Remind Me Again Why SHOT Show Continues To Be In Vegas

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

The largest convention centers in the United States are not in Las Vegas. The largest, McCormick Place, is in Chicago and then the second largest, the Orange County Convention Center, is in Orlando, Florida. The Sands Expo Center which is the site of the SHOT Show comes in at tenth in size.

I can understand why McCormick Place was not chosen for the SHOT Show. Despite its size which I can assure you is huge having driven right past it twice in the last week, no one in their right mind would want to hold a convention in January in frigid Chicago. I won’t even speak to the anti-gun politics of Chicago as a reason to avoid having the firearms industry trade show there.

I come from the school of rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies.

Nevada voters just elected Democrats to three out of four House seats including one flipped seat, ousted Dean Heller (R-NV) in favor of Jacky Rosen (D-NV) in the Senate, flipped the governor’s office from Republican to Democrat, hold both houses of the state legislature, and now have only one Republican official, Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, elected statewide. The Las Vegas Sun opines that Democrat dominance of the state should continue thanks to Latinos and young voters. I’m sure you might want to add (some) ex-pat Californians to that list as well.

Contrast this with the State of Florida. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) beat Tallahasse Mayor Andrew Gillum (D-FL) for the governorship. Rick Scott (R-FL) beat three-term incumbent Bill Nelson (D-FL) for the US Senate. Republicans hold the other three statewide offices (AG, Ag Commissioner, and Chief Finance Officer). Despite losing two seats in House delegation to Democrats, Republicans still hold a 14 to 13 edge. They are also projected to hold majorities in both the state House and Senate.

The Sands Expo Center which is the location of the SHOT Show in Las Vegas has about 1.2 million square feet of exposition space. Earlier this year it was announced that the SHOT Show would expand their venue to include the MGM Grand Conference Center in 2020 and the Caesars Forum in 2021. According to the announcement, it is due to running out of space at the Sands Expo Center and having to turn away potential exhibitors.

The Orange County Convention Center, by contrast, has 2.1 million square feet of exposition space and is the nation’s second largest convention center. You would not need to expand the SHOT Show to multiple locations to handle the growth in exhibitors. OCCC also has over 6,000 parking spaces. Orlando does have fewer hotel rooms with “only” about 121,000 rooms as compared to Las Vegas which has approximately 175,000 rooms available. However, when you expand out of the city limits of Orlando to places like St. Cloud and Kissimmee you thousands of more rooms. Another advantage to Orlando is the generally warmer, even balmy, weather you are likely to find there in January.

I would be all for immediately switching the 2020 SHOT Show from Nevada to Florida for many of the reasons mentioned above including more space and a gun friendlier location. However, it won’t happen overnight.

 The fly or flies in the ointment on making the switch are two-fold. First, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has extended their contract with the Sands Expo Center through 2027. I don’t know if this is because they got a better deal from Sheldon Adelson or because they just were very familiar with the location. The second issue is a shooting range large enough to handle Industry Day at the Range. The Boulder Rifle and Pistol Club is outstanding in that regard. There are a number of shooting ranges in Central Florida but nothing approaching it that I know of.

To conclude, the gun industry has changed from being a boys’ club to being more inclusive of women and families. You see fewer and fewer “booth babes” at the SHOT Show and the NRA Annual Meeting than in the past. It would be nice if the industry’s major event would leave Las Vegas behind and move to a more gun and family friendly location like Orlando. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Democrat State Party Platforms – Montana To New Jersey

window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag(‘js’, new Date());

gtag(‘config’, ‘UA-115029161-1’);

The series on the state party platforms of the Democrat Party continues with Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

Montana

The Montana Democrat Platform addresses firearms in the section on Hunting, Fishing, and Outdoor Recreation and in the section on Crime and Punishment. Under the Hunting section, it says:

The right to keep and bear arms as defined in both the Montana and the U.S. Constitutions.

That section goes on to say that they support public hunting as a game management tool.

The Crime and Punishment section says this regarding firearms:

Responsible ownership of firearms, including gun safety practices and the education and
supervision of children in the use of firearms.

That sounds good until you read their action agenda which says they will “Advocate policies that address and prevent gun violence.” The very use of the word “gun violence” (sic) indicates to me that they are blaming the firearm and not the person misusing it.

Nebraska

While Montana Democrats are somewhat circumspect about advocating for gun control, Nebraska Democrats are anything but circumspect.  Their platform calls for gun bans, a raise in the age to purchase a firearm to 21, red flag laws, an end to state preemption, and the elimination of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act among other things.

