I'm making a rather easy prediction; the recent violence on the Las Vegas Strip (the shootings) will be used to push gun restrictions on lawful gun owners. Whether it is an outright restriction, giving signs the force of law, or repealing preemption so Clark County can make local ordinances.
The recent violence on the Strip is all because of the devastating effect of Gov. Sisolak's COVID-19 policies. The shutdown of casinos resulted in a huge loss of income for the businesses that compounds what the loss in travelers has done. As a result, they lowered room rates to get people in to lose their money—I mean gamble. This attracted low-class tourists who normally are staying "uptown" if they can afford Circus Circus.
You know if you have to visit Las Vegas and stay in a motel that you really can't afford to gamble, but this town wasn't built on intelligent vacationers. What no one will mention is the class of people who have been attracted here are trash. That's why room rates are going up; to price out the trash.
So this mess is in Sisolak's hands. He helped crush the casinos and forced them to take desperate measures to attract business. The violence will soon be blamed on "guns" and a magic law will be the answer. Oh how I would love to hear the conversations with the Bloomberg lobbyists over this stuff.
Any legislation will have about as much effect at stopping criminals and guns on the Strip as much as the mask mandate, temperature checks, and contact tracing has on COVID-19. That's right; despite all that, the casinos are the superspreaders of Nevada.
Criminals will still carry guns and will still shoot people. Crime will probably increase on the Strip precisely because people are disarmed.
There is good news; with a fifth conservative going to the Supreme Court, gun control is on borrowed time. We'll win in court and there's its decisive.
Just when you thought that 2020 couldn't get any more interesting, the Notorious RBG had died. As for someone who supported a lot of evil policies, I say good riddance. There are now 8 seats on the Supreme Court, leaving President Trump to nominate her replacement, which likely won't happen until after the election at the earliest.
Now we may have a chance at getting another solid conservative on the court to counteract the feckless now-liberal Chief Justice Roberts.
But Trump has to get re-elected first. Because of the importance of the Supreme Court, the Left will go absolutely batshit over this. Brace for impact.
The UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program is a publicly funded research program that takes credit for developing "the public health approach to firearm violence." These are the people that get doctors and the CDC in investigating gun control. The program, run by Dr. Garen Wintemute, an ER doctor, is heavily biased in favor of gun control. That's not just my opinion, either.
The results of his research is used to bolster demands for further gun control. Don't believe me? Even Wikipedia has this:
His research on Saturday night special handguns, especially a 1994 study he published entitled "Ring of Fire", has been credited as the main reason for the California government's efforts to impose strict regulations on them. In 2017 he has published a study showing that gun owners with an alcohol-related criminal conviction are more likely than gun owners without such a conviction to be arrested for a subsequent gun-related crime.
Of course, their investigations turn up information that we already know, like background checks don't impact murders by gun.
These are the people that are setting the stage to deprive past DUI offenders of their gun rights and why some doctors are asking about your guns. To this audience, I really don't need to argue why this group is not our friend.
They also blame California gun violence spikes on Nevada gun shows, which is a preposterous error of correlation and causation. We discussed that on the old blog a while back. That research ignores the obvious problem that California's people who are committing the crime are rotten and only getting their tools (maybe) here. Fun fact: California imports the largest amount of crime guns into Nevada. Ha!
If you want to know what causes violence, it's evil in the hearts of men. Importing the third world and implementing socialism doesn't help. Destroying black families, robbing young men of jobs, letting criminals out of jail/prison, failing to properly punish criminals, and denying citizens the ability to protect themselves all encourages and grows crime. Leftism is why violence went out of control in the 60s-80s, why the bluest cities are crime ridden hellholes, and why it's growing out of hand today. Quantify that, UC Davis.
Going back to the email, the phrase that gives me pause is: "how individual firearm buyers and sellers learn about background check requirements and the ways in which organizations help them with these firearm sales regulations in different states [emphasis added]." This leads me to think they are trying to find evidence against states that don't ban private sales (like Nevada did, before 2020) to show that guns make it into California from Montana or whatever.
After the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooing, where the killer LEGALLY purchased his weapon as a Nevada resident here, politicians started jumping up and down about what was legal in Nevada and not in California. They also bitched about private sales in Nevada and the people who took guns home to California (no longer a problem, thanks to Michael Bloomberg buying the Nevada Legislature).
Obviously, I declined to be interviewed. Seriously, do these people think we're stupid or something, like we haven't heard of them before? Or are naive enough to think they are unbiased? Hard pass.
