Most of the blogging goes on at the Nevada Carry blog. Doesn't mean Frontier Carry isn't updated regularly, just the blogging is done over there.
After reviewing press coverage for Springfield Armory’s new product, their Saint AR-15 platform, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the product and the reviews. Granted, I prefer the venerable M1 Garand and shoot my own mixmaster AR-15 (I’m currently in the market for an M1A Scout Squad). Still, the rifle is nothing to write home about.
It’s basically a upper-shelf AR-15 featuring Bravo Company furniture. It looks clean and I’m sure it functions great. Now, I haven’t shot it so I can’t give you a run-down on the gun, but the hype leading up to its debut was just that; hype. Pretty much every major company has its own AR-15 variant, like the expansion of 1911s years back. This is just Springfield’s “Look, I can make an AR-15 too!” Lest I be misunderstood, I’d jump at the chance to own one.
For those of you who saw the Facebook posts, the blog articles, and the website teasing their new platform, you can probably understand why I take issue with the buildup and some reactions are what bothers me. I think that Daniel Terrill from guns.com poked a little fun at the ads:
“In commercials the rifles are accented by beautiful shooters, who clearly love working out, with sweat glistening on their bodies, covered by tight Under Armour clothing, and ominous electronic music. Standing in deserts and mountaintops, they aim by leveling the fore-end with a fully extended arm — like a pro — before opening fire at an unknown enemy.”
Patrick R. over at The Firearm Blog, a pretty good joint, seemed more impressed with the awesome shooting experience Springfield setup in the Nevada desert than the rifle, posting a three-part article on it. He was clearly enthralled with our lovely city’s amusements, the helicopter ride, the shooting, and the evening zombie-exploding car events. He had every gun owner’s dream Vegas experience and I don’t begrudge him his experience one bit. TTAG’s article was a bit similar and is all on one page.
On the other hand (pay attention Springfield), are you selling a rifle or a freakin’ Vegas fun package? Press events for guns, cars, and all kinds of stuff tend to be big deals like this, with all kinds of wining and dining in various forms, for whatever you can imagine. But seriously, what the hell? Looks like Springfield was late to the game with ARs (reasons exist) and tried to wow the gun bloggers with an over-the-top event to cover up the fact their new gun has already been done many, many times before. And the bloggers took the bait with their new guns and vacations.
Ruger, probably the closest analogue to Springfield, has its SR-series piston AR platform and even a take-down model. That’s innovation. Slapping BCM parts on an AR-15 doesn’t make an innovative product. Even the charging handle and the bolt catch are standard; an ambidextrous charging handle and an enhanced bolt catch (with the paddle to lock the bolt back) seem like obvious additions. Coating the trigger part with nickel-boron and reducing the play between the receivers is something, but again, this is just another mid-level quality rifle, not anything super special.
Frankly, it seems like all the praising reviews are from guys that got free rifles or were invited on the Vegas trip. The bloggers were so “wowed” with their free shit that they forgot to tell us that this gun is nothing special and a late addition to the already crowded AR-15 market. I guess all the suspense that lead the gun-owning hoi pilloi to think Springfield was introducing a gun-centric Crossfit-style exercise program was mainly just to stoke the interest of the privileged few gun bloggers. Springfield succeeded there.
Thanks to the Missouri Legislature's override of the governor's veto, constitutional permitless concealed carry is coming to the Show-Me state, effective Oct. 16, 2016. Senate Bill 656 was overridden by 24-6 in the Senate and 112-41 in the House. This is full constitutional carry, applicable to residents and non-residents.
We decided to investigate a surprising public safety hazard that most people have overlooked. But in light of recent media reports highly Nevada's lax gun laws, we thought it was time someone investigate the dangers of tactical assault pants.
Nevada gun laws, along with open carry laws, allow people to carry a firearm almost anywhere they like. That might include the Las Vegas Strip, clubs and bars.
Bigh Lameaux, an attorney for Designers for Fashion Sense in America, said Nevada receives an F when it comes to fashion safety.
“The fact is, if these pants make it easier to carry things, then many more Americans would be wearing them. People must realize these pants of war have no place on our streets.”
“Pants with high capacity storage just aren’t needed by civilians. It’s excessive and dangerous. It’s too easy to hide an assault rifle inside them and bypass security. It is unconscionable that Nevada allows such a thing.”
We contacted Five Period Eleven who sells these military-style pants to the public, but they declined to comment. Several fashion control bills, including one that would ban pants with more than four pockets, were defeated in the Senate this week. As the debate in Congress rages, we must decide if this is the kind of country we wish to be, where almost anyone can wear these pants in public.
So the blog hasn't been updated recently. Why?
Well, traffic isn't so hot around here, so looking at the cost-benefit analysis, it's not worth the time. However, I will post on important topics that come up from time to time. Until traffic picks up or we have interesting articles, please visit the Nevada Carry blog (nevadacarry.blogspot.com).
We're also looking for writers in the Intermountain West who would like to write for the blog. We pay with honor and pride!
Arizona Legislature Has Good Ideas
What do you legislate when your state pretty much has a lot of good gun laws? We'll let's take a look!
To strengthen state preemption of local laws, the legislature wants to stop problems before they start with penalties. Florida is a great example of this. Contributor John pointed out (in context of Nevada's issues) "You don't hear about this s--t in Florida." No, you don't. Governments can and will waste taxpayers money, but politicians and bureaucrats are not putting their own butts or pocketbooks on the line. Guns.com has the story. Gov. Ducey signed this bill into law.
The latest idea to stop the encroachment of Michael Bloomberg's money to ban private gun sales, aka the non-offensive universal background check plan is for Arizona to enter into an interstate compact with another state. A bill is in the state House of Representatives now (HR 2524). Such a compact compact would basically be an agreement to maintain "reliably uniform firearm transfer laws."
In theory, this would be essentially a treaty with another state, regulated at a constitutional level, instead of a mere statute level. In order to 'untie' the knot, Bloomberg would have to find a way to change all compact states' laws to something similar at each 10 year window or fight a court battle to invalidate the compact on the basis that voters' will overrules a legislative compact. Sadly, this bill was vetoed.
The insidious nature of most ballot initiative laws is that the legislature can't override them for a few years. Good if you are regulating the government itself, but bad if it affects a fundamental freedom. Arizona has enough moxy in its legislature to probably get rid of any Bloomberg ballot crap, but 'Zoners would be stuck with that garbage for a few years.
Unfortunately, this bill doesn't stand much chance of going forward, thanks to the Republican sell-outs and totally corrupted Democratic party. Oh well, a good idea.
Malheur Refuge Standoff Supporter Steals Ma Deuce .50 Cal
A supporter of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation that featured Nevadan Ammon Bundy was found with a stolen .50 caliber M2 heavy machine gun. Michael Emry called himself "The Voice of Grant County" and posted online and in social media about the occupation that ended this winter. Federal agents arrested Emry, who apparently stole the firearm from his former employer who was also a gun dealer. One of Emry's defenders posted a ridiculous and juvenile 'article' trying to argue that the weapon wasn't even a machine gun, demonstrating a total lack of knowledge about guns (NFA items in particular) that it's the receiver that makes the gun, not the sum total of its parts.
The federal complaint alleges that the serial number was removed from the weapon; not the action of someone who is going to try to sell or pass off a firearm as his own (assuming the NFA Branch wouldn't catch him). Emry was also apparently involved in buying a suppressor from a gun show (probable NFA violation) and built a bomb, according to this case.
The 'Ma Deuce' was designed 98 years ago by the legendary John Moses Browning and designed to defeat the armor and aircraft of WWI. Today, the M2 is used to defeat light armor and attack fortified fighting positions. The .50BMG cartridge is an ideal anti-materiel rifle cartridge. Based on Emry's views, his past behavior, the nature of the firearm in question, and the events at the wildlife refuge, one could probably safely assume that Emry planned to employ the weapon if an open firefight broke out with federal agents.
