Friday, December 30, 2016

NV: AG says Background Check Referendum Unenforceable



The FBI has stated that it cannot and will not comply with the mandate prescribed by the "universal background check" referendum that was passed in November in Nevada.  The referendum was Ballot Question 1, a complicated eight page referendum that required private sales to be conducted through federally licensed dealers. From the Nevada Secretary of State archive.org:


You can see that explicitly in subparagraph 3., the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, (NICS) is required to do the check, and *not* the Central Repository in Nevada, as is done according to Nevada law, currently. 

Nevada law allowed private individuals to voluntarily run checks on private firearms transfers. Ballot Question 1 made those voluntary checks mandatory, and required that they be done by the FBI in NICS.

According to Ballotpedia, the FBI has informed Nevada that they will not do the "background check" as required by the Ballot Question 1:
According to a letter from the FBI to Nevada, "the recent passage of the Nevada legislation [Question 1] regarding background checks for private sales cannot dictate how federal resources are applied." Furthermore, Nevada is one of 12 states with a state-run background checks system and does not depend on the FBI to perform existing background checks.[1]
The FBI suggested that the Nevada Department of Public Safety's Criminal History Repository (CHR) conduct the background checks of private-party sales and transfers. However, Attorney General Laxalt concluded that such a move would violate the initiative's language.
 The Attorney General, Adam Paul Laxalt (R) issued an opinion on the enforceability of the referendum. Taking into account the FBI's unwillingness to be directed by the State. From reviewjournal.com:
CARSON CITY — A new Nevada law requiring background checks for private party gun sales was deemed unenforceable Wednesday, days before it was to take effect because the FBI refuses to conduct them and the state lacks authority to do so.

The opinion issued by the office of Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt left gun enthusiasts elated and proponents of background checks reeling from the blow of another setback — the second since 2013 when a bill requiring universal screenings was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval.

Backers are now turning their sights to the 2017 Legislature, while others expressed hope that the state and FBI can work out a compromise.
It appears that Ballot Question 1 is a dead letter for the present. Under an Obama administration, the FBI might be pressured to "find a way" to make it work. It is highly unlikely that a Trump administration will be so inclined.

Michael Bloomberg should have spend another million or so to buy some high priced lawyers to vet the initiative  before signatures were gathered.

It is about 20 million dollars down the drain for the anti-rights zealot.

That is chump change for Michael Bloomberg. 

Nevada Secretary of State Democrat Ross Miller, was quite willing to certify a dubious ballot initiative under questionable circumstances. The current Nevada Secretary of State, Barbara Cegavske, is a Republican.

If the performance is to be repeated, it will take another three years and more than $20 million.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch


5 comments:

Paul Weber said...

Blatantly un-Constitutional. If I decide to give my old shovel to a friend, does the government have the power to force me to go through an intermediary and get government approval first? No, so why is it any different for a different tool?

Anonymous said...

We might think about shortening the name of California is this post to just fornication. it certainly is a screwed up state.

Anonymous said...

I think the proper word would be Californiafication. maybe leaving out the letters was intentional.

Anonymous said...

I think they would have to prove that no one has ever been killed with a shovel. I made this point a long time ago. carpenters hammers are not licensed. Ice picks are not licensed hand axes are not licensed. cars are licensed so are driver and it has stopped no car accident deaths, accidental or other wise I'm sure the trucks used by the terrorists in France were licensed. Most of the ass holes passing these stupid laws are not gun owners. I think putting them all in a situation where they would beg for a gun would cure a lot of them.

Anonymous said...

Paul Weber, there is actually more of a premise for arguing that those shovels and hammers should have to go through an intermediary - because that PROPERTY is subject to reasonable searches and seizures. Guns on the other hand are NOT relegated to fourth amendment protections, they are and were specifically addressed along with other property termed "arms", as in weapons, within the Second Amendment.

Irony is dripping from that very real situation, huh?