This is the list of major, verifiable defensive gun uses in Nevada from 2018, mainly from major news sites. There were 24. The list is not complete. As a reminder, the overwhelming majority of defensive gun uses do not involve a shot being fired and are rarely reported to police. The most conservative reliable estimate is 100,000 DGUs occur each year in America, likely closer to half or one million.
Recently, some really bad advice from some really bad concealed carry instructors has been making the rounds online here in Nevada. Specifically, these instructors are lying and saying that “printing” is illegal in Nevada.
“Printing” is a term used describe when the outline of a concealed handgun is visible beneath tight or pinched clothing. The correct word is actually imprinting, because the imprint of the gun is visible in the folds of the shirt or jacket.
Nevada has no law that can in anyway be reasonably construed to imply that “printing” is illegal. First, open carry is legal in Nevada. Whether the gun is carried openly on purpose or whether you happen to unintentionally expose it through movement or taking off a coat, etc., allowing others to see the gun is not a crime.
Second, showing the outline of the firearm through your clothes is not criminal either, unless you happen to not have a permit. Nevada defines a “concealed firearm” as a loaded or unloaded handgun which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation (NRS 202.3653).
Let’s not get too technical with this definition. Though one could argue that a very clear, obvious imprint of a handgun would be discernible as a firearm by ordinary observation, the long understanding is that the actual weapon is visible, not just its outline. No one should rush out to be a test case. Only deliberately exposing a holstered handgun to draw negative attention towards it as a threat is criminal (brandishing).
Anyone who says that you can lose your permit in Nevada for “printing” or openly carrying is a liar. Many instructors use this as a fear-based tactic to generate business out of a concern that people will choose the free open carry option. Not so. People like the ability to conceal and also appreciate the training that comes from a classroom environment. In fact, most serious shooters and citizen carriers seek out quality training and continue their firearms education.
Even police officers are mistaken or lie, usually the former. Officers often give “advice” or “warnings” to citizens printing or openly carrying. Officers have a very different reason to conceal their firearms and not look like a cop while off-duty or in plainclothes. The arguments against open carry and for very deep concealment do not apply to the average citizen carrier. Cops also have the observational skills and the necessity to look and see who might be armed.
I would caution most that if they choose to conceal, do it well. It presents a better image of armed citizens if there aren’t photos of a dude in a tight t-shirt just covering over a 1911. But don't worry if you can spot the gun shape; most people can't. For bigger guys or those odd clothes, a vague shape under the shirt goes unnoticed if dressed well.
Sloppy carry is something that criminals typically do, making a poorly concealed or poorly carried handgun a common identifier of crooks. You don’t want a gun in your waistband to give the guy at 7/11 a heart attack because he thinks you’re about to hold up the place. Certainly, in non-permissive environments like casinos one would also want to conceal well to avoid a ruckus or being asked to leave.
Printing is essentially a non-issue in Nevada and other similar jurisdictions. No one really cares and no one really notices, unless you are constantly grabbing at your gun in public like Michael Jackson's affection for his crotch.
Very few members of society who aren't law enforcement or well-trained are observant enough to notice a concealed firearm. Many people never even notice an openly carried one. Few people scan other people's bodies for guns deliberately, especially the general public who is uninterested in guns. If a criminal sees a concealed handgun, he will more than likely leave the person alone; criminals like targets that don't fight back (and gun snatchings, open or concealed, are very rare).
Clothing tends to soften the traditional gun shape allowing the human mind, which likes to see what's familiar, interpret the folds as just the way the clothes are worn. If they see it's an object, a reasonable assumption would be a belt-clipped phone case or something similar. That assumes the person is interested enough to think about it further or that they are someone who cares enough to say or do something about a concealed carrier. Most of the horror stories of a soccer mom tackling a concealed carrier or panicking were accidental exposures or merely a lucky glimpse and inference.
I don’t know how this pernicious rumor about printing started. In Texas, usually the source of bad carry law myths like California is the source of stupid laws, printing was never the issue people assumed it to be. You can read this excerpt from my forthcoming open carry book on Texas and the issue of printing there.
To conclude, in Nevada, it’s not illegal if your gun prints. It will look tacky if it’s bad and might get you kicked out of an anti-gun business, but that’s all.
Stay tuned while I research where printing is actually illegal. And buy a t-shirt, why don’t you?
Private sales make some buyers and sellers nervous. Is this guy a felon? Is the gun stolen? Chances are, you never know. You also never know if down the line, the buyer or subsequent owner will use the gun in a crime. To some, a bill of sale appears to be the answer. Some buyers will refuse to fill out a bill of sale, for various reasons. It’s more complex than it seems.
For the time being, private gun sales are legal in Nevada and in many other states. Voluntary private background check systems are rare. In the Silver State, one has to send a letter to Carson City using a courtesy program graciously extended by the Department of Public Safety after Question 1 stupidly eradicated the statutory provision for the same program. At least bureaucrats have more decency and sense than the gun banners. Yet the ambiguity raises concerns to some.
Let’s dispel some myths.
Selling to a felon or prohibited person unwittingly is not going to get anyone in trouble unless the seller knows the buyer can’t own guns. If someone is unsure, don’t do the sale. And if you do sell to a bad guy in good faith, the police still have to prove you knew or reasonably should have known that the neighbor you saw get arrested three times is a felon.
The biggest fear sellers have is their gun turning up at a murder scene. The detectives call the ATF in West Virginia to trace what wholesaler bought the gun from the manufacture, what dealer bought it off the wholesaler, and who’s name is on the Form 4473 in the dealer’s files. Then the police call on the buyer, who, according to the myth, is taken downtown to be interrogated and charged with murder because it was “their gun.”
A detective investigating what obviously appears to be a racial gang murder is not going to suspect the first buyer, John Smith, of the murder. The detective will be concerned that Mr. Smith sold the gun to a gang member, but more likely, the detective wants to know if Mr. Smith had the gun stolen or sold it. When the police call, Mr. Smith informs the detective that he sold the gun, and don’t you know, he sold it to Demarcus Williams. Mr. Smith was 300 miles from the scene of the murder.
Adding in a layer, the officer contacts Demarcus Williams, who tells the detective he sold the gun because he was leaving for college and couldn’t have it there. Methy McRedneck was the buyer, who seemed a little intense. Turns out Methy McRedneck was owed $5,000 from the dead guy. Mr. Smith is off the hook.
Having a bill of sale in the rare event it escapes confinement and kills someone illegally is handy for just one reason; so that if the police have the gun, they will get a lead on who might have bought the gun. Most citizens and gun owners secretly like to help solve crimes and be cool to the police, so they’ll happily give up their copy of a bill of sale to put a dirtbag behind bars. That’s all well and good, but those who actually had that happen are in the minority. Most of the time, the investigating detective pretty much assumes the original buyer had nothing to do with the crime for reasons above.
Many gun owners refuse to do bills of sale because of concerns that their address and info may be used for theft later on or because of a simple invasion of their privacy rights. Someone who sells a car generally don’t keep any info on the buyer once their copy of the release of liability hits the mail and no one keeps tabs on who bought blunt objects or kitchen knives from their garage sale.
Another reason is to avoid a paper trail that some do-good citizen might decide to hand over to the ATF if national gun registration ever becomes a thing. If the ATF traces buyers and threatens to those who claim they sold the gun to prove it, that bill of sale becomes a good way to keep your dog or your nursing wife from being shot. Unfortunately, many gun owners will gladly give up their guns and their paperwork to keep a future tyrannical government from stomping all over them.
On one hand, I can’t fault people for doing whatever is necessary to save their family’s skins. On the other hand, I would hope they would tell the ATF to pound sand and be willing to go down in a hailstorm of lead should confiscation be attempted. This is assuming the ATF traced the gun to you in the first place, bothered to follow-up and harass people, and if they had the time/manpower to make arrests that the US attorney may or may not charge. It’s not likely that non-compliance with reasonable doubt will lead to you being drug off to the gulag.
For those of you who keep bills of sale to dime out others to save your skin, I hope the ATF shoots your dog anyway.
Finally, I don’t look to harshly upon people who want a bill of sale. For the most part, many are selling their first gun. For them, it’s peace of mind in a process they don’t fully grasp yet. Over time, as they come to realize most people buying and selling guns in their circle are also normal, the desire for needless paperwork will disappear. Make selling guns a non-issue and soon enough they’ll treat it like trading lawnmowers.
Besides, half of these people will loose the paperwork anyway.
It’s not something to harangue fans of Bill O’Sale over, just politely decline the sale. There is no reason to alienate private sellers when we can convince them their fears are empty. And sellers, if they have a CCW, you don’t need a bill of sale. If they do anything stupid with the gun you sold, there was nothing you could do about it. No need to be paranoid or feel guilty.
There has been a steady parade of backlash from NRA board members and other prominent NRA figures against the burning criticism of the self-billed “oldest civil rights organization.” I am sick of decrepit old people, rich people, and famous people telling me I’m wrong for airing legitimate criticism. I don’t want to fall in line and shut-up because a wrinkled old crone told me to.
In the wake of supporting President Trump’s bump-fire stock ban, outcry against the association for its support of a ban has been vociferous. They did this because in the wake of the October 1 Route 91 shooting, where the killer used bump-fire stocks as ersatz machine guns from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay, it seemed that ownership of these stocks was indefensible.
Plenty of gun owners on both sides of the current NRA debate have expressed disinterest or outright loathing of bump-fire stocks. Yet plenty of those who call the sliding plastic stocks “stupid crap” opposed any such ban, especially a regulatory one, because of the slippery slope. Such a redefinition of rate of fire, getting away from the strict definition of a machine gun as multiple shots from one distinct pull of the trigger, could be used to back bans of binary trigger packs, triggers with lighter pulls, or even semi-automatic weapons entirely.
Backing up to 2017, when it seemed like Congress might pass a ban itself (an unquestionably legal ban, if not constitutional), many defended the NRA and President Trump’s call for an administrative change to ATF regulations as “3D chess” or some such strategy to prevent legislation from passing. But after the threat of legislation died off, we were left with a looming regulatory ban and no advancement of any pro-gun legislation.
Indeed, movement on deregulating suppressors and national reciprocity stopped, leaving them as good as dead with the Democrat-led House in the 115th Congress. Frustration mounted that with a Republican majority in the House and Senate, neither measure went up for a vote, but now a very dangerous precedent might be set. Political irritation with the GOP is another matter, but among the grievances of NRA members was that the organization had not put much visible effort into getting the pro-gun bills passed.
Lack of success and appeasement of an enemy that can never be appeased did not make many NRA members happy. No headway being made and the loss of something, even as seemingly inconsequential as a bump-fire stock, was the last straw for these members. Much of the criticism of the NRA was that it was “all noise, no action.” Bloggers and YouTube stars have complained that the NRA is a club for it’s elite members and to provide political cover for members of Congress. In essence, the NRA’s federal lobby was a scam. Gun owners’ interests were not at the heart.
With board elections coming up, pieces are appearing all over the Internet from board members and other NRA honchos begging members not to throw out the board and belittling those who want radical action. Marion Hammer is one such member who seems to be contemptuous of those in the gun right’s movement who truly believe that “shall not be infringed” means what it says. She and a few others are downright contemptuous of what has become the new face of gun right activism. We are not a polite, ever suffering majority any longer.
The NRA has failed to change with the times. With the very long tenure of Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, the organization has become part of the DC swamp where connections and money is valued more than winning. I’ll not delve into the specifics here, but the milquetoast corporate leadership seems more interest in preserving its semblance of power and privilege than actually winning successes. We do not want compromisers in office who take heavy paychecks to squander a once-in-a-lifetime trifecta at the federal level, only to go weak at the knees and give something up. This was the organization that dared suggest guns in schools was the answer to mass shootings in 2013 and took it on the nose.
Coming to my conclusion, it’s not the NRA that’s the problem. Instead, it’s the very top of corporate leadership that is the problem. The board of directors need to be cleaned out and given the power to throw out executives like LaPierre again. LaPierre and Cox need to go and take their PR and ad firms along with them, while their sycophants pack up their offices as well. The NRA needs radicals at the top who realize we are fighting—literally—to keep our right to bear arms on the cusp of a civil war. With fresh blood at the top, the whole body will prosper and can wield its tremendous power to influence Congress and the President.
Reading the defenses of the NRA make me sick because it sounds like an abusive husband telling his broken and bloody wife “If you leave me, no one else will love you or take care of you.” Even moderate defenses, of the organization as a whole and not the cancerous leadership, fail to separate the tumor from the body. The training, media, outreach, safety, and historical aspects of the NRA are as great as they have ever been. The NRA, aside from its middling actions in Washington, is a strong entity worthy of support.
At the state level, the NRA-ILA does do as much as it reasonably can. In Nevada, we’ve recently received help from them and back in 2016, their help with Question 1 was invaluable. Through the work of Kevin Kam and others, they helped us turn what we thought was going to be a defeat by 20% to a difference of less than one percent (thanks Clark County). The NRA is still the first-stop for those gun owners who are newly politically active.
My friend’s parents, live-long Californians, recently bought a shotgun and joined the NRA. They are enthusiastic members and supporters of firearms freedom. Should we put them down for signing up? Of course not. They’ve already seen the value in donating to California state groups and other organizations like GOA and SAF. State and these alternative organizations are perfect places to still support the political cause for NRA-protesters like myself.
For many of us, including myself, we cannot donate to the NRA until they clean-up their act. It is not our goal to kill the NRA, but to reform it. We want it to reflect what the changed face of gun rights activism is; a true fight for survival. Until the NRA feels the pinch of declining membership and lost revenue, it will not listen to what gun owners want.
We don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water, but that doesn’t mean that we as gun owners and members (current, former, and future) should continue to accept compromise. We do not want Wayne and Chris negotiating our rights away. We want our juggernaut to begin throwing its weight around. Imagine if Fairfax called for one million AR-15 armed people to converge on the National Mall and bussed them all in from Virginia? Bloomberg and Soros would do it.
A father disciplines his children out of love in order to correct their misbehavior. That’s all that we protesters and unhappy members are calling for; positive change. Once the NRA realizes that it cannot continue to be the political organization it has been and institutes positive, lasting changes, we can once again wholeheartedly embrace it.
Just a few short weeks ago, 2019 began, ushering in the fight of our lives in Nevada. It’s going to be a tough year for gun rights, but with your help, we can stem the tide of anti-gun bills steamrolling towards us.
Priority One of the Nevada Firearms Coalition’s Political Action Committee is to support the gains we have made since 2011, including enhanced preemption which eliminated handgun registration “blue cards” in Clark County. Yet there is no reason to despair. You can help fight the onslaught and stop anti-gun fantasies from becoming reality.
To fight, it takes money. The PAC employs a dedicated lobbyist in Carson City to reach out to the legislators. Your money can also go to the NVFAC Foundation, which helps train and educate shooters through its youth and Annie Oakley women’s program.
The Foundation supports matches like IDPA and the Know Your Limits .22 match. Thousands of new women shooters have been introduced by way of the Annie Oakley program. And for just $25 a month, you can’t beat the free range days for members on the private, Education Center range at the Clark County Shooting Complex.
If you’re not a member, please join the Nevada Firearms Coalition today. Get great member benefits from local stores, restaurants, and instructors include discounts on things like barbecue, ammunition purchases, and training. To make an additional donation, or for current members to help keep up the fight, please donate to the NVFAC PAC. Our anti-gun foes are beating down the door and your donations are immediately needed to help secure what’ve gained.
One time-donations can be made here, and if you’d like to make a monthly recurring donation, why not join the Caliber Club and do it denominated in the amount of your favorite caliber? The benefit of joining the Caliber Club is that the PAC knows exactly how much money it can count on each month.
The Nevada Firearms Coalition Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity with the
objective of promoting the shooting sports, conservation, firearm safety and shooting
education in Nevada. You can donate directly to them here, or sign up for the Amazon Smile program. AmazonSmile is just Amazon.com, but the AmazonSmile Foundation will donate .5% of the purchase price of eligible products to the charitable organization of your choice. Please note that you must use smile.amazon.com website and select the NVFAC Foundation to shop to have your purchases count towards the donation. If you use their regular website there will be no donation made.
Smith’s grocery shoppers can also have up to .5% of their eligible purchases donated to the Foundation. Visit Smith’s Inspire webpage and sign up. Sign into your account or create an account. Then link your Rewards Card to the NVFAC Foundation or the organization number LY109. Select and save your choice.
Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry are not affiliated with the Firearms Coalition or the NRA. If you wish to support Nevada Carry, buy a t-shirt today! And wear it to the legislative hearings.
Whoring t-shirt designs again. Click the image to buy the shirt design you like and help support the blog.
Perfect to wear to legislative hearings on gun control!
I suggest everyone wear black because black scares them and it creates a uniform look.
If you want to be stylish.
Including the ever-popular "Deplorables' Snowflake Removal Service" series.
A shooting occurred at the Green Valley Ranch casino Tuesday afternoon. One person was shot by hotel security. There were no other injuries/fatalities. A bystander reported that security fired six times at the suspect who was reportedly in the ballroom or lobby area. Others reported that police told them the man was seen by security entering the building with a gun.
Shannon Michael Howell, 53, of Las Vegas was the deceased. Howell apparently came to the casino to commit suicide as he had both a suicide note on his person and a pistol with one round chambered, but an empty magazine. Howell was contacted by three securities guards, apparently already having the gun in his hand, according to some accounts. This appears to be suicide-by-cop (security guard).
It was initially reported as an active shooter, but authorities said it is not terrorism related and was an isolated incident. Hospitals were alerted to potential mass casualty incident, but as only the suspect was shot, the alert was canceled. Guests and staff were evacuated, but some guests complained they were not told what was going on or what to do.
While it is legal to carry a firearm in a casino, persons who are asked to leave or disarm may be trespassed. Nearly every casino in Nevada including the Station Casino (Green Valley Ranch) properties prohibit guests from possessing firearms. Casino properties are generally considered non-permissive carry zones or gun free zones for this reason.
This is the first known defensive gun use in Nevada in 2019.
Should SHOTShow move from Las Vegas due to predicted anti-gun legislation that would outlaw (for Nevadans) many of the products being sold at the show? All possibilities for gun control are on the table in Nevada’s 2019 legislative session, including assault weapon bans. Holding SHOT in Las Vegas in 2020 and beyond may be like holding it California.
Legalities aside, does the National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) have a moral duty to move the show to a state that does not wholesale infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
Yes, it does. The firearms industry stays in business and does so well precisely because of the American tradition of gun ownership. This is a citizen consumer oriented convention intended to help manufacturers sells guns to retailer who will sell guns and gun stuff to people like you and I. This is not a arms expo showing off the latest anti-aircraft missile to third world generals. If Americans cannot purchase the products being shown freely, the show is pointless.
The total abolition of American citizen firearm ownership is almost certainly in the works and it’s time for the big boys to stand up and be heard. Large manufactures and the NSSF need to take a political stance to stop (or at least delay) totalitarian gun control or else all but the biggest houses with military business will find themselves legislated into the unemployment lines. The days of paying lobbyists to threaten legislators with re-election heartache is out. Traditional means of influencing politicians is quickly becoming ineffective.
In order to effect change, the frankly corrupt (either actually or morally) politicians have to be hit where it counts; in their pocketbook. In the case of Nevada, this means hurting the gambling gaming industry so they turn the screws on their bought-off politicians. It means causing pain to the casino unions because their union members are being laid off. We must take away money from those who can influence politicians so that they in turn demand the clowns in Carson City stop, or don’t do, stupid things.
Hank Strange’s podcast had an interesting discussion on this topic. It’s worth a listen. In response to some of their concerns, I don’t believe that Nevada law enforcement would ever enforce a Nevada assault weapons ban, etc. on SHOTShow. Why? Because Nevada is corrupt. Large conventions means lots of money to the casinos. I’m sure there would be a legislative exception or California-esque “dangerous weapon permit” to allow the show to go on. Even if not, you can guarantee no one from Metro or the state will do anything to harm a massive money-making convention for Nevada’s only real industry.
My request is that NSSF schedule the next feasible SHOTShow for another state like Texas that isn’t ready to capitulate to tyranny. It may not be for a few years, due to scheduling and contracts, but it would send a message to Gov. Sleekstak and his merry band of idiots. If you work for NSSF or deal closely with them, please encourage them to go elsewhere. I don’t have high hopes because everyone wants a free trip to Vegas.
On December 17, 2018 in Madison, WI, an man openly carrying had a handgun snatched from his holster and managed to avoid being shot. In the words of noted pithy Madison Police public information officer Joel DeSpain:
"The victim said he and a buddy were just 'hanging out.' His friend was not armed, but he was. In fact, he was carrying two handguns, a long gun, and a machete type knife in a sheath this past Monday night.
"His friend would later tell police that the victim – a gun advocate – was wanting to make a statement about the right to bear arms, and had been on busy State St. a couple of times practicing 'open carry.' The friend also admitted another goal – for both of them - was to 'get girls' (phone) numbers.'
"The MPD had gotten calls from people regarding an armed man, walking State Street, but he was breaking no laws, and was not contacted. That was until he, himself, called 911.
"Another man, who has no permanent home, and is known to downtown patrol officers, had confronted the victim saying something similar to: 'Why you wanna kill people.' The gunman responded saying he was armed because it was his right, and it was for protection.
"It was around this time that the suspect closed distance between he and the victim. He grabbed and yanked a holstered handgun from the victim's body. The suspect pointed the loaded weapon at the victim, and the victim – in turn – pulled his long gun and pointed it at the suspect. It was a fluid, tense and quick standoff.
"It ended with the suspect running off, still in possession of the victim's handgun. Officers would later locate him. They recovered the stolen handgun and took the suspect into custody on a number of tentative charges."
The suspect, Melvin F. Bogus, age 39, a transient, was arrested for second degree reckless endangerment, theft, possession of firearm by felon, possession of cocaine and bail jumping.
Like the young man in Oregon who was showing off his new handgun, it’s obvious from his own words that this Madison open carrier was not your average person carrying for everyday self-defense. He had a rifle and large knife with him. Part of his stated intention was to “get girls numbers.” He was showing off—not making any serious political statement about the Second Amendment nor carrying for practical defense. This open carrier was behaving stupidly.
The details of the snatch and whether or not the holster was retention holster are unknown. Though the two did struggle over the handgun, indicating the open carrier did have some presence of mind to protect his handgun, carrying a rifle likely interfered with his ability to retain his pistol. At least he had his long-gun to point at the suspect, though it’s unclear whether or not the Mr. Bogus actually intended to harm his victim.
This incident is not evidence that open carry is ill-advised or that one is likely to be similarly victimized. Rather, this is an example of a foolish person who was not serious about his purpose and certainly not engaged in everyday defensive carry. It was a political/attention-getting stunt that backfired spectacularly. Several of the admitted factors by the victim indicate that this was very likely an amateur targeted by a slightly deranged Bogus who saw the imprudent open carrier as an easy mark. Had the open carrier not made open carry into a spectacle, this incident almost certainly would not have happened. Bogus’ remark implies the image the open carrier projected was not that of a situationally aware defensive carrier, but instead was threatening or stupid.
A person who open carriers a handgun in a secure holster for self-defense—rather than parading in public to flaunt his guns and woo the ladies—will more than likely not find himself in this situation. The carrier’s ability to retain control over his handgun and push away Bogus was likely inhibited by holding the long-gun (or at least keeping it out of the way during the struggle). However, the presence of that long-gun may have kept this from escalating.
Sorry concealed carry supremacists; this is not a 'win' for arguing open carry is dangerous. Being stupid is dangerous.
The long-standing dispute with the Las Vegas Clark County Library District (LVCCLD) has been settled Flores v. LVCCLD. I’m not going to dissect the opinion piece by piece. I might later, but to do so is moot at this point.
The short version is that for years, LVCCLD has ignored state law that only prohibits concealed carry in public buildings, when posted. Open carry is legal in public buildings per NRS 202.3673, except local districts—like library districts—that have rules against it (according to the Flores decision).
What the court decided, was that because local districts are not specifically mentioned in each of the sections pertaining to counties, cities, and towns, that the legislature really didn’t intend to limit the ability of the odd local district, like library districts, to ban legal open carry. The court found the right hoops to jump through to make shit stick to the wall, but hey, no one ever said that lawyers were honest or decent human beings.
Obviously, this is wrong and the dissent points this out. The other wording of the bill (and the resulting NRS section) clearly indicates that firearm regulation is reserved only to the legislature, not a board of unelected, hand-picked cronies. Justice Cherry calls out the other “justices” for basically ignoring clear legislative intent. The dissent also notes the plethora of case law from other states affirming preemption and that the odd government entity does not have special powers.
Unfortunately, the legislature did not listen to advice to include such districts or more expansive language to avoid this kind of situation. In a sage world, where “justices” dispensed justice and followed the example of case law elsewhere, the prefatory sections reserving power to the legislature and the clear legislative intent would have made all this moot.
Yet much of the Nevada government is corrupt and likes to play an insider’s game. I charge that the Nevada Supreme Court made a biased decision, deliberately ignoring the facts, in order to execute a political objective—the exact thing an independent judiciary is supposed to avoid. I’d bet, with no proof whatsoever, that anti-gun elements got to the justices and convinced them to vote against the law and logic.
Furthermore, the justices have been aware since the 1990s that open carry is perfectly legal in their courthouse. That’s right; only by fiat did the Supreme Court ban open carry in its building. However, if the issue was forced, they’d apply their flawed Flores logic and say they could.
Going forward from here, no realistic path exists at the state level. The governorship and the legislature has gone blue and it’s not likely to switch back. There will be no correction to preemption when we have legislators and Gov. Sleestak (Sisolak) looking to abolish preemption altogether. Sleestak wanted ban bump-fire stocks in Las Vegas to virtue signal after the Mandalay Bay-Route 91 Harvest-October 1 mass shooting.
Sleestak is the same man who was actually reasonable on firearms until the Democratic Party dragged everyone who wanted to stay in the party to their hoplopathic narrative. That’s right, Governor-elect Sleestak was perfectly fine with preemption in the 1990s. What changed? Party funding; be anti-gun and become anti-American or the Democratic Party won’t pay your election bills anymore.
Federally, we are still in the Ninth Circus, so expecting those justices to save us is unlikely. As for the Supreme Court, their extreme reluctance to take pro-gun cases (likely fearing a devastating swing vote) limits options federally. Justice Scalia’s “sensitive areas” language in the opinion of Heller also problematic. “Sensitive places” today are based on the flawed logic of disarming the law abiding actually protects people.
The only places where people should be disarmed are places where there is a real threat that a concealed carrier (etc.) might abuse the privilege to deceive in order to commit violence. An example of this would be a courthouse, where a defendant or spouse at a hearing uses the law to carry past security and kill the judge, witnesses, etc. Of course, courthouses generally have decent security, including screening, and armed officers to respond to threats. Utah sets a good example where lockboxes are required at the entrances.
We put up a good fight against a contemptible foe. Mrs. Flores bravely stood up against bureaucrats and assholes, I mean trustees, and fought the good fight; something she should be well congratulated for. Getting a favorable opinion by “cheating” is not victory and cheating is something that LVCCLD has done at every turn. Leftists love to cheat and tell you what’s best for you. We’re going to see more of that at the state and national level from here on out. But we know a storm is coming and those that abuse the rights of men, dishonor the law, and behave like tyrants will reap the whirlwind.
And please, no one do anything stupid or inflammatory until after the legislature adjourns in June.