The people in this video had multiple opportunities and ample time to neutralize the shooter. Yes, he is an old man, but he did shoot a man twice. The shots could have very easily punctured the femoral artery, probably killing the man before paramedics could arrive. The Active Self Protection video below has some good commentary on what the victims could have done.

Most of the sheriff’s in Nevada have not actually come out and said they will not be enforcing the private gun sales ban (universal background checks) or “red flag” laws. If we take a look at what they have actually done and said, the results are surprising. Villainized Sheriff Allen of Humboldt County argues a reasonable position and joined a suit against AB 291. Many have hinted at non-enforcement and expressed their opposition to the law. Notable staunch supporters are the Clark and Washoe County sheriffs.
 
None of the statements of non-enforcement or opposition mean that sheriffs, local police departments, or state agencies will not enforce the laws anyway. Judges and district attorneys also have to be considered, but almost universally will not comment on such matters publicly.
 
The Second Amendment Sanctuary movement is more good feelings and words than actions. Only time will tell how law enforcement will respond to the laws. Here are words from the sheriffs directly.
 
Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong: “"The challenge is this; when I as a friend sell a gun to a friend and if there is no background check done, that’s a crime according to this bill; however, how is law enforcement supposed to know that a crime has been committed because something wasn’t done, how do we even know that the sale took place?" [source]
 
Churchill County Sheriff Richard Hickox: (on red flags) "Please rest assured, we the Churchill County Sheriff’s Office, under my guidance, will not be coming to collect your firearms unless so ordered by the courts after you have received your due process." [source]
 
Clark County (LVMPD) Sheriff Joe Lombardo: “The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, headed by elected Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, said in a statement [to the LVRJ] it is obliged ‘to uphold and enforce’ city, county and state laws.” [source]
 
Douglas County Sheriff Dan Coverley: “This law is not unconstitutional. I think this is going to be difficult for me to enforce ... but for me to say that I'm not going to enforce the law is incorrect and I don't think that I have that authority.” [source]
 
“I do not plan on putting any effort or resources into enforcing it, primarily because it’s unenforceable.” [source]
 
Elko County Sheriff Aitor Narvaiza: Elko County Resolution will not enforce including the sheriff.
 
“We’re going to follow the Constitution, we’re going to follow all the state laws, and gun laws; we’re just not supporting this bill." [Read the whole thing]
 
On red flags: “Based on an allegation without any due process we as law enforcement can go to your residence and take your firearms. This bill is a bad bill and this bill will get people hurt on both sides.” [source]
 
“For us to get your guns, there has to be due process. It’s the only law on the books where you can lose your firearms without doing anything wrong, just based on an allegation. That to me is very unconstitutional.” [source]
 
Esmeralda County Sheriff Kenneth Elgan: “I, Sheriff Kenneth N. Elgan, am opposed to any legislation which would infringe upon a citizens God-given right to keep and bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law and I will certainly not stand silent while the citizens of Esmeralda County are turned into criminals due to unconstitutional actions of the Nevada Legislature or Governor Sisolak.” [source]
 
Eureka County Sheriff Jesse Watts: "It is the position of this Sheriff, that I refuse to participate, or stand idly by, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians." [source]
 
“‘Nowhere in my letter does it say I am not enforcing the law,’ Watts said Tuesday.” [source]
 
On red flags: Joined the law suit (Facebook page)
 
Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Allen: unclear on background checks. Opposed Question 1.
 
On red flags: Allen has been the center of controversy for saying: “I do oppose this law. However, it’s my not my job to oppose a law; my job is to enforce the law.” [source]
 
“The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office has no interest in taking firearms from law abiding citizens who are exercising their second amendment (sic) right to bear arms in our country."
 
"Sheriff Allen said, 'These laws, which we oppose, should not have the potential to impact citizens under ordinary circumstances. … The Red Flag law only pertains to someone wanting to commit severe violent acts involving the risk of death to innocent people or a serious mentally ill individual threatening or wanting to do harm [to] themselves or others.' He said that in his 35 years in law enforcement, he can think of only two instances where the 'Red Flag' could have been applied."
 
"He said internally the Sheriff’s Office will have policies in place to administratively review any potential application for an order from someone making the request.  After the Sheriff’s Office reviews, he said, the Office will have the district attorney’s office review the application before it is taken to a judge. The sheriff said the law specifically says that all other means must be exhausted before it comes to carrying out a judicial order. He also said law specifically states that if taking action to enforce the order is too dangerous to the deputies, the community or the individual, the order does not have to be served."
 
Read the whole thing. The sheriff makes some excellent good points and explains in detail what he will do to protect citizens from abuse and his opposition to the law in general.
 
Claimed to be first sheriff to join NevadaCAN’s red flag lawsuit. [source]
 
Despite the hullaballoo, he seems to be the most reasonable and open so far. His interpretation of the law seems to imply that before seizure the requirement for the constitutional standard of probable cause would have to be met.
 
[source]
 
Lander County Sheriff Ron Unger: “It's coming down the pike to where not only on our rights to own and bear arms but it's on the Fourth Amendment, your right to illegal search and seizures
that's coming down.”
 
"There's a lot of loopholes in that SB 143. There's a lot of stuff that -- that they're saying law enforcement will do this and law enforcement will do that. A lot of it is a burden of proof that falls in here. I can sell you a gun right now today and -- and we're not going to do a
background check. And you could take that gun and go to Reno and do whatever you did. How are they going to prove that I own that gun? There is no gun registration." [source]
 
On red flags: “They're trying to make it to where law enforcement can go into somebody's house without due process of law and seize and confiscate their guns. And what that essentially does is put a target on every single one of our deputies because somebody knows they're coming over there, they're going to be ready for them and they're not going to give them the guns. … We -- we need to stop all of this. We need to take a stance and say we're not in it. And that's what I'm here to do. [source]
 
Lyon County Sheriff Frank Hunewill: “In terms of being a Second Amendment county, yes, we would support that. What you’re doing is sending a message that we’re not going to go out and violate someone’s Second Amendment rights as a sheriff’s office.” [source]
 
Mineral County Sheriff Randy Adams: "While we can’t pick and choose which laws we can enforce, this law [SB143] is poorly written. I don’t agree with the law as it is poorly written, unenforceable as written and therefore my department won’t be wasting our already limited resources enforcing this.” [source]
 
Nye County Sheriff Sharon Werhly: "Even if I were inclined to participate, the infrastructure is not in place to transfer firearms in this manner...I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law and certainly won't stand silent." [source]
 
Pershing County Sheriff Jerry Allen: “I am in opposition of this law as your elected representative, even though I am additionally opposed to it personally…I will not use the authority granted to me by the State of Nevada and the residents of Pershing County to infringe on the People’s right to Keep and Bear Arms, absent the actual commission of a violent Felony crime or valid court order.” [source]
 
Washoe County Sheriff Darin Balaam: “I believe in an individual’s right to bear arms, and I support a citizen’s right to legally possess firearms. However, we also have a responsibility to protect the public from criminal misuse of firearms.” [source]
 
White Pine County Sheriff Scott Henriod: “I believe that the new law is unenforceable. I’m sure there are many residents of the State of Nevada who own guns that have changed hands several times.  There are no records of these transactions. In any criminal case, the burden to prove that a crime has been committed lies with the state. Without records of ownership, the state will not be able to prove the case that a firearm has transferred hands. This leaves law enforcement with a law that they cannot enforce." [source]
 
 
Don’t forget that in addition to sheriffs, there are police departments too. Only Clark and Carson City have consolidated departments, and Clark has four city police departments and an ungodly number of other law enforcement agencies.
 
The “Nevada Sheriffs’ Letter to Constituents,” signed by all 17 sheriffs, means nothing. It is a perfunctory statement of support for existing rights. It does not promise to oppose gun control or any specific resolution.
 
These laws put law enforcement in a bad spot. On one hand, the laws are tools to stop the next mass shooting or put the ghetto gun dealer in jail. Not entirely by accident, they put average citizens under the spotlight. You and I can’t buy guns privately anymore to avoid paperwork that might be used by a future tyrannical government to confiscate our guns because some douchebag bought a handgun privately and killed his ex-wife with it. We have to worry about crazy girlfriends or Antifa relatives (or Internet randos) red-flagging us out of revenge.
 
Sheriffs can’t say, “We’re not going to enforce this on just criminals, you know felons, that creepy kid everyone says is going to shoot up the school, and some no-good scumbag that we’re tacking an extra charge on to. You law-abiding people who simply want no paperwork in case of future gun registration, you’re good.” They can’t say that because it would be introduced in a trial as some sort of bias against said felon, creep, or scumbag as evidence law enforcement is biased.
 
Sheriffs also don’t want to paint themselves into a corner where they might have to legitimately exercise a “red flag” against an unquestionable nutcase or prosecute Ronny Ruinitall because he keeps selling guns to gang members. The moral stance of a sheriff, regardless of who the suspect is, is to not charge the violation of an unconstitutional law.
 
If you are, oh say a drug dealer, who gets busted, whether the cops support the laws or not, they will likely charge the suspect with the violation simply to make it harder for them to hit the street again. I see it all the time back home in California. But a sheriff can’t publicly talk about a double standard, but double standards do exist and cops exercise them everyday, for good or bad.
 
Ultimately, they’re politicians who are out to protect their skin, avoid lawsuits, avoid jeopardizing prosecutions, and protect their deputies from suits and potential criminal charges from the Attorney General. Don’t count on a politician of any kind or stripe to come out firmly on an issue.
 
Stay tuned! On Monday we look at the truth of counties’ Second Amendment Sanctuary Laws

So the tinfoil hat conspiracy theory people will think this means there is going to be an 18-man SWAT team sent out to take guns. Not likely (they'd need more than 18 men especially factoring casualties). I'd bet these positions are going to mostly administrative, or, if they are law enforcement field positions, wind up no worse than California now.

California's DOJ has a fairly extensive firearms enforcement unit. I don't know how big, but enough that they have different teams across the state. What these units do is mostly chase down prohibited persons who have a registered firearm (and often the database is incorrect). They also handle the major cases of bad guys with a lot of guns, truly illegal sales, and hammer the occasional tall nails that stick up.

A friend of mine had an extensive talk with one of the "cool" DOJ gun guys. They don't care about people like you and me, for the most part, and generally try to cut gun owners as much slack as possible because when they're sent out on a political errand, they know it's BS. They'd much rather bag dirtbags. 

The current firearm squads as in California aren't much to worry about anymore than we worry about the ATF in general. However, using Nevada for an example, if the Silver State had such a unit, then they might setup private gun sale stings, which could be a problem. Even so, 18 men in any state aren't going out taking people's AR-15s (that's not even a platoon of troops). 

Gun control forces get scary when they get big. Let's say the bugaloo commences and evil black rifles are being confiscated. You and I are now targets. In this world, SWAT team raids end up being firefights for the guns and the police suffer horrible public relations. Some departments outright refuse. Random cops are assassinated at traffic lights for merely being a cop. Proactive policing drops, cops stop caring, and police act like they did in LA when Chris Dorner was on the loose, constantly on red alert and lighting up old ladies in sheer terror. It's an ugly future.

Most cops won't go for gun confiscation. About half would use "assault weapon" charges to put extra time on a true bad guy they busted for something else while turning a blind eye to you or eye. This double-standard is real and is why people with CCWs have a slightly greater chance of not getting a ticket. Most cops also know gun control is crap and only accept and use laws that may their job, busting actual criminals, easier. 

A quarter of cops (perhaps more than that, depending on geography and ideology) flat-out love the idea of subverting gun control. My cop friends loved finding ways to get around bans or simply break them, bragging that they had broken the California-specific laws in private. These guys are on our side, 100%, and would probably quit in a gun confiscation scenario or actively work from the inside against confiscation.

The other quarter are scary. Some are true believers and some just want to make an arrest no matter what believing that the average person shouldn't have guns. Matt Bracken wrote about these guys. Street cops like this are dying off, but are more prevalent in liberal areas and are usually immigrants from countries and cultures without guns. 

A gun control force that scares me is a small unit that is designed to crush opposition. Imagine if the VACDL leaders were specifically targeted by this unit and arrested for possessing assault weapons. Bloggers (like me), people who organized protests, or people who were outspoken on social media get arrested and silenced by these guys. Silencing the leaders and motivators of resistance is a proven tactic to control dissent. 

A team of 18 men could take down some "tall nails" to cool the fire of a gun control resistance movement. 18 men cannot enforce the law across a state by itself, and if a small team began silencing people, eventually shooting would start. All it takes is one "tall nail" to call for help like whiskey_warrior_556 or the Bundy Ranch.

When the government calls for a paramilitary unit, like the Nazi's Sturmabteilung (SA) to enforce their edicts (likely more than just on guns), it's time to get worried. That unit would be staffed with more than just cops, more likely criminals and disaffected monsters that gravitate to militant Antifa groups. It would be a place for cartel sicarios to get a legitimate job to employ their violent skills where a concern for law, order, and decency wouldn't matter. Also, placing in the unit hungry and desperate people (stupid, collectivists welfare beneficiaries) who will do anything for a job will guarantee orders will be followed.

A real force, not just 18 dudes, is something to really be worried about. These 18 positions are not the first in a vanguard of door kickers. Virginia is already starting to slowly back off, but it's not a retreat, it's regrouping for the future.

Virginia's gun control priorities are: universal background checks (private sale ban), one gun purchase a month, and red flag laws. Those are their priorities and what they are going to go after. They will probably get them, drop the assault weapons ban, and continue the incrementalist approach next session once the Second Amendment Sanctuary furor dies down.

The rally in Richmond will not be false flagged and any really stupid gun control stuff will die down. We protest and rally to show our opposition to the laws. It's a way to scare the anti's without actually firebombing their homes or assassinating them (which may well be the next step in Virginia if they do go full retard). 

I'll feel a lot more comfortable with the whole Second Amendment Sanctuary thing when people can buy and sell guns freely and publicly without fear of repercussions in counties like Nye. Like people posting online "no background check" and doing the sales/transfers without repercussions in X rural county.

Sure, the sheriff may not care to investigate, but the DA also has the ability to press charges (and so does the Attorney General). Though, if I recall correctly, in Nevada the prosecution must be in the county where the offense occurred, so the county judge might just throw out the case entirely as unconstitutional. In the 1960s, this happened with open carry in Reno. A judge disagreed with the ordinance, deemed it unconstitutional and threw out a case, and it caused fits across the biggest little city. 

Juries are the best bet. Of course, any seller charged with not getting a background check on the buyer will probably be some dirtbag criminal in Clark County. For instance, the first prosecution for Washington's UBC law was the guy who sold a gun to someone who committed a murder. Apparently, both people were not upstanding citizens.

Even DA Wolfson said that normal, law abiding gun owners are not who he's worried about (and probably won't devote much time against). Even so, you don't know who the next prosecutor in the big cities will be or what the political climate might be. You also don't want to flout the law, taking a chance that nothing will come of the sale, only to find out your buyer committed a mass shooting (like Douglas Haig).

Background checks breaking the law are likely to go under the radar. But I'll be a believer when violations happen openly and nothing happens, sorta like how high capacity magazines are still sold openly in much of Colorado, despite the ban. The real test will be with any assault weapon ban or something worse. When those bad things are still openly sold and no one dares or cares to enforce that law in the rural counties, then the 2A sanctuaries will be a success.

But then again, fireworks purchasers are busted regularly by NHP and Metro coming back from Pahrump. Granted most of them are speeding and have the fireworks in plain sight in their car, but cops still enforce it (half-assed, like they take half the fireworks and then wink at the rest). But it's not out of the realm of probability for hostile county LE to enforce the laws once you get back to their jurisdiction. I'd imagine that kind of enforcement would quickly result in an ambush and dead cops (though I bet a lot of Nevada cops would simply balk at the idea in the first place).

Anyhow, the rambling musing is complete. Time will tell with how the 2A sanctuaries shape up, but as the saying goes, money talks and BS walks.

Israeli scholars and archaeologists have uncovered ancient scrolls containing new information about the first murder, the killing of Abel by his brother Cain. Previously, it was thought that the killing was caused by Cain's outrage that Abel brought a better offering. Instead, we learn that the rock caused Cain to do it.

"'Thou art a good boy, who didn't do nothing,' sayeth the Lord. 'The rock that thou foundest in thy hand compelled you to kill your brother, whom you loved. Since the rock killed thy brother Abel, cursed shall rocks be! Cursed it is above all minerals. It shall lie on its belly and collect dust all its days." 

Studies done by the CDC have shown that homes with rocks in them are two times more likely to be the site of rock crimes than homes without rocks. Historians report that so many people have been killed with rocks, it is impossible to count. Rocks are available to purchase without background checks in all 57 states.

This information is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Non-compliance with the background check law (effective Jan. 2, 2020 is at your own risk. You will have to make a personal choice regarding your liberty and your property, notwithstanding the tyranny of the uneducated minority who barely passed an unconstitutional law.

Don't buy in private sales for a while. Authorities may be looking to make examples out of people at the onset. Also, don't over-rely on sanctuary counties to protect you. The state Attorney General can always charge you. Any sales you make are at your own risk.

Basics

Know who you’re dealing with. Ideally, sell between friends to avoid a sting operation. Do a little research if this person isn’t a stranger to make sure they aren’t a cop, investigative reporter, or an anti-gun activist. Does their email show their full name? Can you find a Facebook profile? Lookup their phone number. Be aware that at a gun show an undercover cop could be hovering right over your shoulder or you might be buying from one. Don’t get stung.

If it’s an online ad, only discuss the gun, the price, and where to meet via email, text, or messenger. Agree to meet in a public location “to make arrangements on which licensed dealer to use.” Do not discuss online or via text message not going to a dealer. Those words could come back to haunt you. Conduct your sale in a discreet location where no one is likely to call the police because they see a gun and cash. Be smart and never actually say anything out loud that, if recorded, could be used against you in court, such as “So is it okay if we don’t go to a dealer to get a background check?”

Discuss the price of the gun, show your CCW or license, but do not fill out a bill of sale or allow the other person to copy down your information. Exchange the money and gun. Make as few references to selling the gun or breaking the law as possible. One cannot beat video footage of handing off a gun in exchange for cash, but one can make an audio only recording ambiguous. The idea is to create reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge or jury.

Don’t sell to someone sketchy. If they seem like a criminal or up to no good, pass on the sale. Don’t risk aiding a criminal because of a stupid law. Use your head like you’ve always done.

Defenses in court

If you are arrested, do not talk to the police. Remain silent. Demand an attorney, even if it is a public defender. Police can and will use anything you say to use against you. They cannot make you contradict yourself later in court if you don’t provide a statement to them to begin with. Never, ever talk to the police (more examples below).

Keep in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This means that it is the duty of the prosecution and by extension, the police, to prove that you have committed a crime. What would be the crime they would be enforcing? The crime would be failing to obtain a background check. The police have to have probable cause that you did not comply with the law in order to arrest you for failing to get a background check.

Then the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you haven't completed a background check. It's difficult enough proving that you actually did do something, let alone trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not do something. Keeping in mind that you are innocent until proven guilty; you don't have to tell them what FFL you used to get a background check. You don't have to tell them what date you transferred the firearm.

You are free to exercise your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination—do exercise it. The entire onus of the investigation lies with law enforcement and the prosecution. Don’t start talking to the police when they begin asking questions or waive your Miranda rights. Again, it is entirely up to the prosecution to prove that you did not indeed go to a dealer. You don’t have to “help” them by telling them anything. The more you talk, the tighter the net your words will weave to trip you up. You can’t explain anything away or throw them off the trail.

Further on, we’ll explain how easy it is to accidentally make a case against yourself, but first, let’s look at how hard it is for the prosecution to prove a case against someone who remains quiet. All you have to say is that you did obtain a background check and it’s up to the prosecution to prove you didn’t; that’s hard to do.

Nevada currently has approximately 740 licensed FFLs. There are 365 days in a year. Remember that FFLs keep their records in their "bound book" per ATF regulations. Some may have converted to electronic bound books if issued a variance by the ATF, but this is not yet the norm. That means someone has to physically go and paw through their bound book and possibly the 4473 forms at each dealer to prove that a record does not exist. So they would have to reasonably ensure that they inspect every record at every dealer in the state.

If law enforcement/prosecution do not check every dealer or check every record, they leave the door open for the defense to create a reasonable doubt that the one record at the one dealer that they did not inspect could be the form proving that the background check was completed. Remember that by federal law, the NICS system may not be used to create a registration of firearms or gun owners. This means that under federal law the identifying records on their end must be destroyed after the background check is completed. The man-hours required to attempt to prosecute a single violation of this law would be ridiculously prohibitive.

Or a judge/jury might not care about this point and screw you over, so seller beware.

Second, it is unconstitutional to require a prohibited person to present himself for a background check. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1968, Haynes v. United States. The reader's digest version is that a man who was a convicted felon was caught in possession of an unregistered NFA firearm. He successfully argued that requiring him to register the NFA firearm is akin to forcing him to make an open admission to the government that he is a felon in possession of a firearm.  Remember that Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? The courts agreed with him that the law cannot compel him to perform an action (registration) that would amount to confessing to committing a crime.

While the Supreme Court did not invalidate the law requiring the registration of NFA firearms nor did they invalidate the prohibition on felons possessing firearms, they agreed that the law requiring registration could not be enforced against convicted felons. A mandatory background check and NFA registration accomplish the same thing—requiring a person to provide evidence against themselves for a later prosecution. How hard do you think it would be for a defense lawyer to make this same argument for his client previously convicted of a disqualifying offense (domestic violence, felony, etc.), subject to a protection order or adjudicated mentally ill?

If you are charged for lending a gun in Clark County, bring up in court District Attorney Wolfson’s statement at the Mob Museum’s Question 1 forum where he stated “We’re not going to charge people for lending a weapon to a friend.” That might sway a jury and humiliate the district attorney’s office. I'm not sure if creates estoppel in court, but it's worth a shot.

How could this happen to me?

“Background check” enforcement stings are not likely to happen on a regular basis (maybe at the outset or following some high-profile stuff). In the vast majority of cases, failing to get a background check is an additional charge to other crimes or to prosecute the person who supplied a gun used in a crime.

Unless the anti-gun climate dramatically worsens, law enforcement doesn’t have the time or inclination to proactively enforce the law. Heck, they don’t even enforce the gun laws that have already existed. However, for a cop who wants to make the arrest, it’s pretty easy to get a confession.

Why? People like to talk. Most people are fundamentally honest and feel that honesty is the best policy. Some think they can talk their way out of anything (usually stupid criminals). For the rest of us, we were raised to be honest and fair and we expect other people, including the police, to give us the same courtesy in return. The honest folk don’t understand that their best intentions can be manipulated against them. So remain silent!

Let’s say a woman is pulled over for speeding. She has a gun in the glovebox that he boyfriend gave to her because someone is stalking her after work. Before reaching for her insurance registration, she informs the officer the gun is in the glove box, so the officer retrieves it.