It should be every gun owner's worst fear: you do everything right and protect your life or that of your family and yet you are charged with a crime for self-defense. We are seeing lawful uses of self-defense charged criminally now purely for political reasons. That should terrify anyone who intends to protect their family.
Over the years, we've chronicled bad shoots, mainly where someone looses their temper and uses a gun in a situation that didn't warrant it. In many of these cases, the situation could have been mitigated if the shooter shut their mouth and didn't talk to police. Our society today doesn't tolerate the same use of a gun in situations where generations ago we may have considered it appropriate. While these's guys actions may have been wrong, under the totality of the circumstances a good lawyer and defense might have mitigated the outcome.
But today we're facing a whole new reality. Leftist mobs target people specifically to provoke a reaction out of them and when things get violent and deadly, self-defense is charged as murder. From Kyle Rittenhouse to the McCloskeys in Missouri, being within the law to protect yourself often isn't enough. Leftists can call and demand prosecutions from weak-willed prosecutors.
Each one of us in a blue-leaning area is one shooting away from being on trial for their life, even if we did everything by the book. The right to self-defense is being taken away from us under the threat of prosecution. Justifiable homicide laws exist partly to ensure that if someone uses force legally that they won't face prosecution over it. Yet today prosecutors are showing that they are willing to roll the dice at trial. This is specifically done to produce a chilling effect on the Second Amendment.
In Portland, Mike Strickland, a journalist, was harassed by leftist mobs and forced to draw gun to defend himself. In a totally corrupt trial, he was convicted of a felony. The state appeals court blew off what is an obvious case of prosecutorial and judicial abuse. Now his fate is in the hands of the US Supreme Court where he will likely have his certorari petition denied.
Nevada's legislature has already tried to repeal protections against self-defense and it is only a matter of time before the Bloomberg bought and paid for Democrats succeed in such an attempt. Do you want to be in their crosshairs?
The only solution to this is by throwing out these prosecutors, which isn't possible in every area. There is also another solution, but that one is far uglier and our cold civil war hasn't reach that point yet. I don't think any of us seriously want that.
Once again, I would highly suggest that if you own a gun for self-defense that you purchase CCW insurance. Can you afford an attorney to defend you? Join USCCA and get an on-call legal team, 24/7, with coverage that provides for your defense up front. They also provide for a civil suit defense and liability coverage. Don't rely on a public defender or hope you can talk your way out of trouble with the police. The detectives may be on your side, but will the ambitious deputy district attorney vying for a Democratic legislative seat? Joining USCCA through the below link also helps the blog.
This occurred at the Rainbow Library, the center of the lawsuit against the Las Vegas Clark County Library District for illegally banning open carry.
The robber attacked a man in broad daylight outside the library. The suspect grabbed the victim's arm and tried to pull the victim from the vehicle. The victim then deployed pepper spray and the suspect ran away with the victim's keys. The suspect then, 20 minutes later, attacked a woman before he was apprehended by police.
Under the legislation proposed by a library trustee and assemblywoman, if the library got its way, it would be illegal to even have a gun in the parking lot.
There are no "gun free" zones, just places where law abiding citizens looking out for their own self-defense can be arrested by police for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
If you had to shoot someone in a situation like this, would you have legal protection, or would you be paying for a lawyer out of pocket? Do you have the kind of cash to hire legal representation or someone to defend you? The USCCA provides protection for self-defense with any weapon, including pepper spray. Join the USCCA today.
Yes, you can carry a gun at a polling place in Nevada. There is no law in the Silver State prohibiting carrying while voting. This does not change existing laws that apply at schools and the prohibition on concealed carry at posted public buildings.
All firearms are prohibited in the following places:
NRS 202.3673 (concealed carry only) prohibited areas:
Due to potential violence and fraud, it is highly recommended you vote in person during early voting and protect yourself while doing so.
John MacArthur is the pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California—a district of Los Angeles. On Sept. 10th, a judge granted the county an injunction against the church because MacArthur has dared to hold indoor services, which are against California’s coronavirus edicts. MacArthur cited many reasons, from weather considerations (the inland valleys of Los Angeles get desert hot) to biblical ones, for disobeying the edicts.
The simplest one is the freedom of religion. To this audience, I don’t need to make the arguments of why MacArthur and all churches should be allowed to meet indoors. We’re here to talk about guns and rights.