From the 2018-202 Nebraska Democratic Party platform on firearms:

Firearms and
Gun Violence
Prevention

Nebraska Democrats recognize that gun violence is a serious problem that claims the lives of
tens
of thousands of Americans per year, injures many more, traumatizes countless others,
and
disproportionately impacts communities of color. We support the right of Americans to live
free
of gun violence. We recognize that gun violence is the consequence of an inadequately
regulated
consumer
market.



We support the repeal of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
(PLCAA),

which offers special immunities from liability to gun
manufacturers and sellers and
deprives
injured persons from their right to legal remedy in the
courts.



Nebraska Democrats support the right of communities to respond democratically to gun
violence
by passing local ordinances to address their needs. If gun
s are owned, they must be
used
responsibly. We support criminal and civil liability for those who do not safely secure their
guns.

We support a tax on weapons and ammunition to fund school security
measures.



We agree with the American Medical Association
’s proposals regarding firearms: limiting
the

purchase of guns to individuals 21 and over; supporting legislation that allows relatives
of

suicidal people or those who have threatened imminent violence to seek court

ordered
removal

of guns from the home; requesting better training for physicians to recognize patients at risk
for

suicide; and ensuring domestic abusers do not have access to
firearms.



The Nebraska Democratic Party further supports the American Academy of Pediatrics’
proposals to enact a strong, effective assault weapons ban, require mandatory background checks
and
waiting periods of all firearm purchases, enact a ban on high

capacity magazines, enact
strong
handgun regulations, and require safe firearm storage under federal
law.



We support scientific research into gun violence by the National Institutes of Health, the
Centers
for Disease Control, and other research
agencies.

Nevada

 It should come as no surprise that Nevada Democrats have gone full on gun control. They supported Bloomberg’s universal background check initiative and now are calling for much more gun control after last year’s Mandalay Bay murders. The days of a more libertarian approach to firearms by Nevada Democrats is long over especially with the number of immigrants from California. As to the Mandalay Bay murders, a motive is still not known and all the firearms were purchased legally including the bump fire stocks.

From the 2018 Nevada Democratic Party Platform:

GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION


We support common sense gun safety and gun violence
prevention measures, because what happened on 1 October must
never happen again.



We support the right to bear arms in a responsible manner.
We oppose
“Stand Your Ground” laws.
We support banning bump stocks or any device
that makes a semi

automatic weapon fire like an automatic weapon. We
support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We support
outlawing guns
on school campuses and keeping guns out of public and
government buildings. We support technology aimed at keeping children
safe and ensuring that firearms are stored safely in gun owners’ homes.
We
support the implementation and enforcement of the ballot
initiative that was
approved by the voters in 2016 to close the gun show loophole.
We oppose
any efforts by the Nevada Legislature to make it easier for potentially
dangerous people like convicted domestic abusers
,
violent criminals
,
stalkers
,
and those lawfully adjudicated as mentally ill to have easier access
to weapons. We support strict standards on reciprocity laws in Nevada that
protect our families and visitors. We support reporting gun injuries and
deaths as community health problems, and keeping statistics and studying
those statistics as a public health issue.

New Hampshire

The days of New Hampshire being the bedrock of New England conservatism is over. You can thank tax-avoiding migrants from Massachusetts for this. The New Hampshire Democratic Party’s platform does reflect this. I will say I’m a bit surprised that they haven’t called for an end to constitutional carry but that could reflect its popularity with voters.

From the NH Democratic Party 2018 final platform:

  • We believe
    in universal background checks
    to protect our communities from gun
    violence.
  • We believe that military

    style weapons, bump stocks, and high

    capacity magazine
    s do
    not belong on our streets.
  • We believe in the establishment of gun

    free zones in certain public places, such as
    schools
    ,
    as a means of reducing gun violence.
  • We support a ban on guns in and on the floor of our State House
    for the safety of our
    residents, guests
    ,
    and children
    who
    visit
    .

I do hate to break it to whomever wrote this platform but so-called gun-free zones do not reduce “gun violence”. They only put law abiding people at risk from predators and other psychopaths.

New Jersey

I think it was gun law attorney Evan Nappen who once said New Jersey is where gun rights go to die. He’s probably right. The NJ Democratic Party doesn’t publish a platform and according to Ballotpedia uses the Democratic National Committee’s platform. Given that, let’s look at the platform of Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ) when it comes to guns. He’s the key figure in state government so could have to the biggest – and worst – impact on gun rights in the Garden State. It includes a laundry list of things ranging from taxes on guns to so-called smart guns (sic).


