Ethics

As most of you who have followed the Nevada Campus Protection Act (SB231) this past legislative session know, the bill failed.  It failed because of politics, not because it wasn't passed.  It wasn't allowed to even be voted on in the Assembly Judiciary Committee; their chairman of that committee would have no part of that.  For one,  Democrats don't wan't to vote on any legislation relating to guns unless it means taking guns away from people.  They know what happens when their names get added to the NRA shit list.  What comes next is going to be a shock to them.  The NRA is no longer the sole voice of gun owners.  The internet has given birth to many  grass roots, second amendment preservationist groups, and we don't need the NRA's endorsement to pursue justice on our own behalf.

With that said, Assemblyman William C. Horne's ethics are being called into question.  On his legislative biography, as well as numerous other databases containing biographical information, he lists his affiliation to UNLV as an adjunct professor.  While he may not hold a permanent position at UNLV, it isn't to much of a stretch to say that because UNLV opposed SB231, that his private economic interest affected his decision to bring SB231 before his committee for a vote.  Nor would it be a stretch of the imagination to say that should he have done so,  his services would no longer be retained as an adjunct professor.

Rule 23 of the Assembly Standing Rules states that;

9. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 10, if a Legislator knows he has a conflict of interest pursuant to subsection 8, the Legislator shall make a general disclosure of the conflict of interest on the record in a meeting of a committee or on the floor of the Assembly, as applicable.  Such a disclosure must be entered:

(a)  If the Legislator makes the disclosure in a meeting of a committee, in the minutes for that meeting.

(b)  If the Legislator makes the disclosure on the floor of the Assembly, in the Journal.

I have no knowledge of Assemblyman Horne disclosing that a conflict of interests existed in this matter, but that doesn't mean it never was disclosed.  I am asking anyone with knowledge of such a disclosure to come forward with a reference to it.  Make no mistake,  there are many people looking for such a disclosure in public records in the legislature, but it's like finding a needle in a hay stack.  As you can see from the quoted rule above,  he only need disclose the conflict of interest once.  If he made a disclosure but did so in reference to another matter,  we have no place to look.  That is why I am asking you, the reader to come forward with this information if you have it.

It is my belief that there is enough information to suspect a conflict of interest and file a complaint with the Assembly Select Committee on Ethics.  to do so, you need the complaint form from the Chief Clerk of the Assembly.  Once completed, it must be mailed to:

Majority Leader Marcus Conklin
Chair, Assembly Select Committee on Ethics
c/o Office of the Assembly Chief Clerk
Legislative Building Room 1109
401 South Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701

Hopefully,  we can generate enough complaints to warrant an investigation.  Just because the session is over doesn't mean we must give up.  SB231 had massive support of the people, and to deny it due legislative process is a tragedy that must be corrected.  Assemblyman Horne acted outside the interests of the people he represents and he must be held to account for his actions.

There's Still Some Fight in This Dog

Assemblyman William Horne, D-NV34, has successfully allowed the clock to run out on Senate Bill 231, but he has not killed the movement to achieve shall issue right to carry on Nevada Colleges and Universities. What he has done is alert every criminal to the truth about college campuses in Nevada; there are far to few police officers to secure the safety of the student body, and no one will be armed and able to defend their life against a violent attacker. He has also proven that he has no spine. There are eight members of his committee ready to cast their vote in favor of this bill, but to spite his earlier remarks that he would not block the progress of the bill, he decided to hide behind the locked door of his office in Carson City rather than do the job the people of Nevada hired him to do.  He claims there isn't enough support in his committee or in the full assembly.  If that is the case, why not take a vote and let's find out?  The only thing he is sure of is that he will loose the support of his party and the people likely throwing money at him to keep the people's voice unheard.

By Horne's own testimony, he is a CCW holder. I'm sure he would have no problem getting permission to carry his firearm on college campuses in return for killing a bill that threatens universities ability to infringe upon our rights as students. But as far as the students are concerned, he isn't.

The next step in the movement is to shift our efforts to the Judicial branch of government in Nevada. The first thing every Nevada CCW holder must do is to request permission to carry from the president of all colleges and universities within the Nevada System of Higher Education. These are all public facilities, open to all who may have lawful business there. You never know when some event may be taking place that needs your entrance fee to collect money for various well-meaning causes and student organization. If they want that money from you, they must acknowledge your right to be able to actively participate in your own self defense. When you the permit holder are denied that permission, you must save your denial letter and stay in touch with Nevada Campus Carry, Stillwater Fireams, or the NRA and await direction on how we will proceed.

This is only round one, this fight is not over by a long shot. This fight concerns everyone, even those without CCW's who may not care either way; it's your money they are spending to to maintain their position that they are about the natural rights of all of us.

Students, Guns, Dorms... Oh My!

In the debate over the Nevada Campus Protection Act, The question has been posed; "what do we do about guns in residence halls?"  "What if the permit holder's room mate objects to firearms?" To this, I say,  welcome to life as an adult.  There are going to be a lot of things you are not going to like, but you will just have to learn to live with.  You do not get to change room because you don't like your room mate's race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation or national origin.  You shouldn't be able to choose your room mate based on their desire to exercise their second amendment right either.  Truth be told, they would agree not to use their firearm to save your life if it came to that.

I highly doubt there are many students living in the dorms that qualify to hold a CCW permit, and even fewer who will actually be issued.  If the rare circumstance that this scenario does occur,  my suggestion is this;  If the firearm is not carried on the person,  it must be secured in a safe.  I have take no issue with the president setting a policy that requires the permit holder to own and use a particular type of safe or even a specific make and model, but lets be reasonable,  the safe should cost no more than $300.  Yes, I know that sounds like a lot of money to spend on a safe,  but we can't give them room to require that a student buy a $2000 safe to store one Glock 19.

The two safest places that a firearm can be is either holstered on the person or in a safe.  I take no exception to a policy that requires that anytime the firearm is not holstered to ones person it must be secured in a safe.

Should the administration be made aware of a student's failure to comply with reasonable protocols,  I have no issue with that student being ejected from the residence halls.  Unsafe handling and storage of firearms is extremely serious.  While the ownership and carry of arms is a god given right,  living in the residence halls is not.  If you show that you are irresponsible with your firearm in a dorm,  I take no exception to severe consequences being imposed.  As a gun owner,  I cringe every time I read a news story about some pin head doing something idiotic with a gun.  It only becomes fodder for the gun control crowd who likes to portray us all as dangerous people.

If you must know, not all gun owners are right wing, bible thumping, Tea Partying red necks.  gun owners are part of every walk of life, young, old, Republican, Democrat, gay, straight, black, white and every color in between, but that is a whole other article.

Alcohol, Guns and College Students

The argument most often referred to by those who oppose the concealed carry of firearms on college campuses is that college students often engage in heavy drinking; allowing them to also be armed is an undue risk.

Nevada law already imposes a .10 BAC limit on those carrying a firearm.  This fact is required to be taught in a CCW class taken in Nevada.  Also consider that alcohol is served in many venues not off limits to permit holders.  While I'm sure there have been cases of people carrying a firearm who exceed the BAC limit, it hasn't been a problem significant enough to warrant any changes to the CCW permitting process.  In fact it rarely even makes the news.

Lets also consider the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities that occur in the United States.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 33,808 people died in traffic crashes in 2009 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,839 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash about every 50 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2010)

This is a startling statistic!  Over 10,000 drunk driving fatalities in 2009!  Even if you take alcohol out of the equation,  more people died in traffic accidents than they do at the hands of firearms.  Do college students have to ask for permission to operate a motor vehicle on college campuses?  No,  They have proven to the state that they are competent to operate a motor vehicle.  They do not have to show good cause to justify their need to drive a car on university ground.  Even more startling is that nothing in the constitution protects a citizen's right to drive a car.  Something just isn't right with this picture.

Students are at far greater risk of death or serious injury at the hands of other students behind the wheel than they are at the hands of a law abiding, properly licensed CCW permit holder, yet no one is required to ask permission to drive a car on campus.

No Permission Without "Good Cause."

Often, when a student requests permission to carry a concealed firearm on campus,  the president of the institution requires them to show good cause.  Presumably,  they want the student to show that a credible threat already exists to justify a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm.

On it's surface, this sounds almost reasonable.  But if you think about it,  many violent crimes occur without warning.  The threat of harm and the act of harm coincide during the same event.  The "good cause" requirement is nothing more than a farce, designed to enable the arbitrary denial of permission to carry.  Administrators already know that most people that are victimized had no prior warning that a threat existed.  It is unreasonable to ask that a student first be a victim before they can be granted permission to carry on a college campus.

The truth is that article one, section eleven of the Constitution of the State of Nevada already explains that security and defense is a good cause to bear arms.  It doesn't say "for security and defense when a credible threat exists."

The current state of Nevada law was intended to allow college and university administrators to be knowledgeable of who is carrying arms.  If these administrators used the law as it was intended granting permission to those who are qualified to carry a concealed firearm,  we would not be having this discussion.  Unfortunately, when you give someone arbitrary power, they are going to exercise that power arbitrarily.  The burden should be on the administrator to show good cause for denial, not on the student to show good cause to be granted.

I have no problem with administrators having the power to revoke a students permission who has demonstrated poor academic or behavioral discipline.  As permit holders, we have an awesome responsibility to the community.  We know that we are liable for every round that leaves our firearms.  As administrators,  and public servants, they are required to uphold the laws and constitution of this state as well as the US Constitution.  As it is right now,  they teach the constitution, but they believe they need not apply it.

Gun Rights 101

Why we have the second amendment, Part 1; "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state..."

The founders of this nation, after fighting a war for independence, realized that they may one day need to fight such a war again.  Simply put, we recognized that our elected and appointed leaders may endeavor to go beyond their enumerated powers.  The second amendment ensures that the people of a free state would never be deprived of the arms that they may be required to use to take that power back.

Part 2;  "The right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."  The founders of this great nation recognized that the security and defense of liberty could only be guaranteed by the governed.  Much has changed since the days of the colonies.  Much has remained the same.  In the days of the colonies, there was no 911 or telegraph.  in the event of a crime the people must be able to secure their own defense.

Even today,  the police can not be everywhere at all times.  so many crimes are committed that the police must prioritize every criminal complaint.  Ultimately,  our survivability during a violent criminal act can only be assured by our ability to fend for our selves.

Part 3; The roll of the police; The police exist to investigate crimes, make arrests and assist prosecutors in gaining convictions.  Two cases heard by the united states supreme court exemplify the fact that the police are not required to provide security and defense; Warren v. District of Columbia and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services.  In essence,  If the police did not place you into harms way,  they are not liable for your personal safety and protection.  Where does that leave us?  That leaves with the duty to decide for ourselves what measure of personal protection we deem appropriate.

The Opposition; Would have us believe that we need not be concerned, the police will protect us.  They believe that we can not be trusted with firearms because the police are far better trained to deal with criminal acts.  The opposition is delusional.  Yes,  the average permit holder receives only 8 hours of initial, required instruction to be eligible for their permit aside from the background investigation.  Permit holders are trained only to use their arms for self defense.  Permit holders are not expected to serve high risk warrants,  make arrests or answer criminal complaints.  The opposition ignores the fact that the police are a reactionary force, not a proactive force.  A criminal is not going to commit their crime if a police officer is near, they are going to wait until the risk of capture, arrest and prosecution is minimal.

The well trained, well armed, law abiding citizen is the key to the greatest form of personal protection and deterence the world has ever known.