Officer: Is that your gun?
Woman: No, it’s my boyfriend’s. He gave it to me because of this creepy guy at work.
Officer: When did he give it to you?
Woman: Day before Valentine’s Day.
Officer: Did you get a background check at a dealer before he gave it to you?
Woman: No, he just gave it to me in the morning before I left for work.
Officer: Do you have a restraining order? Has this creepy guy threatened you?
Woman: No, I just felt unsafe because of the way he followed me in the parking lot.
​
That woman just admitted her boyfriend committed a violation of the universal background check law. She has provided the officer the day of the offense (Feb. 13, 2020—after the law took effect), she admitted that there was no background check, and she admitted that there was no immediate danger, just a vague unsettling feeling. She is not married, even though she lives with her boyfriend, so the family exemption does not apply. 

The law does not require malice; it is a mala prohibitum crime where simply failing to obey is criminal, not what one’s intentions were when they disobeyed the law. If the officer recorded this, he could have an easy arrest (probably a citation and release) that meets all the elements of the crime. Would the prosecutor file charges? Depends on where our country goes from here or what kind of district attorney we have.

How gun traces work

Let’s say police go looking for a particular gun for whatever reason. A very inefficient gun registration system with more holes than fishnet underwear exists now and law enforcement will use it to get a pretty good lead to track you down, should they want your gun. The same procedures will be used to work background check cases as well as confiscation. If you use your gun in a non-permissive environment or in an illegal way—the morality of the use aside (say in a gun-free zone)—you will be the target of a criminal investigation.

The police will trace the serial number, which will lead them to the distributor who sold the gun to the dealer, and the dealer’s copy of the Form 4473 will lead them to the original buyer. If you are one person away from the original buyer, especially if they personally know you, have a bill of sale, or there are records online, consider yourself one confession or tip away from arrest. Buying anonymously at a gun show, with maybe a cursory glance at a CCW or license, is fairly safe. If you bought on Facebook, off a gun forum, or in any place the data could be preserved, don’t be surprised if you are tracked down based on that information.

For universal background checks, this is important if the original buyer is contacted. You don’t want anything connecting you to him or for either party to admit there was no background check.
You are more insulated if there is one, or several buyers, between you and the original purchaser. Remember, a bill of sale given to police will identify you just as well as gun registration would. Don’t keep evidence lying around; don’t do bills of sale if you’re not complying.

Bills of sale and crimes with your old gun

If you have a bill of sale on guns you sold in the past, destroy them. Do not unwittingly assist future gun registration and confiscation. No one will think you are a suspect if there is a crime with your old gun; just tell the police that you sold the gun legally (at the time), when you sold it, and give vague information about the buyer (if they are confiscating guns and not trying to track down a psychopath or gang banger). Police will have to prove you knowingly sold the gun to a prohibited person or gang member, knew it was going to be used in a crime, or that you really shot the person. Having owned the gun used in the crime is not enough to make you a suspect or even convict you in a sane legal system (which we still have at the moment).

If you have that fear, you need to learn more about real criminal investigations and prosecutions. Quickly, let’s examine the issue of guilt over having sold someone a crime gun. Would you feel guilty if the person who bought your car was an alcoholic and killed some while driving drunk? Of course not, but you would regret the innocent person’s death. Were you responsible in anyway? No. The new owner made a choice to misuse the property you sold them. The only possible way for you to be in any way the least bit culpable is if you knew beforehand their intentions.

With a gun, one’s former legal and moral due diligence was to not sell to a person they knew to be a gang member or otherwise ineligible to own a gun. Before Facebook banned gun sales, buyers there could be quickly vetted on the basis of what their profile contained. Making a subjective judgement about a potential buyer is beyond the ability of any computer system and even human judgement is fallible. The new law provides no penalty for knowingly selling a gun to a gang member; the only thing the proponents of universal background checks care about is that the buyer/transferee pass the background check.

“Boating accidents” and other mishaps

Let’s imagine it’s the future and the Gun Confiscation Task Force knows you own guns and has a very good idea of exactly what guns you own. You decide to surrender your dealer-bought guns, but they want the ones you bought privately. “We know you bought an AR-15 rifle from ‘eugenes_ghost’ from COLT15.com in October of 2014. Where is that gun?” What do you do? Remember, you can’t deny ever owning it.

This is where your “boating accident” story comes into play: “You see, Special Agent, I went fishing with my guns one day and when the boat capsized, all my guns fell in the lake.” ATF agents know the joke and won’t find it funny. Your best defense is to simply state (if you say anything) that you sold the guns legally, long before 2020, you don’t remember whom to, and you did not keep a bill of sale. Invoke your right to silence immediately after that and say nothing no matter what else they say. Never change your story.

Conclusion
Keep your mouth shut. Don’t put anything in writing. Vet who you sell to/buy from. Without compliance, they can’t make the unconstitutional gun laws work. As always, use this information and disobey the law, wrong as it is, at your own risk. If you break the law and get busted, that's on you; this is an opinion piece. This does not constitute, nor should be implied as, legal advice.

