If you think this was about guns, you’re wrong. If you think this was just someone who wants to “watch the world burn,” you’re wrong. This was a loser fighting a one-man civil war.
 
The El Paso shootings were part of the opening salvo in our second civil war. The killer posted a manifesto online in which he explained his motive was to kill Hispanic to “encourage” them to return to their home countries so that they cannot replace European Americans. He warns of a  diabolical plan to replace traditional American ideals with socialism by promising the third world freebies in exchange for them giving their votes, and thus power, to the Democrats.
 
Are his sentiments wrong? No. Such a replacement is in full swing and will be completed by the end of the next decade. Yet being right about that and deciding to shoot shoppers makes about as much sense as hitting the mailman for delivering bills. Rather than look at Hispanics and third-worlders as enemies we should instead see them as pitiful pawns and future victims of the coming totalitarian state.
 
Many mass shootings have been just as the Nolan brothers wrote, “some men want to watch the world burn.” Other have done it as revenge for perceived slights, like Columbine and Borderline. San Bernardino was radical Islamic terror. Anders Breivik attacked a leftist youth camp to publicize his manifesto calling for the removal of Muslims from Norway. In Gilroy, the killer appears to have had some white supremacist ideas, but his target was essentially random.
 
Like The Troubles in Northern Ireland, what happened today is part of ethnic and political violence. Rather than a revolution or rebellion, which the Civil War of 1861-1865 was, this is a true civil war—members of society attacking each other. This was killing with a goal of political change. As this kind of thing increases, it will progress from random, misguided losers killing innocents into direct retaliation. In time, an equally radicalized killer from “the other side” will target who he thinks are his enemy.
 
In the future, we will see worse attacks. When this kind of ethnic/political violence becomes more common, as in Israel during the Intifada, the attacks will be targeted better and methods will be sophisticated. This attack was an idiot loser who couldn’t think of anything better than shooting up a Walmart; I would look to a future of political assassinations, voter intimidation, and bombings. It will not be pretty.
 
This was not just another mass shooting. This was a salvo in something far worse, much more disturbing, and with far greater effects than just gun control. For more in depth information about what the second civil war will look like, please check out Forward Observer on YouTube who has a great video series about the topic. Now on to guns.
 
Pundits will blame the guns because they know that guns erode leftist’s power. We are way beyond discussing gun control as crime or mass shooting control. Any such claimed motivation is entirely false. Each mass shooting is used to rally support for incremental gun control. Once again, we will hear about banning “assault weapons.” The ultimate goal of gun control is disarmament so dissenters cannot interfere with or resist government directives.
 
The future is not a bright one. 

Lyon County Sheriff’s Office crowed about security at Yerington’s Night in the Country this week. To their credit, they had a large presence of deputies and private security as well as a sniper team. Unfortunately…
 
Sheriff’s deputies and private security prevented legal possession of firearms at the fairgrounds in Yerington. Unless I’m mistaken, this is a public facility and state preemption laws apply to counties and their employees, meaning that firearms cannot be prevented from being possessed at a public fairgrounds. 

Of course the Clark County fairgrounds are technically private property of the non-profit fair organization, but I believe Lyon County owns its fairgrounds. There is also the question of whether or not the deputies were enforcing the policy of the venue renter to prohibit firearms for their temporary private property and if this is even legal. So who knows, but the point is that disarming ordinary folks is security theater.
 
The RGJ [quotes source] dug up a country fan, who happened to be one of the tens of thousands of “survivors” of Route 91. 

​First, disarming guests doesn’t prevent someone who expects that kind of security to avoid the checkpoints. The guy in Gilroy never went through security; he cut a fence. In Las Vegas, the shooter shot from an elevated position in the safety of his room at the Mandalay Bay.
 
Second, keeping people from possessing handguns might stop the odd drunken shooting, which frankly doesn’t seem to be a problem with country fans. When was the last time you heard about a predominately white country bar shot up because of drunk violence or a gang shooting? The Borderline is the only country bar shooting I’m aware of and that was a terrorist act, not of ordinary criminal violence.
 
Black and Hispanic clubs on the other hand seem to have innocent bystanders injured in gang shootouts regularly. Here’s an example from Little Rock. Those don’t seem to make many waves.
 
Now no one is suggesting that a concealed carrier with a handgun go up against a guy with a rifle. Rather, a handgun is for shooting your way to safety, should the guy with a rifle be between you and safety. It’s also there to protect yourself in the campground and to and from the venue. No one should be disarmed on a road trip or in their temporary residence (campsite) because of the fear of some loser shooting the place up. Legally armed citizens with handguns are not a problem. The government and media really needs to stop making it out that they are.
 
You want to keep them out of the actual concert area? You got probable cause that the guy with a tactical plate carrier, an AR, and 30 magazines with no camping gear and a “country music sucks” bumper sticker isn’t there to enjoy the music and bang some chicks? Okay, we’ll grant you that. But handguns in vehicles in the parking or camping area should be off-limits to police to touch.
 
Finally, if you’re going to such events you probably aren’t too concerned about your safety. Those of us who are Second Amendment absolutists generally avoid large crowds for the obvious safety concerns. The rest of us are willing to make the sacrifice for the atmosphere or the members of the opposite sex. Getting laid is totally an acceptable excuse for disarming.
 
Those people who go to these events and normally carry guns generally go with the understanding they will be disarmed. That’s the risk you take. At least security was heavy and credible; far more than you’ll find at the average school or public building. It’s all a gray area, but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth reading about law enforcement telling people, without any apparently legal authority, they can’t have legal guns.

​Apparently it bears saying again: criminals don’t respect the law. Laws only dissuade the honest. No background check can detect an evil heart.
 
Now the media backlash has an FFL from Fallon under the scrutiny of the mass media, California and federal law enforcement, and every asshole with the Internet. I feel for the guy, especially with the pressure he’s under. He did speculate that the law should change to ban purchase of firearms by those under 21, but I’m hoping it was just an attempt to throw off the anti-gun dogs. I’m not going to call for tearing “Big Mike’s” throat out over this. He’s a victim as much as anyone else is.
 
I vehemently disagree that anyone under 21 should have different rights than any other adult. Alcohol and gambling laws are discriminatory and so are the laws in places that deny Second Amendment rights to men and women old enough to die for their country. The unorganized militia starts at 17, remember. If you want to go down the route of maturity at 18-20, then we need to have a conversation about making 21 the actual age of majority for everything.
 
The law doesn’t need to change. If we feel we need further restrictions on certain categories, like young males, that cause a fraction of shootings, perhaps we need to look at the majority of homicides in America. 50% of the homicides, usually by gun, are committed by a small percentage of our population; that is black males. If young people need to be disarmed to stop mass shooting, we can greatly reduce our nation’s “gun violence epidemic” by making it illegal for black males to own guns.
 
Of course, that’s a ridiculous suggestion. There are plenty of law-abiding young black men who have nothing to do with gangs. Being black has nothing to do with the violence in their community either; rather it is a broken culture of poverty that glorifies violence and lawlessness amongst a whole host of social issues that exist inside the home. Likewise, many mass shooters have had mental or behavioral issues that essentially went ignored by their parents, schools, and society. Mental health has been basically ignored for the last half a century, preferring to let the mentally ill wander the streets.
 
Gilroy and all the other crimes are about a sick society; one that has lost its way morally, spiritually, and culturally. These things won’t be fixed until we fix ourselves.
 
Instead of looking internally, this event will be used as bloody shirt to wave in more gun control. California doesn’t have any new laws to stop this, but they will likely pressure our corrupt government in Nevada to make it more difficult for us to buy guns. Not only will it be an innocent gun dealer who will be maligned, but individual gun owners as a whole

Dayton, Nevada's Polymer 80 debuts a product that is sure to cause panic among the hoplopaths in Carson City and in California. These 80% plug-n-play frames have been revolutionary for the gun community, especially over the Avocado Curtain. Polymer 80 has been innovating with Glock designs in ways that puts Glock to shame. One wonders where they will go from where they are now.

Complete 80% AR kits with a lower parts kit and complete upper receiver are nothing new, but something about simply removing the polymer to make a workable handgun without a background check that freak out the anti-gun crowd. Heaven forbid criminals just steal guns...That all depends if Buy them while you can get them. 

Any how, I'm a big fan of Polymer 80.

No, this is not a "no shooting at all" ban that many Californians are familiar with. This is a no tracers or Tannerite restriction, which you generally can't use period year-round on government land. Steel targets are also frowned upon due to sparking concerns.

Know your target and what lies beyond it, like dry grass. Too many have start or have been alleged to have been started by shooters so don't make the problem worse. If you want seasonal shooting bans on public land, then keep up the irresponsible shooting. Now anyone who took the time to find this and read it, you're probably not the problem, so I'll save the invective for the idiots.

BLM NW Nevada (Reno/Carson area) restrictions
"Use of tracer rounds (always prohibited), steel-core ammunition, or exploding targets, including Binary Explosive Targets while recreational shooting."

USFS Mt. Charleston restrictions
Go Mt. Charleston link

Lake Mead/NPS restrictions (can't target shoot on NPS land anyway)

Washoe congested area shooting map (urban area shooting prohibition)
THIS IS YEAR ROUND. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS STUFF.

Clark County no-shooting map
Lovell Canyon and MM 103 are still closed to shooting

Apparently, the people who make the signs for the city of Las Vegas Parks and Rec must have gotten a little excited that AB 291 (that was Sandra Jauregui’s kitchen-sink gun control bill) would repeal preemption and put up a new sign proclaiming that firearms are prohibited in city parks.
 
Second Amendment activist Christopher Higsen found the pictured new signs at Bob Baskin park in Las Vegas. These state that “Fireworks, firearms, or weapons of any kind” are prohibited. In fact, under state law, they are not. The city isn’t even supposed to have an ordinance of that kind on the books.
 
Municipal code section 13.36.020 prohibits firearms and weapons, except the possession of firearms that is otherwise permitted by State law; or the possession of a concealed weapon by a person who holds a valid permit to do. State preemption says that they can't even have a municode about firearms possession but the section dates from 2012 and essentially says that what the state says is legal is legal, so this section is moot.
 
Now I don’t actually believe someone was getting hopeful that the city could ban you from exercising your constitutional right to bear arms in a public park. Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence (also known as Hanlon’s Razor). I’d bet someone just reused a pre-2015 (or 2012, depending on you look at it) sign or just recycled old text because no one actually reads that stuff anyway.
 
Clark County Parks actually went out with green tape and covered up the “firearms” line on its signs in June of 2015, for what it’s worth.
 
We need remind the powers that be that they can’t get lazy and post signs like this. Some dumb schmuck who can’t Google might read the sign and decide not to carry, putting themselves in danger. We also can’t allow the government to get away with incompetence or, though it’s unlikely, deception. We must also remind our elected officials that preemption is important to us. These signs need to be fixed.
 
If you live or work in the city of Las Vegas, I recommend you reach out to your councilmember and alert them to the issue. Preemption of local firearm laws is essential to maintaining strong gun rights in Nevada even if billionaires buy legislators’ votes. Pushing back on little “mistakes” like this help preserve liberty and erodes petty tyranny by serving as ever-vigilant watchmen.
 
So check your local parks rules signs. Remember, only the law abiding read signs. The gangbangers, druggies, and local jerks don’t read or care about them. Signs don’t prevent violence; only good men with guns can stop a gunman.

Last night, the Democratic presidential clown-car campaign blathered on about gun control. Can they just be truthful and say that their Party wants them to ban guns and kill people who want to keep them? Guns are a tool of oppression by the government, not something for hoi pilloi to own, duh. So, I propose honest gun control—the ultimate objective of all disarmamentists but without the incremental, half-assed measures.
 
Private ownership of firearms is abolished. Americans have 90 days to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and accessories to the government or they will be guilty of a felony, punishable from five to twenty-five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. After 90 days, all known owners of firearms may have their persons, property, and vehicles be inspected by any law enforcement agency without a warrant to ensure compliance. The military will be empowered to assist and any resistance will be met with deadly force.
 
All firearm corporations are prohibited from selling to the public—government and military contracts only.
 
Certified professional hunters and pest exterminators are allowed to possess non-semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with the approval of the Department of Agriculture, the ATF, and local authorities.
 
Law enforcement and military personnel will have to undergo ‘reliability tests’ to maintain their access to weapons.
 
So yes, I propose taking everyone’s guns without compensation and sending in the military, with guns, to kill the people who won’t give up their guns. And those who aren’t killed for not giving up their guns, we’ll take their house to pay the fine and throw them away to rot in a prison camp.
 
This way, there will be nothing to stop Americans from doing anything about Democrats stealing elections, forcing socialism on you, allowing your kids to be indoctrinated by a tranny reading library books, not getting vaccines, being forced to bake cakes, not wanting to pay regressive taxes, having your gasoline burning car confiscated, etc. Without firearms, there will be no way to stop the onward march of globalist progressive socialism.
 
Much of gun control before the 21st century was about disarming blacks and keeping Southerners from shooting each other in fights. In the 1960s, we saw the move towards total disarmament begin. The “keep bad/crazy people from having guns” started in the ‘90s with the Brady Bill and became today’s push for “red flag” laws, with the unstated goal being to eventually declare anyone a potential “red flag.” Eventually, firearm ownership will be allowed only for the meekest, quietest people that don’t arouse suspicion of the police. 

Many of us have seen the click-bait article purporting that Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo signed a “2A gun grab sanctuary” letter. Lombardo has not joined the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement, as have 13 other counties/sheriffs. Once again, Lombardo didn’t suddenly have a change of heart, as the Facebook post is apparently trying to imply. Don’t fall for click-bait.
 
The letter was signed by Nevada sheriffs, under the auspices of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. This is a generic letter, basically equivalent to saying “we’re not going to kick down your doors and take your guns, but some things need to change. It is so vacuous an attempt to reassure Nevadans, that I have to dismiss it entirely as an affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
It does not condemn banning private gun sales, “red flag” gun confiscation, or any of the silly ideas kicking around in Carson City this year. It is nothing more than empty reassurance that the sheriffs all believe in the Second Amendment. The problem is, whose version are they referring to? The letter is so broadly worded that all but the most rabidly anti-gun sheriff in the country could agree to it.
 
Based on the actions (support for laws and other statements), we know which sheriffs are making a meaningless statement here and those sheriffs who truly believe that “shall not be infringed” means what it says. Lombardo is on record supporting magazine capacity bans and plenty of rumors indicate he approves of banning private sales (Question 1/SB 143).
 
The letter makes a few suggestions and highlights the needed areas of improvement in “gun safety.” They want improvement to NICS (background check system). Worryingly, they suggest that "HIPAA must be amended to allow or even mandate reporting of the mentally ill by certain health care providers." What is defined as a "mental illness?" Who is to set the criteria of what mental illness diagnosis results in one becoming a prohibited person?
 
They seem to point at a problem within Nevada itself.
 
"Courts must ensure the entry of persons who have been adjudicated mentally ill or convicted of disqualifying crimes. Persons who have been validated as criminal gang members should be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Local jurisdictions must make NICS entry a top priority. Information systems must be utilized to their utmost potential."
 
Nevada jurisdictions must do this already. Does this emphasis mean there is a problem? For those who are not aware, Nevada's state point of contact system is more comprehensive than the federal NICS database that many states rely upon. Any system is prone to problems with human error not correctly entering people, as the Air Force failed to do with the Sutherland Springs killer.
 
There is no clear affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms or rejection of substantive issues that Nevadans fear. Rather, they seem to be calling legitimate concerns for future gun control “threats, rumor, false and malicious information.”
 
They state "The Sheriffs of the State of Nevada do not believe that the answer to this issue includes making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens." How? All of the gun control proposals this year have had the major downside of criminalizing innocent gun owners in the misguided notion that laws can control criminals. Instead of supporting things like empowering citizens to defend themselves via constitutional carry, removing gun-free zones, and restoring teacher's right to bear arms, they make a wishy-washy statement about what gun control they want.
 
This is crap. Sheriffs, you can do better. Such boilerplate letters like this are why people distrust their politicians. Your words in this letter mean nothing to us.
 
I believe that a lot of this stuff comes from a generation of cops, now leadership and ex-leadership, who “grew up” as street cops in the ‘80s and ‘90s seeing the end of the late 20th century crime wave. Their perception of guns is tied directly to minority gangs and wave of citizens carrying guns again for their defense is foreign to them. Younger cops seem much more with it when it comes to the Second Amendment and see armed citizens as “good guys” on their side rather than a liability. I’ll be happy when the old farts are dead or too senile to be asked their opinion.

​AB 291, “red flag” gun confiscation goes has passed into law. This is Sandra Jauregui “my feelings are more important than your rights” kitchen sink anti-gun bill.
 
Despite all his brave talk about banning this or that, Gov. Sisolak, ever the slimy politician he is, allowed AB 291 to become law without his signature. Bump fire bans, lowering the threshold for self-defense while in a bar or restaurant, and allowing vindictive relatives to order your guns taken are destined for the law books.
 
Nevada’s constitution is the opposite of the federal system; if bills are not vetoed by the governor, they become law. We do not have a pocket veto. Thus Sisolak can claim he did not sign the bill when he runs for re-election in 2022. Hopefully Nevada gun owners are not that stupid.
 
Effective immediately, it is illegal to possess a “bump fire” stock or device—the Legislature has unconstitutionally declared property that many Nevadans possess to be contraband and has not provided for proper compensation. This is an uncompensated taking raising issues under the 14th Amendment. The legal issue is being played out at the federal level, where President Trump ordered the ATF to ban bump fire stocks by fiat, so this section is moot.
 
Red flag laws and the lowering of the threshold for the amount of allowable alcohol in one’s system while in possession of a firearm in public to .08 BAC from .10 take effect Jan. 1, 2020.
 
The 80th Legislature of 2019 was a dumpster fire. It was mitigated by huge outpouring of opposition by gun rights supporters and the NSSF’s threat to move Shot Show from Las Vegas. The unions and casinos saw how much money they would lose and forced the Senate to remove the truly atrocious repeal of state preemption of local gun laws.
 
As we know SB 120’s “red flag” law got rolled into AB 291, which was exempted from deadlines after the fact, to allow the practically bribed hoplopaths in Carson City to bring home a win for their Bloomberg bucks.
 
Thanks to the tireless work of pro-gun activists, lobbyists, and Republicans in our Legislature, the really bad stuff was taken out. “Red flag” gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) are terrible laws, poorly executed, and destined for abuse from a tyrannical government, but we could have had worse. Among some of the wins are (from the final text):
 

• One must be in a current dating or ongoing intimate relationship, not a former boyfriend/girlfriend. “Resided with an adverse party within the past year,” was removed, meaning that vindictive ex can’t use this against you.
• Removed the “catch all” language that applied a host of behavior, some innocuous as buying a gun in the last six months, or as ominously open-ended as “any other conduct or acts as the court considers.”
• To use the recent purchase of a gun against you, you must have also engage in some other “high risk behavior” or be threat to yourself or another (from mental health hold language). Merely buying a gun cannot be held against you unless you’re violent, crazy, or someone lies.
• The sections about “reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm” that could be used against open carries has been removed.

 
Problems:
Law enforcement must have probable cause, but civilians must have reasonable suspicion. Can the court, under the Fourth Amendment, take a person’s property based on something other than probable cause (assuming the judge cannot articulate PC themselves)?
 
If you haven’t seen this coming and given your guns to a trusted friend or relative by now, you don’t have the option to give the guns to a friend, relative, or firearms dealer unless the judge allows you to.
 
It is only a misdemeanor to file a malicious false application (or for someone having their guns confiscated to violate the order itself).
 
The good thing about these bills is that abuse by law enforcement makes a ripe challenge to throw laws like these out, or restrict their application, under the Bill of Rights. At some point, the wrong innocent person will win a great legal victory. Also, my colleagues in California law enforcement (from reasonable counties) have reported that use of these “red flag” laws are far and few in between, applied to the real fruitcakes out there.
 
Even so, the potential for abuse is a huge problem. It is foreseeable that these will be eventually used to harass and persecute gun owners, not only by the government, but by the rabid anti-gun populace and leftists in the coming cultural civil war. For now, be thankful for principled legislators that fixed the worst-of-the worst of this bill and that we have honorable law enforcement officers who are more pro-gun than you know.
 
But be ever on the watch. We must win back Republican seats in 2020 to stop our legislature from being dominated by anti-gun Democrats getting campaign donations from Gun Control Inc. that essentially amount to bribes.