Making criminals out of law-abiding Nevadans


Nevada voters — along with Nevada gun owners who can still register to vote by Oct. 8 if they’d like to preserve what’s left of their gun rights (and who knows, maybe even vote against Hillary Clinton’s “Australian Plan” to confiscate and destroy all the semi-automatic firearms in the country) — may not have noticed, but the Silver State is the latest target of gun-grabbing New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg and his gang of elitist hoplophobes (most of whom can afford and indeed are used to having armed personal bodyguards) who want to gradually eliminate the remaining rights of us “deplorables” to buy and sell firearms, by making the process increasingly expensive, cumbersome, and likely to get you sent to jail — one state at a time.

(He got this scheme passed in Washington state last election season with a similar million-dollar burst of TV ads — though non-compliance has been the general rule, there. He’s also trying to ram a similar initiative down their throats in the state of Maine — spending $2.3 million to overwhelm the $40,000 raised by local opponents. Typical.)

“Question One” on Nevada’s Nov. 8 ballot is a measure written and backed with more than $4 million in out-of-state, gun-haters’ money, which aims to make it a crime just to loan, give away, or sell a firearm to a friend or neighbor, without everyone involved parading down to a “federally licensed firearms dealer,” and paying for a federal (not a state) background check.

Then, if the would-be buyer or recipient “fails the check,” or even should the federal computers be down for the day, as does happen -– get this -– the OWNER of the firearm would have to pass (and pay for) a new background check . . . to get his own firearm back!

Nevada being a small state, and not a wealthy one, opponents have also raised only about $42,000 to defend their rights against this out-of-state assault. Needless to say, given this 100-to-1 funding advantage, a July Rasmussen/Channel 13 poll showed the monstrosity winning, 66-to-28 percent among uninformed Nevada voters, with 7 percent undecided. (Scroll to the bottom to find out how to donate to the cause.)

Years ago, I owned a little Russian Makarov pistol, in caliber 9X18. It was too small for my hand, to begin with. I took it out shooting one day, in a lovely deserted box canyon out of sight of Lee Canyon Road where it climbs Mt. Charleston, scores of miles north of the Red Rock Canyon.

(I mention the location because this box canyon, inhabited only by birds, rattlesnakes, rabbits, and the occasional burro, a piece of public land where generations of Nevadans had gone to enjoy safe target-shooting till the rusted steel 7.62 cartridge cases crunched gratifyingly under your feet to tell you you were at the right place, has now been made off limits to shooting by the despicable Harry Reid. He merely extended the boundaries of the federally controlled “Red Rock Conservation Area” -– where Nevadans now have to pay an “entry fee” to see some scenery we neither want nor need “protected” by federal bureaucrats based 2,500 miles away in Washington — to include my lovely, deserted shooting area.)

The federals have dumped rocks and tree limbs to try and block the access road, and federal Smokeys in 10-foot-tall SUVs now patrol the area, chasing away would-be target shooters. What a productive use of our tax money!

Back before it was “illegal” (thanks, Harry!) I set out a piece of Samsonite luggage 50 yards away on the other side of the draw in that canyon, with a paper target taped to its side, and fired the little Makarov to see what kind of accuracy it had. Each shot was followed by a strange “zinging” sound. I went to check the target to see if what I suspected was actually happening.

Yep. Those little Russian slugs weren’t penetrating that flexible-sided Samsonite suitcase. They were bouncing off, right back at me, like angry bees.

I decided right then and there that little Russian pocket pistol would probably prove about equally effective against a home invader wearing a heavy leather jacket, and I didn’t really want it around. I had a friend -– a middle-aged fellow who’d been a Boy Scout leader, the safest and most cautious shooter I know — who had problems with his shoulders and could no longer handle guns with heavy recoil. I gave him the gun as a gift. He seemed to appreciate it.

That “transfer of a firearm” would make both me and my friend criminals, facing heavy fines or jail time, under the despicable, deceptive proposal now on Nevada’s ballot as November’s “Question One.”

“Due to a loophole in the law . . .’

Federal law today required holders of Federal Firearms Licenses to run “background checks” on potential buyers — a system which costs billions but has not resulted in the prosecution of a single “convicted felon” attempting to buy a gun in a licensed gun store, since criminals get their firearms either by stealing them or by buying them out of Guido’s car trunk out behind the tavern — where Guido don’t run no “background checks,” believe me.


But this oh-so-smug victim disarmament gang, these rape enablers who want women to be defenseless when the rapist corners them in the blind alley — can’t currently stop me from selling or giving a firearm to my friend, since they don’t have the excuse that I’ve applied for some kind of “federal privileged license” to sell firearms (which is a dangerous and unconstitutional infringement aimed at making it harder, more expensive, and more onerous to acquire firearms in the first place, of course.)

And for some reason, even though they live thousands of miles from us, this drives them crazy.

So they have to go at this state by state, pouring millions into misleading and deceptive TV ads designed to convince those who have immigrated to vote-rich Las Vegas from places like Chicago and Los Angeles — who’ve probably never touched a gun and set no value on their self-defense rights, but who are soothingly assured this will “help protect the children” -– to vote away the God-given, constitutionally protected rights of their fellow Nevadans!

Question One reads: “Shall Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to prohibit, except in certain circumstances, a person from selling or transferring a firearm to another person unless a federally-licensed dealer first conducts a federal background check on the potential buyer or transferee?”

The summary language then explains: “Under current law, federally licensed gun dealers are required to perform criminal and public safety background checks on buyers before transferring guns to them. However, due to a loophole in the law, a background check is not required when a person obtains a gun from an unlicensed seller, making it easier for felons, domestic abusers, and other dangerous people to buy guns. This initiative requires that an unlicensed person who wishes to sell or transfer a firearm to another person conduct the transfer through a licensed gun dealer who runs a background check on the potential buyer or transferee.

”A licensed dealer may charge a reasonable fee for this service. Certain transfers will be exempt from this requirement, including transfers between immediate family members and temporary transfers while hunting and for immediate self-defense. Failure to comply with this requirement is a gross misdemeanor for a first offense and a felony for repeat offenses. A licensed dealer who agrees to facilitate a transfer must comply with all requirements of state and federal law as though transferring the firearm from the licensed dealer’s own inventory, except that the background check must be run through the federal rather than state background check system.”

The BATF ‘forgot to destroy the records’

Look at that language!

Let our friends Kermitt Waters or Chuck Muth try to place on the Nevada ballot an initiative to repeal the thoroughly unconstitutional “gross receipts” or “business margins” tax enacted by our last sellout state Legislature (it’s clearly a state income tax; the Nevada Constitution bars any state income tax, and it’s already destroyed thousands of Nevada jobs) and the gaming industry (which loves that punitive, economy-destroying tax, because casinos are EXEMPT!) promptly goes to court to challenge the “summary language.”

The courts obediently require Waters or Muth or whoever to sit down and negotiate their summary language WITH THEIR OPPONENTS -– supposedly to make sure it’s accurate and objective. The opponents drag this process out for months, till the court finally announces, “OK, the revised language is approved! You’re now free to go gather signatures. Oh, by the way,” the judges then add with a snicker, “the clock continued ticking while that negotiation process used up most of the time you were allowed to gather 55,000 signatures to get your measure on the ballot. You have a week left: Good luck!”


But clearly these New York gun-grabbers were allowed to put this purposely slanted and deceptive language on the ballot JUST AS WRITTEN! The courts did NOTHING to remove deceptive innuendo like “loophole,” and “felons, domestic abusers, and other dangerous people.”

A loophole is a “way around” the intent of the law. But when background checks at licensed gun stores were sold to Congress, they were assured “Private sales won’t be affected” . . . weren’t they? It’s not a “loophole” if it’s an exemption for private transactions which Congress INTENDED, to keep from turning this into even more of a costly, bureaucratized police state. How in hell is some deputy sheriff out in rural Nevada supposed to know if my buddy and I trade hunting rifles? Is it wise to pass laws that can’t be enforced? Should the law really presume the 60-something former Boy Scott leader to whom I gave away my Makarov is a “felon, domestic abuser, or other dangerous person”?

Proponents argue this won’t help establish a registry of all gun ownership in the country, by serial number, for use in future confiscations, since that’s “already illegal under federal law.” But that’s nonsense, and they know it. The BATF is gathering such a list of gun ownership by serial number for use in future confiscations, right now, regardless of what the law says, and no one there has so much as received a slap on the wrist for doing so. Called on this, the federals merely pucker up their lips and claim they “forgot to destroy the records.”

Proof? See , or , or

Besides, if background checks haven’t been about setting up a national gun registry to use in future confiscations — from the very beginning — why does the “FFL holder” call in the firearm’s make, model, and serial number? If all they’re checking is whether the buyer is a convicted felon, what difference does it make whether I’m buying a Colt .38 or a 12-gauge Mossberg . . . let alone the SERIAL NUMBER?

That’s why the BATF is required by law to destroy all such records after the check is completed. They just “forgot,” you see . . .

Proponents also assure us their proposal won’t stop firearms “transfers” between family members. But isn’t that a “loophole”? And don’t they say the purpose of this November’s initiative is to “close a Loophole”? So won’t they be back in a few years to close the “loopholes” that they’ve left in this proposal in order to get it passed? Of course they will.

Besides, if a man gives a self-defense pistol to a woman who’s been living with him for 20 years but has never officially married him, is she “family”? What about a daughter-in-law who’s receiving threats? Is she “family,” or will I go to jail for loaning her a shotgun? Some of us will doubtless find out . . . the hard way.


English was not the first language of the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. So his student Murray Rothbard used to relate how the young Americans in von Mises’ New York seminar would refer to tax “loopholes,” until the old professor finally asked “What is this ‘loophole’ you keep talking about?”

After Murray and the others had explained to the great economist what a “tax loophole” was, he finally nodded in comprehension and said, “Ah, so a ‘loophole’ is something they haven’t taxed yet.”

He could just as well have said “or a liberty they haven’t outlawed, yet.”

The man who banned the ‘Big Gulp’

Nevada state Attorney General Adam Laxalt, nearly every county sheriff in Nevada — 13 of them — and even Gov. Brian Sandoval (who’s only a conservative when the wind blow north-northwest) oppose this monstrosity. Why would they oppose it if they believed it would really keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Because they know it would instead turn tens of thousands of perfectly innocent Nevada gun-owners into unwitting felons -– even for loaning a self-defense handgun to a girlfriend who’s being stalked! This piece of nonsense would create thousands of “crimes” with a “law” police would have no possible way to equitably enforce.

Such onerous laws are already in place in the kind of crime capitals where people like Michael Bloomberg live. Why isn’t that enough for them? Why do they want to impose such police-state conditions on the honest folks of the wide-open American West? What do they know or care about conditions here -– in the lowest-crime region in the country?

According to Forbes magazine, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the 13th richest person in the WORLD, with a net worth of $27 billion. There’s nothing wrong with that, per se. But this is a power-mad, nanny-state fruitcake. He didn’t think the two-term limit for New York mayors should apply to him, so he spread some money around till the city’s other politicians finally allowed him to serve a third term. During that “extended” term of office, he banned or attempted to ban:

Smoking in bars and restaurants (which has since infected Nevada via a similar funded-from-outside campaign, which is one reason our foreign tourists have disappeared, putting us in a decade-long recession — 2003); trans-fats in restaurants (2006); non-fuel efficient cabs (2007); so-called “greenhouse gas emissions” (2007); chain restaurant menus without calorie counts (2008); sales of “flavored” tobacco products (2009); “high” sodium levels in processed foods (2010); smoking in all “public spaces” including parks and beaches (2011); No. 4 and No. 6 “heavy” heating oils (driving up the cost of heating an already vastly expensive New York home or apartment – but why would Michael Bloomberg care? (2011); sodas larger than 16 ounces (2012); and in 2013 alone: new cabs that aren‘t Nissan NV200s; cigarette sales to those under 21; smoking E-cigarettes in “public spaces”; cigarettes displayed in view of customers; Styrofoam packaging of single food items, organic waste from landfills, and “loud” headphones.

And you want to give this nanny-state control freak a foothold in destroying our liberties, here in Nevada?

How to donate

Even the National Rifle Association – with which I have plenty of differences, since they think most gun control laws are “OK,” says:

“Question 1 does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Criminals will continue to break the law and acquire firearms where they do now: the black market, straw purchasers, theft and illicit sources such as drug dealers. According to the Department of Justice, 77 percent of criminals in state prison for firearm crimes get firearms through theft, on the black market, ‘on the street,’ or from family members and friends. Less than one percent get firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows.”


Washoe County Sheriff Chuck Allen says: “Question 1 gun control initiative would make criminals out of law-abiding citizens, tax already scarce law enforcement resources, while doing nothing to stop criminals or make us any safer. I will fight to protect our freedom and stop the ‘Californication’ of Nevada gun rights by outside groups.”

Jim Wheeler, R-39, majority whip of the Nevada State Assembly, wrote in a column in the Nevada Appeal: “If Question 1 was to pass on the November ballot, Nevada’s laws on private gun transfers would be as, or even more restrictive, than those in California! . . . Even a military member who stores his guns with his family while deployed overseas could be in violation. Failure to abide by all the new government rules and mandates could land you in jail and facing hefty fines. . . .

“The principal goal of Question 1 is to make legal gun ownership more onerous, burdensome and expensive for Nevada’s law-abiding citizens. Remember, gun control is not about guns. It’s about control.”

Who’s listed as being in support of this abomination? It’s quite a cast of characters. Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson, who swore before assuming the office he’d review every police shooting in Las Vegas . . . and then proceeded to rubber-stamp every one of them as okey-dokey, including the police homicides of the unarmed Trevor Cole and Iraq war veteran Stanley Gibson! Casino moguls Steve and Elaine Wynn have signed on to try and further disarm us (Wynn resorts has donated $50,000 – more in a single contribution than the $42,000 opponents have raised overall!), as has former Democrat mayor Jan Jones, who famously told the late Carol Pappas she’d ”had her property long enough, time to give someone else a turn” when seizing the Pappas block to facilitate her Neo-Flopolis downtown redevelopment scheme, at the behest of the downtown casino bosses.


Former state-socialist congresswoman Shelley Berkley (and here we thought we’d gotten rid of her), who told me Democrats were going to “seal the southern border,” is on the List of Infamy. (When I asked her if they planned to use land mines and machine guns, she look at me like I was crazy and said “No one’s talking about THAT!” So what do lying socialists mean when they say they’re going to “seal the border”? That they only plan to let in ANOTHER 11 million illegals?)

Steven Horsford, the cashiered one-term Democratic congressman and semi-moron who told me (in a formal newspaper endorsement interview -– I have witnesses) that he believes the Secretary of the Interior mails monthly “subsidy checks” to America’s oil companies, is on the list of supporters, along with cashiered Democratic state senator Justin Jones and Richard Perkins, who somehow got away for years with double-dipping as the Henderson Chief of Police (executive branch) and Speaker of the Nevada Assembly (legislative branch, barred by the Nevada Constitution from simultaneously holding any paid executive branch position.)

The list of supporters also includes Rory Reid, son of somebody with a similar name who’s lived for decades in a fancy hotel in Washington, D.C. What a surprise!

Those fighting this loathsome attempt to impose the draconian gun laws of the crime-ridden hellholes of New York City and Washington and Los Angeles and Chicago on peaceful, freedom-loving Nevada are woefully underfunded, compared to their out-of-state, fascist opponents.

To help spread the truth about Question One, you can donate online at (though the online route requires you to give out your phone number, for some reason), or by mailing a check to Nevadans for State Gun Rights, 140 Washington St., Suite 150, Reno, NV 89503.

Tell them Vin sent you.

Benjamin Lesczynski, 8, of New York, takes a sip of a "Big Gulp" while protesting the proposed "soda-ban," that New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has suggested, outside City Hall in New York July 9, 2012. REUTERS/Andrew Burton

Benjamin Lesczynski, 8, of New York, takes a sip of a “Big Gulp” while protesting the proposed “soda-ban,” that New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has suggested, outside City Hall in New York July 9, 2012. REUTERS/Andrew Burton

2 Comments to “Making criminals out of law-abiding Nevadans”

  1. Vin Says:

    Las Vegas City Councilman Stavros Anthony weighs in on Nevada’s “Question One” at .

    “It is not “fear-mongering” to say that Question 1 will be followed by calls for even greater restrictions on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” Mr. Anthony writes in response to a predictable gun-grabber editorial in the Clintonista Las Vegas Sun. “It is simply what has happened in every other state. Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in 1996 about the Clinton gun ban: ‘Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.’

    “Consider how this incremental approach to gun control has worked (or not worked!) in other states. For example, in neighboring California, politicians pushed “universal” background checks as the magic pill to solve crime. But that wasn’t enough for the anti-gun lobby. Now it’s pushing to force gun dealers to record video of every gun or ammunition purchaser, as well as their gun and ammunition storage areas, their parking lots and the surroundings of their stores — and retain all that footage on the premises for at least five years.

    “Law-abiding gun owners will be forced to pay the price of all those video cameras and hard drives. Seattle recently adopted a $25 tax on every firearm sale and a 5-cents-per-round tax on ammunition. Gun-control laws have failed spectacularly in cities such as Chicago and Baltimore, both of which are experiencing record levels of gun violence this year.

    “Gun-control advocates have run out of new gun laws to restrict gun rights, and their ‘solution’ is to seek to limit the gun rights of those in neighboring states. Ultimately, they want to impose their state’s failed gun laws on the entire country by having Congress pass similar national gun-control laws.

    “Question 1 gun-control supporters, largely bankrolled by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg, will be back pushing for more gun-control laws because they, like The Sunday, know Question 1 won’t make Nevadans any safer. They know that ‘universal’ background checks can work only if the federal government has a paper trail to follow — through a national, central federal database of every gun in America and who owns it. Even the Obama administration has admitted that for ‘universal’ background checks to be effective, it “depends on … requiring gun registration.”

  2. MamaLiberty Says:

    “Background checks” of any kind will never solve the problem of criminals who don’t subject their purchases to such things… which is nearly all of them. Full registration and confiscation will never eliminate criminal use of weapons either, for the same reason.

    Creating greater numbers of totally helpless “law abiding” people is the ONLY actual reason for any of this.

    Luckily, enough of us will not “abide” those laws either.