This is the French equivalent of a pro-2A rally.

Which is not unlikely in the coming months.

​Several authorities, included noted economist Dr. John Lott, of More Guns, Less Crime fame, have stated that the Borderline Bar and Grill was a “gun free zone,” citing the California standard concealed weapon permit. In short, there is no law making bars gun free zones in the Golden State, but being California and for the reasons below, it was a practical gun-free zone.
 
Most authorities and reporters have quoted Section 4 of the California standard concealed weapon permit, which states:

California law does not specifically prohibit carrying firearms in bars or other establishments that serve alcohol. Rather, this section appears to be an entire fabrication of the state Department of Justice.
 
Laws are of two types; statutes and regulations. Statutes are laws expressly passed by the legislature and go into codes; the Penal Code in the case of California, or the Revised Statutes in Nevada. Regulations are often created by bureaucrats pursuant to authority given by statutes; the format of CCWs and course instruction is often dictated by regulation authorized by statutes. For a violation of a regulation to have the force of law, there must be a statute that creates a crime to violate the regulation.
 
This is often written as “It is a crime to knowingly violate the provisions of this chapter or any regulations adopted thereunder.” The US Code frequently does this and places penalties for violating the Federal Code of Regulation that contains the rules for national parks, for example. In the case of California, there is nothing in the state codes or in the state Code of Regulations (CCR) giving weight to the alcohol ban.
 
The only “catch-all” authority is Penal Code section 26200, which states:

​The “issuing authority” (sheriff or police chief) is the one who can place the restrictions, not the state, and the conditions must be listed on the permit itself. These conditions are generally intended for permits that are limited to the course and scope of business (such as taking large deposits to the bank). The standard application lists a litany of things one may not do while armed; things that are legal in many other states—and far too many “conditions” to be physically listed on a permit.
 
Now this is California we’re dealing with. One could consider Borderline to be a gun-free zone based simply on the fact that it’s California so carrying concealed is difficult and unusual. I cannot commend on whether or not Borderline has “no guns” signs posted or if security wands individuals. Thousand Oaks and the country music/line dancing crowd there isn’t the type to get into ghetto-style nightclub shootings. Even if it is posted, California “no guns” signs have no force of law.
 
Ventura County is a fairly conservative county and the outgoing sheriff, Geoff Dean, immediately began a “shall-issue” policy within the county upon taking office. While California does have subjective standards that will result in a denial, most persons who apply for a permit will receive one for “self-defense and personal protection.”
 
Even so, long-time pistol owners I know are barely getting around to applying. Because of the infringement placed on the Second Amendment and the intense demonization of firearms, few people in California look to actively carry handguns. It’s ironic because if you have a permit in California, the laws are actually quite permissive in where you can carry; far leeway than Texas.
 
On top of that, most people are told (based off the unenforceable application) that they can’t carry in a bar or while drinking. Borderline serves food, but also has a bar and dance floor. The application doesn’t really define what “primary purpose” is, exactly. There is also the notion that carrying while drinking or in a bar is simply taboo; guilt by association.
 
As far as carrying while drinking, there is a difference between consuming alcohol and getting drunk. The perfect analogy is drunk driving; most people can have one or two beers and drive shortly thereafter just fine. Most people can carry as long as they are not intoxicated, thus states like Nevada have essentially applied the same DUI criteria to possessing a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.
 
The unarmed officers that were out that night may have been drinking to a point where they shouldn’t be carrying or driving; even cops are entitled to a night out. It is just a sad, ironic coincidence that they were present that night. They still rose to the occasion and shielded women with their bodies as well as assisting with first aid and evacuating the wounded. Perhaps all off-duty law enforcement should designate someone as their “designated shooter” when they go out drinking, just in case. 

How long does it take Metro to issue a CCW, in realtime, without processing delays? While you wait. The application can be processed, you can be fingerprinted and photographed, the background check run, and the permitted be issued in about an hour. This is for a permanent permit. 

Of course, this was for a retired law enforcement officer receiving his permit under LEOSA, so his background will of course be clean and he will get professional courtesy.

