Gun-Grabbers Try to Force Implementation of Failed Nevada Background Check Law…Again

Our friends in the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex executed a spectacular face plant last year in Nevada. Anti-gun New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg poured millions of his pocket change into getting Question 1 on the ballot, a measure that would have mandated “universal background checks” on all gun sales in the state.

Mayor Mike’s $18 million campaign outspent opponents three-to-one and managed to convince just enough Nevadans to vote for it to get it passed. Question 1 was approved by a margin of under 10,000 votes.

There was just one problem. Nevada does its own background checks and the ballot measure required the FBI to step in to perform checks under the new system.

On December 28, 2016, Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt (R) said the initiative could not be enforced due to the refusal of the FBI to participate in the expanded background checks. Question 1 was designed to require background checks for firearm transfers between unlicensed individuals, also known as private-party sales, which would take place through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICBCS). According to a letter from the FBI to Nevada, “the recent passage of the Nevada legislation [Question 1] regarding background checks for private sales cannot dictate how federal resources are applied.” Furthermore, Nevada is one of 12 states with a state-run background checks system and does not depend on the FBI to perform existing background checks.[1]

The FBI suggested that the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s Criminal History Repository (CHR) conduct the background checks of private-party sales and transfers. However, Attorney General Laxalt concluded that such a move would violate the initiative’s language. The CHR is responsible for other background checks in Nevada.[2] He stated, “The Act is very specific that the only background check it authorizes for a private sale or transfer is directly through the FBI.”[3] The relevant text of the initiative read:[4]

Much pointing of fingers and blame shifting ensued. And a judge dismissed the gun-grabbers’ attempts to force the issue via the courts.

But #gunsense means never having to accept a legal decision that goes against you. So now . . .

Attorneys for a group of gun control advocates are appealing a decision by a Clark County judge dismissing their attempt to force the state to implement a voter-approved initiative requiring background checks on most private gun sales or transfers.

A notice filed Wednesday in Clark County District Court states that backers of Question 1, the 2016 ballot measure, plan to appeal Judge Joe Hardy’s August ruling that the state could not be forced to implement the initiative, given the FBI’s refusal to handle background checks that the initiative said the bureau must carry out.

The fact is that the original ballot measure was irreparably flawed. Whoever wrote it didn’t understand the state’s existing law, its background check system, or how the new law would have to work in practice. So we don’t expect this effort to be any more successful than the last one. But we’ll be watching, just in case.


  1. avatar Roger J says:

    It must be tough being a billionaire and you don’t get your way 🙁

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Hell, if I was a billionaire, I’d get my way. Of course, my way would be to do whatever the hell I want and leave everyone else alone.

      1. avatar YuGo HuGo says:

        If I had Bloomberg’s money, I’d burn mine and then spend my time enjoying life vs getting overly involved in any political issue. Of course I would be a 2A supporter!

    2. avatar Danny Mann6 says:

      Yo, Mikey! Why don’t you spend some of that money feeding your constituents and their kids!

  2. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    UBCs…and who is going to oversee them? Who will prosecute the cases when it does not happen?
    What happens if too many black/brown young men get arrested for failing to comply?
    It would be great if we could access an instant check system via a phone app or computer…for free or minimal fee ($5 or so). Maybe include a photo as well, for good measure. Maybe even take photo of license and finger prints as well…above and beyond.
    Maybe it should also check to see if buyers and sellers are in the USA illegally, too. Right?

    1. avatar Binder says:

      We already have that in Illinois, but the bangers still get their guns.

  3. avatar DaveL says:

    hoever wrote it didn’t understand the state’s existing law, its background check system, or how the new law would have to work in practice.

    Or they were hoping that all gun sales would be effectively blocked, rather than the measure being rendered unenforceable.

    1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

      Hoping? There is already case law there that states impossible laws cannot be enforced.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        NV is also part of the 9th Circuit, which has yet to slap down California enacted impossible to comply with laws…

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          In this case, though, the appeal is from a state superior court and will be decided by a Nevada Court of Appeal, not the Ninth Circus.

      2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Danny…..except for the micro stamping law in commiefornia.

  4. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    The initiative won with less than a 1% margin. The anti-gunners even admitted that if they had written the proposal so that Nevada had to perform the checks themselves it would have cost the state money and the measure would have failed.

    The judge and AG are correct, you can’t change the wording of the measure after it was voted on.

  5. avatar m. says:

    f nevada gun control t**ts, stfu & gtfo

  6. avatar Forrest Adcock says:

    We all need to shut up right now and let these people shoot themselves in their own foot.

    FBI background checks involve something called “default process,” where if they do not come back with a failure to pass the background check within a specific amount of time (3 days?) it defaults to “pass,” and you get to buy the gun.

    If the FBI refuses to accept these background checks at all, they can’t ever deny them, and after 3 days, federal law states that default process takes effect.

    Please don’t screw this up and let them know how to fix their mistake before it’s too late.

    1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

      That’s not a worry. They know where they screwed up and they already know how to fix it. The problem is they know that they only have one bite at the apple and throwing another $20 million at this the second time won’t work. It’ll fail second time around.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Just so, and not even just because of the cost, or because they now are exposed as the clowns they are. The more attention drawn to proposals like this, the more time allowed for consideration, the better the voters understand it, the less likely these things pass. Deliberate consideration is ultimately the enemy of all the left’s goals. Once people understand what is really going to happen, how, and at what cost, the appeal of the ideals of the left simply evaporate.

  7. avatar Sheep dog says:

    Don’t forget about us in Washington state
    VOTE NO ON I-1639
    keep it fresh in your minds.
    Keep hammering against gun control.

  8. avatar Ardent says:

    The rhetoric and actions of the enemies of liberty, given they are our countrymen, are both humiliating and shameful. Humiliating that a state law could be expounded and enacted while so woefully flawed as to be impossible to comport or enforce, and shameful that citizens of a free state would willing demand a dangerous usurpation of their own liberty.

    Perhaps we, the people of the United States, need a two-state solution: Give those that want it a sovereign state of their own, bereft of constitution, tradition and even reality, if they so choose, and allow them to prosper or fail, live or die by their own consciences and devices.

    The more obvious problems aside, such would result eventually in a failed state within our borders.

    Further, one can imagine the complaints of the leftist states that the influence of liberty, from the remaining free states, upon their citizens was the cause of discord and dystopia within their borders. This was the argument for the construction of the Berlin wall, though not in so many words. As it turns out, no one chooses tyranny, or communism for that matter, so long as alternatives exist. No one that is except the American left. Then again, when one is no longer constrained by science, history, natural law, logic, reason, or even the hard bounds of reality, what could possibly result but chaos and disorder. Order is the stuff of life, for what are we but intensely complex little bundles of exacting order? Likewise, disorder is death, being that the slightest derangement of our anatomy, chemistry or even temperature results in the collapse of the whole? It is this way with civil society and even civilization its self; it depends on a fragile order, easily upset, and once deranged, like the body, cascades downward toward disorder and death.

    It can be said that the left adores intentions while the right hold results precious. When infected, an ill intended dose of penicillin beats a well meant hammer to the skull anytime though. The body politic is much the same; intentions mean nothing in the face of results, and just as a little medicine does the body good, too much can prove fatal. Thus, even when, as occasionally happens, the left is correct in its directions, its scope and pace are deleterious to the whole body. More often though, it seems the left is intent on gouging out the eyes because what they behold is ugly to them, and likewise they would destroy the body because it is imperfect. Just what it is they believe will replace our fragile and admittedly flawed republic isn’t at all clear, but that they are intent upon its destruction for the barest chance m, however unlikely, of some improvement in this way being made is clear enough, and is likewise reason enough to stay their hands and oppose their motions where ever and whenever possible, by any means necessary.

    1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

      Perhaps we, the people of the United States, need a two-state solution: Give those that want it a sovereign state of their own, bereft of constitution, tradition and even reality, if they so choose, and allow them to prosper or fail, live or die by their own consciences and devices.

      Atlas Shrugs, the Sequel?

  9. avatar Marty says:

    Good job, you put the stupid advertising right over the wording. I guess I didn’t need to read the article after all.

  10. avatar American Patriot says:

    They must really feel STUPID having spent all that money on something even a Moron would know if they had even read 1 paragraph on how things work here.
    We need to put on the ballet that ALL background checks should be Free since it is a constitutional right & those that fail and/or lie on the 4473 be fined 5-8k instead of prison (which they don’t do anyway). It’s only fair the costs get spread to everyone in the state for this since I have to pay for all the F**king illegals in this state!

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