​Frontier Carry is the larger version of Nevada Carry, the websites/blog where thousands of Nevadans and Westerners have learned about their gun rights and open/concealed carry. It has been your support and interest that has made us successful. We brought the knowledge, but you brought the changes to Nevada. With your help, we can continue to broaden the understanding of the history of gun culture in America and the effect it has had on gun control and vise versa. By looking into the past, we can better understand our future. But we need your help to do it!

I'm asking you for $1 a month. If you appreciate our work and can afford a buck a month, please help out and defray some of the costs of hosting. I'm not asking you to scrimp, save, or make sacrifices; donate that to the NVFAC. If you can give, would like to give, then please give. I'm not looking to profit or get rich, just looking for the ability to keep providing a valuable service to our community. 

This helps us keep the lights on and cover expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help 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 (old articles, clippings, photos), links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions (you ask, we research), and first reads of rough drafts of the open carry book (under development).

This "perqs" aren't the best, I know, but I'll give you what I can that is the fruit of my labor behind the computer screen. A lot of this information is lost to the public consciousness, locked up in archives and dusty books. 

This will never be a full-time venture, unfortunately, but due to health concerns and issues with my day job, constant attention to all matters gun rights in Nevada and the Intermountain West have become difficult to keep up with. Your donations make it possible for us to continue working towards the goal of full-time activism. 

It’s been 20 years since Columbine and our schools are no safer. In 2013, after the Newton/Sandy Hook shooting it should have been abundantly clear that the only thing that stops a mass murderer is a good guy with a gun. Yet the majority of states continue to deny their staff, students, and guests their constitutional rights by forcing them to disarm. This is blatant criminal negligence and damn near makes the legislators, administrators, union flunkies, and brainwashed leftist teaches accessories to murder.
 
California doubled down, first taking away the ability of CCW holders to carry on campuses and then removed the ability of local school authorities to allow CCW precisely because “red” county districts were allowing it. At the state and federal level, all the wrong steps are being taken. “Red flag” laws, which might be useful if we could trust the damn government to first do its job identifying these monsters and not use it as tool to stomp on the rest of us, are the wrong thing. We also have seen banning private gun sales and all sorts of symbolic bans to advance gun control, but not safe lives.
 
20 years and our school administrators have learned nothing. Our politicians do nothing. Weak-kneed men like Brian Sandoval torpedo the chances for willing teachers to save lives. Virtue signaling leftists continue to campaign against self-defense in schools. Brave adults continue to deny literally shielding kids with their bodies because they cannot carry. The brainwashing against guns is so strong amongst teachers that they cannot apply the simplest of lessons.
 
To highlight how obvious these wrong steps are, this is on Wikipedia:

Even Las Vegas Metro PD learned a lesson from October 1, 2017 and now deploys snipers around major events and has instituted high-angle rifle training. For schools, hope continues to be a plan while Clark County schools are busy groping children and rifling through their bags to find guns that children of white trash and minority kids with shit parents being to school.
 
Hope is not a plan. Shooters need to be shot down as soon as possible. Only resistance ends these attacks. For example:
 

• The Borderline killer committed suicide shortly after being confronted by Sgt. Helus and other responding officers.
• The Should-Have-Been-Aborted-or-Strangled Sandy Hook killer shot himself when the cops arrived.

 
20 years on and we have learned nothing.

So the Brady whatever they call themselves now (it started as some variation of "ban handguns") is requesting public records regarding the Second Amendment sanctuary issue. Probably so they can help Sisolak and the hoplopath crowd find some "dirt" to shove preemption repeal down their throats. "Sheriff So-and-So said this...so take away the guns," kind of stuff.

My recommendation: the local counties should play hardball. Deny the requests without reason and make them litigate it. Or refer it all to counsel really quick and claim it's "privileged." Screw them. Use the same tactics against them.

Okay, whatever Brady-tards. Your gun-control god Bloomberg has bribed the legislature and the Democratic Party, which is in total control, has the ability to legislate by fiat. Can we get records and transcripts of the conversations where the crooks in Carson City were bribed in order to get Daddy Bloomberg more gun control? Can we depo Sisolak and his staff to get the details of their conversations to screw us? 

Of course not. Citizens don't get to know what tyranny their betters are up to. Do what you will, but remember, the armed man still gets a vote, no matter what laws you pass. History will not look upon any of you kindly. If you want to know how bad you'll look in history, I remind you of what is part of Nevada's official record. Many years from now, you'll look like the evil, stupid, corrupt sons-of-bitches you are. And if the California magazine case is any example, strict scrutiny will doom all of this stuff, forever.

Anonymous sources within LVMPD reported a horrifying incident in Blue Diamond Monday afternoon. Patrol officers arrived at the home in Rhodes Ranch to find a male in his mid-twenties missing four fingers of his left hand. His mother called 911 after hearing her son screaming from the garage where he deliberately cut off the fingers of his left hand using a circular saw. Earlier in the day the man had been testifying in opposition to the gun control bill AB 291, which would ban “rate increasing devices” on semi-automatic firearms.

Officers were able to speak with the man who said he was afraid of his hands being considered a “rate increasing device” as he claimed to be able to rapidly pull the trigger of a firearm to simulate fully automatic fire. He is a fan of several well-known rapid fire shooters like Jerry Miculek and Ed McGivern. A semi-automatic Smith and Wesson MP-15/22 was removed from the home. All of his pants had the belt loops cut off to prevent the technique known as “bump firing,” he told police.

​Link: See videos of Jerry Miculek shooting AR-15 rapid fire and a "bump stock."

The man’s mother stated the man has a history of mental illness but had not been declared mentally incompetent and was allowed to own firearms. He has no history of suicide attempts or self-harm. Officer did share that the man is well-known at police stations around the valley for asking to “register his hands as deadly weapons” as he claimed to be a “martial arts expert.”

The patient was initially brought to Spring Valley Medical Center, but was transported to UMC where surgeons were trying to reattach his fingers. He is currently on a Legal 2000 mental health 72-hour hold. The officers reported the man told medical staff that he cut off his left fingers because he was right handed and it seemed natural to start with the left hand, but had not considered how he would remove the fingers from his dominant hand.

Captain Warner of Enterprise Area Command declined to make a statement but requested the name of the officers involved. Nevada Carry refuses to release the names of its anonymous sources to protect their identity. Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui, sponsor of AB 291, could also not be reached for comment.​ Jauregui was quoted in the Reno Gazette-Journal as denying that her bill, which would ban certain guns and increase local restrictions on guns, was "anti-gun" and that she was not an "anti-gun" person.

​I am in opposition to AB 291. This bill should be unanimously voted down. It is nothing more than a brazen attempt, in a manner rigged to the favor of hoplopathic legislators and their campaign donors, to confiscate property of Nevadans and infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms. Nothing contained in this bill would make Nevada a safer place and nothing in it would have prevented the October 1, 2017, Mandalay Bay massacre that the sponsor is using as a emotional ploy to secure passage. This bill makes a mockery of the dead and survivors, particularly those who do not share the convictions of the sponsor, by taking a tragedy and using it for wholly unrelated political gains.
 
This bill will eliminate the Nevada “Gun Owners’ Bill of Rights” (state firearm preemption), it will confiscate private property without due compensation, and it will subject hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to traps set by anti-gun county commissions and city and town councils.
 
I would like to address the separate issues brought into this omnibus bill
 
Bump fire stocks and rate increasing devices
 

• Bump fire stocks and “rate increasing devices” that simulate machine guns are useful tools for marksmanship, a necessary component of a citizen militia in keeping with the Second Amendment, where true machine guns are far too expensive for the average person to afford.
• The proposed banning of  “rate increasing device” is so vague as to violate due process; what is the baseline rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm? Due process is a concern here.
• Making bump fire stocks and “rate increasing devices” prohibited contraband constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• This proposed ban is null and void because it infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the rights enumerated by Section 11, Article 1, of the Nevada Constitution.
• Bump fire can easily be produced by a semi-skilled shooter using nothing more than their fingers (or belt loops—does the Legislature intend to ban pants?).
• Steven Paddock had the financial resources to purchase a true machine gun and a clean background to pass the background check mandated by the National Firearms Act. The cost of his bump fire stocked AR-15 style rifles, approximately 20, could have paid for one fully automatic M16 or another true machine gun. Instead, we are lucky that he used inaccurate, unreliable bump fire stocks. The concentrated fire of a true machine gun, instead of the jerky fire of bump fire stocks, would have allowed him to kill many, many more victims that night. Perhaps the sponsor of this bill owes her life to bump fire stocks and Paddock's inaccurate shooting.

 
Carrying while intoxicated
 
Nevada only lowered its DUI threshold from .10 to .08 under threats from Washington to remove transportation funding. What is the impetus behind lowering the BAC level while carrying? Has there been a rash of people at .08 or .09 BAC causing negligent discharges or other hazardous situations with a gun? Is there any objective reason for making this necessary? Any scientific evidence to show that .02 makes a marked difference in impairment that paragraph (b) can’t address?
 
Concealed carry in public buildings
 
The proposed amendments to NRS 202.3673 are unnecessary and unfair. It:

• Endorses recent abuses of state law by local municipalities and agencies;
• Ignores the expressed will of the people through years of legislation;
• Does nothing to ensure safety as criminals and murderers will simply ignore the law;
• Disarming law-abiding armed citizens in locations without security screening for all and a credible, armed security force capable of immediate response to end an attack is unconscionable;
• The Nevada State Constitution clearly protects the “right to keep and bear arms for security and defense,” which this proposed change would violate; and
• Licensed concealed carriers are the last people that anyone should be worried about. Studies have shown that concealed carriers are more law abiding than the general public and even police officers.

 
Current law only prohibits concealed carry at buildings that are posted with “no guns” signs at each public entrance or metal detectors. Proposed Subsection 2 as written would allow ordinances to ban concealed carry at public buildings but not require signage to warn visitors. An out-of-towner or unaware person could be in violation and never know. The changes don’t even require the ordinance to require signage and create an unjust trap for responsibly armed citizens.
 
Subsections 2, 3 and 4 all apply separately; so Subsection 4’s signage requirement would not necessarily apply to Subsection 2. In the hearings for AB 166 in 1999, airports were giving their own subsection so that the signage requirement would not apply specifically because of concerns that the size, the number of entrances, and the crowds would make it difficult to post signs that a concealed carrier could see. The proposed changes, by granting discretionary authority, only highlight the fact that local authorities post signage prohibiting concealed carry without any authority to do so.
 
State Preemption of Firearm Laws
 
Nevada has prohibited local regulations on firearms, except unsafe discharge, since 1989. Preemption is not new. Minor changes were made up until 2015, when a host of grandfathered laws including Clark County’s handgun registration program, “blue cards,” were eliminated by the legislature. Claims made in the media and are likely to be made by politicians in support of this bill have implied that the law is new and the work of the Republican majority in 2015. Such aspersions are ironic in the face of this session’s Democratic supermajority ramming anti-gun bills through using deceitful tactics such as joint committee sessions, Monday morning meetings with short public notice, and advance warning to anti-gun support groups.
 
With the repeal of state prohibition of firearm laws and with the changes in NRS 202.3673 proposed here, Nevadans run the risk of unintentionally and unknowingly violating local gun laws. Preemption of local gun laws began solely to eradicate the danger of a patchwork of varying laws. Getting rid of those laws bring back that risk and more. Repealing preemption is nothing more than allowing underhanded local authorities to lay traps for otherwise law abiding gun owners.
 
Repealing firearm preemption would be a direct signal to the counties who oppose gun control to continue passing ordinances and resolutions in opposition to state laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Counties could very well pass ordinances nullifying state laws that would require costly litigation. One wonders if the repeal of state preemption was spurred on as revenge of urban legislators to spite rural counties that oppose state gun control.
 
Disparate firearm laws have created many problems. To highlight a few:
 

• North Las Vegas had two ordinances regarding carrying firearms that were used for years to harass and detain African-Americans. Though no one will come out and say it, these laws existed to disarm blacks and enable police to arrest them.
• After a mentally ill person openly carried in Reno, the police chief asked the city council to ban loaded open carry in the city. At the time, concealed carry permits were may issue and petitions rarely granted. Over the course of two council meetings, Reno removed the last way its citizens could legally carry a gun for self-protection.
• Non-compliance is also a concern. Boulder, Colorado, under a local ordinance required registration of “assault weapons.” Based on national ownership and purchase figures, only 85 weapons out of a potential minimum 4,500 weapons were registered.
• Clark County’s “blue card” handgun registration scheme was begun as a way to keep tabs on criminals and mafia members who were “heeled” in Las Vegas’ heyday. It morphed into an expensive and relatively worthless program. With its repeal, Nevadans and Clark County residents have been very hostile to the idea of any kind of gun registration scheme, especially in light of the disingenuous universal background checks.

 
What is the need for eliminating state firearm preemption? Could it be a partisan agenda rather than any need? What has been articulated in the media is that preemption laws prohibited the Clark County Commission from enacting a knee-jerk ban of bump fire stocks and other items after the October 1, 2017, Mandalay Bay shootings. Gov. Sisolak (then a commissioner) and others were denied their opportunity to virtue signal.
 
Removing the “blue card” scheme and clearing the books of old anti-gun ordinances was a boon to Nevada and praised by the firearms community. Many of these local ordinances had not been enforced in years or decades. Since 1989, the trend in Nevada has been to restrict local control of gun laws.
 
This bill is about allowing urban, leftist-led cities and counties to run roughshod over gun owners. Leftists in local government have chafed at being held to the law by their constituents. This was fought tooth-and-nail, including Clark County obtaining a favorable decision to support grandfathered laws from then Attorney General Cortez-Masto. Activists on both sides of the debate are well-aware of the lengths that unscrupulous officials will go to keep the public disarmed.
 
We have heard that the “needs” of urban areas are different than urban areas, but that is a lie. Constitutional and natural rights apply equally. Such claims that an urban area needs different laws is nothing more than an excuse for leftist urban municipalities to force their will in regards to gun control upon their population. As with universal background checks, the urban areas of the state, which dominate the legislature, have totally ignored 49% of the state and every rural county. Will it be any different here?
 
As the escapades with the Las Vegas Clark County Library District’s illegal ban of open carry shows, weak or no preemption allows infringing agencies and municipalities to be unaccountable to the public. Should the public hold the government to the law, all a well-connected politician or bureaucrat (or state supreme court justices) has to do is work their network to gain a favorable court decision or simply change the law. Such behavior is not only unethical; it is un American and tyrannical.
 
Senseless and reactionary ordinances that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms face costly challenges in court; expenses taxpayers will bear. Though gun-rights will ultimately prevail, only lawyers will benefit and innocent, disarmed Americans may very well be hurt or killed.
 
Conclusion
 
Many commentators, not just those in conservative or the gun rights community, have predicted that if the US Supreme Courts finds in favor of gun rights in the upcoming case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the result will be that the judicial review standard of strict scrutiny will apply to the Second Amendment. Approximately 70% of laws appealed under strict scrutiny are overturned. Any state or local gun law overturned under this standard, should the decision in the above case go as predicted, would be forever nullified, making the law/ordinance waste of time and money.
 
No on AB 291.

​State preemption of firearm laws are nothing new. They are a reaction to the city of Morton Grove, Illinois, banning of all handguns by ordinance in 1981. In the 1980s, state began adopting firearm preemption laws to place control of firearm regulation with the legislature. Nevada was one such adopter. Any claim or inference that preemption dates from 2015 is a lie; in 2015, Nevada cleaned up may left-over bad gun laws that originally should have ben invalidated in 1989.
 
Nevada’s preemption laws began in 1989 with Assemblyman Thompson’s AB 147, dubbed by some as the “Firearms Owners’ Bill of Rights.” Thompson had asked for a Bill Draft Request in 1987 at the behest of a constituent. The constituent told him:
 
“Look what’s going on here. Clark County has one set of rules about buying and registering guns, Henderson has another one. Eventually there are going to be 100 different laws in the state, every city and every county is going to have their own law, with their own little quirks […] and whether or not they are in violation of one or another law every time they cross a county or city border.”
 
State preemption originated primarily because of variations in Clark County handgun registration ordinances, which it sought to do away with entirely. A second reason was to promote uniform firearm regulation across the state. Much concern was expressed that local authorities were able to have a variety of local ordinances that visitors and travelers were unaware of. In the time before virtually everyone used World Wide Web, only through meticulous research at the library or city hall/county seat could someone be aware of local laws.
 
At this time, Reno prohibited loaded open carry, North Las Vegas had two ordinances against being armed in public, and it was illegal in Hawthorne to carry a weapon. Concealed firearm permits were “may issue” and not routinely issued until 1995 when Nevada became “shall issue.”
 
Mr. Bruce, who testified at the first hearing for AB 147, said that the argument in favor of local regulation of firearms was an emotional one.
 
In 1989, Undersheriff Cooper said that “Las Vegas was becoming a major city with major city problems, therefore, Las Vegas could not be compared to the remainder of the state." Sheriff Moran said: "[...] I think Las Vegas is a very unique city and requires gun regulations that would be impractical in rural areas. [...] Las Vegas is unlike any other city in the world. [...] but there comes a time when even I have to interpret the Constitution as I see fit [...] [emphasis added]."
 
Oddly, despite this official pronouncement, made at the outset of the urban vs. rural struggle over gun rights, that Clark County regulations should not apply to the whole state regarding handgun sales—this is exactly what Nevada did 30 years later with 2019’s SB 143.
 
In 1989, despite the major aim of the bill being made to dismiss Clark County’s “blue card” handgun registration scheme, intense pressure from LVMPD saw an amendment that allowed the law to stay in. This was done by grandfathering laws in existence prior to June 13, 1989. The sole intent of this grandfather clause, as was clearly expressed by legislators, was that it would apply only to the “blue card” restrictions. Despite the legislative intent, a host of other outdated local regulations stayed on the books until repealed either one by one or invalidated in 2015 by SB 175 and SB 240.
 
The preemption laws were amended in 2007 to fix a loophole that technically made visitors to Las Vegas and Clark County's new Shooting Complex (and other travelers) in violation of the law. A side note is that if Clark County Parks (the complex’s operator) stuck with the original name of the “Shooting Park,” under county code, it would be illegal to possess a firearm in the shooting park! In order to keep the grandfathered park regulation banning firearms in county parks, the county commission could not pass an ordinance exempting firearms in the shooting park. Thus the “Shooting Park” became a shooting complex.
 
In 2007, under the new language where the only grandfathered regulations are ones “adopted before June 13, 1989, [pertaining to] the registration of a firearm capable of being concealed.” Plainly stated the legislature was invalidating all ordinances not involving handgun registration (and unsafe discharge). Ordinances dealing with all but handgun registration were null and void, regardless of when adopted.
 
By 2015, the vast majority of county law enforcement agencies and officers stopped enforcing all local firearm regulations, save for handgun registration. The Clark County Park Police maintained that the park rule against guns in county parks (concealed firearm permit or not) was legal and continued to harass those legally carrying firearms. The county was so adamant about enforcing the ordinance, they managed to get the Democrat Attorney General to write an opinion justifying Clark County's behavior and continual violation of civil rights, even though Attorney General Cortez-Masto had to use some pretty abstruse logic to support her preposterous reasoning.
 
Cortez-Masto concluded that because the original regulation (19.04.060 CCMC) was adopted before the 1989 preemption bill, the original (since altered) language of the 1989 bill allowed them to continue to enforce this law because the 2007 revision to the preemption statute didn’t explicitly say that municipal regulations to the contrary were henceforth illegal. This was a deliberate deferral to the original bill that was superseded in 2007.
 
In 2015, SB 175 and SB 240 were passed to remove Clark County handgun registration and unequivocally remove invalidated and supposedly grandfathered ordinances off the book. Except for a few examples, such conflicting ordinances have been repealed as required by statute. None of these changes have made Nevada less safe. 

Everyone is getting excited over their rural sheriffs making statements that they disagree with SB 143, banning private gun sales, and their county's symbolic resolutions opposing further gun control. Frankly, as morale boosting as these statements and resolutions are, what is needed is opposition to AB 291 which would end state preemption of firearm laws.

This bill would subject people from rural Nevada traveling into urban areas to gun laws they might know about. We must all stand together or we all will lose our rights. Get involved. See the bottom of this post on how you can do that.

Right now, liberal sanctuary counties and states simply ignore federal immigration law without consequence. Are rural counties willing to do that when it comes to gun control? Do we really want to test whether or not Nye County can pass ordinances nullifying state law? Nip the problems in the bud now. 

Rural folks: email and call your commissioners now to have them write and testify to the Assembly Judiciary Committee that ending preemption is a bad idea. We cannot let urban Nevada strip the entire state of its rights. 

Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui of Clark County's omnibus bill AB 291 that would end state preemption of firearm laws moves forward! It is being heard Monday April 1 at 8 AM. No April Fools. 

Drop what you are doing and plan to show up at the hearings on Monday. Tell your friends, call in sick. They thought the opposition against background checks was heavy? Let's bury them with emails, phone calls, and showing up.

Could it be revenge for the rural counties resisting Washoe and Clark County led gun control in the legislature? Maybe. All that means is that the Democrats are running scared.

​Email the Assembly Judiciary Committee to tell them NO on AB 291!
Assembly Judiciary Committee 
Lisa.Krasner@asm.state.nv.us; Tom.Roberts@asm.state.nv.us; Jill.Tolles@asm.state.nv.us; Steve.Yeager@asm.state.nv.us; Lesley.Cohen@asm.state.nv.us; Shea.Backus@asm.state.nv.us; Skip.Daly@asm.state.nv.us; Ozzie.Fumo@asm.state.nv.us; Brittney.Miller@asm.state.nv.us; rochelle.nguyen@asm.state.nv.us; Sarah.Peters@asm.state.nv.us; Selena.Torres@asm.state.nv.us; Howard.Watts@asm.state.nv.us; Chris.Edwards@asm.state.nv.us; Alexis.Hansen@asm.state.nv.us

Nevada Carry is in cautious support of this bill.

At least until mid-afternoon Friday, March 22 (local time) anyone in the world could register online to hand-in their prohibited firearm in New Zealand. The process was intended to be an automated, convenient way to schedule voluntary confiscation (sort of like Jews emailing the SS for a free ride to the boxcar), but they didn't expect the kind of reaction they would get from around the world. As you may or may not be aware, New Zealand banned the ownership of semi-automatic firearms this week following the Christchurch mosque shootings.

4chan.org, one of the last bastions of near-absolute free speech on the Internet and often incorrectly blamed for incidents like last week's mosque attack, quickly took to "shitposting" on the New Zealand police's online submission form. Many members of the /k/ weapons sub-imageboard did not take too kindly to the tyrannical overreaction of the Kiwi government banning semi-automatic firearms practically overnight. As you can see from some of the posts, many decided to show their displeasure for the ban.

As of Thursday evening (US time) the ability for non-New Zealand geolocated IP addresses to update the form was disabled. Update: it appears that by close-of-business local time, ​all online police forms of all types have been suspended.

American gun culture is unique. It is a product of violent rebellion against the same monarchy and government that Australia and New Zealand derive their nationhood from. Unlike those countries, North American settlers faced large, dangerous animals (bears, mountain lions, moose, etc.) and hostile native tribes that violently competed with Europeans for land. All of these factors in combination with a sparsely populated frontier with little law enforcement and a western society that tolerated casual violence combined to create the United States' unique gun culture.

American's natural distrust of authority and long history of gun ownership make this country far different from New Zealand. The cultural and geographic factors "down under" that necessitated gun ownership (along with a history of harsh policing, generally in Australia) disappeared as the countries urbanized and modernized. Self-defense from armed criminals is not seen as a valid reason to own a gun, even socially, and defense of tyranny is clearly not a priority in either country.

Hopefully for the few gun owners who believe in defending against tyranny and oppression in lands that seem so far away from everything will benefit at the jab in the eye American and international gun owners have done the the New Zealand police.  

Editor's note: I'd like to point out that other media outlets were late to the party. As far as I can tell, we were the first to report to the normies what the doings over at 4chan were.

Four counties; grand slam! Humboldt County will be should be taking up it's own Second Amendment ordinance on April 5. Lincoln County commissioners have expressed interest as well.

As of March 26, 2019, four counties have formally passed resolutions disapproving of gun control in the state legislature. Those are: Douglas, Elko, Lyon, and Nye Counties. In seven other counties, the sheriffs have expressed their opposition to SB 143, which would ban private gun sales, and their support for the Second Amendment. Gov. Sleestak was not pleased with the rural revolt. 

Is your county on this list? Will it be? If not, it's time to start talking to your sheriff and your county commissioners. Nevada is a state that is far larger than just the Democratic voting populations of Las Vegas and Reno. Rural Nevada is not urban Nevada. 

As time passes and the legislation gets worse, expect more counties to sign on. It's time for the underrepresented and marginalized communities who make up this state to start knocking out some home runs.