Nevada 'Universal' Background Checks - Not So Fast

Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,282
Likes
5,854
Location
My forest stronghold
Nevada voters may have passed Bloomberg's UBC ballot question, but it looks like it's not going be become reality:

Nevada's voter-OK'ed gun background checks blocked

The FBI sent a letter Dec. 14 to the state of Nevada’s Department of Public Safety saying it would not conduct these checks. The department asked for a legal opinion on the letter’s ramifications.

...the Nevada Attorney General’s Office opinion states, “citizens may not be prosecuted for their inability to comply with the Act unless and until the FBI changes its public position and agrees to conduct the background checks consistent with the Act.”

In a statement, the attorney general’s office said, “without this central feature (the FBI background check), the Background Check Act cannot commence.”
The FBI gave several reasons why it would not conduct the check. The main reason is that “the recent passage of the Nevada legislation regarding background checks for private sales cannot dictate how federal resources are applied.”

This makes me happy.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,566
Likes
953
Location
Mass
Thats excellent, also a blow to people trying to get it passed in other states. If they know from the start the FBI won't do it.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
24,937
Likes
49,654
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
PA Gun Blog picked up the story:
http://www.pagunblog.com/2016/12/28/nevada-background-check-initiative-cant-be-implemented/

The issue is that Nevada is designated as a Point-of-Contact (POC) state, meaning that, like Pennsylvania, they have a state background check system that is designated by the FBI to conduct background checks under the Brady Act. Bloomberg’s new law states that the checks have to be conducted by the FBI’s National Instant Check System. Given that Nevada is a POC state, the FBI will not conduct checks on behalf of Nevada. The law cannot be complied with, and is therefore completely unworkable and unenforceable.

AGs opinion pointing out the law can't be enforced as written:
https://www.scribd.com/document/335236577/Read-Nevada-AG-s-opinion-FBI-letter
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,750
Likes
70,346
Makes me think that the antis who came up with this shit really didn't do their homework... did they really think that NICS would support this shit? [rofl]

The reality is that they would have had to ban all private sales (ala WA) and that probably would have failed at the ballot box in NV.

Thats excellent, also a blow to people trying to get it passed in other states. If they know from the start the FBI won't do it.

This just means they'll go to banning private sales, but that shit won't fly in most states that aren't filled with commies.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
4,842
Likes
2,701
Makes me think that the antis who came up with this shit really didn't do their homework... did they really think that NICS would support this shit?

Upon realizing this, the Nonsense Mom's are going to start recruiting lawyers who (presumably) have an awareness (if not understanding) of the labyrinth of State and Federal gun laws.

Of course they didn't worry about this before, because they were after "no guns for anyone". No shit, I know a maniacal Anti who is absolutely un-apologetic about taking everyone's guns away.
 
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
4,094
Likes
4,135
Location
GONE
Hold the phone. Does this mean the law stands, and the background checks don't exist, so no more private sales? Or..?

The FBI can't "say" the law isn't enforceable and make it so. Can the AG just ignore a law on the books (cough cough) or shouldn't it be appealed?
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,282
Likes
5,854
Location
My forest stronghold
Hold the phone. Does this mean the law stands, and the background checks don't exist, so no more private sales? Or..?

The FBI can't "say" the law isn't enforceable and make it so. Can the AG just ignore a law on the books (cough cough) or shouldn't it be appealed?

As I understand the article, the law stands because it hasn't been struck down and it hasn't been changed. Unlike Massachusetts, Nevada legislators cannot change a ballot initiative that passes for three years.

However, because the FBI will not reallocate its resources, private parties cannot access the FBI NICS system and therefore have to way of complying with the law. The AG has determined that because it's impossible to comply with the law, it is unenforceable. If it's unenforceable, it's moot.

My guess is that the NV AG was no fan of the ballot question to begin with.

It's dead. From here, two things can happen. The NV legislature can wait three years and amend the law. Or, Bloomberg & Co. can poor money into another ballot question to fix the current law. That will probably take just as much time and perhaps another $20M.
 

amm5061

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
7,653
Likes
6,373
Location
Holliston, MA
As I understand the article, the law stands because it hasn't been struck down and it hasn't been changed. Unlike Massachusetts, Nevada legislators cannot change a ballot initiative that passes for three years.

However, because the FBI will not reallocate its resources, private parties cannot access the FBI NICS system and therefore have to way of complying with the law. The AG has determined that because it's impossible to comply with the law, it is unenforceable. If it's unenforceable, it's moot.

My guess is that the NV AG was no fan of the ballot question to begin with.

It's dead. From here, two things can happen. The NV legislature can wait three years and amend the law. Or, Bloomberg & Co. can poor money into another ballot question to fix the current law. That will probably take just as much time and perhaps another $20M.


I can't see Bloomberg & Co having the patience to wait three years, though it would give them plenty of time to bribe who they need to pass the change. I'm betting more on option 2. That asshat has too much money and $20M is just a drop in the bucket for him.

Hopefully the people of NV see through his utter bullshit the second time.
 

Koolmoose

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
1,030
Likes
507
Location
Other side of the bridges behind the iron curtain
I can't see Bloomberg & Co having the patience to wait three years, though it would give them plenty of time to bribe who they need to pass the change. I'm betting more on option 2. That asshat has too much money and $20M is just a drop in the bucket for him.

Hopefully the people of NV see through his utter bullshit the second time.

Spot on ^. They (and he) won't like the negative publicity of a failure, and they have the narcissism and $'s to go for a correction. One would hope this would be a wake up call for the good people of Nevada and won't be passed a second time.

With a Trump appointee leading the FBI there probably will not be any changes in their view of not supporting the law. Imagine what the FBI might have done under a HRC administration?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom