No products in the cart.


Nevada Police Union Leader Prioritizes Bloomberg Disarmament Bill over Member Oaths

Nevada Police Union Leader Prioritizes Bloomberg Disarmament Bill over Member Oaths
Not only did Nevadans in all but one county (and most sheriffs) not support the Bloomberg measure, it was written so poorly the FBI said there was no way they could legally cooperate. So why is a police union representing members who took oaths to support the Constitution demanding enforcement?

“As the leader of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers – the largest statewide affiliation of law enforcement associations in Nevada, representing more than 1,500 law enforcement professionals – I am calling on Attorney General Laxalt to do his job,” NAPSO executive director Rick McCann tells Reno Gazette-Journal readers.  “As the state’s top cop, he can and should work with both Nevada’s Department of Public Safety and federal officials at the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS) to find a path forward, ensuring that law enforcement in our state are protected when they risk their lives to protect ours.”

He’s referring to the Michael Bloomberg-led Question One “background check” initiative that passed in Nevada in November, albeit by less than one percent of the vote, failing in all counties but populated Clark (so much for the lie that voters overwhelmingly supported it). And Laxalt really had no choice, as the FBI has no authority to allow unauthorized intermediaries to run background checks, a determination made because state law was written in conflict with federal.

Unacknowledged by McCann is that a majority of Nevada sheriff’s opposed the initiative. And unaddressed is how the measure would protect lives, especially since even the National Institute of Justice admitted in its 2013 “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” that ““Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration.”

Seeing as how violent prohibited persons are immune from being required to register because the Supreme Court ruled that would violate their Fifth Amendment-guaranteed right against self-incrimination, it would seem the very people McCann uses to justify his concerns will just keep on violating the law regardless.

Besides, note he didn’t say he wanted to ensure citizens are protected, and that plays on the same rationale he used when stumping for Question One’s passage:

“Our job is basically to protect officers around the state,” McCann said at the time.

Some might argue their members’ primary job is to keep the oath they took to the Constitution, that is, to “the supreme Law of the Land.’

Instead, it appears that NAPSO is in it for the self-interest first, and that’s evidenced by two other prominent political endorsements on their NCPSO/CWA-Local 9110 AFL-CIO website. In 2016 they backed Democrats Catherine Cortez Masto for the United States Senate and Dina Titus for the House of Representatives.

Here’s what NRA said about Masto and the Second Amendment:

[ot-video type=”youtube” url=”″]

She’s working to solidify that by backing a “path to citizenship,” which by all credible polls and real world experience adds to Democrat and anti-gun voter rolls.

And here’s what Titus had to say about guns:

“I applaud the President’s common sense reforms to our current laws, including universal background checks and stricter prosecution of gun-related crimes, as well as the pledge to improve the nation’s mental health system. I also support renewing the ban on assault weapons and limiting the size of magazines.”

“It’s time for Attorney General Laxalt to put public safety ahead of his personal politics and implement and enforce Nevada’s Background Check Law,” McCann concludes. “Other states have been able to implement similar laws because they have state officials willing to put the law ahead of powerful special interests and big money campaign donors.”

What, like Bloomberg and his fellow billionaires who dropped $20 million on Question One?

This McCann character seems as oblivious to the irony as he is to the rights of the people who ultimately pay for his position of privilege.


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



  1. Anytime a Democrat politician in Nevada’s lips are moving, a lie is being spouted. They learned it from the master liar – Dingy Harry.

  2. ““I applaud the President’s common sense reforms to our current laws, including universal background checks and stricter prosecution of gun-related crimes, as well as the pledge to improve the nation’s mental health system. I also support renewing the ban on assault weapons and limiting the size of magazines.”

    “It’s time for Attorney General Laxalt to put public safety ahead of his personal politics and implement and enforce Nevada’s Background Check Law,””

    The one thing that all who serves within our governments seem to forget is that no branch or office or position was delegated any authority over the people and their weapons. Matter of fact, the exact opposite is made clear within the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and with the words “shall not be infringed”. The people retained that natural right.

    Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.

    “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.” Bliss v. Commonwealth

    Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

    Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

    Tench Coxe, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” <– (Notice who is being restricted from using arms, and it is NOT the people. Also notice that this includes "every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American" – basically any weapon that might be used in war or in defense of our nation.

    This is why it is critical of those who serve within the governmental enforcement arm – and are REQUIRED to be Oath bound to the US Constitution – to say "NO, this is against our legitimate government, and your requesting that I do this thing is first a felony on the part or the person sending out the enforcement, plus the crime of Perjury (plus others, read the highest Law of your state, your state's Constitution to which you are also bound). Then start getting those who stand FOR our legitimate nation to bring charges against the scum who created that bill.

    What happens in our nation depends on if those who serve within enforcement are standing FOR our nation and KEEPING their Oath; or if they are going to "just follow orders" and/or "just do their jobs" like what was done in Nazi Germany, Stalinist/Lenin's Russia, Mao's China, etc; or are really in that position to assist in destroying America for the NWO. Once again, the choice is yours, and yours alone.

    BTW, do not take my or anyone else's word on what the US Constitution says, read it, it is a short document. I find it also helps if you read at least some quotes concerning it.

    18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
    Summary: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    1. CAL….. you state numerous times ( by your wording …,and reference of our 2nd amendment rights ) how staunch your views on the 2nd amendment are. But, you mentioned in your first paragraph how you are against assault weapons and large capacity magazines. I’m 180 on that view !…. If my police and military have such small arms and large capacity magazines I’m quite sure my beloved framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights would want “me”and all free men to have the same rights as those who police over us…… wouldn’t you think ?

      1. If you’ll note, Cal’s first paragraph is in quotations, a quote directly from the article itself, not a personal pronouncement, as evidenced by his outstanding rebuttal.

      2. Gary – It might not have been clear, but Cal’s first two paragraphs were quotes from the original article, not his feelings.

  3. I have supported oath keepers for years. Today I was directed to a video with Jesse Ventura. This man is a scoundrel, liar, and a coward. His pursuit of a judgement against the estate of Navy Seal Christopher Scott Kyle is a disgrace. Several active duty seals were present in the bar that night that heard the remarks he made causing Jyle to punch him in the mouth. The reason none were allowed to come forward to testify is simple they are active duty members of the United States Military and Various Seal Teams that prohibit it. Ventura knew this and used it for personal enrichment even after the death of Chief Petty Office Kyle. He is a despicable person and I for one don’t want to see him featured anywhere in Oathkeepers in the future.

  4. When anyone, but most specifically cops, choose to violate our rights, regardless of what the “law” may be, they should be prosecuted. Anyone that enforces ANY gun law is a criminal, they are breaking the highest law of the land. the US Constitution. 1804 Marbury v madison says that any law that violates the Constitution is null and void. We also have laws to prosecute those that violate our rights 18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights.

    The Nazi’s that were hung at Nuremberg, were hung for enforcing German law. I suggest being consistent and realizing that cops in the US are no different and are the biggest violators of our rights, very often “by enforcing the law”. Many IMHO should be hung like the Nazis were, and for the same reasons. Perhaps we should start with anyone enforcing the criminal UN war on drugs. They are outrageous and over the top criminals, that claim to own the bodies of other people, and able to murder them if they ingest anything that the state prohibits. Then we could move on to trying for treason anyone that is part of the war on guns….

    “Justice be done may the heavens fall”

  5. This article and the associated map illustrates the cancer that is Las Vegas and Clark County. What is not mentioned is that there is gun registration in Clark County, unlike in the rest of Nevada. The shining hope for Nevada is AG Laxalt who along with Congressman Amodei (as well as several prominent state house and senate members) stand in stark contrast to RINO’s such as Governor Sandoval and Senator Heller. As a retired Nevada LEO i can confirm that the majority of Nevada LEO’s do not support this law. It is glaringly obvious that if Nevada could eliminate Clark County it would be a reliably red state. Talk about the tail wagging the dog…

  6. McCann is a idiot who has probably been bought by Bloomberg. That is proven by the FACT that he cannot defend his position and what the idiots who wrote and passed the law did not have enough sense to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. LOL

  7. It’s not a matter or whether or not the law is enforceable without registration. The goal is to get the ‘policy’ established, and then demand the registration because “well, you can’t do THIS, without having THAT, and the policy states we must do THIS so we need THAT”. It’s all a scam to get registration and confiscations, because the next ‘policy’ item will be to reduce ‘gun violence’ by taking them out of the hands of those the state deems don’t need them.

    The Sheriff in Clark County seems more interested in taking his payments from Bloomberg than in doing anything to support the law. I hope somebody can get him out of office before he has a chance to do real damage.

  8. So please enlighten me, on Cals remark on banning assault weapons and mag sizes. Was that a comment that the President made or Bloombergs patsie in Las Vegas?

    1. He was only repeating what Diane Titus who is a congresswoman from Nevada said about President Obama proposal to reduce gun violence. She agrees with Obama, and Cal doesn’t !

  9. Universal-Back-Round-Check’s ; Is a infringement , of our Second Amendment right’s and our right too keep and bear arm’s , it, is clearly a violation , of our Constitution right’s ; Period !!!

  10. It is a current myth that banning all guns will make society safer.

    Historical Global Gun Control:
    • In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    • In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    • In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    • In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 13 million Jews, Polish citizens, the disabled, and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    • In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    • In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    • In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    The victims at Sandy Hook were innocent children that a mental health system failed to protect.
    Was the Sandy Hook massacre the deadliest shooting of school children in the U.S.? No, in 1890, the U.S. Government shot and killed over 290 unarmed Native American Indians, including over 200 women and children. They were unable to defend themselves, they were rounded up, and they were exterminated. They gave up their guns too.

    Innocent people, unable to defend themselves, have been rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control—a total of 56 MILLION to date. The fact that such appalling, inhumane violence exists in any society shatters the claim that eliminating all firearms will stop the violence. We all have a common problem–EVIL doers. No law, no edict and no power on earth can prevent evil doers from committing evil acts of violence with guns.

    During World War II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were armed with firearms. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property, but gun-control laws adversely affect only law-abiding citizens. With guns, people are “citizens”; without guns, those same people are “subjects” and at the mercy of the government.

    China’s Gun Control
    China, as a nation, is a cradle to grave police state and has a total absence of citizen’s firearms. Five violent school attacks in the latter half of 2015 have left dozens of children dead or injured.
    In China, mass murders accounted for a total of 50 deaths who were mostly school children; and a total of 204 injuries occurred by some type of blade instrument, knife, box-cutter, axe or cleaver. And these are just the statistics we are allowed to know about from the Chinese government.

    Australia’s Gun Control
    In 2002 — five years after enacting its ban on all guns — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged that there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent). Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crimes. In 2006, aggravated assault rose 49.2 percent; armed robbery rose 6.2 percent; sexual assault (Australia’s equivalent term for rape) rose 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

    At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent; sexual assault dropped 19.2 percent; armed robbery dropped 33.2 percent; and aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. While this does not prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, these statistics highlight the most important point: gun banners promote flawed policies regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.

    El Salvador’s Gun Control
    El Salvador has already implemented every scheme on gun control mentioned by the U.S. media and gun-ban politicians. However, in May of 2015, El Salvador exceeded its own country’s grisly record of deaths with a total of 635 homicides—the most in a single month since its civil war ended in 1992.

    In El Salvador, there is no right provided to the people to own firearms. All private firearms are “regulated” by the Ministry of National Defense and the National Civil Police and “only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer firearms or ammunition.” To qualify for a license, an individual is subjected to a background check “which considers criminal, mental and health records.” In addition, the licensed gun owner must demonstrate an “understanding of firearms safety” and “must re-qualify for a firearm license every three years.” Failing to renew the license would result in confiscation of all firearms.

    Furthermore, in El Salvador, the law requires that “a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official registry,” and “the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited”, and “the number and type of firearms which can be sold by a licensed gun dealer to a single gun owner is limited to only one firearm every two years.”
    Staggering Causes of Death
    In 2015, the number one cause of death of children in America was abortion. Every 29 seconds another fetus is murdered, if that is not mass killings what is? The death toll for the year from abortions in the U.S. was approximately 1,068,900.

    The number four cause of death in the U.S. was tobacco use, some 342,592 people. How many of those were innocent bystanders inhaling second-hand smoke and damaging their lungs forever without having smoked one cigarette in their lives? However, there are no demands from the public to stop producing tobacco nor is there an “Executive Order” condemning its usage because there is a tidy profit to be made on its sale.

    The number six cause of death in America was due to medical errors by doctors/nurses and hospitals, totaling 225,000 people. All of the following statistics were for 2015: 12,000 deaths due to unnecessary surgeries; 7,000 deaths due to medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths due to other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths due to infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths due to non-error negative effects of drugs. However, all these statistics has incited no media or public out-cry for better quality control, and Obamacare just makes it worse.

    The number ten cause of death in America is alcohol abuse, and 97,884 individuals died because of it. However, there is no law against its usage, and neither “Executive Order” nor background check is required to buy it. Drunk driving killed 33,092 people, yet there are no plans to eliminate cars nor is there a background check required before you can drive. Cell phone-related incidents behind the wheel caused 3,285 deaths and 386,900 injuries; yet again there are no background checks required. More people died from falling out bed (586) than died from mass shootings (326) in 2015.

    In summary, the government condones and/or participates in the sale of several methods or causes of death each year in America: abortion, tobacco production and use, medical malpractice, alcohol consumption and abuse, among others.

    The point to be made here is that tobacco, alcohol, cars, knives, guns, matches, hammers, gasoline or donuts can do nothing without humans to manipulate them because they are inanimate objects. A person must take the matches to light the tobacco and inhale. A person must pour the alcohol into a glass, drink it, and then get behind the wheel. Someone must physically lift a hammer to drive the nail, or pick up a knife to cut bread, or strike a match to start a fire…just like SOMEONE must pick up a gun and PULL THE TRIGGER to make it fire. It will not fire or kill anything by itself it must have a human manipulate it. We can leave the donut along, although obesity is also a killer.

    So, if the government is going to demand background checks, registration of and/or removal of all weapons from law-abiding citizens, then it stands to reason we must do the same to all the other public killers. Abortion clinics, tobacco distributors, alcohol retailers, doctors/nurses and hospitals, car dealerships, and oil companies because they cause just as much (and oftentimes more) death and destruction as firearms.

    Hot air balloon crash kills over 16 people and a cargo truck kills 83 and injures 303. It follows that we must demand background checks, registration of and/or removal of all cargo truck and hot air balloons.

Comments are closed.