Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sandoval opposes closing gun sales background check loophole ^ | May 28, 2013 | 5:14 p.m. | By Andrew Doughman (contact)

Posted on 05/29/2013 10:48:49 AM PDT by redreno


Gov. Brian Sandoval said Tuesday that he opposes and would veto a bill requiring private party background checks for gun purchases that Democrats support.

Hours after a legislative hearing concluded for Senate Bill 221 from Sen. Justin Jones, D-Las Vegas, Republicans introduced a last-minute bill on the senate floor to compete with Jones’ background check measure.

The move draws a clear partisan line between Democrats and Republicans with the governor now supporting the bill from Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Henderson.

Roberson’s bill, Senate Bill 520, duplicates the provisions in Jones’ bill that would require the courts to more quickly report mental health adjudications to the federal database used for gun purchase background checks.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; guncontrol; guns; nevada; secondamendment; sourcetitlenoturl

1 posted on 05/29/2013 10:48:49 AM PDT by redreno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: redreno

My compromise - I’ll submit to obtaining permission from the fedguv before exercising my 2nd amendment rights, if everyone else agrees to obtain permission from the fedguv before exercising their 1st amendment rights.

Okay, not really.

2 posted on 05/29/2013 10:51:31 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redreno

The bill in question doesn’t add a requirement for doing background checks on private sales, it outlaws private transfers entirely. If it were enacted into law, every transfer would be required to be done through a federally licensed dealer.

3 posted on 05/29/2013 10:52:30 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms." James Madison

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

4 posted on 05/29/2013 11:06:34 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Went to CC yesterday for the meeting. Afterwards, actually this morning knowing the clock is ticking, I sent the committee the following:

To the Judiciary Committee Members.

First I would like to thank the committee for holding the meeting so both proponents and opponents of SB221 could be recognized.

We oppose SB221 for the following reasons.

Having attended the meeting in Carson City on May 28, 2013, we were quite dismayed at the outside interests that were involved in what we consider a Nevada issue. This indicated that this bill is about more than reporting those with possible mental issues to the central repository. If that were in fact the case, mental health professionals might have provided testimony instead of supposed experts on Background Checks. Senator Jones’ key “witness” (former ATF agent and currently a consultant to “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” which is hardly a bi-partisan organization) provided us with data that was incorrect by nearly half in testimony concerning FBI/NICS denials ( Of the denials, it was not stated how many or if any action was taken to prosecute those denied. As to the denials due to mental health issues, you will see that is the ninth reason on the list comprising 1.10% of the denials. A fairly insignificant number. The committee members should also review the entire FBI NICS link for a more complete understanding of the NICS system (

Nationally, firearms related homicides are down over the last 20 years as evidenced by reports from the U.S. Department of Justice/Bureau of Justice Statistics by 39% ( Additionally the Pew Research Center (hardly a pro gun organization) indicates a decrease of 49% over the same 20 year time frame ( This may be a result of Background Checks but more likely due to societal trends or even possibly the fact that many states now have more liberal laws concerning concealed carry permitting.

The father and daughter who lost their nephew/cousin in the Aurora shooting are obviously emotionally invested in the issue and have our sympathy. At issue in that event, is the failure of a mental health professional to report the shooter to authorities knowing that he was a potential threat. Setting a time requirement in reporting may be a positive thing but one mental health professional my have a contrasting view point to another mental health professional opinion on who is or who is not a potential threat. Who defines the threat level? The actual numbers in these “mass shootings” such as Aurora and Sandy Hook is another point to consider. As a percentage of firearms homicides, they are an anomaly and constitute less than 1% of all firearm homicides. The reason these travesties stand out is that the news media reports them non stop for days on end when they do occur. Often times with incorrect initial information causing confusion and misguided conclusions. The number of those killed is the anomaly that creates sensationalized headlines and causes emotional distress to countless people despite the fact that they are extremely rare occurrences per page 13 at( The most salient point in this discussion is that this creates an emotional and irrational response not based on facts. Calls for control of inanimate objects is misplaced and does not address the individual who is, in fact, the actual perpetrator of the heinous event. When emotions are thrown in to the mix, all logic and reasoning are thrown out in order to find someone or something to blame. In these cases that something would be inanimate objects that do absolutely nothing without human interactions.

As to the requirement for law abiding citizens to perform a Background Check when selling a firearms in a private transaction, it was stated that this was un-intrusive and would take little time. That depends on what is defined as intrusive. Adding another layer of bureaucratic red tape and record keeping seems intrusive. During recent firearms purchases, we have experienced a wait time of between half an hour to well over an hour while waiting for approval. To add “private sale” costs to the seller of $30 + $25 for the FFL dealer charge and Background Check fee is an economic burden that some may not be able to bear in these hard economic times. These transactions would also require time and the expense of driving for both parties to appear at an FFL location. It would also add time and expense to the FFL dealer for additional record keeping input and maintenance. Would a “normally” law abiding citizen then be tempted to sell a firearm without performing the check thus rendering them now a criminal? Would a criminal looking for a weapon be deterred because of this new requirement? Not likely, since they would not go to a gun store in any case and they don’t obey current laws. In the stated percentage of criminals who said they obtained their firearms in a “private sale”, it was not clarified whether or not the “private sale” was from another criminal or a law abiding citizen. Is this a misleading claim that makes it appear that law abiding citizens would sell a firearm irresponsibly? No way to determine that without more information, but not likely. Can a private seller perform a voluntary background check already without passing this bill? Yes, if they wish to do so, as stated by Assemblyman Wheeler to the lady from NNADV. If you are concerned about a persons intentions that wishes to purchase your firearm in a “private sale”, it would be in your best interest to have a voluntary Background Check done.

We understand Senator Jones’ intentions but believe that this bill only penalizes the law abiding and is only “passing something” that does nothing, just to be able to say “we did something”. In this case it should not be passed as the Background Check portion will have little to no impact on the criminal element and only affect law abiding citizens.

Please use the important and pertinent information at the links provided in reaching a conclusion as to where you stand on this bill.


5 posted on 05/29/2013 11:31:48 AM PDT by rktman (BACKGROUND CHECKS? YOU FIRST mr. president(not that we'd get the truth!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: redreno

Liberty is not a loophole .

6 posted on 05/29/2013 11:37:53 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson