6-7786-131971985-1339631470

Billionaire Elaine Wynn, co-founder of the Wynn casino empire (along with her ex-husband, Steve) and president of the Nevada Board of Education, has earned a new title: anti-civil rights activist. USA Today reports that Ms. Wynn has joined fellow billionaire plutocrat Michael Bloomberg in working to roll back the Constitutionally protected liberties of Nevadans. “Wynn, the co-founder of Wynn Resorts, will chair an advisory board that is working to pass a background check initiative that recently qualified for the 2016 ballot. The effort is backed former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.” . . .

The Nevada proposal, which would impose stricter background checks on people buying firearms from private sellers and at gun shows, is part of an effort by Bloomberg and his allies to push gun-control measures at the state level after failing to gain traction on the issue in Congress….

“Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill isn’t a political issue; it’s common sense,” Wynn said in a statement released by Nevadans for Background Checks.

It would, no doubt, be ungracious of me to wonder if Ms. Wynn has an interest in other “common sense” laws that might keep Nevadans from getting on the road to broken families, bankruptcy, crime or domestic abuse as a result of a mental illness such as, perhaps, gambling addiction. Perhaps a quick (no more than 25 minutes, tops, unless there’s a problem with the system or something) background check at the door could ensure that people with addictive behavior would be excluded from casinos?

In other news, a 2009 op-ed article by Jarius Bondoc, writing for the Philippine Star, talks about private security contractors in the Philippines. One in particular – Nevada-based Progressive F.O.R.C.E. Concepts – apparently has a record of providing discreet, professional, highly-trained bodyguards and other security services for its famous and wealthy clientele. “Tony Newman, director for Pacific operations, is reluctant to admit it. But PFC is reputed to have among its clients Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer; Turner Broadcasting’s Phil Kent and David Levy; and the Las Vegas gaming billionaire couple Steve and Elaine Wynn,” reports Bondoc.

Certainly, one cannot spare any expense when it comes to one’s personal safety. It’s a dangerous world out there. Hiring a private security contractor to provide bodyguards to protect oneself and one’s loved ones? It’s only common sense.

It’s too bad more people can’t afford to do that, eh?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

49 COMMENTS

  2. Let’s all move out of state x,y,or z. They’re slave state that don’t respect our rights. Then along comes deep pockets bringing the lack of respect for our rights to whatever gun loving state you moved to.

    If we gun rights types don’t stick together we won’t have gun rights to argue over.

    • Dear Nevadans,

      This is the $h!% we are talking about, get up, get involved, take action. Or move to California, we already know how to deal with the insanity of stupid laws.

      Ever your friend and admirer,

      A Californian

  3. So the same oligarchs who have stolen our money also want to steal our means of protecting what we have left? This is my shocked face. :-O

    • So glad I “stole” $100 from them last time I was in Las Vegas… only cost me a quarter!

    • They know class warfare is coming when the bread and circuses run out. It’s all self preservation at our expense.

      • I suspect they’re on the billionaire cronyism side. Have they ever donated money to a truly conservative or even libertarian cause, or do they mostly donate to establishment republicans?

        • I think the Koch brothers finance Reason Magazine and the CATO Institute. The CAO Institute has been involved in some pro 2A court cases.

    • The Walton (Walmart) family had given lots of money to pro-gun pols and positions and Walmart is the largest gun dealer in the world. Donald Trump is pro-gun. Johnny Morris (founder of Bass Pro Shops) certainly qualifies. August Busch III is a lifetime Republican and an NRA Life Member. I’m sure that there are others.

      • Larry Potterfield, Jim and Dick Cabela?

        I’d be surprised if their net worth is in the billions, but they’re certainly monied up and absolutely pro gun.

  5. Personally I somewhat enjoy watching these Billionaires waste Millions upon Millions of their own dollars fighting for something that the general public just doesn’t want. Does it create a bigger challenge? Sure! But the fact of the matter is we are still winning, and we will continue to do so as long as we continue to represent the truth.

    • They bought I594 in washington, they will buy it in other states without national support. Sadly there were enough idiots in washington that vote based on the road signs they see to pass 594.

      • One Giant Plus

        Ignore this direct legislation tactic at your own peril. If we are honest, most non gun owners have zero, no, none, nada clue how gun purchases work. Hence why the 40% gun show loophole fiction still exists. They think the background check is like a online purchase, done quickly and easily and will not know that the language will be written that if you let a good friend shoot your new gun while you’re both on the range together, you’re committing a felony.

        As for the ex-Ms. Wynn, watch the elitists closely and you’ll see they want a new feudal system with them on top as the royalty while you and I are the peasants. And if they’re generous enough, maybe they’ll let you not live in the Robert Taylor/Cabrini Green housing that they deem fair for the peasant class.

  6. SHOT takes place at the Las Vegas Sands Expo Center, owned by Sheldon Adelson. While Adelson might not be the best person to cite as an ally, based on my research he is pro-2A. He’s also the 10th richest person on the planet.

    • So stop staying at the Wynn and start staying at the Venetian?
      The Venetian has better restaurants anyway.

    • Another rich progtard trying to make up for their loss of integrity in favor of making money along the way.
      She’s probably setting up to run for public office. Dirty Harry Reed is about to retire, or die if he keeps taking face dives into “exercise equipment”.

  8. The list of rich anti-2nd amendment activists who are surrounded by armed bodyguards says a lot about their their aristocratic style sense of entitlement. Are they so steeped in their ideology that they cannot see that if the 2nd amendment dies eventually their wealth dies too? How do smart people become so stupid about the basics of life?

    • I agree with your post. In the long term Steve and Elaine Wynn are just rich useful idiots for the Statists.

  9. Her timing is impeccable — right before thousands of SHOT show attendees roll into town to double down at her place of business.

    • SHOT is at the Sands Expo Center – owned by her business rival Sheldon Adelson. Nonetheless, some SHOT guests are undoubtedly staying at The Wynn.

      She’s anti-2A but ok with 2A money.

    • Or not. Her hotels, the Wynn and Encore, are right across the street from the Venetian/Palazzo/Sands. Maybe some SHOT attendees will head in another direction. Plenty of other hotels, restaurants and casinos on the strip.

  10. “Selfishness is not living your life as you wish, it is asking others to live their lives as you wish.” Oscar Wild

  11. “Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill isn’t a political issue; it’s common sense,” Wynn said in a statement released by Nevadans for Background Checks.

    So you have this list with all these dangerous people on it, do you? Funny how you only seem to be concerned about them if they can get a gun. Almost like any other violence the might commit is meaningless too you.

    Maybe we should make sure not to feed them after midnight either, lest they turn into Gremlins?

  13. Do you want to get SHOT Show to nope right on out of your state? Because this is how you get SHOT Show to nope right on out of your state.

  14. we in Nevada pride ourselves on being a free west state where the spirit of the west is still alive people like this make me sick.

    • If it hadn’t been for Gov. Sandoval vetoing a bill that was passed by Nevada’s “spirit of the West” legislature, the state would already have required background checks on private sales.

      Not to mention certain towns and cities in Nevada — like Boulder City — that are as anti-gun as any place in the northeast. Or the fact that Las Vegas requires handgun registration.

      I love Nevada. I’m licensed to carry concealed in Nevada. I go there all the time and when I do, I’m strapped. Yet, I’m concerned that Nevada is at a crossroads.

      • Yep. I’m afraid we’re losing the battle in Reno, too. For years, we’ve had a steady influx of Fudds that think “reasonable” restrictions on civil rights are a good thing. The Tesla factory will probably worsen things by bringing a new crop of know-it-all idealists to town in a few years.

        California’s true believers are running away from one failed utopia, only to erect a new failure. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  15. Billionaires on the rolls does not rule out foreign sourcing on the doles.

    Has this group received a penny from foreign sources to overthrow our Constitution?

    There’s a name for that

  16. “Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill isn’t a political issue; it’s common sense,” Wynn said in a statement released by Nevadans for Background Checks.

    Aren’t these people already prohibited from firearm ownership?

    • Hush up OakRiver, you’re making gun grabbers look bad.

      Of course we already have laws that prohibit those people from possessing firearms. But they violate those laws all the time so we need another law to cover up the fact that criminals violate the law.

      • I suppose if they were being honest and those were their only goals then they could declare victory, go home, and dive into their money Scrooge McDuck style.

  17. Worked so well in Wa why not NV?
    This is the new thing. Use ballot initiatives to roll back rights. It’s hard to assail something passed by a majority that probably doesn’t know all the details or implications. Kinda hard to get all the stuff across on a billboard or commercial so they just run with saving lives and leave it at that.

  18. I’d say treat her businesses like it was a state capitol: Start protesting on the sidewalks in front of the businesses and use the media attention to educate the public on the UBC ballot, and get people to recognize it’s the 0.01% that is funding these drives.

  20. Well it finally paid off, I got a decal of her and stuck it in my toilet so now everything I dump she gets her share and she can’t say a word about it otherwise it smears and gets messy. Let’s always watch or six against these privilege jokers.

  21. We talk too little about the most dangerous element of our society. The control freak is responsible for more death and misery than any other group of people ever to exist. Just because they act focused and don’t appear at first blush to disturbed doesn’t mean they are sane well balanced people. Ask yourself why anyone would want to dominate and control another human being, and do so at any cost in human life or suffering?

    This unsavory P-I-G is case in point, there can be no doubt she is a high functioning psychopath and is a clear and present danger to human life and liberty. She exudes madness and degeneracy, I would drag my balls through glass to avoid this maggot like evil creature from having control over my life. I hope I live long enough to see Bloomberg and his ilk receive their due justice (I think most of you know what that is).

    Come on America stop letting weak sophistic control freaks cow you into giving up your human rights, all we need to do is sweep this dirt off our shoulders and move on.

    On a side note, I wonder if she’s the one who gave Reid his most recent beat down?

  22. I wrote a ‘letter to the editor’ (200 word limit) regarding a State senator who wrote and opinion peice supporting this legislation. My letter was in regards to unintended consequences such as Washington state is currently experiencing.

    http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/01/16/letter-unintended-consequences-possible-gun-check/21846443/

    Since it was published I have tried to reply to the comments that the letter has attracted (in particular one poster who made the first reply to my letter), however, my comments (giving the detailed explanations of the scenarios I listed, given I was limited to 200 words) keep vanishing shortly after I post them.

    Here is the post the keeps vanishing (very long for those with ADHD):

    Good afternoon, Karen.

    Thank you for the opportunity to address your comments.

    Washington’s i594 is of direct importance to the proposed Nevada law as it (the NV initiative) was drafted by the same group(s) that put forth i594. There are several sources you can find this information at via a quick web search, however, here is one from MDA that quoted Everytown for Gun Safety within the article on their ‘next steps’:
    http://momsdemandaction.org/in-the-news/everytown-claims-major-victory-washington-state-passage-594-proving-citizens-take-public-safety-ballot-box-gun-safety-wins/

    The Washington law is important to Nevadans as we will also have to wrestle with those same issues should that initiative be passed within our state. As I was limited to 200 words in my Letter to the Editor, making detailed explanations of each scenario was not possible, and, I had hoped that those interested would read, and understand, the implications of Section 6. I will address your concerns in that regard.

    • Section 6 relates to exceptions under which a background check is not required. Thus, if not listed, a background check is specifically required. It reads: “The provisions of NRS 202.254 do not apply to:”

    • Section 6-6 is related to temporary transfers not related to family members, estates, or ‘imminent death’ (see sections 6-2/3/4/5 for details on those cases). That is, situations in which the owner is not selling, giving away, or otherwise permanently surrendering his or her ownership rights to a firearm. This section reads: “A temporary transfer of a firearm if”

    • Section 6-6-c reads: “such a transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm following the transfer is exclusively:”

    • Section 6-6-c-i reads: “At an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such a range is located;”

    “The provisions of NRS 202.254 do not apply to a temporary transfer of a firearm if such a transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm following the transfer is exclusively at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such a range is located.”

    In scenario (A) I posited: “Friend loans another friend a firearm to try out at a non-government sanctioned range. Illegal. (6-6-c-i)”. In this scenario, for example, I lend a friend a rifle for him to try out as he is interested in buying this particular model, but wants to shoot it first to ensure he/she likes it before spending money. This friend is fully conversant in the handling, use and safety of firearms. The friend drives into the desert for a morning of long-distance target shooting. After shooting a few groups at a paper target, the friend gives the rifle back to the owner. Since this does not occur at a “established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such a range is located” this temporary transfer is illegal under the proposed law. This type of temporary transfer occurs quite frequently in the shooting sports. Pertinent to my reference to i594 scenarios similar to this are playing out in Washington as a result of passing their background check initiative.

    I can expand more as to how this could potentially impact those who legally shoot on their own land (assuming they have a large enough parcel to safely do so) if there is any interest in that regard.

    In scenario (B) I stated: “ Friend gives his firearm to another friend for that friend to perform smithing service, mount a scope, etc. Illegal. (6-6-c-i)”. This is a quite common scenario among groups of friends that own firearms. Often one friend may have more mechanical/technical knowledge (or simply have the tools and knowledge of how to use them) required to troubleshoot, calibrate, fix, upgrade, or other issues that are not capable of being addressed by other owners that lack either the mechanical knowledge (or costly tools) to perform these actions. I am often that person in my group of target shooting friends. Unfortunately, the simple act of a friend giving me his new target rifle to perform minor upgrades on, or mount and perform initial sighting on a new optic would be illegal under the proposed initiative, as the firearm transfer was not in compliance with subsections (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v), nor was the transfer related to an estate, or related to “imminent death or great bodily harm” (Section 6-5-a & b).

    In scenario (C) I stated: “A friend loans a female friend a firearm as protection against a known violent stalker. Illegal (not ‘imminent’, 6-5-a & b)”. Those two sections (which also relate to exemptions and temporary transfers) read:

    “5. A temporary transfer of a firearm to a person who is not prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under state or federal law if such a transfer:”
    (a) “Is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm; and”
    (b) “Lasts only as along as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm.”

    Therefore, in the scenario I put forth, loaning a firearm to a friend as protection against a known violent stalker would be illegal under the proposed initiative. Why? The loan of the firearm is not related to ‘imminent’ harm (6-5-a & b), nor, for that matter, can it be covered under the provision of subsection 6. For purposes of this scenario, I would also point out that I would personally never lend a firearm to someone who I did not personally know understood both the operation of a firearm, the safety required in handling and using a firearm, and the situations under which it could be used in self-defense.

    As there did not seem to be any questions regarding the definition of a firearm under Nevada law, and how that can be extended to certain common tools, I will not expand upon that item herein. The question it raises, however, could have a serious impact on both the construction industry, as well as (non-law enforcement) search and rescue personnel, not to mention private citizens who own and use such tools.

    Each of the scenarios specifically addresses allowed exemptions to the background check law. I chose to write regarding those items due to the crafting of the language of the law itself, and the impact it will have on law-abiding firearms owners in pursuing activities that would currently be considered normal, assuming all other firearm-related safety measures were observed. While the initiative does allow for temporary transfers of a firearm, the conditions under which such can be done are quite limited. It is disingenuous to state that the initiative allows for temporary transfers without listing the very limited circumstances under which such may occur. One cannot simply ‘loan’ a firearm to a law-abiding friend.

    To ‘loan’ a firearm to a friend one would need to take the firearm to an FFL, transfer the firearm to the FFL’s books, perform a background check on the friend ($$), fill out a form 4473 (the friend), then the transfer would be allowed. When the friend would give the firearm back to the owner, both would again need to go to an FFL, transfer the firearm to his books, fill out another form 4473, perform a background check on the original owner (another fee), then finally transfer the firearm back to the owner. An onerous process at a minimum. A costly ‘loan’ in any case.

    I hope my (more detailed) explanation has helped in understanding my concerns as they were listed (in the limited space allowed), and the potential impact this legislation may have on law-abiding firearm owners.

    Thank you,

Comments are closed.