Last night, the Democratic presidential clown-car campaign blathered on about gun control. Can they just be truthful and say that their Party wants them to ban guns and kill people who want to keep them? Guns are a tool of oppression by the government, not something for hoi pilloi to own, duh. So, I propose honest gun control—the ultimate objective of all disarmamentists but without the incremental, half-assed measures.
 
Private ownership of firearms is abolished. Americans have 90 days to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and accessories to the government or they will be guilty of a felony, punishable from five to twenty-five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. After 90 days, all known owners of firearms may have their persons, property, and vehicles be inspected by any law enforcement agency without a warrant to ensure compliance. The military will be empowered to assist and any resistance will be met with deadly force.
 
All firearm corporations are prohibited from selling to the public—government and military contracts only.
 
Certified professional hunters and pest exterminators are allowed to possess non-semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with the approval of the Department of Agriculture, the ATF, and local authorities.
 
Law enforcement and military personnel will have to undergo ‘reliability tests’ to maintain their access to weapons.
 
So yes, I propose taking everyone’s guns without compensation and sending in the military, with guns, to kill the people who won’t give up their guns. And those who aren’t killed for not giving up their guns, we’ll take their house to pay the fine and throw them away to rot in a prison camp.
 
This way, there will be nothing to stop Americans from doing anything about Democrats stealing elections, forcing socialism on you, allowing your kids to be indoctrinated by a tranny reading library books, not getting vaccines, being forced to bake cakes, not wanting to pay regressive taxes, having your gasoline burning car confiscated, etc. Without firearms, there will be no way to stop the onward march of globalist progressive socialism.
 
Much of gun control before the 21st century was about disarming blacks and keeping Southerners from shooting each other in fights. In the 1960s, we saw the move towards total disarmament begin. The “keep bad/crazy people from having guns” started in the ‘90s with the Brady Bill and became today’s push for “red flag” laws, with the unstated goal being to eventually declare anyone a potential “red flag.” Eventually, firearm ownership will be allowed only for the meekest, quietest people that don’t arouse suspicion of the police. 

Many of us have seen the click-bait article purporting that Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo signed a “2A gun grab sanctuary” letter. Lombardo has not joined the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement, as have 13 other counties/sheriffs. Once again, Lombardo didn’t suddenly have a change of heart, as the Facebook post is apparently trying to imply. Don’t fall for click-bait.
 
The letter was signed by Nevada sheriffs, under the auspices of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. This is a generic letter, basically equivalent to saying “we’re not going to kick down your doors and take your guns, but some things need to change. It is so vacuous an attempt to reassure Nevadans, that I have to dismiss it entirely as an affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
It does not condemn banning private gun sales, “red flag” gun confiscation, or any of the silly ideas kicking around in Carson City this year. It is nothing more than empty reassurance that the sheriffs all believe in the Second Amendment. The problem is, whose version are they referring to? The letter is so broadly worded that all but the most rabidly anti-gun sheriff in the country could agree to it.
 
Based on the actions (support for laws and other statements), we know which sheriffs are making a meaningless statement here and those sheriffs who truly believe that “shall not be infringed” means what it says. Lombardo is on record supporting magazine capacity bans and plenty of rumors indicate he approves of banning private sales (Question 1/SB 143).
 
The letter makes a few suggestions and highlights the needed areas of improvement in “gun safety.” They want improvement to NICS (background check system). Worryingly, they suggest that "HIPAA must be amended to allow or even mandate reporting of the mentally ill by certain health care providers." What is defined as a "mental illness?" Who is to set the criteria of what mental illness diagnosis results in one becoming a prohibited person?
 
They seem to point at a problem within Nevada itself.
 
"Courts must ensure the entry of persons who have been adjudicated mentally ill or convicted of disqualifying crimes. Persons who have been validated as criminal gang members should be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Local jurisdictions must make NICS entry a top priority. Information systems must be utilized to their utmost potential."
 
