This is a sentencing enhancement bill that targets carrying firearms and other weapons when engaged in certain crimes and drug-related activities. Part 2, which is applicable to CCW, would count each gun, prohibited item, or "Metal-penetrating bullet" as defined by NRS 202.273. It does not appear to change the penalty for CCW to a category B felony as Section 2 does to the drug violation enhancements.
"Armor piercing handgun bullets" are already prohibited by state law and banned at the federal level. This isn't much of a practical issue (but a constitutional and moral one) as most persons are carrying lead and copper jacketed bullets.
4. As used in this section, “metal-penetrating bullet” means a bullet whose core:
(a) Reduces the normal expansion of the bullet upon impact; and
(b) Is at least as hard as the maximum hardness attainable using solid red metal alloys, and which can be used in a handgun. The term does not include any bullet with a copper or brass jacket and a core of lead or a lead alloy, or a bullet made of lead or lead alloys.
The full list of enhancement violations is:
NRS 202.257 Possession of firearm when under influence of alcohol
NRS 202.260 Unlawful possession, manufacture or disposition of explosive or incendiary device
NRS 202.262 Possession of explosive or incendiary device in or near certain public or private areas
NRS 202.273 Unlawful manufacture or sale of certain metal-penetrating bullets: Exceptions; penalty.
NRS 202.277 Changing, altering, removing or obliterating serial number of firearm
NRS 202.300 Use or possession of firearm by child under age of 18 years
NRS 202.350 Carrying concealed weapon without permit (and more)
NRS 202.360 Ownership or possession of firearm by certain persons prohibited
So while the firearm portion of the bill is stupid and bad on principles, it would affect only those carrying multiple firearms or AP handgun rounds. Additionally, as Nevada law has no exemption for peaceably transporting firearms enclosed in cases, which is considered technically concealed, this bill would potentially allow the prosecution of an otherwise law-abiding citizen for moving container of firearms from his car, the shooting range, etc.
It appears there is a dueling bill that would address many of the same subjects without the extra gun crap shoved in it:
Senate Committee on Judiciary
Analysis: A better version of SB 367 with only applying sentencing enhancements to carrying a firearm while engaged in certain drug related activities. Various changes enabling stiffer penalties for crimes have been proposed as well.
Here is a current look at how the anti-gun bills are going. Get in there and vote! The positive gun bills need a vote too!
Legislation page (follow bill number to overview page)
How to vote/comment on a bill
Leaving your opinion on bills is very important. It shows that Second Amendment supporters still care and helps us demonstrate that the astroturf comments by the antis aren't the only opinion out there. Nevada is still purple; overwhelming public opposition can and has gotten bills killed before. Also, a bill with a ton of negative comments may persuade Governor Lombardo to veto any bills. For the pro-gun bills that will probably never see the light of day, leave a comment as well; we can't let the antis portray pro-gun stuff as unpopular or lie in the comments.
Yes, you will need to create an account and leave your information, including email and address, but this is done to discourage spam voting. It's a good thing. If you are concerned about privacy, just list your name and give your local post office as General Delivery for the address. Take the time and leave some comments.
AB 354 (BDR 15-251)
Bans firearms within 100 yards of an "election" site and changes the definition of frame or receiver.
This bill bans guns at/near "election centers" and changes the definition of some receiver related stuff. Be sure to read the text.
Two violations to the voting part: Part 1, have a gun at a polling place, a misdemeanor. Part 3, have a gun for the purposes of "intimidation" and other stuff, a felony. Part 3 is too broad and punitive.
Cue the stories and whining of Democratic voter registrars and volunteers complaining about people with guns at polling places who have caused no problems ever, except scaring weak-minded statists. "We want to steal the vote and having people with guns around makes it more difficult."
Part 1. The right to self-defense doesn't stop at a polling place and specifically because of election violence, driven by the left, the public should be permitted to be armed there. There is no special or compelling reason other than "feelings" or the desire to disarm the public to subject them to tyranny when voting. There is no security at most polling places that are worth a damn. Even if there is security, the public could be assaulted while waiting in line and disarmed. Additionally, leaving firearms in vehicles makes them vulnerable to theft.
I seriously doubt that under Bruen banning firearms for self-defense at a polling place would withstand scrutiny.
Part 3. Why is this necessary if for part 1? What if the people who want to intimidate do it 101 yards away? Second, how is the state going to prove it was done with "the specific intent to disrupt, interfere...?" Second "monitoring" the vote is a protected right. Third, "monitor" is also overbroad and begging for an unconstitutional smackdown. Basically, the left wants to eliminate a visible reminder, the armed protestor, from the public consciousness and voting. But hey, the elections are secure, right?
The first version of the 80% "ghost gun" bill was poorly written so this is intended to change that. Nothing substantively changes in the law as far as you and I are concerned, but this looks like it's intended to head off legal challenges. Good luck with that.
AB 355 (BDR 15-937)
Bans possession of semi-auto shotguns and rifles for those under 21.
Earlier news story here. Similar laws in others states are facing legal challenges that no one with a brain seems to see them survive. But hey, since young men commit most mass shootings, we gotta keep those scary AR-15s out of their hands.
Hey, has anyone talked to Sandy about banning guns from the 13% of the population that commits over 50% of the homicides in the country? Sure it would be legal to keep those people from owning guns, right? I mean if we're looking at demographics and want to use that reasoning to ban guns to reduce homicides, it has to work! [sarcasm]
I don't Lombardo signing either of these bills and vetoing them both. If these bills pass and he doesn't veto then there is no reason to vote for him in 2026. And if you're wondering where "kitchen sink Sandy" comes from, it's the assemblywoman's habit of throwing everything or seemingly random anti-gun stuff into bills.
Update 2/8/23: Per the PIO, DPS (state police) did not request the bill and just learned about it.
Far-left anti-gun Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui has proposed AB 117, which could criminalize open carry protests as domestic terrorism. The bill focuses on expanding the ability of the Nevada Department of Public Safety to investigate domestic terror activity, but would add a number of criminal charges to the definition of "domestic terrorism." This include criminal anarchy (NRS 203.115) and armed association (NRS 203.080), and unlawful parade with arms (NRS 412.604).
On the surface, it all might seem well and good but the implications could be bad. A look at the above included statutes shows that they were all passed in 1967 as a reaction to the actions of the Black Panthers. In the 1960s, the Black Panthers were known for openly carrying firearms in California cities while they engaged in protests, school walkouts, and what amounted to armed intimidation of police. Their activities were quite similar to the armed leftist protests and leftist armed guards outside drag shows for children we are seeing today, except far more menacing.
The Panthers' activities culminated in the May 2, 1967 armed invasion of the California State Capitol. While entirely legal, at the time, this guaranteed that Assemblyman Don Mulford's bill to ban loaded open carry passed, with amendments that included the state capitol. Bills prohibiting activities similar to what the Panthers were doing were pending in other states, including Nevada and Washington.
Nevada was more restrained than California, but the above mentioned bills formed the response. Up until the present, these laws haven't been an issue. Now, for reasons that still need researched, they have been added to a domestic terrorism bill. Whatever the source of this law is (probably from law enforcement), in today's polarized and ideologically discriminatory environment, expansion of "domestic terrorism" that could potentially criminalize constitutionally protected behavior is concerning.
NRS 412.604 Unlawful drill or parade with arms by voluntary company or voluntary organization without license; drill or parade by students with consent of Governor; penalty.
NRS 203.080 Armed association.
Interestingly, the 1967 changes (412) removed the “militia” of the state (which is the general citizenry) were exempted, but then the more specific “National Guard” was substituted. 1967 changes (080) made it the “state” militia. I’m guessing the intellectual heavyweights (sarcasm) in Carson City thought this would solve the problem of Panthers’ calling themselves the unorganized militia in order to get around this law.
Frankly, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the militia to the people, not the government under the state or National Guard. The individuals have always constituted the militia or the fyrd independent of the state. The state just organized them in times of war. If people want to form defensive associations, they should be allowed to as long as they aren’t advocating or attempting to commit violence.
The question arises whether or not these statutes ban armed protests and collective self-defense in riots. Before 2020, I would have argued “of course not” but today I must say “only if the state wants.” Ostensibly, these laws would have to be supported by behavior or other factors. Calling a group a “militia” that wants to overthrow the government by force, sure. A group of dudes standing on the street with guns waving placards? Probably not.
Enforceability is another question. I’m not aware that anyone has ever been arrested for a violation of these laws, and these laws in their original forms pre-date 1967. What constitutes a “military company?” I doubt that under a multitude of case law and Supreme Court cases, including Bruen, that these laws would be enforceable against peaceable or self-defense open carry. Nonetheless, if a prosecutor has the will, they can press charges and it would be up to the defendant to win the case or the appeal.
Government interpretation of a nebulous statute in politically fraught times is troublesome. The real issue to me is the state suddenly deciding that people who are protecting their neighborhood or businesses against riots are deemed “terrorists.” Show up to a protest against an “assault weapons” ban with an AR-15? You’re now a “terrorist.” Just wearing a plate carrier and carrying a firearm does not make one a terrorist, a military company, or anything bad. It’s actions and intent.
However, we’ve seen too many people on the left with anti-gun bents calling anyone who engages in these behaviors a terrorist and even wishing/calling for legal or physical harm to be done to them. I do not trust a political party that seems to bless those who carry guns to be “security” for drag queen shows and demonize those that defend themselves during riots.
First of all, open carry is legal and constitutionally protected. This bill doesn't affect that. What it may show is an attitude by elements of the state to weaponize the existing statutes and domestic terrorism measures to criminalize things like peaceful, armed protests or even collective self-defense against riots.
If a Republican governor in a red state proposed these laws or this bill today as a reaction against the leftist militias organizing to stand armed guard outside drag time story hour or drag shows for kids, the governor might be cheered on by the right. Radicals who believe that force is permissible to achieve ideological goals over opponents of divergent viewpoints, and who threaten or follow through with that violence, are terrorists. The implication is that "if you interfere with us, we will kill you." In the 1960s, the Black Panthers were terrorists, no matter what the apologists might say. They were the Antifa of their time in stark contrast to a peaceful civil rights activist like Martin Luther King. Panthers were intimidating the police and public with the implication that the weapons would be used.
Say what you will about open carriers advocating for the right to carry firearms openly, but there was never any implication that these weapons would be turned on police. Even openly carried long guns and "assault weapons" that the politicians are trying to ban that are carried at more political protests are brought as symbolic items; a physical expression of speech. Open carry protests are not about intimidation but speech and are protected by the First Amendment. Up to a point, even some of today's leftists' actions could be legally justified as speech.
There is also the issue of collective self-defense against riots and unrest. In 2020, we saw neighborhoods across the country banding together to protect themselves. Should a group of neighbors who turn out on their street armed during a riot to keep their homes or businesses from being looted be prosecuted for a criminal act? These laws, and this bill, give further impetus to that.
The problem with banning politically undesirable persons from “armed association” is that it criminalizes legitimate behavior and the law can be wielded as a blunt instrument against the disfavored party du jour. Based on former Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak’s opinion of armed protests in 2020, I have to say that conservatives, libertarians, and freedom lovers are disfavored at the moment (not statists and leftists).
The real danger in these bills is that those of conservative, independent, or frankly center-left values who do not agree with the far-left may be politically prosecuted. Kyle Rittenhouse's murder charges is an example of political persecution for obvious self-defense. The danger in these laws is disparate enforcement. Only a fool would argue that those to the center-right of the political spectrum are not facing marginalization. Furthermore, that this bill is sponsored by the notoriously anti-gun Democrat Sandra Jauregui should give serious pause.
So we need to know: where this bill comes from? DPS? Metro? Sandra's own idea?
The 2023 legislative session begins February 6, 2023. The Democrats hold a majority in both houses, which means they can probably pass whatever they want, but the governor (Lombardo) is a Republican. Republican sponsored bills that do good things will almost certainly never pass, let alone go to committee.
I will save analysis of any bills until they are actually published but it's safe to say that the Democratic proposals are all abhorrent to freedom.
The 2023 Nevada legislative session is one controlled by Democrats who have a majority in both houses, thanks to voter fraud I mean “voting reform.” Forget any chances of any positive gun bills passing through the legislature, like campus carry or constitutional carry. It’s not gonna happen. What could happen, although I don’t think that it’ll happen, is the Dems could propose any gun ban they want to.
Again, I doubt this. Their lock on the state isn’t solid and they don’t have a green light to go full-retard. They did lose the governorship and people’s opinions on guns have changed drastically in the last several years. Nevada doesn’t have the same kind of population (yet) where an “assault weapon” or semi-auto ban like Oregon and Washington would be a good idea to propose.
Remember we have a Republican* governor now, one who needs to prove his conservative credentials. Lombardo has to at least pretend that he’s a Republican and supports thinks, like gun rights, that conservatives believe in or he doesn’t stand a chance of winning re-election or any other elected office again.
One way of doing that is not supporting more gun control. Lombardo is an old-school cop whose ideas of guns date from the 1980s-1990s crime wave when the armed people he encountered and saw were gang members and felons. He doesn’t think like we do, but then again he thinks in terms of restrictions, not absolute prohibitions.
RINO Brian Sandoval was no friend of the Second Amendment, but he did sign enhanced preemption in 2015 and he did veto background checks in 2013. Another interesting comparison is that Sisolak was once reasonable on guns, but was drug left with the whole Democratic Party as communist money squeezed out the last normal Dems. So while Sisolak got worse, Lombardo actually got better and now has “come around” somewhat on guns.
Politicians have a habit of not meaning what they say, but the incentive for Lombardo to mean what he said about not banning “hi cap” mags, etc. is greater than the incentive to ban them. Case law and popular opinion has put the 1990s style bans on the back burner and they are not popular. Lombardo also doesn’t have to parrot the anti-gun talking points to get support from his party as Sisolak did.
Another big difference between the last two sessions and now is that any shenanigans to try and cram a bill through in the dead of night is DOA. Remember they did that with background checks in 2019? Every step of the process was to stymie opposition and Sisolak was in on the game. Lombardo probably can be counted on for a veto, at least for the worst of the worst.
With Lombardo we have a prayer and with Bruen, though it will take litigation, we have the ability to permanently demolish their restrictions. Justice Thomas handed us a huge gift in Bruen in that once something is deemed unconstitutional, it’s effectively dead forever. It may take lawsuits and a few years, but Bruen is the key to dismantling all the gun control schemes. The bolder they go, the dimmer the courts will view the attempt to end-run the decision.
So leftists, take note. If you lose in court, you lose forever. All the restrictions that you put up, the more egregious they are, the greater the chance of them being overturned.
Gun free zones everywhere
The end-run tactic California, New Jersey, and New York have tried is to create basically everywhere into “gun free zones” or “sensitive spaces.” New York is currently facing litigation in federal court and hopefully SCOTUS will set the tune by rejecting that argument; they have a few ways of doing that without a new decision. Bruen was written so that SCOTUS didn’t have to hear every gun case. What they can do is simply decline to hear the state’s appeal if the laws are ruled unconstitutional in appeal’s court or GVR, which would screw over the state.
They may try another “ban guns everywhere” bill like the insufferable [redacted] Sandra Jauregui proposed in 2021, which was really about creating a new law at MGM’s behest so Metro could enforce MGM’s no-guns policy. Apparently trespassing was not enough for casinos and they wanted people arrested for just being armed on their property. Hint: that’s probably not constitutional.
Secondly, if Metro says no to enforcing casinos private no-guns policy, it’s not going to happen. Sheriff McMahill is good friends with Lombardo so there has to be an agreement there.
They will specifically target preemption, calling it “local control” or some such nonsense. Of course, “local control” won’t allow the Second Amendment Sanctuary counties to liberalize their gun control laws, such as throwing out the private gun sale ban or allow campus carry. “Local control” only works one way, which is anti-gun.
I can’t see Lombardo signing any weakening of preemption. It would be a betrayal of his statements in 2015 and because of how any repeal would be used by the left, we (the gun community) would hold it against him.
Courthouses will probably be added to the gun free zone list. Why? Well, Nye County’s stunt moving the courts out of the courthouse over a bullshit court order has probably already generated a bill request. I can’t see Lombardo saying no to such a thing.
Though open carry is legal, concealed carry is not in posted “no guns” buildings. Courts will illegally prevent one from openly carrying and the judges will literally dare you to fight the trespassing or content to the state supreme court which has the same erroneous signs and on the front of the building. So if the courts are going to ban guns, might as well make it “legal” if not right.
My only ask of any legitimately interested legislator, LCB bill writer, or Governor Lombardo is insistence that secure storage be provided at the courthouse entrance. That way, someone going to do his civic duty of jury service doesn’t have to walk through sketchy downtown Las Vegas or Reno unarmed, leaving their gun in the car to possibly be stolen.
We might see some tweaking of bad, but not good bills. Red flag law changes, for instance. I wouldn’t be surprised if some behind-the-scenes feel-good bills get signed. As long as the net-effect on gun rights is negligible, it shouldn’t spell doom.
We’re not in a great spot, but it’s not the end of the world. Had Sisolak been elected, yeah, things would be pretty grim. We need to keep the pressure up with Lombardo, starting when any anti-gun bills are proposed all the way to a veto. If Lombardo comes through and keeps any stupidly bad bills from passing, he’ll have the gun community’s support in the next election. And if he betrays us, well I suppose there is no point in voting for Republicans anymore, is there?
Two people were shot in a fight downtown after two groups got into an altercation. I'm going to guess that it was probably gang members or other trash with criminal histories who were illegally carrying concealed or prohibited persons. Ordinary armed citizens don't get into gunfights downtown and then run away from police.
This occurred at Fremont and 4th which is outside of the security cordon which may or may not have been up, but any shooting down there will be used as a justification for further restrictions. Facts don't matter anymore. Precisely where we need to be armed for our protection, Democrats want us to be disarmed.
What happened? Soft on crime policies have led to criminals not fearing justice and getting out of jail/prison. COVID was an excuse to release a bunch of thugs on the street. COVID also hit tourism so hard casinos had to lower room rates to attract customers and that attracted the kind of low-impulse criminal scum responsible for the increase in violence. Network in Vegas describes it perfectly:
If you’re thinking about coming to Vegas, don’t – Nevada democrats have turned us into a third-world hellhole where you will likely be assaulted, robbed, or killed!
And of course we can't talk about any of the real issues behind this because to do so is racist or elitist or something. Point is, normal people need their guns downtown. Laws and bans will do nothing to disarm criminals and low-impulse idiots who do these kind of things.
So I've been looking for different ammo choices for my .380. There are two theories I'm considering when it comes to .380 defensive ammo selection: heavy, round (or blunt) nose FMJ at say 102gr; or very fast, light bullet. Expansion in hollow point is velocity dependent and a small cartridge and a short barrel does not make for ideal expansion. Thus, a lighter bullet goes faster because there is less mass to accelerate in that short, often 3", distance.
I tried these Hornady Critical Defense FTX 90gr .380 in a Glock 42. They fed well and shot accurately enough for a quick test. Next I need to pattern them and maybe get some ballistic gel when the weather warms again. They did feel powerful in the hand but the recoil was not excessive and was comparable to a standard target 9mm from a Glock 43. Based on feeding and accuracy, I'd feel comfortable carrying these.
Are these or rounds like them the "best" for .380? I'm not sure yet. Next up in the ammo trial is high-velocity non-expanding copper rounds (see the Paul Harrell video below).
North Las Vegas, November 19, 2022. Devonte Madison and Jaylin Morrison decided to attempt to carjack a woman at gunpoint. During the attempt, the victim managed to snatch the gun which (apparently) Madison put on his lap while trying to start the car. Madison chased the woman and tackled her. The victim shot and killed Madison. (here is a better version of the story)
Fairly straightforward and brave defensive gun use, right?
Well here's the problem with media manipulation. The Review-Journal fell into the "he a good boy, he dindu nuffin'" paradigm seen so often with criminally inclined African-American males. Madison's photo is a graduation photo, which tends to portray him in a better light than the fact he was committing a felony and potentially read to kill. The photo also implies that he was a victim.
The headline is also deceptive especially in connection with the photo. The original headline read: "Aspiring enrepreneur, ex-Cheyenne High School quarterback fatally shot." Sensibly, "Teen killed while attempting carjacking" tells the truth more accurately. The initial version is like announcing Jeffery Dahmer's arrest as: "Man who never killed anyone before arrested."
The original article went into a lot more detail about Madison's "entreprenuerial" spirit, whatever that was. If it was a legitimate business, why didn't the family describe what it was? It read as if Madison was the victim and he was trying to do something positive for his life. Shame on me for not saving the original article in today's revisionary journalism. Well, as it turned out Madison wasn't doing something very positive if he was carjacking people.
Was the Review-Journal trying to create another Trayvon Martin or George Floyd "the criminal is really the good guy narrative?" We'll never know.
Clayton E. Cramer
Gun Free Zone
The War on Guns
The View From Out West