Despite the salty, profanity-laden warnings from certain bloggers, Lobby Day in Richmond, Virginia, didn't turn violent. It wasn't taken over by white supremacists, either. All in all, a huge crowd turned out, undeterred by the measures that Gov. Northam put in place to stymie pro-gun support.
Again, the conditions weren't right for the state to resort to violence, as I said yesterday. Attendees report that the police were very friendly, mingled amongst the crowds, and even had chats about liberty and guns with the activists. The police aren't always the bad guys and share more in common with us than they do the bureaucrats.
Virginia is the model of successful non-violent revolt against these laws. We need to keep the Dominion State under observation as to how this new round of tyranny will go. As for my fellow bloggers, chill out and stop filtering everything through your false-flag doom porn lens.
Most of you should be aware Virginia is in crisis. Their government is controlled by Democrats who have been bought by Michael Bloomberg (like Nevada). Odious gun control bills have been proposed and most of the Old Dominion has become a Second Amendment sanctuary. The possibility of violence, or even civil war, breaking out in Virginia is a real possibility. Monday, January 20, 2020, is the Virginia Citizens’ Defense League (VCDL) Lobby Day, a peaceful day that has occurred for years where citizens visit their legislators in support of gun rights.
This year the stakes are very high. Draconian gun control has been proposed, including gun confiscation and registration and even banning “tactical” training. In several fell swoops, Democrats in Virginia want to catch the state up with California and New York. Virginians, many of whom have been Southerners for generations, are rightly upset. Immigration from within the country and foreign immigrants have flipped the state blue with the help of generous infusions of cash.
It would not be wrong to say that Virginia was stolen by the Left. This is not the Democrat party of 50 years ago; it is a party that has been entirely taken over by freedom hating radicals. Virginians (and Americans) hate these changes. Our very way of life is under threat and the most dramatic and galvanizing symbol of that is gun control.
A Bernie Sanders supporter was just caught calling for Trump voters to be put in gulags to be re-educated. Americans don’t want to be forced into camps or dominated by their government. Government in America has historically been a passive-aggressive relationship with the citizenry. We like it that way and value our individual freedoms. It is ingrained in us that we are free people with the ability to violently rebel against and depose tyrants. Hell, that very thing is depicted on Virginia’s state seal.
Gov. Northam and the Virginia government has done some pretty intolerable things before Lobby Day. It is almost a concerted effort to suppress the rights of the gun owners. The ability to peaceably assemble is being restricted.
In the past, activists just showed up and went into the capitol. The process was a lot like going into the courthouse. Now, the activists are being funneled into one entrance, with 17 lines at least, for security screening. The capitol square is fenced off.
It is rumored that the number of pro-gun speakers/lobbyists will be arbitrarily controlled. Some have also stated that equal numbers pro and anti gun will be allowed to assemble. Gun control supporters will be astroturf plants spewing the party line. Since the anti-gun activists are far fewer in number, a matching requirement will have a devastating effect on the pro-gun side. Such a measure to limit or equal-match the sides will drastically artificially reduce the representation of the massive groundswell of pro-gun support.
The Legislature also voted to overturn the longstanding allowance of licensed concealed carry the in capitol. The possibility for violence was claimed as the reason. In reality, it was just an excuse to insult gun owners, give gun owners a defeat, and exercise power. Governor Northam exercised emergency powers to ban firearms from the capitol square (supposedly so guns wouldn’t be brought as symbols to the protest).
Police and federal authorities are treating the whole event as a major riot. Government surveillance aircraft have been seen flying over Richmond. The pieces for riot control have been staged in the area.
Former Navy SEAL and prescient author Matt Bracken (among others) have warned about Lobby Day becoming a large false flag to frame pro-gun activists for violence to further justify gun control. If not that, any violence by police or Leftists could be disastrous.
Bracken made his chops with a book that was eerily similar to the Las Vegas shooting. In his book, an elevated sniper shoots up opening day, leading to mass national gun control. The intent of his work was to make Americans aware of the potential of such a false flag. The Obama administration showed us that it didn’t have the balls or the imagination to do that. Bracken is essentially warning that Lobby Day could be the day of a false flag or an actual incitement that leads to a massacre and broader carnage.
I think Bracken’s fears are a little unjustified at this point because we have not yet reached that level of discourse. The Left is not yet that bold and the Right is not desperate enough to start a rebellion. His fears are real, I just don’t see them yet. Despite the fearmongering by people who have the tinfoil hat on a little too tight, we need to take a step back. Just because an event has the potential to get ugly doesn’t mean it will.
