Nye County (NV) Sheriff Declines To Enforce Ban on Private Gun Sales

nevada gun control sheriff won't enforce

AP Photo/Chris Carlson

Nye County, Nevada Sheriff Sharon Wehrly doesn’t believe that the state can ban the sale of firearms between residents. In recent days, she announced she will not enforce Nevada’s new “universal background check” law, which really means a ban on the selling of guns between citizens.

That, of course, has sent Nevada’s Democrats into a bottom-lip quivering, foot-stamping, pearl-clutching conniption fit.

Sheriff Wehrly told Gov. Steve Sisolak that, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” CBS Las Vegas/Las Vegas Now has this story.

The controversy continues weeks after Governor Steve Sisolak, D-Nev. signed a bill requiring background checks on most private party gun sales. However, Nye County’s sheriff said Thursday that she will not enforce the Senate Bill 143 when it takes effect in about 10 years.

Actually, it doesn’t take effect until January 2020, about ten months from now.

Nye County Sheriff Sharon Wehrly sent a letter to Governor Sisolak saying in part:

“As sheriff of Nye County, I agree with Sheriff Watts: I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law…”

Here’s her letter:

Courtesy Nye County Sheriff

The reaction from the anti-gun left? Prety much what you’d expect.

Annette Magnus, Executive Director of Battle Born Progress (motto: We fight the right in Nevada) had this to say to CBS Las Vegas:

“I think that’s hilarious, and they’re going to enforce it eventually. We’ll take it to the courts, that’s fine, but at the end of the day, it’s going to get enforced, whether they like it or not.”

Given how a county sheriff stands as the highest law enforcement officer in any given county in the state, one might refer to Ms. Magnus as “all hat and no cattle.

KSNV, another local media outlet, described Sheriff Wehrly’s announcement this way:

The gun background check bill signed into law by Governor Sisolak last month has been a hot topic in Nevada, and now one sheriff says she won’t participate in enforcing it.

Nye County Sheriff Sharon Wehrly announced on Thursday that she considers the new law, which seeks to prevent gun buyers from avoiding background checks by obtaining weapons through unlicensed sellers, violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

So selling a gun to a buddy has suddenly become “avoiding background checks by obtaining weapons through unlicensed sellers?” Wow.

It surely bedevils gun control advocates when counties refuse to enforce or prosecute unconstitutional gun control laws against law-abiding Americans, while at the same time, their fellow leftists offer sanctuary to illegal aliens who committing immigration fraud, flout employment rules and ignore deportation orders.

comments

  1. avatar Jonathan Sterling says:

    God bless those that take their oaths seriously.

    1. avatar Joe says:

      “we will enforce the ban one way or another…”. How? Hire some foreign goons to come on our soil? Stack the national guard with loonie leftie antifa types and sick military force on citizens? They have zero enforcement mechanism until they literally try force.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        The moment the left tries to use force, they’ll lose the only hand they have. The civilian gun owners can “out force” anything they’d try to deploy short of the US military.

        They’ll go courts, fines, More courts, more fines. They’ll just make it so expensive for the county to fight the state, that the citizens will kick out the sheriff.

        Kinda what they did with Arpaio.

      2. avatar HP says:

        Even if they did “enforce” this, they’d still have no way to enforce it. Say you and I are friends, we live on the opposite ends of town. I have a shotgun I don’t want, but you’d like it. So you drive over to my house, bring some cash, and we make a deal. That would be illegal, but who would ever know? Gun sales/exchanges are still going to occur between family and friends, despite the gnashing of liberal teeth.

      3. avatar StLPro2A says:

        Fortunately, reticle black contrasts well against UN blue.

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Unfortunately, that may indeed be in our future.

  2. avatar MikeJH121 says:

    Sheriffs are elected in most places, when you need to call the po-po and not 911 call a Sheriff. I have dealt with Police in Ohio who do not even know it is an open carry state. Every Sheriff Deputy I have talked to know it is Open carry in Ohio. As the Sheriff stated above, this will do nothing, and then they will want more.

    And the other stories lately, Hawaii wanting to rid us of the 2nd, banning .22’s and NFA for magazines. But the Left does not want to take your guns and support the 2nd. And I don’t own a single firearm. 🙂

    When asked by someone I know to be anti gun, and I have to deal with them more than once, and not changeable on their opine, I say guns are bad, and being an Army Vet, I know how dangerous guns are and that civilians should not have them. They get a dreamy eyed and I satisfied their feels. If it is someone I don”t have to deal with more than once I go the other way, I have made some actually seem to cry. 😉

    My freedoms do not care for their feelings.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      I am SO sorry; it sounds like you lost all your firearms in a tragic boating accident, as did I!

  3. avatar binder says:

    If background checks violated the 2nd time to start working on a lawsuit against the feds. Untill then the only thing this sheriff is going is putting local residents at risk. Some fed or state agency is going to trace back a gun, at it will be them charging the seller, not the sheriff.

    1. avatar J Gibbons says:

      Background check are not necessarily the unconstitutional part. Effectively banning private commerce of legal items is.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        I know all about the commerce clause, and that ship sailed years ago. If the Supreme Court ever tried to try to fix the legislative overreach from invoking the clause half the federal code will fall apart or come under challenge.

        1. avatar GaJoe1950 says:

          As it should. Maybe Justice Thomas’ view will eventually prevail and we will return to a Constitutional Republic. Hope springs eternal.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      Tracing back a gun is supposed to be impossible, since there is not supposed to be a database of who owns what gun.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Read what R B Bruce said, again!

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Tracing back a gun is supposed to be impossible, since there is not supposed to be a database of who owns what gun.”

        That what the ‘universal background check’ *does*.

        It creates and adds to that database everytime the ‘check’ is made…

    3. avatar Frank Wilson says:

      Since laws requiring background check on private sales are being passed by several states. These states will be sued in Federal Court. The federal government has not passed any laws on this question. I expect the question “Do the states have the power to ban private sales of firearms” will end up in the Supreme Court. The court may will have to define more clearly what is meant by the term “Shall not be infringed” !

    4. avatar Gary Dahlia says:

      The problem is that background check infringe on honest citizen allowed to possess a firearm. The criminal who has a firearm stole it from the honest person. Instead of making laws to restrict law abiding citizens, the laws need to infringe on the criminals who steal the guns. Republicans say that you can own a gun if you want, but don’t have to. Democrats say I don’t like guns so you can’t have them. So much for freedom.

  4. avatar Alternator says:

    She’s awesome.

  5. avatar DDay says:

    Thank you Sheriff Sharon Wehrly

  6. avatar RA-15 says:

    All laws meant to remove us of our 2nd Amendment rights are repugnant. I like this sheriff. We need more like her , many more.

  7. Awesome sheriff
    Very proud of you
    Your voted in ask to hold up the constitution
    And constitutes who voted for you
    High 5

  8. avatar George says:

    Bravo to Sheriff Sharon Wehrly. She is upholding her pledge to fulfill her duties and faithfully honor, guard and obey the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights which constitue Amendments to the Constitution. She is refusing to violate not only the 2nd Amendment but the Constitution itself which guarantees legal contracts and transactions between citizens. I am certain that the State Constitution must have similar guarantees, protections, and rights that she is further upholding. We need all law enforcement to follow her example.

  9. avatar RCC says:

    Unfortunately there will probably be any number of other agencies happy to enforce the new law. After all legal gun owners are the most law abiding citizens in any country.

    Or they might start up a new force just to enforce red laws like California did.

  10. avatar David says:

    Thank you Sheriff Sharon Wehrly. Stand your ground!

  11. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    Love seeing public servants who still believe in the bill of rights and serving the people they’ve sworn to protect.

  12. avatar Steven Shaw says:

    hmm, when your elected officials pass laws or citizens vote on a law, the people who suppose to uphold and enforce it decide not to, where does that leave society? Hell if someone murders another person, the LEO says hell I’m not gonna enforce the law on that? There’s a line that has to be dealt with, either the Head LEO should reisgn, be fired or Even be charged with a crime themselves for not doing their job.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Actually, lawmakers passing laws that violate any part of the constitution should be the ones fired or prosecuted! And no, it’s not a living document.