In his 2017 campaign platform, he said:

Specifically, as governor Phil Murphy would:

  • Sign commonsense legislation that Christie vetoed: Phil Murphy would start by signing every piece of gun violence prevention legislation that Governor Christie has vetoed. These bills would have enacted bipartisan and sensible solutions, such as keeping guns out of the hands of gang members and domestic abusers.


  • Mandate gun safety training: No one should be able to purchase a firearm without first attending a gun safety training course.

  • Promote smart gun technology: We must regain our position as a leader in the smart gun movement by requiring all gun retailers to carry at least one smart gun once they are commercially available.

  • Keep guns out of the hands of those suffering with mental illness: New Jersey already requires background checks, but it should follow the lead of nearly half the states in the U.S. and require timely reporting of mental illness episodes to the national background check database.

  • Tax gun sales to prevent violence: All gun sales should be subject to a tax that will fund law enforcement, drug treatment centers, and mental health services.

  • Strengthen regulations on gun transfers: Phil Murphy would make it a crime to sell guns without conducting a mandatory background check, and would require individuals to register their firearms kept in the state.

  • Work with neighboring states to promote gun violence prevention: An estimated 80 percent of guns involved in crimes in New Jersey come from out of state. As governor, Phil Murphy will engage partners in neighboring states to find common ground on gun violence prevention efforts.

  • Direct the Attorney General to vigorously defend our gun laws: Governor Christie has allowed the Attorney General’s office to relax enforcement of our gun safety laws, including laws that prohibit illegally transporting guns into New Jersey from out of state. As governor, Phil Murphy would direct the Attorney General to vigorously defend and enforce our gun laws, rather than to act as an agent of the NRA.

With the exception of getting tough on gang members, there is not a thing in that list which would reduce criminal misuse of firearms. It is aimed at the law-abiding gun owner and not the criminal. As we have also seen, Murphy is actively anti-hunting with his ad hoc ban on hunting of bears on state lands. Murphy doesn’t even pretend to make lip service about supporting hunters.

Big News Out Of Nevada On Question 1

One of the biggest supporters of the universal background check initiative, Question 1, in Nevada has changed his mind. Casino owner Steve Wynn had given $50,000 to Nevadans for Background Checks. This is the Bloomberg front group that was pushing the universal background check initiative in the state.

As you can hear in the video below, Wynn changed his mind after two of his executives explained all the ramifications of the law.



The NRA released this statement in response.

“This stunning reversal by Steve Wynn – a member of Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advisory board — could be a game changer,” said Robert Uithoven, Nevadans for Freedom campaign director. “Like many unsuspecting Nevadans, Mr. Wynn believed the Bloomberg campaign’s false claims that Question 1 would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and make Nevadans safer. After taking a closer look at the poorly worded initiative, Mr. Wynn told Fox News he now opposes Question 1, along with Governor Sandoval, Congressman Heck, Attorney General Laxalt and 16 of the 17 elected sheriffs in Nevada. ‘I don’t think anyone knows the extent of the overreach that [Question 1] would allow.’ Wynn went on to concede that the NRA Nevadans for Freedom is right when we say that this measure will criminalize the commonplace activities of Nevada’s law-abiding gun owners. The truth is Question 1 will not make Nevadans any safer. It will instead cost law-abiding citizens time, money, and freedom.”

Coming as it did just before Election Day, I am unsure of the real impact of this change of heart given the extent of early voting in Nevada.


My friend J.D. Smith of the AR-15 Podcast told me last week that he thought that despite Bloomberg’s multi-million dollar ad campaign the outcome was looking better for Question 1 failing. J.D. attributed this to a strong grassroots effort. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that he is correct.

UPDATE: Steve Wynn’s conversion on the road to Damascus was too little and too late. Question 1 passed in Nevada by 50.45% to 49.55%. In real terms, the vote was 558,586 yes and 548,685 no.

I have real qualms about whether the SHOT Show should be continued to be held in Las Vegas. The Orange County Convention Center in Orlando is larger and the area has approximately the same number of hotel rooms.

Why Are These Official Hotels For The SHOT Show?

The SHOT Show always has a number of “official” hotels where their travel company has negotiated special rates for attendees and exhibitors. One of the pluses of staying at one of these on-the-Strip hotels is that there is shuttle bus service to the Sands Expo Center.

For those that are not aware of it, Question 1 on the ballot in Nevada is on universal background checks. It would criminalize the sale or transfer of a firearm between private individuals unless a background check was performed by a FFL. While there are limited exceptions to this, the first offense is a gross misdemeanor and the second offense is a Class C felony.

This initiative was proposed by Nevadans for Background Checks which is a front group for Michael Bloomberg and his Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors. Tara Paone is a listed as a director of this group. As Jeff Knox notes, she is also the Treasurer for Everytown and was listed as a director in Washington State’s I-594 universal background check initiative.

I am firmly of the belief that if this initiative passes that the SHOT Show, Safari Club International, and other firearms related organizations should forever move their trade shows and conventions out of that state. You don’t reward states that don’t respect your civil rights. The LGBTQ community is very good at this.

That got me to questioning who was financially supporting the initiative and who was funding the opposition. Here is where it gets interesting. There was the big money (over $100,000) donations from Everytown and from Seattle billionaire Nick Hanauer. Hanauer spent over $1 million in a successful effort to pass Washington’s I-594 initiative. These type of donations were expected. What I would not have expected were substantial donations from a number of the casino and hotel companies.

  • MGM Resorts International – $25,000 – 1/22/2016
  • Caesar’s Enterprise Services LLC – $25,000 – 12/29/2015
  • Wynn Resorts Ltd. – $50,000 – 9/29/2015

There is nothing like biting the hand that feeds you. Just so you are aware, let’s see what hotels and casinos belong to each of these groups. I’ve noted whether it was an official hotel or not as well.

MGM Resorts International 

  • ARIA
  • Bellagio – Yes
  • Vdara
  • MGM Grand – Yes
  • Skylofts at MGM Grand
  • The Signature at MGM Grand
  • Mandalay Bay
  • Delano Las Vegas
  • The Mirage – Yes
  • Monte Carlo – Yes
  • New York – New York – Yes
  • Luxor – Yes
  • Excalibur -Yes
  • Circus Circus – Yes
  • Anthology Suites & Villas
  • Bally’s – Yes
  • Caesars Palace – Yes
  • The Cromwell
  • Flamingo – Yes
  • Harrah’s – Yes
  • The LINQ – Yes
  • Paris – Yes
  • Planet Hollywood – Yes
  • Rio
*Caesar’s Enterprise Services LLC is a spin-off from Caesars Entertainment. It was set up in 2014 to protect the company in case they had to declare bankruptcy.
  • Wynn Las Vegas
  • Encore
So what does this leave in the way of official hotels whose owners have not donated to Bloomberg’s universal background check initiative?
  • The Ventian – owned by Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands
  • The Palazzo – owned by Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands
  • Elara – owned by Hilton
  • Hilton Grand Vacations – owned by Hilton
  • SLS Las Vegas – owned by Sam Nazarian’s SBE Corp.
  • Stratosphere – owned by American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC
  • The Cosmopolitan – owned by Blackstone Group (investment bankers)
  • Treasure Island – privately owned by Phil Ruffin
  • Tropicana – owned by Hilton
  • Trump Las Vegas – owned by you know who
  • Westin – owned by Marriott International
If you are staying in one of these hotels, you have a decent assumption that you are not subsidizing the anti-gun forces. It makes me glad we finally settled on the Westin instead of Bally’s.
There are plenty of other hotels, motels, and casino properties where you can stay in Las Vegas that are not part of the cabal trying to steal your rights. You might want to go here to check on alternatives.
This leaves the opposition to the initiative. The NRA-ILA has been very active from what I have read but Bloomberg has bought most of the air time. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the NRA Nevadans for Freedom has spent about $140,000 on ads. This contrasts with the $800,000 spent by the Bloomberg group. I have read that the NSSF’s #GunVote is doing some work against the initiative but I’m not sure what. I do have a question on various Nevada shooting forums asking about it.

I-594 And The Aftermath – Why Washington State And Who Might Be Next (Pt. 2)

My first post on this topic looked at the long game being played by Michael Bloomberg and his minions at Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors. Some have postulated, and I would tend to agree, that the ultimate goal of these initiatives is to discourage new entrants to the gun culture rather than merely imposing a universal background check system state-by-state.

Since last Tuesday when Initiative 594 won in Washington State, I’ve been thinking about the factors that led to Washington State being chosen as the test bed and what they may tell us about who gets chosen as the next target (after Nevada).

The first, and most obvious factor, is that the state must have some form of initiative process. The initiative process and the referendum were children of the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The movement, unlike today’s progressives, was not synonymous with liberalism. If anything, it was a reaction to the masses of immigrants to the United States and the impact that they had on politics in cities and states. The Progressive Movement was anti-political machine and what better way to take power out of the hands of Tammany Hall and other political machines that catered to new immigrants as well as from the “robber barrons” than through the promotion of direct democracy. The key components were the initiative, the referendum, and the recall.

The states that adopted the direct and indirect initiative are primarily west of the Mississippi. Of the 21 states that offer some form of initiative, only four are east of the Mississippi. These are Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio. A little explanation of the difference between the two types of initiatives. The direct initiative such as was seen in Washington State means the proposals that qualify go directly to the voters. By contrast, an indirect initiative is a petition to a state legislature to pass a certain bill and then, if they fail to do so, it goes to the voters to decide. This is the process used in Nevada.

The next factor that I thought would have an impact was the proportion of the state’s residents that were actually born there. I call this the “Californication” factor. In other words, people move from California to other states such as Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and bring their California attitudes with them. We see a similar pattern in the East as in-migrants from states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have altered the politics of states like Florida and Maine. I think state natives are less likely to be swayed by Bloomberg’s efforts.

Another factor that I thought should be considered is the degree of urbanization of the state. Urban dwellers are less connected to the land, less likely to have come from a hunting family, and more likely to see firearms as a crime problem. By contrast, the higher the percentage of gun ownership, the more likely people are going to be to stand up for their gun rights.

Below is an Excel spreadsheet that I composed using these factors along with which party holds the governorship, did the state vote for Obama, and has Everytown/MAIG registered a 503(c)(4) or (c)(3) in that state.

I have ordered the states by their average rank based upon the variables seen. The lower the average rank, the more likely the state is to be a target for Bloomberg and his henchmen (or henchmoms, as the case may be).

Let me explain how I derived the ranks for each variable.

Initiative Type – I considered the direct initiative to have less political impediments for Everytown so it was coded a “1” while the indirect initiative is a “2”.

Percentage of Urbanization – This data was taken from the Iowa Community Indicators Program which looked at the urbanization of the population of a state. This is 2010 data. I rank ordered the state from most urbanized to least urbanized.

Percentage of State Native Born – This looks at the percentage of the state’s residents that were born in that state. The rank goes from the lowest percentage of state native born to the highest percentage of people born in the state in which they are residing.

Percentage of Gun Ownership – This data was taken from estimates of gun ownership by state as of 2007. I rank ordered the states from least percentage of gun ownership to most percentage of gun ownership.

Governorship – I originally coded states with Democrat governors as a “1” with states having a Republican governor as a “3”. Upon reflection, I reversed it because a state with a Republican governor should create more impediments to gun control and thus would encourage the gun prohibitionists to seek ways around the governor.

2012 Presidential Election – This looked at who won the state:  Obama or Romney. I considered states that chose Obama would be more likely to look favorably on gun control and thus were coded a “1”. An alternative view is that these states have more low-information voters.

Everytown 503(c)(4) – Has Everytown or MAIG registered a political action non-profit in that state? If so, it means they have prepared the ground in advance of seeking an initiative. The impetus to look for this variable came from a column by David Codrea describing the move to the states by Bloomberg. This data is up-to-date as of yesterday. More states have been added since David’s first alert on their moves.

Examining these rankings, it then comes as no surprise that Nevada was the next target for a universal background check initiative. They had the lowest average of any state. The degree of urbanization – 94.2% – and the small number of state native born – 24.3% – made Nevada an ideal candidate. The fact that many of the state’s in-migrants come from California adds to the problem.

Likewise, Arizona, despite the lowest Brady Campaign score of any state (50), is also a prime candidate for a push for universal background checks. They have a highly urbanized population – 89.8% – and the second lowest number of state native born – 37.7% – of the states with an initiative. The saving grace for Arizona is that they have a robust gun culture even though their actual percentage of gun ownership is rather low.

Rounding out the top five, California and Colorado already have universal background checks and Massachusetts requires a permit to own a firearm.

Washington State came in at number six on this list. So why was Washington State chosen for the first test case instead of Nevada or Arizona? If I had to guess, money had a lot to do with it as well as a compliant media. Bill Gates had previously shown a willingness to donate to an earlier Washington State gun control initiative and Nick Hanauer was fully on board. Combine that with only two major media markets in which all three major papers endorsed the initiative and you can see why Washington State was a prime candidate. The top billionaires in Nevada tend to be either outright conservatives like Sheldon Adelson or tied to the gaming industry where they might not want to rock the boat.

Finally, there is Oregon which is sandwiched in between California and Washington. It has endured a considerable amount of in-migration from California. I don’t know enough about the gun culture and its strength in that state. The state has been trending much more liberal in the last couple of decades which could be problematic. I’d still put the state on a watch list.

I am open to suggestion on how to improve these rankings. If you can think of factors that I haven’t considered and for which I can get reliable data, please let me know. I’d be happy to add them to this data analysis.

I-594 And The Aftermath – Why Washington State And Who Might Be Next (Pt. 1)

We underestimate our enemies at our peril. The Washington State universal background check initiative, I-594, should have taught us that. We may think that Michael Bloomberg is a rich, power-mad little Napolean or, as Michael Bane calls him, a nastly little Fascist. However, he did not get to be rich by marrying the right woman or picking the right parents. No, he saw a need and devised a way to fulfill it. Along the way, this insight and his skills made him a very rich man. The bottom line is he is not stupid and he can think strategically.

Likewise, it is easy to dismiss Shannon Watts as an up-marrying, social climbing PR flack who attached herself to gun control as a  way to rejuvenate her ailing career. However, she didn’t get to be a VP at Wellpoint without some degree of talent and a mastery of public relations tactics. We have seen that with the way she created the appearance of a win for gun control – even it if wasn’t – from the announcements by companies like Starbucks and Chipotles that they didn’t want guns in their stores. Perception is reality and the perception is that guns were banned there even if it was merely an unenforceable polite request to leave the guns at home.

Thus, when I read this post from Hyperion 1144 on Reddit, a light went off. The goal of Bloomberg wasn’t universal background checks. It was to kill the gun culture in America by strangling its ability to bring new adults into it. We always say that taking someone shooting is a great way to inoculate them from the claims of the gun prohibitionists. If that is made too hard by the restrictions on transfers in I-594, then we can’t achieve this inoculation.

I-594 is a not a tactical move by gun confiscationists, it is a strategic move.


This law was created by smart, wealthy, well-funded persons who are playing the long game, and if gun owners don’t start running a long-game strategy to match, we are done for within two generations.
Washington has passed Initiative 594, a law marketed as requiring background checks on all sales, but which in reality has criminalized the act of touching any gun you do not own. This means that if you don’t own a gun in Washington State, it is now illegal for you to touch a gun.



I haven’t yet seen an article, comment, or post anywhere that takes into account the long-term cultural implications of such a regulation. I-594 is literally a legislative vaccine against the spread of gun culture.


How is someone curious about guns in Washington state supposed to learn about them about now? They won’t be able to go shooting with friends, they won’t be able to go to friends house to be shown how to field strip a 9mm. Gun classes have likely been outlawed. Gun rentals are likely gone now, too.


The only way to learn, now, is to buy a gun and learn by yourself, completely on your own. No one can help you, since they can’t touch your gun and you can’t touch any of theirs.
This law is intended to isolate us, to prevent us from spreading ideas, knowledge, information, culture. This law, played out of over years and decades, means that gun owners are now likely limited to two pools of people in the future:



1) The children of gun owning families.
2) The rare, entirely self-motivated individual who is willing to trek into an unknown world completely alone.


Played over years and decades, this is how you slowly disarm a population without getting substantial complaints from that population.


The only way we maintain our 2nd Amendment rights is to fight for them. The only people who will fight for them are people who understand firearms, and the reasons for owning them, well enough to be willing to fight. The only way most people come to an understanding of this is if someone else taught them or helped them to understand.


Now, virtually all non-familial acts of teaching and culture-sharing are illegal. In the long-term cultural sense, I-594 is the single most dangerous piece of gun control legislation ever conceived.


It makes the NFA and the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban look childishly simplistic by comparison. This time, they didn’t ban certain mechanical or cosmetic features. They didn’t ban full-auto or select fire or short-barrel rifles.


This time, they banned a culture, our culture.


If this stands or spreads, we are done for.

I think the author, Hyperion 1144, makes a lot of sense and we need to get that message across to all gun owners – Fudds, Threepers, Prags, or what other subgroup of gun owners you can think of.

