Gun Rights Group Asks Nevada To Throw Out Gun Ballot Item On Background Checks
A gun rights group, Nevadans for State Gun Rights, wants the state’s elections chief to throw out a proposed ballot measure to tighten background checks for anyone buying firearms from private sellers or gun show exhibitors.
The group also says some signature dates don’t match up and some pages don’t have a proper signature-gatherer’s affidavit.
Miller’s office hasn’t validated signatures yet.
His spokeswoman, Catherine Lu, says clerks in the state’s 17 counties have until Thursday to sample and report any petition irregularities.
Nevadans for Background Checks says it delivered nearly 247,000 signatures Nov. 12 to qualify its measure for the November 2016 ballot.
I thought gun rights groups claim to not be adverse to background checks. When it comes down to it, they’re opposed to any gun safety measure.
H/T: @ComgenKDT with thanks.
Image: AP
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
44 responses to Gun Rights Group Asks Nevada To Throw Out Gun Ballot Item On Background Checks
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 10:32
I have had the opportunity to meet and talk with Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. They were just one of the few organizations that supported the Manchin-Tomney bill last year. They pulled their support for it after Sen. Chuck Schummer torpedoed the bill. Personally, I dont think we should object to background checks. i think it is good for all. But there will have to be a better way. That being said, Here is a proposal of how it could be done. Let the debate begin.
Universal or Near Universal Background Checks
1) Create a National Firearms Purchaser ID Card (NFPID).
Initial conditions require a background check and finger prints (Maybe even add a 2
hour safety and education class.) Specific time restraints must be put in place
for issuing authorities to have completed applications.
2) Make a law of National Reciprocity for Firearm Purchases.
Anybody who is in possession of NFPID is eligible to purchase any “Legal” and in common use firearm in all 50 states.
3) National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Any individual who goes through the training and testing, which holds a NFPID and a
Concealed Carry License issued by his/her home state is eligible to carry a firearm with them and it is valid in all 50 states.
How a Universal Check would work:
1) The NICS database would be open to the public
2) Instant checks would take no longer then 30 minutes
3) Brady’s law would still stay in effect. Any firearm purchased through a licensed dealer would still require a NICS check be run
4) Private individuals would be allowed to run a NICS check on themself that would provide a print out of “Certificate of Eligibility” with a Unique approval number. Two copies of the certificate are to be printed. One copy for the seller and a copy for the buyer, which would be required to be maintained.
a) Certificate of eligibility would be valid for 2 weeks.
b) Certificate of eligibility would have to match information on NFPID
c) A buyer may print multiple certificates
d) Seller via phone/internet is able to verify that the Unique qualifying number
is valid and matches buyers NFPID/Drivers License.
e) Seller writes the make, model and serial number of the firearm(s) on the approval and keeps a copy, he may use it as proof that the sale was conducted with a background check and is subsequently granted immunity from civil lawsuits if the gun is ever used in a crime
5) All handgun and long gun sales would be permitted across state lines from private individuals.
All disqualifying factors would have to be done through a due process with the courts. A proper appeal system as well as a proper mechanism to regain writes must be implemented. Emergency stays can be put in place, but must be processed with an actual court for permanent disqualification.
The system could be paid for through a modest tax (2%), as well as monies received from forfeitures of people who commit crimes with a firearm.
Harsh penalties to be in put in for anybody who manipulates the database. Mandatory sentences.
Individual states/cities could not impose tighter restrictions then what is regulated on a Federal level.
