Thursday, November 27, 2014

Nevada Could Soon Put Background Checks on the Ballot


A pro-reform gun group in Nevada this week collected the largest number of signatures ever gathered for a ballot initiative in the state — more than double the amount required by law. The group,Nevadans for Background Checks, is gaining inspiration from the success of a similar initiative in nearby Washington, where residents passed a major victory for gun control last week.

The organization on Wednesday delivered nearly 250,000 signatures to election officials for a state ballot measure that could strengthen the screening and reporting of gun purchases. For three months, members of Nevadans for Background Checks, as well as representatives from Everytown for Gun Safetyrallied support from citizens in each county of the Silver State. They hope to close the loopholes in the law that allow felons, domestic abusers, and mentally-ill individuals to buy guns.

If Nevada’s secretary of state validates the signatures, the initiative will go to the Legislature during the 2015 session. Reform groups, including Everytown, expect background checks to qualify as a valid initiative for the Legislature to vote on next year. But if lawmakers fail to pass the measure, or if Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoes it, the organizations will take the issue directly to voters as a ballot measure in the 2016 presidential election. Members are also pushing for similar ballot initiatives in other states, including Arizona and Maine.

Last year, the Nevada State Legislature passed a bill requiring background checks on all gun sales. But Sandoval vetoed the measure, despite 86% of his constituents saying they favored passing mandatory background checks for all firearms purchases.

46 comments:

  1. "Last year, the Nevada State Legislature passed a bill requiring background checks on all gun sales. But Sandoval vetoed the measure, despite 86% of his constituents saying they favored passing mandatory background checks for all firearms purchases."

    Well, first, we know that these polls with the fantastically high percentages are in truth unbelievable. We know this because we just had a much more accurate poll taken in Washington State and the numbers there came to 60%.
    Also, lets look at how that worked out for Governor Sandoval. His opponent Robert Goodman, who earned a 0% from the NRA by the way was actually beat out by "None of the above" in his own party's primary. Then was thoroughly trounced in the general election, losing to Sandoval (who was endorsed by the NRA) 70% to 24%.
    We shall see as the process goes, but puking up the same polling data that has been proven incorrect, while seeming to be the norm in gun control circles, doesn't help their cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dispute the numbers all you want, even by your numbers a clear majority want better gun laws. On what basis does the Gov. go against the majority of his constituents? Because he was in the pockets of the NRA.

      Delete
    2. "Dispute the numbers all you want, even by your numbers a clear majority want better gun laws."

      I'm sorely tempted to use your common refrain about it being determined by less than the majority of the population, but I understand your desire to be able to fall back on that when you cant blame it on Bush.

      "On what basis does the Gov. go against the majority of his constituents? Because he was in the pockets of the NRA."

      Any politician can elect to go against the will of his constituients, but at the risk of being removed from office during the next election, or even a recall as we saw happen in Colorado.
      I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Governor Sandoval's stance on gun rights likely hasn't changed since he was first elected. Then during his term, this poll comes out with the standard mythical 80 to 90 percent want background checks. During the term he even vetoes a background check bill.
      Then he was reelected by a wide margin against a Democratic who couldn't even beat "none of the above" in his own party's primary. What exactly does that tell you?


      Delete
    3. "but I understand your desire to be able to fall back on that when you cant blame it on Bush."

      What a total lie, as usual from a fucking liar. I have never used Bush as an excuse for anything. Please prove it liar.

      "Then during his term, this poll comes out with the standard mythical 80 to 90 percent want background checks. During the term he even vetoes a background check bill."

      Standard is mythical to you since you are such a delusional liar. Another poll cites a fact many other polls cite, yet, you call it a myth. What a stupid fucking moron you are.

      You are sick dude.

      Delete
    4. This is not "puking up the same polling data." Each of these polls is different and some are more accurate than others.

      Delete
    5. And it seems to have had zero effect in the election for governor. It will be interesting to see what the actual percentages are if the referendum is validated. Perhaps we can use the data to factor in an accuracy offset for the next poll such as this.
      What do you think Mike? If this goes to a popular vote and it also comes in much lower than the poll numbers, will you still insist that different polls have different accuracies?

      Delete
    6. SS continues to tell us that because someone wins an election that means the people support his/her decisions on policy. That has never been true and this case proves it, but SS will continue to lie about that just to push his pro gun stance.

      Delete
    7. Well Anon, would YOU vote for someone who has been endorsed by the NRA and has vetoed recent legislation mandating universal background checks?

      Delete
    8. Love your lying diversions SS.
      Point is this guy voted against his constituents expressed position on the issue.
      Next lie SS....

      Delete
    9. Well, my first thought is that the poll might just be inaccurate, like the one in Washington state. Not only did the Governor who vetoed the legislation thoroughly trounce his Democratic opponent, both the House and the Senate went from Democratic to Republican majorities.
      We shall see when it comes up for a vote in 2016, because it doesn't look likely to go anywhere in the legislative branch.

      Delete
    10. There is a blatant lie about me by SS, Mike.
      Should I thank him? Kiss his ass? Fuck that. SS ism one of those guys who joined the military because he wanted to kill. He expects respect just because he wears the uniform, fuck that too. Now he's backing the actions of a Gov. who is acting against the will of the majority of his constituents. Typical for dictator type thinking, which aligns with gun loon thinking. They could care less what the people want, or how many innocent people die, as long as they get it their way. He's a dangerous asshole.

      Delete
    11. Wow, SSG--I think you're doing better at the "despised by the despicable" thing than I am! Well done . . .

      Delete
    12. "Now he's backing the actions of a Gov. who is acting against the will of the majority of his constituents. Typical for dictator type thinking, which aligns with gun loon thinking. "

      Governor Sandoval using his veto power is perfectly legal and acceptable. And in exercising that power, he had to realize that he would be answerable to the voters in the next election. And it appears that the voters not only chose to keep him as a Governor, they also gave him a Republican majority in both the House and Senate.
      That is how the political process works.

      Delete
    13. I shutter to think were America would be if over the more than 250 years their leaders went against the will of the people. You must be stupid, or lying to think we built a great country with politicians refusing to act on behalf of the will of the people.

      Delete
    14. "I shutter to think were America would be if over the more than 250 years their leaders went against the will of the people."

      Anon, he didn't act against the will of the voters, he merely didn't act using that poll as an indicator. Keep in mind there are two legal remedies for voters to remove someone who doesn't act the way they want.
      The first of course is to remove him during the regular election by popular vote. And the second would be to recall the governor as allowed by their State Constitution. Just like they did with two state legislators in Colorado recently.
      He was reelected by a healthy majority in the local election, which would indicate that the voters are ok with him keeping his job.

      Delete
    15. SS again denying polls that have been consistent for a long time. People don't usually oust someone for a mistake, but keep doing it and they will. Again you try to claim the people's will is something we know it is not just because some slimy politician was not put out of office. I don't know why people elect criminals, but they do and it doesn't mean they are no longer criminals.

      Delete
    16. "SS again denying polls that have been consistent for a long time."

      And we've now begun to learn that the polls are likely consistently wrong. Washington just had a straight up vote with no other issues to get in the way and the 80 to 90 percent number miraculously turned into just under 60%.

      "Again you try to claim the people's will is something we know it is not just because some slimy politician was not put out of office."

      The ways that the people express their will to politicians is to either voice them directly in the form or correspondence, or failing that through the election process.
      Governor Sandoval must have had some other indication that he was on politically safe ground when he vetoed the legislation. Or perhaps he was acting solely on his personal beliefs.
      Whatever his reasons, it would seem that the voters of the state are ok with his actions since they not only reelected him by a wide margin, they also voted in Republican majorities in the state Senate and House.
      I assume you're referring to Governor Sandoval as a criminal being rhetorical, since he hasn't done anything illegal. Iff you live there you're quite welcome to show your displeasure by voting against him.

      Delete
    17. "What do you think Mike? If this goes to a popular vote and it also comes in much lower than the poll numbers, will you still insist that different polls have different accuracies?"

      I thought I responded to this already - maybe that was on another thread.

      The actual vote will always show a smaller percentage in favor of gun control than the surveys. Many people are too apathetic to bother voting but if asked they agree with the gun control side. Gun owners on the other hand are more passionate for the simple reason they have something to lose.

      Delete
    18. Gun owners on the other hand are more passionate for the simple reason they have something to lose.

      Is it your contention, then, that "gun control" advocates do not have anything to lose? That's odd--I keep hearing that when more restrictive gun laws are not passed, we all lose, in that "gun violence" that would otherwise have been significantly reduced, instead continues unabated.

      So you know that's bullshit, eh?

      Delete
    19. That's right, Kurt. Nit pick my comment into the Land of Tedium.

      Of course everyone has something to lose with you gun nuts getting your way. But most non-gun owners just think the bad thing will never happen to them. They tend to be apathetic. Gun owners on the other hand are naturally into gun rights and show up at the voting booth.

      Keep pretending you don't follow my thinking and drag this out as much as you can. That's what you do when you have nothing of substance to say.

      The other implication to ssgmarkcr's point would be that the surveys which show support for gun control are wrong. I don't think that's the case except maybe in some of the really extreme cases. The fact is the number of gun owners and the number of homes with guns are both declining. You gun owners are owning more and more guns. How many have you acquired in the last year - in the last 5 years?

      The future of gun rights looks bleak. Face it.

      Delete
    20. Keep pretending you don't follow my thinking and drag this out as much as you can. That's what you do when you have nothing of substance to say.

      I respond to what you say. If that differs from what you mean, the obvious solution would be for you to start saying what you mean.

      The future of gun rights looks bleak. Face it.

      I suppose we'll see. I have no doubt that I'll have just as many guns (particularly the politically incorrect ones) when I die as I have now--and will quite likely have several more, and will routinely carry at least one when out and about.

      Delete
    21. "The future of gun rights looks bleak"

      Especially when (as proven by the gun loons who post comments here) those advocating the pro gun position are liars who could care less about human life.

      Delete
    22. "The fact is the number of gun owners and the number of homes with guns are both declining."

      Except that you've recently posted a recent poll that now shows gun ownership increasing. And of course there is the very steady growth of those acquiring carry permits. In fact I've personally contributed to that by gifting a friend with a carry permit class.
      And as I've mentioned in previous posts, other evidence of this growth range from the expansion of indoor ranges to the rapid growth of high school trap leagues.
      And while there have recently been a number of states to adopt shall issue permits systems such as Wisconsin and Illinois, have you seen any states going from shall issue to may issue? Neither have I.
      Bleak indeed. Future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.

      Delete
    23. "I respond to what you say. If that differs from what you mean, the obvious solution would be for you to start saying what you mean."

      Like you do, Kurt? Like you did with that stupid remark about the sledgehammer to the head?

      Your telling me to say what I mean just a couple days after you made that stupid joke makes you a hypocrite, Kurt.

      Delete
    24. "Except that you've recently posted a recent poll that now shows gun ownership increasing."

      I don't think so.

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2014/11/fascinating-gallup-polls.html

      Delete
    25. "I don't think so."

      Thank you for posting the link to the poll I mentioned Mike. And as you can see, gun ownership has started to rise. And in that post is my comment regarding the growth in shooting sports in schools.
      Just think, over six thousand high school students learning an Olympic shooting sport this year (my son being one), and I'm sure the schools will try to grow their programs to accommodate those that had to be turned away due to lack of space.
      It will be interesting to see if the upward trend continues when the poll is conducted again next year. But with the growing youth interest in the shooting sports, I wonder how well the polls reach these youth.
      Has anyone else seen evidence of youth involvement in their respective states?

      Delete
    26. The overall trend of gun home ownership is way down. The recent trend is down. The up and down trend recently reflects the school shootings, and every time a school shooting happens knee jerk idiots go out and buy a gun. Your description of the poll doesn't match the poll numbers. Why do you have to lie to make a point SS?

      Delete
    27. Like you do, Kurt?

      I'm not the one whining about you "pretending you don't follow my thinking." Besides, now you claim to have known all along that I wasn't serious about the sledgehammer thing.

      Delete
    28. "The overall trend of gun home ownership is way down. The recent trend is down. The up and down trend recently reflects the school shootings, and every time a school shooting happens knee jerk idiots go out and buy a gun."