As to the last sentence in the Reddit post, it has spread to the state of Nevada. This was not unexpected as a universal background check bill passed the Nevada legislature last year but was vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV). Everytown President John Feinblatt said as much after I-594 passed calling it just the beginning. The group fought off an attempt by the Nevada Firearms Coalition to keep it off the 2016 ballot. The only change made to the wording of the ballot initiative was make sure voters knew the penalties for violations would be a gross misdemeanor for first offenses and a felony conviction for the second offense. This is identical to Washington State’s I-594.

Sebastian has some ideas on how to fight off Bloomberg on the ballot initiatives. I haven’t digested all of it yet but it sure has set off a storm of comments.

David Codrea notes that the effort in Nevada was something he warned about last year. Back then, David did some investigative digging into the Nevada effort and found the fingerprints of Bloomberg all over it. Unfortunately, not enough people listened at the time.

Part 2 of this post will be an effort to identify future targets of Bloomberg’s opportunism.

Bloomberg Loses In Nevada

While Bloomberg’s billions were enough to “persuade” both houses of the Nevada Legislature to pass SB 221, it wasn’t enough to “convince” Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) not to veto the bill. SB 221 provided for universal background checks on all transfers in Nevada.

Bloomberg had blanketed Nevada with his lobbyists and spent a lot of money on ads pushing Sandoval to sign SB 221. However, Gov. Sandoval, who had pledged to veto the bill even before it passed, seems to have listened to callers to his office instead.

It is a significant defeat for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advocacy group, Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns, which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars working to get the bill passed.

The group bought numerous ads on social media sites, news websites and television, in addition to mailing out materials attacking select lawmakers who voted against the bill during the session. Video ads pressuring Sandoval to sign the bill surfaced immediately following the Assembly nod of approval.

But an automated system set up to field the flood of calls to the governor’s office about the bill showed an overwhelming majority of calls wanted Sandoval to veto the bill. The system did not record names, so it was possible for callers to call multiple times and distort the numbers.

 The gun prohibitionists are still clinging to their mythical 86% of Nevadans in favor of the bill and are castigating the governor for ignoring their push poll.

Repeating an oft-cited result of a poll showing 86 percent of Nevadans favor background checks for private party gun sales, critics said Sandoval has made an unpopular decision.

“Clearly Gov. Sandoval is going against the will of the people,” said Brian Fadie, executive director of ProgressNow Nevada, a group that favored the bill’s passage. “He is standing with extremists who are mostly filled with paranoid fears of the government taking away their guns.”

 Gov. Sandoval, in his veto message found here, said that the bill’s measure on the reporting of mental health issues were very good. However, he goes on to say that that bill’s background check provisions “constitute an erosion of Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and may subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution.” He adds that the bill would also alter the burden of proof for illegal sales of firearms under Nevada.

I congratulate Gov. Sandoval for vetoing the bill and for recognizing the “flypaper” nature of this bill written by Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors. These transfer provisions were never meant to stop crime but are intended to create a new class of inadvertent criminals ultimately leading to the loss of their rights under the Second Amendment.

Has Bloomberg Bought Another Western State?

Yesterday, the Nevada State Assembly passed universal background checks by a vote of 23 yea to 19 nay and sent it to Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) for his signature or veto. The text of the bill as enrolled can be found here.

One of the most contentious bills of the day was Senate Bill 221, sponsored by Sen. Justin Jones, D-Las Vegas, to require background checks on private gun sales.

The bill appeared dead early Monday, but in an unexpected move, the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved it on a 7-5 vote.

The full Assembly then voted 23-19 to send it to Sandoval despite his promise to veto the measure. Four Democrats joined with all 15 Republicans in opposing the measure.

The bill previously passed the Senate on an 11-10 party-line vote with Democrats in support.

Multiple reports indicate that Gov. Sandoval will veto this bill. That has not stopped Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors from running ads asking people to call the governor and asking him to sign it. Moreover, they are saying that “86% of Nevada voters” support the bill.

The other day I wrote about how certain legislators were expecting substantial campaign contributions as a result of pushing Bloomberg’s bill.

It is obvious from the lists below, that Bloomberg saturated Carson City with lobbyists. There are a total of 63 legislators in both houses of the Nevada Legislature. Examining the list of lobbyists below for Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors, I see a total of 13 paid lobbyists or one lobbyist for every 4.85 legislators. An asterisk after the lobbyist name indicates that he or she is a paid lobbyist. Bloomberg had no volunteer lobbyists.