Nevada jurisdictions must do this already. Does this emphasis mean there is a problem? For those who are not aware, Nevada's state point of contact system is more comprehensive than the federal NICS database that many states rely upon. Any system is prone to problems with human error not correctly entering people, as the Air Force failed to do with the Sutherland Springs killer.
 
There is no clear affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms or rejection of substantive issues that Nevadans fear. Rather, they seem to be calling legitimate concerns for future gun control “threats, rumor, false and malicious information.”
 
They state "The Sheriffs of the State of Nevada do not believe that the answer to this issue includes making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens." How? All of the gun control proposals this year have had the major downside of criminalizing innocent gun owners in the misguided notion that laws can control criminals. Instead of supporting things like empowering citizens to defend themselves via constitutional carry, removing gun-free zones, and restoring teacher's right to bear arms, they make a wishy-washy statement about what gun control they want.
 
This is crap. Sheriffs, you can do better. Such boilerplate letters like this are why people distrust their politicians. Your words in this letter mean nothing to us.
 
I believe that a lot of this stuff comes from a generation of cops, now leadership and ex-leadership, who “grew up” as street cops in the ‘80s and ‘90s seeing the end of the late 20th century crime wave. Their perception of guns is tied directly to minority gangs and wave of citizens carrying guns again for their defense is foreign to them. Younger cops seem much more with it when it comes to the Second Amendment and see armed citizens as “good guys” on their side rather than a liability. I’ll be happy when the old farts are dead or too senile to be asked their opinion.

​AB 291, “red flag” gun confiscation goes has passed into law. This is Sandra Jauregui “my feelings are more important than your rights” kitchen sink anti-gun bill.
 
Despite all his brave talk about banning this or that, Gov. Sisolak, ever the slimy politician he is, allowed AB 291 to become law without his signature. Bump fire bans, lowering the threshold for self-defense while in a bar or restaurant, and allowing vindictive relatives to order your guns taken are destined for the law books.
 
Nevada’s constitution is the opposite of the federal system; if bills are not vetoed by the governor, they become law. We do not have a pocket veto. Thus Sisolak can claim he did not sign the bill when he runs for re-election in 2022. Hopefully Nevada gun owners are not that stupid.
 
Effective immediately, it is illegal to possess a “bump fire” stock or device—the Legislature has unconstitutionally declared property that many Nevadans possess to be contraband and has not provided for proper compensation. This is an uncompensated taking raising issues under the 14th Amendment. The legal issue is being played out at the federal level, where President Trump ordered the ATF to ban bump fire stocks by fiat, so this section is moot.
 
Red flag laws and the lowering of the threshold for the amount of allowable alcohol in one’s system while in possession of a firearm in public to .08 BAC from .10 take effect Jan. 1, 2020.
 
The 80th Legislature of 2019 was a dumpster fire. It was mitigated by huge outpouring of opposition by gun rights supporters and the NSSF’s threat to move Shot Show from Las Vegas. The unions and casinos saw how much money they would lose and forced the Senate to remove the truly atrocious repeal of state preemption of local gun laws.
 
As we know SB 120’s “red flag” law got rolled into AB 291, which was exempted from deadlines after the fact, to allow the practically bribed hoplopaths in Carson City to bring home a win for their Bloomberg bucks.
 
Thanks to the tireless work of pro-gun activists, lobbyists, and Republicans in our Legislature, the really bad stuff was taken out. “Red flag” gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) are terrible laws, poorly executed, and destined for abuse from a tyrannical government, but we could have had worse. Among some of the wins are (from the final text):
 

• One must be in a current dating or ongoing intimate relationship, not a former boyfriend/girlfriend. “Resided with an adverse party within the past year,” was removed, meaning that vindictive ex can’t use this against you.
• Removed the “catch all” language that applied a host of behavior, some innocuous as buying a gun in the last six months, or as ominously open-ended as “any other conduct or acts as the court considers.”
• To use the recent purchase of a gun against you, you must have also engage in some other “high risk behavior” or be threat to yourself or another (from mental health hold language). Merely buying a gun cannot be held against you unless you’re violent, crazy, or someone lies.
• The sections about “reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm” that could be used against open carries has been removed.

