Nevada February Bar Exam results will be released today after 3 pm on State Bar of Nevada's social media pages (twitter and facebook) and on the State Bar's website http://www.nvbar.org.
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2019 8:02 pm
By the way, I hear the State Bar and the Supreme Court are considering reciprocity. Some committee has been meeting and has made proposals. Are you kidding me? After going into debt and then passing the bar, they are going to let all these unscrupulous lawyers just come here and practice. I hope this is incorrect and will not be considered. Reciprocity will not protect the public from all those terrible lawyers in California. California does not allow reciprocity just an attorney's exam. California does not allow law professors to practice without taking the bar exam either.
Nevada should offer reciprocity with any states that return the favor. It's ridiculous to think lawyers in other states are somehow less competent than the ones here. Let's not pretend Nevada's lack of reciprocity is really about protecting the public. It's rote protectionism for lawyers that couldn't compete in a competitive, free market.
I would like there to be reciprocity. I have practiced here for over a decade, do not want to take another bar exam, but would love to practice somewhere else. Plus, not only "unscrupulous" attorneys will benefit from reciprocity.
I know that there are a lot of factors to consider about this issue, and I know that my desire for reciprocity is wholly self-serving, but I say let there be reciprocity.
Horrible idea. And always happens in secret until they spring it on you at the last minute with no time to provide any input. I sure hope this is not correct.
One of the main proponents of this has been Dean Hamilton at UNLV- a guy who has never practiced here and is only a temporary fixture in our legal community. He should be completely ignored on this by the Supreme Court.
Something like 35 states have adopted the UBE and more than half of the states permit reciprocal admissions in some form or another. I am admitted in one state with no reciprocity (Nevada) and one state that does have reciprocity and uses the UBE. You really think California and Nevada and other jurisdictions that permit no form of reciprocity do a demonstrably better job of protecting the residents of their respective states from unscrupulous, terrible lawyers?
Let's be honest, prohibiting reciprocal admissions is first and foremost about protecting the existing labor pool of lawyers in a state from outsiders. Protecting the public is a secondary interest, at best. Given the proliferation of electronic legal resources, "the law" is generally readily available to anyone, anywhere, so long as the practitioner will do what he or she is already obligated to do–be diligent, competent, etc. when representing clients in a jurisdiction. You really think a single state's bar exam weeds out bad attorneys, especially once the attorney is already licensed in a jurisdiction?
What about other professions? More than half of the states permit some form of reciprocal licensure for medical professionals. Is the public somehow especially vulnerable when it comes to unscrupulous, terrible lawyers, but not doctors?
The barrier is trade protectionism and little more. It restricts the free flow of labor and creates inefficiencies that do not outweigh the supposed benefits brought by restrictive licensure dictated on a state-by-state basis. Given that Nevada is quite susceptible to boom-and-bust economic cycles, I'd love to have a freer ability to move to another jurisdiction if necessary.
I'm with you, 2:09. The old days are over. People are much more mobile now, and the freedom to move states is a good thing, not a bad one. The outrage over this is funny to me. It's very "get off my lawn."
I am 1:59. I am an attorney and I agree wholeheartedly with 2:09. I would like the option to practice somewhere else someday without taking another bar. Also, since I am a competent lawyer at a respected firm, I am not afraid of competition.
Although it's not easy to find, I located the Nevada state bar's strategic plan from 2018-2020. It is on this page https://www.nvbar.org/about-us/our-mission/ It has three goals: (1) this focuses on who is admitted to practice law here and addresses advancing a bar position on reciprocity and on the UBE; (2) focuses on trust accounts and professional liability insurance; and, (3) focuses on improving well being of attorneys. It looks like they intend to run this all by us at some point and this states their goals, but how many of you have seen this? When are they going to ask for our input?
Reciprocity will be a one way conveyor belt to Nevada by foreign licensed attorneys. The only thing they will have in common with Nevada is some client who is a relative, business associate, or friend. California attorneys are the worst of the lot. I have a license in California but seldom use it even for my clients here. If you want to be "hometowned", try practicing in East County, San Diego. Worse than Northern Nevada or the Rurals for Las Vegas attorneys. Right now the legal business is pretty good here but that will change. Especially if they let all those folks in from Kalamazoo.
"Let's be honest, prohibiting reciprocal admissions is first and foremost about protecting the existing labor pool of lawyers in a state from outsiders."
This may be true in other states, but we cannot forget or discount the unique nature of Nevada, and Las Vegas in particular. Las Vegas attracts people who have failed elsewhere and are looking to start over here. While that certainly produces some inspiring tales of redemption, it also means that this city attracts some unsavory characters. On top of that, Las Vegas is already a very transient city. Reciprocity will introduce a level of here today, gone tomorrow, fly by night legal operations that will be a headache. In a place like, say, South Dakota, I could see the value of reciprocity, but in Las Vegas I fear it would open a pandoras box of problems.
so someone tosses in a hunk of red meat "I hear the bar is considering reciprocity" and like a pack of rabid dogs you all pounce and slather about impending doom and wanting revenge. If you take a minute and actually look at the issues being discussed, you would realize that the NSB or the NSC have NEVER considered an "open border" reciprocity. Transparency requires opening your eyes and ears and actually looking the issues being discussed rather than simply bitching and looking for someone to blame. For example, there is a critical shortage of public defenders in the rural counties. Are you really going to complain if a non-NV attorney represents indigents in pioche or battle mountain? This is the type of issue that might be considered. Relax people.
5:46 PM-Relax post. Were we supposed to relax when they proposed mandatory trust audits? Were we supposed to relax when they proposed mandatory malpractice insurance? As for Rural public defenders, that exception was carved out when there was a shortage of lawyers a long time ago. Now there is no shortage of Nevada lawyers even in the rurals. It is competitive to get one of those public defender contracts. The State Public Defender's office closed their offices in Tonopah and Ely. Reciprocity is on the table and will be considered. It is time to stop sticking our heads in the sand like an ostrich. Even states that have UBE and reciprocity have some kind of admission on motion and or a scaled down test on that state's law. There are something like 7 or 9 exceptions to the bar exam. Remember when an Assistant Attorney General had a "C" bar number (in house counsel) and was supposed to take the test. Well that person did and is now the U.S. Attorney. They need to fix that exception.
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2019 8:39 pm
Someone explain to me the practical purpose of circulating bar results in the AM to all judges and then releasing them in the afternoon to the public. Every time I've had a law clerk, I've just called someone in chambers to get the info. It should be released to the public and judges in the AM at the same time. Seems like a practice without a purpose. But maybe I'm missing something.
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2019 8:59 pm
The fact the guy is on death row for 34 years should be the focus of the story, not the fact that he is seeking to reduce his sentence.
This emphasizes why it is a misleading debate to frame the question as to whether or not capital punishment should be abolished.
Most people go almost 20 years or more, are never executed, and millions are spent on appeals and other procedures. Even many people who in theory would support capital punishment agree that there is no point in having capital punishment as an option based on how these cases meander for years, or decades, and drain millions from public budgets, and such individuals are rarely executed.
So, if this is a true moral/philosophical/ constitutional argument the question should be framed as to whether capital punishment should be retained as an option if such option actually meant the person was likely to be executed. Instead, the question, as it should realistically be currently configured, essentially amounts to would you rather have life imprisonment as the ultimate option or capital punishment, if you realize that under neither option the person will be executed, but under the one option we will proceed under the myth that they may be executed, spend millions of tax payer money over decades, and confine that person to a tiny death row cell for almost every hour of every day.
Now, admittedly, I over simplify to some extent as, even in states like Nevada, once in a blue moon someone is executed–but even then, it is almost always someone who gave up on the legal process and actually requests that the sentence be carried out. And, also, there are some states like Florida and Texas, who actually do mean business, and do execute a fair number of people. But, as it turns out, some of them apparently should not have been executed, either based on subsequent forensic testing, or the sentence being too harsh in the first place, and other factors.
So, I'm just suggesting that the logistics of the issue make it a lot more complex than the simplistic way the question is usually posed, i.e. are you for or against capital punishment?
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2019 9:16 pm
We are talking about a bar who is ignoring the rules of professional conduct, Michael Carlyon specifically. You did nothing about attorney client privilege violation that happened before you.
Are you an attorney? You just threw yourself under the bus.
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2019 9:30 pm
Called NY state bar the other day and members do not need to provide address, but we do. We need to remove current bar and judges who are screwing over attorneys as their job one.
Congrats, you R us. I mean you are 200k in debt, and a robot from Boca Raton can take your cases away from you with the support of Dean Martin, I mean Dean Hamilton. When do those student loan and bar loan payments start?
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2019 10:25 pm
I have some good gardening gloves I don't want to ruin. Serious question, does Justice Cadish dislike female attorneys? My partner argued before her and was completely demeaning to her.
I am friends with a former assistant of hers down at the courthouse. She did right by them. She helped place two of her law clerks at the same law firm.
2:30–What's the big deal about providing addresses? I guess if you are in the Sovereign Persons Movement or something, and reject any sort of governmental inquiry and intrusions(no matter how minimal and innocuous),as well as those of private self-policing professions, like our own.
Same thing with gun registrations. Who the hell cares? To me it does not seem like any first step down the slippery slope where the government will eventually confiscate the guns from law-abiding people. I own guns and always will, and I have no problem with the government knowing I have it. Guess that makes me a fool to many. We should be able to trace all guns. We don't have problems with registering our cars, etc. Oh…I forgot, the government won't come to confiscate our cars, or anything else for that matter, except of course our guns
If this was a plot to eventually outlaw and confiscate all guns, it would be a step far more legally and logically tailored for such purpose–it would be taking a step toward restricting ownership,and then a more restrictive step, and then yet another. But this is about telling us you own it, not any sort of restriction on ownership. But I realize many people, and perhaps the majority, disagree with me.
Same thing as to issue of voter ID. Why is that an issue where one responds to it based on whether they are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever? WTFC? If it cuts down on possible voter fraud, then what's the problem? Where's the great governmental intrusion?
And even if it is found not to statistically have much effect on reducing voter fraud, what's the big problem with protecting the integrity of the process by having people provide some semblance of proof of who they are?
Same thing with laws enhancing the medical care to be provided for abortions. It is illogical to view that as a first step toward outlawing abortions. There is no logical connection. Now, something like shortening lawful abortion periods from 6 months to 5 months, could be viewed as a step toward eliminating abortions, since there is a clear nexus and an apparent attempt to restrict.
Guest
Anonymous
May 8, 2019 10:50 pm
To:3:32. I realize those type of laws you mention may not necessarily seem like the first step toward restricting these things,but the way governmental erosion of our rights works is often in a very slow and deliberate way, wherein we often don't really seeing it coming until the train is too far down the tracks to stop it.
So,yes,some of these things you mention don't look like actual restrictions at first, but the actual process plays out in a complex,lenghty and often misleading manner.
Before there are laws that directly restrict or limit certain rights, they start out with proposing something that sounds reasonable, and which often seems simply a ministerial type function. That is how it stars. They don't start out with initially restricting these rights in some manner. That comes later. First they get you to accept it is reasonable to register certain things. They don't start out asking you to approve restricting it, as that often doesn't work.
The process is that if Level #1 of a continuum is unrestricted ownership of something, or an unrestricted right, if they jump right to Step #10,and ask you to agree to a total ban on ownership, or total ban on a right, that almost never works without raising a tremendous hue and cry and often insurmountable opposition.
But if you get people to agree to progress from Step #1, to Step #2, to Step #3, and beyond, then by the time you ask them to approve progressing from Step #9 to Step #10, they buy in without much opposition since in going from Step #1 up to Step #9, the right was gradually eroded. The right was almost completely gone by Step #9, people accepted by then that the right is almost gone, so Step #10, complete abolishment of the right, is then a lot easier to accomplish.
So, while I'm not necessarily disagreeing with everything 3:32 says, this is an insidious, gradual process, and that is how it is accomplished–we often don't see the abolishment of the right coming due to the gradual erosion.
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2019 10:54 pm
The reason I don't want the govt knowing if I have a gun is because I never want my information to get out. If criminals learn you own a gun, you open yourself up to your home being stalked, having your home broken into and your gun stolen while you are out.
Bar results today.
Nevada February Bar Exam results will be released today after 3 pm on State Bar of Nevada's social media pages (twitter and facebook) and on the State Bar's website http://www.nvbar.org.
By the way, I hear the State Bar and the Supreme Court are considering reciprocity. Some committee has been meeting and has made proposals. Are you kidding me? After going into debt and then passing the bar, they are going to let all these unscrupulous lawyers just come here and practice. I hope this is incorrect and will not be considered. Reciprocity will not protect the public from all those terrible lawyers in California. California does not allow reciprocity just an attorney's exam. California does not allow law professors to practice without taking the bar exam either.
Sweet Jesus. When are people going to start giving a fuck about this?
You assholes support this, you are getting voted the fuck out.
Nevada should offer reciprocity with any states that return the favor. It's ridiculous to think lawyers in other states are somehow less competent than the ones here. Let's not pretend Nevada's lack of reciprocity is really about protecting the public. It's rote protectionism for lawyers that couldn't compete in a competitive, free market.
I would like there to be reciprocity. I have practiced here for over a decade, do not want to take another bar exam, but would love to practice somewhere else. Plus, not only "unscrupulous" attorneys will benefit from reciprocity.
I know that there are a lot of factors to consider about this issue, and I know that my desire for reciprocity is wholly self-serving, but I say let there be reciprocity.
Horrible idea. And always happens in secret until they spring it on you at the last minute with no time to provide any input. I sure hope this is not correct.
One of the main proponents of this has been Dean Hamilton at UNLV- a guy who has never practiced here and is only a temporary fixture in our legal community. He should be completely ignored on this by the Supreme Court.
And UNLV will no longer receive my firm's financial support along with any judge who votes for this.
Something like 35 states have adopted the UBE and more than half of the states permit reciprocal admissions in some form or another. I am admitted in one state with no reciprocity (Nevada) and one state that does have reciprocity and uses the UBE. You really think California and Nevada and other jurisdictions that permit no form of reciprocity do a demonstrably better job of protecting the residents of their respective states from unscrupulous, terrible lawyers?
Let's be honest, prohibiting reciprocal admissions is first and foremost about protecting the existing labor pool of lawyers in a state from outsiders. Protecting the public is a secondary interest, at best. Given the proliferation of electronic legal resources, "the law" is generally readily available to anyone, anywhere, so long as the practitioner will do what he or she is already obligated to do–be diligent, competent, etc. when representing clients in a jurisdiction. You really think a single state's bar exam weeds out bad attorneys, especially once the attorney is already licensed in a jurisdiction?
What about other professions? More than half of the states permit some form of reciprocal licensure for medical professionals. Is the public somehow especially vulnerable when it comes to unscrupulous, terrible lawyers, but not doctors?
The barrier is trade protectionism and little more. It restricts the free flow of labor and creates inefficiencies that do not outweigh the supposed benefits brought by restrictive licensure dictated on a state-by-state basis. Given that Nevada is quite susceptible to boom-and-bust economic cycles, I'd love to have a freer ability to move to another jurisdiction if necessary.
Sounds like 1:02 PM is worried about his/her job security.
Does Dean Hamilton want to harm his alumni and current students? Wtf. Welcome to the rodeo.
How are we just now hearing about this? Who is on the committee? Such transparency.
I'm with you, 2:09. The old days are over. People are much more mobile now, and the freedom to move states is a good thing, not a bad one. The outrage over this is funny to me. It's very "get off my lawn."
I think it is nice that Hardesty is taking time out of his day to comment on here, because no attorney with a brain cell would support this.
I, too, would like to know who is on this committee? Dean Hamilton? Dean Christine Smith? Justices? Who is supporting this?
This gene pool is like digging for clams in Iowa. Who is behind this?
I am 1:59. I am an attorney and I agree wholeheartedly with 2:09. I would like the option to practice somewhere else someday without taking another bar. Also, since I am a competent lawyer at a respected firm, I am not afraid of competition.
Good for you, 2:45. I am the same as you, and I oppose this.
Does anyone have a link to back this up or is this just someone trying to troll?
Come on, Reno Jim. Elissa, Abhi, are you in support of this?
Recent Boyd grads cannot pass the dumbed down bar exam, brought to you by Hamilton and your BOGs.
Although it's not easy to find, I located the Nevada state bar's strategic plan from 2018-2020. It is on this page https://www.nvbar.org/about-us/our-mission/ It has three goals: (1) this focuses on who is admitted to practice law here and addresses advancing a bar position on reciprocity and on the UBE; (2) focuses on trust accounts and professional liability insurance; and, (3) focuses on improving well being of attorneys. It looks like they intend to run this all by us at some point and this states their goals, but how many of you have seen this? When are they going to ask for our input?
News to me. This is Hardesty 100 percent. Thought we were going to have balance with Cadish up there. Wow, should have voted for Tao.
Where is Andrew Craner? Terry Coffing? I am coughing up phlegm right now over this shit.
At least I received an Easter basket and Easter bunny lap from Paul Powell.
This/
I'd love to possibly be able to move states without taking another bar.
Reciprocity will be a one way conveyor belt to Nevada by foreign licensed attorneys. The only thing they will have in common with Nevada is some client who is a relative, business associate, or friend. California attorneys are the worst of the lot. I have a license in California but seldom use it even for my clients here. If you want to be "hometowned", try practicing in East County, San Diego. Worse than Northern Nevada or the Rurals for Las Vegas attorneys. Right now the legal business is pretty good here but that will change. Especially if they let all those folks in from Kalamazoo.
"Let's be honest, prohibiting reciprocal admissions is first and foremost about protecting the existing labor pool of lawyers in a state from outsiders."
This may be true in other states, but we cannot forget or discount the unique nature of Nevada, and Las Vegas in particular. Las Vegas attracts people who have failed elsewhere and are looking to start over here. While that certainly produces some inspiring tales of redemption, it also means that this city attracts some unsavory characters. On top of that, Las Vegas is already a very transient city. Reciprocity will introduce a level of here today, gone tomorrow, fly by night legal operations that will be a headache. In a place like, say, South Dakota, I could see the value of reciprocity, but in Las Vegas I fear it would open a pandoras box of problems.
so someone tosses in a hunk of red meat "I hear the bar is considering reciprocity" and like a pack of rabid dogs you all pounce and slather about impending doom and wanting revenge. If you take a minute and actually look at the issues being discussed, you would realize that the NSB or the NSC have NEVER considered an "open border" reciprocity. Transparency requires opening your eyes and ears and actually looking the issues being discussed rather than simply bitching and looking for someone to blame. For example, there is a critical shortage of public defenders in the rural counties. Are you really going to complain if a non-NV attorney represents indigents in pioche or battle mountain? This is the type of issue that might be considered. Relax people.
Read meat, meh. I am a vegetarian. I am also against reciprocity.
5:46 PM-Relax post. Were we supposed to relax when they proposed mandatory trust audits? Were we supposed to relax when they proposed mandatory malpractice insurance? As for Rural public defenders, that exception was carved out when there was a shortage of lawyers a long time ago. Now there is no shortage of Nevada lawyers even in the rurals. It is competitive to get one of those public defender contracts. The State Public Defender's office closed their offices in Tonopah and Ely. Reciprocity is on the table and will be considered. It is time to stop sticking our heads in the sand like an ostrich. Even states that have UBE and reciprocity have some kind of admission on motion and or a scaled down test on that state's law. There are something like 7 or 9 exceptions to the bar exam. Remember when an Assistant Attorney General had a "C" bar number (in house counsel) and was supposed to take the test. Well that person did and is now the U.S. Attorney. They need to fix that exception.
Someone explain to me the practical purpose of circulating bar results in the AM to all judges and then releasing them in the afternoon to the public. Every time I've had a law clerk, I've just called someone in chambers to get the info. It should be released to the public and judges in the AM at the same time. Seems like a practice without a purpose. But maybe I'm missing something.
The fact the guy is on death row for 34 years should be the focus of the story, not the fact that he is seeking to reduce his sentence.
This emphasizes why it is a misleading debate to frame the question as to whether or not capital punishment should be abolished.
Most people go almost 20 years or more, are never executed, and millions are spent on appeals and other procedures. Even many people who in theory would support capital punishment agree that there is no point in having capital punishment as an option based on how these cases meander for years, or decades, and drain millions from public budgets, and such individuals are rarely executed.
So, if this is a true moral/philosophical/ constitutional argument the question should be framed as to whether capital punishment should be retained as an option if such option actually meant the person was likely to be executed. Instead, the question, as it should realistically be currently configured, essentially amounts to would you rather have life imprisonment as the ultimate option or capital punishment, if you realize that under neither option the person will be executed, but under the one option we will proceed under the myth that they may be executed, spend millions of tax payer money over decades, and confine that person to a tiny death row cell for almost every hour of every day.
Now, admittedly, I over simplify to some extent as, even in states like Nevada, once in a blue moon someone is executed–but even then, it is almost always someone who gave up on the legal process and actually requests that the sentence be carried out. And, also, there are some states like Florida and Texas, who actually do mean business, and do execute a fair number of people. But, as it turns out, some of them apparently should not have been executed, either based on subsequent forensic testing, or the sentence being too harsh in the first place, and other factors.
So, I'm just suggesting that the logistics of the issue make it a lot more complex than the simplistic way the question is usually posed, i.e. are you for or against capital punishment?
We are talking about a bar who is ignoring the rules of professional conduct, Michael Carlyon specifically. You did nothing about attorney client privilege violation that happened before you.
You mean Matt Carlyon? You are not an attorney, are you?
Are you an attorney? You just threw yourself under the bus.
Called NY state bar the other day and members do not need to provide address, but we do. We need to remove current bar and judges who are screwing over attorneys as their job one.
Bar results are up: 57% pass rate.
https://r7u4z9i4.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Nevada-Bar-Exam-Results-Feb-2019.pdf
Congrats, you R us. I mean you are 200k in debt, and a robot from Boca Raton can take your cases away from you with the support of Dean Martin, I mean Dean Hamilton. When do those student loan and bar loan payments start?
I have some good gardening gloves I don't want to ruin. Serious question, does Justice Cadish dislike female attorneys? My partner argued before her and was completely demeaning to her.
She is not the same person on the bench. Our department received numerous complaints about her and Tim. Glad she is not at the RJC
It is so nice to call Department 6 and not have Tim yell at you for a pick up.
Elissa did Tim and her law clerk raw. He did a lot of favors for her, and she left him Vegas. All going to come out, Boo.
She does not like people who are smarter than her. She also helps those who support her campaign. Cannot speak to the female side of it.
I am friends with a former assistant of hers down at the courthouse. She did right by them. She helped place two of her law clerks at the same law firm.
What law firm?
Akerman.
That's weird, did the funny post about the hairdo get censored?
Yes, I took your comment down. It wasn't funny, it was petty.
I have nothing nice to say about Elissa Cadish.
2:30–What's the big deal about providing addresses? I guess if you are in the Sovereign Persons Movement or something, and reject any sort of governmental inquiry and intrusions(no matter how minimal and innocuous),as well as those of private self-policing professions, like our own.
Same thing with gun registrations. Who the hell cares? To me it does not seem like any first step down the slippery slope where the government will eventually confiscate the guns from law-abiding people. I own guns and always will, and I have no problem with the government knowing I have it. Guess that makes me a fool to many. We should be able to trace all guns. We don't have problems with registering our cars, etc. Oh…I forgot, the government won't come to confiscate our cars, or anything else for that matter, except of course our guns
If this was a plot to eventually outlaw and confiscate all guns, it would be a step far more legally and logically tailored for such purpose–it would be taking a step toward restricting ownership,and then a more restrictive step, and then yet another. But this is about telling us you own it, not any sort of restriction on ownership. But I realize many people, and perhaps the majority, disagree with me.
Same thing as to issue of voter ID. Why is that an issue where one responds to it based on whether they are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever? WTFC? If it cuts down on possible voter fraud, then what's the problem? Where's the great governmental intrusion?
And even if it is found not to statistically have much effect on reducing voter fraud, what's the big problem with protecting the integrity of the process by having people provide some semblance of proof of who they are?
Same thing with laws enhancing the medical care to be provided for abortions. It is illogical to view that as a first step toward outlawing abortions. There is no logical connection. Now, something like shortening lawful abortion periods from 6 months to 5 months, could be viewed as a step toward eliminating abortions, since there is a clear nexus and an apparent attempt to restrict.
To:3:32. I realize those type of laws you mention may not necessarily seem like the first step toward restricting these things,but the way governmental erosion of our rights works is often in a very slow and deliberate way, wherein we often don't really seeing it coming until the train is too far down the tracks to stop it.
So,yes,some of these things you mention don't look like actual restrictions at first, but the actual process plays out in a complex,lenghty and often misleading manner.
Before there are laws that directly restrict or limit certain rights, they start out with proposing something that sounds reasonable, and which often seems simply a ministerial type function. That is how it stars. They don't start out with initially restricting these rights in some manner. That comes later. First they get you to accept it is reasonable to register certain things. They don't start out asking you to approve restricting it, as that often doesn't work.
The process is that if Level #1 of a continuum is unrestricted ownership of something, or an unrestricted right, if they jump right to Step #10,and ask you to agree to a total ban on ownership, or total ban on a right, that almost never works without raising a tremendous hue and cry and often insurmountable opposition.
But if you get people to agree to progress from Step #1, to Step #2, to Step #3, and beyond, then by the time you ask them to approve progressing from Step #9 to Step #10, they buy in without much opposition since in going from Step #1 up to Step #9, the right was gradually eroded. The right was almost completely gone by Step #9, people accepted by then that the right is almost gone, so Step #10, complete abolishment of the right, is then a lot easier to accomplish.
So, while I'm not necessarily disagreeing with everything 3:32 says, this is an insidious, gradual process, and that is how it is accomplished–we often don't see the abolishment of the right coming due to the gradual erosion.
The reason I don't want the govt knowing if I have a gun is because I never want my information to get out. If criminals learn you own a gun, you open yourself up to your home being stalked, having your home broken into and your gun stolen while you are out.