NV: Gun Control Initiative Turns in 247,000 Signatures

Gun Watch ^ | 15 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The initiative to ban private sales of firearms in Nevada appears to have more than enough signatures.

The Bloomberg backed Nevadans for Background Checks has said that it has turned in 247,000 signatures for verification.   101,667 valid signatures are necessary to send the initiative to the legislature.   If the legislature does not enact the initiative into law, then the initiative goes to the voters in 2016.  From mohavedailynews.com:

Nevadans for Background Checks said it delivered nearly 247,000 signatures to Clark County election officials in North Las Vegas, hours after leaders of a group called the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol announced they filed almost 200,000 signatures for their initiative.

With 247,000 signatures, and a Republican legislature, it appears that Nevadans will see the initiative on the ballot.   A similar, but more complicated measure was passed in Washington state where opposition to the measure was outspent nearly 20 to 1.

The initiative in Nevada is 8 pages instead of 18 as in Washington state.  It essentially bans the private sale of firearms, with minor exceptions.  Virtually all sales and "transfers" will be required to go through a federal firearms dealer and have all information about the firearm and the buyer recorded on federal forms.

The initiative could easily have required background checks without recording the firearm and personal information.   Background checks are already done for  concealed carry permits without any transfer of a firearm, so the system is in place. 

Requiring that the firearm information be recorded allows the system to be a precursor to a gun registration system.   Such systems in California and New York are already being used to incrementally confiscate firearms.


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

This is another ban on private sales and a precursor to a registration scheme.

[lavaroise]

So the gun owner becomes a registered corporation while the antigun idiot cannsteal the guns and stay under the radar scree without any liability whatsoever for declaring themselves dangerous and incompetent.

[Red in Blue PA]

There ought to be a law that those from outside the state cannot meddle in their politics......but then that makes too much sense.

[Red in Blue PA]

If gun registration were in place at the time of the founding of this nation, the British would have used that information to hang the Founding Fathers. Every last one.

[KoRn]

Yeah, regulating private sales in any way is just a ‘Trojan Horse’ for all out registration.

Such laws are totally unenforceable without registration of some form. Anyone that says otherwise is lying through their teeth.

What’s bad is the ignorance of so many people among gun owners. I think most of us believe there already IS registration. They believe that’s what we’re doing when we complete the paperwork when purchasing a new firearm. I can’t begin to tell you many many/often times I have to correct people on that misconception.

[Pollster1]

We need to fight back in the initiative arena: use voter initiatives to repeal all restrictive state and local gun laws in the entire state - state by state. We also need to use our new majorities to repeal all restrictive state and local gun laws in states with GOP legislatures and governors.

[Oatka]

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but believe it needs to be repeated again and again.

“The NRA, GOA, and all the other gun rights organizations are going to have to go pro-active on this “background check” business or we will be picked off state by state.

I practically lived on the various newspaper comments sections up in Washington, trying to warn people about I-594: They were being lied to and manipulated, i.e. There is no “loophole” (backed up with quotes from the 1968 GCA) and it is a registration scheme in disguise (typical liberal trick).

Unfortunately, non-gun owners didn’t give a damn. All they could see is how “reasonable” I-594 appeared, ignoring the Form 4473 connection, or else they believed the empty “it would make us safer” meme. To coin a phrase, they were “Grubered”.

It looks like Nevada will have a “background check/4473” initiative on the ballot in 2016, and, as it stands, it will pass. Bloomberg, et al will use the same successful arguments to sway the Gruber-voters there, as well as in Oregon and other targeted states because it is a winning formula.

Our side is going to have to offer a background check initiative that checks the buyer ONLY, via a drivers license or some recognized photo ID - a version that cuts the link to the Form 4473. Currently, the NICS is not allowed to give access to the public for a is-he/isn’t he a criminal background check. We have a more favorable (hopefully) political climate in D.C. now, so maybe the NICS can be modified to do so.

Making defensive arguments against the Bloomberg-type background check scam is not going to work, as I-594 has painfully shown us.

Most of us are familiar with that animated GIF that shows the spread of Shall Issue CCW states. If statewide gun rights organizations don’t go on a counter-offensive, we’ll see a similar one showing how quickly these bogus universal background checks spread.

Start emailing/calling/badgering the NRA, GOA and other state-wide outfits right now.”

[Cry if I Wanna]

A similar, but more complicated measure was passed in Washington state.

This is a tough one for us. If I knew nothing about guns I would probably say to myself, "Who would be against a law that prohibits psychos from getting guns?" On the face of it closing the loophole sounds very logical. In fact, if I could be guaranteed that once this rule is in place no other anti-gun law will ever be enacted, I would vote for it. But, we know the truth. More anti-gun laws will always follow.

[marktwain]

Yes, that is the problem. It is one of education. If the voters can be shown that this is a disguised gun owner registration bill, and that it does not stop criminals from getting guns, we can win.

In Washington State, the message did not get out. The second amendment supporters were outspent 20-1. In additon, the I-591 amendment did not prove to be an effective subsittute for I-594.

[Sgt_Schultze]

If an initiative can be proposed to ban the private sale of weapons, can an initiative be proposed to ban the broadcast or publication of information by an unlicensed information distributor - like a newspaper or a television station?

[barefoot_hiker]

I’m old school and don’t believe in background checks period, even at the retail level.

When “we” support background checks for retail sales (enforce existing laws!) it becomes difficult to explain to the average low-info voter why secondary (private) sales are not checked. Isn’t that a loophole the bad guys can use to get guns?”, they ask.

[ex91B10]

Do not comply if passed. Real simple.

[ctdonath2]

Except that now the gun is provable contraband. It can never be sold legally. Attempt to sell legally becomes grounds for arrest.

[ex91B10]

If you’re worried about getting arrested over exercising your constitutional rights, maybe you don’t deserve them.

[likebefore]

“Our side is going to have to offer a background check initiative that checks the buyer ONLY, via a drivers license or some recognized photo ID - a version that cuts the link to the Form 4473.”

Agreed. The system we should argue for is a dual Voter ID / Legal Gun Owner Card. Any by this I mean that if you can vote you can buy a gun by showing this secure ID. Go to a polling place, show the card, vote. Go to a gun store, show the ID, buy a gun, or two, or however many you want in the same way you can buy a sixpack of beer or a dozen bottles of wine if you show your ID just ONE TIME. NO recording of serial numbers, etc.

The stupidest thing we put up with is the “new background check for each purchase” BS. If I buy a gun in January, have absolutely NO legal problems all year, and then buy another in October why do I need another check? If I bought a gun in 2012 and have no problems why another check in 2014? If I bought one when I turned 18 in the late 1980s and have had NO legal problems for almost 30 years, why do I need another background check in 2014?

How about this: Upon turning 18 you get a secure VOTER ID card, assuming no serious childhood record. From that point forward you can show it to buy guns from whomever you want (and they are ensured of your legality if you show it to them) until that time that your right to vote is taken away, which for 99% of people is never. Seems fair right - if you are legal to vote you are legal to own guns. All gun buyers are “background checked” when reaching adulthood and their ability to buy guns legally is removed if they commit a crime or infraction that is severe enough to warrant the loss of voting rights as well.

I would not want it to be linked with driver’s licenses because driving is a state-sanctioned privilege unlike voting and gun ownership which are rights.