But it can be done just that quick. It's a question of departmental will and manpower. Metro just won't devote enough people to the CCW detail to reduce the weight. Maybe Nevada should allow it to be farmed out to the city police? 

Anyhow, here are some posts explaining how it works for regular folks like you and me and why it takes them so long.

120 Days to Get a CCW from LVMPD? What Takes So Long?

​A Look Behind the Scenes of the Metro's CCW Detail

Sergeant Ron Helus, of the Ventura County Sheriff's Office, is laid to rest today. Helus ran fearlessly into the line of fire at the Borderline bar and may have gotten some shots into the suspect. It is virtually certain, after reviewing the radio traffic, that Helus' and the CHP officer's entry hastened the decision of the killer to commit suicide. Studies have shown that police response often causes spree killers to take this route when authorities arrive or armed resistance is put up.

Unlike the cowardly Scot Peterson of crooked Broward County, Helus did not hide outside and wait for someone else to go in. This is the way an active shooter should be dealt with. Helus gave his life in an act of conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity that surely saved many more. We also cannot forget the men that shielded women with their bodies and the off-duty officers who provided assistance. 

Thousand Oaks and the surrounding communities have been dealt a devastating blow from the killings and the brushfires that erupted the same day. Deputies have been overwhelmed working 24 hour shifts, unable to stop and cope emotionally with the twin disasters. Today, Ventura County, a grateful community, and mourners from around the world remember his sacrifice. ​To all those who go armed to protect themselves and others, this man is a hero who practiced what he preached.

The proprietor of On Target Guns, 560 N. Nellis Blvd. in Las Vegas, wants you to boycott gun shows over private sales/background checks. After the second post (see below), I tempered my feelings as it appeared this was really a dispute over business (private dealers selling more cheaply), but that is not the case. There has been much back-and-forth on Facebook in the past view days over these controversial statements. Let's dissect each post, one by one, and I'll show you the thinking behind my opinion.

First, in this post there are two problems, according to On Target. 1, "unlicensed dealers" are selling guns. 2, that these sales (and it is implied other private sales) are being done without background checks.

Unlicensed dealers are problematic, but only for themselves. It is illegal to sell an arbitrary number of guns that the ATF considers "too many" without being licensed as a firearms dealer. In a free country where the Second Amendment is as respected as the first, these unlicensed dealers doing business openly in gun shows (rather than out of a trunk or drug house) have every right to sell their guns to whoever they want (in good conscience of course) in whatever quantity they want. You don't ban someone from selling books at a flea market and tell them to get a business license. These unlicensed dealers can and do get themselves in deep trouble for their business, but again, that's their problem.

If I want a good deal on a gun that's off the books that's my prerogative. If I can get a good deal on a gun because someone else doesn't have the markup and overhead that an FFL has to deal with, even better.

Now these unlicensed dealers with better prices than the gun store are competition for brick and mortar FFLs. I'd hate the competition too as much as I, as a consumer, hate seeing table after table of FFLs at gun shows. I come for the private sale guns, not stuff from some traveling salesman from out-of-state. I'd rather support my local gun store owned by someone who doesn't make posts like this on Facebook.

Second, we've had the background checks debate. Background checks do little to prevent actual crime or keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. Most guns used in violence went through a background check; the killer suddenly snapped or their evil went undetected. All background checks are is a nice little security blanket to make people feel better. 

Background checks are a way of enforcing gun registration by tracking them through purchase and transfer. This cuts off the supply of "unknown" guns that can't be identified and hidden when confiscation starts. When everyone must declare and register their guns, what'll happen is dealers will be required to turn over the Form 4473s, which will be scanned and input into a database. Ownership can be easily identified and tracked at that point.

The Facebook comments exploded, basically accusing the owner of not supporting the Second Amendment and only looking out for his profits. He offers an excuse in this reply that his beef was with the unlicensed dealers selling at higher prices, not private sales, but then goes into "the bad guys."

Once again, the issue is with no background checks. Sure, gun owners and dealers do look bad when someone commits a heinous crime with a gun, but as we known, private sales in the context that universal background checks would regulate are not the problem. It's some shady guy selling guns out of his trunk or people outright stealing them.

As I said before, I don't care at this point what makes us look bad. Guns and gun owners have already been demonized as bad as they have been in history. Criminals will obtain firearms via any means and statistics have shown gun shows and Internet classifieds are in the minority. So here I see On Target Guns caring more about appearances than fact or actual danger.

"Helping" ourselves by giving in to banning private gun sales at this point won't save anything. We've been giving in for nearly a century hoping that something works and the hoplopaths leave us alone. Each time we give ground, they take more. We're nearing the end game and a civil war, so let's forget about niceties. If they want to take away our guns, then they will do so by whatever means are necessary and they do not need our help as is implied here. 

No gun store owner should ever say "It's not about the 2nd. amendment..." This entire post belies ignorance of how criminals obtain guns and how private sales are involved. It is blatant support for banning private gun sales.

We have no way of verifying if "record sales" is even true or if it is in anyway connected to support for the owner's beliefs. All this sounds like is digging the hole deeper.

I will leave it up to you if you choose to boycott On Target Guns. I have chosen a staunch Second Amendment supporting business to buy my FFL guns from and will continue to patronize gun shows to buy privately until I no longer can (which will probably be around July 2019). 

Unfortunately, the worst has come to pass and Steve Sisolak will be Nevada’s next governor. Nevada has fallen. A fate similar to that of Oregon and Washington, which are rapidly turning into California, will soon befall us.
 
The clock is ticking on your gun rights and what you can buy. Make your dispositions accordingly.
 
With a legislature that is dominated by Democrats, there is no obstacle to even the worst ideas passing. The best we as gun owning voters can do is hound our legislators—especially the vulnerable assemblymen and women—to put brakes on the anti-gun agenda. There is no governor’s veto that can stop anything with momentum.
 
Sisolak was once reasonable on the topic of gun control—like most Nevada politicians of the time, red or blue—but he has been caught up in the left-ward tide of the Democratic Party. Democrats today must be ardent leftists or be willing to go along with the hardcore totalitarian socialist agenda or be ostracized from the party. There is no room for sort Democrats. A corrupt and self-serving Steve Sisolak will not take a position contrary to the hand that gave him his power.
 
All Nevada gun owners should be aware that our hard-won victories at now in jeopardy. Everything is on the table. Colorado in 2013 is a good example of how it will start.
 
What we are likely to lose first:

• Enhanced preemption
• Banning of private gun sales (universal background checks)
• Increased “gun free” zones
• “Red flag” gun confiscation laws
• Burdensome safe storage laws

 
If you would like to panic and buy now, you have until May/June or so before any potential bills would take effect. If not this legislative section, then the next, an “assault weapons” ban and “high capacity” magazine ban.

How did this happen? First of all, the Republican party has traditionally been poor at getting out the vote. The Democrats are an absolute machine at getting people to vote and the way they want them to. It's pretty much like the communist party "votes" except without the bayonets and secret police.
 
Changing demographics have turned Nevada into a Democrat-voting state led by Clark County. As more and more third-world immigrants and brainwashed or liberal Californians flood the state, the rural conservative votes will be utterly overpowered. Reno will turn into a new haven for crunchy granola Californians. It will only get worse.

We all know that Clark County schools have a problem with kids bringing in guns. We also know that the district has no plans on teaching "Stop, Don't Touch, Run Away, Tell A Grown Up," to the young-uns. They have decided to "do something" instead of solve the root of the problems. Further details have emerged about how the school district plans to implement their new "Random Searches" program. It's horrific. Here's the letter to the editor that I submitted, as well as the email I sent to the Principal at my sons' school.

Mr. (Principal),
 
I have submitted the following Letter to the Editor at the RJ:
 
Regarding the new CCSD Policy of Random Searches of Students:
 
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Ben Franklin
 
I have done my best to instill in my children a respect for Liberty, and the premises that this nation were founded on. “Random Searches” flies in the face all that has made this nation great. I realize what this new policy is attempting to accomplish. But if we throw out essential liberty every time there is a new perceived threat, we never had liberty in the first place.
 
Bear in mind that my main concern with this new policy is the “random” aspect of it. That makes it wholly unconstitutional. This is not to be confused with targeted, for-cause searches, which already have well established legal doctrine to abide by.
 
In response to the Frequently Asked Questions provided on CCSD.net:
 
Q: How will CCSD ensure that random weapons searches do not target certain
students?
A: We are very cognizant of this concern. The schools, classrooms, and students will
be randomly selected.
 
This makes it worse, not better. You are conditioning the next generation of adults that they must comply with search without cause, a dangerous and un-American precedent.
 
Q: Does CCSD have the right to randomly search students for weapons?
A: Yes, because the District has confiscated 11 guns from students so far this school
year and needs to ensure student safety.
 
You didn't answer your own hypothetical question. What specific authority does CCSD have to conduct random, non-targeted not-for-cause searches of students? The actions of other people do not diminish the rights of my children.
 
Q: What if I don't want my child searched unless I am present?
A: Safety needs to be a top priority. Students who fail to comply with the search
procedures will not be allowed on school property.
 
Safety DOES need to be a top priority. That includes my children’s safety from unjustified government searches. My children are on school property because it is required by law.
 
Q: How is this not a violation of the 4th amendment?
A: Courts have recognized the need for searches without reasonable suspicion in
certain circumstances. We must weigh the need to take action versus the potential
intrusion of privacy. The 11 firearms confiscated from students so far this year
creates an urgent enough situation to allow for the type of search that will be
implemented.
 
It is absolutely a violation of the 4th amendment. Please cite the "certain circumstances" allowed by the courts. Nevermind, I'll save you the effort. It's called a "Terry Frisk" (See Terry v Ohio), and applies when there is already lawful cause for detention. For a detention to be lawful, there must be "reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed". "Random Searches" is exactly the opposite of that, and does not even come close to passing Constitutional muster.
 
Under your logic of "the 11 firearms confiscated from students so far this year creates an urgent enough situation to allow for the type of search that will be implemented", we might as well throw the Constitution out the window. Since OTHER PEOPLE have committed crimes, that justifies search of a completely unrelated, random person? I think not. Shame on you for trying to pass this off as legal and justified. I have a sneaking suspicion that Clark County taxpayers already pay an exorbitant amount of money for the district to have legal counsel. Did you not even bother to have them glance at this before launching it? No wonder we are at the bottom of school rankings! If the leaders of our school district can't understand the basic tenets of the Constitution, how can we expect them to administer one of the largest school districts in the nation?
 
Q: What about students that parents have said they don't want their child
searched?
A: This is a new procedure designed to address an urgent safety situation. Students
who do not comply with the search will be subject to school discipline, just as if they
violate other school procedures.
 
"Parents have no say in the matter". Good luck with that.
 
Let me be perfectly clear: I have instructed my children that, in no uncertain terms, they are to politely refuse any such search, call me immediately, and leave the campus if necessary. I have assured them that they will not suffer any repercussions at home for doing so.
 
I am a single father of two well-behaved (and dashingly handsome) high school age boys in the Clark County School District. I call for the immediate suspension of this program, and the immediate resignation of all senior officials that had a hand in crafting the policy.
 
Vern B

(end of letter to the editor)
 
I realize that this decision is most likely above your head, but ultimately, YOU are the principal of my sons’ school. I have a very positive impression of you from the times I’ve attended events at the school and seen you speak. It is my hope that you already share my concerns. That’s why I am reaching out to you. Feel free to carry my concerns up your chain of authority.
 
With regard to “random searches”:
I do not, under any circumstances, authorize a random search of my children or their property. In fact, I explicitly forbid any such activity.
 
With regard to a targeted, for-cause search:
I expect the basic tenets of the 4th amendment to be upheld, and for no search to be performed without a warrant. In addition, I would expect that Terry v Ohio be carefully adhered to, and that my child not be detained without the required “reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed”. And I would expect and insist that such a detention/search be performed by a sworn law enforcement officer, who can be held accountable to these standards.
 
In the hypothetical event that your staff and law enforcement feel a lawful search is justified, I insist that I be present for such a search, if at all possible.

​I realize that my act of sending you this notice may come across as a red flag, and give you some cause for speculation about my children. I considered that before writing it. I considered just leaving well enough alone, and figuring that it would never really be an issue. But I couldn’t, in good conscience, just duck down and ignore the gross violation of liberty that this new policy proposes. While this message specifically references the policy in regards to MY children, I really mean this to address the policy as a whole, as it affects all students.
 
Rest assured that my children are not a problem, and are very unlikely to ever possess contraband (they loathe drug users and the ilk). They have no history of any violence, and no access to weapons in the home. We discuss such things regularly, so I am quite confident that I have a good read on them.

​End.

​"Although I do understand and respect your concern, I will abide by the directions given to me by the superintendent. Please know that this new policy has been vetted by CCSD's legal team. Furthermore, if a search were to take place here at [redacted], it would be no different than walking through a metal detector at an airport with the exception of the random component. In fact, if your children have attended sporting events at [redacted] HS, they have likely already been wanded upon entrance or have already walked through a metal detector. It is that simple, unless they are in possession of an unknown metal object with a large mass, which in fact would provide a reasonable suspicion. (New Jersey v. TLO) The reason for the random component is to prevent any potential profiling. I do understand your objection and can tell that you have put a lot of thought into it. If you are correct, then I believe it would have to be argued in a court setting. It is also very possible that your children will never be in the position in the first place. I would be happy to meet with you about this; however, I believe your argument should be directed to the superintendent or the school board of trustees. I hope you understand my position."

Random searches are not well-defined by case law and the cases that did rise to the US Supreme Court deal with drug testing. Pulling children aside to search their bodies and belongings is far different from metal detectors at the entrance (your typical ghetto school scene) or random locker searched based on credible information. The “11 guns” and “urgent security situation” justifications cannot be used as reasonable suspicion anymore than police can justify stopping random cars because “we arrested 11 DUIs this year and there is an urgent traffic safety situation.” 

The legal questions are secondary to the question of whether or not this is something that Clark County schools should be doing. Clark County schools have a problem with kids bringing guns to school, but it is not addressing why students are bringing guns to school. Addressing the violent drug and gang problem among teens would probably lead to uncomfortable questions. Violence among youths is a predominately minority problem and many educators don’t wish to go down that route.
 
Young students are getting a hold of them because their irresponsible parents make them accessible. This is a parental failure; schools can’t teach the parent, but they can teach the child to leave the gun alone. The NRA has just such a program, but the Left has made the NRA such a taboo that even the true gun safety program Eddie Eagle would be toxic for them to teach. Also, responsible gun ownership does not jive with the disarmament belief of many within the educational community.
 
In 1989, the very same district had the very same problem with gang members (students and slightly older non-students) bringing weapons on to campus. The unintended consequences of prosecuting these gang-bangers and troublemakers was that legally armed parents (shall-issue CCWs were not yet a thing) were criminalized if they so much as entered the parking lot and college/universities glommed on to the bill as well.
 
The Clark County School District is once again failing children. They are taking what they believe to be an expedient route to negate any bad press against them as well as mitigate any civil liability they may have. Their new search policy is nothing more than a smoke screen for the fact that they are unwilling to confront the roots of the problem or take meaningful steps to stop it. This effort will likely be unsuccessful and lead to a wasteful lawsuit.
 
By failing to deal with gang/drug/violence problems in schools and failing to educate children with legitimate gun safety it is no better than the district ignoring sexual abuse and trying to curb teen pregnancy by teaching an abstinence-only sex ed curriculum. The inevitable "safe storage" law that will hit the legislature in 2019 is not the answer. This is not a problem that Clark County can half-ass its way out of.

Who is my trustee? Click here and scroll down to the maps.