California has prohibited open carry and practically any other form of unlicensed carry. Licensed carry is darn near impossible in Los Angeles County and many other counties as well. Presuming that the church elders and pastors prayed about it and were on board with it, it is impossible for patriots to legally defend the church with openly carried rifles.
Now standing around a church or business with openly carried rifles is a threat. “If you try to close down this place, we will prevent you from doing that, possibly with deadly force.” Of course, at this hour many patriots are unwilling to go that far and arguably it might not be wise to dial things up to 11…yet. But it is nonetheless a powerful statement to have men with guns facedown police or worse, some flunky from the health/business licensing department.
The whole idea of standing around with guns is that someone in the sheriff’s department will have the sense to avoid the PR disaster. One (fat) sheriff in Ector County, Texas, didn’t have the sense to do that when he sent Donut Team Six to raid a bar with open carriers protesting in the back. On the far end of the dial, the patriot security team stops the bureaucrat from entering (physically), probably beats them to get the point across, and uses their firearms to deter/stop the predictable police response. It kinda gets ugly from there, so we don’t need to go further, but again we’re looking at the extreme.
You see, in California, citizens don’t even get the opportunity to make the PR point by blocking the entrance of the bureaucrat until they give up and just mail the citation. Open carry is a powerful political tool of protest. Lots of peaceful people with guns makes a point that politicians can’t ignore. That’s why they banned it in California, starting in 1967, and other states are looking to do the same thing.
12,000 armed Americans in Richmond, Virginia, scares Democrats. Nevada’s own Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui slandered open carry protesters as domestic terrorists through crafty wordplay. Ideally, the hoplopaths would love to make it illegal for you to take your gun outside your home. This way, you are forced to disobey the law to exercise your First and Second Amendment rights.
If it is illegal to protest, even peacefully, with your rifle openly carried, that means if you choose to do it (or protect a business or church from tyranny) you will have to decide if you are willing to be arrested or fight the cops. Even if you don’t fight the cops, detectives can simply identify you later and the DA can charge you after the fact. Then you’re playing roulette with a state judicial system that is not in your favor. Unless you want to kill cops, that is, and going that route is something very few of us on the right want to do.
Banning open carry is nothing more than a blatant suppression of free speech and the castration of the Second Amendment.
I follow a lot of people who hold strong and unusual opinions online; the type of people that predicted the social unrest we've seen this year a long way out. People who are realistic about cultural and racial differences. Yet some of these voices have gone beyond empirically based opinions, such as a given race scores lower on IQs than the other and tends to have worse life outcomes than the other, to frankly idiotic viewpoints.
I'm talking about Antisemitism. A few people who I respected have gone too far into Jew-hating. Why? I don't know, but Antisemitism has never been logical. It seems that once again Antisemitism is in vogue in society. Personally, from a Christian viewpoint that doesn't surprise me at all. Antisemitism is one of the oldest satanic plots in the book.
A lot of these Antisemitic posts or whatever are basically just the equivalent of pointing the finger and yelling something insulting. There is no argument, just "blame the Jews." It's naked hatred and no different than seeing someone post "Fuck Trump" or the mindless Leftist garbage that they spew.
Demolishing Antisemitism is not for me; others have written about how stupid and ignorant it is and I'm not going to re-hash their work. I just want to say publicly that I do not approve of Antisemitism and I'm tuning out anyone who promotes in in their feed, page, blog, or whatever. I'm sure I'm a Zionist shill or something, but I'm tired of seeing it and am not going to patronize your crap anymore.
In 1967, Black Panthers in California began openly carrying around (primarily) the Oakland area. This was their response to police and often engaged in events, with openly carried weapons, to intimidate law enforcement. This culminated in the Panthers literally storming the state capitol in Sacramento and barging onto the floor of the Legislature. As a result of these activities, California banned loaded open carry in incorporated cities under the Mulford Act, effective 1986.
In the late 2000s to 2010, open carry saw a resurgence nationally. At this time, unloaded open carry was permissible within California incorporated cities. Precisely because activists practiced unloaded open carry, the state banned it, creating a plethora of exemptions so innocently transporting a gun wasn’t accidentally criminalized. Today, in urban areas of the Golden State, the only way to legally carry a loaded firearm for self-defense outside one’s home or business is while immediately engaged in self-defense or making a citizen’s arrest.
California’s method of unlicensed carry (only after you’re in danger) bears striking resemblance to post-Civil War Tennessee. In Tennessee, it was permissible only to carry an Army or Navy revolver (weapons issued and used by the military) openly in the hand. This was not meant to encourage people to walk around carrying their guns—an unquestionable provocative act—but to allow for legitimate self-defense in an emergency.
Richmond, Virginia, passed an ordinance that would ban firearms at any event, permitted or not, and applies to public areas like streets and sidewalks. Such an ordinance is clearly unconstitutionally broad. Some have argued that banning firearms at protests is permissible because the First Amendment guarantees the right to “peaceably” assemble and cite various state statutes that outlaw firearms on picket lines.
Oddly enough, the 12,000 or so gun owners who showed up bearing legally registered machine guns and destructive devices to the pro-gun rally in Richmond did so totally peacefully. Rather, it has been at Leftist “protests” (read riots) and events where murders, shootings, and negligent discharges have occurred. Even during the 2013-2015 open carry kerfuffle in Texas, the open carry events remained peaceful.
It is not the conservative gun owners gathering in public that anyone has to fear. Rather, it is the rioters, the race baiters, and the communist Leftists with guns, often concealed, that are the danger to public safety. And even now, the Left has remained remarkably restrained as to firearms, preferring to use lasers and other improvised weapons.
From Nevada to Virginia, politicians have maligned openly carrying conservative (or non-Leftist, freedom loving citizens) as terrorists for exercising their right to assemble peaceably while armed. Democrats love to ignore the behavior of their side while slandering conservatives as terrorists. Nevada Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui did all she could recently to compare peaceful gun owners who show up to protests with their guns to the weirdos, wackos, and outright criminals who have taken advantage of the Left-inspired unrest to cause trouble.
Open carry faces a new challenge. In the early days of the movement, open carry was called “suicidal” because someone may snatch the gun; gun snatches from armed citizens are extremely rare and uncommon. No open carrier has been “shot first” by a criminal. Self-defense gurus poo-pooed open carry because it might make other citizens nervous. Over the years, all those myths and empty fears have been disarmed by polite, dedicated open carriers.
The new challenge open carry faces is merely an old one; the government. As violence climbed in the years after the Civil War (mostly in the South and the West), carrying concealed weapons was increasingly outlawed and harshly punished. As a result, carrying a weapon for self-defense was so stigmatized that it became an uncommon practice. For legal as well as social reasons, those who carried anyway did so quietly and concealed, despite open carry being legal in most states. Only in the last thirty years has public opinion shifted back in favor of carrying weapons for personal defense.
With this shift in favor of self-defense, the gun control narrative has collapsed. The “blood in the street” arguments have been proven false and everyone knows gun-free zones are merely a farce, ignored by criminals and mass murderers. As riots roar through the country, turning into an incipient civil war (amid an overhyped pandemic), guns and ammo aren’t flying off the shelves—they aren’t even on the shelves. Many people who never thought of buying a gun now own several precisely because the government has shown itself worthless to protect us.
And now we come to the arguments of why open carry is so vital in this hour. Governments, especially those controlled by the Left, want to ban firearms at protests/rallies/riots (if not entirely) because they know that private ownership of firearms is the only thing that can guarantee an end to rioting. These riots are part of a revolutionary movement to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States. They are both a warning and a threat; if you vote for Joe Biden and Democrats, the riots stop; if you vote for Trump, you’ll get more riots and we’ll come to kill you.
The choice is a false one; vote for Democrats and get tyranny or vote for Trump and get a violent, communist revolution. The Second Amendment exists for the sole reason of killing tyrannical politicians, their police/soldiers, and the rioting communists in the street. That’s it. Thomas Jefferson laid out the rules for when rebellion is permissible and frankly, the Right has been very well restrained, as we should be. On the Right, our trouble is that the Left knows we have the guns, how to use them, and when the switch gets flipped to 11, that we will use them effectively.
Thus, the Right must be disarmed. Ostensibly, it seems like a good idea to keep guns away from protests, but as we know with “gun-free” zones and gun control in general, criminals and troublemakers never obey. If the Right is disarmed, Leftist thugs like Michael Reinoehl who murdered a Trump supporter in Portland will still be armed and still be killing conservatives. The Leftist revolutionary dream is a massacre of Trump-voters like the Hutus did to the Tutsis in Rwanda.