 
Problems:
Law enforcement must have probable cause, but civilians must have reasonable suspicion. Can the court, under the Fourth Amendment, take a person’s property based on something other than probable cause (assuming the judge cannot articulate PC themselves)?
 
If you haven’t seen this coming and given your guns to a trusted friend or relative by now, you don’t have the option to give the guns to a friend, relative, or firearms dealer unless the judge allows you to.
 
It is only a misdemeanor to file a malicious false application (or for someone having their guns confiscated to violate the order itself).
 
The good thing about these bills is that abuse by law enforcement makes a ripe challenge to throw laws like these out, or restrict their application, under the Bill of Rights. At some point, the wrong innocent person will win a great legal victory. Also, my colleagues in California law enforcement (from reasonable counties) have reported that use of these “red flag” laws are far and few in between, applied to the real fruitcakes out there.
 
Even so, the potential for abuse is a huge problem. It is foreseeable that these will be eventually used to harass and persecute gun owners, not only by the government, but by the rabid anti-gun populace and leftists in the coming cultural civil war. For now, be thankful for principled legislators that fixed the worst-of-the worst of this bill and that we have honorable law enforcement officers who are more pro-gun than you know.
 
But be ever on the watch. We must win back Republican seats in 2020 to stop our legislature from being dominated by anti-gun Democrats getting campaign donations from Gun Control Inc. that essentially amount to bribes.

Thanks to Matt and Jose for the pictures.

We walked away from some major potential disasters, such as “assault weapon” bans and the destruction of preemption, which was saved by NSSF threatening to pull out ShotSHOW. The hoplopaths in Carson City used up precious political capitol getting pretty much what we expected out of them.
 
Gun control:

• SB 143, universal background checks, AKA “Fix Bloomberg’s Mistake.” Private sales are banned effective Jan. 1, 2020.
• AB 291, which essentially gave us the expected “red flag” gun confiscation laws and ambiguous child safety safe-storage laws, which may or may not violate the Heller decision depending on how the courts apply it. We also got the bizarre add-on of lowering the threshold for carrying while drinking down to. 08 BAC, same as DUI, for no other reason than it appeared incongruous to a leftist.

 
We fought the good fight and showed our teeth. If this is the best they can do with a supermajority, the next two years are going to encourage even more people to resist the boot of gun control. With a promising Supreme Court case coming up, the future looks even brighter. Remember, the darkest part of the night is just before dawn.
 
One win is SB 287, the public records reform bill, which eliminated the “extraordinary fee” charges that many agencies used to discourage public records requests. For instance, one gun rights activist was quoted over $3,000 just for the Las Vegas Clark County Library District to search for documents pertaining to the open carry issue. Many places wanted $50-100 an hour simply to have someone search an email server. This change will allow people like me to obtain records far more easily.

​Detailed analysis of the session, each of the bills, and Flores v. LVCCLD will follow this summer. If you are in Northern Nevada, there will be a meet-up in August. To help support the work of Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry, please contribute a dollar a month via Patreon.

PROTECT OUR RIGHTS 2A GUN RALLY
Bloomberg is having his “Wear Orange” event this Saturday. Please come out and crash his party and show Bloomberg and his minions our rights are not for sale!

NOTE LOCATION CHANGE
 
When: Sat June 8th 10am to 11:30am
Where: Grant Sawyer Building
555 E Washington Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89101 
 
Please bring a yellow vest if you have one. Vests will be available. Bring water,  flags, patriotic gear, shade and American flags!

Patriots! Sisolak recallers! The Legislative session may be over, but you can still help fight the good fight. There is a call to action to demonstrate your opposition to more gun control.
 
It has been brought to my attention that a large “Protect the Second” rally is going to take place on Saturday, June 8, as a counter-protest to what I’ve been told is Gov. Sisolak’s signing of AB 291 in to law. I know a lot of you would be interested so I wanted to share what I’ve heard. early June is traditionally the Bloomberg-groups “wear orange” event to rally for more gun control. All Southern Nevada events have been rolled into this event.  
 
I’m not sure who originated this or if anyone is actually organizing it, but there are some points I’d like to make to keep everyone safe and legal.

• Open carry is legal, but please, please, leave the long-guns at home. Nothing backfires like AR-15s. If you have to have something in your hands, make it a sign.
• It’s gonna be hot (June in Las Vega; duh). Bring water, big hats, and/or shade.

 
So those of you who are interested, here is the info to show your support. Even if we can’t recall him or stop the hideous gun control agenda, we can put the brakes on it by showing how many of us are opposed to it. Democracy truly dies when we stop telling the powers that be “no.” So if you want to get out there, piss off some gun control freaks, and especially Gov. Sisolak: show up on Saturday!

Update: Some people got upset by this post. No, I am not denigrating people who want to show their opposition to Sisolak and his agenda. However, we must be realistic that a recall isn't likely to work. Instead, the recall movement needs to be a symbol for resistance and the spark around which electing Republicans to the Legislature and educating the public who doesn't know better. Such movements and protests as these are to show the Dems that they can't just get away with whatever they want. Like calling and demanding a veto of bad gun legislation, this is fighting the good fight.​

A recall of Sisolak is not going to happen. Those who are calling for it and trying to organize it are well-intentioned, but ignorant and foolish. They are wasting valuable energy and emotion on what is nothing more than frivolous fantasy. I know a lot of people interested in recalling Gov. Sleestak have their hearts in the right place, but bad ideas like this can do a lot of damage. 
 
Sisolak won 5% more of the vote than Laxalt and a majority in Democrat-controlled Clark and Washoe counties. Second, the recent efforts to recall several legislators failed badly.
 
Third, if the Republican leadership in Nevada, particularly Clark County, is so incompetent it failed to make good use of its supermajority in 2015 and lost both houses of the Legislature in the last two elections, how are the expected to help win a recall election? If a recall election were viable, this would not be a grassroots effort, but supported at least in spirit by GOP leadership.
 
How many of the recall people got involved in anyway to get Laxalt or Republicans elected in the last election?
 
There are 668,139 registered Democratic voters, to 569,965 Republicans voters, and another 392,345 registered non-partisan (independent) and 112,236 other voters registered to fantasy parties. For a recall to succeed, even if all Republicans turned out and voted to recall, somehow the middle half a million would have to be convinced, probably with some Democrats as well. How do the recall organizers plan on doing that?
 
Sure, volunteers might collect enough signatures to get the official nod to collect the rest of the signatures to qualify for an actual election, but who will pay to collect the signatures from the 242,950 required for qualification? Volunteers alone are not doing that. Remember for Question 1 to appear on the ballot, it took about 100,000 votes that Bloomberg paid dearly for.
 
A recall election will be hotly defended by Sisolak and the Democratic Party, if the recall qualifies at all. Where is the money coming from to put commercials on TV and campaign for recalling him? And who is going to replace him?
 
And while I’m on the “let’s be realistic” train, let’s talk about treason and what it is and isn’t. Sisolak and the state Democrats are not committing treason, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Globalist and evil they are, but a gradual slide to tyranny does not, at least at this point, qualify as treason.
 
The state constitution defines treason as: “Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies or giving them Aid and Comfort.” The authors of the state and federal constitution did not mean “war” or “enemies” as symbolic. Until Sisolak approves a Chinese or Iranian military base in Nevada, he has not committed treason.
 
So let’s get realistic. Don’t waste your energy, money, and emotion on a fruitless outlet. People with the idea of a recall will divert the much-needed interest of people opposed to the progressive agenda and ultimately disappoint them. The last thing we need now are liberty-minded voters being turned off the democratic process right now because of poorly thought out emotional reactions