California is a sanctuary state for illegal aliens and many cities and counties across the county have made similar declarations. Montana revolted against the National Firearms Act by declaring that weapons made in the state are not subject to congressional regulation, but the courts disagreed. In New Mexico, which is also facing an onslaught of urban liberal led gun control, two-thirds of the counties voted to become Second Amendment sanctuaries.
Essentially, these sanctuary votes are symbolic votes of resolution to oppose state-level gun control being forced on rural areas by urban areas. In word, the counties are in opposition, and so are many sheriffs; some of which pledged to do more than just voice their opposition. It remains to be seen how non-compliance with gun control will actually go.
Fun fact: Red Dawn, filmed in New Mexico, contained a scene where ATF form 4473s were used by the KGB to confiscate guns.
So far, the sheriffs of Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lyon, Nye, and Pershing counties have formally opposed SB 143. Several counties have proposed or discussed resolutions in support of Second Amendment Sanctuary status proposed by their commissioners. Rural Nevada is revolting against Las Vegas and Reno gun control, including Lander and White Pine.
Gov. Sleestak said in response to the opposition: “I look forward to working with Attorney General Ford and local law enforcement over the next several months to review ways to enforce this law, as is the case with all other Nevada laws that elected officers are sworn to uphold.”
The answer from the governor is basically “it’s a law, you have to obey it.” He has no moral argument, only the argument of “Obey or we will jail you up or kill you.” That’s a very poor argument for a governor to have and a great way to start an insurrection against tyranny.
Question 1 passed only in Clark County, by a fraction of a percent, after a campaign of tens of millions of dollars using questionable tactics primarily only because of demographics. SB 143 was passed after they tried to secretly introduce it, rushed it out of committee despite overwhelming pro-gun public attendance and opposition, and exploited their supermajority status to push it virtually unopposed through the Legislature. Half of the electorate opposed the original initiative; that’s not a mandate.
The moral high ground does not belong to our governor nor his corrupt cronies in the statehouse. The moral high ground belongs to the gun owners and will remain with them as they defy and oppose the law. Sheriffs and other officials who fail to enforce a bad law are only engaging in a American long tradition of resisting tyrannical edits from despots and autocratic legislatures. Might does not make right.
Despite all this, the simple fact that “it’s illegal” will deter many people from innocent private sales and transfers in counties they would never be molested by the government for it. In urban areas, anyone involved in technically illegal activity like a boyfriend giving his girlfriend a gun, will live in fear that the DA will prosecute them if he finds out. I’d rather not trust Steve Wolfson’s prosecutorial discretion.
We need to fight the ban on private sales if only to show resistance on the home front. County commissioners need to tell Gov. Sleestak and the urban area controlled Legislature to pound sand by passing these ordinances opposing gun control. If liberal counties can pass symbolic anti-war and pro-illegal immigration ordinances and resolutions, our red counties can do the same back.
More than just letters or public declarations to defy the law is required from Nevada sheriffs. In Washington, several sheriffs pledged not to enforce the state’s new assault weapon ban, but after the Attorney General sent them a letter “reminding” sheriffs of their duty to enforce all laws, many of them cucked out. Nye County Sheriff Wehrly had a good point about ignoring unconstitutional laws.
Nevada sheriffs need to instruct their deputies not to make arrests for private sales and to ignore requests for assistance from other agencies or the Attorney General to investigate banned private sales. Sheriffs should refuse to accept booked suspects in jail or at least immediately release them on their own recognizance. Going further to totally stymie the law, local district attorneys, judges, and juries would need to agree not to prosecute/convict those accused of otherwise innocent private gun sales to truly be effective. If only Clark and Washoe counties are enforcing it and the rest of the state refuses, that would add weight to the moral argument if not more.
Background checks is the start of the battle, not the hill to die on. Our best chances winning a case against background checks is to challenge it if the Supreme Court finds that the Second Amendment requires strict scrutiny. We need to be grassroots guerillas harassing the enemies until it’s time for the D-Day invasion with the big boys, not trying a frontal assault on our own.
New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham threw a hissy fit and said on Twitter “La la la, I don’t care. Courts say background checks are constitutional.” The courts once upheld slavery and racial discrimination, so purely political decisions from courts are no defense.
Universal background check schemes could be considered constitutional as the courts would certainly find them minimally intrusive and the government’s interest in public safety overrides the minimal intrusion. They would argue that most people are approved, most delays are cleared up quickly with the three-day safety failsafe (that Democrats want to eliminate), and prohibited persons shouldn’t be buying guns anyway. That background checks laws, especially ones that ban private sales, are ineffective at controlling crime to a laughable degree would be immaterial to them.
I would argue that background checks are a form of prior restraint on a constitutional right and applying them to all forms of gun purchases, retail and private, that it eliminates any way to exercise the right of acquiring a gun without prior government permission. We might win that one, if sanity prevails on the court, or if Democrats go full retard (must read).
Registration could be thorny, as the dangers of registration are from an abusive government that hasn’t gone that far yet. Our perfect court might see the danger and agree that registration is unconstitutional because, among other things, also amounts to prior restraint from above.
In 2020 or later, depending on how much the NSSF’s money from SHOT Show talks, we might see standard capacity magazines banned, “assault” weapons, etc. Hopefully, the knowledge that NSSF will not do business in an anti-gun state and will promptly move SHOT Show to Nevada has caused enough money makers in the casino industry to wave of the Democrats. They’re stupid, just not California stupid. But my own prediction is that we’ll see stuff on the federal level first; in 2021 if Trump loses, in 2025 if he wins (a Democrat will for sure win in 2024).
In the meantime before the inevitable future of socialism and government oppression, we need to fight the good fight. Encourage your (rural) county commissioners, judges, sheriffs, and city council members to support Second Amendment Sanctuaries and actually put teeth into their words.
And thanks to Asm. Skip Daly for being the last principled Democrat in Nevada.
Support Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research (old articles, clippings, photos), links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc.