A while back, I decided to buy a Glock 44 to review; and then I fell in love with it. Everyone should own a sub-caliber combat pistol for practice. Then I wanted high magazine capacity, a threaded barrel, and a red dot sight. Turns out SIG had it all in one package, and I wanted a new SIG.

So a year on with the SIG, guess which one I like better? The Glock is easier to strip and has been more reliable. I originally thought the SIG P322 not just for looks, but because it has a 20 round magazine vs Glock's 10 (and the painful ProMag 18 rounders).

Unfortunately, the SIG doesn’t seem to cycle consistently on a variety of ammunition like the Glock does just fine with. SIGs Romeo RDS also has issues, like flickering and randomly changing brightness in between shots. I was NOT happy about that as I wanted this gun to primarily "learn" my brain to shoot an RDS. A battery change seems to have helped, but we'll see how that holds up. 

I don’t like the fact that I can’t pull out the SIG's trigger package easily with just a punch to give it a thorough cleaning like I can do with the Glock. The roll punches it uses are weird and I can't pull it out to clean the grit out.

So after having the SIG P322 for about a year, I have to say that in hindsight, I should not have bought this pistol. It is fine in principle, but I think it was poorly executed and I have questions about the QC. 

I will champion having a sub-caliber conversion or version of your daily carry pistol for cheap affordable practice. I can easily put 1000 rounds or more through that thing on a weekend morning. That's around a savings of $150-200 easily versus 9mm.

Thank you to Governor Joe Lombardo, who is proving his pro-Second Amendment and Republican credentials for vetoing these terrible, partisan, anti-gun bills.

• SB 89 makes hate crime convicts prohibited persons
  
• SB 156 Office of Gun Violence Prevention
• AB 105 polling place gun ban
• AB 245 semi-auto ban for <21 year olds
  

It's clear that Gov. Lombardo can be counted on to hold the line against the progressive anti-gun agenda.

Governor,

AB 245 bans adults 18-20 from owning, possessing, or even target shooting semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Next will be ammo and further gun bans. It's a slippery slope and Democrats love taking bites out of our rights.
You’re up for re-election next year. Let’s not overthink this.

Vetoing this bill wins you points with pro-gun voters, Libertarians, and rural conservatives—the core of your base. These are the people who show up, who vote, and who will remember whether you stood your ground or folded. Sure, Democrats will rage, but they’re not voting for you anyway. Nothing you do here is going to win them over.
Letting it pass? That’s political suicide. You might get a nod from some Democrats, but they’re locked in for their own candidates. Meanwhile, you alienate Republicans and swing voters you actually need. That’s how elections are lost.
This isn’t a tough call. There’s no gain in signing it, and a lot to lose. Do the smart thing. Veto it AB 245.

Over-the-counter suppressors legal in Nevada again? If the Hearing Protection Act passes through Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" and SBRs and silencers fall off the NFA, Nevadan's might find that they are not able to buy them because of state law. So it may be a while before you can buy suppressors in Nevada.

Short version: What probably happens is suppressors and SBRs, etc. can't be sold in Nevada at all due to state law. Someone might get a court injunction against this or the attorney general may release an opinion that the state law is unenforceable. A reasonable person would argue that if it is impossible to comply with federal licensure, because it no longer exists that the federal legality of these items constitutes a de facto license...but we have a Democratic attorney general. So basically there may be a time period where no one can get these de-listed items in Nevada.

Nevada’s firearm laws closely interact with federal regulations. Currently, Nevadans can legally own firearm suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), or short-barreled shotguns (SBS) only if they comply with federal law under the National Firearms Act (NFA). But what if the federal government removes suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA’s list of regulated items? In this article, we explore how Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 202.350 and related laws might apply in that scenario. We’ll consider whether these firearms accessories could be deemed illegal under current Nevada law even without federal restrictions, and then examine arguments for why they might not be illegal – all in accessible, non-technical terms. We’ll also discuss the role of the Nevada Attorney General in clarifying the law, touch on the legislative history behind these statutes, and conclude with a hypothetical look at how a legal challenge might unfold if state authorities remain unsympathetic to deregulation.

Nevada’s Law vs. Federal NFA Regulations (Current Rules)
Under federal law, suppressors (silencers), SBRs, and SBS are classified as restricted items by the NFA. To possess them legally, a person must go through a federal registration process (including background checks and tax stamps). Nevada law has essentially piggybacked on these federal rules. In other words, Nevada allows these items only if you’ve followed federal law to the letter. If you haven’t met the federal requirements, Nevada treats possession of these items as a crime.

NRS 202.350 is the key Nevada statute here. It makes it a felony to “manufacture, import, keep, offer for sale, give, lend, possess or use” a machine gun or a silencer, “unless authorized by federal law.” In plainer terms, Nevada prohibits owning a suppressor or machine gun unless you have the appropriate federal authorization (such as an ATF tax stamp or license). Similarly, NRS 202.275 bans possessing or making a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, with very narrow exceptions for people who hold federal firearm licenses or who have registered the weapon with the federal government. Violation of these laws is generally a felony in Nevada.

In summary, current Nevada law independently criminalizes these NFA-type weapons unless you’ve complied with federal law. Nevada basically uses the federal process as a filter: if the federal government says “yes, this person is allowed to have it,” then Nevada is okay with it. If not, Nevada can prosecute the person under state law. This cooperative scheme means state and federal law are in sync – for now.
Would These Items Become Illegal in Nevada Without Federal Oversight?

Now imagine the federal government deregulates suppressors, SBRs, and SBS – for example, by removing them from the NFA. On the federal level, they’d be treated like ordinary firearms or accessories, no special registration or tax stamp required. But what happens under Nevada law? The concern is that Nevada’s statutes, as written, might still outlaw these items outright if the federal “authorization” or registration process disappears.

To see why, consider the exact wording of NRS 202.350 and 202.275 and their built-in exceptions. Under these laws, possessing a suppressor or short-barreled firearm in Nevada is illegal unless one of a few exceptions applies:

• Federal Compliance Exception: For suppressors and machine guns, Nevada law exempts anyone who is “licensed, authorized or permitted to possess or use [the item] pursuant to federal law.” In practice, this means you have the federally-required paperwork (like an ATF tax stamp for a silencer). For SBRs/SBS, there’s a similar exception if “such a rifle or shotgun is registered with the United States Department of the Treasury” (the agency that handled NFA registration).
• Law Enforcement and Curios: The statutes also exempt law enforcement officers on duty and allow possession of registered short-barreled guns by federally licensed firearms dealers/manufacturers, or if the firearm has been classified as a collectible curio or relic. (These are niche cases not applicable to most people.)

Crucially, if the NFA no longer requires any license or registration for, say, a suppressor, a regular civilian in Nevada would no longer fall under the “authorized by federal law” exception – because there would be no federal paperwork or permit to show. The Nevada law doesn’t say “authorized or not prohibited by federal law”; it specifically requires affirmative federal authorization. So, at first glance, if suppressors were delisted from the NFA, anyone in Nevada possessing a suppressor might technically be in violation of NRS 202.350 because they could not prove they are “authorized by federal law” (there would be nothing to authorize or register at the federal level).

In plain language, Nevada’s law could suddenly treat formerly legal suppressors or SBRs as contraband, even though the federal government now treats them like any other firearm accessory. This odd, perhaps unintended result stems from Nevada’s law being written to depend on the federal status of the item. It was a “mirror” law – and without the federal reflection, the state law might cast a very harsh shadow.
It’s important to note that this interpretation is a real concern raised by firearm owners and legal experts. During past attempts to pass the federal Hearing Protection Act (which would have removed suppressors from the NFA), observers pointed out that several states (including Nevada) have laws that ban silencers unless federally registered. If those federal registrations ceased, those state laws could automatically make silencers illegal by default. Nevada is a prime example: NRS 202.350’s suppressor provision is literally contingent on federal law authorization. Likewise, NRS 202.275’s SBR/SBS ban has only a federal registration-based exception. Without a federal process to “bless” your short-barreled rifle or shotgun, Nevada law would still say possession is a felony.

So, under the current statutes, yes – there is a real possibility these items would be considered illegal in Nevada if federal restrictions are removed. An unwary gun owner might think, “Great, the feds say I don’t need a tax stamp for my suppressor anymore!” but then find themselves afoul of Nevada law. This outcome would be counter-intuitive, arguably unfair, and likely not what anyone truly intended – but it’s what the black-and-white text of the law suggests.

Could They Still Be Legal? – Arguments for Lawful Possession Post-NFA

Is Nevada really going to start arresting people for items the federal government no longer regulates? Many would argue “No”, and there are legal arguments and interpretations that could support a more gun-owner-friendly outcome. Here are a few key points that suggest these items might not be considered illegal in Nevada, even if federal oversight is dropped:

• “Authorized by Federal Law” – A Broader Interpretation: One argument is that if the federal government removes an item from the NFA, it is effectively authorizing all law-abiding citizens to possess that item (since there’s no longer a prohibition). In other words, absence of a federal ban could be seen as implicit authorization. A creative legal interpretation might hold that “authorized by federal law” in NRS 202.350 doesn’t strictly require a tax stamp or permit – it could be read to mean “not prohibited by federal law.” If federal law allows it, Nevada law would allow it. This is not an obvious reading of the statute (and it’s certainly not a guarantee), but a court or official could lean on this logic to avoid criminalizing conduct that Congress has decided to deregulate.
• Legislative Intent and Purpose: Looking beyond the text, one can examine why Nevada enacted these laws. The legislative history suggests that Nevada’s ban on silencers, SBRs, and similar weapons was originally put in place at the request of Las Vegas police, at a time when federal authorities were not aggressively prosecuting NFA violations locally. In essence, state lawmakers wanted a parallel law to cover what federal law already covered, ensuring that someone illegally possessing a sawed-off shotgun or unregistered silencer in Nevada could be prosecuted under state law if the feds didn’t step in. The intent was to target people violating federal law (by not registering NFA weapons), not to harass lawful owners.
• Avoiding Absurd or Unjust Outcomes: There is a general principle in law that statutes should not be applied in a way that leads to absurd or unreasonable results. Charging a person with a felony in Nevada for possessing a suppressor that is perfectly legal under federal law (and perhaps in most other states) might be viewed as an absurd result that the legislature couldn’t have intended. Lawyers could invoke the doctrine of “lenity” as well – the idea that ambiguity in criminal laws should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
• State Constitutional Right to Bear Arms: Nevada’s own constitution provides that “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for other lawful purposes.” While this right, like the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, can be subject to reasonable regulation, a blanket state ban on items that the federal government has legitimized could face constitutional scrutiny.

In summary, there are strong arguments that Nevada’s laws should be interpreted or updated to allow these items if the federal restrictions are lifted. The key will be having Nevada’s authorities – either law enforcement, prosecutors, or courts – recognize those arguments. This is where guidance from the state’s leadership would be critical.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Role – A Favorable Opinion?

Laws don’t change automatically just because federal regulations do. If the NFA were amended to drop suppressors, SBRs, and SBS, Nevada’s statutes would remain on the books until the state amends or repeals them. However, the Nevada Attorney General (AG) could play a powerful role in shaping how those laws are applied in the interim.

The Attorney General can issue legal opinions or guidance to law enforcement about ambiguous laws. In this situation, a forward-thinking (and gun-friendly) AG could issue an opinion clarifying that, for example, suppressors removed from the NFA are no longer considered illegal “silencers” under NRS 202.350. The AG might reason that “authorized by federal law” includes items that federal law no longer deems unlawful, effectively keeping Nevada in step with the federal change.

Furthermore, the AG could highlight the legislative history and original intent behind NRS 202.350 and 202.275. As noted, these laws were reportedly enacted to let local authorities tackle federal gun crimes on the local level – not to create new state-level gun bans in a vacuum. An AG opinion could explain that since the federal rationale for the law has evaporated, the state law should be read narrowly (or even considered effectively defunct for those items).

Of course, an AG’s opinion isn’t ironclad – a future AG or a local prosecutor might disagree. But a favorable AG opinion would carry significant weight. It could also spur the Nevada Legislature to take action. If the Attorney General and public pressure highlight the issue, the legislature might move quickly to formally amend NRS 202.350 and 202.275 to avoid any confusion.

Why Did Nevada Ban These Items? – A Look at Legislative History

Nevada’s restrictions on silencers, SBRs, and SBS didn’t appear out of thin air – and they’re not a recent anti-gun initiative. These laws date back several decades and were largely a product of their time. The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, imposing strict regulations on certain weapons nationwide. By the 1960s and 1970s, some state and local law enforcement agencies grew frustrated because federal authorities were not always pursuing NFA violators. To address this, Nevada enacted state laws to mirror the NFA’s provisions, allowing state prosecutors to charge individuals for possession of these prohibited weapons. Legislative records from the late 1970s indicate that Nevada’s lawmakers, urged on by Las Vegas police, outlawed short-barreled rifles and shotguns in 1977 and ensured that possession of silencers and machine guns was tied to federal authorization.

What If Nobody Budges? – A Hypothetical Legal Showdown

Let’s imagine a scenario: The federal government delists suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA, but Nevada’s legislature doesn’t amend NRS 202.350/202.275, and the Attorney General takes no action. Nevadans start buying suppressors or building short-barreled rifles without federal paperwork. But Nevada law on the books still says otherwise. This is a recipe for a legal conflict.

A Nevada gun owner is found in possession of an unregistered suppressor and is arrested under NRS 202.350. The local district attorney presses charges. The defense might argue that the client is “authorized by federal law” to have the suppressor, even though there is no longer a registration process. They might raise constitutional defenses under the Second Amendment and the Nevada Constitution. A judge could dismiss the charges or let it go to trial.

If it reaches the Nevada Supreme Court, the court could rule in favor of the gun owner by interpreting the statute permissively or strike down the law entirely. A federal court challenge could also be filed, arguing that the statute violates the Second Amendment.

Eventually, the Nevada Legislature might step in to fix the law, especially if public pressure mounts (if they get a Republican majority). If the federal government removes suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA, Nevada’s laws may unintentionally criminalize their possession. NRS 202.350 and related statutes rely on federal authorization that may no longer exist. That creates a confusing and possibly unjust situation. Nevada’s Attorney General and legislature have the tools to fix it – either by issuing guidance or amending the law. Until then, gun owners should stay alert, and advocates should press for clarity.

In what is the only second open carry related homicide in recent history, an open carrier in downtown Las Vegas was shot on April 23, 2025. At this time, details are few. A man entered a store acting erratcly. A customer was openly carrying inside the store. When the customer grabbed the firearm, the suspect got control of the firearm and shot the (formerly) armed citizen after a struggle.
 
A security guard told the Review-Journal that: “It’s getting worse and worse around here,” Bartley said. “I’ve had knives pulled on me. I watch out for who I confront now. You have to keep your head on a swivel.”
 
Once again, those who hate open carry and like to denigrate the practice based on their own fears and criticism of other armed citizens they consider beneath them will revert to blaming the victim. While questioning equipment and tactical choices is fair, blaming a victim for merely openly carrying is immature and as a vile as blaming a rape victim. Plenty of concealed carriers have been disarmed and even killed when unaware or trying to intervene in a crime.
 
The man criticisms that concealed carry supremacists level on open carriers is a lack of situational awareness and seriousness. These concerns are valid, but seemingly disappear as soon as a gun does behind a shirt. Anyone carrying a firearm in any way needs to be alert, maintain awareness of their surroundings (including who is behind them), use a retention holster that requires significant force and mechanical action to remove the pistol, and have some basic handgun retention training.
 
Open carry is, statistically speaking, a safe practice. Numerically, there have been about equal cases of open and concealed carriers being disarmed. Police officers are disarmed and killed with their own guns FAR more often than private open carriers. It is probably more dangerous to be a police officer with an openly carried gun.
 
Open carry can be done safely if the carrier is smart and prepared. It is an excellent outreach method to support the Second Amendment and firearms carry in general. A citizen who is prepared for
 
As police release more information, we will continue to update the community and analyze the points of failure. To open carry safely:

• Use a retention holster that secure the firearm with a snapping strap or locking system.
• Wear sturdy belt.
• Maintain situational awareness at all times.
• Learn to retain your handgun during an attempted snatching.
  

The suspect, Kyle Robert Capucci, is a convicted felon who failed to appear at a court hearing earlier in the day. In 2022, he attempted a robbery and was convicted of drug trafficking.

As for the disarming, the article provides these further details: “After a short interaction with an employee, Capucci lunged for the firearm on the victim’s waist and a struggle ensued. Capucci was eventually able to get the gun away from the victim before shooting him.”

The victim's death is clearly partially the fault of a lax judicial and corrections system that fails to imprison and isolate dangerous people from society.

Clark County Sheriff Kevin McMahill’s recent interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal serves as a perfect case study in modern anti-gun political theater. Ostensibly framed around "ghost guns"—a politicized misnomer intended to elicit fear rather than convey accurate information—McMahill’s rhetoric exposes not only a troubling ignorance of firearms law and reality but also a clear anti-gun posture. His remarks hint at broader ambitions, perhaps setting the stage for a future political campaign along increasingly leftward lines.

To begin with, the premise behind the current obsession with unserialized firearms is outdated. The era of popular 80% lower receivers—the unfinished gun parts that once allowed hobbyists to legally build firearms for personal use without a background check—has largely ended. Companies like Polymer80 have been litigated into near nonexistence, and the culture of building personal firearms from kits, once a niche enjoyed by enthusiasts, has been aggressively and effectively targeted. Criminal misuse predictably accelerated the crackdown, and the hobby died almost as quickly as it rose. Once again, law-abiding citizens lost out because criminals abused a system.

McMahill’s agenda, however, goes beyond simply regulating or banning 80% kits. He advocates for serialization requirements on uppers, slides, and essentially any major gun component—a position so extreme it mirrors some of California’s worst ideas. Mandating serialization and background checks for nearly every part of a firearm is not about public safety. It is about control. It’s a clumsy attempt to bottle up the problem of criminal gun acquisition by punishing everyone, regardless of guilt.

