Universal Background Checks Fail in Maine, Pass in Nevada


“In a major upset for Maine’s gun rights grass-roots and over a campaign apparatus that steeply outraised them, voters rejected an expansion of background checks on private gun sales and transfers on Tuesday.” That won’t make Shannon Watts or her paymaster, Michael Bloomberg happy. Particularly given all the cash the diminutive former mayor poured into the state. Question three went down by a 52 to 48 vote.

But they’re no doubt much happier about the results from Nevada. By a much slimmer margin — less than one percentage point — Silver Staters approved UBCs.

As ktvn.com reports,

The governor, state attorney general and 16 of the state’s 17 county sheriffs joined opponents of the measure, backed by the National Rifle Association.

They called the initiative a threat to Second Amendment gun rights that would cost law-abiding gun owners time and money.

They argued that criminals just don’t get background checks.

Oh, and as expected, Gavin Newsom is dancing a jig this morning as California’s Proposition 63 passed last night. Golden Staters will now become criminals for possessing magazines that hold more than ten rounds and will have to undergo a background check when they purchase ammo.

Also, to complete the anti-2A trifecta, Washington’s Initiative 1491 was approved by voters. That gives police and courts the ability to confiscate firearms via  so-called gun violence restraining orders or, as proponents in Washington christened them, “extreme risk protection orders.”

One step forward, three steps back.


  1. avatar Ragnar says:

    “One step forward, three steps back.”

    Hopefully, challenged in a pro-2nd Amendment U.S. Supreme Court.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      This is more proof that Democracy is a racket and should be greatly limited..

      We are working on getting rid of this moronic law…

  2. avatar stateesevil says:

    Can’t believe they saw through the BS in Maine. Great job! But you know Bloomberg won’t quit. His lust for victims is insatiable.

  3. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    The NRA and Gun Owners need to start holding states that restrict Gun Owners rights accountable.

    Shot Show should be moved from Las Vegas, NV to a more Gun Friendly State if Nevada just passed Universal Background checks.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Oh, good point. Gun shows are no longer possible in Nevada … at least gun shows that include people handling firearms. Time to find a new venue for SHOT show.

      1. avatar CTstooge says:

        Would be a major financial blow to NV for sure.

        Then again, NSSF is still based in Newtown, CT even after Sandy Hook and all the legislative abomination that followed.

        1. avatar Gerbs says:

          Sandy Hook happened on NSSF’s doorstep. Coincidence? I think not.

    2. avatar neiowa says:


      Problem with moving HUGE trade shows is the cesspool and Orlando area area about the only places with the space and hotels to handle one. Or you going to go to Chicago/McCormick Place? I refuse to go to/spend $ in Vegas or Chicago.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Phoenix has plenty of hotels and convention centers. It’s also just as close to Cali.

      2. avatar ATTAGReader says:

        High Point NC has all the Furniture Market space that goes unused the rest of the year. Shall issue CHP, no mag or feature restrictions, no registration. Ruger factory and HQ for Freedom Group. Regrettably the pistol purchase permit if no CHP, but it’s shall issue and only $5.00. Spitting in the face of Roy Cooper (D) elected Governor by a few thousand special snowflake votes out of 4 million. Our two (R) Senators and our new (R) Congressman Ted Budd, gun store owner, could and probably would cut the ribbon. Even though there are gun shows everywhere, the area also has an extreme liberal contingent and the freakout factor would be well worth the effort.

    3. avatar Hunter says:

      question 1 in NV still has to be voted on one more time before it becomes law and gets added to the states constitution. all ballot initiatives must be voted on in 2 consecutive elections, 2016 and 2018, before they get added. so we have one more chance to stop it.

      1. avatar notalima says:

        Hunter, only amendments to the state Constitution require two consecutive election ballots. Question #1 (and 2 for that matter) are not Constitutional Amendments, but propose new statute(s) or amend
        existing statute(s). There require only one election cycle.

        This will go into effect on Jan 1, 2017. See the specific PDF of the documents at http:/ /nvsos. gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=4434

        1. avatar notalima says:

          Hunter, the pertinent section is Section 9 of “THE BACKGROUND CHECK INITIATIVE” on Page 13 of the PDF.

  4. avatar Cliff H says:

    How does this affect gun shops that rent guns? Can a customer in a gun shop handle a firearm before making the purchase? Will undercover agents be in the parking lots at gun shows trying to bait individuals into letting them hold the guns they are trying to sell. or maybe trying to arrange an illegal sale without a/an unconstitutional background check?

    Nevada Sheriffs opposed this for one specific reason – they said it is UNENFORCEABLE! Add to that the fact that it is just as unconstitutional as the NICS system and background checks themselves.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “The governor, state attorney general and 16 of the state’s 17 county sheriffs joined opponents of the measure …”

      If the Governor, State Attorney General, and 16 of the state’s 17 County Sheriffs oppose the measure, there is no one to enforce it and the measure is a moot point.

  5. avatar mirgc says:

    What happened to the 90%?

    It seems like every time one of these ballots come up, the % keeps getting smaller and smaller.

  6. avatar pg2 says:

    Maine is looking good. They rejected mandatory vaccines for schoolkids last year also. Way to go. Model for states respecting individual liberties.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      You can get out of immunizations in most any State on religious grounds (so what exactly is the difference between philosophical and personal religious beliefs?)

      1. avatar UnPC Aussie says:

        The first ammendment protects religious freedom, not the freedom of parents to endanger their children and other members of society based on an irrational fear of the greatest public health success story ever. Children are not property and, contrary to the belief of some, their interests must be paramount when issues such as vaccination arise. If you are not aware of the benefits of vaccination then you should talk to your doctor the next time you are there to get information from reputable sources on their benefits and risks.

        Personally I think that the religious exception is pants-on-head retarded and shouldn’t be there either, a known medical condition should be the only reason that people are exempt from vaccination.

        Here in Australia there has been the introduction of “No Jab, No Play” and “No Jab, No Pay” legislations which doesn’t force parents to vaccinate their children but it does prevent them using government funded childcare and from receiving any of the family tax benefits they would accrue from having children until those children are either on the vaccination schedule or a catch up program. Since this happened the amount of people claiming to be conscientious objectors has dropped significantly.

        1. avatar whinky says:

          Sorry you seem to think that having a natural immune system is a disease that must be remedied with mandatory administration of a pharmaceutical product for which the company carries no liability. Glad I live in a** backwards old ‘Merica.

        2. avatar pg2 says:

          Thanks for your pants-on-head opinion from down under. Yes, children are not property, they are not for you to decide what medical procedures they must or must not get. BTW, I’ve lived in Australia, luckily many people down under don’t wear their pants on their head as you do, and still respect the individuals right to make their own medically informed decisions.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Thank’s for sharing “subject of a Fing king/queen”. How primitive/medieval/superstitious.

        4. avatar Mike B in WI says:

          You mean that same doctor who the AMA and the AAP want to tell you whether you should own firearms and if you insist on owning them, on how you should store them?

          Or like our pediatrician who asks if our kids know how to swim, but then asked if we own firearms. Why is he not asking if we have a pool and if so, do we secure it properly, and then asking if our kids have been trained in safe firearm handling.

          And he never asks if we safely store our cleaning supplies and our insect and rat poisons.

          Those doctors?

        5. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Mike, I don’t think he’s talking about those doctors. He’s talking about the ones who are responsible for approximately 400,000 deaths every year from “preventable medical errors”.

        6. avatar Gerbs says:

          Wow.. you are so wrong. I mean, you literally just regurgitated the same non-sensical Statist bullshit that somehow ascribes healthcare to be a “Human Right”.

          Let’s be clear:

          The State DOES NOT gain ownership of people’s children because you don’t like the way they’re being raised.

          It IS NOT your RIGHT to force everyone else to be vaccinated.

          This isn’t even a question of social utility – the government simply is not granted the authority to force immunizations.

        7. avatar Justsomeguy says:

          We really don’t care much how you do it in Australia.

      2. avatar pg2 says:

        In practical terms there isn’t much difference between religious and personal/philosophical exemptions in most states, but some states do have stricter rules on the religious exemption. Only a minority of states have the personal/philosophical exemption, and the religious exemption is under attack in several states.

  7. avatar Icabod says:

    Washington’s I-1491 passed the same way the background check bill passed. Slick ads featuring tear jerker stories. The message was always “If only we could have kept guns away from him…” Worse, there were no opposition ads. It was as if everybody had just rolled over and conceded.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Unfortunately, it was always going to pass, because King County loves gun control with a passion.

      1. avatar Gruney says:

        King county registered voters: 1,281,882
        Washington registered voters: 4,269,970

        King county voter turnout: 65.93%
        Washington voter turnout: 64.64%

        Kind of says it all, 30% of the registered voters and chock full of progressives.

        Source: http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html

  8. avatar c4v3man says:

    It passed here in Nevada as expected. There’s a possibility the less than 1% could have been influenced by early voting locations staying open way past their scheduled close times in certain democrat leaning regions near Las Vegas.

    Can you buy a law… maybe. Should you do everything possible to make your state unattractive to Commiefornia immigrants? Yes… we lost due to Californians that immigrated to Nevada, full stop. I’m not sure what options we have available to repeal this law, but I’m hopeful we can do it.

    One thing Trump can do is push to require the background system be open to the general public without a form 4473. That will take the wind out of the sails of any other background check laws, or at least allow them to be amended to allow the background check to take place without a dealer. I’m all for allowing for background checks to be run on potential buyers, however Question 1 wasn’t about background checks, it was about laying the foundation for a national gun registration system.

    1. avatar notalima says:

      It passed due to Clark County. Every other county voted ‘NO’ in the majority… but due to population distribution, Clark carried the vote for the entire state.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        More transplanted Kommieforninan impact?

        1. avatar notalima says:

          Yes, PRC migration and retirees from NE ‘Blue States’.

          “It failed in our old state, but surely it will work here, by golly”

  9. avatar FedUp says:

    “Gold Staters will now become criminals for possessing magazines that hold more than ten rounds and will have to undergo a background check when they purchase ammo.”

    Then let them be the best criminals they can possibly be.

    Anybody want some 50 round LE packs of 147gr HST for $22 a box plus postage?
    I’d love to mail a case to Californians.

    Maybe I should buy some 30 round PMags and mail them to CA too. Anybody know where I can get a good deal on 100?

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I’ll help you mail them.
      WA’s legislature just got democratier and the attorney general promised to push for an “assault weapon” ban next session. We need a legal case to get to the supreme court in late 2017, so the newly staffed court can explain what “shall not be infringed” means.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Brownells has been running sale with 10 for $109.

      Kind of a WWII supply the underground thing? I like it. Perhaps a gofundme.

  10. avatar Steve says:

    I come to you from the future. Massachusetts has on the books a similar set of regulations, no Magazines over 10 rounds, background checks, show your ID card for ammo and only can buy ammo locally. As apparently follows CA and NV in part.

    After decades of coexistence within these regulations by manufacturers, FFLs, gun owners; our AG unilaterally removed AR’s and similar looking copycats from the market. Your future?

    Seriously looking for answers here. How do we stop the voting process from taking our rights? Our AG problem here in MA is another issue and one for the courts. But it did not take much to go from common sense regulation to an AG imposed total ban tomorrow.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Legally speaking, rights are not subject to vote or popular opinion. Unfortunately that requires a population with an IQ over room temperature to keep the government in check on this.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Soapbox, ballot box, cartridge box.

      As of last night the Supreme Court has potential for redress. They MAY figure out (minus the senile old broads) that states rights do not trump Constitutional guaranteed rights of individuals.

    3. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      I’m also from the future…You forgot that all firearms are licensed in Massachusetts. To purchase, to own, posess, etc…First you got to go through the SAFETY certificate hurrdle–spending $100.00 or more dollars. Then you have to realize that Massachusetts local/state police have absolute control over a Massachusetts residents 2nd amendment rights. Your have to fill out an application, and make an appointment to me with a Local licensing p/o without an attorney present…And have a little chit-chat,fingerprints,etc….Then the bureaucracy continues for weeks on end…Maybe you get your permit , were hust talking say an FID for low capacity rifle/shotgun, and ammo…Not a LTC for pistol… All are subject to prohibitions, restrictions, constitutional waviers, suspension, or revocation without cause….Not including the MASSACHUSETTS firearms record bureau…Or your state issued pin numbers for purchase, and transactions….That’s only if you receive it by S mail after weeks, or months on end…..or a denial letter from the chief of pd……

  11. avatar notalima says:

    Maine managed to scrape through by concentrating on the rediculous provisions in the ‘Temporary Transfers’ section (same wording as NV Question 1 AND the old i594 from a few years ago).

    • Soldier getting deployed and want to store your firearms in a friend’s safe? GO TO JAIL. (does not meet any of the temporary transfers provisions)

    • Borrow a rifle from a friend to go hunting and walk one foot outside of the designated hunting area? GO TO JAIL. (outside of designated hunting area)

    • Shooting with a friend in a non-designated range and let him/her shoot your firearm and walk away to go to the head? GO TO JAIL. (not in ‘direct proximity’)

    • Loan a firearm to a friend who has a protective order against her x-boyfriend that has previously harmed her and has threatened future harm? GO TO JAIL (no ‘imminent’ jeopardy)

    • Leave your MSR with a friend who has the appropriate tools/skills to install a new handguard or re-barrel it? GO TO JAIL (not in ‘direct proximity’)

    Nevada did not concentrate on this foolishness and now we are stuck with this craptastic law.

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      whelp, when the liberals get skeert and turn tail and run to a safe, econimicly viable state with a functioning education system; its not long until they ruin it for the rest of you.

      If you want to save nevada, colorado, new mexico, arizona ect… you gotta fix california, NJ, NY ect first.
      write them of as a lost cause and you invite the liberal idiots who made it that way to come to your state and all over the place with their votes.

    2. avatar Ken from Maine says:

      The other thing that paid a large part was the out of state billionaire trying to influence our way of life. We get enough of that from the massholes.

      1. avatar notalima says:

        Yes, there were a LOT more commercials for ‘Vote YES’ than ‘Vote NO’. 5 to 1 at least.

        1. avatar c4v3man says:

          Same here, but you have a lot of useful idiots that claim it will save lives and encourage people to vote yes. The local paper here in Reno backed question 1, even though practically every sheriff in the state opposed it. Very few anti-commercials, but then again Question 1 was funded heavily by Bloomberg and his organizations to the tune of 3:1 against the NRA, at 19 Million from Bloomberg and 6 Million from the NRA.

          But the NRA is a big bully… right…

  12. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    You lost your guns rights on the west coast but you gained your intoxication rights. I was told by commenters on TTAG two years ago that both rights were of equal value.
    To them it was no big loss.
    I’m so glad I left California 30 years ago.

  13. avatar Hunter says:

    question 1 in NV still has to be voted on one more time before it becomes law and gets added to the states constitution. all ballot initiatives must be voted on in 2 consecutive elections, 2016 and 2018, before they get added. so we have one more chance to stop it.

    1. avatar notalima says:

      WTH? Where did my reply go?


      Hunter, only amendments to the state Constitution require the two election cycle ballot. As Question 1 (and Question 2 for that matter) are not Constitutional Amendments but propose new statutes or amend existing statutes, they require only one ballot.

      Take a look a the PDF of the legislation (quick google will bring it up). Take a look at Section 9 on page 13. The effective date will be January 1, 2017.

  14. avatar Kyle says:

    California hopefully will run into the same problems that New York has in trying to set up a background check system for ammunition. We are required by law to go to an FFL to buy our ammunition or receive it if ordered online, but there is no background check required. There is “supposed” to be, per the 2013 (un)SAFE Act, but the state has not been able to get it up and running.

  15. avatar Calvin 180 days an counting says:

    More meaningless restrictions to law abiding citizens who support the second amendment. Are these people so ignorant do they thing a criminal would bother with a background check to purchase a firearm?
    I’m not a Nevada resident but I’m voting with my feet. I just decided what state I won’t be retiring in next year. I also crossed Washington off my list due to this kind of BS.

  16. avatar MeRp says:

    Man, there are a LOT of magazines that are now, suddenly, illegal to own. Is someone going to set up a site where the rest of us can buy these used mags off of Californians at “I don’t want to go to prison” prices?

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