|
Humboldt County Sheriff Allen is facing a recall election for failing to oppose red-flag laws. I've opined on it in other posts. A recall may not be successful, but to abuse Voltaire, sometimes threatening to shoot the admiral is as good as following through. Allen broke state law when the county clerk allowed him to read the actual petition before it was filed. It must be filed before anyone but the clerk can handle it. Here's the story from the Nevada Independent: A committee to recall the Humboldt County sheriff and remove him from office says it submitted more than the required number of signatures on Friday to qualify the call for a special election, but organizers are reeling after learning that county officials violated election rules by allowing the target of the recall to thumb through the petition before submitting the signatures to the secretary of state. Bearing Arms sums it up nicely: Yet that standard isn’t required for other violations of the law. If I go a little over the speed limit and get a ticket, I’m not going to get a pass because I didn’t mean to speed, now am I? Small towns suck because of stuff like this. There is major league bullshit in big cities too, but the culture is a little more professional and the rules are respected more. In small towns, people get away with stuff because people who see each other every day are afraid to make waves. The recall effort will proceed against Sheriff Allen.   The city of Las Vegas is banning fake firearms on Fremont Street. As for the article itself, the gnashing of teeth makes the agenda clear. The anti-gunners will be after preemption and open carry in earnest in 2021. US Supreme Court or not, open carry will be a hard battle to win because almost all jurisprudence states that open carry cannot be banned, while concealed carry can be regulated. A reversal of that would likely lead to permitless open carry. And yes, yours truly and others have openly carried on Fremont Street without issue. See pictures related. Why can’t you carry a fake gun on Fremont Street? Well, here in America we take firearms seriously. They are dangerous objects and an in a land of open carry (and mass shootings) we don’t appreciate frivolous displays of weapons. Some reproduction weapons are indistinguishable from real weapons except by in-hand examination. One can only imagine what a busker or a tourist might do, or a tourist might think, if an imitation firearm were mishandled. Part of this reaction is typical government BS borne either in liability or in an anti-gun fervor. For the above reasons, it’s not unreasonable to place some limits on what the freaks do downtown under the neon lights. Just imagine a squad of rifle-twirling buskers smacking someone in the face with a color guard rifle; orange tipped or not, that’s gonna hurt. What’s interesting is the false dichotomy of “fake guns banned; real guns legal.” Yes, to someone who is willingly ignorant or simply retarded, the incongruity seems strange. Real guns are constitutionally protected and open carry especially so. State preemption of firearm laws also prevent “no gun” ordinances in the tourist areas, which they would enact if they could get away with it. The Strip and Downtown are shitholes with tourist areas in the middle; without heavy security and police patrols, they would be as scummy as a few blocks away are. No one should be disarmed because gun-hating politicians and casino moguls say so. Another interesting idea is that using a fake gun is part of one’s freedom of speech. Doing something for money may be within the government’s policing powers, but for instance, it would be hard to bust someone for engaging in political speech downtown with a toy gun.  .jpg) C. Ken Lund Comments taken from a local gun forum recounting the meeting of 12/09 on whether or not to declare the children's storytime area a gun-free zone. We were all so thankful that the weather had cleared this morning. The beautiful Nevada sky was clear as the 80+ protesters began flowing into the Pahrump Valley Library parking lot. My family and I arrived by about 09:15 and there was already a large contingent in place with signs saying, "Protect the Children - Honor the Second Amendment". It was clearly stated that this protest was to be orderly, calm, and not to hinder any traffic flow to and from the library. I can say confidently that this was honored by all. It was also announced that the library had setup a sign in sheet for speaking and the room would hit capacity at 81 people. They were not ready for us. My wife rushed in to get my name on the list along with hers, my daughter's (at the center of this controversy), and my eight year old son's. The room hit capacity within minutes and many were told they would have to wait outside. It became a point of confusion for those trying to attend but within the group it was worked out that after some would speak they would leave the room to allow others in. The library staff was condescending and rude in their interactions with the attendees...to the point that I was embarrassed for them. They had arbitrarily decided to limit all public comments to a total of 45 minutes so the same staff member then decided on her own to divide 45 minutes by the number of speakers which came to a grand total of 1 minute and 30 seconds per speaker! My family and I had written our speeches and timed them to stay within the normal 5 minute mark but when we arrived we were handed an agenda which stated we would be given 3 minutes only to then see that cut to 1.5 minutes. This staff member then "graciously" decided to bump that to an even 2 minutes per person. That meant some scrambling on our part to cut what we could to cover the points necessary. The first to speak was County Commissioner John Keonig who called the board to task being in danger of the open meeting law by hiding their agenda in a non specific agenda topic. He reminded them that if they proceeded with covering the ban on guns that they would be turned in to the state and faced the possibility of a $500 fine each for such a violation. The next 4 speakers were for the ban on guns basing their views on the same tired arguments from feelings rather than reality. Then their world fell apart: From that point forward, speaker after speaker took the board to task. My family and I were up early on and we covered a range of topics. I spoke to the question from the chairman directed to me at the October meeting, "Why do I feel the need to have guns in the children's area?" I answered that evil exists in the world and I have the duty under God to defend life, from the little child to the flaming atheist's life. I then went on to cover examples of potential problems such as a jilted ex-husband or ex-wife teaching the other a lesson and a drug addict that uses violence to get what he wants. Then I brought it closer to home by citing the example of Jason Falconer, a Front Sight graduate, who stopped the mall stabbing in Minnesota in 2016 (the criminal was dressed as a security guard!) and Aaron Helton just in November who stopped a Walmart shooting in Duncan, OK (pop. 23K...smaller than Pahrump). I was forced to conclude on the point that a Dept. of Justice study showed that criminals don't obtain their firearms by the normal means but by stealing them from cars - the very place the library director wanted people to keep them. My wife spoke next on the issue that there were zero books on gun safety in the library for children but they DID have a book about a high school student that seeks revenge using a gun. She also pointed out that the library had posted in the children's area that stated that the library was not responsible for the safety and protection of the children. It actually says that coming to the library has inherent risks which the parents must accept (see attached). This was followed with an offer to the board of a stack of children's books on gun safety on the condition that they be put into circulation. (These were later had delivered to the chairman by me) My 18 year old daughter then spoke. She has been at the center of this whole controversy and rather dislikes being the center of attention. Rather than cover what she said, I'll let the following news report show you. It captures almost the entirety of her speech: My 8 year old son then spoke. He asked a few weeks ago if he could do so and we agreed as long as he wrote his own speech. He did a fantastic job covering how he was raised with firearms, cited the 4 gun safety rules, and how he would not feel safe at the library if they ban them. We had the Republican Central Committee represented there along with the Nevada Firearms Coalition. We even had a couple come and speak as medical/mental health professionals against the idea proposed earlier in the meeting that people can be traumatized by the very sight of a gun. As professionals with many years of experience they knew of NO such condition. What was the end result? The library board pulled the agenda item and tabled it. When they will bring it up again is a little murky at this point because I heard them say something about waiting 3 months but then later something about possibly taking it up at the next meeting. But, for now, despite announcing the meeting at the storytime hour as an opportunity for parents to come and "share their fears", despite the attempt to mask the event under a cloak of a more benign agenda description, and despite the clearly annoyed countenance of the board this fell on its face today. It is also interesting to note that not one of the parents from storytime was present to speak for this ban on guns (my wife took note). This is an issue only for the library director which influenced the board. I also had a brief conversation with the chairman after the meeting as we were leaving. He said he was still on the fence (!) but he looked up the stats on the number of kids killed by accidents involving firearms. His statement was 176/year. Whether it was accurate or not wasn't the point. He also admitted that number is polluted with other incidents. I responded by saying, "Ok, so if you already agree that number is really smaller than that then you must consider that with 350 million people in the US, 176 (the full number) was 0.0000000something %. So, we're really in the realm of getting struck by lightning or being electrocuted being a higher risk at that point." We parted with an interested sigh on his part. I could not be more thankful for all who came out today to make this event successful! My family and I will be in everyone's debt. -wczimmerman I attended rally at 0930 and the library meeting at 1000; large rally turnout in front of the library was impressive. Problems immediately started upon entering the library. Meeting room was strictly restricted to no more than eighty (cited reason: fire-codes), many were not allowed to enter. I have previously attended a VA townhall in that same room which had at least double the amount. Then attendees learned that open comments were restricted to forty-five minutes. Those fortunate enough to sign-up to speak (myself) were told that comments would be around one minute (the meeting agenda left on each seat stated three minutes). Two Nye county commissioners, one former commissioner, the county treasurer and two members of the Nye County Republican Party office attended rally and meeting. The first three or so speakers were for the gun-ban; nearly all remaining speakers were completely against the ban. The board chairman (elderly gentleman) referred to anti-ban attendees as "you people". There were a lot of good speakers to include a PHD and his wife, who works in the clinical mental health industry, smartly countered comments from a self-proclaimed educator that children are traumatized by the mere visual presence of a firearm. I opened my comments by stating two firsts for me had occurred that morning; first, this was my first attendance of a protest rally and second, I have never been referred to as "you people". I turned around and deliberately starred at the board chairman who made that snarky comment. I then cited a Las Vegas Journal article dated 31 Jan 19, about the attempted abduction of a boy in front of the Pahrump library. I stressed the importance of protecting oneself and family. I then tried to tie that self-defense reliance theme to my experiences with the aftermath of horrific deadly consequences, for those who failed to do just that, during my five deployments to Iraq. I closed with how arrogant it is for folks (especially those new to Pahrump) to try and implement a culture change, such as their gun-ban, which is an attempt to deny others the right of self-protection. I believe the best comment was from one of the commissioners who initially stated that the library board had violated the open meeting law and that they were going to be reported (possible $500 personal fine) and then later sated that they should postpone their vote until March, when the NEW BOARD MEMBERS, can vote on it. One of the board members (elderly lady) mouth dropped open upon hearing that comment, apparently taken by surprise, that they might be replaced. The Pahrump Valley Times was present at the rally and meeting; they should have an article soon; will be very interesting to read how they recollect the meeting and comments. The family at the center of the library gun-ban did an outstanding job articulating the issue and made a great showing. Last comment about the meeting, after the open-comment period ended, the board members mumbled amongst themselves causing the crowd to inform them that they could not be heard and to please use the microphone. That same elderly woman library board member stated to another member, "are we required by law to do that"? My take away, after observing the board members body language and listening to their comments, is that this is not a personality conflict and their intent is to initiate incremental gun-control. -usmcnye  After a tease period of releasing something “legendary,” Glock released a 10-round .22 pistol the size of model 19. The Glock 44 is a .22LR pistol with a partial steel and polymer slide intended, among other things, to allow sub-caliber training with something closely approximating a duty pistol. The pistol slide, according to Glock, cannot be swapped with the 9mm version. I, like many other people who have already filled up comment pages this morning, are unimpressed. A “legendary” .22 pistol is the Ruger Mark series, the Browning Buckmark, or the Colt Woodman’s. Glock’s new pistol is not “legendary,” but rather an overdue offering from a company whose “legendary” innovation has stagnated. They couldn’t even make the magazine a high capacity magazine of at least 15 rounds. Glock’s most recent innovations of note were the Generation 5 improvements such as the Marksman barrel and improved trigger pull as well as the Bavaria-only rotating barrel Glock 46. The latter is not available in the United States and may not be. It remains to be seen if the rotating barrel will be adopted as standard or as new offering. The Austrian company has fallen behind the market place. First, offerings like the model 44 are available in greater capacity. The Taurus TX22 holds 16 rounds for a $349 MSRP, closer to $200-$250 retail when on sale, versus Glock’s $430 MSRP. Keltec’s rail compatible and pre-threaded CP33 holds 33 rounds in a revolutionary 33-round magazine at the same price point as Glock’s new offering.  Glock essentially made entry to the .22 niche that conversion slides filled nicely without adding really any other value. This new pistol is an unremarkable failure that will appeal to fanboys and few others. Sub-caliber training is pointless at the price where 9mm anyone who can afford this pistol can afford the ammo to feed it. Law enforcement agencies cannot realistically train their officers to shoot without the realistic recoil standard cartridges provide. Most agencies do not have separate training cartridges and prefer to shoot instead with their +P hollow-point ammunition to make training shots as similar to combat shooting as possible. Consumers have been asking Glock for anything but this pistol for ages. There still is no compact frame and long slide (model 26 fame and model 19 slide). Many shooters have been turned off by Glocks because they desire a thumb safety, which Glock refuses to provide from the factory except for government contract orders. Smith and Wesson’s new line of M&P pistols have either option available for civilians. There is no pistol caliber carbine either. With such a demand for a new, innovative carbine one would think Glock would engineer a compact carbine that isn’t the Roni conversions or a 9mm AR-15. Hell, Glock can’t even offer a branded 1911 as a gimmick. On one hand, Glock doesn’t have to cater to the demands of the American civilian pistol market. Their international government and military sales and American law enforcement sales provide enough business. Civilian Glock fanboys wishing for this or that are secondary to the established pistol market. People will continue to buy Glocks because they are utilitarian pistols that are freakishly reliable. Much like Apple and the iPhone, Glock introduces what the company wants, not what the consumer is demanding. So without having shot the pistol, Glock missed an opportunity here and played right into the jokes and memes about their product introductions.  The Reno Gazette-Journal is reporting that the Reno city council plans to review the purchase of license plate recognition cameras, in part “aid in the investigation and reduction of gun related crimes” at its Wednesday, 12/04, meeting. The intent is to purchase an additional two mobile and six fixed readers. Is this a danger to gun owners or is it just crappy reporting? It's crappy reporting. License plate recognition (LPR) or automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology merely pulls up registration of a vehicle and any associated information (warrants, stolen vehicle wants, other flags) that can be obtained manually by the officer or a dispatcher. The request is specifically to allocate funds from the Strategies for Policing Innovation (SPI) grant award given to Reno by the US DOJ in 2018. As for the Dec. 2019 request, the police staff report says the following: This award will be used to support focused efforts to apprise problematic gang members of the legal consequences of gun violence and a wider educational campaign that treats gun violence as risk to public health. SPI will use a problem-oriented approach to engage stakeholders, including community members and business owners, and gather information in neighborhoods most likely to be victimized by firearm related crimes. One component of the SPI grant project is to use LPR technology to aid in the investigation and reduction of gun-related crimes. The staff report reporting the award of the 2018 grant has similar language. SPI will use a problem-oriented approach to engage stakeholders, including community members and business owners, and gather information in neighborhoods most likely to be victimized by firearm related crimes. This input will be used to develop strategies to reduce gun violence. The difference between 2019 (top) and 2018 (bottom) is the lack of the LPR language. Basically, the police department is using grant money to combat with "gun violence" to buy license plate readers. They justify this by adding the language that they will "use LPR technology" to the initial purpose of the grant. There is no requirement to specify how they will do that. I was in law enforcement and used early LPR cameras. I'm also familiar with how federal grant money gets disbursed. If you add in a few words that make it seem like you're using the grant money for the purpose of the grant, you can use it for whatever you want. Any further justification might be "Well, we'll use the cameras to identify wanted felons who might have a gun or vehicles wanted for a murder/robbery, etc." Short version is: Reno Police are saying what they need to in order to get new cameras and use this grant money to do it. It's how federal grant money works. Nothing to see here.  In 2014, Cliven Bundy called for support against the BLM and people from all over the country arrived armed and ready for conflict. This wasn't about Bundy's predicament per se, but many people came and supported him out of a root cause of disdain for the federal government and the Obama Administration. History does not care about the facts underlying the spark that leads to revolution. The first shots in the gun control war will probably be an incident like this weekend's that gets out of hand. Patriots will begin engaging police and if there are sufficient numbers of patriots, it may escalate into an infantry engagement. It will get ugly. We'd all like resistance to tyranny to start over a "righteous" cause, but the casus belli is more often a symbol more than a hero. Write Winger: The boogaloo that wasn’t: controlling the narrativeYou have to be willing to accept your narrative or the popular narrative might be wrong, but not very many are willing or able to do that. -Write Winger Read the whole thing from blogger Write Winger.  Whiskey_warrior_556 Instagrammer (Alex) Whiskey_warrior_556 is allegedly in a standoff with police in Putnam County, New York, regarding a "red flag" gun confiscation order supposedly over 30 round magazines. As of this writing, it has been reported that the situation has ended, but that is unconfirmed. What we (think we) know is:
We don't know if:
Based on the online response, many supporters are calling for a response similar to the Bundy Ranch. That is, should police make an aggressive apprehension, the crowd is there to deter that action because of the threat of violence. Many are asking if this is the "bugaloo" or the start of armed resistance to gun control. What is becoming clear is that as "red flag" confiscations increase, for right or wrong reasons, certain individuals may publicize their actions in order to gain support. This support may include asking for an armed response by patriots or even attacking police. We came very close to just such a situation involving the Bundy family in 2014. I believe in the future "red flag" raids will begin to be resisted by force and supporters will start to attack police. This would be an insurrection and be met with heavy resistance by police, federal agents, and possibly even the military. As America continues to fracture and our rights trampled upon, injudicious law enforcement and patriotic support will eventually lead to open violence between citizens and the government. I see more Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents happening, only with the involvement of outside forces. Because we do not know the true circumstances or facts surrounding Whiskey_warrior_556, we can't know if showing up to essentially intimidate the police is a morally justifiable action. Engaging in this kind of civil disobedience has not just legal consequences like Nevada is familiar with, but could lead to kinetic consequences. Therefore, I would caution anyone drawn to support a person in this situation to act as circumspectly as possible and with as much restraint as they can. Finally, as Thomas Jefferson said, the conditions when violent resistance to tyranny is appropriate is as follows: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Be damn sure that you know what you're getting into before you start marching on Lexington Common. Update: Sources on Twitter are reporting that the situation has ended with no arrests, no charges for Whiskey_warrior_445  Douglas Haig, who sold ammunition to the Mandalay Bay shooter, pled guilty today to selling and manufacturing ammunition without a license. None of Haig’s ammunition was used in the shooting, but it was found at the crime scene and a receipt linked him to the killer Steven Paddock. Haig faces up to five years in prison at his sentencing on Feb. 19. At every turn, the federal government railroaded Haig. Not only was he the only person prosecuted in connection with the crime, though he had no part or knowledge of it, the federal judge James Mahan denied request after request to ensure Haig got a fair trial. He was denied a bench trial (to the liabilities of avoid an emotional Las Vegas jury deeply affected by the incident). He was denied a change of venue to Arizona and another to Reno. The judge even refused to ban mention of the mass shooting in court. The government wanted a scapegoat and it wanted a guilty plea, so they backed Haig into a corner where he could go on trial and probably lose and get sentenced to something terrible, or he could plead. At least they let him plead guilty. Selling and manufacturing ammunition without a license is a federal crime akin to distilling and selling liquor without ATF approval and paying the appropriate taxes. This law is not about crime control, it’s about tax revenue and government control. One can only imagine what would be if the government required a license to print and sell books. The most disgusting aspect of this is the prosecutorial zeal for a scapegoat and the complicity of the judge in allowing the government to run roughshod over this man. Douglas Haig didn’t kill anyone, but the government, unable to find a motive or punish anyone else, must have someone’s hide for Paddock’s crime. Treating a white-collar crime in such a callous manner and refusing at every opportunity to provide for a fair trial is tyranny. One hopes that Haig has the ability to appeal his plea on the grounds it was compelled due to the utter contempt of the government for him to receive a fair trial.   What's the difference?  Open carry is not a stunt. Sometimes it's about politics and protests require donning arms to get the point across. Yet the license (so to speak) to openly carry is not one to be a tone-deaf idiot. People don't want to see long guns in restaurants. After the first few incidents in Texas were misinterpreted, Open Carry Texas backed off this practice. Here in Nevada, we always openly carried handguns into restaurants for our meet-ups. We minded our own business, were friendly, and weren't threatening. It was kind of like being in a celebrity in a lot of places. As we normalized open carry again in Nevada, the novelty kinda wore off and now an openly carried handgun is unremarkable (save certain corporate practices that force or encourage employees to make a big deal out of it). Open carry isn't about showing off. It's a practical means of defensive carry. Pistols are ordinary, effective enough, and do not frighten the average citizen or rational politician. Rifles do. A protest or rally with rifles and American flags doesn't send the same signal that some unknown dude walking into a business does with a slung rifle. For instance, it may be legal for women to be topless in New York and Utah, but if you walk into a church half-naked, people are gonna freak, you're gonna get trespassed, and you will win no one to your side. Now you don't have to be Mr. Clean Cut White Shirt Guy while openly carrying, but not toting an AR-15 that half of America thinks is capable of killing on its own into TGI Friday's is a good thing. Pistols are normal and people support or ignore that. Rifles in the wrong context freak them out.  Joe Ravi, CC-BY-SA 3.0 By now, we know that the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case Remington over the Sandy Hook massacre. The court should have dismissed the suit as being preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was intended to keep gun manufacturers from being sued by a criminal’s act using the firearm. Allowing a victim to sue a manufacturer would be like allowing Ford to be sued because a drunk driver injured someone while behind the wheel of an F-150. Using the car analogy, it’s ridiculous to think Ford bares liability for someone’s criminal use of their vehicle. But because we have so stigmatized firearms somehow “it’s okay” to sue them. The actual Connecticut Supreme Court ruling allow the suit to proceed forward because Remington’s advertising “might” violate state fair trade laws. What the US Supreme Court’s decision does is allow the actual trial to go forward. One of the ads in question was “Consider your man card re-issued,” (imply the purchase of an AR-15 did that). Of course, the plaintiff would have to prove that Lanza saw the ad and was somehow influenced by it. It’s a difficult bar to reach because he is dead and took pains to destroy and information regarding motive. Also, the weapon was never purchased by Lanza. Instead, he murdered her and stole her firearms. Even the Connecticut Supreme Court found that proving a violation might be problematic. The plaintiffs will likely lose at trial against Remington. That’s the one upside to all of this; the suit is obviously ludicrous. An appeal going forward would probably be supported not on the PLCAA, but free speech grounds. Nevertheless, it’s all about precedence and forcing gun makers to spend money defending this crap. The problem for firearm manufacturers and the PLCAA is that the US Supreme Court not squashing this case summarily provides encouragement to anti-gunners to file lawsuits to try and exploit and crack they can. The incrementalism strategy of gun control is very dangerous in this regard, especially if the US Supreme Court waffles on future appeals. The plaintiffs should have been slammed down hard because this case was an affront to federal statutes. The court should have shut this down on principle because at the heart of the challenge is this kind of find-a-weakness attack on the PLCAA. Our system of judicial review is being used against us and the court is too morally weak to think strategically. Oddly, courts wrap themselves narrowly in precedence and narrow reading but also exercise their own feelings and politics when it comes to decisions. On one day, they are too conservative with the law and the next they decide purely based on emotion and politics. The idea of judicial review puts the ultimate power of everything in the hands of the Supreme Court making the nine robed “sages” our masters instead of a proper separation of powers. We cannot rely on courts to “save” our rights. Our rights are God-give and inherent. A court ruling is only a means to an end. We are also at the decline of American constitutional government and jurisprudence. No matter what favorable ruling we might get, it’s only a means to an end. We all know that one day we will have no other recourse than the ammo box. |
Archives
December 2019
CategoriesSupport Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research, links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc. Please email regarding one-time donations.
|
RSS Feed