$20m defeat for Bloomberg. AG kills Nevada's "background check" initiative

[Pilot1]

Maybe he should give up his eight man, professional, armed body guards (all ex NYC detectives) to save some money?

[interfan]

Other states have UBCs, what makes this one problematic?

It is a rural conservative versus urban liberal struggle that relied on outside money, logistical support, and fraud to get approved by voters in two counties, where as it was defeated in the remaining counties. Nevada is even worse than most states for rural representation as the majority of land in the state is federal land, so population can't disperse naturally with private land.

Here is the text of the measure:

Shall Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to prohibit, except in certain circumstances, a person from selling or transferring a firearm to another person unless a federally-licensed dealer first conducts a federal background check on the potential buyer or transferee?
Yes  No 

However, Nevada is a Point of Contact state, so we don't use the federal system. There was no fiscal note to disclose any determinations for a budget for a second system. The FBI said no to a dual system as well. The current system is self funded with the $25 fee for background checks (LE/Carry permit holders exempted). The language never defined "certain circumstances" and what they mean, and the drafter never provided any procedure for FFLs to implement it or rectifying it with current Nevada law, which states:

NRS 269.222  State control over regulation of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition; limited regulatory authority of town; conflicting ordinance or regulation void; records of ownership of firearms; civil action by person adversely affected by enforcement of conflicting ordinance or regulation.
1.  The Legislature hereby declares that:
(a) The purpose of this section is to establish state control over the regulation of and policies concerning firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition to ensure that such regulation and policies are uniform throughout this State and to ensure the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, which is recognized by the United States Constitution and the Nevada Constitution.
(b) The regulation of the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, carrying, ownership, transportation, storage, registration and licensing of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition in this State and the ability to define such terms is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature, and any other law, regulation, rule or ordinance to the contrary is null and void.

The Nevada legislature and governor already defeated the same proposal, and the strategy behind it is a "bluing" of Nevada by reliance on liberal voters in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Washoe County (Reno), to set the agenda for the state. The same strategy is at play in California, Illinois, Colorado, New York, etc.

What was being promoted in the ballot summaries is this:

A yes vote supported requiring firearm transfers to go through a licensed gun dealer. Certain transfers, including temporary transfers and those between immediate family members, would be exempted.
A no vote opposed this proposal requiring firearm transfers to go through a licensed gun dealer.

The "no" wasn't truthfully characterized as the law remaining the same (Brady bill for purchases through a dealer, Brady exemptions for private party sales). The advertising was "If you vote no, you're putting children at risk from dangerous felons who buy guns at gun shows". It became a typical "emotional" decision by obscuring the facts and never looking at the funding, implementation, or enforcement of it. It was all "do it for the children. Think of the children!!"

Afterwards, they only won by 0.8% (9,200 votes) and arrogantly claimed it to be a "clear victory and mandate". When and if the Trump DOJ investigates voter fraud, it will be interesting to see the actual results.

Source of some facts on it: https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Backg...stion_1_(2016)

[nml]

Other states have UBCs, what makes this one problematic?

No state has Universal Background Checks. They may call them that but unless they are doing background checks on people stealing firearms they are NOT universal.

[titsonritz]

I hope he losses $20 million for every state he sticks his fat nose in. It would be awesome if he dies alone, in a shit house with dick cancer.

[interfan]

Very entertaining reading from the AG's office and the FBI: http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvg...GO_2016-12.pdf

Since the FBI said that Nevada "voters" can't change federal programs and they won't participate - and that the Nevada system is better anyway, the AG saw this as leading to an unconditional ban on transfers since there could be no federal background checks as specified in Q1. It provides an interesting view into the logic behind "Common Sense Background Checks" and where they lead.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

This is why I voted to get make it harder to get of Amendment ballot measures approved here in CO. When you can lose Constitutional rights with 50%+1 or VOTERS (let alone actual eligible voting citizens), that is too much of a threat to liberty. Anything cool that we get passed gets thrown out by the courts (CA Prop 8) or circumvented (tax limits here in CO) by the legislature and these idiotic laws against us never get kicked out. Plus, you want to bet that a hard core dem AG wouldn't just say that all private transfers are illegal then unless they physically are owned and transferred through the books of an FFL?

I don't put my rights up to popular vote.

[THCDDM4]

**** Michael Bloomberg. **** him in his fat New York City Ass. He can burn in hell.

Good on Nevada.

[drsal]

Maybe he should give up his eight man, professional, armed body guards (all ex NYC detectives) to save some money?

Hmmm, if they are former NYPD most likely means they are awful marksman and couldn't hit anything anyway. Probably shoot each other in the crossfire.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Hmmm, if they are former NYPD most likely means they are awful marksman and couldn't hit anything anyway. Probably shoot each other in the crossfire.

It does seem like NYC cops think the only way to lock a slide back is to do a mag dump.

[KalashniKEV]

Where did the 20,000,000 figure come from? I hadn't seen that before.

Probably just made up.

Nobody spends $20M on something nobody has ever heard about... and nobody even notices that they did anything.

That 20m could have gone to feed and clothe some bitterly impoverished American children.

If he really cared, he could have put $20M behind creating a truly instant background check system that is accessible to all, for any reason, at no cost, and the whole country would get behind it.

What's the point of spending here and spending there backing a solution that doesn't work, for a system that is flawed?