Tuesday, December 12, 2017

DPS Waives Certain Background Check Fees

Now that headline got your attention, thanks to New Frontier Armory for bringing this to our attention. Remember Question 1, universal background checks initiative, that tried to ban private gun sales? Democrats are trying to sink governor candidate Attorney General Adam Laxalt by blaming him for pointing out the law is unenforceable. Question 1 also hurt public safety by removing the free, voluntary background check provision. 

The Nevada Department of Public Safety is offering free, voluntary background checks for private gun sale/transfers. In other words, they are waiving the $25 NICS background check fee if someone wants to sell or transfer a gun to someone.

This is being offered as a public service by the state. The botched abortion known as Question 1 invalidated the existing provision for free, voluntary background checks on private sales enacted in 2015. That system was by mail and as of 2015, literally only one person ever used it. 
  • These are voluntary; they are not mandatory. Voluntary means “optional.” Optional means you do not have to do it.
  • No, this does not mean that Question 1 is being enforced.
  • Yes, you can still just transfer or sell guns like you used to do.
  • “Free” means the state is not charging $25 to run the background check; the dealer can still charge $25 or whatever for their time and paper work.
  • This will require a Form 4473 and the dealer is calling Carson City.
  • If you have a CCW and you are receiving or buying a firearm, you still always fill out a form, but you do not have to pay $25 or wait for a background check.
  • Yes, you still have to go to a dealer.
  • No, you do not have to register a firearm and the ATF Form 4473 isn’t registration*.

By now, everyone in Southern Nevada should know that New Frontier Armory is the place to go. Yes, there are other places to go and I know some of you haven’t bought a firearm from a dealer at all—especially after that boating accident (I don’t actually own any guns either)—but this is our favorite place. Plus the owner actually really does care about the Second Amendment and busts his butt advocating for it, but you already know that, right?


*Yes, we know how it can be used, but we don’t need to confuse people who are already confused.

Monday, December 11, 2017

How to Use "Gun Radar" on the Strip



Backscatter technology to detect guns in Las Vegas casinos is not the panacea it seems to be. The device works as basically radar that identifies “gun shape” signatures. We discussed this in an earlier post.

Scanning customers is fraught with business pitfalls. Just imagine the first time a high-roller with a CCW gets tackled and disarmed on the casino floor. He’s probably not coming back. Regular joes who carry for self-protection will likewise be alienated if they are treated like potential terrorists for simply wanting to be prepared for the ordinary mayhem that occurs on the Strip.

Casinos don’t care about your safety; they care about money and liability. Those security measures are not there for your protection. You can thank those billboard and TV commercial attorneys for their part of that. Mass shootings and robberies look bad, but are extraordinarily rare. One faces a greater chance of being raped, beaten, murdered, or robbed than killed or injured in a terrorist attack. Yet some executive who knows no one will mess with him for carrying is focused on the bottom line and share price.

There is a beneficial use to these devices that could improve safety without alienating the legally armed public or accidentally detaining or accosting a tourist because of a false positive.

Hotel security could benefit from using backscatter devices as a identification and surveillance tool. The manufacturer and the hotel probably has no clue how they are going to use it. We tend to think of weapon detection devices as screening tools to identify who is armed and to get the weapon (and person) out of the environment. Think of a gang member trying to get his pistol through a metal detector and into a rap concert. In upscale casinos where few are likely to start blasting, such an approach is generally unnecessary and has the pitfalls I’ve explained previously.

Imagine you really do have an effective radar scanning the crowd. Individuals could be identified and a realistic threat assessment made. A man in a suit who looks like a cop probably is one and the older guy in a Hawaiian shirt with a revolver on his hip headed for the high-limits table isn’t going to start shooting. But the drunk guy, stumbling in the door and yelling with a Glock in his pocket might warrant a security response. A potential terrorist or robber could be tailed or intercepted at this point. A security check and extra visits to the room could be made for the guy with the rifles who might be here for SHOT or might not be.

Fancy electronics that promise to be the answer to all crime and terror problems fail again and again. Human failures to properly respond to identified threats (or to identify them at all) plague TSA, which is almost entirely reliant on wonder-technology. Magic detectors can’t scan for intention or control what goes on beyond the detection perimeter. The Brussels airport attack concentrated on the passengers outside the security perimeter. How difficult would it be to simply walk down the Strip and start shooting outside the doors or shoot one’s way inside the hotel?

Yet even if a "smart" approach is used, the only persons who are safe to approach would be those legally armed citizens who are not going to use their weapons to begin with. A terrorist or dangerous criminal who is suddenly approached by security will likely react violently. Consequently, security will probably do nothing and call police, hoping they arrive before whatever unfolds. So, like all security theater and gun control, backscatter will target non-threats and disarm the honest.

Security’s options for deal with an “armed” subject are limited. Legally, they cannot detain you or put their hands on you for simply possibly having a gun. All they can do is ask something like “Do you have a firearm?” (or 20 AR-15s in your suitcases) You have no duty to answer or even stop. Assuming you tell them to pound sand, at that they can ask you to leave. If you fail to leave at that point, then you would be trespassing. And if you and they are cool about it, what are they going to do, ask you to check your gun? How will that make anyone safe?

Concealed carriers aren’t the type to worry about, but some idiot anti-gun executive is too stupid and unconcerned to know that. Last time I checked, there wasn’t an issue with people being shot on casino floors or in hotel rooms, especially by legally armed citizens. Rather it’s pimps and drug dealers getting into gun fights on the sidewalks and bridges or criminal victimizing unarmed citizens in parking garages or other dark places. If the person security detains doesn’t have a CCW, will they call Metro? I suspect it won’t even get that far before the crook either runs or shoots security.

And what exactly will hotel security do when/if they detect a terrorist with an AK under his jacket? I would be frankly shocked if any hotel has a security team that can credibly dispatch an actual terrorist threat. I know some crack security guards, but will they be on duty and able to respond in time—or allowed to? And let’s face it; given the events of October 1 no one should bet their lives on Metro’s SWAT team arriving in time or making tactically sound decisions.

There is always going to be a way to defeat or counter whatever security measures are in place. A layered, intelligent approach is better than a one-size-fits-all policy. Israeli airport security involves the human factor; does that passenger look and act like a threat, rather than the American, TSA style security theater of “Did that go ‘beep’ when he went through the machine?” Rather, our planes are safe, in part, because after 9/11, terrorists know the passengers and crew will beat you to death.

Casinos need to understand armed citizens are part of the solution to violence and terror, not a liability. On October 1, concertgoers tried to steal police shotguns to fight back. So to the gaming industry, give us a little credit and worry about the freaks, the pimps, and the drunks.



Thursday, December 7, 2017

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, Written by Idiots?


The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (HR 38) is a terribly written law; like kindergartner with a crayon bad.

One can only reasonably assume that whoever drafted it was trying to end-run highly restrictive and no-issue states by sneaking in language that quite arguably could be understood to allow residents of a state like California to carry in California on a non-resident CCW. In one fell, Congressional stroke, the anti-2A state concealed carry bans fall down. While a Supreme Court in on the plan might wink, nod, and go along with the plain interpretation of the law, the Court we do have would probably interpret legislative intent to treat CCWs like driver licenses, if they upheld it at all.

There is language that is supposed to prevent non-residents from being harassed by local police, but instead of being reasonable, it could be construed to prohibit all but a few selective regulations. These objections are discussed in this post.

HR 38 is the wrong approach. Congress can do two things: 1, regulate how states treat the citizens of other states, and 2, enforce laws to prevent civil rights violations. The Constitution requires that every state treat residents and non-residents alike (insofar as its actually possible). Self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.

Congress cannot invalidate state laws by saying that under Federal law, it's okay, according to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which HR 38 is claiming is its ability to make this law.

The Commerce Clause is to regulate interstate commerce, basically to keep states from doing stupid things like banning out-of-state truckers so in-state trucking companies can have a monopoly. States would go to war with each other if California required a Texas truck driver to drop his trailer in Truckee or Primm so some guy from Bakersfield could haul it.

Take driver license reciprocity as an example. Imagine some states issue licenses, some don't, and some only issue them to billionaires' chauffeurs and only a handful of states consider your out-of-state license as valid—sorta like CCWs are.

You can take a road trip across the county, but only if you detour around New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and visit the Pacific Ocean in Oregon instead of California. Kinda hurts tourism if you do that, right? Especially if Montana won't recognize your Florida license because they don't have some sort of test question about driving in the snow.

Instead of Congress saying "Every state will recognize as valid any non-resident's driver license," Congress says "You can drive in any state as long as you have a driver license from any state." In the latter approach, it's still illegal to drive in The Pedestrian State, but Congress is saying you can.

What happens is that The Pedestrian State doesn't care, you get arrested, your car towed, and you have to fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Just like Mom saying "no," Dad saying "yes," and you getting spanked by Mom anyway because Grandma and Grandpa won't hear your appeal.

Sure, the Senate could pass the law, Trump could sign it, and it could work out, with or without a lot of lawsuits. In that case, it would be Congress simply saying "We have the power to do this and so we're going to do it." Power is a dangerous way to accomplish things and unconstitutional. It's a bully's tactic.

Now I don't have a problem with Congress telling the anti-gun states to pound sand, but they need to do it in a constitutional manner. Congress has the ability to correct civil rights violations like denial of the right to bear arms and it’s time that they treat the RKBA as a civil right.

Congress should use its power under the 14th Amendment to stop states from infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the ability to pass legislation to enforce the provisions of the amendment, namely from Section 1: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Congress needs to recognize that self-defense is essential to protect “life, liberty, and property” and that denying non-residents from carrying legally, as well as practically no-issue policies disarming citizens in the state, that states like CA, HI, NJ, and NY need to be treated like ex-slave states in the late 1860s. Such an approach has a much better chance of withstanding judicial scrutiny.

So whoever wrote the text of the CCRA, you suck and you are stupid. A new bill needs written, which I will include, fresh from my brain, that makes the following changes: 
  • Forces states to recognize non-resident CCWs like out-of-state drive licenses;
  • Does not preempt local laws;
  • Adds “our state, our rules” concealed carry language;
  • Removes all carry prohibitions from federal recreation areas (like the Red Rock loaded gun ban); and
  • Exempts open carry, where legal, from the Gun Free School Zones Act. 

The language I wrote refers to the 2nd and 14th Amendment which gives Congress all the authority it needs. For nervous Congress critters, I put in “handgun” instead of “firearm,” which conjures in the minds of morons someone hiding an AK under his trench coat. Likewise, I’ve struck out concealed where it can be dropped to refer to open or concealed carry, as it should be your choice how to carry.


Anyhow, here’s to the off-chance someone with pull in The Gun Lobby™ or Congress sees this.


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Improved Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”.

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY

Whereas the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Many States deny the ability of non-residents to legally carry a handgun; and

Congress, having the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by this Constitution, provides a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

(a)        Every State, that has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, shall not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms by residents of other States by:

(1)   Considering as valid any license or permit issued by a State that permits by a person to carry a concealed handgun; or,
(2)   Not prohibiting any resident of a State having no statute under which residents may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun from carrying a concealed handgun.

(b)       Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a resident of a State to carry a handgun in the State in which he or she resides upon a license or permit issued by another State nor without a license or permit if such is required by the State in which he or she resides.

(c)        This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State regulate the place, time, or manner in which concealed handguns may be carried except every State, with respect to carrying of a concealed handgun, shall not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of other States and shall not deny to any person, who is not a resident of that State, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of any that regulates the carrying of a concealed handgun.

(1)   When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).
(2)   When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.
(3)   A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.
(4)   The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (3) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

(d)       Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 926A of title 18, United States Code, The Handguns Owners’ Protection Act.

(e)        A person carrying a handgun under the provisions of this section or openly in conformance with all State statutes or regulations shall be deemed to be in compliance with the exemption granted by Section 922(q)(B)(ii) of title 18, United States Code.

(f)        The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.
(1)   A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with this section shall:
A.    Carry a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person and issued by, or stating, the person’s State of residence; and,
B.     If a resident of a State that has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, carry a valid license or permit to carry a concealed handgun.
(2)   Presentation of a facially valid identification document containing a photograph and address of a person who is a resident of a State having no statute under which residents may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun is prima facie evidence that the individual shall be granted the privilege and immunity of subsection (a)(2) of this section.

(g)        A person possessing or carrying a loaded or unloaded handgun in a State may do so, if the possession of the handgun is in compliance with the law of the State, in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

(1)   A unit of the National Park System.
(2)   A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
(3)   Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
(4)   Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
(5)   Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
(6)   Land administered and managed by the Forest Service.






Wednesday, December 6, 2017

BFYTW

A reporter asked me tonight why I’m opposed to the bump fire stock ban. The best and first answer that came to mind was: “Because fuck you, that’s why.” As a reader of the blog, I’m sure you understand this sentiment without further explanation.

Congress wouldn’t understand the anger like they don’t understand the issues behind gun control. They’re running scared, afraid that they will look bad if they don’t support it. Congress is too stupid and spineless to stand against the endless infringements against the Second Amendment; infringements of like character would never be tolerated if applied to the First Amendment. Do we ban the Internet because it’s used to distribute child pornography and promote jihad?

True, it’s hard to justify a “need” for a range toy, but it’s not about bump fire, it’s about everything else. What else will craven politicians cave in on next time scores die? Firearm regulations don’t work; the evidence has been around for over a century. California’s magazine and “assault weapon” restrictions did nothing to prevent or mitigate the Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino. Even the Holy Grail of gun control, background checks, failed to detect Paddock’s intentions or stop the sale to that miserable excuse of a man who killed the churchgoers in Texas.

The bump fire stock ban is a reactionary attempt to capitalize on a tragedy and thus disgusting since political motives, not saving lives, is its aim. Every time a high-profile shooting happens, guns are further regulated, but nothing is done for the social or behavioral symptoms that instigated the crime. Each new infamous crime is seized upon by these vultures to tie legitimate gun ownership and use to perverted killers; a sickening political act calculated to slander a noble ideal—that a man might protect himself, his loved ones, and his community.

We’re on to the scheme, pushed by Democrats, progressives, and globalists. We know that one day, the various schemes to disarm the public will happily coincide with a need to resort to tyranny to enforce government policy. This works if the public is inured to the idea—or even the possibility—of using small arms to resist tyranny or fight civil unrest. When the only legal guns are “boring” hunting rifles or skeet shotguns, citizens loose not only the skills, but the interest and will to use effective firearms for the purpose the Founding Fathers intended them for.

Knowing what’s at stake and what our enemies are out for, we’ve drawn a line in the sand. We’ve made the arguments, but not one is listening. The evidence is there, but the hoplopaths’ have shut their eyes. We’ve compromised and lost ground while getting nothing in return. The NRA has sold us out and the party that claims it’s pro-gun has run for the hills swamp. If the Constitution, history, logic, truth, and our opinions no longer matter to the powers that be, then we don’t care what you think. “Fuck you, that’s why.” 


Thursday, November 30, 2017

Receptiveness to Open Carry


Your opinion may vary. Based on a question in a comment on a The Firearm Blog post. 

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Want Campus Carry? Apply Now!


Want campus carry? Start asking for permission. We’ll help (but no promises). Not for K-12 schools!

State law allows for the presidents of Nevada’s public colleges and universities, known as the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), to grant written permission to carry firearms on campus. Unfortunately, most of the time permission to carry for self-defense is denied. The standard is so stringent, that even corrections officers attending classes have been denied permission. Unless it is highly likely that you will be victimized and can prove it, permission will be denied. NSHE policy effectively denies Nevadans their right to self-defense.

It’s time to change all that. For too long, Nevadans have been dissuaded from applying simply because “How do I apply?” is met with “Don’t bother, they don’t approve anybody.” You can help change that by asking for permission and showing that yes, there is a demand for students and citizens to defend themselves on campus.

Nevada Carry is providing a form, that includes hold harmless language and release of liability, to help you apply for permission to carry a concealed handgun on campus and/or store it in your car. The goal is to one, show demand exists, and two, track the process and exact reasons for denials, along with the persons involved.

If people are asking and being told “no” in secret, we can’t know the reasoning or persons behind the decisions. So if you apply for permission, please email us all copies of correspondence with the university officials, including denials. PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. This is a process; you will probably be told no, but that is part of how we start to change things.

NSHE’s Policy Terms

Presidents have discretionary authority, subject to the conditions set by the Board of Trustees. It is a highly restrictive “may issue” policy. The duty of the president is to: 
“An NSHE institution President who receives a written request from an individual to carry a concealed weapon on the campus must consider, investigate, and evaluate each request on a case by case basis, giving individual consideration to each specific request, and must make a determination on each request according to a need standard.” 
Permits are may issue and require a specific “need” under the most stringent interpretation of the word. Determining factors are:

1. a specific risk of attack presented by an actual threat;
2. a general risk of attack presented by the nature of the individual’s current or former profession, as established by actual evidence of increased risk of attack on such individuals; or
3. a legitimate educational or business purpose.

The application is reviewed. Often campus police call for an interview and any documentation regarding specific threats are requested. In most cases, a denial is then issued. Anyone who is denied has the right to request an appeal.

Read the full policy here. Most approvals are for non-carry reasons, such as class educational displays. Carry permission is granted mostly to security personnel, armored car drivers, and off-duty law enforcement teaching on campus.

Bare Self-Defense

For the average person to get permission for self-defense carry, the standard is far and beyond “good cause,” but practically requires that an attack has already happened or one is highly likely to be attacked. Elevated, but non-specific threats, or a general concern for one’s safety is not considered good enough to get permission to carry.

Self-defense because of what could happen is as good as reason as any to apply, so if that’s all the justification you wish to put on the form, why not? Asking for permission to carry after you have been victimized is no good. If NSHE wants to deny people, they will. What victim of random crime anticipates that they will become a victim in the near future? Do only those with verified death threats against them or abusive spouses deserve protection?

Recently, a woman was kidnapped at an UNLV parking garage and sexually assaulted at gunpoint. Once again, campus police failed to protect a student from being attacked. All the campus gun ban did was ensure that this woman was an easy target. However, she was able to grab the suspect’s gun, after being assaulted, and managed to get away. Opponents of campus carry say that the student will just be disarmed by an attacker; they never talk about the victim getting the bad guy’s gun. This situation should never have happened. As originally proposed, colleges and universities were never meant to be gun-free zones.

The historical record is clear; legal guns on college and university campuses have never been a problem. Legislators did not originally seek to deny concealed carriers the ability to carry on campus, but rather allowed it to happen as carrying a handgun legally was uncommon. Authorities were to use their discretion to the benefit of gun owners and not to deny practically every request.

Armed citizens and members of the educational community must be involved in the elections and actions of the Board of Regents. Regents who are friendly to gun owners can help create quality policies without resorting to the difficulties of the legislative process. Continue reaching out to students, teachers, and professors about the Second Amendment and the gun culture.

2017 is not 1989. Handguns and self-defense carry are popular in America and once again they are recognized by the majority as not only a right, but sometimes as a necessity. The old conventions about who carries are gun and the risk of accident vs. probability of a defensive gun use have changed. Old policies created under a paradigm that no longer exists and enforced today for political reasons need to be eradicated or altered to reflect today’s reality.

About the Form

The form is unofficial and not approved by NSHE. It was not written or reviewed by an attorney and none of this is legal advice. It is simply to help interested citizens apply in an uniform manner that might get some traction with NSHE officials. One who applies is strictly doing so on their own. Nevada Carry makes no guarantees and accepts no liabilities. We are not making a promise that you will get permission or that any of this will work.

What will probably happen is a denial. After receiving that, appeal because you can. Fight them every step of the way. Politely and respectfully, of course. If you list merely self-defense, it would be helpful to include statistics and a personally written statement about the dangers of random crime and how armed citizens can protect themselves. Tell them the things we tell each other about good guys with guns. If we can’t change their minds, then we can provide them with the undeniable truth. Make them articulate in detail why they are denying you.  

Then we can work on getting the Trustees to change their policy and one day, legislation to undo the law altogether. Again, apply, appeal, and provide Nevada Carry copies of all correspondence. PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.

Please do not apply to any campus that you do not attend or have business at.


Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Thoughts on NV Gun Shows Causing CA Violence

Someone far more intelligent and statistically minded than myself, probably Dr. John Lott, will pick this study apart. The whole study is biased from the get-go; prove that Nevada gun shows and the lack of a 10-day waiting period is responsible for California deaths.

If one had the time and means, investigating each shooting for the circumstances of the incident (why and where the gun came from) would likely demolish this study. This is especially true when the time period analyzed is critically examined.

Second, the study itself points out how the researchers skewed the statistics to their findings. Each state’s gun shows were compared unequally. 
“‘Before’ periods were the 14 days before each show; ‘after’ periods were the 14 days after the 10-day waiting period from the start of the show for California or after the start of the show for Nevada, which has no waiting period.”
California has 10 days for any incidental violence after a gun show to calm down while Nevada gets none. By extending the time period, California gun show’s correlation is being watered down. It’s not a true comparison, even though the study’s authors would argue they’re just allowing for when the guns actually become available. It’s statistical hogwash.

What are the dates of the gun shows? The study looked at an increase in violence in two-week period after the gun show. The problem here is that gun shows are often held around holiday weekends, when people tend to get together and gatherings might get a little tense. Domestic violence, homicides, and suicides tend to spike around holidays. A 10-day break from gun show to holiday (or to take one out of the holiday period) would be an nice little break in the statistics.

Why didn’t they look at the crime rate in Nevada after our gun shows, hmm? Also, San Francisco and Los Angeles, whose data were used for the study, are not a two hour drive from Nevada; they are about four hours, on a good day and six or more hours coming back on a weekend. Nice try.  

So let’s wait and see what the better brains have to say about this study, but from the inferences about waiting periods drawn in the study (which seems to be more about Nevada’s “lax” gun control laws) we might as well just tell our readers that waiting periods do not work and they make no sense. It’s not like anyone truly cares about this study; it’s just another piece of paper for hoplopaths in Congress and in the legislatures to wave around pretending gun control isn’t just tyranny.