GUN GRABBER GOV. SISOLAK WANTS MORE GUNMEN TO PROTECT HIM

Feb. 2, 2020

Rob Lauer Political Reporter

Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak is asking for more taxpayer funds to hire more security personal to protect himself and his family. The Nevada Department of Public Safety said in a public statement that there is “high interest” in new (GUN) state laws enacted last year “requires a heightened security protocol.”

The State continued on “Due to the public accessibility of the governor and first lady in many venues it has been determined by the Department of Public Safety to add additional staff for the protection during travel and public events… The current focus and high interest in some of the new laws that are going into effect requires a heightened security protocol.”

Gun laws like the new Red Flag law and the Gun background check laws that went into effect January 1, 2020 have sparked severe backlash including a lawsuit filed recently against the Red Flag law. Every Sheriff in Nevada signed an open letter to Gov. Sisolak condemning the new laws as a violation of the constitution and of our civil liberties.

Many Republicans consider it hypocritical for the Governor to demand taxpayer to fund more gunmen to protect him and his family at the same time making it more difficult for average folks in Nevada to buy a legal firearm.

The new Red Flag law, also known as SB 291, is actually a Restraining Order. The Red Flag law passed in the 2019 Nevada legislature and goes into effect on January 1, 2019, allowing anyone to file a Red Flag Restraining order against anyone else without a hearing, without expert witnesses, without medical or psychiatric experts and based solely on hearsay. The judge then determines whether to issue a Temporary 7 day Red Flag Restraining order against the target. Then the police are ordered to remove firearms from the person’s home with a knock or no knock warrant. Given that the complaint requires the person is too dangerous to possess firearms to qualify, the police would have to use their swat teams to seize the firearms.

After all that is done, then the target of the Red Flag law has only 7 days to respond in court at a hearing to determine if they should be given their rights back. They are not entitled to a government paid lawyer nor are they afforded a jury trial nor is any criminal conviction required. But just couple of months ago, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Andersen v. Eighth Judicial Dist.Court in & for Cty. of Clark, that a jury trial is required to strip someone of their gun rights.

Nevada lawmakers passed a new state law in 2015 banning gun ownership by people convicted of domestic violence in misdemeanor cases. Misdemeanor charges are only handled with Judge Trials not a jury trial. In the unanimous ruling in the Anderson case, justices said a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence can no longer be considered a petty offense. The court called “limiting state and U.S. Constitutional rights to own a gun is a serious penalty that only a jury should decide”.  Michael Pariente, the attorney who won the ruling on behalf of Christopher Anderson, believes his case will have a direct impact on the Red Flag law leading to its demise.

Mary Rooney, former NV Assembly Candidate and Julie Hereford are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Several County Sheriffs are also considering joining the lawsuit after they pledged not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws in an open letter earlier this year.

The case was filed in Carson City Nevada and is awaiting a hearing date on the restraining order.

Read the lawsuit complaint here: https://nevadanscan.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Red-Flag-Law-Injunction-Complaint.docx.pdf