Any person caught selling a firearm without going through the proper procedures and verifications, will be guilty of a felony.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 12:47
explain why anyone – even the psychopaths who already have their steel dicks – need any kind of gun – and don’t offer the bullshit hunting as a sport or they like targets.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 13:36
so in other words, any reason what so ever to own a gun is “Bullshit” to you.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 2nd, 2014 at 13:50
Face to face sales are better because the seller has a chance to view the actions and behavior of the buyer. Dealers have the right, by law, to refuse to sell to anyone who is not acting on the up and up. Personally, I think online and phone sales should be completely outlawed for that reason. There are way too many nutjobs with access to weapons as it is and that would give them unfettered access if their NICS is clean. Furthermore, I notice you don’t mention a single thing about the mentally ill, domestic abusers, or straw purchases. Universal background checks need to be for so much more than what you outline. That being said, even with all the other additions, the typical sane, law abiding gun buyer would still have nothing to worry about. The point is to make the others that don’t need/shouldn’t have a gun by law or otherwise worry a hell of a lot more. It also protects your reputation as responsible owners. If you really think about it, Universal background checks aren’t about you at all if your record is clean, it is about those that misrepresent and or abuse the system. Once you start thinking about it that way you might come up with a more reasonable plan.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 16:12
“I think online and phone sales should be completely outlawed for that reason.” – I dont think you realize, that in order to purchase a firearm online or even as you say phone. the NICS check is not done at that time. The firearm must be shipped to an FFL, which at that point, he takes possession, and before it is transferred to you, a NICS check is run. A very common misconception that is out there.
“mentally ill, domestic abusers” – are already part of the 10 disqualifying factors. A person who has that already on their record, would not qualify and be issued a certificate of eligibility.
“Straw Purchase’s” – that is of different nature. That is when a person purchases a firearm for somebody else. That is already a felony. That currently goes on now? That is already an illegal act.
When you boil it down, a criminal is still a criminal. And no matter what laws you put in place. they will find a way on the black market or with someone who is willing to break the law to sell it to them.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 2nd, 2014 at 16:42
Ahhhh yes, the age old tired “a criminal is still a criminal” argument. When you start talking about making it harder than ever for criminals, then maybe I will listen, that is what most of us want, to make it harder for the criminals. Again, law abiding gun owners would have nothing to worry about. And what about waiting periods? I would much rather have someone have a few days to cool off and rethink buying a gun. You gun owners that are law abiding would not be hurt in the least to have to wait a few days, it will still be there when you get back. Again, these laws are not about you, they are about the others, the mass shooters that buy their guns legally, that wake up one day and say they are going to kill 30 people and because of your selfishness and disregard for the human race can walk into a gun store, purchase a couple of weapons and after a 30 minute background check which shows nothing on their record can walk out and into a school and leave a trail of bodies. Instead of giving teachers guns, why not offer more protections at the source? Make it harder for your average Joe with a mental break kill your son, daughter, wife, husband, mother, father, etc……..? They way you talk it will happen anyway, so let it go………
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 17:59
So tell me… What exactly will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun???
We can debate the rest of your comment in a different reply in order to not confuse issues together.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 3rd, 2014 at 10:48
Better laws, better enforcement, wait times, I could go on and on, but all you will do is repeat the same old tired rhetoric that the NRA does
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 3rd, 2014 at 22:52
Try me…
Margie Bateman Osgood December 4th, 2014 at 12:42
Not that I don’t have a full set of ideas, quite frankly I am tired of bagning my head against the wall and as soon as you used the “Criminals will be Criminals” argument, I knew there was absolutely no point, none, zip, nada. Besides, this is the week before exams and I have three projects to finish. Have a nice fantasy life :-)
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 3rd, 2014 at 22:52
Spell it out loud and clear, and we will see what I will agree or disagree with.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 17:51
Damn right – you do not need one and no one else does either!!!!!!
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 18:01
Ahhhhhhhhh OK ????? SMH !!!!
Why don’t you tell us how you really feel then!!!
tiredoftea December 2nd, 2014 at 13:10
Talk to your NRA and GoA buddies about your ideas. This is a red herring that has no legs.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 13:39
Much to your surprise. there is a lot of traction within the smaller groups and the individuals.
tiredoftea December 2nd, 2014 at 14:16
In other words, no NRA and GoA support.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 16:18
Me personally. I am not a big fan of the NRA. Yes, they do some very good things, and at the same time, they also do some very stupid things.
Larry Pratt of GOA is an asshole. And Dudley Brown of NAGR is in the same boat a Pratt.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 11:32
I have had the opportunity to meet and talk with Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. They were just one of the few organizations that supported the Manchin-Tomney bill last year. They pulled their support for it after Sen. Chuck Schummer torpedoed the bill. Personally, I dont think we should object to background checks. i think it is good for all. But there will have to be a better way. That being said, Here is a proposal of how it could be done. Let the debate begin.
Universal or Near Universal Background Checks
1) Create a National Firearms Purchaser ID Card (NFPID).
Initial conditions require a background check and finger prints (Maybe even add a 2
hour safety and education class.) Specific time restraints must be put in place
for issuing authorities to have completed applications.
2) Make a law of National Reciprocity for Firearm Purchases.
Anybody who is in possession of NFPID is eligible to purchase any “Legal” and in common use firearm in all 50 states.
3) National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Any individual who goes through the training and testing, which holds a NFPID and a
Concealed Carry License issued by his/her home state is eligible to carry a firearm with them and it is valid in all 50 states.
How a Universal Check would work:
1) The NICS database would be open to the public
2) Instant checks would take no longer then 30 minutes
3) Brady’s law would still stay in effect. Any firearm purchased through a licensed dealer would still require a NICS check be run
4) Private individuals would be allowed to run a NICS check on themself that would provide a print out of “Certificate of Eligibility” with a Unique approval number. Two copies of the certificate are to be printed. One copy for the seller and a copy for the buyer, which would be required to be maintained.
a) Certificate of eligibility would be valid for 2 weeks.
b) Certificate of eligibility would have to match information on NFPID
c) A buyer may print multiple certificates
d) Seller via phone/internet is able to verify that the Unique qualifying number
is valid and matches buyers NFPID/Drivers License.
e) Seller writes the make, model and serial number of the firearm(s) on the approval and keeps a copy, he may use it as proof that the sale was conducted with a background check and is subsequently granted immunity from civil lawsuits if the gun is ever used in a crime
5) All handgun and long gun sales would be permitted across state lines from private individuals.
All disqualifying factors would have to be done through a due process with the courts. A proper appeal system as well as a proper mechanism to regain writes must be implemented. Emergency stays can be put in place, but must be processed with an actual court for permanent disqualification.
The system could be paid for through a modest tax (2%), as well as monies received from forfeitures of people who commit crimes with a firearm.
Harsh penalties to be in put in for anybody who manipulates the database. Mandatory sentences.
Individual states/cities could not impose tighter restrictions then what is regulated on a Federal level.
Any person caught selling a firearm without going through the proper procedures and verifications, will be guilty of a felony.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 13:47
explain why anyone – even the psychopaths who already have their steel dicks – need any kind of gun – and don’t offer the bullshit hunting as a sport or they like targets.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 14:36
so in other words, any reason what so ever to own a gun is “Bullshit” to you.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 2nd, 2014 at 14:50
Face to face sales are better because the seller has a chance to view the actions and behavior of the buyer. Dealers have the right, by law, to refuse to sell to anyone who is not acting on the up and up. Personally, I think online and phone sales should be completely outlawed for that reason. There are way too many nutjobs with access to weapons as it is and that would give them unfettered access if their NICS is clean. Furthermore, I notice you don’t mention a single thing about the mentally ill, domestic abusers, or straw purchases. Universal background checks need to be for so much more than what you outline. That being said, even with all the other additions, the typical sane, law abiding gun buyer would still have nothing to worry about. The point is to make the others that don’t need/shouldn’t have a gun by law or otherwise worry a hell of a lot more. It also protects your reputation as responsible owners. If you really think about it, Universal background checks aren’t about you at all if your record is clean, it is about those that misrepresent and or abuse the system. Once you start thinking about it that way you might come up with a more reasonable plan.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 17:12
“I think online and phone sales should be completely outlawed for that reason.” – I dont think you realize, that in order to purchase a firearm online or even as you say phone. the NICS check is not done at that time. The firearm must be shipped to an FFL, which at that point, he takes possession, and before it is transferred to you, a NICS check is run. A very common misconception that is out there.
“mentally ill, domestic abusers” – are already part of the 10 disqualifying factors. A person who has that already on their record, would not qualify and be issued a certificate of eligibility.
“Straw Purchase’s” – that is of different nature. That is when a person purchases a firearm for somebody else. That is already a felony. That currently goes on now? That is already an illegal act.
When you boil it down, a criminal is still a criminal. And no matter what laws you put in place. they will find a way on the black market or with someone who is willing to break the law to sell it to them.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 2nd, 2014 at 17:42
Ahhhh yes, the age old tired “a criminal is still a criminal” argument. When you start talking about making it harder than ever for criminals, then maybe I will listen, that is what most of us want, to make it harder for the criminals. Again, law abiding gun owners would have nothing to worry about. And what about waiting periods? I would much rather have someone have a few days to cool off and rethink buying a gun. You gun owners that are law abiding would not be hurt in the least to have to wait a few days, it will still be there when you get back. Again, these laws are not about you, they are about the others, the mass shooters that buy their guns legally, that wake up one day and say they are going to kill 30 people and because of your selfishness and disregard for the human race can walk into a gun store, purchase a couple of weapons and after a 30 minute background check which shows nothing on their record can walk out and into a school and leave a trail of bodies. Instead of giving teachers guns, why not offer more protections at the source? Make it harder for your average Joe with a mental break kill your son, daughter, wife, husband, mother, father, etc……..? They way you talk it will happen anyway, so let it go………
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 18:59
So tell me… What exactly will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun???
We can debate the rest of your comment in a different reply in order to not confuse issues together.
Margie Bateman Osgood December 3rd, 2014 at 11:48
Better laws, better enforcement, wait times, I could go on and on, but all you will do is repeat the same old tired rhetoric that the NRA does
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 3rd, 2014 at 23:52
Try me…
Margie Bateman Osgood December 4th, 2014 at 13:42
Not that I don’t have a full set of ideas, quite frankly I am tired of bagning my head against the wall and as soon as you used the “Criminals will be Criminals” argument, I knew there was absolutely no point, none, zip, nada. Besides, this is the week before exams and I have three projects to finish. Have a nice fantasy life :-)
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 3rd, 2014 at 23:52
Spell it out loud and clear, and we will see what I will agree or disagree with.
fahvel December 2nd, 2014 at 18:51
Damn right – you do not need one and no one else does either!!!!!!
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 19:01
Ahhhhhhhhh OK ????? SMH !!!!
Why don’t you tell us how you really feel then!!!
tiredoftea December 2nd, 2014 at 14:10
Talk to your NRA and GoA buddies about your ideas. This is a red herring that has no legs.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 14:39
Much to your surprise. there is a lot of traction within the smaller groups and the individuals.
tiredoftea December 2nd, 2014 at 15:16
In other words, no NRA and GoA support.
Pistol-Packing AKA "Susie" December 2nd, 2014 at 17:18
Me personally. I am not a big fan of the NRA. Yes, they do some very good things, and at the same time, they also do some very stupid things.
Larry Pratt of GOA is an asshole. And Dudley Brown of NAGR is in the same boat a Pratt.
mea_mark December 2nd, 2014 at 10:39
Gun rights groups don’t like ballots? Rule by guns is more important than democracy I guess.
mea_mark December 2nd, 2014 at 11:39
Gun rights groups don’t like ballots? Rule by guns is more important than democracy I guess.
M D Reese December 2nd, 2014 at 12:08
Why are gun nuts so afraid of background checks? Is it because every time one of them gets popped for something, it’s learned that they had lost their right to bear arms through some pesky felony conviction or domestic violence incident?
M D Reese December 2nd, 2014 at 13:08
Why are gun nuts so afraid of background checks? Is it because every time one of them gets popped for something, it’s learned that they had lost their right to bear arms through some pesky felony conviction or domestic violence incident?
tiredoftea December 2nd, 2014 at 13:12
Oh, wait, we like our guns better than your right to find out how many of us are incompetent to own them. And, we’ll show you our guns to prove it.
tiredoftea December 2nd, 2014 at 14:12
Oh, wait, we like our guns better than your right to find out how many of us are incompetent to own them. And, we’ll show you our guns to prove it.
William December 2nd, 2014 at 13:58
The well regulated militia.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/us/cnn-guns-project/24-hours.html
William December 2nd, 2014 at 14:58
The well regulated militia.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/us/cnn-guns-project/24-hours.html
rg9rts December 3rd, 2014 at 01:45
What are they sooooooo afraid of if they have nothing to hide and are such upstanding citizens
rg9rts December 3rd, 2014 at 02:45
What are they sooooooo afraid of if they have nothing to hide and are such upstanding citizens