Here are arguments I’ve seen in favor of Park, and responses.

Here are arguments I’ve seen in favor of Park, and responses.

1. Growth has been slow, so don’t worry. We had rapid growth pre-recession and can’t know the future. Our ordinance to control growth doesn’t. It allows 2% per year and unused growth to be rolled over. We must evaluate what is proposed. If the Parks want to rely on low growth they should reduce their proposal to something that correlates with recent low growth, not past high growth.

2. We need more housing, to make it affordable. It won’t be. We’ve been building housing for decades and it has done nothing but get more expensive.

3. If we don’t use more groundwater we may lose it. Yes, Nevada is a use it or lose it state. But the 2012 USGS groundwater study on which the county relies evaluated what amount to three future scenarios: status quo (no growth, similar rate of pumping), buildout (over double our population, greatly increased pumping) and something in between.Even the status quo lowers groundwater levels. It is unlikely the state would “take” our water in this situation since we are, in fact, making full use of it. Approving more growth will make water table declines worse.

4. Traffic will improve with a “bypass” of 395. The county’s own FAQ about Park addresses traffic on 395 by essentially ignoring it, talking only about Muller Parkway’s ability to handle Park traffic. This tells us that, while Muller might handle Park traffic, 395 will likely be impacted adversely; any improvement from Muller’s completion being more than negated by the over 20,000 additional daily trips Park would bring, most to the 395 corridor.

5. Park just moves receiving area, it doesn’t add it. Receiving area in Topaz would likely never be used. Moving it to Carson Valley assures it will be used. But worse is that Park changes land that our plans designate for conservation to lands designated for development. This is a bad precedent, essentially “inverting” a major principle of our land use planning here.

6. Litigation will end. Not likely, unless the county simply rolls over. Much about Park is yet to be decided. Controversy will continue, not subside. The Parks have shown a tendency to sue when they don’t get their way.

There is no good argument in favor of Park. It should be rejected.

Terry Burnes

1209 Sierra Vista Dr.

Gardnerville, NV 89460

775-781-7306

A local (Genoa) family’s Navy Seal son that gave his all for this country

axelson pic

 

 Fallen Navy SEAL Matthew Axelson to be honored by Congressman ABBIE BENNETT - OCTOBER 15, 2019 Photos Courtesy of the Axelson family. Navy SEAL Matthew Axelson was a 29-year-old petty officer 2nd class, when he deployed to Afghanistan in 2005. In June of that year, his team -- SEAL Team 10 -- was assigned to capture or kill a high-ranking Taliban leader in the Hindu Kush mountains, a mission known as "Operation Red Wings" and later memorialized in the book and film, "Lone Survivor." During the mission, the team's position was compromised and in the ensuing fight, Axelson was shot in the chest and head. But he kept fighting alongside his teammates until a rocket-propelled grenade struck. Axelson died of his wounds. Axelson along with other team members were honored for their heroism. He and Danny Dietz were posthumously awarded the Navy Cross. Michael Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor and Marcus Luttrell, the only survivor of the operation, was also awarded the Navy Cross. On Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who represents Axelson's hometown of Cupertino, Calif., introduced a bill to honor the SEAL. The post office in his hometown will be renamed the "Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew G. Axelson Post Office Building" if the bill passes both chambers and is signed into law by the president.A local (Genoa) family’s Navy Seal son that gave his all for this country. Fallen Navy SEAL Matthew Axelson to be honored by Congressman ABBIE BENNETT - OCTOBER 15, 2019 Photos Courtesy of the Axelson family. Navy SEAL Matthew Axelson was a 29-year-old petty officer 2nd class, when he deployed to Afghanistan in 2005. In June of that year, his team -- SEAL Team 10 -- was assigned to capture or kill a high-ranking Taliban leader in the Hindu Kush mountains, a mission known as "Operation Red Wings" and later memorialized in the book and film, "Lone Survivor." During the mission, the team's position was compromised and in the ensuing fight, Axelson was shot in the chest and head. But he kept fighting alongside his teammates until a rocket-propelled grenade struck. Axelson died of his wounds. Axelson along with other team members were honored for their heroism. He and Danny Dietz were posthumously awarded the Navy Cross. Michael Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor and Marcus Luttrell, the only survivor of the operation, was also awarded the Navy Cross. On Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who represents Axelson's hometown of Cupertino, Calif., introduced a bill to honor the SEAL. The post office in his hometown will be renamed the "Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew G. Axelson Post Office Building" if the bill passes both chambers and is signed into law by the president.
In an exclusive interview with Connecting Vets, Khanna said he had been trying to find a way to honor the SEAL since he took office. "Everyone in our district, in our community, knows his story," Khanna said. "He went to local schools, he signed up to serve the country after 9/11, he completed training as a SEAL and he made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. "His story is one that resonates not just in Cupertino, but in all of Silicon Valley and he's seen as one of the heroes of our nation." Khanna said when he found out the post office had yet to be named, he reached out to the Axelson family "to make sure they were OK with that honor. They were pleased we were honoring their son that way." So far, Khanna said he's had a positive response from fellow Congress members and California leaders for the bill. "Most people are moved by his story and want to honor him," he said. "I think his story speaks for itself. It's my hope the memory of Matthew Axelson will inspire every young person in Cupertino and Silicon Valley to understand the importance of service to our country and the sacrifices people like him made for our freedoms and our country and that they have a sense of the debt we owe to people like him."Courtesy of the Axelson family. Reach Abbie Bennett: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or @AbbieRBennett. Read more: Army Master Sgt. Matthew Williams to receive the Medal of Honor

California Ammunition Regulation As Of 2019

California Ammunition Regulation As Of 2019

Newest Regulations in California

by Greg Brown - March 15, 2019

As of January 2019, ammunition can now be confiscated from people with restraining orders including gun violence.

Ammunition Sales

Starting January 1, 2018, those individuals selling 500 rounds or more of ammunition in any given month must obtain a state-issued business license. Individuals are restricted to conducting ammunition sales at either gun shows or specified business locations.

The Department of Justice (D.O.J.) will issue an ammunition vendor license to those individuals that provide the required documentation along with their certificate of eligibility which is issued after passing a background check. Employees must also verify that they have completed all necessary paperwork and background checks.

Also, beginning January 1, 2018, ammunition sales must be conducted through a licensed vendor. Ammunition purchased online or from another state must be shipped to a licensed vendor for physical delivery to the purchaser who has passed the necessary background checks.

Record Of Ammunition Sales

Starting July 1, 2019, all licensed ammunition vendors are henceforth required to record, keep, and report all ammunition sales to the D.O.J.  These records will remain confidential unless used by or for law enforcement purposes.

Shooting Range Ammunition Sales

Individuals are able to purchase ammunition at a shooting range without having to participate in a background check so long as the ammunition does not leave the facility.

Gun Show Ammunition Sales

Ammunition displayed at all California gun shows but be held in a closed container, unless being viewed by a prospective viewer with the assistance of the vendor or employee.

No one, aside from security personnel or police officer, may be in possession of both a firearm and it’s corresponding ammunition at the same time.

Unreasonably Dangerous Ammunition

The manufacturing, importation, sale, transportation, knowing possessions, or intent to sell handgun ammunition, that is designed to penetrate armor or metal, is banned in California.

Ammunition Vendor License Application

Applicants applying for an ammunition vendor license must submit their application to the D.O.J., accompanied by a fee and copy of the following:

  • A valid State Board of Equalization sellers permit
  • Any business or regulatory license required by the local government
  • Certificate of Eligibility
  • Federal Firearms License (if federally licensed)
  • Processing the sale between two private parties

If two private parties wish to conduct business it must be through a licensed ammunition dealer and the following fees are applicable:

  • Any DOJ fee
  • Ammunition vendor may add an additional fee for processing the sale
  • If the purchaser is present, the fee cannot exceed five dollars
  • If the purchaser is not present for delivery, the ammo vendor is allowed to charge an additional fee for storage that must be agreed upon before the vendor receives the ammunition

Displaying Ammunition

  • Ammunition must be displayed in a locked container
  • Ammunition may not be accessible to the purchaser unless the vendor or an employee is present to assist the purchaser

New Regulations Regarding Firearms As Of 2019

  • Long guns, including shotguns and rifles cannot be purchased by anyone under the age of 21, unless they are military or law enforcement.
  • The manufacturing and selling of “burstrigger” and “bump stock” implements, that are capable of producing a succession of rapid fire in a semiautomatic, has been banned.

Ghost Gun

  • Beginning July 1, 2018, any person that wishes to assemble or manufacture a firearm is required to apply to the D.O.J. for a unique serial number, first.
  • Those who own a firearm that currently does not have a serial number must also apply for a unique serial number by January 1, 2019.

Assault weapon with the bullet button feature

  • As of January 1, 2017, firearms that have the feature known as the “bullet button” will henceforth be classified as an assault weapon and must be registered no later than June 30, 2018

Definition of an assault weapon

New regulations define an ‘assault weapon’ as a semi-automatic pistol or semiautomatic centerfire rifle, without a fixed magazine but has one of these characteristics:

A rifle with one or more of the following:

  • Pistol grip
  • Thumbhole stock
  • Telescoping/folding stock
  • Grenade launcher
  • Forward pistol grip
  • Flash suppressor
  • Also, a pistol that has one or more of the following:
  • Second handgrip
  • Threaded barrel
  • Can accept a magazine outside the pistol grip
  • Shroud attached to the barrel

Exempt from punishment

  • Those in possession of their assault weapon before January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2017
  • Those who have registered their assault weapon with the DOJ no later than June 30, 2018.

California Gun Sales & Preemption

California Gun Sales & Preemption

California is the model for new gun laws backed by Bloomberg’s money.

by Greg Brown - March 14, 2019

Private Gun Sales

All private gun sales in California must be processed through a licensed dealer. All sales of firearms whether private or from a shop are recorded by the state and the purchaser must wait 10 days before obtaining the firearm.

Preemption

Local government authorities are prohibited under California law from enacting regulations to control firearms. As they cannot directly regulate firearms a number of local authorities have regulated ammunition, such as Los Angeles who regulate that a magazine for rifles or handguns not hold more than 10 rounds. Other local authorities have banned the discharge of firearms and setup zoning restrictions on gun shops and firing ranges.

The Next Step for Nevada to follow the CA Blue Print

CA Firearms Registration

The California Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") retains information about the purchaser and seller of all in-state firearm sales and transfers, and requires that any firearms imported into the state be reported to the D.O.J..  Furthermore, the Attorney General is required by law to maintain a registry containing the fingerprints and identifying information of the transferee, and the unique identifying information of every firearm transferred in the state, pursuant to §11106.

All handgun serial numbers and sales are recorded by the state in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System, along with those of many long guns. While there is no requirement for California residents to register handguns owned prior to 1991 with law enforcement, §12025 and §12031 enhance several misdemeanor offenses to felonies if the handgun is not on file in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System.

New residents must register handguns (purchased outside of California) with D.O.J., within 60 days. As of January 1, 2014, long gun serial numbers are also recorded, whereas previously only the sale was recorded. However, it is not required that owners of long guns purchased prior to 2014 register their firearms and it is not a crime to be in possession of an unregistered firearm.

 

 

Steering the Conservative Movement

Google Discusses ‘Steering’ the Conservative Movement
by Joe Raedle - 7 Mar 2019

Google’s senior director of U.S. public policy, Adam Kovacevich appeared to describe the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as a “sideshow Circus,” in a leaked audio recording in which he also argued that Google should remain a sponsor of the conference to “steer” the conservative movement “away from nationalistic and incendiary comments.”
The comments came to light in leaked audio files allegedly of a company-wide meeting at Google, part of which is now exclusively reported by Breitbart News. Another part of the transcript was released last Friday on Tucker Carlson Tonight, while further snippets revealing Google’s funding of establishment conservative think-tanks were published by the left-leaning tech magazine Wired in December.

The alleged meeting took place in the wake of Google’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018, which triggered an internal rebellion from left-wing employees of the tech giant. Breitbart News exclusively reported on the revolt at the time, in which radical left-wingers inside Google accused CPAC of “ethno-nationalism” and “hate.”

Google has not denied the authenticity of the leaked material.

In the clips, the transcripts of which posted in full below, Kovacevich portrayed CPAC as a conference with a “dual identity,” one being a “premier gathering” that features a “whole swath of conservatives,” including “national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates.”

In the audio clip, the other side of CPAC was described in disparaging terms by Kovacevich as featuring a “sideshow circus-like element” which “CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference.”

“I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right?” continued Kovacevich. “We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach.”
“And I think it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC.”

In another audio clip of the same conversation provided to Breitbart News, Kovacevich appeared to describe the importance of reaching out to conservatives in order to counter conservative media, including Breitbart News. Kovacevich warned of “growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government.” He went on to accuse conservative media of “pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives.”
“And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone.”

The full transcript follows below:
Yeah, it’s a great question Greg. I appreciate the question. I think one of the big themes – I think picking up on your question – that I saw in some internal listservs and one of the Dory questions focused on the question of the other speakers, right? What are we saying in terms of sponsoring a conference where you have sort of incendiary speakers, right, and I think it’s a very valid question, one we’ve talked a lot about here. I think, to be candida, one of the challenges we face with CPAC is that the conference itself has a kind of a dual identity. So on the one hand, it’s really the premier gathering of sort of big-tent conservatives. Especially in non-presidential years it sort of in some ways takes the place of the annual Republican National Convention. You have a whole swath of conservatives: national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the Log Cabin Republicans, deficit hawks, small government advocates who attend the conference. The conference is attended by about 10,000 people. And so one of the other things is that the Republican Party and I think conservatism, in general, is also going through a lot of internal debates about what it should be, right, what should be sort of the position of the party. And I think that’s one that we should be involved in because we, I think, want probably — the majority of Googlers would want to steer conservatives and Republicans more towards a message of liberty and freedom and away from the more sort of nationalistic incendiary comments, nativist comments and things like that. But it has been a very valuable place for us to reach a lot of the people and the big tent of conservatism.

On the other hand, and sort of to get to the point of the dual identity, in recent years with CPAC there has also been this kind of sideshow circus-like element, right, that I think the CPAC organizers have intentionally cultivated sometimes, inviting outrageous figures that say incendiary and offensive things, I think in order to draw more attention and controversy to the conference. I want to be clear that we don’t agree with those things, right? We abhor and rebuke the offensive things that are said at the conference. Those things obviously don’t align with Google’s values and our approach. And I think that it’s challenging for us to reconcile those two identities of CPAC. I think one of the things that — we also face this question in other areas, by the way. So in the realm of sort of politics, there’s always going to — there’s often going to be someone at some event we sponsor who will say something we don’t agree with. Last year, a group that we support, the New America Foundation, had your guys’s, one of your Senators, Elizabeth Warren. She spoke, and she called for the breakup of Google at that [laughter] conference, right? The conference of an organization we support. Obviously we don’t support that position.
In another audio clip provided exclusively to Breitbart News, Kovacevich discusses “growing negative attention” from conservative media, including Breitbart News.

One of the other things we’re dealing with is also growing negative attention from the conservative media which is influential among those same Republicans who control government. We have sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and Fox News who have been focusing on some of the tensions that we Googlers feel internally around — many of which became public after the Damore memo. And I think some of those media outlets are actively pushing the storyline that Google is biased against conservatives. And of course we aim to build products for everyone but if that notion becomes accepted among conservative and Republican policymakers, that could be harmful to our mission of building products for everyone. So one of the things we say out on our team is, in order to count on an ally in the political realm you have to make an ally. If we want policymakers to help us when we have a bad bill or a regulation pending, we have to build relationships with them ahead of time. I think part of our work in the DC office and across all of our team is building relationships not just with the people in power but also with the people who influence them.

In a followup question, Kovacevich also acknowledged the “pain” and “disappointment” of Google employees who were up in arms at the tech giant’s sponsorship of CPAC in 2018. He went on to openly disparage sites like Breitbart and the Daily Caller as outlets that might be “perpetually” at odds with Google, and state “blatant mistruths.”
Questioner: Okay. Second question is– you mentioned Breitbart and The Daily Caller a couple of times before in the talk. Are we orienting our public image so that we will receive less negative and maybe more positive press from sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller?

Kovacevich: I think it’s a complicated question. I mean, I think at a certain point our values are our values, right? Google stands for inclusiveness, we stand for tolerance, we stand for building products for everyone, and if certain outlets don’t like that, we are probably going to be at odds with them perpetually, right? On the other hand, sometimes some outlets and others just state blatant kind of mistruths, right, or they’ll shade something in sort of the most– you know, that has a legitimate explanation, they’ll shade something in sort of the most negative light possible, and that’s something that we try to avoid, if we can, consistent with our values. I think– and I want to probably wrap up because we’re almost at the hour– look, I appreciate that this is hard and I know that our sponsorship of this has caused pain, disappointment to many of you and we understand that, and I think appreciate those of you who have spoken up about that. I value that Google is the kind of company where people can voice their disappointment and their hopes for how the company can stay true to its ideals going forward in the future. We certainly didn’t mean to cause pain or that kind of disappointment in people. And we really do value the feedback and the input.

Breitbart News has reached out to Google for comment.