Nevada's new background check law hits snag!

[mojave30cal]

Yesterday Nevada's Attorney General deemed a new Nevada
law passed on November 8 requiring background checks on
private gun sales unenforceable. The law was to have gone into
effect January 1, 2017.

The ballot initiative called "Question 1" required all private
guns sales go through a licensed FFL using the FBI database.
The FBI sent a letter to the Director of Public Safety on Decem-
ber 14th. saying they will not do the background checks.

Because of this, the Attorney General's opinion concludes that
without this central feature, " the Background Check Act can-
not commence".

Nevada is a "point of contact" state that uses a combination of
the federal NICS system and a state central repository. "This
database includes things like mental health records, domestic
violence incidents, misdemeanor criminal records and arrest
reports, as well as restraining orders."

Question 1 was financed by former NY mayor Bloomberg and
Everytown for Gun Safety.

Nevada law also says that ballot initiatives can't be re-written
or re-worded for three years. Our legislature meets every 2
years, with the next session starting next month. So the Dem-
ocrats can't do much for at least the next two legislative sessions to make this law pass legal muster.

So for now, a win for the pro-second amendment crowd.

 

[mmande]

This is very interesting and don't get me wrong, I am jumping up and down yelling YES,YES,YES! But how is the FBI going to know if the dealer is requesting a private party sale or one out of their own inventory? Are they just anticipating an avalanche of background requests (yea right) and feel they don't have the manpower to handle it? The FBI is still under the thumb of the current administration and I wouldn't think President Obama would object to this.
Very curious;
Mike

 

[jag312]

As a new Nevada resident and as a refugee from the People's Republic of California, I am overjoyed. This sends a message to a certain New York carpetbagger and to the Las Vegas political machine that the free people of Nevada have rights and they can't take that away from us. What we need now is for the Federal Government to disassemble the Las Vegas political machine, maybe under the RICO Act, and send a certain political boss to jail. I hear OJ Simpson might like a new cellmate.

Nevada AG Stops Universal Background Check Firearm Law

 

[Muss Muggins]

Thankfully, somebody who didn't understand the Nevada firearm background check system wrote the law . . .

 

[italiansport]

I for one don't see how this could be enforced anyway. If a family member passes down a heirloom to another member of the family do you really think they're going to go for a background check?
IMO: As soon as the Supreme Court is settled next year this "law" ought to be brought up(appealed) as a constitutional infringement on 2nd Amendment rights.

Jim

 

[bigtubby]

As it stands now the new law would totally ban private party sales because the FBI will not do background checks directly for FFL's so there is no mechanism in place to do the background check you have a defacto ban on Private party transfers. Which was not the intent of the new law. Since there is no way to comply with the law it cannot be enforced.

 

[Big Cholla]

And it really burns me up, but what did I expect?.....Both the Reno and the LV newspapers in their write ups on this story are mostly only quoting the statements and positions of the anti-gun leaders. In just the last few years both newspapers have swung from being very conservative to being closet liberals and now openly biased to the left. ......

 

[Mistered]

This is a great victory for gun owners in NV but how is it Nevada would have used the FBI database as opposed to say Oregon using the Oregon State Police data base for BGCs as per our SB 941? Or to put it another way how did the Nevada Hwy Patrol steer clear of this responsibility? Apparently the FBI refusing to accomplish the BGCs was a simple 'twist of fate' that killed Question 1 in Nevada.

 

[Toyman]

It is the way the proposal is written and has to be followed to the letter no changes can be made for 3 years. Nevada dealers are required by Nevada law to use the state run system for a fee of $25 per transaction and further the FBI stated in a letter that the Nevada system is more thorough method as it access local records.
A Nevada dealer is not allowed to use the FBI system.
The other issue caused by the proposal is that Nevada residents could no longer use their CCW as a background check and would have to submit to the state run system and pay the $25 fee.

 

[fordson]

To clarify for me: can private firearms sale and transfers legally take place under current NV laws w/o the FBI BC?

 

[bigtubby]

To clarify for me: can private firearms sale and transfers legally take place under current NV laws w/o the FBI BC?

Yes, we used to have a "Blue Card" system where the buyer would go to a local substation and register the gun he had purchased, Metro would run a BGC on the individual and run the serial # of the gun to make sure it was not reported stolen. Usually the seller would accompany the buyer as well to make sure he actually went and had the gun transferred into his name. The buyer wanted the seller there so if the gun came back stolen or confiscated he could get his money back from the seller. This system was only used in Clark County and was repealed in 2014 since then no BGC's on private sales.

 

[NevadaBob]

Mistered...The law's language stated the FBI was to do the bc's.

fordson...What bigtubby said. Clark County = Las Vegas. Us folks up north in Reno never had a Blue Card system. As far as I know, if a NV resident wanted to buy one of my firearms, all they would need is proper NV ID and be of age. One needs to follow the general BATF guidelines. Now the bigger question is: Would I personally want to sell a firearm to just anyone who shows up on my doorstep? No...I'd feel a moral responsibility beyond the ID/age requirement.

As a side note, NV has 17 counties...16 counties voted against the law. The one that voted for it, and the most populous, was Clark County.

 

[Nevada Ed]

They said the law was poorly written ........
had loop holes and could be read into several meanings.

Hope it fails.

We have gun check laws that work..........
it just depends on the person on the other side, doing their job
on checking all the data correctly, if the person is dirty or not.

 

[filipows]

Thankfully, somebody who didn't understand the Nevada firearm background check system wrote the law . . .


This is the same group who did similar legislation in Washington. Likewise poorly written and not readily enforced.


I expect they will continue with this tactic. Lucky for NV they really messed this one up.

 

[NevadaBob]

The folks in Maine faced a similar vote this past election. They defeated it!

 

[Big Cholla]

Apples/Oranges

The folks in Maine faced a similar vote this past election. They defeated it!

Maine doesn't have one county out of 17 that has 50% of the state's population. And, half of that population has moved to Nevada from California in the past 5 years. And, one quarter of that population are illegals from south of the US border. Some exaggeration in that, but still not far from the truth. A majority of the voters in 16 counties voted against Prop. 1. The uninformed voters in Clark County only approved the measure by 1%.

Bloomberg and his supporting groups spent about $15 million on presenting this proposition to the voters of the state to win putting it on the ballot by petition. They wrote the proposed law and that is what was voted on. They made the fatal error in their legalese and by Nevada law it can't be altered in any way for three years. I wonder what will be cooked up by the Bloomberg anti-gun bunch in trying to salvage that $15 mil?

 

[alwaysoutdoors]

Maine doesn't have one county out of 17 that has 50% of the state's population. And, half of that population has moved to Nevada from California in the past 5 years. And, one quarter of that population are illegals from south of the US border. Some exaggeration in that, but still not far from the truth. A majority of the voters in 16 counties voted against Prop. 1. The uninformed voters in Clark County only approved the measure by 1%.

Bloomberg and his supporting groups spent about $15 million on presenting this proposition to the voters of the state to win putting it on the ballot by petition. They wrote the proposed law and that is what was voted on. They made the fatal error in their legalese and by Nevada law it can't be altered in any way for three years. I wonder what will be cooked up by the Bloomberg anti-gun bunch in trying to salvage that $15 mil?

Why didn't they spend that money wisely? Oh, wait...........

 

[fordson]

Pardon me for stealing the thread but just an observation: if Bloomberg and his team were truely interested in helping children, $15M would go a long way in buying school supplies, lunches and even health care for the young. But I guess that's really not thier goal is it........?

Sorry, -- Back to the original thread

 

[bigtubby]

It is the way the proposal is written and has to be followed to the letter no changes can be made for 3 years. Nevada dealers are required by Nevada law to use the state run system for a fee of $25 per transaction and further the FBI stated in a letter that the Nevada system is more thorough method as it access local records.
A Nevada dealer is not allowed to use the FBI system.
The other issue caused by the proposal is that Nevada residents could no longer use their CCW as a background check and would have to submit to the state run system and pay the $25 fee.

Just to clarify a gun purchase from a FFL/Dealer new or used if you have a current CCW you would be exempt from the BGC and $25.00 fee. In the new law there is no provision for that so it would be required.

 

[the ringo kid]

I for one don't see how this could be enforced anyway. If a family member passes down a heirloom to another member of the family do you really think they're going to go for a background check?
IMO: As soon as the Supreme Court is settled next year this "law" ought to be brought up(appealed) as a constitutional infringement on 2nd Amendment rights.

Jim

I cant see how it could be enforced--and the majority of LEOs I know here (and believe the same elsewhere) wouldnt enforce it anyway.