What is a universal background check?

It is a misnomer that means it is illegal to privately sell or transfer a firearm between individuals. Private sales/transfers must be processed by a licensed dealer, who will enter the firearm into the record via an ATF form 4473, and will call Carson City for a background check (on the buyer). 

​Where do I go to complete a transfer?
A federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). This is usually a local gun store, not a large retailer like Walmart that sells guns. If you want to use a large retailer for a private transfer, check to see if they do them, their policies, and their fees. 

Can I call the background check in/is there a website/can I mail in something?
No, you must go to a licensed dealer.

Can I still advertise online?
Yes. Sales can still be arranged online and at gun shows. Between the request of the background check and the actual sale/transfer of the firearm, the licensed dealer takes possession of the firearm. If the background check is delayed or denied, the owner needs a background check to get the gun back from the dealer.

Can I still sell at gun shows?
Yes. You would meet the gun at a dealer's table for them to process the background check and paperwork. 

How much does it cost? 
The state does not charge $25 for a private background check (only on purchases from dealer inventory or guns shipped to dealers). However, a dealer can charge a transfer fee usually $25-30 at reputable dealers, but up to $100 or more, for their time.

Are concealed firearm permittees (CCW holders) exempt?
No. Concealed firearm permittees must go through the background check, including the call to Carson City and the ATF form 4473, like everyone else. The Dept. of Public Safety's position is that the Brady Exemption for regular retail purchases does not apply to private transfers. 

​If the background check is free, why am I paying for it?
The background check is free, but you are paying the dealer for his time to make the phone call and deal with the paperwork. This fee is the same if you order a gun online and have it shipped to the dealer, usually $25-30 at reputable dealers, but up to $100 or more. Regular retail sales are charged the $25 background check fee, and if an online sale, the dealer's time fee. 

As stated above, the Brady Exemption for CCW holders currently does not apply to private sales/transfers. 

Are Curio & Relic (C&R) licensees exempt?
No, except antique firearms as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(16); pre-1899 firearms in other words.

Do we need to fill out a bill of sale?
No. You got a background check done, right? If you didn't and you kept a bill of sale, you are stupid for keeping a written record of a crime.

Does the seller need to get a background check?
No, only the buyer. Unless the buyer cannot pass the background check, then the dealer technically has to do a background check on the seller (owner) to get his gun back.

Can I get a gun transfer done at the police station? 
No. Under the law, you must visit an FFL.

Does Metro do blue cards?
No, "blue cards" haven't been a thing since 2015.

Can I give a gun to my relative?
Yes. Sales or transfers to a relative (spouses and registered domestic partners and any of the following relations, whether by whole or half blood, adoption, or step-relation: parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles,
nieces and nephews). Note this does not include cousins, boyfriends, or girlfriends (even if you live together).

Can I give a gun to my boyfriend/girlfriend?
Not legally without a background check.

What are the other exemptions?
The other exemptions to the law are: An antique firearm as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(16); transfer to an estate/trust upon the owner’s death; temporary transfers would also be allowed at an established shooting range ("established" is not defined); at a competition; at a public performance by an organized group; or while in the presence of the owner (you cannot leave the borrower alone with your gun).​

Who gets in trouble if we don't get a background check and get caught?
The seller, not the buyer (as long as they are not a prohibited person). A first offense is a gross misdemeanor and the second offense is a felony.

What if I ignore the law?
Hope you don't get caught in a sting or sell to a scumbag who will break the law later so detectives trace the gun back to you and discover there was no background check. 

Do I need to register the gun in the new owner's name?
No. There is no gun registration in Nevada. It doesn't matter if your gun was registered in California or not. There is no gun registration and nothing you need to do (legally) other than the background check.

If I'm under 21, how do I buy a handgun if it's illegal for a dealer to sell/transfer one to me?
Have an exempt relative gift you the gun or file a civil rights lawsuit for age discrimination.

​What if I want to let my friend borrow a gun?
You cannot lend a gun to someone without a background check except in very narrow circumstances. What are the chances of someone finding out? Well, if you and your friend aren't criminals and don't break the law, probably nothing. The borrowing ban is to prevent gang members and criminals from giving each other guns and saying that it was legal since they didn't transfer permanent ownership. Exemptions to lending guns are:

• To relatives: (spouses and registered domestic partners and any of the following relations, whether by whole or half blood, adoption, or step-relation: parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews);
• Temporary transfers would also be allowed at an established shooting range ("established" is not defined);
• At a competition;
• At a public performance by an organized group; or
• While in the presence of the owner (you cannot leave the borrower alone with your gun).​

There is also an immediate danger exemption, which reads more like "Okay, since that cougar is stalking us and my leg is caught in a bear trap, you take my handgun and go down to the truck and drive back up to me," or "Take my shotgun and go guard the front door while I check out that noise outside," rather than "Girlfriend, I know your abusive ex is trying to kill you, so borrow my revolver when you go to work tomorrow." The lending must only be in the face of immediate danger and only as long as the immediate danger exists.

I live under a rock, why didn't I hear about this before?
Because you are stupid or just moved from California recently. Perhaps you are like Rip Van Winkle and have been asleep since 2013 when they first tried for this law.

When did this take effect?
January 2, 2020. Question 1's implementation was nullified by an attorney general's opinion in 2016. The Legislature was technically supposed to wait until at least November of 2019 to change the law, but Nevada is corrupt. The Legislature voted back in February and they made the effective date the day after Question 1's three-year modification freeze expired. 

​​What does the universal background check laws do?
It requires a private person wishes to sell a firearm to another private person, they must first appear in person at a licensed dealer who will conduct the background check through the existing federal NICS protocol. Sales can still be arranged online and at gun shows. Between the request of the background check and the actual sale/transfer of the firearm, the licensed dealer takes possession of the firearm. 

I'm from out-of-state. Can I buy a gun privately?
Handguns need to be transferred through a dealer in your home state. Long guns can be sold by a dealer to a non-resident, save for California residents, as long as all home state laws are complied with. See ATF page here (#2). Long guns may be transferred or purchased through a dealer from private parties, however some persons and dealers may not be comfortable with the sale and may request to ship to a dealer in your home state.

Will I get in trouble for not getting a background check on private sale?
If you are not a criminal, don't do anything stupid, and you and the other party keep your mouths shut and out of trouble, it's unlikely anyone will ever know.

What about our free background checks from the state we got in 2015?
The poorly written law removed that exemption. The Department of Public Safety (DPS), as a public service, is now waiving its $25 background check fee (for those without a CCW) for voluntary background checks on private sales or transfers done through a dealer. Read more here.The private party background check will be free from the Nevada NICS fee ($25), but dealers may charge for their time.

Who supports this law?
Anti-gun leftists like Michael Bloomberg who provided campaign donations through various gun control groups and PACs to get legislators to vote for the law. 2016's Question 1 passed only in Clark County, winning statewide with less than 1% of the vote. There is no mandate for this law. Nevada was essentially manipulated into it.

Will this lead to a gun registry?
Eventually yes. If all guns must be sold/transferred through a dealer, the dealer transaction can be tracked and logged. This is the first part in a gun registration system where guns are tracked by their sale/transfer through a dealer. We anticipate future laws where either the state keeps an electronic record of the sale (like California's DROS) or federal law where the form 4473s are entered into a searchable electronic database.

Effective Jan 1. 2020, now close relatives or police can apply for a court order to take away your guns. This is done in a hearing of which you have no knowledge and no opportunity to defend yourself. Only after your guns are taken away can you challenge the order, whether it is frivolous or not. This is a clear violation of due process and the constitutional requirement for probable cause is absent from the law.

When you are red flagged, you are guilty until proven innocent. We know that restraining orders are often abused and the havoc that is wreaked upon the life of the accused. Without careful use and judicious circumspection from police and the courts, red flag laws can be used vindictively to harm an opponent or a now un-loved one.

Compounding this, even if someone is truly a danger, they are unable to give their firearms to a friend without a background check. It is impractical for someone to legally transfer a large collection to a friend as a dealer would have to record each gun and the fees for more than three guns being transferred are often expensive.

Nevada can go in two directions; it can very carefully apply these laws (which seems to be the case in California, ironically) or go the route of Florida and apply them badly with little regard for due process. In the SoCal county where I formerly worked, only two red flag orders were issued prior to 2019 under circumstances where there was objective evidence of a threat (probable cause, in other words). 

We cannot trust the government to apply red flag laws properly, which is why they should be struck entirely or amended to give the owner a chance to show up in court. Otherwise, these laws can become a terrible tool of tyranny. Already, we have seen several instances of people being killed by police in botched red flag raids. Resistance to gun confiscation will only increase as the tools are used and abused. 

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 (illegally, as explained above), you don’t have the option to give the guns to a friend, relative, or firearms dealer unless the judge graciously allows you to (and they probably won't). 
 
It is only a misdemeanor to file a malicious false application (or for someone having their guns confiscated to violate the order itself).
 
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.

A lawsuit has been filed and a request for an injunction is currently pending.

There were a total of 29 mass-media documented defensive gun uses by non-police (on duty) in Nevada in 2019. Most defensive gun uses do not involve shots being fired and are rarely reported to police. 

We have three robbers shot with one stop, an attempted rapist killed in downtown Reno, and a weirdo who stole nudes and forced women to undress was stopped by a female pizza delivery driver with a gun. 

Interestingly, there were two late-breaking cases in the news: