 Humboldt County Commission passed an ordinance Oct. 7 affirming support for the Second Amendment. SUMMARY: A NON PARTISAN RESOLUTION DECLARING THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, NEVADA TO BE A “SECOND AMENDMENT SUPPORTING COUNTY” RESOLUTION NUMBER: 10-07-19a  Taken with permission from the original poster on a local gun forum: The board was clearly not expecting any turnout on this issue. They had our group crowd around a table in their board room instead of using one of the larger meeting rooms. It was made clear that they were going to go by Robert's Rules of Order when they announced that comments on the rules change would have to wait until that part of the meeting. Imagine a room about the size of a kitchen with a big table in the middle, the board all seated, and a small crowd surrounding them. Our family was present in full: myself, my wife, my 18 year old daughter and then the smaller children at 8 and 2. Three county commissioners attended: Leo Blundo, John Koenig, and Donna Cox. Commissioner Koenig opened the comments by making clear that the NRS citation was incorrect and what they were doing was illegal. He spoke for several minutes making the matter clear that this action was not acceptable to Nye county. Then my family spoke with me taking the lead taking the NRS code to task and demonstrating that a lack of clear understanding of the law (as demonstrated by grossly incorrect reference) also demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the extent of understanding of law that those who carry must understand and live by. I also pointed out how this was incongruent with Nye county as a second amendment sanctuary. I then pointed out that there has been no problem in the library of late with people brandishing firearms and the like. In fact, I pointed out that the manager had said to us that this rules change was a direct result of her feeling uncomfortable with my well trained 18 year old daughter carrying openly in the library for "storytime" with her 2 year old little sister. In my conclusion, I pointed out this change was not based on law or problems, but on feelings alone from the following false syllogism: guns are dangerous, someone has a holstered gun nearby, therefore that person is dangerous. My wife then spoke to the fact that banning guns has never worked and before someone thinks that "this won't happen in Pahrump" she pointed out that Sutherland Springs, with a population of 600, never expected anything to happen either. She went on later to question the application of the rule: will the library tape off the section? Will they feel more comfortable with her standing inches away from the "barrier"? What happens if her child becomes unruly? Will the police be called if she were to go in a get her? Then our 18 year old daughter, at the center of this issue, spoke to the issue of how long it takes for the police to arrive when someone carrying can respond instantly. She went on to point out that she open carries because, by law, she is not allowed to conceal carry but she had been trained around firearms since she was very young and now she is a twice distinguished graduate of Front Sight and had competed in the Washington State IDPA championship. These are all summaries of our comments as there was more. The opposition then spoke their minds, all of which was tailored to feelings: "I feel kids should have a safe place" and "I don't feel we should have guns around the kids" and the like. Then, Commissioners Blundo and Cox spoke to close out the comments time to point out that this was unacceptable in no uncertain terms. Judging from the expressions of the board, it would seem that their minds were already made up prior to the public comments. However, they were clearly shown that their citation was completely wrong and they were also treading in an opposite direction from the community. So, the matter was tabled until the chairman of the board could speak with the district attorney and sheriff...something the county commissioners encouraged. It was proposed by the board to do a community survey to see what the community thought but the opposition did not favor that as they felt the results would be "skewed"...interesting comment on their part. However, there was quite a bit of laxity on the Robert's Rules as some individuals were allowed to speak out of order with comments that were nothing short of demonstrating their lack of knowledge on the matter of the lawful use of arms and simply inflammatory. While this was disappointing, overall the meeting did see this put on hold pending investigation. It will be brought up again at the next meeting on TUESDAY (not Monday) November 12th at 10AM in the bigger meeting room. We will want to have many more to come if possible. Side note: there were three of us open carrying, two of which were county commissioners (I was the other). During the meeting, the manager, who is on the board, let slip what their true intentions were. On the meeting agenda, it stated that they wanted no firearms in the storytime room. She then further clarified what that meant by saying that she didn't want firearms in the storytime room OR in the children's area but then went on to say that they wanted everyone to leave them in their car. So, not only did she not understand the law but she couldn't even give a consistent stance on what they wanted to do.  AR Lowers Might Not Be Regulated Firearms: The Potential Implications of CNN's Gun Control Story10/13/2019  CNN dropped a bomb that AR-15 regulations to allow for lower receivers to require background checks for purchases may be deeply flawed. Their article title is self-explanatory of the predicament: “He sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control efforts.” If you have not read the CNN article, do so before continuing. In short, because the government determined the lower receiver to be the firearm, but the actual regulation does not seem to apply, the government was unwilling to test their theory in court and potentially get unfavorable (to prosecutors) case law. So to enable prosecutions against stupid people with bad lawyers and to keep plea bargains rolling in, the government didn’t press its case. I speculate that this article came forward when it did, shortly after California passed into a law banning purchase of “firearm precursor parts” like barrels and 80% frames without background checks (effective in 2024) to draw attention to the issue. I doubt that CNN would break a story like this without being part of a plot to move public and legislative opinion to creating new legislation. This is huge potential boon to gun owners and damning to gun control and the ATF, so it would be in the interest of leftist, anti-gun media to sit on the story. The regulation (not a statute) in question is: 27 CFR § 479.11(a): Frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.  PSA AR-15 "APPROVAL-15" - STRIPPED LOWER RECEIVER The argument in the case that the definition is not met by the AR-15 is that the lower receiver houses the hammer, while the upper houses the bolt and is threaded to accept the barrel. The jury is out on what exactly the firing mechanism is. Because both halves are required to complete the firearm, the ATF determined a long time ago that the lower receiver should be regulated as the firearm. Something had to be deemed “the receiver” in the (then) unconventional Stoner-Sullivan space rifle to regulate it. This doesn’t just apply to the AR-15 only. In many H&K firearms and the FAL series, portions of what we’d term the upper receiver are deemed the firearm. Congress has ignored the issue and ATF has danced around it because it would hinder government prosecutions if the status quo changed. Many convictions could be reversed if this line was pursued. This is not in the government’s or ATF’s interest. Of course, Congress or courts could simply affirm the status quo. A devil’s advocate examination of the regulation could be used to support the status quo definition. “That part of the firearm” must house either the hammer, bolt, or firing mechanism. It is also “usually” threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel. Only one item being required to be housed in the receiver and “usually” means “commonly or ordinarily”; not always. So because the lower receiver houses the hammer, it is a receiver because the regulation, using the operative word “or” does not require the hammer, bolt, and breechblock to be in the same “part of the firearm” which does not always have to be threaded for the barrel. This sounds more like the upper receiver than the lower receiver, although I doubt one could say that the AR-15 has a breechblock and “that part which holds the bolt” is actually the bolt carrier, not the upper receiver (but that’s a little semantic for simpletons like judges and legislators). “Firing mechanism” is even more confusing because what does this mean: the firing pin, the trigger group, or what? The recent case of Safety Harbor’s .50 cal upper receiver conversion being classed as firearm seems to make more sense in this light. The AR-15 receivers has to be mated together to unambiguously meet the regulatory definition, which is what helped people avoid charges by separating the gun or the process. These regulations date from a time when firearms were generally understood in the context of bolt-action rifles and shotguns where the receiver did all this. The way forward is fraught with potential unintended consequences. A positive such consequence is that anyone charged with a violation regarding a lower receiver (perhaps a federal charge for transferring it across state lines without an FFL involved). Of course, this is rolling the dice that the prosecutors would be too scared of precedence to pursue the case. Best case scenario is legislation or case law clarifies that the lower receiver is the firearm and everything stays the same. However, there is the great danger that any action going forward other than this results in serious blowback to the gun community.
I doubt we’ll get rid of background checks any time soon. Having to go to a physical location to obtain firearms merely so leftists can feel good that I’m not a known “bad guy” is very inconvenient. It will be more so if I have to do that for barrels and uppers. A 21st century solution would be an online Form 4473 that the buyer fills out, the computer instantly interfaces with NICS, and the package cannot be delivered except on signature of the actual buyer, confirmed with ID. This solution would be no more problematic that today’s current scene. All the Brady checks do is scare felons from trying to buy from gun stores, which they can do, with varying levels of success and little chance of successful prosecution if they fail a background check. Guns are still stolen from homes, from stores, are bought out of some dude’s trunk on the black market, and straw purchases by friends, relatives, and girlfriends all happen with regularity. In fact, all banning private sales would do to reduce crime is perhaps allow the seller of those black market guns to be prosecuted at the expense of innocent gun transfers. Ultimately, as ugly as it is that Roh was perhaps unwittingly help bad guys get guns, all of gun control is a failure at preventing crime. The retroactive punishment being caught is only a deterrent and a poor one at that. All laws can do is make obtaining a gun a little harder for criminals which exponentially negatively impacts the law abiding. We have to understand that criminals will be armed and will commit crimes regardless of the law. For many, that’s a difficult thing to believe so they rely on the magical thinking of gun control. The action that the average gun owner needs to take is clear; get your guns now, especially ones you want off-the-books. Whether all semi-automatics are banned, regulated to death, or if legislation requires upper receivers to go through an FFL remains to be seen. It is clear that new restrictions are coming in the future and in a form that will make these easy days of cheap receivers shipped from Palmetto State Armory to your dealer or door will disappear. So get those receivers now, complete and 80%.  Support Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research, links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc. Please email regarding one-time donations.
 A poster on a local gun form brought this to our attention. The Nye County Library District is proposing to ban firearms in a section of the library. First, the proposed ban would apply to the children’s story room; not the entire library. According the original poster, he spoke with the library manager “Susan” who stated she was uncomfortable with guns in that part of the library. Around children that fear is understandable, though unwarranted. Someone should really reach out to these people and take them shooting to better understand guns and carrying them. It is unique to have a hoplophobe openly state it is a matter of comfort and not using the lie of “common sense gun safety.” Perception and not safety is being argued here, at least per the original poster, and mere perception and preference of the library staff will not pass serious constitutional muster. They can do this despite state preemption of firearm laws because in Flores v. LVCCLD the Supreme Court, using tortured logic, decided that the Legislature really didn’t mean to exclude all sub-municipal districts because the legislators didn’t specifically name anything other than counties, cities, and towns. Read more here. Unless the library is posted per NRS 202.3673, concealed carry is permitted in the library. This regulation would only serve to penalize open carriers and those carrying concealed poorly. It would not of course stop a mass murderer (which admittedly isn’t the point). The trustees have confused NRS 202.265 which applies only to schools and licensed child care facilities, though they may have been influenced by the library open carry revenge bills (which did not pass) that would have added libraries to the above section. Or they think we are as stupid as they are. If this regulation does pass, Pahrump residents should use their political power to get the manager fired and for the board of supervisors to replace the trustees. I doubt Nye County deputies would arrest for a violation and the sheriff should refuse to enforce it. Nye County claims to be a Second Amendment sanctuary, but will the rubber meet the road? The meeting is being held at 10 AM, Monday Oct. 14 at the Pahrump Community Library.  In the Facebook group, an open carrier mentioned he encountered an oft-heard rumor about carrying in a bank. Walked into my usual Bank Branch today, open carry as usual. Assistant Manager informs me that banks are federally chartered entities to which the same firearm regulations apply as to police stations and court houses in which only law enforcement and security is allowed to carry firearms. Now I have been carrying open for more than twenty years, including banks and in two different states. Nevada and Arizona. I never had a problem. Yes, banks are federally chartered and regulated, but in a financial sense. There are no gun prohibitions regarding your local bank or credit union. Let's recap:
In Nevada and most states, carrying a gun in bank is only the crime of trespassing if you are asked to leave and you don't. Only in Montana is concealed carry illegal in bank (open carry is not) in the Inter-mountain West.  One-in-twenty Nevadans has a concealed firearm permit, based on October 2019’s count by the Department of Public Safety of permits issued by county. A total of 130,426 permits are active across the state. Unsurprisingly, Clark and Washoe counties lead the total. That means 4.3% of all Nevadans have a permit and among adults, it’s nearly 6% of all adults, certainly more than 6% for all eligible adults. “Eligible adults” are non-felons without a major criminal history and age 21 and up, excluding certain veterans 18 an up. This is based on an estimated 3,034,000 million people (in 2018) and 2,217,723 adults. This is a ratio on par with Texas and we have more permissive carry laws in Nevada. Do you have a concealed carry protection program? Even if you are not charged with a crime, a lawyer to help you during the aftermath of a self-defense shooting can be expensive. Join the US Concealed Carry Association today and get a protection plan.  The no shooting areas in Clark County have grown. On Wednesday, October 2, the county commissioners voted for an expansion in three areas (agenda link).
Commissioner Justin Jones who lives in the southwest was the sponsor and reported shooters firing too close to homes in that area for comfort. Lovell Canyon was shut down by the Forest Service several years ago after a brushfire blamed on shooters and years of trash shooting dangerously close to the road. NO OTHER AREAS were made off limits. See the Shooting page for more info on existing prohibited areas in Clark County. State preemption laws allow local authorities to regulate unsafe discharge of firearms. All in all, this is a minor expansion and for mostly legitimate reasons. It is a reminder to all shooters to be safe, pack out their trash, and encourage good behavior from others.  New areas in light yellow  Southwest  Apex  A fundamental problem with banning open carry on private property is that, at least in states where open carry is unlicensed but concealed carry is, is that the concealed carry preference in businesses deprives customers of the right to armed self-defense. An open carry only armed citizen is therefore limited on where he can shop, even if public property (government buildings, sidewalks, parks, roads, etc.) are open to him. Most of one’s activities take place on private property, so an open carry restriction at popular businesses severely impacts unlicensed carriers. Concealed carry permits take time to obtain; for instance in Clark County there is usually a 3-4 month delay before issuance. Where there is not a significant delay, the cost and time of training courses, fingerprint, and application fees may be burdensome to those who can barely afford a gun, holster, and ammo. The counter argument is that there is no deprivation of civil rights as the person is free to carry concealed; except this is not possible for those without a permit in non-constitutional carry states. Alternatively, the person can simply shop at open-carry friendly businesses. Yet this is often not just undesirable, but practically and economically infeasible, especially in areas where Walmart is the only grocery or department store. Government bears responsibility for creating this problem. Unlicensed open carry, but licensed concealed carry is ridiculous on its face; something many armed citizens already know. But as criminals almost exclusively carry concealed, permits are a useful tool for police and permits for the most popular form of carry (concealed) also gives politicians piece of mind. The demonization of concealed carry (which is really just the demonization of carrying a handgun) is an old, outdated, and factually false misperception of armed self-defense. Concealed carry restrictions and licensing are relics of the first attempt at controlling social violence through gun control. In the late 19th century, it was thought that carry a concealed weapon made one more prone to violence, as if they had a disease--not an uncommon canard from the hoplopaths today. The problem of open carry bans can be alleviated by government is removing the remaining restrictions to unlicensed concealed carry. Prior restraint on self-defense (a right considered so universal, the Founding Fathers left it out of the Second Amendment and many early state constitutions) has to end. Until the ban on unlicensed concealed carry ends entirely, government is complicit in denying the ability for many citizens to defend themselves in places where concealed carry is banned. We know citizens will still go, forced or otherwise, to these businesses. Walmart, Kroger, and other businesses do not care about the safety of its citizens but only about their public relations image. It is shameful that an antiquated prohibition maintained by the wishes of police and fearful, hoplopathic (gun-hating) politicians, disarms citizens.   Last minute additionSo according to one open carrier who gave no other details, some Walmart employee told him he couldn’t enter the Rainbow and Spring Mountain, Las Vegas, store while openly carrying. We have no other details, so I can’t comment if this was some johnny jackass blue vest playing God or a manager “respectfully” asking him not to open carry. In Fallon, the sheriff was called and the deputies told the staff that if the store isn't posted, they can't ban someone from carrying. Now that's wrong, but it's nice to see the cops on the side of an armed citizen. Rural Nevada for the win! Meanwhile, at the nearby Blue Diamond location, another open carrier reported to me no one said anything to him. Someone else said that the Sunset store told him it would be up to the manager. So in other words, Corporate puts shit out, without proper guidance, and their moron employees run with it. Meanwhile, on Facebook, a bunch of people think they are being helpful by saying “That’s why you get a CCW and conceal carry.” Uh, I have a CCW and I prefer open carry. I can’t speak for the first guy, but to these people who think a CCW is the answer to everything, you’re missing the point. The point is about resisting and stopping corporate gun control and being good ambassadors for the Second Amendment. These comments are not unhelpful and you people need to shut up. Conceal your pistol: why? That’s like saying “Cut off your dick, you might be a rapist.” There is nothing wrong with open carry. If you think there is, then you are either badly misinformed about safety of open carry or you don’t want people to know you’re carrying a gun. Usually, most concealed carriers don’t feel comfortable letting the world know they have a gun. Original postBanning open carry is nothing more than victim shaming. If you can’t tell me apart from some insensitive jackass trying to get on the news or a mass murderer, you’re an idiot. Openly carried handguns hardly go noticed at all, and when they do and don’t meet with approval, virtually never create any controversy. It baffles me why Walmart can’t say “Hey, don’t bring your rifle to Walmart. No stunts, please.” Open carry of handguns has never been an issue in Walmart and I doubt the folks in Bentonville can substantiate anything other than some hoplophobic idiot creating a scene for no reason. I wonder if Walmart would respectfully ask black people to stay out of their stores in predominately white neighborhoods because their customers get nervous around minorities. I am bothered so much because they are implicitly telling me that I am wrong, that I am bad for openly carrying. Open carry is little more than the modern stigma of “gun toting” except rather than concealing the gun, we’re exposing it. Since the 1980s, the stigma about carrying has made a polar shift to positive opinion about personal armed self-defense. Once upon a time it was concealed carry that was bad. But not really. People have always concealed because guns have always been wrongly stigmatized and good guys concealed their guns when they couldn’t carry them openly, even if that meant they might have to pay a fine. People, usually unarmed ones, have always hated the fact that others choose to go armed. If you stigmatize open carry, you’re stigmatizing carrying a gun. With concealed carry, the gun is still there, but you have no idea if that person is a criminal or has a permit. Why would you logically ban a method of carry that is in the minority when you know the guns will still be there anyway? How the hell does someone so vapid get to be the CEO of major corporation? Other’s offense over the fact I choose to carry a gun for my defense is not my concern. This isn’t about my gun being visible; no, it being visible tells them I’m armed and deprives them of their little “out of sight, out of mind” fantasy. They don’t like people carrying guns period, not just openly. Look at how many women who have become enraged because someone in a position of semi-authority (like a stewardess) that short shorts, short skirts, or showing cleavage is inappropriate and asked to cover up. My rights do not end where your feelings begin. I cannot carry in the manner I like because persons ignorant of the actual facts and experience on the ground are worried I might create a PR nightmare for them. Walmart and Kroger’s reactions are merely the corporate boardroom version of a soccer mom recoiling in horror in the snacks aisle. Mom isn’t afraid of the man with the gun, she’s afraid of the gun. The corporate weasels aren’t worried about what might happen in their stores (if they did they’d hire credible security), they care about the manufactured onslaught on cable news and idiots on Twitter. There is a minority of pedantic concealed carry supremacists that rankle at open carry, as if it is the mark of an inferior citizen unable or unwilling to train and get government approval to hide their gun, but these people too disapprove of the average person being armed. So you’re damn right I’m pissed off. I’m doing nothing wrong, trying to protect myself, and because some dude in a suit doesn’t get it, I’m going to get humiliated by some minimum wage flunky. This policy does nothing whatsoever and will not stop a mass murderer or someone who wants to pretend to be one any more than “no guns” signs stop crime.  |
Archives
October 2019
CategoriesSupport Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research, links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc. Please email regarding one-time donations.
|
RSS Feed