Las Vegas Sun
Backers of an initiative petition requiring background checks for gun
purchases in Nevada won a court victory Friday and a spokesman said the
group is ready to start gathering signatures.
District
Judge James Wilson ordered a minor rewrite of the initiative, striking
down most of the arguments of those who said the 200-word description of
the petition was misleading.
Matt Griffin, attorney for Nevadans
for Background Checks, said he was pleased with the decision, which
will allow his clients to begin gathering the required 101,667
signatures to qualify the initiative.
Rew Goodenow, an attorney
representing a pro-firearms group, said he did not think there would be
an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court at this stage but he wants to talk
to his clients before deciding on future legal strategy.
The
current law requires a person who buys a gun from a licensed seller to
undergo a background check. The initiative would require a background
check in purchases from an unlicensed dealer.
The petition says
the law makes it easier for felons, domestic abusers and other dangerous
persons to buy a weapon without a background check.
The
background check would not be required in the transfer of firearms
between family members, for those using the gun while hunting and
trapping and who have valid licenses for this activity.
If it goes to a popular vote, it will certainly negate the claims of politicians kowtowing to the whims of lobbyists on whatever side.
ReplyDeleteAs Resident of the State of Nevada there is nothing that could get me to sign this piece of shit or vote for it if it makes it to that point. In Clark county which is where the vast majority of the state resides there is already forced hand gun registration and in the entire state if you as the private seller of a firearm choose to you can have the buyer meet you at your local police or sheriffs station and have a Back ground performed free of charge with out involving an FFL holder who is going to charge you a fee plus the state fee of $25. I have no issue with people having a choice to perform a free check. however forced checks with unreasonable fees never going to support that type of forced infringment into anyone constitutional rights. So there is already a system in place to handle this and these idiots want to change it to forcing people to go through an FFL absolute morons .Does not state this in the article however that is how the petition reads.More shills for Bloomberg that need to be shown the door.
ReplyDeleteNOT ONE MORE stop senseless anti gun laws now
MBIAC....
I wonder if you feel the same about voting rights and argue against the unreasonable restrictive laws that have been passed in many States?
DeleteYou mean requiring a photo ID to show you actually live in the precinct you're voting in? Just like the photo ID you have to show when you buy tobacco or alcohol or that you have to show to cash a check or open a bank account or fly on a plane..
DeleteVoluntary background checks are totally useless. MBIAC is opposed because the cost is so exorbitant? I suspect the real reason is he just doesn't like being told what to do, like the rebellious teen bristling at the restrictions of his parents.
DeleteThe difference is that in this matter we're talking about saving lives, which increased background checks certainly would do.
"Voluntary background checks are totally useless."
DeleteWhy is that Mike? Gun control advocates often trot out the high percentage of 80 to 90 percent of the voters want background checks on private sales. Wouldn't allowing private sellers the ability to run their own NICS check on a potential buyer result in an immediate increase in the percentage of sales being screened?
I meant it when I said "totally useless." We already have a voluntary system in effect. No one is stopping people from seeking out a background check on private sales if they want to. What we need is to make it mandatory, and of course, combine it with licensing and registration.
DeleteThese issues are all interrelated and the comparison is not out of line. To bad you don't have something better to respond with.
DeleteInteresting mike how you once again censor my reply to anons question yet refer to it in your own. Exactly the type of thing people have grown to expect of you...failing to mention my assertion about not having to show Id for any right just did not fit into your narrative did it just cherry picking the fees issue. Your cowardice once again shines through. Will you once again deny your censorship of comments ?
ReplyDeleteMBIAC.... MikeB just another traitor to the truth and enemy of the republic.
I didn't censor or delete anything of yours. You're the lying "traitor to the truth," making false accusations.
DeleteYour welcome around here has worn thin. Keep your remarks on topic and avoid the name calling and they'll be posted.
DeleteMike you asking me not to call people names is the pot calling the kettle black..what's worn thin is your BS and lack of honesty. Keep my remarks on topic this thread got hijacked by one of your ilk talking about voter suppression...
DeleteMBIAC...
MikeB: "Voluntary background checks are totally useless."
ReplyDeleteSo all that 90% stuff that the gun control supporters keep quoting- you think that's bullshit. They're lying?
Are you high? That comment doesn't even make sense.
DeleteI'm saying the same thing Sarge just said. You guys claim a strong majority of gun owners want background checks for private sales, but at the same time say NO ONE would actually use it unless compelled to by the threat of prison.
DeleteActually what I said was there already is a voluntary option. If someone wants to do a background check on a private sale, no one is preventing them from doing it, in fact, we've heard of people who do just that. What I say is only a legal requirement for background checks on all transfers, combined with licensing and registration, would have the desired effect.
DeleteYou are still saying that a strong majority of gun owners want private checks, but aren't doing them? Why? Is it because going down to an FFL is too much of a pain? So why not have a DIY NICS system then? Only good can come out of it. You can even concede a voluntary system, and then later push to require it by law. A transition period would be needed anyway.
DeletePeople generally take the easiest path. Even those who agree with the theory of universal background checks are usually not going to go the extra mile to conduct one unless constrained to do so by law.
DeleteThe DIY system would be only partially effective. There has to be oversight. That's why I say we need universal background checks plus licensing and registration.
I agree with you about the "easiest path" thing. That's why I keep touting DIY checks over the bills gun control people keep pushing. If you want people to do something, make it cheap and easy. Not difficult and expensive.
Deleteguy,
ReplyDeleteThe laws that say one must have an ID to vote, but one cannot get an ID from their State until after the election (the law was purposely made that way). The cost of that ID is a poll tax. States that cut voting hours and the number of voting places, causing long lines and people not being able to vote. People who have no birth certificate (more common than you think) for many reasons. There are more, but these are some of the verified reasons thousands could not vote in 2012. So either you are misinformed, outright lying, or support voter suppression.
Many states will give you a free ID if you can't afford the five buck charge. And if you don't have a birth certificate, states have made allowances for that, social security card, EBT card, utility bills in your name, ect.
DeleteThe laws that say one must have an ID to vote, but one cannot get an ID from their State until after the election (the law was purposely made that way).
I think that's B.S. In my state, you can go to the DMV and walk out with a photo ID the same day.
You think, but you don't know. You think wrong because that is the basis of some of the lawsuits around the country. Study up.
DeleteAre you aware that courts have found some voting bills to be unconstitutional because of their restrictive provisions? Just wondering because your statement seems to suggest their is no such thing as a restrictive voting bill. Your responses are not universal fixes. Not every State that has voting restrictions can produce an ID the same day the ID is applied for, in fact many States it takes weeks to get the ID. What about the States who have passed laws saying a student attending school out of State from his home State cannot vote anywhere but the students home State, which might be thousands of miles away, thus denying the student the right to vote.
ReplyDeleteThat student doesn't have a right to vote in a state that he/she is not from. An out of state voice should not have a voice in a visiting state as the implications can be very broad.
DeleteBut there is a provision, its called a mail in ballot so they can have a voice in their own state and its done all the time. The mail in ballot gives them their right to vote, not deny it.
Their rights are NOT denied by being thousands of mile away. They just need to follow these procedures, its not hard.
" Not every State that has voting restrictions can produce an ID the same day the ID is applied for, in fact many States it takes weeks to get the ID. "
Citation needed for that statement.
Guess you don't keep up with the news and the facts, not my problem.
DeleteOh I DO keep up with the facts, not the news media's version of them. Believing or regurgitating the same liberal media bias IS your problem.
DeleteYeah, sure, you stick to Fox News where they tell it straight with no bias.
DeleteDo tell us, where do you get your facts(?) from?
DeleteI get my facts from many different sources and try to keep an open mind. When something doesn't make sense to me I try to figure it out. What you gun nuts do is the exact opposite. You take a bizarre position, like more guns less crime, and then twist the facts or cherry pick stats to support it.
Delete