So a Henderson man shot a kid who was shooting a stolen pistol in the area in between a car wash and the man's housing tract. He was arrested and charged with murder. The homeowner, Croaker, asserted he believed that his residence was being shot at. Read the LVRJ article.
Croaker's fears do not sound entirely unreasonable and are not bare fear. As the investigation proceeds, as a competent defense attorney may find, it could have been intimidation or something else. Croaker is right about stucco offering poor ballistic defense, but will have to defend his assertion that he believed he was being shot at.
However, shooting from one's residence probably wasn't a good idea because it looks bad to people who weren't there in the moment. Society doesn't have the same standards of justifiable homicide as it once did. It will now be for a jury to decide if this was murder, manslaughter, or self-defense (unless Croaker cops a plea). I find it hard to see this as murder, either first or second degree.
The world is a better place without 17 year old dumbass criminal Kory Lino. The larger issue is why were teens out in the middle of the night with a stolen pistol? And what in his retarded head made him think it would be a good idea to shoot it where he did? Lino won a Darwin Award that night. This stuff is why I am glad I'm not in LE anymore and have no real desire to go back.
Most likely, it was two good-for-nothing kids who grew up in a low-class household with piss-poor parental supervision. The parents of these kids should be arrested for allowing these kids out in public with a gun at night. I'd bet that the parents would win no parenting awards. However, I'm sure the ambulance chasers our fair valley is known for will make this into a payday.
How these idiots obtained this firearm should be vigorously investigated and the culprits prosecuted. But that won't happen as gun control isn't actually about keeping stupid people from doing stupid things. In this case, all our upcoming universal background check law would have not mattered a tinker's damn keeping the gun out of the kid's hands.
2020 is going to be a big year for shooters at the Clark County Shooting Complex.
The Nevada Firearms Coalition is introducing several new shoots this year, including a black rifle shooting event, black powder matches, “A Girl & a Gun,” and steel challenge. In addition, there are many sponsored courses like NRA Range Safety Officer and a holster clinic/shooting drills.
The Know Your Limits .22 match, Annie Oakley, and IDPA matches will return in 2020. The Annie Oakley Women’s Shooting Program has been a wildly successful education program teaching women about firearms safety and shooting.
Coalition members also have access to free member range days at the educational center as part of their membership. Eight free range days are already scheduled for 2020. This alone is worth the cost of Coalition membership!
Don’t forget to donate to the Coalition’s Foundation (for training and events) equipment fundraiser.
Did you know that the Clark County Shooting Complex is only 30% built? While the shotgun ranges, the rifle/pistol range, and the education center are excellent facilities, there is so much more waiting to be built. Currently, the anti-gun Clark County Commission is sitting on further development of the park that has already been planned and improved.
The Complex occupies a huge tract of land at the north end of the Las Vegas Valley at the foot of the Sheep Range with phenomenal views of the valley. Developers have been overheard talking about what a waste the complex is and how it would be better utilized as housing. A world-class shooting site is just waiting to be finished. The ability to attract shooters and large events is hindered by the limitations of the range.
While the 50/100/200 yard rifle/pistol range is impressive, there is far more capacity, including private “tactical” bays. These 50 yard bays are most often found at private gun clubs that many don’t have access to. These bays would be available for the average shooter. In addition, there would be a much greater diversity of ranges.
Some of the unbuilt sections are:
An important source of funding would come from grading of the land itself. The Complex sits atop an estimated $120 million of gravel and other construction materials. Material from the initial construction is already sorted on-site, but has not been sold. So far, the county has refused to move forward with operations to monetize the piled material to fund further expansion.
So far, the county has screwed the pooch. One wonders if it is just bureaucratic incompetence, anti-gun hoplopathy, or a concerted effort to shut the park down for developer cronies.
The Shooting Complex is being mismanaged by the county parks department, which as failed to expand and develop the complex as was originally agreed at the time of conception. The Complex advisory board was given a minor, advisory role to the parks department, despite the Complex having the ability to operate a business with its own enterprise fund. The parks department also has hindered the ability of the Complex to operate in the best needs of the complex and squandered opportunities like selling naming rights.
Despite a steady increase is usage, the Complex has not seen any new additions since 2011, while the commissioners continue to take public lands away from recreational shooters. Clark County needs the county commission to move forward with completing the Complex as they agreed to at its inception. Stay tuned for ways you can help move things forward.
The defendant was arrested for DUI after someone saw him on camera tuck a handgun away. The officers contacted him because he was armed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that carrying a handgun alone was not a reason to detain the man, so the DUI charges were thrown out. The state appealed to SCOTUS who declined to hear the appeal.
Read the full article here.
The short version is that the US Supreme Court signaled it does not believe merely carrying a gun is a reasonable basis for a detention. By rejecting an appeal like this, judges and prosecutors are put on notice that essentially the issue is dead. Any appeals that went up to SCOTUS would likely face the same fate, so why waste the time with the case?
Case law works by judges nullifying laws or actions at the bench. Laws may still stand, actions may still occur, but case law is predicated that if higher courts won't have it, the lower courts should abide by the higher precedence. In other words, if Dad said no, don't bother asking Mom, because even if they disagree, you'll be in trouble for asking twice.
Now this doesn't mean some beat cop won't do what he wants or some prosecutor in a place like California won't file charges, but the outcome in court is likely to be in your favor. An actual ruling would be much better, but we'll take what we can get. Carrying a gun is normal in society today, unlike how it was demonized for the past 100 years. It's no reason to be detained.
Humboldt County Sheriff Allen is facing a recall election for failing to oppose red-flag laws. I've opined on it in other posts. A recall may not be successful, but to abuse Voltaire, sometimes threatening to shoot the admiral is as good as following through.
Allen broke state law when the county clerk allowed him to read the actual petition before it was filed. It must be filed before anyone but the clerk can handle it. Here's the story from the Nevada Independent:
A committee to recall the Humboldt County sheriff and remove him from office says it submitted more than the required number of signatures on Friday to qualify the call for a special election, but organizers are reeling after learning that county officials violated election rules by allowing the target of the recall to thumb through the petition before submitting the signatures to the secretary of state.
Bearing Arms sums it up nicely:
Yet that standard isn’t required for other violations of the law. If I go a little over the speed limit and get a ticket, I’m not going to get a pass because I didn’t mean to speed, now am I?
Small towns suck because of stuff like this. There is major league bullshit in big cities too, but the culture is a little more professional and the rules are respected more. In small towns, people get away with stuff because people who see each other every day are afraid to make waves.
The recall effort will proceed against Sheriff Allen.
The city of Las Vegas is banning fake firearms on Fremont Street.
As for the article itself, the gnashing of teeth makes the agenda clear. The anti-gunners will be after preemption and open carry in earnest in 2021. US Supreme Court or not, open carry will be a hard battle to win because almost all jurisprudence states that open carry cannot be banned, while concealed carry can be regulated. A reversal of that would likely lead to permitless open carry.
And yes, yours truly and others have openly carried on Fremont Street without issue. See pictures related.
Why can’t you carry a fake gun on Fremont Street? Well, here in America we take firearms seriously. They are dangerous objects and an in a land of open carry (and mass shootings) we don’t appreciate frivolous displays of weapons. Some reproduction weapons are indistinguishable from real weapons except by in-hand examination. One can only imagine what a busker or a tourist might do, or a tourist might think, if an imitation firearm were mishandled.
Part of this reaction is typical government BS borne either in liability or in an anti-gun fervor. For the above reasons, it’s not unreasonable to place some limits on what the freaks do downtown under the neon lights. Just imagine a squad of rifle-twirling buskers smacking someone in the face with a color guard rifle; orange tipped or not, that’s gonna hurt.
What’s interesting is the false dichotomy of “fake guns banned; real guns legal.” Yes, to someone who is willingly ignorant or simply retarded, the incongruity seems strange.
Real guns are constitutionally protected and open carry especially so. State preemption of firearm laws also prevent “no gun” ordinances in the tourist areas, which they would enact if they could get away with it. The Strip and Downtown are shitholes with tourist areas in the middle; without heavy security and police patrols, they would be as scummy as a few blocks away are. No one should be disarmed because gun-hating politicians and casino moguls say so.
Another interesting idea is that using a fake gun is part of one’s freedom of speech. Doing something for money may be within the government’s policing powers, but for instance, it would be hard to bust someone for engaging in political speech downtown with a toy gun.
Comments taken from a local gun forum recounting the meeting of 12/09 on whether or not to declare the children's storytime area a gun-free zone.
We were all so thankful that the weather had cleared this morning. The beautiful Nevada sky was clear as the 80+ protesters began flowing into the Pahrump Valley Library parking lot. My family and I arrived by about 09:15 and there was already a large contingent in place with signs saying, "Protect the Children - Honor the Second Amendment". It was clearly stated that this protest was to be orderly, calm, and not to hinder any traffic flow to and from the library. I can say confidently that this was honored by all. It was also announced that the library had setup a sign in sheet for speaking and the room would hit capacity at 81 people.
They were not ready for us.
My wife rushed in to get my name on the list along with hers, my daughter's (at the center of this controversy), and my eight year old son's. The room hit capacity within minutes and many were told they would have to wait outside. It became a point of confusion for those trying to attend but within the group it was worked out that after some would speak they would leave the room to allow others in. The library staff was condescending and rude in their interactions with the attendees...to the point that I was embarrassed for them. They had arbitrarily decided to limit all public comments to a total of 45 minutes so the same staff member then decided on her own to divide 45 minutes by the number of speakers which came to a grand total of 1 minute and 30 seconds per speaker! My family and I had written our speeches and timed them to stay within the normal 5 minute mark but when we arrived we were handed an agenda which stated we would be given 3 minutes only to then see that cut to 1.5 minutes. This staff member then "graciously" decided to bump that to an even 2 minutes per person. That meant some scrambling on our part to cut what we could to cover the points necessary.
The first to speak was County Commissioner John Keonig who called the board to task being in danger of the open meeting law by hiding their agenda in a non specific agenda topic. He reminded them that if they proceeded with covering the ban on guns that they would be turned in to the state and faced the possibility of a $500 fine each for such a violation.
The next 4 speakers were for the ban on guns basing their views on the same tired arguments from feelings rather than reality. Then their world fell apart:
From that point forward, speaker after speaker took the board to task. My family and I were up early on and we covered a range of topics. I spoke to the question from the chairman directed to me at the October meeting, "Why do I feel the need to have guns in the children's area?" I answered that evil exists in the world and I have the duty under God to defend life, from the little child to the flaming atheist's life. I then went on to cover examples of potential problems such as a jilted ex-husband or ex-wife teaching the other a lesson and a drug addict that uses violence to get what he wants. Then I brought it closer to home by citing the example of Jason Falconer, a Front Sight graduate, who stopped the mall stabbing in Minnesota in 2016 (the criminal was dressed as a security guard!) and Aaron Helton just in November who stopped a Walmart shooting in Duncan, OK (pop. 23K...smaller than Pahrump). I was forced to conclude on the point that a Dept. of Justice study showed that criminals don't obtain their firearms by the normal means but by stealing them from cars - the very place the library director wanted people to keep them.
My wife spoke next on the issue that there were zero books on gun safety in the library for children but they DID have a book about a high school student that seeks revenge using a gun. She also pointed out that the library had posted in the children's area that stated that the library was not responsible for the safety and protection of the children. It actually says that coming to the library has inherent risks which the parents must accept (see attached). This was followed with an offer to the board of a stack of children's books on gun safety on the condition that they be put into circulation. (These were later had delivered to the chairman by me)
My 18 year old daughter then spoke. She has been at the center of this whole controversy and rather dislikes being the center of attention. Rather than cover what she said, I'll let the following news report show you. It captures almost the entirety of her speech:
My 8 year old son then spoke. He asked a few weeks ago if he could do so and we agreed as long as he wrote his own speech. He did a fantastic job covering how he was raised with firearms, cited the 4 gun safety rules, and how he would not feel safe at the library if they ban them.
We had the Republican Central Committee represented there along with the Nevada Firearms Coalition. We even had a couple come and speak as medical/mental health professionals against the idea proposed earlier in the meeting that people can be traumatized by the very sight of a gun. As professionals with many years of experience they knew of NO such condition.
What was the end result? The library board pulled the agenda item and tabled it. When they will bring it up again is a little murky at this point because I heard them say something about waiting 3 months but then later something about possibly taking it up at the next meeting. But, for now, despite announcing the meeting at the storytime hour as an opportunity for parents to come and "share their fears", despite the attempt to mask the event under a cloak of a more benign agenda description, and despite the clearly annoyed countenance of the board this fell on its face today.
It is also interesting to note that not one of the parents from storytime was present to speak for this ban on guns (my wife took note). This is an issue only for the library director which influenced the board. I also had a brief conversation with the chairman after the meeting as we were leaving. He said he was still on the fence (!) but he looked up the stats on the number of kids killed by accidents involving firearms. His statement was 176/year. Whether it was accurate or not wasn't the point. He also admitted that number is polluted with other incidents. I responded by saying, "Ok, so if you already agree that number is really smaller than that then you must consider that with 350 million people in the US, 176 (the full number) was 0.0000000something %. So, we're really in the realm of getting struck by lightning or being electrocuted being a higher risk at that point." We parted with an interested sigh on his part.
I could not be more thankful for all who came out today to make this event successful! My family and I will be in everyone's debt.
I attended rally at 0930 and the library meeting at 1000; large rally turnout in front of the library was impressive. Problems immediately started upon entering the library. Meeting room was strictly restricted to no more than eighty (cited reason: fire-codes), many were not allowed to enter. I have previously attended a VA townhall in that same room which had at least double the amount. Then attendees learned that open comments were restricted to forty-five minutes. Those fortunate enough to sign-up to speak (myself) were told that comments would be around one minute (the meeting agenda left on each seat stated three minutes).
Two Nye county commissioners, one former commissioner, the county treasurer and two members of the Nye County Republican Party office attended rally and meeting. The first three or so speakers were for the gun-ban; nearly all remaining speakers were completely against the ban. The board chairman (elderly gentleman) referred to anti-ban attendees as "you people". There were a lot of good speakers to include a PHD and his wife, who works in the clinical mental health industry, smartly countered comments from a self-proclaimed educator that children are traumatized by the mere visual presence of a firearm. I opened my comments by stating two firsts for me had occurred that morning; first, this was my first attendance of a protest rally and second, I have never been referred to as "you people". I turned around and deliberately starred at the board chairman who made that snarky comment. I then cited a Las Vegas Journal article dated 31 Jan 19, about the attempted abduction of a boy in front of the Pahrump library. I stressed the importance of protecting oneself and family. I then tried to tie that self-defense reliance theme to my experiences with the aftermath of horrific deadly consequences, for those who failed to do just that, during my five deployments to Iraq. I closed with how arrogant it is for folks (especially those new to Pahrump) to try and implement a culture change, such as their gun-ban, which is an attempt to deny others the right of self-protection. I believe the best comment was from one of the commissioners who initially stated that the library board had violated the open meeting law and that they were going to be reported (possible $500 personal fine) and then later sated that they should postpone their vote until March, when the NEW BOARD MEMBERS, can vote on it. One of the board members (elderly lady) mouth dropped open upon hearing that comment, apparently taken by surprise, that they might be replaced.
The Pahrump Valley Times was present at the rally and meeting; they should have an article soon; will be very interesting to read how they recollect the meeting and comments. The family at the center of the library gun-ban did an outstanding job articulating the issue and made a great showing. Last comment about the meeting, after the open-comment period ended, the board members mumbled amongst themselves causing the crowd to inform them that they could not be heard and to please use the microphone. That same elderly woman library board member stated to another member, "are we required by law to do that"? My take away, after observing the board members body language and listening to their comments, is that this is not a personality conflict and their intent is to initiate incremental gun-control.
After a tease period of releasing something “legendary,” Glock released a 10-round .22 pistol the size of model 19. The Glock 44 is a .22LR pistol with a partial steel and polymer slide intended, among other things, to allow sub-caliber training with something closely approximating a duty pistol. The pistol slide, according to Glock, cannot be swapped with the 9mm version.
I, like many other people who have already filled up comment pages this morning, are unimpressed. A “legendary” .22 pistol is the Ruger Mark series, the Browning Buckmark, or the Colt Woodman’s. Glock’s new pistol is not “legendary,” but rather an overdue offering from a company whose “legendary” innovation has stagnated. They couldn’t even make the magazine a high capacity magazine of at least 15 rounds.
Glock’s most recent innovations of note were the Generation 5 improvements such as the Marksman barrel and improved trigger pull as well as the Bavaria-only rotating barrel Glock 46. The latter is not available in the United States and may not be. It remains to be seen if the rotating barrel will be adopted as standard or as new offering.
The Austrian company has fallen behind the market place. First, offerings like the model 44 are available in greater capacity. The Taurus TX22 holds 16 rounds for a $349 MSRP, closer to $200-$250 retail when on sale, versus Glock’s $430 MSRP. Keltec’s rail compatible and pre-threaded CP33 holds 33 rounds in a revolutionary 33-round magazine at the same price point as Glock’s new offering.
Glock essentially made entry to the .22 niche that conversion slides filled nicely without adding really any other value. This new pistol is an unremarkable failure that will appeal to fanboys and few others. Sub-caliber training is pointless at the price where 9mm anyone who can afford this pistol can afford the ammo to feed it. Law enforcement agencies cannot realistically train their officers to shoot without the realistic recoil standard cartridges provide. Most agencies do not have separate training cartridges and prefer to shoot instead with their +P hollow-point ammunition to make training shots as similar to combat shooting as possible.
Consumers have been asking Glock for anything but this pistol for ages. There still is no compact frame and long slide (model 26 fame and model 19 slide). Many shooters have been turned off by Glocks because they desire a thumb safety, which Glock refuses to provide from the factory except for government contract orders. Smith and Wesson’s new line of M&P pistols have either option available for civilians.
There is no pistol caliber carbine either. With such a demand for a new, innovative carbine one would think Glock would engineer a compact carbine that isn’t the Roni conversions or a 9mm AR-15. Hell, Glock can’t even offer a branded 1911 as a gimmick.
On one hand, Glock doesn’t have to cater to the demands of the American civilian pistol market. Their international government and military sales and American law enforcement sales provide enough business. Civilian Glock fanboys wishing for this or that are secondary to the established pistol market. People will continue to buy Glocks because they are utilitarian pistols that are freakishly reliable. Much like Apple and the iPhone, Glock introduces what the company wants, not what the consumer is demanding.
So without having shot the pistol, Glock missed an opportunity here and played right into the jokes and memes about their product introductions.
The Reno Gazette-Journal is reporting that the Reno city council plans to review the purchase of license plate recognition cameras, in part “aid in the investigation and reduction of gun related crimes” at its Wednesday, 12/04, meeting. The intent is to purchase an additional two mobile and six fixed readers. Is this a danger to gun owners or is it just crappy reporting? It's crappy reporting.
License plate recognition (LPR) or automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology merely pulls up registration of a vehicle and any associated information (warrants, stolen vehicle wants, other flags) that can be obtained manually by the officer or a dispatcher.
The request is specifically to allocate funds from the Strategies for Policing Innovation (SPI) grant award given to Reno by the US DOJ in 2018. As for the Dec. 2019 request, the police staff report says the following:
This award will be used to support focused efforts to apprise problematic gang members of the legal consequences of gun violence and a wider educational campaign that treats gun violence as risk to public health.
SPI will use a problem-oriented approach to engage stakeholders, including community members and business owners, and gather information in neighborhoods most likely to be victimized by firearm related crimes. One component of the SPI grant project is to use LPR technology to aid in the investigation and reduction of gun-related crimes.
The staff report reporting the award of the 2018 grant has similar language.
SPI will use a problem-oriented approach to engage stakeholders, including community members and business owners, and gather information in neighborhoods most likely to be victimized by firearm related crimes. This input will be used to develop strategies to reduce gun violence.
The difference between 2019 (top) and 2018 (bottom) is the lack of the LPR language. Basically, the police department is using grant money to combat with "gun violence" to buy license plate readers. They justify this by adding the language that they will "use LPR technology" to the initial purpose of the grant. There is no requirement to specify how they will do that.
I was in law enforcement and used early LPR cameras. I'm also familiar with how federal grant money gets disbursed. If you add in a few words that make it seem like you're using the grant money for the purpose of the grant, you can use it for whatever you want. Any further justification might be "Well, we'll use the cameras to identify wanted felons who might have a gun or vehicles wanted for a murder/robbery, etc."
Short version is: Reno Police are saying what they need to in order to get new cameras and use this grant money to do it. It's how federal grant money works. Nothing to see here.
Clayton E. Cramer
Gun Free Zone
The War on Guns
The View From Out West