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.


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


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.


(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


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.

No More Rapes; Allow Campus Carry

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.

Did you know that it is possible to get written permission to carry a concealed firearm on university campuses in Nevada? Unfortunately, the process is so Byzantine that few actually obtain permission to carry. 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.

Nevada law allows an exemption from NRS 202.265’s total ban on firearms on campuses if the president of the college or university (or school principal) grants written permission. The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) policy leaves much to be desired. We obtained brief descriptions of the approved and denied permissions for the past five years showing the vast majority of requests are denied or are approved for other-than self-defense (viewable here).

It doesn’t help that educational authorities are often anti-gun while others are concerned that they may be liable for any issues that arise if permission is granted. In an industry fraught with hoplophobic and hoplopathic sentiments, the fear is understandable. Does a sympathetic president grant permission, knowing that his or her career may be in jeopardy if the armed person misbehaves? It almost appears that permission to carry for self-defense is only granted when it would be inhumane not to, or indefensible to deny.

The presidents should never need to wait for an applicant with a story as horrific as that of Amanda Collins before they feel that they have enough “cover” to act without be criticized by peers or the anti-gun public. I am no lawyer, but a president or the entire NSHE should not be liable for an accident or misbehavior by an authorized armed person any more than the sheriff should be in the rare cases where a concealed firearm permittee acts up. Fear of lawsuits and criticism should never deter anyone from allowing responsible citizens from protecting themselves. Imagine being under the pressure of having to deny a permit because “Sorry, you haven’t been raped or beaten yet.”

It’s time to encourage the NSHE Board of Trustees to adopt a new policy that changes their system to one that can help protect students instead of guarantee criminals a resistance-free crime zone. Presidents need to know they are absolved of liability for acting in good-faith to help protect their students from killers, rapists, robbers, carjackers, and abusers. NSHE has to the power to help stop these attacks; will they do nothing or will they act?

If you haven’t read the background on Nevada campus carry, be sure to read this article.

Do you attend class, teach, or have business at a Nevada public college or university? Do you wish to carry a concealed firearm for your safety? Apply today! The worst they can do is say no. Please save and forward any and all correspondence (approvals, denials, and your letters) to Nevada Carry. Any personal information or letters will be kept in the strictest confidence. See the NSHE policy for how to apply.

Monday, October 23, 2017

Hoplopaths: A New Term for the Anti-Gun, Part 1.

Anti-gunner. Gun grabber. Hoplophobe. None of these terms are exactly right to describe those who are bent on taking away our guns. What we need is a word that captures the malice of those who do not want you armed, not because they fear guns, but because they hate the idea that free men have the right to bear them. 


Col. Jeff Cooper coined the term “hoplophobia,” meaning “a mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of [...] weapons” and that hoplophobes believe “that instruments possess a will of their own.” He admonished that this word should be used correctly. Phobia implies an irrational, unjustified fear; a hoplophobe is the reporter who trembles uncontrollably shouldering an AR-15 in the name of “journalism.” Someone who wants to eradicate guns like Al Gore crusades against global-whatever is not strictly terrified of guns. There is another mechanism at work.

Hoplophobia fails to capture the malevolence of anti-gun activists, organizations, and legislation. The parties involved in the anti-gun movement understand guns and gun owners and their motives are not driven by a deficit of knowledge. These are not they who can learn and be reasoned with. Victims of tragedy have let their wounds fester and their cancer metastasize. If they are intelligent, they deflect and ignore contradictory information that might jeopardize their feelings.

Fear or dislike of guns, especially after a trauma like the Route 91 shooting, is natural and understandable. As phobias are characterized by excessive and unreasonable fears, a reasonable reaction is a personal choice of avoiding firearms. An unreasonable reaction is a fear that is pathological, irrational, and hysterical; hoplophobia. 

A brief analogy would be the reasonable soldier who simply chooses never to touch a gun after coming home from the war, but supports his neighbor’s right to carry and hunt, versus a politician who, after being shot, goes on the war path to ban guns instead of improve mental health treatment. Most people don’t like mice, but most people don’t start screaming and climbing on chairs when they see one. One reaction is reasonable, the other is excessive.

Yet many others who have suffered loss or injury by guns turn a personal preference to avoid guns in a mission to eradicate gun ownership. It is one who chooses to impose their anti-gun stance upon all that is inexcusable. 

True hoplophobes have a naive belief that guns are the source of the problem of violence, which is captured in Cooper’s statement that firearms act on their own. It doesn’t have to make sense. The phobic do not understand guns and, like many humans throughout time who don’t understand powerful forces, they have ascribed guns near magical qualities.

A New Term

But is “hoplophobia” the right term for anti-gunners; those who oppose gun ownership and go out of their way to make the Second Amendment go extinct? “Anti-gunner” itself is an inelegant term for the individuals, so I propose the new words “hoplopathy” and “hoplopath,” the first for the concept (anti-gun) and the second for the person, the gun grabber.

Hoplopathy is the characteristic of hating firearms and gun owners. A hoplopath is a person who displays antipathy (an aversion or repugnance) towards firearms and gun owners. Hoplopath incorporates a new word, antipath, or one who holds an antipathy. “Gun antipath” would be another way of saying hoplopath. The roots are from the Ancient Greek, hoplo for weapon and antip├ítheia, or dislike. The suffix -pathy means “suffering,” “feeling”; or in modern medical terms, “morbid affection,” “disease.”

Antipathy is synonymous with disdain, but carries the weight of contempt and hatred. Specifically, antipathy is:
  1. a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
  2. an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
  3. an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike.
Thus, a hoplopath:
  • Has an extreme dislike of guns; a repugnance towards firearms. 
  • Does not support the right to keep and bear arms. Is deeply and irreconcilably opposed (an aversion) to firearm ownership, use, and defensive carry.
  • Resists, hinders, and obstructs pro-gun politics and legislation. 
  • Resists; causes friction to slow the process.
  • Hinders; creates delays or interrupts the process to impede progress.
  • Obstructs; throws up blocks to effectively stop progress.
  • Personally involved in these efforts, or if not politically active, is outspoken on the issue.
Doesn’t the wild obsession with banning guns and demonizing gun owners and manufacturers and the NRA strike you as a disease? For them, controlling guns is an obsession, and only when the object of their hate is eradicated can that hate be satisfied. The gun is freedom or crime personified. Anti-gunners hate what bad men do with guns and fear what good men can do with them.  Freedom, responsibility and likewise the potential for disorderly misuse of that freedom (violence) violates the hoplopaths innate desire for submission to control.

Holopaths look upon and treat gun owners with contempt. They despise and scorn gun owners. Because hoplopaths see their ideology as superior, pro-gun arguments, studies, and objective evidence are unworthy of notice because it must be wrong. That “must” can mean that to accomplish their purposes the pro- evidence has to be wrong or that since their ideology is correct, any evidence to the contrary is inherently wrong on a moral basis.

Control is what separates the -paths from the -phobes. -Paths feel that they can exert control to order the world around them for the public (or their own) good, while -phobes feel that they lack any control over a dangerous, unpredictable world. The emotional reactions are different as well. -Paths feel indignation and not being able to exercise control.-Phobes, being in their eyes at the mercy of the world, experience fear created from uncertainty. 

Hoplophobes are almost pathetic, fearing guns the way ancient men feared the darkness and told stories of vampires and warewolves. When they express their opinions, they spew misinformation and hyperbolic fears like a Puritan crying “witch!” The only valid response for a gun rights supporter is to bite their tongue and shake their head. As Col. Cooper said, trying to talk sense to them only makes more of an enemy.

Hoplopaths do not jump at shadows. They understand that people are the problem, not guns, but for their own reasons, they support gun control. Whereas the phobic are seldom spurred to do more than whine, the hoplopathic take action. There are overlaps between the two, but calling someone afraid of guns is incorrect when they are not, but what they are is vehemently unsupportive of gun rights. The phobic fear the gun; the hoplopath hates and fears the gun owner. 

Since the hoplopath’s position is not one based on facts or logic, but emotion (or malice), anything that does not support the anti-gun position might as well not exist. To them, firearms would be as distasteful and disgusting as images of gore are to most people. None wish to learn about guns, the culture, or the facts that betray the knee-jerk reaction to the evening news reports of violence. Any curiosity is limited to a morbid examination of the strange “pathology” of gun culture. Their opposition is not one that can ever be reversed. It is purely a blind antipathy, unmoved by the most convincing evidence or compelling stories.

We can split hoplopaths into three groups: the emotional, the ignorant, and the malicious. Overlap occurs frequently and are generally indistinguishable when it comes to results. 

The malicious are the Shannon Watts and Michael Bloombergs of the world; part of this malice is the control of nanny-statism. Mother and Father know best and must work to control the unruly hoi pilloi for our collective benefit. This category can overlap significantly with the emotional group, such as Jim and Sarah Brady or Gabby and Mark Giffords, victims of infamous assassination attempts. This group is special because it pursues disarmament, whether putatively “noble” in purpose or for more nefarious goals. These antagonistic hoplopaths are smart enough to know gun control does not work, but for deep ideological reasons side with disarmament.

The emotional are not irrational, but more controlled by emotion than logic, their hoplopathy originating from a feeling (often they are hoplophobic too). Subjective, internal feelings are more instructive to their decision making and beliefs than anything else, often powerfully so. In many other areas of their life, they can rationalize and even be quite intelligent people. Here, trauma or their concern for the general well-being of humanity points them in the wrong direction.

For most who do not inhabit the halls of power, support for gun control seems to be a way to resolve internal conflicts over the negative uses of guns. Thus, crime victims get involved as a way to cope with their emotions and rectify the damage of the harm done to them. Yet the overwhelming majority of anti-gun activists treat guns as the problem, rather than their misuse. The human factors that form the roots of violence go unsolved as the object becomes fetishized, creating more victims (of criminals or of the government) as the symptoms, but not the disease, is treated.

There is no good explanation for exactly why hoplopaths hate guns. It can only be a spiritual blindness; a delusion so strong that what objectively is true is invisible to them and offensive as well. Leftist causes that seek to cure the ills of mankind with a panacea defy easy understanding. We can only examine the psychology behind these people and understand part of their motivations. Rationalizing the causes and reasoning behind why hoplopaths do what they do is impossible, but we can try to discern the internal processes at work.

To be continued...

Monday, October 9, 2017

Technology Will Kill the NFA and Bump Stock Ban

Solid concepts 1911: coming to a garage near you
Millions of people learn what bump fire is for the first time and wonder why anyone can basically have their own machine gun. All gun owners can answer about bump fire stocks is that they are range toys. Bump fire stocks are now indefensible while everyone misses the point that the stocks just do something that talented folks can do with their hands alone.

NRA gives into proposed bump fire ban. Republicans also join the ban bandwagon. ATF's legislation by determination letter concept is validated by NRA and Congress.

Feinstein proposes legislation that bans anything that can make a semi-auto gun fire faster. If the ATF can make a determination just what exactly makes a semi-auto fire faster, that can include smooth triggers too, because Jerry Miculek can fire at 500 RPM using his finger. ATF bans drop-in triggers and any trigger part that is not the factory junky pull.

Now the precedent is set for an assault weapon ban. What else can the ATF determine by determination letter? If "no one needs a bump fire stock," then why does anyone really need a semi-auto? Semi-auto guns can be fired almost as fast as bump fire. Plus X, Y, and Z mass shooting with a semi-auto.

All because gun owners, Congress, and the NRA gave in over and "unnecessary" and "scary" feature like the bump fire stock. Sound at all like pistol grips, forward hand grips, shoulder-things-that-go-up, bayonet lugs, and flash hiders? (Imagine if he didn't have a flash hider; maybe someone could have seen him sooner!)

No one needs a rifle that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading! Just like how no one needs an accessory that can simulate machine gun fire.

Except for those people who bought a bump fire stock because it kept them from illegally modifying their rifle into an illegal machine gun, just so they could scratch that full auto itch. That's what bump fire is for; giving people who might tinker with the guns an out. If machine guns weren't ridiculously expensive because the supply is arbitrarily finite, this wouldn't even be an issue. And because machine guns are so darn rare and costly, very few people have one even though demand would be overwhelming.

We saw a similar hysteria over 80 years ago. “No one needs a machine gun.” How many gun owners would give their eyeteeth to be able to afford a machine gun, something that vast majority of the sporting public at the time would not have felt there was any need, or desire, for.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a crime bill, disguised as a tax bill, meant to regulate machine guns, handguns, "destructive devices" (things that go boom), and easily concealable short-barreled shotguns and rifles. As most seem to know, the Depression and Prohibition in the '20s and '30s were also responsible for a crime wave with the most notorious bandits and gangsters of the 20th Century, most of whom liked the few machine guns at the time.

In 1934, portable fully automatic weaponry (legally termed "machine guns") was very limited. Submachine guns in the US were largely Tommy guns and Colt BARs and Monitors. A few odd semi-autos were often converted as well, such as M1911 machine pistols. Though the selection of weapons was very small, their use made a huge psychological impact on police and the public. While some states banned machine guns after WWI (mostly because of wartime bring-backs), the hue and cry to ban them federally was not until the bootlegger and gangster days hit full swing.

Pistols had been attacked for years and an outright ban on them was quite popular, along with very modern licensing and registration to start. The NFA originally required a $200 tax stamp, for many several months' or a year's wages, for pistols and revolvers. The NRA agreed to the bill only after handguns were dropped out. Short-barreled shotguns and rifles were originally included, but not removed, because if revolvers and pistols were illegal, the logical step would be to cut-down long-guns to make them easier to hide. For some reason, perhaps the intimidation factor of a sawed-off shotgun, the long guns were left in after handguns were removed.

When the law was passed, many hillbillies were arrested for possessing illegal items, but not machine guns, usually sawed-off shotguns. This resulted in the Miller Case, which if enforced properly today, would legalize virtually all regulated items. You see, it was very easy to saw-off a few inches of barrel to create a handy shotgun for vehicle protection or hunting, but quite difficult to make a machine gun. If you were lucky to own a machine gun, you had probably brought it back from France in a dufflebag.

Firearms design was not as easy as it was today. First, you had to know what you were doing in a machine shop. Prototyping was the only way to go. Very few men had the knowledge and resources to go out to the garage and build a gun, much less a submachine gun, from scrap. Certainly the average person had no way of drilling out a receiver blank to make an 80% gun. Technology limitations made the NFA possible; except for the very few, the only way to get a regulated machine gun or silencer was to go out and buy one. At $200 a pop in taxes, plus the cost of the gun (usually that much or far more), very, very few could afford it.

The NFA was enforceable when all that most people could do was chop off some of their barrel. If the Treasury Department agents had to track down everyone with a garage who was cobbling together a lightweight, man-portable carbine-caliber machine gun, the NFA would be a joke. Machine gun ownership was relatively rare until inflation made $200 seem rather small in comparison to a $500 M16.

The days of the gun manufactures needing a large factory was by the time the 1980s rolled around. Anyone with skills, tooling, and a shop or warehouse zoned for manufacture could now build guns. More and more people were buying machine guns as more and more manufacturers built them. Then in 1986, the anti-gun hysteria caught up with the technological revolution. New machine gun manufacture for civilian sale was stopped, creating a very finite supply (about 125k) of legal guns, just like in 1934. Registered (transferable) machine gun prices went through the roof because none were going to be made again for a very long time, if ever.

A competent machinist can follow directions in many of the online tutorials or instructional books (thank you First Amendment) to build submachine guns in their garage. However, imagine the ease of constructing a machine gun that was no more complicated to fabricate and assemble than a typical 80% receiver.

In a few years, when home 3D printing (both polymer and metal) become commonplace, you'll be able to make your own full-auto AR-15 or whatever else and no one can stop you. Imagine a full-auto rifle in the hands of everyone who wants one. Is the ATF going to arrest the millions of Americans who make their own machine guns? No way it's possible logistically and for damn sure these new machine gun owners aren't going to go to jail just so a pointless status quo is preserved.

You can't stop the signal. Technology will soon invalidate the NFA the same way the printing press and the Protestant Reformation ended the monolithic church. So have fun banning bump fire and killing the suppressor bill. Those efforts will only push technology-minded patriots to come up with effective work-arounds so that we all can possess what we want without being strangled by an outdated and unconstitutional law.

Friday, October 6, 2017

Flush the NRA Over Bump Fire

NOTE: They care called "bump fire stocks," not bump stocks.

Remember after Sandy Hook and the media waited on baited breath for the NRA’s big announcement, which turned out to be them recommending armed teachers in schools? The media was hoping that the NRA in 2012 was going to announce support for draconian gun control. It took almost five years, but the NRA finally turned tail and ran.

Many are defending the NRA, calling it a “tactical retreat” to avoid getting crucified by the mainstream media. Given that the stocks are just range toys and have no real practical purpose (unless you are psychopath), in the highly emotional charged atmosphere there is little to defend about them.

The other alternative is that offering up bump fire on a platter is a way to avoid something worse, like an “assault weapons” ban or magazine ban (or even worse), betting the ATF makes an administrative ruling that gives political cover to everyone and frustrate the Democrats. No doubt in the following American Rifleman they will call a reclassification a “victory.” An “eat Peter to save Paul” strategy won’t work when the wolves have an insatiable hunger. Look at California; just when it looks like they’ve taken it all, there is more for them to ban. If you give a mouse a cookie…

Or what if they are doing this as a bargain to get national reciprocity and suppressors/silencer deregulation passed? Again, the idea of bargaining with the Devil is a terrible idea when all you have to trade is the moral high ground and something they are taking away anyhow. You can have bump fire after I can carry in California and buy a can over the counter. All such belief in “strategy” is mere hope, and hope is not a plan.

When Samuel Johnson (the Oxford English Dictionary guy) learned he was dying, he supposedly said: “I will be conquered; I will not capitulate.” He would eventually die, but he would not simply give up right then and there. We were going to lose this once the media and the left latched on to it, seeing as how we’ve filled Washington with Republicants. If we would lose anyway and be demonized as usual, why what does the NRA gain by yielding the moral high ground?

Gun owners are willing to give up on bump fire stocks in order to save whatever else anti’s might be after and/or get this supposed bargain in return. They are sadly mistaken that this strategy is a good one and display a level of misunderstanding about the left that will one day doom them.

"We only lose our rights if we allow ourselves to be shamed, threatened, whined, and lectured into giving them up by skeevy tragedy-buzzard pols, mainstream media meat puppets, and late night chucklemonkeys whose names and faces all blend together into one unfunny, preachy blur." In the darkest of times, we must stand on principle even if the whole world calls us fools. Australian gun confiscation came about because gun owners acquiesced to sacrifice one thing to save another, only to ultimately lose both. 
If we should take away a "unnecessary" item like bump fire stocks, then to save lives we need to take away unnecessary items like alcohol and cars that can go faster than the speed limit. I don't feel guilty for having or enjoying bump fire because I'm not a murderer.

Almost immediately, the shit hit the fan and the NRA took much heat from their members, so they went on Fox News to explain themselves. 
“We didn’t talk about banning anything. We talked about ATF going back and reviewing whether or not these are in compliance with federal law," Chris Cox said to Tucker Carlson. Not so. Whatever the words, whatever the secret strategy, the NRA has thrown bump fire stocks to the wolves. They have surrendered and signaled their critical weakness to the left; the NRA care more about appearances and feelings that rights. 
This announcement was a disavowal of bump fire and tacit approval for whatever the US government wants to do. Wayne LaPierre told Sean Hannity as much. "What the NRA has said is we ought to take a look at that, see if it’s in compliance with federal law and if it’s worthy of additional regulation." One wonders what Wayne would have done if the multimillionaire took the time to legally buy a machine gun. The Oregon Firearms Federation said on Facebook: 
"While LaPierre will be all over the place on this, ultimately what he has called for is for them to be treated like machine guns or be banned, and no amount of doublespeak is going to change that. Keep in mind, the reason full auto firearms are so expensive is because of a deal NRA made in 1986 to ban their sale to civilians if they were manufactured after that year. So now, in addition to having to deal with all the Federal red tape and costs, you also have to be very wealthy to own one." 
Bump fire stocks were reviewed and approved by the ATF; they are in compliance with federal law. Hell, even Dianne Feinstein thinks so (which is why she wants them made illegal). "The term 'machinegun' means any weapon which shoots ... automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S. Code § 5845(b) Each time the bump fire stock recoils, the finger contacts and pulls back the trigger. Of course, the ATF has jumped through bigger hoops before and will probably do so this time.

The NRA compromised in 1934 when the National Firearms Act originally sought to ban register and tax pistols along with machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and other funs. This was entirely an anti-crime bill masquerading as a tax bill, intending to curb the Depression and Prohibition Era crime of gangsters. Concealed weapons (and handguns in general) had also been demonized for decades at this point because of profligate use in the South and Old West.

Back then, NRA President Karl T. Frederick stated he did not approve of carrying guns for self-defense (a viewpoint that was shockingly prevalent in America). 
“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. I have when I felt it was desirable to do so for my own protection. I know that applies in most of the instances where guns are used effectively in self-defense or in places of business and in the home. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” 
On May 16, 1934 the NRA agreed to withdraw its objections if pistols and revolvers were removed from the National Firearms Act. This appears to be the work of dedicated pistol marksmanship competitors lobbying both Congress and the NRA. Despite a lack of popular support among the American public, there was enough hatred of handguns by those in power to have enacted such a ban.

The NRA also refused to stand firm in 1986, allowing the Hughes Amendment to ban post-’68 machine guns, thus driving up the price via limited demand of registered guns. In 1994, they did nothing to stop the Assault Weapons Ban. Republicans and conservative organizations need to grow balls and not give in to the left because emotion is involved. Tragedies are exploited by the left precisely because conservatives give in almost each and every time. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean give up a range toy because it makes weak-willed politicians and lobbyists look bad. Today it's bump fire, tomorrow it is semi-automatic rifles.

Many say, “But who else is fighting for your rights?” If it cannot lobby a full Republican government to de-regulate suppressors and concealed carry reciprocity, but infringes on the Second Amendment because of feelings, we don't need them in Washington or the statehouse. We have a friggin’ Republican-controlled Congress and Republican President; why wasn’t this stuff rushed through right away? Why wasn’t the NRA raising holy hell with the Republicans? If what I’ve seen from the NRA this year is fighting for my rights, they aren’t worth it to me.

Other organizations can provide lobbyists. Heck, lobbyists aren’t even really needed in an age when mass communications make it easy for citizens to reach their representatives or heckle them. At the local level, only when Question 1 came up did the NRA make a significant investment. Nevadans on an individual basis have done more to stop bad legislation and pass good state bills than the NRA has. The NRA freak out when they realized that Nevada Carry is more influential in this state than they are.

The NRA no longer deserves your money. Support the NVFAC instead and get involved on your own; don’t expect some dude in a suit to do all your fighting for you. No compromise. The Left doesn't.  They will push and push until they disarm us and then they can do what they want to us. The hour we need the Second Amendment for its indented purpose is drawing ever closer. If you cannot expect the NRA to stand-up against a pointless ban, how can we expect them to stand for us when we must fight the civil war on the horizon?