This is where I differ with several patriot bloggers. One who goes by the name Aesop, has turned into an utter asshole over the issue, dispelling all logic with invective and insults. I read his blog partly for the snark, but his fears and the steeping in “the government is going to kill us all” has colored his and others’ thinking.
If we run around afraid the government is going to machine gun us from the roofs, we can accomplish nothing. Imagine not going to Carson City because you’re afraid the capitol police will take you, one by one, into the basement and shoot you. We’re not in that reality yet. When that reality comes, you’ll know.
Under the “advice” of Aesop, Lobby Day shouldn’t happen. I disagree. Lobby Day should happen. Not going would be giving in to the planned and concerted maximum discouragement efforts by the Left. It would let them win their battle to manipulate the democratic process. Rallies and protests in numbers show our size and scares Democrats who are not ready to put those that disagree with them against the wall. We are still in a time when peaceful processes can be used to delay or kill bad legislation. Until that time is up, we need to exhaust those options.
The Continental Congress exhausted every attempt, even after the Revolution began, to get Parliament and King George to relent of their tyranny. Yet men like Aesop are essentially asking people to bury their heads in the sand or start shooting. Meanwhile, Aesop shoots his mouth off from Southern California. By his standards, the time to start shooting in California happened in the 1990s.
Lobby Day should be framed as a strong and final peaceful warning that gun control will not be tolerated. Not showing up shows us as too weak to care. Aesop’s solution is “don’t go, you might die.” Well, sometimes you need a massacre to start a revolution. If such a massacre did occur, the Democrats in Virginia would be doomed, at the ballot box if not the cartridge box. Millions of Americans on the fence would jump down on the side of freedom and guns.
Now as things have progressed, I do see some of the fears of Bracken and Aesop as justified. Their reaction, especially the latter’s, is overblown. If you fear death and danger, you might as well just suffer tyranny and stop bitching about the boot on your neck. Too many of these fears are based in the last big “conservative” rally in Virginia that got ugly.
Rumors have abounded that various radical groups, from Antifa to white supremacists, were sending agent provocateurs to cause trouble. The FBI has even arrested several far-right would-be terrorists. Events like these are magnets for the angry and disaffected. The fear is that this event will become like the events in Charlottesville “Unite the Right rally” which was a rally in opposition to removing the statute of Robert E. Lee.
The Charlottesville rally was in support of the history of treasonous losers, but to many, and perhaps in a larger sense, the removal of Lee and other Confederate heroes is an assault on European American history. These events are less about the original inciting event (the MacGuffin) as they are the deeper social issues. Bundy 2014 was not so much about Mr. Bundy’s cattle as it was a rejection of the Obama administration and encroaching government control.
Recall the Boston Massacre. Though Americans provoked the incident and an enraged private fired on the crowd, uncommanded, the incident fueled rebellion and the events that led to the Revolution. On the surface, Virginia authorities are seeking to keep Lobby Day from being coopted by, frankly, racist idiots who will make it a day of violence.
The fear is not unjustified, but local authorities don’t understand the distinction. First, VCDL has been working very hard to keep this a peaceful event, which appear to be fairly successful. The NRA day last week didn’t devolve into a mess. However, the Left and the government doesn’t understand that the gun control pushback is different from the outrage at the “Unite the Right rally.”
The reasons for Charlottesville were different here. The former was used an excuse to express outrage and even engage in partisan street warfare. Lobby Day is addressing an existential threat—the right to keep and bear arms—that is far more important and potentially life-threatening than the removal of a statue of cultural importance. Whereas Charlottesville was almost an excuse for violence, Lobby Day is being framed as a warning, perhaps the final mass peaceful warning against gun control. Lobby Day has far more consequences than a simple protest in support of Southern heritage.
Northam, the Democrats, and Virginia law enforcement
Virginia authorities ignore the difference at their own peril. Virginia is the heart of the Confederacy. Wrong as they were over slavery, Southerners are rightly proud of their heritage. Their army was well-lead and fought superbly. They stood up for their rights, which would be admirable, if slavery wasn’t at the heart of it. This rebellious attitude is currently expressed by the Rebel flag to celebrate Southerness and the American spirit of independence.
The Left makes a grave mistake confusing the racists with conservatives and centrist proud Americans. Because they are captured by their thought processes and paradigms which their conception of us must conform to, they cannot tell the difference. This attitude has lead them into a trap of proverbially stepping on an angry rattlesnake. In using the same tools to deal with Charlottesville with non-violent, non-radicalized citizens, they are inciting “normies” to become radicalized.
Northam’s rhetoric and actions have played into this. The best course of action would have been to “take no notice of” the citizen lobbyists and their planned protest. Instead, there is a possibility (though not likely) that these actions will backfire and make the day into a Bloody Monday.
Northam has forced activists into a turkey shoot situation. Any attack on defenseless people trying to exercise their right to peaceably assemble and redress the government would be intolerable. If normal people are upset about the things being done now, actual government violence on a peaceful crowd will motivate many. Violence will follow and the situation will spiral downhill.
As ham-handed as authorities’ efforts have been to control the day, I doubt that the “Deep State” or the Left would deliberately engage in false-flag violence because this would inevitably provoke an immediate and violent reprisal from the Right. Self-proclaimed spokespersons for Antifa (a leaderless group) are saying that they are either avoiding the area or planning on attending, peacefully, to support the right to keep and bear arms.
My prediction is that the day will be free of violence. The legislation passed eventually will be fairly tame, but will encourage further passive resistance and political activism on gun owners. Incrementalism will be used, along with every dirty trick in the Left’s playbook, to roll out gun control. At some point, the Democrats will go too far and violence will break out. The only question is how, when, and where. When that occurs, the questions won’t matter any longer.
Just to clear up any confusion about the universal background check law, which made private gun sales and transfers illegal effective January 2, 2020, let’s have a frank chat. There is still a lot of stupid, bad info floating around there.
To be legal, you must go to a licensed dealer (a gun store), also known as an FFL. That means a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). Some times they don’t have gun stores, but operate out of their homes or gun shows. But if you’re reading this article because you don’t know better, then you probably don’t know any kitchen table FFLs.
You see, the Nevada Legislature passed Universal Background Checks in 2019, known as SB 143. This was to replace Question 1 from 2016 which Attorney General Laxalt found to be unenforceable because the FBI wouldn’t run background checks.
Nevada requires all private gun sales and transfers to be done through a dealer who will call Carson City for a background check (the only except that will probably apply to you is giving a gun to a close relative).
But I have a CCW.
It doesn’t matter if you have a CCW. The background check requirement applies to everybody. You must transfer at a dealer and get a background check called into Carson City. Nevada government believes the CCW exemption does not apply to private sales.
Have Metro do the background check.
No, you can’t do the transfer at Metro. Metro doesn’t do background checks because they aren’t licensed firearm dealers...which is who the law requires to do the check. Clark County handgun registration (“blue cards”) went away in June of 2015, so Metro has no involvement here.
“Do the transfer at the police station.”
Would it be smart for a drug dealer to do a deal in the parking lot of a cop shop?
Walking into Metro and asking them to do a background check and transfer a gun isn’t illegal, it will just make you look stupid to the police. They will tell you to go to a deal. And heaven help you if an officer sees you hand it off in the parking lot. Also, if you plan to break the law, don’t make your illegal gun sale/transfer in the parking lot of a police station.
Do you need a bill of sale from the person?
No, you need to go to a gun store and have them do the transfer. A bill of sale without the proper background check is an admission of guilt.
Sellers: a bill of sale never protected you from someone using the gun criminally or the cops knocking at your door. If you didn’t murder someone, they aren’t going to arrest you for murder simply because a gun you once owned was used in the crime. All a bill of sale did was help point the cops in the direction of the person you sold it to. Sellers, the law puts the requirement on you to get the background check on the buyer, so if you don’t, and you save a bill of sale the police get their hands on at some point, that will be evidence in your trial for breaking the background check law.
Buyers: All a bill of sale will do for you is help implicate the seller in an illegal gun transfer; the gun you bought will probably be seized as evidence. If the gun you bought is stolen, you’re probably not getting a refund. All the bill of sale will do at that point, if you had a background check, is tell the police who sold you the stolen gun.
How do I register the gun in the other person's name?
There is no gun registration in Nevada. If they are not a close relative, take the gun to a dealer (go with the person who is receiving it) and tell them you need to do a private transfer.
To legally comply with the law, you must have a licensed dealer perform the background check. Anything else, unless you fall under one of the narrow exemptions (and if you’re not relatives, it’s highly unlikely), and you’re breaking the law. If you’re breaking the law, don’t be stupid. Don’t post about it online, talk to other people about it, keep any kind of written record, or do it in the parking lot of a police station.
Many of us have all these things in our first aid/trauma kit, but do you know how to use them? Also some basic first aid videos are included.
None of this replaces actual training; this is for informational purposes only. Take a training course today. Your life or someone else's might depend on it.
How to put on an Israeli Bandage
Trauma Dressing / Pressure Bandage
Combat Application Tourniquet (C-A-T) Instructions
How to use the R.A.T.S Tourniquet
How to Create a Make-Shift Tourniquet
Quik Clot Combat Gauze - Directions For Use training
Hands Only CPR Video - Live Training Version
CPR for Infants (Newborn to 1 Year)
How to Give the Heimlich Maneuver
Direct Pressure (funny)
From Mr. Zimmmerman:
The library hosted its monthly meeting today and it was the first time of 2020 to see where this effort to ban firearms was going to go. The local Republican Central Committee group was out in force holding another protest in the parking lot prior to the meeting and this time had Niger Innis of the NRA in attendance and speaking. The library has a requirement to post its agenda publicly 3 days before the meeting and our family had been reaching out to the library staff to inquire about whether the ban was going to be brought up again. We never did receive an answer and, not only that, but when the agenda was posted it showed that the issue would be once again under the guise of the same "code of conduct" agenda item that was attempted in December. They were told back then that this was against the open meeting law so for it to be attempted again was either brazen disregard or incompetence.
The room was again packed out and we were informed just prior to the meeting that the agenda item for the code of conduct was to be pulled. As the meeting was called to order the chairman announced the same. However, the library still had a public comment sign up sheet which quickly filled to about 20 volunteers. Almost immediately as the public comments began Nye County Commissioner Donna Cox called for a point of order regarding the limitation of 3 minutes for each speaker yet the website showed that everyone was to get 5 minutes. The library staff tried to say this was a typo on the website and that they were quoting from a policy that had been in place for 20 years. That would beg the question: how long was the "typo" on the website, then?
Of all the speakers, only one for actually for the ban and, again, speaking only from feelings. The remainder of the time was spent by all taking the board to task not only on this proposed ban but also for wasting everyone's time by delaying this over and over. Several speakers said they would be coming out for every meeting until a decision was made so the board could not get away with passing something "under the cover of darkness". Once again, my son (8), my wife, my daughter, and I all spoke against the issue. My son covered the importance of protecting his little sister (2) and how he depends on the adult members of the family to provide that protection by carrying their firearms. My wife addressed the hypocrisy of "banned books month" in the library (protecting the 1st amendment) but seeking to destroy the 2nd amendment. She also offered to volunteer to teach firearm safety classes for children using the very books we donated to the library. My daughter spoke to the level of discrimination she was under for obeying the law. Finally, I spoke to how nothing in this meets common sense and then how the White Settlement church situation was settled in 6 seconds by a concealed carry member of the congregation. Obviously, we said much more than what I've summarized here.
More than one person called on the board to stop dragging this out and just make a decision so the people could react accordingly. Even the one person that spoke for the ban had to request multiple times for the boards next steps. The answer was that they were waiting for a "couple more people" to respond to whatever inquiry they had of them and then they were going to take a vote. Interestingly, this meeting had the state librarian in attendance for a presentation after the public comments and the look on her face was priceless throughout the meeting.
4 of the county commissioners were present: Koenig, Blundo, Strickland, and Cox. Their support and the support of so many in the community has been greatly appreciated. I have tried to express that as I speak with different people at each event.
Follow up after the meeting: our family noticed that the minutes from the October meeting were incorrect so my wife went back the library a short while after the meeting. Her interactions with the library director, the one who started this whole process, turned into a 30 minute conversation. In summary, the director expressed that the board has done much good over the years which she posited was indicative of competency in running the library despite what people were saying in the meetings. She then went on to say that she was would like to open discussions with my wife on starting the safety classes that were offered. She then requested that my daughter sit in a slightly different place in the storytime room so that her firearm would not have a child next to it. My wife did an excellent job of addressing her concerns and, frankly, probably made more progress in communicating with the director than I ever would.
Adding fuel to the flames, this WHOLE THING was started for no reason. It turns out that the library code of conduct ALREADY had a provision in it from 2014 banning weapons in the library. That one had everyone scratching their head: why, then, the new effort to ban firearms? So, either they don't know their own policies or it is an admission on their part that what was in place doesn't work. Yet, here we are 3 months after all this started still in the fight. However, it has been great to see the community come together on this issue at what some would consider a small location and small matter. The long and short of it is: we are still carrying at the library and we are still participating in the storytime.
Editors note: As Mr. Zimmerman points out, not only did the library code of conduct already prohibit carrying in the library, the staff and board was unaware of it for months! All while a young lady was innocently violating the policy with impunity. I'm no lawyer, but if the library hasn't attempted to enforce the policy until now, one could argue they are estopped from enforcing it.
My suggestion to the very pro-Second Amendment county commission is to pass a preemption ordinance that would prohibit any board or agency under the control or supervision of the commission from passing any restrictions on the possession/carry of firearms stricter than state law.
There has been much talk of Second Amendment Sanctuary counties lately and using Nye County, in particular, for private gun sale transfers without a background check. We need to have a look at what the state statutes say because a simple statement or resolution doesn’t affect state law. The sheriff’s statement to refuse to investigate or devote resources does not mean the state or the DA could still press charges. The courts have ways of enforcing the laws that a simple statement by the sheriff or a resolution of the commissioners don’t affect.
The statements in opposition from many sheriffs essentially mean “red flags” and background checks are a low-priority to them. They will be opposing the law in word and in deed. Since they will not be looking for violations or necessarily doing anything about them if they occur, sanctuary counties have some level of safety from prosecution. However, this does not mean they will not enforce the law or that one is free to break the background check laws there.
Non-compliance and non-cooperation by peace officers in sanctuary counties is an exercise of officer’s discretion, general looking the other way, and personal risk and liability to uphold one’s personal values. Sanctuary county officers ignore these laws at their own risk and face the wrath of the State should the anti-gun politicians in Carson City end up with egg on their face. For legal reasons, law enforcement, judges, and district attorneys cannot in good conscience state they will absolutely defy the law.
Refusing to enforce the law, in certain cases, put police in violation of the law. It is illegal for a peace officer or sheriff to refuse to arrest someone when ordered to do so by a judge (NRS 199.270 & NRS 248.060). Contempt (NRS 199.340) is also a concern for refusing to obey court orders or potentially a “red flag” law. This is not to say that a cop might do a really crappy job trying to apprehend someone, immediately release an arrestee on their own recognizance after arrest, or refuse a “red flag” order as too dangerous to serve, etc.
Potential non-compliant patriots looking to sanctuary counties should be concerned about other-county investigations, the DA, and the Attorney General. They have their own peace officer investigators. Nothing I could find limits the jurisdiction of local peace officers to their own counties or cities. Conceivably, officers from an anti-gun county could enforce the laws in a sanctuary county, though I can only see this meeting legal muster if the violator was from the cop’s jurisdiction or if the officer was a state investigator (or part of a state task force).
NRS 171.015 sets the jurisdiction for offenses in the county in which the offense is consummated. If the crime occurs in a county, the trial needs to happen there.
NRS 171.030 allows offenses happening in parts of two counties to be charged in either county. This raises the question of whether or not conspiring (see below) to violate the universal background check law in, say Clark County, is prosecutable there despite the sale happening in Nye County.
When a public offense is committed in part in one county and in part in another or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two or more counties, the venue is in either county.
Conspiracy (NRS 199.480 3.) to violate the background check law could also be charged and this is a charge that might apply in an anti-gun county (for instance the parties live in Clark County and travel to Pahrump to make the sale). The conspiracy to break the law occurred in Clark County and the violation occurred in Pahrump.
From my understanding, this could allow Clark County to charge the conspiracy violation in its courts and even if Nye County doesn’t bring charges for the actual sale/transfer or they come to naught, one can still be convicted of a gross misdemeanor. Worse, depending on case law or judicial interpretation, NRS 171.030 might allow the background check offense to be tried in Clark County, if the conspiracy and sale/transfer is considered to be one “public offense.”
NRS 202.2543* states that the crime is when an unlicensed person sells or voluntarily transfers one or more firearms to another unlicensed person. I italicized “sells or voluntarily transfers” to point out that this is the element of the crime. The sale, the exchange of money for the gun, or physically transferring possession and leaving the new owner alone with the gun, would be the “consummation” in NRS chapter 171.
In my opinion, not getting a background check on the buyer/transferee would only be criminal in the county where it occurred, unless you were on or near the border of another county (NRS 171.035).
Violation of the background check law is a gross misdemeanor or a felony. A “gross misdemeanor” is punishable by more than six months to a year in jail, which allows the defendant to request a jury trial. While a judge can refuse a jury trial request for simple misdemeanor, they cannot for a gross misdemeanor. More on why a jury is important later.
But what if the sanctuary county DA refuses to prosecute violations? Let’s say that a district attorney refuses to file prosecute for political reasons (not because it’s a weak case); the judge may require the state Attorney General, currently anti-gun Democrat Aaron Ford, to prosecute (NRS 173.065). This is a real danger if the sanctuary movement becomes high-profile defiance.
But what if the Attorney General brings prosecution and decides to try for a change of venue, because those conservative, gun-owning people of Nye County will not be “fair and impartial”? A sympathetic judge (all the way to the Supreme Court) may well deem a pro-gun jury that is highly likely to acquit, the law be damned, means the venue should be changed, oh say to Clark County.
NRS 174.455 allows a change of venue, but in order to do so, during jury selection, the jurors state they are opposed the gun control laws. A smart, pro-gun prospective juror will keep his mouth shut about his opinions and appear unbiased.
So if the DA or the Attorney General brings charges to trial, or there is a change of venue, the only thing left to do is to rely on the jury to nullify the verdict.
Jury nullification is a long tradition in English common law where the jury has the right to acquit a defendant if they feel the law is unjust. While trial instructions and courts suppress any attempts to inform the jury of their nullification rights, the right has been generally upheld.
Nullification can be a total acquittal by a unanimous “not guilty” verdict (see O. J. Simpson) or by one or more jurors dissenting from the majority and hanging the jury. A hung jury results in a mistrial. Even if a nullified verdict is set aside, the tone for the new trial is set (that the public is opposed) and the DA must weigh the costs in time, money, and trouble to have a new trial.
In conclusion, if you break this law, you do so at your own risk. A sanctuary county ultimately means nothing other than extreme opposition to the laws, not that prosecution is impossible. I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. If you get caught, don’t be a douchebag, hire a damn good attorney and prepare to take the case to the US Supreme Court.
*Universal background check language taken from Question 1 codified sections for ease of linking as SB 143 has not yet been codified by the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Many of the Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions are nothing more than a blanket statement of support for the Second Amendment and displeasure with the new gun control laws (namely banning private sales under the guise of universal background checks and “red flag” laws).
If you think you won’t get red flagged or in trouble for privately selling or transferring a gun, think again.
Only Elko and Nye County have passed ordinances with teeth that limit the ability of county officers to enforce the law. Both Sheriff Narvaiza and Wehrly are (ostensibly) not enforcing the laws (so they say). Esmeralda County
Douglas County Resolution (paywall, use reader view)
Elko County Resolution will not enforce
Eureka County Resolution
Humboldt County Resolution
Lander County Resolution
Lander County meeting minutes
Lyon County Resolution
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Nye County, Nevada: That the Board of County Commissioners hereby expresses its intent to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Nye County and its intent that public funds of the County not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights or to aid in the unnecessary and unconstitutional restriction of the rights under the Second Amendment of the citizens of Nye County to bear arms;
Both Lincoln County (3/18/19) and White Pine County (3/15/19) passed resolutions, but they are not available online at this time.
I would only comfortably call Nye County “safe” for private gun sales between non-criminals (friends) and Elko County as a close second, because Sheriff Narvaiza’s statements aren’t as clear as Sheriff Wehrly’s.
None of this means that the sheriffs or local police (or state agencies) won’t enforce the laws.
Until counties actively defy, ignore, and nullify laws the resolutions are just feel-good statements meant to appease the public and defy the corruption in Carson City.
The people in this video had multiple opportunities and ample time to neutralize the shooter. Yes, he is an old man, but he did shoot a man twice. The shots could have very easily punctured the femoral artery, probably killing the man before paramedics could arrive. The Active Self Protection video below has some good commentary on what the victims could have done.
Most of the sheriff’s in Nevada have not actually come out and said they will not be enforcing the private gun sales ban (universal background checks) or “red flag” laws. If we take a look at what they have actually done and said, the results are surprising. Villainized Sheriff Allen of Humboldt County argues a reasonable position and joined a suit against AB 291. Many have hinted at non-enforcement and expressed their opposition to the law. Notable staunch supporters are the Clark and Washoe County sheriffs.
None of the statements of non-enforcement or opposition mean that sheriffs, local police departments, or state agencies will not enforce the laws anyway. Judges and district attorneys also have to be considered, but almost universally will not comment on such matters publicly.
The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is more good feelings and words than actions. Only time will tell how law enforcement will respond to the laws. Here are words from the sheriffs directly.
Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong: “"The challenge is this; when I as a friend sell a gun to a friend and if there is no background check done, that’s a crime according to this bill; however, how is law enforcement supposed to know that a crime has been committed because something wasn’t done, how do we even know that the sale took place?" [source]
Churchill County Sheriff Richard Hickox: (on red flags) "Please rest assured, we the Churchill County Sheriff’s Office, under my guidance, will not be coming to collect your firearms unless so ordered by the courts after you have received your due process." [source]
Clark County (LVMPD) Sheriff Joe Lombardo: “The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, headed by elected Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, said in a statement [to the LVRJ] it is obliged ‘to uphold and enforce’ city, county and state laws.” [source]
Douglas County Sheriff Dan Coverley: “This law is not unconstitutional. I think this is going to be difficult for me to enforce ... but for me to say that I'm not going to enforce the law is incorrect and I don't think that I have that authority.” [source]
“I do not plan on putting any effort or resources into enforcing it, primarily because it’s unenforceable.” [source]
Elko County Sheriff Aitor Narvaiza: Elko County Resolution will not enforce including the sheriff.
“We’re going to follow the Constitution, we’re going to follow all the state laws, and gun laws; we’re just not supporting this bill." [Read the whole thing]
On red flags: “Based on an allegation without any due process we as law enforcement can go to your residence and take your firearms. This bill is a bad bill and this bill will get people hurt on both sides.” [source]
“For us to get your guns, there has to be due process. It’s the only law on the books where you can lose your firearms without doing anything wrong, just based on an allegation. That to me is very unconstitutional.” [source]
Esmeralda County Sheriff Kenneth Elgan: “I, Sheriff Kenneth N. Elgan, am opposed to any legislation which would infringe upon a citizens God-given right to keep and bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law and I will certainly not stand silent while the citizens of Esmeralda County are turned into criminals due to unconstitutional actions of the Nevada Legislature or Governor Sisolak.” [source]
Eureka County Sheriff Jesse Watts: "It is the position of this Sheriff, that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians." [source]
“‘Nowhere in my letter does it say I am not enforcing the law,’ Watts said Tuesday.” [source]
On red flags: Joined the law suit (Facebook page)
Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Allen: unclear on background checks. Opposed Question 1.
On red flags: Allen has been the center of controversy for saying: “I do oppose this law. However, it’s my not my job to oppose a law; my job is to enforce the law.” [source]
“The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office has no interest in taking firearms from law abiding citizens who are exercising their second amendment (sic) right to bear arms in our country."
"Sheriff Allen said, 'These laws, which we oppose, should not have the potential to impact citizens under ordinary circumstances. … The Red Flag law only pertains to someone wanting to commit severe violent acts involving the risk of death to innocent people or a serious mentally ill individual threatening or wanting to do harm [to] themselves or others.' He said that in his 35 years in law enforcement, he can think of only two instances where the 'Red Flag' could have been applied."
"He said internally the Sheriff’s Office will have policies in place to administratively review any potential application for an order from someone making the request. After the Sheriff’s Office reviews, he said, the Office will have the district attorney’s office review the application before it is taken to a judge. The sheriff said the law specifically says that all other means must be exhausted before it comes to carrying out a judicial order. He also said law specifically states that if taking action to enforce the order is too dangerous to the deputies, the community or the individual, the order does not have to be served."
Read the whole thing. The sheriff makes some excellent good points and explains in detail what he will do to protect citizens from abuse and his opposition to the law in general.
Claimed to be first sheriff to join NevadaCAN’s red flag lawsuit. [source]
Despite the hullaballoo, he seems to be the most reasonable and open so far. His interpretation of the law seems to imply that before seizure the requirement for the constitutional standard of probable cause would have to be met.
Lander County Sheriff Ron Unger: “It's coming down the pike to where not only on our rights to own and bear arms but it's on the Fourth Amendment, your right to illegal search and seizures
that's coming down.”
"There's a lot of loopholes in that SB 143. There's a lot of stuff that -- that they're saying law enforcement will do this and law enforcement will do that. A lot of it is a burden of proof that falls in here. I can sell you a gun right now today and -- and we're not going to do a
background check. And you could take that gun and go to Reno and do whatever you did. How are they going to prove that I own that gun? There is no gun registration." [source]
On red flags: “They're trying to make it to where law enforcement can go into somebody's house without due process of law and seize and confiscate their guns. And what that essentially does is put a target on every single one of our deputies because somebody knows they're coming over there, they're going to be ready for them and they're not going to give them the guns. … We -- we need to stop all of this. We need to take a stance and say we're not in it. And that's what I'm here to do. [source]
Lyon County Sheriff Frank Hunewill: “In terms of being a Second Amendment county, yes, we would support that. What you’re doing is sending a message that we’re not going to go out and violate someone’s Second Amendment rights as a sheriff’s office.” [source]
Mineral County Sheriff Randy Adams: "While we can’t pick and choose which laws we can enforce, this law [SB143] is poorly written. I don’t agree with the law as it is poorly written, unenforceable as written and therefore my department won’t be wasting our already limited resources enforcing this.” [source]
Nye County Sheriff Sharon Werhly: "Even if I were inclined to participate, the infrastructure is not in place to transfer firearms in this manner...I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law and certainly won't stand silent." [source]
Pershing County Sheriff Jerry Allen: “I am in opposition of this law as your elected representative, even though I am additionally opposed to it personally…I will not use the authority granted to me by the State of Nevada and the residents of Pershing County to infringe on the People’s right to Keep and Bear Arms, absent the actual commission of a violent Felony crime or valid court order.” [source]
Washoe County Sheriff Darin Balaam: “I believe in an individual’s right to bear arms, and I support a citizen’s right to legally possess firearms. However, we also have a responsibility to protect the public from criminal misuse of firearms.” [source]
White Pine County Sheriff Scott Henriod: “I believe that the new law is unenforceable. I’m sure there are many residents of the State of Nevada who own guns that have changed hands several times. There are no records of these transactions. In any criminal case, the burden to prove that a crime has been committed lies with the state. Without records of ownership, the state will not be able to prove the case that a firearm has transferred hands. This leaves law enforcement with a law that they cannot enforce." [source]
Don’t forget that in addition to sheriffs, there are police departments too. Only Clark and Carson City have consolidated departments, and Clark has four city police departments and an ungodly number of other law enforcement agencies.
The “Nevada Sheriffs’ Letter to Constituents,” signed by all 17 sheriffs, means nothing. It is a perfunctory statement of support for existing rights. It does not promise to oppose gun control or any specific resolution.
These laws put law enforcement in a bad spot. On one hand, the laws are tools to stop the next mass shooting or put the ghetto gun dealer in jail. Not entirely by accident, they put average citizens under the spotlight. You and I can’t buy guns privately anymore to avoid paperwork that might be used by a future tyrannical government to confiscate our guns because some douchebag bought a handgun privately and killed his ex-wife with it. We have to worry about crazy girlfriends or Antifa relatives (or Internet randos) red-flagging us out of revenge.
Sheriffs can’t say, “We’re not going to enforce this on just criminals, you know felons, that creepy kid everyone says is going to shoot up the school, and some no-good scumbag that we’re tacking an extra charge on to. You law-abiding people who simply want no paperwork in case of future gun registration, you’re good.” They can’t say that because it would be introduced in a trial as some sort of bias against said felon, creep, or scumbag as evidence law enforcement is biased.
Sheriffs also don’t want to paint themselves into a corner where they might have to legitimately exercise a “red flag” against an unquestionable nutcase or prosecute Ronny Ruinitall because he keeps selling guns to gang members. The moral stance of a sheriff, regardless of who the suspect is, is to not charge the violation of an unconstitutional law.
If you are, oh say a drug dealer, who gets busted, whether the cops support the laws or not, they will likely charge the suspect with the violation simply to make it harder for them to hit the street again. I see it all the time back home in California. But a sheriff can’t publicly talk about a double standard, but double standards do exist and cops exercise them everyday, for good or bad.
Ultimately, they’re politicians who are out to protect their skin, avoid lawsuits, avoid jeopardizing prosecutions, and protect their deputies from suits and potential criminal charges from the Attorney General. Don’t count on a politician of any kind or stripe to come out firmly on an issue.
Stay tuned! On Monday we look at the truth of counties’ Second Amendment Sanctuary Laws
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.