The practical effect on criminals will be negligible. Historically, criminals have not required 80% kits to obtain guns. Well before these kits were available, guns were acquired through theft, straw purchases (having someone with a clean record buy the weapon), or simply possessed legally prior to committing a crime. The idea that serialized parts will suddenly stop criminals, when they never needed unserialized ones to begin with, is detached from reality. At best, serialization creates paperwork after the fact; it does not prevent crime.

Indeed, the only meaningful use for tracing guns is in investigating straw purchases—connecting a recovered firearm back to its original legal purchaser, to determine if they illegally transferred it. Even then, prosecutions for illegal transfers are rare unless linked to a high-profile crime. Open social media flaunting of illegal full-auto Glock switches by gang members has barely elicited a federal response, illustrating plainly that the will to prosecute existing serious offenses is already lacking. Why, then, burden the average citizen even more with new, redundant laws?

The answer is simple: politicians like McMahill would rather regulate the law-abiding than confront the uncomfortable truth that enforcing the law against actual criminals is hard, politically messy, and sometimes thankless. Serialization mandates are political shortcuts, a cheap way to claim "action" without addressing the roots of violent crime. Instead of advocating for tougher prosecution of felons caught with firearms, or stricter sentences for violent repeat offenders, McMahill suggests tightening controls on parts and private ownership—a strategy that only burdens lawful gun owners while barely inconveniencing criminals.

It is important to understand why the fixation on serial numbers and traces is so misguided. A serial number does not prevent a crime. It does not render a gun inert. In most criminal cases, the serial number is irrelevant until after a shooting occurs. Furthermore, unserialized guns have always existed. Firearms manufactured prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act often had no serial numbers, yet they were not viewed as a special threat. Nevada’s anti-80% law, written with astonishing vagueness, now technically criminalizes ownership of such perfectly legal antiques, illustrating how poor legislative drafting has created legal landmines for innocent citizens.

What McMahill proposes, then, is not serious law enforcement reform but a broad, ham-fisted push toward a surveillance and control regime under the guise of public safety. Instead of admitting that effective policing is difficult—requiring manpower, community engagement, and serious prosecution—he advocates for an ever-tightening web of regulations that criminalize ordinary behavior. And his push for red-light cameras further underscores this philosophy: automate enforcement, monetize compliance, and abdicate real policing in favor of surveillance systems that punish everyone, not just the guilty.

In this, McMahill’s attitude stands in stark contrast even to his predecessor, Joe Lombardo. While far from perfect, Lombardo at least seemed willing to engage with gun owners and maintain some semblance of balance. McMahill, by contrast, seems either uninterested or actively hostile toward civil liberties, whether out of ideological alignment or political calculation.

Ultimately, McMahill’s crusade against “ghost guns” is a textbook example of how politicians erode constitutional rights under the pretense of public safety, targeting tools rather than criminals, and promoting a culture of surveillance over a culture of liberty. Citizens should be deeply skeptical of any official who favors sweeping regulations on the law-abiding over meaningful enforcement against the lawless. Because once such shortcuts become the norm, the burden of living freely grows heavier with each passing law.

Regulating uppers just means more headaches for what are overwhelmingly law-abiding purchasers. Reading in between the lines, this gun loves gun control and his agenda will not stop at "ghost guns." Language and how people use it is probably one of the biggest indicators of their hidden opinions and intent.

According to the LVRJ, a guy gets arrested for trespassing in the Las Vegas Realtors office after having a history of not supposed to be-ing there. He's arrested for having a handgun in his backpack along with two "extended magazines" (whatever that is). He told police "that he 'was under the impression' that the concealed carry law was 'only for those who carry on their person and not in a backpack'.”

Without a CCW, you cannot carry a gun in a backpack in Nevada. We are an "on the person" state meaning that if it is on your body, whether in your clothes, carried in a bag in your hand, or in this case in a worn backpack, it's being carried and it required a permit. Set the backpack down? It's not longer on your person. We're not an "about the person" state so it's okay in a purse or whatever on your counter or car seat, but the moment you pick it up it falls under the CCW law.

Now this creates some interesting conundrums like carrying an unloaded gun in a locked box or purpose-made gun case going to and from the range. This is an extremely rare charge that essentially never happens (though it has, hence essentially), so it's not a thing to worry about if you're going to/from shooting (targets, not people) or something.

In this case? Guy breaking the law (trespassing) also failed to do his homework and made a bad assumption and caught an extra charge for it. Don't be stupid. Don't trespass, don't carry illegally concealed firearms, don't vote for Democrats, and don't show up with a gun to a place you have a beef with.

From Twitter: