Silver State Shooting Sports Association

Article in Las Vegas Sun

Colleague takes on critic, has ideas for raising revenue
The $63 million shooting park gets rave reviews from shooting enthusiasts but is not making enough money to cover operational expenses.

The reason for the spat between two commissioners, Commissioner Steve Sisolax and Commissioner Tom Collins, over the Clark County Shooting Park — a $64 million Xanadu for gun enthusiasts — is money. It’s not making enough to cover expenses, and the outlook isn’t positive. Both would agree on that.

What keeps Commissioners Tom Collins and Steve Sisolak taking potshots at each other is their strong beliefs about what the county should do about it.

“We are two men hard of hearing who speak loud to each other, and I have a tendency to use profanities,” Collins said. “We’re going to be meeting again, see where we’re going and look at the changes the county needs to be more effective and profitable. And when (Sisolak) gets a broader understanding, I think he’ll come along.”

To which Sisolak replies: “We have a fundamental difference of opinion.”

But this fight is more serious and annoying than either will let on, because it is over something that is in short supply these days: revenue.

Sisolak does not think the county should own a shooting park, especially one that loses money. Since its opening in late 2009 through Aug. 13, it has taken in $431,000, but has cost $1.3 million to operate.

Over the past year, Sisolak’s ideas for the park have included getting a private group to take over or closing it until the economy improves. He ridiculed the typical daily user fee of $7 as less than the cost of going to a movie.

The valley is full of shooting ranges, he said, “and I don’t think we should be taking away their business.”

“And how is it that other parks make a profit, yet we can’t even operate ours on a day-to-day, year-to-year basis without losing money?” Sisolak said. “It’s a gorgeous facility, but maybe it’s so big, it can’t make money.”

Collins thinks there are shooters aplenty to fill ranges — estimates are that 47 percent of the valley’s residents own guns, as do both commissioners — and with better marketing and planning, the shooting park can balance its budget, even make a profit.

The park is doing what county officials said it would do — making no money. For the first three years, the park is expected to need $1 million to $1.5 million per year in county subsidies to stay afloat.

The expectation of ultimate profit, Sisolak said, was based on the assumption that Clark County would enjoy a blistering hot economy.

“But the economy isn’t so hot anymore, so I’m sure it’s going to be a lot longer that (the park needs) these subsidies,” Sisolak said.

Collins countered: “If he keeps talking that way, he’s just going to hurt the park, and it’s going to take a lot longer for it to make money.”

Sunset Park, a regular recreational park in Sisolak’s district, gets a $4 million annual county subsidy, Collins said. Sisolak answered that Sunset and other county parks don’t collect fees as the shooting park does, and it’s always been assumed those parks would require county support to maintain them.

The way to make the shooting park profitable is a long-range plan that includes hiring someone with marketing experience, Collins said. Naming rights — as in, letting a company such as Winchester build a clubhouse or put its name on a particular range — is a possible way to generate money.

“But we have to get in place the process, and that hasn’t been done,” he said.

Just getting the park to this stage — the county is fond of saying it took 24 years of planning — was something of a miracle given “the entrenched anti-gun people in the county bureaucracy,” Collins said.

Sisolak chuckled at Collins’ statement.

“He said the same thing to me: ‘Are you anti-gun?’ I go, ‘What? I’m anti-losing money, Tom. I’ve got absolutely no problems whatsoever with guns. I own one myself.’ ”

The park has a public information officer, and Lisa Coder, former head of the now-shuttered county Redevelopment Agency, has been assigned to help with marketing. Collins wants a marketing professional.

To demonstrate how poorly the shooting park has been marketed so far, he points to its name.

“It should not be a shooting ‘park,’ it should be a shooting ‘range,’ because this is not soccer, or baseball or Frisbee property,” he said. “This is a place you market internationally to bring tourism and conventions and sportsmen of all types to.”

At the northern end of Decatur Boulevard, north of the Las Vegas Beltway, the shooting park is on 2,900 acres, of which only 900 acres will be developed to leave enough buffer for surrounding communities. Phase I includes a combination trap and skeet field, archery range, public rifle and pistol center, and a shotgun center on 178 acres.

The $63 million shooting park gets rave reviews from shooting enthusiasts but is not making enough money to cover operational expenses.

To get the park on the moneymaking track, Collins tried a few weeks ago to get commission approval to discount range fees for organized groups. For instance, groups shooting rifles, pistols and bows and arrows would pay $5 per person instead of the current $6; groups shooting trap and skeet would pay $22 per case of “birds” instead of $30.

Sisolak got the item held. He said he was surprised that Collins, working on behalf of the park’s operators, tried to lower those fees, given its financial situation. He thinks park finances need to be examined.

“What if the fee changes don’t help, then do we come back in six months and change something else?” he said. “I don’t like this à la carte approach. I think the fees are a small part of the plan, but I want to see a plan for the entire place.”

Sisolak admits to being upset after learning a shooting range near Boulder City is going to host the Nevada State Sporting Clays Association tournament. Why wasn’t the county’s brand-new shooting park considered for that event?

Collins said the park simply isn’t set up to do the sporting clays event.

“Because to get this park going, we had to do the basic rifle and pistol and shotgun ranges just to get the people out there,” he said. “And once they’re out there and talk about the good experience they had, they’re going to tell the clubs and friends and organizations. You take what’s available until you can educate people enough, and then you expand.”

For Collins, the shooting park is not just about making money. He’s put so many hours of work into it and so much of his well-known cowboy character is built into it, it’s become his hill to die on.

“This is the frustrating part — I’ve spent years getting it open, getting the construction done, my staff and I have spent hours and hours out there, with a lot of help from sportsmen and (shooting park) committee members,” he said. “It only makes sense to make this work.”

(Let’s help get the Clark County Shooting Park back on track. Please come out and support the facility. It is beautiful. It has a place to relax, cool off and get something to eat, and also restrooms for each sex and the toilets that flush. We worked to hard to get this place open, to let this go by the way side, because the Clark County Commission seems to have lost their patience, for the park to start operating in the black). Dolores McNamara

In the coming days and weeks, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will be announcing endorsements and candidate ratings in hundreds of federal races, as well as thousands of state legislative races. Unless these announcements are required by the timing of primary or special elections, the NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements while important legislative business is pending. The NRA-PVF also operates under a long-standing policy that gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues, which is explained in more detail here.

The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

NRA members and other interested parties are encouraged to visit www.NRAPVF.org for more information as Election Day draws near.

Statement From NRA-PVF Chairman
Chris W. Cox On The 2010 Nevada U.S. Senate Race
In the coming days and weeks, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will be announcing endorsements and candidate ratings in hundreds of federal races, as well as thousands of state legislative races. Unless these announcements are required by the timing of primary or special elections, the NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements while important legislative business is pending. The NRA-PVF also operates under a long-standing policy that gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues, which is explained in more detail here.

The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

NRA members and other interested parties are encouraged to visit www.NRAPVF.org for more information as Election Day draws near.

Statement From NRA-PVF Chairman
Chris W. Cox On The 2010 Nevada U.S. Senate Race
In the coming days and weeks, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will be announcing endorsements and candidate ratings in hundreds of federal races, as well as thousands of state legislative races. Unless these announcements are required by the timing of primary or special elections, the NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements while important legislative business is pending. The NRA-PVF also operates under a long-standing policy that gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues, which is explained in more detail here.

The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

NRA members and other interested parties are encouraged to visit www.NRAPVF.org for more information as Election Day draws near.

Here is what my boss said:
Greetings Recruiters,

I could not be more pleased to OFFICIALLY inform you of our recent announcement. I know a lot of us, including me, have been taking hits for months. I want to thank you for all sticking with the truth the entire time and being a voice for the NRA. I’m not sure where the rumor started but it is officially defunct.

Enjoy your weekend and spread the great news!!!

Meet and greet being held at The Gun Store on Tropicana on September 9th at 6:30 PM. Guest speakers Sharron Angle, Bob Irwin and other candidates will be there. Bring your questions.

All Gun Owners, Hunters and Shooters:

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010. We urges you to submit comment to the EPA opposing any ban on traditional ammunition. Remember, your right to choose the ammunition you hunt and shoot with is at stake.

The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, In order to go directly to the ’submit a comment’ page for this docket number.
Please stress the following:

There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.
Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the 50 state wildlife agencies.
A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.
A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle’s recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition – the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.

Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.
Steps to take:

Submit comment online to the EPA.

Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban:
Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4700
Fax: (202) 501-1450
Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here.

Trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry, hailed passage of the Firearms Excise Tax Improvement Act of 2010 (H.R. 5552) by unanimous consent in the Senate.

The bill passed the House of Representatives at the end of June by a vote of 412-6. The House bill was sponsored by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisc.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). The Senate bill (S. 632) was sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and had 30 cosponsors, including lead co-sponsor Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) who co-chairs the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus.

This legislation corrects a longstanding inequity in the Internal Revenue Code by permitting firearm and ammunition manufacturers to pay the federal excise tax payment on a quarterly basis, just as other industries that support conservation through a federal excise tax do. Currently, firearms and ammunition manufacturers pay this tax on a bi-weekly schedule, forcing many manufacturers to borrow money to ensure on-time payment. Industry members spend thousands of staff-hours administering the necessary paperwork to successfully complete the bi-weekly tax payments — monies that are due to the federal government long before manufacturers are paid by their customers.

Importantly, HR 5552 pays for itself and does not add to the budget deficit. Nor does the bill lower the amount of conservation dollars collected by lowering the tax rate. It simply adjusts the payment schedule to a quarterly period.

This bill strengthens wildlife conservation funding in America, By enabling manufacturers to grow their businesses, excise tax receipts will actually grow. We are thankful for the tremendous support and leadership of Senators Max Baucus and Mike Crapo. Clearly, their vision in championing this bipartisan, pro-conservation, pro-business legislation allowed for smooth passage of the bill.
This issue is important to our industry and for hunters and gun owners both in Nevada and across the United States.

The firearm and ammunition excise tax is the major revenue source for funding the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund (also known as the Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund). Last year, firearm and ammunition manufacturers contributed approximately $450 million dollars to wildlife conservation through excise tax payments.

Passage of HR 5552 would not have been possible without the hard work of many organizations, including a broad coalition of more than 35 conservation groups that are members of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners. This coalition includes the National Rifle Association, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, National Shooting Sport Foundation, and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, which made passage of this bill a priority.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies also supported this legislation as did the Internal Revenue Service-Tax and Trade Bureau, which collects the excise tax. There is no organized opposition to this legislation.

With passage of excise tax improvement in the House and Senate, it is our hope that President Obama will act fast to sign this legislation into law.

Assemblyman Don Gustavson, R-Sparks, asked the Legislative Counsel Bureau to draft a bill for the 2011 Nevada legislative session that would make personal information related to concealed carry permits confidential. He wants to make it harder for the public to determine who is packing heat.
“When a permit holder goes down and gets a concealed weapons permit, they are led to believe any information they gave is confidential,” Gustavson said. “If all that info gets out there, people can just find out who has the guns and go to your house and take the guns.”
The request stems from a July 1 opinion by the state Supreme Court in a case between the Reno Gazette-Journal and Washoe County Sheriff Mike Haley.
The newspaper sought records related to the concealed carry permit issued to Gov. Jim Gibbons to confirm whether it had been suspended or revoked.
Haley wouldn’t release the records, reasoning that since state law maintains information on concealed carry permit applications is private, information on the actual permit and subsequent actions could be considered private as well.
The court ruled certain information on the permits is public record and subject to disclosure, prompting Gustavson to make the bill draft request.
In its unanimous opinion, the court distinguished between information on the permit application, which state law says is confidential, and information on the permit and related actions, such as suspension or revocation.
Because the statute “is silent concerning the confidentiality of post-permit investigation, suspension, or revocation records, we must conclude that such records are open to public inspection unless they contain information that is expressly declared confidential by statute,” the opinion stated.
“The intent of the law, I believe, was to keep all that information confidential,” said Gustavson, who is running for the seat being vacated by state Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks.
Democratic candidate for governor Rory Reid would support such a bill, spokesman Mike Trask said.
Republican candidate Brian Sandoval didn’t take a stance on Gustavson’s proposal. Sandoval spokeswoman Mary-Sarah Kinner said he would need to see the entire bill before deciding.

NRA Files Suit Over Preemption Violation in Nevada

The National Rifle Association is backing a lawsuit filed against Clark County and the City of North Las Vegas in Nevada District Court. This lawsuit aims to defend the state’s firearms preemption law. NRA counsel filed suit on behalf of plaintiff David Hanes in the case Hanes v. Clark County and the City of North Las Vegas.

“The NRA is committed to defending firearms preemption laws in every state where they exist,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Law-abiding gun owners shouldn’t be subjected to different laws when they cross city or county lines. Nevada’s statewide preemption law was designed to prohibit this from occurring.”

Nevada originally passed a preemption law in 1989, meaning that counties and municipalities cannot pass gun laws that are more restrictive than the state law. Some gun ordinances in some parts of the state were “grandfathered” in at that time. However, in 2007, Senate Bill 92 amended the preemption law, removing all grandfathered ordinances with the exception of a handgun registration ordinance.

Unfortunately, to this day, the City of North Las Vegas has failed to fully comply with the amended law. Currently, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal to do so across the state, anyone transporting a firearm through North Las Vegas is in violation of a city ordinance and could face prosecution. David Hanes, a permit holder who frequently hunts and makes trips to the Clark County Shooting Park, is in violation every time he leaves the state-of-the-art, multi-million dollar shooting facility.

“It’s a shame that the City of North Las Vegas has failed to comply with state law and has put so many law-abiding gun owners in jeopardy of a citation just for exercising their Second Amendment rights,” concluded Cox. “The NRA will see this through to ensure that Nevada has a meaningful, statewide firearms preemption law.”

The NRA, also published this about candidates that voted for Kagan. Hopefully, Since Reid voted for Kagan. they will follow through and not endorse him in the general election. I saw Sharron Angle yesterday at Gun Show and I told her about this and to work on the NRA. Dolores

Statement on Elena Kagan’s Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court

Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to the highest Court in the land. To NRA members and gun owners nationwide, Ms. Kagan presents a clear and present danger to the right to keep and bear arms. Her political record reveals that she does not believe the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and, in her recent testimony, she refused to acknowledge respect for the God-given right of self-defense. That is why, more than a month ago, the NRA announced its strong opposition to Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court. In that announcement, it was made very clear that this vote matters and will be considered in the NRA’s candidate evaluations.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right that applies to all law-abiding Americans. Nonetheless, during the hearings Ms. Kagan refused to state her support for the Second Amendment, saying only that the matter was “settled law.” When asked about the Heller decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the phrase “settled law” repeatedly during her confirmation hearings to win support. Justice Sotomayor then worked to destroy the Second Amendment in the McDonald case. We have no doubt that Ms. Kagan shares the same view of the Second Amendment.

Since she has no judicial record, we have only her political record to examine. And that political record demonstrates a clear hostility to our right to keep and bear arms. As a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Ms. Kagan said she was “not sympathetic” to a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s ban on firearms. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, a colleague described her as “immersed” in Clinton’s aggressive assaults on the Second Amendment. As U.S. Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan chose not to file a brief last year in the landmark McDonald case, thus taking the position that incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it to the states was of no interest to the Obama Administration or the federal government.

The expansive support that self-defense laws, the decisions in the historic Heller and McDonald cases, and the Second Amendment enjoy from the American public is a clear indication that Elena Kagan’s radical views are out of the mainstream. Any nominee, that far out-of-step with the American people, should not be on the Supreme Court.

The nomination and confirmation of two justices with an inherent bias against the Second Amendment is a direct assault on our treasured freedom. The fate of our Second Amendment hangs perilously – by one vote. The need for eternal vigilance on the part of every American has never been greater.

Benson vs City of chicago

NRA Supporting Chicago Residents New Suit Against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago
The National Rifle Association is supporting a lawsuit against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago’s newly adopted gun control ordinance, which violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Last Friday, the City Council rushed through passage of this ordinance in response to the Court’s June 28th decision rendering Chicago’s draconian handgun ban unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it.”

Just four days after the Court struck down the nearly 30 year-long handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago enacted the most restrictive anti-gun ordinance in the United States. In the words of Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, the top attorney for the City: “We’ve gone farther than anyone else ever has.” The so-called “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance” provisions include: a prohibition on all gun sales inside the City; a prohibition on possession of firearms for self-defense outside the “home” — even on a patio or in an attached garage; a prohibition on more than one assembled and operable firearm in the home; and a training requirement to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit. However, range training would be impossible since it will now be unlawful to operate a shooting range inside city limits.

“The Supreme Court told Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago that it has to respect the Second Amendment. By enacting this ordinance, their response is ‘Make Us’,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The NRA will not rest until Chicago’s law-abiding residents can exercise the same freedoms that our Founding Fathers intended all Americans to have.”

Recent statements from some of Chicago’s city officials reflect their complete lack of respect for the Supreme Court decision. Alderman Daniel Solis stated, “the decision made by the Supreme Court is not really in the best interests of our citizens.” Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon denounced what she called the Court’s “blatant… misreading of the law.” And another city council member even went so far as to say, “[w]e’re here today because of their poor judgment.” The case is Benson v. City of Chicago.

I know all of us have had our differences with the NRA, but they are still working hard for us. If you need to renew, I can help.

The Senate has confirmed Elena Kagan as the 112th justice and fourth woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

The vote was 63-37 for President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate’s two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with “ayes” and “nays.”

Kagan isn’t expected to alter the ideological balance of the court, where Stevens was considered a leader of the liberals.

But the two parties clashed over her nomination. Republicans argued that Kagan was a political liberal who would be unable to be impartial. Democrats defended her as a highly qualified legal scholar.

From DM: Sotomayor has already proven that she does not support the Second Amendment and Kagan will follow in her footsteps.

From DM:Senator Ensign voted against her being confirmed. Harry Reid voted for her being confirmed. Hopefully the NRA will come through, not to endorse Harry Reid for Senator for Nevada. They promised that anyone voting for her would not be endorsed by the NRA for the 2010 election

What you need to know from NRA

<embed src=”http://blip.tv/play/AYHwlFYC” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”480″ height=”300″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”></embed>

Crossroads of the West Gun  at Cashman Center. Washington & Las Vegas blvd. August 7th and 8th.  Saturday 9-5 and sunday 9-4.