By contrast, you have three paid lobbyists and three volunteer lobbyists for the pro-rights side. Besides the NRA, you had the Nevada Firearms Coalition and the Stillwater Firearms Association. The Nevada Firearms Association is the state affiliate of the NRA. As they themselves note, they relied on the NRA-ILA to handle things in the legislature until recently. The Stillwater Firearms Association is a non-profit that puts on classes, organizes shooting competitions, and manages a shooting range in Fallon, NV.

From an outsider’s perspective, it appears that Mayor Bloomberg overwhelmed the grassroots organizations with money, ads, and paid lobbyists just like he did in Colorado. Unlike Colorado, having a Republican governor may be enough to stop this in its tracks. A veto of the bill cannot be overriden by either house of the Nevada Legislature.

While it is past time to have made your voice heard, we still have a chance with Gov. Sandoval. I’d emphasize that this measure won’t stop crime and would not have prevented the Newtown shootings. Moreover, if you are not a state resident but have visited Reno, Las Vegas, or other gambling locations, make that known along with your determination not to spend your money in a state that doesn’t believe in your civil rights.

Contact information for Gov. Sandoval is located here.

One final reminder: be firm but respectful.

Well, Prostitution Is Legal In Some Nevada Counties

The New York Times ran an article yesterday discussing how Mayor Bloomberg is pushing for background checks in state legislatures. Coming off his success in Colorado, he has now set his eye on the state of Nevada where the State Senate has already passed his background check legislation. Just like in Colorado, he has inundated the State Capitol in Carson City with 11 lobbyists to one from the NRA.

What really caught my eye was this statement by State Senator Justin C. Jones (D-Las Vegas) who was the sponsor of Bloomberg’s universal background check bill.

Mr. Jones said he hoped Mr. Bloomberg would continue to be involved in Nevada politics. He faces re-election next year — he won by just 301 votes in 2012 — and in the past, Mr. Bloomberg has offered political and financial support to candidates who back his policies.


“It never hurts,” Mr. Jones said, “to have friends with money.”

While I understand that prostitution is legal in some areas of Nevada, it is illegal in both Clark County and in Carson City. If political prostitution was as illegal as sexual prostitution, I could easily see Mr. Jones being arrested on charges of solicitation for being the political whore that he is.

Sure To Cause Exploding Heads At The Brady Campaign

Thanks to a Tweet by Mark Vanderberg of the Gun Rights Radio Network, I came across an article in the Las Vegas Sun from early August that is sure to cause heads to explode at the Brady Campaign and all the other gun prohibitionist groups.

In Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District, the two leading contenders for the Democrat nomination are arguing who has better pro-gun credentials and which one is better liked by the NRA.

It’s not often that two Democrats try to outdo each other on who can best push the National Rifle Association’s legislation — even in Nevada.

But that was at the heart of a skirmish between state Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, and Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, in the middle of the legislative session this year.

Now, the two Democrats are potentially facing each other in a primary for Congress, a fight that usually sees the candidates work to outdo each other on who can best appeal to the party’s most liberal voters.

Both men have an A or better rating from the NRA’s Political Victory Fund. Oceguera was rated A and endorsed by the NRA-PVF in his 2010 election while Lee was rated A+ and endorsed his 2008 election.

It seems the two of them have been going at it since earlier in the year over who is better on gun rights. Lee fired the first shot saying in a letter to Oceguera in which he accused him of “plagarizing” other gun bills:

“I hope that in your zest for self promotion and aggrandizement in trying to receive a coveted A+ rating from the National Rifle Association that you haven’t jeopardized the ability to pass sensible and much needed legislation concerning the gun rights of Nevadans,” Lee wrote in a letter to Oceguera.

Oceguera responded back that he was proud of the work he was doing for gun rights, have been endorsed by the NRA, and that Lee was “very angry about the legislation I am sponsoring, which protects the right of gun owners all across this state.”

Oceguera’s omnibus gun bill which lowers the cost of a concealed carry permit and changed the requirement from qualifying with each semi-auto pistol to only one semi-auto pistol passed overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, Lee’s signature bill which would have allowed campus carry at universities in Nevada and which was NRA endorsed didn’t pass.

This Democratic in-fighting over who is better for gun rights is a good reminder that the “R” in NRA doesn’t stand for Republican. Whether it is Oceguera or Lee who faces Rep. Joe Keck (R-NV) for the 3rd Congressional District seat, gun owners are in good shape with any of the three.