Banning guns at protests only keeps openly carried weapons away because police can see them and arrest the carrier (duh) or gives police another charge to tack on. It doesn’t keep the thugs away. With the Leftist DA’s failing to prosecute rioters engaged in seditious and treasonous acts but prosecuting 17-year old boys who were chased down and nearly killed by three men with criminal histories, is it any wonder that enforcement of “no guns at protests” laws will be selectively enforced?
No does any of this affect actual revolutionary violence. Some point soon, the violence will turn into open warfare. Revolutionaries ready to kill conservatives won’t care about the laws that weren’t really designed for them anyway, and if they’re busted, the DA will never follow through. Nor will the other side care when snipers ambush a horde of rioters. Like the October 1 shootings, someone will mag dump into a crowd and silly laws will no more prevent that than all the metal detectors at Route 91 stopped that massacre.
Back in California, in 1992 LAPD was totally overwhelmed (and uninterested) in putting their butts on the line to stop minority neighborhoods from burning. Tired of years of abuse and lack of support from a hostile black community, LAPD backed off as businesses were looted and burned. Many racist crowds turned on Korean-owned businesses whose owners were without police protection.
Spawning the “roof Korean” meme, many of these owners and their friends and family armed up an guarded the businesses. These people legally openly carried, unloaded, on the street, or stood watch on the roofs of their stores. Today, stepping onto the sidewalk with a firearm would be illegal, unless the owner had a reason to legally use deadly force. Merely standing around armed in front of the premises to deter looters would be illegal and might be twisted into a crime even if it was done in a privately owned parking lot.
Twisting a clearly written law was done to the McCloskeys in Missouri when they stepped into their front yard and pointed guns at a hostile crowd that breached their gate. In the Show Me State, such a display of force was clearly legal and within their Castle Doctrine laws, yet a Leftist prosecutor still went after the couple. In Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse is being prosecuted for murder despite multiple videos documenting what is probably the clearest case of self-defense ever recorded.
No open carry means that Kyle probably would have been unarmed and killed. The McCloskeys would have had to wait until the mob tried to kill them or break into the house before making their weapons visible. Armed citizens patrolling their business districts in the absence of police would be impossible. Guns banned at “events” and “protests” means innocent people who just don’t want to get mugged in downtown Las Vegas or Reno are disarmed under the threat of arrest. Meanwhile, actual terrorists get to keep doing what they are doing unmolested.
Americans need open carry to protect themselves against the mobs that police can’t or won’t protect them against. If standing outside your home or business with a gun is criminalized, deterrence is pointless. Politicians who claim to want peace are only allowing intimidating to escalate to violence and then a use of force.
In California this year, retired peace officers took to guarding several businesses with openly carried weapons because they are the one class of people who can openly carry in public. Average citizens don’t have that ability. After the wildfires and flooding in Montecito in 2018/2019, Santa Barbara deputies looked the other way at shotgun armed homeowners warning off thieves. Do politicians really mean to deprive us of that ability? Nevermind a citizen’s militia.
A handgun can only do so much. Yes, openly carried firearms are about comfort and political statements and we can conceal carry just as well, but why should I hide my gun because a legislator says so? It’s easier for me to access and easier to carry a larger gun openly. Carrying a cased rifle is also pointless or even legally impossible. For instance, in Nevada, even with a concealed firearm permit, it is illegal to conceal anything but a handgun. For long guns, open carry is the only way.
Furthermore, open carry at a rally or protest (or in general) is a form of speech the same way wearing a pro-gun t-shirt it. As an open carry activist, I have had more conversations about open carry simply by not hiding my holster under a shirt than anything else I could do. Part of standing outside the governor’s mansion, the statehouse, or anywhere else with guns is to remind our political opponents and our would-be masters that we possess the ultimate veto. I think the “you’re scaring people” argument of the Texas open carry days is a dead horse. The rioters are scaring people.
Laws regulating open carry and disarming citizens in public spaces as a response to 2020’s violence is nothing short of tyranny. The Second Amendment was intended for this hour. If legal open carry is taken away or regulated to death, when open civil warfare begins, it will initially be done with clandestine hits. The guns will still be there, just hidden. Nothing will change, but the stakes will be higher.
Now is the time for every gun owner and armed citizen to back open carry. Concealed carry is a personal and a tactical choice, but our long guns and ability to turn back mobs is threatened if politicians can take away our ability to carry openly. Open carry is so much more than wearing a gun on one’s hip. Today and in the near future, it will be absolutely vital to be able to carry your rifle visibly.
Clayton E. Cramer
Gun Free Zone
The War on Guns
The View From Out West