      1. avatar YuGo HuGo says:

        They all including members of committees and postmasters etc take the oath to “uphold the Constitution of the United States”. So many act as if the oath means nothing and stomp on our Constitution and Bill of Rights. ALL of them should be removed from office the first time they refuse to accept the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Violate the oath, your fired!

      2. avatar No one of consequence says:

        It is a living document, in the sense that there is a very clear and well-defined mechanism to modify it if necessary. This has been done many times already.

        I do not, however, that it is a “flexibly interpretable” document.

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Many people arrogant enough to say they know what the founders ” really” meant. Agree it is living in the sense that amendments can be added, but not to change or delete existing ammendments.

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      I don’t think that gun-owners started crossing the line of late.

      Sanctuary cities was started by the Left in violation of Federal law. Marijuana is still against Federal law, but States ignore.

      If an elected sheriff and his/her deputies have decided not to enforce a questionable law that may be in violation of basic Constitutional Rights, more power to them. I’m a big fan of our sheriffs dept. but the people also retain the right to vote in who they want in that position.

    3. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” Hell if someone murders another person, the LEO says hell I’m not gonna enforce the law on that? ”

      Flip the coin on that– If the gubmint passes a law allowing death squads and the governor calls for a hit on a political opponent, justified as “a clear and present danger to the established order” — I think we would all applaud the LEO who refuses to fall lock-step behind the law and says Fuck No– I’m not making the hit.

      The point here is that no law, no matter how much it adheres to the process, is above legal and moral scrutiny. The Contitution of the US is acknowledged by all to be the highest law in this country. Since it is available to anyone to read, and the Supreme Court has been blatantly negligent in giving us a clear and unambiguous interpretation of the 2A, it really falls on each individual citizen to figure out for themselves what it means.

      Obviously this sheriff takes a literal approach to the 2A. Many agree with that point of view. Many (wrongfully) disagree with it. Absent anything concrete to go on from the Court, both sides can argue out the legality of their positions. The anti-gunners have decided to take action on their point of view. It is entirely justified that the pro 2A supporters should take action on their point of view as well. The legal fight will ultimately be resolved one way or another, but, in the meantime, this sheriff is entirely justified from a moral standpoint (and I would say a legal one as well) in taking a stand and saying “I’m not going to mindlessly follow orders.”

    4. avatar John in AK says:

      Clearly, you do not understand the difference between ‘malum in se’ and ‘malum prohibitum,’ and are taking a wild leap into hyperbole through a non sequitur.

      Now, go and look up those terms and words, and get back to us on the possible dangers inherent in masses of hypothetical, apocryphal sheriffs deciding not to enforce laws against murder.

      Oh, the humanity!

    5. avatar jwm says:

      Right after the pols that make sanctuary cities and states are arrested for criminal conspiracy.

    6. avatar Bob999 says:

      No. I was a military cop for about 7 years. It was unlawful for us to enforce an unlawful law, order or regulation. So, if we were explicitly ordered to enforce a law that flagrantly violated the Constitution, we could go to jail for following that order. In reality, this applies to civilian law enforcement officers as well, but in the military, this was incorporated in our documentation and drilled into us during training. So, it is unlawful for any government employee to enforce an unlawful order, law, instruction, or procedure, and to do so can put them in legal jeopardy. This Sheriff is doing her job by refusing to enforce this unconstitutional law. Since illegal emigration is not a right bestowed in the Constitution, LEOs who refuse to enforce emigration laws can not make the same claim.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Well said, but I have a little money that says a liberal law maker anywhere will never be prosecuted for allowing or encouraging illegal entry.

    7. avatar Mad says:

      Wake up stupid any law that violates our constitution is illegal.i suppose you think a Ford is a Chevy.God creates everyone with some common sense,but many choose to be brain washed throwing common sense out the window.a sheriff swears to uphold the constitution.choosing to ignore an illegal law is their job.going after murderers is also thier job

    8. avatar EnDangerEd says:

      You are absolutely right. So YOU arrest 80% of Congress and make sure they get charged and convicted. THEY gave themselves immunity from prosecution for the duration of their terms. WHY do you think they are all so desperate to STAY in Office? The question then is HOW will you arrest them and HOW could you ever charge the ones who are “hiding them” from prosecution? The system is ROTTEN and needs to be completely overhauled, with TERM LIMITS for EVERY politician, NO lifetime appointments without reviews, and penalties for ANY Judge that does NOT rule according to the Constitution, ZERO exceptions for using FOREIGN LAWS in American Courts. It took 250 years to PERVERT our politicians AND Courts, there may only be ONE WAY to repair it in less time…..

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Well said, I dont expect a response from ” Steven” or his troll persona.

    9. avatar conrad miller says:

      special kind of stupid ah, she is following her oath of office which is too uphold the laws of the constitution.

  13. avatar HuntingtonGuy says:

    Outrageous but not unprecedented. We’ve been living under these kinds of offensive and oppressive laws in other places for years now.
    It’s no longer safe to think that it can’t happen where you are, the courts have not been as supportive or protective as many expected them to be.
    The solution is at the voting booth, encourage family, friends…everyone you know, to vote. School Boards, Fire Districts, County, State…they all matter.

    +1 to Sheriff Wehrly

  14. avatar Dave in Houston says:

    Bless you, Sheriff!

  15. avatar R.B. Bruce says:

    As a retired 3 term (12 years) Colorado Sheriff and a 28+ year Arizona State Trooper vet, I applaud Sheriff Wehrly. US Sheriffs need to get on board and tell federal and state legislators that are passing laws that do absolutely nothing for public safety and everything to put the socialists in power, to pound sand! Enforce older firearms laws that have been in place for a long time, putting felons using firearms into prison for life. And, when BATFE finds out a felon or illegal alien is trying to buy a gun, make quick arrests.

    1. avatar YuGo HuGo says:

      Honorable Mr Bruce you are a great American, thank you sir.

  16. avatar KyKPH says:

    For those that do not think that privite firearm ownership is important, study the word “democide!” The Founders knew what this ment and provided the Second Amendment in an attempt to prevent its effects in this country in their future.

  17. avatar Political gristle says:

    “you’re going to enforce the law one way or another”

    My Q is can the state come in and take over her Dept/county by force?

    Will the police and/or citizen militia fire on state/FBI bureaucrats if they try to force the issue?

    To quote one of my favorite movies lines;
    ” Skin it, Go ahead and skin that smoke wagon, see what happens”

    1. avatar Dbag says:

      “Doc? I didn’t know you was back in town…”

      “I’m sorry, Johnny, I forgot you were there. You may go now.”

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        “Thank you.”

  18. avatar Redlaw says:

    any one know who fills the sheriff role in the state of Alaska?

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      Nobody.

      We have no counties, and therefore no sheriffs. It’s municipalities and their police forces, boroughs and their police agencies, or the Alaska State Troopers through the state Department of Public Safety.

      None of the heads of Alaska police agencies are elected; They’re all appointees.

  19. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    The hypocrisy is is overwhelming! The governors and mayors of sanctuary cities & states disobey federal law. The same people are shocked when the 2A people disobey their local law. Hasn’t anyone called them on this?

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Everyone’s called them on it, problem is since they won the house they feel omnipotent. Who’s gonna stop em?

  20. avatar NyeLocal says:

    I agree with her choice but she is literally the worst person to have on the team… She literally left her gun in a casino bathroom last year… For the second time.

  21. avatar Russ says:

    Looks like the Property value in Pahrump just went up!

  22. avatar Dan says:

    This is all smoke and mirrors…..and while most of the sheriff’s in Nevada won’t enforce this law the problem is they aren’t immortal. I doubt the left can actually prevail in court to FORCE LEO to enforce this law but eventually the left WILL manage to replace these sheriff’s with hand picked candidates bought and paid for by Bloomberg ( it was HIS money that got Question One on the ballot in 2016) and George Soros. Eventually ALL the sheriff’s in Nevada….and EVERYWHERE, will be puppets for the commie demonrats. Then they WILL start enforcing this law, with amazing brutality. The problem is the law itself. Once these blatantly anticonstitutional laws get passed they NEVER GO AWAY.

  23. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Evidently Sheriff Sharon Wehrly understands the oath she swore to the Constitution and the people of her county,it appears that she isn’t confused by a line from the 2 nd. amendment “Shall Not Be Infringed’ ,Bravo Sheriff.

  24. avatar Gideon Rockwell says:

    I have said it many times in the past, the Founders stated numerous times that the Bill of Rights is a documentation of GOD given rights no person may tamper with. On their words every law that hinders a citizen’s ability to buy the firearm they choose to own or maintain the firearm they choose to own in their home, on their person or vehicle is unlawful and may even be traitorous. Good for this Sheriff and all that choose the GOD given rights of the people over oppressive totalitarianism.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This !

  25. avatar charles chenet says:

    It seems apparent that Democrats have lost sight of the fact that the United States is a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy…….

  26. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Has President Kushner commented on this yet? After all, we need more guns, as long as they are LEGAL. Perhaps there can be an amnesty for the illegal ones, but they must go thru heavy vetting first.

  27. avatar Mott says:

    When guns are “Outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” Then I will be an outlaw!

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Sheriff Nye. Please move to North Florida.

      1. avatar JR Pollock says:

        Sheriff Nye,

        Please move to Pinellas County, Florida.

        1. avatar JR Pollock says:

          Edit

          Sheriff Wehrly.

          I miss the edit button…

    2. avatar Wheel Gun Guy says:

      Not if you have a serious boating accident first.

  28. avatar John Nelson says:

    You do not pass useless laws you cannot enforce! How would a sheriff know if Jack in one town sold a gun to a stranger in another town? The only way they would know the gun changed ownership is if it were registered in the state, a crime was committed with it, the gun traced back to original owner who no longer has it, forgot who he sold it too, exactly when, maybe years before law went into affect, again the second buyer could have also sold. How would this law prevent or enforce anything regarding shootings?

    You gun control nuts need to learn one very simple fact even a 5 year old would under stand; a gun cannot kill, it needs some one like you to pick it up, load it, point it, and pull the trigger! Till you useless idiots figure this out, you are going to continue to rant this total stupidity about guns.

    Did you know that AR 15 style weapons have been around since 1918, some looked just like today’s rifle, others look like a 1964 Winchester
    Model 100 semi automatic which has multi round clips. Did you know the same style rifles used by the military the M-15, was modeled by Colt after a 1955 civilian rifle because of its weight, Suze and capabilities, except the military version can be full automatic, civilian version cannot.
    It does not matter the gun, the highest killed school gun violence was Virigina Tech, the shooter use two pistols killed 32 people , no “assault” rifle as you Loons call them!

    Look up “assault”, it is an action performed by humans, the gun can’t do it alone it is a tool, like grenade, bomb vest, bat, knife, car whatever the perpetrator chooses to use, the items are inanimate (lacking consciousness or power of motion) in case you don’t understand the word.

    Get an education, you have been thoughly indoctrinated by a bunch of useless idiots which have no knowledge of what they are saying.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Calm down John, they dont really care about which weapon is used to do what. Ar’s and Ak’s just happen to be the favorite examples of ” evil” guns they use to advance their agenda , which is all your guns goin bye-bye!

  29. avatar Luke C. says:

    “They will eventually enforce the law” .. guess what? Nevada State law (as in all states) ALLOWS law enforcement officers to exercise their own DISCRETION to decide what, if any, enforcement they see fit to take. Except for Domestic Battery, DUI and lack of vehicle insurance violations, officers get to make up their own mind on wether to enforce ANY other laws. Therefore, the good Sheriff CANNOT be forced to enforce any law besides those three mandated by law. These leftist communist idiots are too much lol

  30. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Way to go, Sheriff Grandma! I agree with a lot of the previous comments; I don’t know how they could enforce this law if they wanted to. Would they start doing “buy/bust” operations with firearms?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email