Original Story from KUOW
Once again, the concealed carry supremacists are pointing out another open carry robbery. Here is the exact text of the original article:
Silent Witness is looking to the public for help identifying a man who stole a gun from a man in line at a Phoenix McDonalds, officials said.
Guns.com has good video footage of the incident, where the suspect, while talking on a cell phone, brazenly walks up to the victim and easily lifts the pistol from the victim’s back pocket before leisurely jogging from the store. From the video, the victim can be seen wearing a baggy shirt, and one could make the argument that this was an example of poor concealed carry rather than open carry. There is no middle ground between the two methods except Dumbass Carry (see below).
This incident spurred Bob Owens of Bearingarms.com to rail on open carry once again.
As a general rule, criminals are not intimidated by handgun open carriers in the slightest. They see the $300-$800 gun on your hip the same as they would a fat wallet, ripe for taking.
Uh, no Bob, they don’t. If this assertion was true, then carry gun robberies would be regular thing. Instead, they are very rare. Criminals see a gun and are deterred. It is far more the demeanor of the carrier rather than open carry itself that allows emboldened thugs to attempt and succeed at this kind of thing.
Do you ever notice that there is a dearth of stories with headlines like “Man Attempts Robbery of Open Carrier—Suspect Shot and Killed”? There is one recent story in Louisiana
I’d like to coin this half-assed not openly carried, but poorly concealed and unsecured method of carry ‘Dumbass Carry.’ Why dumbass carry? Because people who carry with a gun exposed in a pocket, improperly concealed, or without a holster are dumbasses. Wasn’t he worried about it potentially falling out? Quite frankly, if you take no steps to properly secure your gun and rely on half assed concealment, you probably deserve to get robbed.
Retention holders are unofficially mandatory for open carry. At the very minimum, a friction holster should be used, if not one with a thumb or finger activated latch locking the firearm in place. Citizens are at less risk for having their weapon snatched than police officers so a full Level 3 retention system with a locking hood is probably overkill.
Once again, this proves that the open carry myths of gun snatchings are the exceptions to the rule and have everything to do with the individual carrying, not the method used.
NV Assemblywoman: Okay to Point Guns at Cops
Assemblywoman Michele Fiore stuck her foot in her mouth by saying that she would point at gun at a police officer and intimated she would shoot if an officer aimed a gun at her.
would never ever point my firearm at anyone including an officer of the law unless they pointed their firearm at me. Once you point your firearm at me, I’m sorry, then it becomes self-defense. So whether you’re a stranger, a bad guy, or an officer and you’re gonna point your gun at me and shoot me and I have to decide whether it’s my life or your life, well, I choose my life.
Sometimes police have to aim a gun at someone. The law abiding are right to be concerned and worried at the thought of being drawn down on, but should not fear being shot by police. It is asinine for someone to suggest that police point guns at citizens with the same intentions and propensity to fire that criminals and gang members do. A cop with his gun out does not merit returning fire and trying, justified or otherwise, will probably get you killed.
I’m not talking about segments of society that are frequently getting in trouble with the police. The vast majority of people shot by the police had it coming by being armed, trying to kill the officer, charging the officer, or reaching for a gun, real or intimated. Sorry Black Lives Matter; you don’t get a vote here. If you comply with the officer’s orders and don’t do something stupid, like stick your hands in your jacket, you’re probably not going to be shot.
The concept of a modern police force requires that police officers acting in good faith be given the benefit of the doubt. An innocent party driving a car similar to a murder suspect should not bail out and open fire on police simply because of a felony traffic stop. Police are human and innocent mistakes are made. The deliberate abuses and acts of negligence should be punished in court, not left to be decided in the heat of the moment down the barrel of a gun.
I cannot support these statements and I cannot support the assemblywoman. It is one thing to articulate that using force to overcome an illegal arrest should be an affirmative defense, but it is not okay to essentially condone shooting law enforcement officers. Granted, Fiore probably meant a situation more like an FBI setup for her support of the Bundy Ranch and Oregon folks, but the context was lost. There are already too many incorrect assumptions about gun owners being enemies of police that this was not needed.
