In the dark days of December 2012, following the Sandy Hook school massacre, Wayne LaPierre told the media that the NRA wanted to offer “meaningful contributions” to school safety. The mainstream media salivated like dogs, expecting LaPierre to finally get on board with draconian gun control. Instead, he said that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun. The NRA proposed armed guards in school and Congressional funding for armed school police officers.

The media was overwhelmed and mocked the suggestion. Congress instead pushed forward with a slate of gun control bills, including the Manchin-Toomey bill that the NRA actually helped write behind the scenes. Miraculously, none of the gun control went forward. Americans had already come to the conclusion that gun control was the problem. From then on, campus carry was the hot issue; allowing teachers, parents, and college students to shoot back.

​The NRA had it’s hand in every major gun control defeat in 100 years. In the 1930s, they compromised on the National Firearms Act to save pistols, which they did, but gave up everything else. There was no organization to send an attorney to represent gun owners in the Miller case. From then on, and especially in 1994 with the Assault Weapons Ban, the NRA compromised.

Now the NRA and its defenders would argue this was to save something; staunch opposition with no give would have resulted in worse. Instead, the NRA basically gave up its second-best looking daughter to the marauding band so it could keep the number one daughter unmolested. Today, the NRA was so afraid of machine guns being banned and more bad legislation (AWB, mag restrictions, etc.) in the wake of the October 1 attack that they sold bump fire up the river.

No, the NRA isn’t playing some grand game of strategic, 3D chess. They are doing what they have always done; compromise and lose. Being tone-deaf to the American public and their members, the NRA instead listened to the whining of the Bloomberg-ites, the media, and wishy-washy anti-gun politicians. All of the above hates the NRA; nothing will change that. Throwing bump fire to the wolves was not a delaying tactic to save the family, it was giving the wolves an appetizer.

The NRA opposed the landmark Heller case that affirmed the Second Amendment applies outside the home; not because they disagreed with their ideals, but because they were afraid that a negative Heller decision—the opposite of what we got—would eliminate the right to carry. They were afraid of losing. People might argue about strategy and risk, but you’ll never win the Superbowl if you don’t show up in Minneapolis.

The NRA is like a beaten down dog that keeps licking Master’s hand, hoping that Master will stop beating and kicking it. When you’ve been on the defensive for nearly a century, you don’t know what victory is anymore. All you know is compromise and loss. So like a cuckhold husband who feels “empowered” watching another man sleep with his wife, the NRA is a willing accomplice to the gun control agenda.

When the NRA is weak, it gives spineless politicians political cover. Countless politicians have parroted the NRA’s line about bump fire stocks instead of saying “Shall not be infringed.” Now is precisely the time to get loud, get angry, and absolutely humiliate and shame the Democrats and the Bloomberg Kool-Aid drinkers for lumping millions of gun owners in the same boat with that perverted SOB Paddock. Rather than standing firm and proud with “four million” members and a bunch more behind them, the NRA cowers, begs, and pleads. “Take my daughters, but don’t hurt me! No, my wife doesn’t cheat on me; other men are just a fetish we have.”
If the NRA is full of such cowards at a time when support for gun rights is at its highest in modern times, what will they do when we have a hostile president and Congress? It’s almost as if they are afraid that the Second Amendment will have to be used for its intended purpose. When that day comes, you can bet the bunch from Reston won’t be in the lead.

Imagine the ridiculousness of the following rhetorical headlines:​

“Ex-WSP cruiser used by drug dealer.”
“Woman raped by taxi driver in former Seattle PD car.”
“Capitol Police sell cars to convicted drunk drivers.”
“Former Police Interceptor used in highway suicide attempt.”

​That’s what the Associated Press has implied in its “guns sold by law enforcement” article. The article seems to imply that Washington law enforcement agencies are selling guns directly to disturbed folks. The lurid headlines like “Baby Shot in Car Seat” draw the eye away from the easy to skip over the details that these guns were sold to dealers, traded for new guns, or auctioned off. This might be news to the AP, but not to any gun enthusiast.

It’s common for law enforcement to dispose sell or trade-in their used firearms for new models; the old guns are then sold to the public through licensed dealers. When Glock was new to the American market, it made a business model out of this. Police trade-in guns provide a high-quality handgun at a lower cost than an equivalent new model and often have collector value as well. This allows departments to get new guns very cheaply; a bonus in the days of cash-strapped municipalities.
 
Likewise confiscated firearms are sold to the public as well. It’s a practice actually mandated in several states. These confiscated guns aren’t “crime guns” in that they are murder weapons dripping blood. Instead, they are usually taken from prohibited persons, for concealed weapon violations, or other reasons. Non-weapons are disposed of by police all the time.
 
I argue that the whole point of the article, as Zerohedge either missed or deliberately skewed, is to discredit these practices. To note, I also take exception with Zerohedge's blatant anti-cop bias and trying to rope this in with The Fast and Furious scandal.
 
The “journalist” who prepared this article omitted one important fact: each person who bought the gun from a dealer (again, a dealer, not the police), would have to pass a background check. So either the persons involved:

1. Passed a background check, then went nuts or became criminal;
2. Passed a background check that failed to catch their prohibited status;
3. Had someone else buy the gun illegally (a straw purchase); or,
4. Stole the gun;
5. Bought the gun secondhand in an illegal private transaction.

 
Such facts are inconvenient to the narrative. Imagine the figures and stories if the story was about what criminals, looneys, and bad actors did with factory-direct firearms! Read the details of the incidents carefully. They have been cherry picked to involve—key word “involve”—a gun that somehow came from local police.
 
“BABY SHOT IN CAR SEAT”
Found a gun, not the murder weapon.
 
“TEXT THREATS”
Merely owned a shotgun that happened to be a former police weapon.
 
“JUVENILES IN STOLEN CAR”
Stole a car, didn't threaten anybody with the gun, just had it.
 
“DRUNKEN FELON”
How did the felon get the gun? Did pass a flawed background check? Did some buy the gun for him in a straw purchase? Did someone else buy it, then sell it illegally in violation of the unenforceable universal background check law? Five years passed; did he buy it legally when he was not a felon?
 
“PROHIBITED FROM HAVING GUN”
Felon in possession of a stolen gun.
 
“DRUG HOUSE ASSAULT”
Domestic dispute, no weapon involved. Just happened to find a cheap .22 rifle that was disposed of by police.
 
“THREATS TO KILL”
Also owned 15 other guns, not sold by local police.
 
The hoplopathically-biased liberal media doesn’t want the public to own guns. They would love to get guns out of public hands and paint an innocent police program, one that brings money to the departments, new weapons into officer’s hands, and gives the poor a cheap way to protect themselves, as well as make the police look like monsters. Such misleading and malicious “journalism” ought to fall under libel laws. The mainstream media is dying a little more each day because of their constant penchant for lying and promoting their progressive agenda any way they can. 

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! 

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. 

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: 

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.

​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.

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.

​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. 

Updated 5/10/2016
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.

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.

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. 

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.