a false sense of security by the relative peace and safety of our time consider open carry “old fashioned” or odd. The decades of shame for having the audacity to carry a gun, especially where people can see it, needs to take its place on Boot Hill. Bloomberg is pushing for hundreds of thousands of new voters to vote for liberals. Register to vote today! If you don't vote, you can't complain. Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Except Jesus did say: "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'" Luke 22:36 So see, Jesus approves of self-defense. An no, "turn the other cheek" was not referring to pacifism and letting people hit you, so let's put that to rest right now. Happy Easter. Thankfully this week was slower than last week. Ask the County Commission to Re-Open the Clark County Shooting Complex Send an email. It costs you nothing but a few minutes to tell them that you care and it helps show interest in the complex for the big push to get the remaining 70% built out. Defensive Gun Use: Reno Landlord Shoots, Kills Tenant's Abusive Boyfriend LVMPD and BLM Warn of Illegal Shooting; Where Can You Shoot Near Las Vegas? On Non-Compliance Defensive Gun Use: Citizen Shoots Man with Knife, Possibly on Copter Video The Last Clark County CCW Issue Time Update 20,000 Guns Bought in Nevada in March The below anecdote comes from the Nevada Historical Society Quarterly. Bob Kirwin lived there with his father, Will Kirwin, from 1908-1915. In this anecdote, a young Bob who read too many western pulp novels, come across a two-pistol toting miner with a sense of humor. This is a rare instance of open carry being mentioned in memoirs of a Nevadan. “Bob’s dad had told him a few men in Searchlight still wore guns. In fact he had seen one the day before. Of course he had read many stories of gun toters and gunslingers. He believed that he was capable of coping with any of them. He knew how to recognize the dangerous ones, the real killers. They always advertised their reputation by the manner of dress. It was a warning not to trifle with them or anger them. The killers dressed in black—black hat, shirt, gloves, pants and shoes. He’d know one the very instant he saw one. All he had to do was mind his own business and they would attend to theirs. Simple! “Bob and his family were staying at the Wheatley House, directly across the street from the Brown-Gosney mercantile Store. While he was waiting out front, his wandering eyes fell upon a gunman coming out of the store across the street. He was dressed in black! “Bob was electrified! The gunman paused for a moment while he quickly scanned Main Street. When his faze fell upon Bob, he half crouched as he peered from under the brim of his hat pulled low over his eyes. Bob was frozen solid in his tracks, and gaped with his mouth partly open. “With measured, determined steps, his hand but inches above the butts of two guns tied down to his legs, Texas style, he approached Bob, who didn’t move because he couldn’t. “At less than ten paces, instinct for survival loosened Bob’s muscles. He started to turn to seek protective cover—any kind of cover! The gun man yanked out both guns, and in a voice cold as ice water, snapped ‘Hold it, stranger. I want to talk to you!’ “With a desperate effort, Bob spun around to flee, and ran head-on into his dad who, unobserved by Bob, had walked up behind him. The gunman’s voice rang out once more, but without the ice water, ‘Hello Will, good to see you again. Who is the tenderfoot you are protecting, your boy?’ “The gunman offered his hand to Bob, and said, ‘I’m Roy Conners, glad to meet you, and welcome to Searchlight. Me and your dad are good friends. How about that, Will?’ “For the next seven years that Bob lived in Searchlight, Roy never permitted him to forget their first meeting.”[1] [1] Kirwin, Bob. “Reminiscences of Searchlight. 1908-1915.” Nevada Historical Society Quarterly. Spring 1976. pp. 43-44 Yesterday we posted that LVMPD and the BLM have noticed an uptick in illegal shooting in the Las Vegas Valley. Not only is this dangerous, but many of these shooters leave a lot of garbage behind. Illegal shooting only leads to the further erosion of shooting on public lands as officials. Several weeks ago, the Clark County Shooting Complex was closed to avoid spreading infections of COVID-19. It's time to call on the Clark County Commission to re-open the complex under social distancing guidelines and get people out of the desert and into their facility. Below is Nevada Carry's open letter to the commission. Below that you can find information on how to contact your commissioner. Open Letter to Clark County CommissionRecently, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Bureau of Land Management have publicized a spike in illegal shooting on public lands while the Clark County Shooting Complex was closed due to the COVID-19 crisis. Safety and illegal dumping concerns have been raised by this illegal activity. Illegal shooting could be curbed in part by re-opening the Complex. It appears that the Complex was closed as part of the Parks Department county-wide facility closure, rather than specific concerns about the Complex itself. As you are aware, the Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has declared shooting ranges as part of the public safety essential industries. No other public outdoor range is open in Clark County. In this time of fear and uncertainty, new gun owners need a place where they can learn and practice shooting safely. Existing gun owners also need a place to practice, and an established, public rage is ideal. While the Shooting Complex sits idle, it does not serve its intended purpose and its closure has, in part, led to illegal and dangerous shooting on public lands. We respectfully request that the Park Department re-open the Shooting Complex under social distancing requirements to give our shooters a safe and legal place to shoot while maintaining public health recommendations. As the Complex is carefully monitored, distancing can easily be maintained by the range safety officers. Under careful guidelines, this public facility can re-open to serve its intended function. Who is My Commissioner?Marilyn Kirkpatrick, Chairman, District B ccdistb@ClarkCountyNV.gov (702) 455-3500 Lawrence Weekly, Vice Chairman, District D ccdistd@ClarkCountyNV.gov (702) 455-3500 Michael Naft, District A ccdista@ClarkCountyNV.gov (702) 455-3500 Larry Brown, District C ccdistc@ClarkCountyNV.gov (702) 455-3500 Tick Segerblom, District E ccdiste@ClarkCountyNV.gov (702) 455-3500 Justin Jones, District F ccdistf@ClarkCountyNV.gov (702) 455-3500 James B. Gibson, District G ccdistg@ClarkCountyNV.gov (702) 455-3500 ccdistb@ClarkCountyNV.gov; ccdistd@ClarkCountyNV.gov; ccdista@ClarkCountyNV.gov; ccdistc@ClarkCountyNV.gov; ccdiste@ClarkCountyNV.gov; ccdistf@ClarkCountyNV.gov; ccdistg@ClarkCountyNV.gov Though the powers that be in Washoe County have not declared it as such, it appears the Sunday, April 5th, shooting of a man was done in self-defense. See the News4 story. The deceased man was beating and strangling his girlfriend, but fled the scene before police arrived. He came back later looking for his girlfriend. On the return visit, the suspect had some sort of confrontation with the landlord, leading the landlord to be placed in "immediate danger." The landlord shot and killed the boyfriend. According to the RGJ, "The landlord defended himself, shooting the suspect once, police said." This appears to be self-defense. Side note: the RGJ published an article basically begging people to subscribe to keep them afloat. Uh, does the fact that your reporting sucks mean anything to you? Maybe if your investigated stuff, did more than regurgitate press releases and paraphrase government spokesholes people might read your stuff. Want to see an example of crap journalistic quality these days? Compare the RGJ article to the News4 Story. |
Archives
April 2024
CategoriesBlog roll
Clayton E. Cramer Gun Watch Gun Free Zone The War on Guns Commander Zero The View From Out West |