There is a real discussion to be had about the growing surveillance state, militarized police forces, and the Dept. of Justice’s ruthless pursuit to crush and punish the Bundy Ranch and Oregon Standoff participants. Fomenting insurrection to protest a competent, but unjust, court ruling is reckless. The growing distrust of government and disgust for various federal policies needs to be channelized in a productive way. Brash statements are no substitute for fixing the broken legislative and bureaucratic systems that brought us to where we are now.
I understand that some Nevadans are wary of especially federal law enforcement in the wake of the events at the Bundy Ranch and the highly disturbing shooting of Lavoy Finicum, yet that is no excuse for how/why Fiore said what she did. This does not engender anyone to her except those who already share her politics. If Fiore wished to express that she feels she has the right to resist an illegal arrest or illegal attempt on her life under the color of law, she should have found a better way to express it.
Fiore has an excellent record of voting rights on the Second Amendment, however that is not enough alone to gain an endorsement. She has made too many faux paus, misinterpreted or otherwise, that indicate she is letting her own personal animus get the best of her. Her hyperbolic comments give the wrong impression that gun owners and conservatives and libertarians are paranoid and anti-government/police. Rhetoric like this can get police officers killed. Statements like this are not welcome.
Assemblywoman Fiore clarified to KNTV ABC 13 that she was speaking about “BLM rogue agents”, not Metro officers or other local police. She does not define what a rogue agent is.
If a rogue unofficial BLM agent who literally wants to be a cop, a wannbe police officer, points a gun at me there is going to be a problem.
Fiore disputes that the BLM Rangers are federal law enforcement officers—something that is based in her own personal vitriol rather than in fact. She is so upset with the BLM that she denies the very fact, that by legislation and oath, the Rangers are US Special Agents. Sorry, you don’t get to pick and choose who ‘real’ cops are. You can disagree all you like, but pretending that someone with a badge has no authority when they really do is asinine and a ridiculous denial of reality.
Metro officers are “real law enforcement” and that she would not point a firearm at local law enforcement. She clarified that an ordinary felony traffic stop, say if her car matched the description of a murder suspect, she would not shoot the officer. Unfortunately, that is not what she initially. What if Metro runs afoul of her?
Basically, what she is saying, it that is permissible for her to point guns at and potentially shoot cops whose mission she disagrees with. This is the same logic and attitude that the Black Lives Matter crowd uses to delegitimize police in their quest against law and order. An incident of misbehavior or perceived injustice is used as a basis to level allegations of widespread oppression where none exists. Police making arrests in a crime ridden minority neighborhood are responding to a problem, not targeting a minority. A heavy federal law enforcement presence was needed after Bundy called for the militia to help him resist in the wake of losing his court battle.
Fiore is disrespectful to law enforcement by diminishing the actual authority that BLM rangers have. She may disagree with their mission and how they are employed by their agency, but using her own opinion and interpretation to remove their law enforcement status in her own mind, she is deluding herself. It’s a common tactic for someone who hates police—or a variation thereof—to dehumanize the officer’s mission and denigrate them. I saw it all the time writing tickets, but that didn’t make the ticket any less real.
In a humorous example of this kind of thing, a woman once told one of my partners (a motorcycle cop) that she did not need to pull over for the deputy “because it’s not like he’s an ambulance or something.” Just because you don’t want to believe someone has legitimate authority doesn’t mean they don’t have any.
Does Fiore have a point about how the BLM administration screwed up the round-up? She sure does. Is she right to be suspicious of federal law enforcement and the federal government? Yep. Is she justified in painting all federal agents or BLM Rangers as ‘wannbe cops’? No, that’s a rash insult.
Fiore has some good points as a conservative politicians. Not all solid conservatives share her utter hatred for federal law enforcement just as a lot of gun owners don’t like being lumped in with her ilk. As a representative of the people and a popularly proclaimed lead figure in the gun rights movement, Fiore needs to carefully choose her words, which she clearly seems incapable of doing.
I have taken lots of flak from friends and strangers alike these past few days. Apparently, it is a serious crime to criticize other Second Amendment supporters pet politician. I cannot and will not support someone who goes off on ludicrous, uneducated rants like these. These comments are an utter disgrace and drags down those who are rightfully concerned about tyranny, government abuse, and heavy-handed federal law enforcement tactics to the same level of the rioting leftists we despise. There are far more respected commentators out there in the ‘militia’ or ‘patriot’ movement who make their points far more adeptly than this, but if I’ve learned anything with this blog, strumpets garner more attention than an articulate person ever will.
Brady Campaign Actually Does Something Positive, Sorta
Handgun Control Inc. AKA The Brady Campaign, a long-time stalwart in the fight to make guns illegal (you can thank them for the Brady background check) has actually done something fairly decent. Their 'Zero Minutes of Fame' browser extension is designed to remove the names of mass shooters from your web pages, thus denying those sickos the infamy that they desired. Of course, it doesn't scrub them from existence in all but court records and the dreariest of historical research and you have to go out of your way to install it, but hey, at least it's better than pushing for more gun control. Unsurprisingly, they still couldn't even get their PR campaign right.
Part of the motivation of mass killers, it is speculated, that the losers feel they will achieve some sort of everlasting notoriety from their evil deeds. I guess the fact that all of humanity despises them and reviles their names doesn't matter. Following their logic, one would think that Benedict Arnold should be proud that even the densest of Americans know his name as a synonym for traitor.
FWIW, The Brady Campaign is named after former Reagan press secretary James Baker, shot by the whackjob who shot also Reagan. Brady himself was a gun owner. Many believe that his wife, Sarah Brady, used her severely mentally incapacitated husband basically as a mascot for her own personal anti-gun crusade that her husband would not have supported had he been in full control of his own faculties.
Don't Sleep Through The Revolution: A Graduation Message For A Dark Age
Worse, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we neglected to maintain our freedoms or provide our young people with the tools necessary to survive, let alone succeed, in the impersonal jungle that is modern civilization.
Examiner.com: More than 25K new CPLs added in Washington state so far in 2016
Video of the Week: Las Vegas Sheriff
CBS 8 News Now of Las Vegas hosts Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo to answers public questions every Wednesday morning. What began in local online gun forums to see if 8 News Now would ask the sheriff about guns actually paid off with your editor's question being answered.
We actually got to the bottom of the delay with CCWs (the process is cumbersome), but the sheriff gave a weak answer about his officers respecting open carriers rights. Through Nevada Carry we're working to get better answers on what kind of training LVMPD officers actually get vis a vis the Second Amendment, open carry, and Nevada's preemption laws.
Armed Hitchhiker in Oregon
Jeremy Bryant doesn’t always hitchhike, but when he does he begins by asking, “How do you feel about picking somebody up who has a .357?” Surprisingly, most Oregonians feel good about it, if the documentary he filmed is any indication.
Article at Guns America.
Jackson, Wyoming, church hold gun safety workshop
Firearms Safety for Responsible Folks, brought to you by St. John's Episcopal Church, Hansen Hall.
"Won't Someone Please Think of the Children?!"
Why the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District bans open carry.
Book Review: Instructor Mac's Choice
The Third Bullet by Stephen Hunter
I used to be a voracious reader, and as I slow down in life, I'm finding that it's a joy to which I'm relishing the return. I've turned my eyes toward Stephen Hunter. If the name is somewhat familiar to the less read, he's the author of Point of Impact, which the movie Shooter, starring Mark Wahlberg, was based. Circumstances led me to start with his latest Bob Lee Swagger novel The Third Bullet. It will neither disappoint fans of suspenseful thrillers, history, nor firearms enthusiasts, as Hunter has fulfilled his reputation as an author that knows his guns.
In short, our hero is now 67 years old, and is compelled by an oddity of chance finding, in the hands of a widow with a third-hand story, to tackle the never-really-ended investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As the novel progresses, you will likely be constantly thinking: “Holy ****, I'll bet that's how it really happened!” Hunter makes good use of long-standing plausible conspiracy theories, but blends them into a thrilling tale full of intrigue and, yes, more than a couple gunfights. He's done his research.
FBI Special Agent Memphis rejoins the cast, conveniently as the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas Division. He gets his gratuitous moments as the foil, and to help set up saving Swagger's ass, of course.
The action takes Swagger through Baltimore and Moscow, in a chain of evidence through Mexico City, as the arrows keep coming back to point to one of the crazier possibilities that is more easily laughed off than given meritorious consideration.
Spoiler alert: Lee Harvey Oswald was set-up!
Mac is US Navy veteran, and a licensed and certified firearms instructor specializing in Nevada firearms laws.
A mother legally openly carrying her handgun was unlawfully arrested at the Rainbow branch of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District (LVCCLD) back on March 16. This is the latest incident in a string of Second Amendment abuses by the district which culminated in the defendant, Michelle Flores, being detained in front of her young children. She was also threatened with having her children removed by CPS. Ultimately, Flores’s handgun was seized and she was given a citation for trespassing before being released at the scene.
A lawsuit has been filed by Flores, who is represented by Ashcraft and Barr. A copy of the complaint is available here. Flores seeks damages pursuant to the provisions of SB 175/240 which allow for up to triple damages for any party adversely affected by an illegal firearm ordinance.
Openly carrying a firearm in a public library is legal in Nevada. In fact, several library districts, including the Henderson district and the Washoe District, recognize this fact. State law prohibits government entities from banning firearms from their buildings under state firearm preemption laws. Only the legislature can regulate where and how firearms can be carried. Furthermore, the library’s own Rules of Conduct don’t even prohibit openly carried firearms, only concealed firearms pursuant to state law.
Outside of Nevada, the Seattle, Washington library changed its policies on open carry and the Capitol Area District Libraries (CADL), Michigan, lost a suit for violating state law by preventing the lawful open carry of firearms. Additionally, Texas libraries are not allowed to have firearm bans as well, which includes the state's recent decriminalization of open carry. On the concealed carry end, the Denver Science Museum dropped its concealed carry ban because it was unenforceable per state law.
Flores told us:
I was inside for about an hour with no issues looking for books for my children. I passed by multiple staff members with no issues. I checked out a few books and was about to exit the library when the security guard began calling after me to tell me firearms are not allowed. I attempted to talk to the hired guard about the law and he summoned a library employee. She brings up an invalid rule the library has that they can prohibit firearms. She then summons the police. No one during this time ever asked me to leave the premises. After the officer’s arrived, I attempted to film the interaction and was instead placed in handcuffs with my phone and firearm taken from me. This all occurred in front of my young children (5, 3, 1). The officers never attempted to find out my side of events.
Flores was released with a citation for trespassing (NRS 207.200). A librarian read her the trespassing statement and banned her from library property for a year.
Flores's friend arrived to assist her and videotape the encounter. Nevada Carry has reviewed the video. Though her friend was observing the encounter and not interfering, he was ordered to leave the area or disarm. He chose to put his gun in his car. A confrontational officer approached him and said “That gun looks like it’s partially concealed. […] It looks like it’s black under there.” Flores’s friend informed the officer that he had already removed his handgun. The officer asked the friend to identify himself and what he was doing there.
“You’re not involved here, so leave,” the officer said. “Cause you’re not involved with what we’re doing at all, so go ahead and leave here. We’re talking care of business here. Now I’m advising you once. That’s your one warning. I’m going to give you one warning, so leave.” This behavior isn’t unusual. A videographer Mitchell Crooks was beaten in 2012 by an LVMPD officer who was upset with being filmed. An officer suggested that even though Flores’s friend’s holster was empty, he could be considered to be carrying concealed when the officer saw the holster.
The cooler officer called out that he and Flores’s friend already spoke. The aggressive officer then walked away. Flores was then uncuffed and signed the citation. The officers were apparently unaware of state firearm preemption laws. The librarian read the trespassing warning to Flores and prohibited from visiting any LVCCLD library for one year.
No trespass occurred
Flores was cited for trespassing, a violation of NRS 207.200, despite never actually violating any provisions of that section. The violation has two elements.
Subsection (a) Going into a building "with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act." First, Flores had no intent to vex or annoy the library staff or the patrons. Additionally, there was no alarm or panic, nor did she behave in a disruptive manner, which might constitute other criminal behavior.
Second, Flores did not enter with intent to vex or annoy. Her behavior would have been otherwise unremarkable, save for her handgun. There was no reports of disturbed or alarmed patrons or any other criminal behavior. Had Flores somehow been committing a disturbance, Metro probably wouldn't have taken nearly an hour to arrive.
Most importantly, no unlawful act was committed. The library district has repeatedly cited NRS 379.040 as its authority to illegal ban firearms. That section gives only the board of trustees the authority to make reasonable regulations. The library Code of Conduct, which was last approved by the board of trustees in an unrelated update in Jan. 2011, only prohibits concealed firearms in conformance with state law. The district cites a policy that they have circulated to staff which was never approved by the board of trustees (at least since 2004).
The policy is merely an administrative response when citizens' objections forced them to manufacture something. Since the ‘policy’ was never approved the board of trustees, it is not an enforceable regulation per NRS 379.040. District bureaucrats made up the ban.
The library district's own administrative policy, even if somehow considered enforceable, is specifically prohibited by state preemption of firearm regulation. Such a policy is null and void as the district has no authority to regulate the carry of firearms.
The officers made an arrest on false pretenses at the behest of the library staff. LVCCLD is so bent on illegally prohibiting firearms that it is willing to see mothers with children arrested and to invite a lawsuit, at taxpayer's expense. Unfortunately, Metro police administration placed its officers in this position by failing to properly educate their employees on the legality of open carry and changes in state law. This isn’t the first time Metro illegally interfered with an open carrier because of officers’ ignorance. LVMPD officers also ejected a legal open carrier from the Clark County Fair.
The Las Vegas-Clark County Library District knowingly and willfully violated the provisions of firearm preemption. In November, a group of citizens warned the board of trustees that their administrators’ actions were flying in the face of state law. Despite repeated public protest and outcry, the district has continued its abuses and usurpations.
Library counsel, attorney Gerald Welt, stated in a private conversation, which was recounted on Facebook (see image) that he was aware of the preemption law, but open carriers would still be kicked out and he expected the district to be sued. If these allegations are true, they are totally irresponsible. Taxpayers should not be forced to bear the burden of officials’ malfeasance.
Shouldn't That Be Illegal?
Nevada hasn't overlooked open carry in public buildings as some sort of bygone tradition that legislators have forgotten about. A look at other states, as we have done with Frontier Carry, will show that in the Intermountain West, the ban on openly carried firearms in public buildings is an exception to the rule. Only Colorado expressly allows a blanket ban of openly carried firearms, while exempting concealed carry in those public buildings without security screening. Texas, which recently decriminalized open carry for licensed individuals, enacted open carry of firearms dating from the 19th Century to prevent blacks from carrying arms.
In fact, an analysis of these states, plus the Idaho Supreme Court case of Re: Brickey reveals that open carry is recognized as the constitutionally protected form of carry. Nevada has prohibited unlicensed concealed carry in one form or another since the early 1900s as have most of our neighboring states. The concealed carry of firearms one hundred years ago was only then just beginning to lose its reputation as something only a thief, bandit, or burglar did. Hiding a gun implied that the person carrying was also trying to conceal criminal intentions. Only with the vilification of guns starting in the 1910s through the 1930s did self-conscious citizens desire to transition to concealed carry.
Yet only rarely are openly carried weapons regulated and almost always in blanket 'all weapons' bans, such as at schools. It is tacitly understood that open carry in all but the most specific of circumstances, is none of the government's business. So no, allowing openly carried weapons in public buildings isn't a legislative oversight, rather it is recognition that government has no power to regulate the open carrying of arms. Nevada's gun laws aren't some error or accident of history.
Members of the public can contact the library district to express their opinion at email@example.com or 702-507-4400. Operations Direction Jennifer Schember can be emailed at Schemberj@lvccld.org.
Cross-posted from NevadaCarry.blogspot.com