Anywhere the Democrats hold a majority, there’s one thing you know is going to happen. They’re going to push for gun control.

It’s not that Democrats are universally supportive of gun control measures. A number of them aren’t, especially some of the more restrictive provisions, but most tend to be. Enough so that Democrats don’t even blink at presenting anti-gun measures.

For example, Nevada Democrats are pushing for a new slate of anti-gun measures.

With Democrats in control of both chambers of the Nevada Legislature and the Governor’s office, gun control is taking center stage in Carson City at the Capitol.

A Joint Assembly and Senate Committee hearing Monday morning took up AB291. The bill, sponsored by Assembly Member Sandra Jauregui, D-41 Clark County, would:

1. Ban bump stocks and other firearm modifications that potentially increase the rate of fire.
2. Allow local governments to prohibit legal concealed carry permit holders (CCW) from being armed in certain public buildings.
3. Lower the blood alcohol limit for carrying a firearm from .10 to .08.
4. Allows local governments to pass strict gun control measures than the state, also known as preemption.

Bump stocks are currently illegal under a federal order, but that ban is being fought in federal court.

It doesn’t help that Nevada is still reeling from the horrific events of October 2017 in Las Vegas. That was probably enough to make any lawmaker consider passing gun control all on its own.

Now, let’s take a look at these rules for a moment.

The blood alcohol limit is probably the least annoying. Most who carry don’t drink while carrying anyway, so it’s unlikely to have a significant impact, though I don’t like limits on a constitutional right.

Next would be the bill to allow local governments to create gun free zones. That’s stupid and won’t do anything. If a bad guy wants to hurt someone inside the building, he’ll do it and a little sign on the front door won’t stop him. That said, it’s common enough that it’s only mildly annoying.

Thirdly, the article writer doesn’t understand preemption. After all, preemption prevents local governments from passing gun laws. That said, this is a problematic bill for a number of reasons. Most pressing may be that it would create an entire patchwork of gun laws that travelers would be expected to follow without any way of knowing they even exist. It’s enough of a reason to keep some people out of Nevada.

Finally, the bump stock ban.

As the article noted, the ban is in place at the federal level, but that’s just for the bump stocks. My issue is primarily with the phrase, “other firearm modifications that potentially increase the rate of fire.” This can be argued to include things like binary triggers, match triggers, even modifications for a lighter trigger pull. All of these make it easier and faster to fire a weapon.

They also don’t represent a danger.

However, this kind of restriction is also why the National Rifle Association pushed for the Trump administration to ban bump stocks through the ATF rather than let a bill pass. The idea was to block a bill that would ban these other “modifications,” things gun owners routinely do to make their guns more useful to them.

That’s a problem.

For those of you in Nevada, you’d better hit the phones and start calling lawmakers. Email them as well. This is a big one to fight. We all need to give them some support in fighting this. Especially as we know it won’t stop with Nevada.