      Anon, for some reason you choose to ignore the data from this poll that until now has been the big evidence that gun ownership is declining. Now its showing an increase. You also seem to want to ignore the other evidence I supplied to support my belief that gun ownership is growing.
      The growth of school shooting leagues is evidence that counters the assertion that the shooting sports is dying out as the average age increases. Minnesota is seeing rapid growth of these activities in schools. And apparently so is its neighbor, Wisconsin,

      "The 2012 event marked the 40th anniversary of the shoot. A record 890 shooters participated, up from 700 in 2011."

      http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/more-teens-lured-by-trap-se5i8h3-154571915.html

      As for your assertion that the increase is due to recent school shootings. I'm assuming you're referring to calls for further gun control legislation causing a surge in sales.
      You guys need to get your stories straight because I keep hearing people saying the increase in gun sales are just current owners buying more guns. If that was the case, then the number of households with guns wouldn't increase. Now you're saying that it is causing an increase. Which one is it Anon?

      Delete
    29. No master liar, the stats show ownership WAS in the 50's now much lower. It's a fact reported by all news sources that there have been gun buying sprees after every school shooting, next lie SS.....Your ASSumptions are proving you to be a lying ASS.

      Delete
    30. "No master liar, the stats show ownership WAS in the 50's now much lower."

      And now it seems to be recovering.

      "The slow drop-off of households owning guns has ended, rebounding in a new poll to 39 percent, up five points from the latest survey."

      "That is a sizable uptick from the four-decade drop in household ownership charted by the authoritative General Social Survey. It pegged household gun ownership at 50 percent in the 1970s, 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s, and down to 35 percent in the 2000s. The latest 2012 statistics put the share of households with guns at 34 percent."

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2541876

      Lets look at a national level organization that teaches shooting skills that has also experienced rapid growth, Project Appleseed,

      "Project Appleseed is an apolitical[1] rifle marksmanship training program that focuses on teaching traditional rifle marksmanship from standing, sitting/kneeling, and prone positions over a two day weekend shooting clinic for what is termed an "Appleseed". It is one of the major activities of The Revolutionary War Veterans Association (RWVA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that teaches and promotes traditional rifle marksmanship, while also teaching American heritage and history with the intent of encouraging people to become active civically."

      "In 2008, Appleseed had nearly 4,000 attendees. In 2009, there were more than 450 scheduled Appleseed events that taught 10,000 shooters. In 2010, 32,000 had been taught to shoot by the end of the year.[8] In 2012, there were over 1,000 Appleseeds held, by which time over 40,000 shooters had been taught. In addition, a select cadre of Appleseed instructors from across the nation gathered at Fort Stewart, GA and taught a deploying Army unit in marksmanship skills in 2012. By late 2014, over 70,000 shooters had been taught."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Appleseed



      Delete
    31. Hey Anon,
      I just came across this new study released just today that suggests that support for gun control has now fallen behind the belief that gun rights are important,

      "For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership."

      "The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 3-7 among 1,507 adults, also finds a shift in attitudes about whether gun ownership in this country does more to protect people or put people’s safety at risk. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say gun ownership does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, while 38% say it does more to endanger personal safety. In the days after Newtown, 48% said guns do more to protect people and 37% said they placed people at risk."

      http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

      Delete
    32. I just came across this new study released just today that suggests that support for gun control has now fallen behind the belief that gun rights are important.

      SSG, I found this to be a particularly enlightening bit of information from the Pew Poll:

      Over the past two years, blacks’ views on this measure have changed dramatically. Currently, 54% of blacks say gun ownership does more to protect people than endanger personal safety, nearly double the percentage saying this in December 2012 (29%).

      It's starting to look as if the "gun rights advocates are overwhelmingly old, fat, white men" myth is going to have to go on life support. Pull the plug, I say.

      Delete
    33. As you typically do SS master liar, I will just claim that survey is false and you are full of shit. End of discussion.

      Delete
  2. I sent Gov Sandoval a letter of thanks for vetoing this asinine piece of legislation.

    MBIAC....

    ReplyDelete
  3. This will go to the people for a vote and living in the demozombie enclave of clark county as I do I have no doubt it will pass..However it will not get 86% of the vote .The poll was manipulated to get the answers the poll taker wanted. The vast majority of the residents of Nevada do not understand the gun laws already in place in this state and clark county..

    In Nevada you have the right as a gun owner to request that the buyer come with you to your local PD or sheriffs office and undergo a free background check at which time they also run the gun to see if it is wanted in connection with a crime.. NO FFL involved no fee no waiting periods and it generally takes 20-30 mins while I do not support this being forced on anyone if it is going to happen then it should be the current system that is made mandatory or give citizens access to the NICS system and not the forced use of an FFL...And having spoken with many a FFL holder in Las Vegas they do not want this to be part of their buiness because because even if they charge the usual $20-$40 for a transfer they will not make enough money to make it worth their time once expenses are taken out

    In Clark county if a Handgun is transferred to you or you move to the county already owning handguns you have 72 hours to present said firearms to local law enforcement at which time you will undergo a background check as will the firearms if not done at the dealer where gun was purchased...This also is not something I support but abide by..and it has a good change of being repealed in the next legislative session

    MBIAC....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would you not want this to be mandatory? Don't you believe that some criminals get guns through private sales without background checks?

      Delete
  4. "Why would you not want this to be mandatory?" As I have said in other post I do not believe any US citizen should ever be forced to ask permission to exercise there rights and I apply that to all rights and all citizens..when then gov is able to force us to ask permission they are able to fool some into thinking they are giving us privileges while robbing us of our rights..

    " Don't you believe that some criminals get guns through private sales without background checks?" I am sure some criminals are able to get guns through private sales and I dont lose any sleep over it just as i dont worry about drunks getting behind the wheel or million other things people fret over. When I sell a firearm i take a photo of the buyers photo ID and fill out a bill of sale for each of our records and that's as far as I take it..When I buy guns I have had people ask me to go to the sheriffs station and go through a background check which I have no issue with because neither of us was forced by the gov to comply with asking permission to exercise our rights or had any funds extorted from us.

    MBIAC....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound like an adolescent who bristles at being told what to do. Your procedure for selling a gun doesn't do shit towards ensuring the buyer is qualified. That makes you part of the problem. I'll bet you keep guns laying all around your house too and when someone breaks in and steals them you insist you're not in any way responsible.

      Do you have a problem with the requirement to get a driver's license or car insurance? I know, I know, they're not "rights." But, just try and prevent people from using motor vehicles and you'll see how quickly it becomes a right.

      How about the taxes you pay to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. You do have a right to smoke and drink if you choose to, don't you? Are you up in arms about those funds that are extorted from you?

      No, I'm afraid, you've shown us over and over again you're a hypocritical gun-rights fanatic who doesn't give a fuck about anyone other than yourself and your little guns.

      Delete
    2. Are you up in arms that it is not a crime to give an adult friend a beer that you bought without a $40 ID check from a licensed alcohol vendor? Or that it is not a crime to bum a cigarette? Do these things upset you, or are you a hypocritical anti-gun rights fanatic?

      Delete
    3. "You sound like an adolescent who bristles at being told what to do" another personal attack such as you always whine people do to you...thats hypocrisy.

      "Do you have a problem with the requirement to get a driver's license or car insurance?"...Yes

      "How about the taxes you pay to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. "...I dont smoke and drink less than a six pack a decade..but yes I take issue with those also

      "No, I'm afraid, you've shown us over and over again you're a hypocritical gun-rights fanatic who doesn't give a fuck about anyone other than yourself and your little guns."... As I have been trying to get you to show me where I lied please show me where I have been hypocritical just once not over and over.. And I certainly dont "give a fuck" about unprincipled America hating elitist such as yourself that part you got right

      MBIAC.....

      Delete
    4. What does MBIAC stand for?

      Delete
    5. My Bias Is Always Criminal

      Delete
    6. Anon while it makes no sense you get a Bozo button for being the slightest bit imaginative congrats...."My Bias Is Always Criminal"


      MBIAC......

      Delete
    7. My Bias Is Always Criminal is the one with the Bozo button on his desk. His comments scream Bozo constantly.

      Delete
  5. "If this goes to a popular vote and it also comes in much lower than the poll numbers, will you still insist that different polls have different accuracies?"

    As I mentioned in the Washington case, the actual voting will always come in under the poll numbers. Many people on the gun control side suffer from apathy whereas, gun owners tend to be more passionate and involved since they have something to lose. When asked in a poll, many of the apathetic ones will respond for gun control but don't even bother to vote.

    ReplyDelete