NEVADAS NEW GUN BACKGROUND CHECK LAW ENDS BEFORE IT BEGINS

[TupperHappy]

http://m.reviewjournal.com/local/nevada/nevada-s-new-gun-background-check-law-ends-it-begins

By SANDRA CHEREB and WESLEY JUHL
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

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.

(Snip)

“The Background Check Act mandates that the FBI conduct all background checks for personal transfers,” Monica Moazez, spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said in a statement. “The FBI, on Dec. 14, informed the Department of Public Safety that it will not conduct these background checks.

“Accordingly, the official Attorney General Opinion concludes that without this central feature … the Background Check Act cannot commence.”

(Remainder at link.)

To force compliance with the new UBGC law where the FBI has flatly stated they will not be conducting the background checks, means that private gun sales in NV would be effectively outlawed.

One gets a sense that, for some in the "gun safety" crowd, this is not a bug, but a feature.

But remember, no one wants to take away our guns. #sarcasm

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Yep,example of a Tea Bagger AG.

This Slug owes his ass to the ALT Right Groups who need payback.

[TupperHappy]

2. If a law was passed in your state...

...say requiring a certain form of ID to vote, which is impossible to acquire, would you be attacking your Atty. General if they said the law was unenforceable? Or would you be praising them?

[Johnathan146]

3. What do you expect them to do?

The state can not tell the FBI what to do. They don't have that power.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. Hopefully this next

session of our legislature will make the corrections necessary to make this law work.

[TupperHappy]

6. Or take the hint this is a POS law...

...and repeal it. Now since I don't know how the referendum process works in NV, that could be problematic, in process. But if the North Carolina legislature has taught us anything, you can run roughshod over everyone else and a big chunk of the population won't bat an eye. If the NV legislature takes that tactic, well at least this time it would be for a good cause, and supporting rights, rather than taking them away.

[benEzra]

10. It was a ballot referendum that Bloomberg's people wrote and paid to pass.

I think he spent about $35 *per vote* to pass it. And yet his staff are so ignorant of the law that they wrote it in such a way that it is illegal to enforce. SMH.

If I remember correctly, I think Nevada law says that the legislature can't change a ballot-passed law within 3 years of passage. Meaning it's dead until November 2019, if my recollection is accurate.

Since he already tipped his hand by starting the push for a magazine ban as soon as the UBC referendum squeaked by, I think it will be a much harder sell next time. Anyone who thinks a ban on most magazines will fly in Nevada is probably from New York City or California.

[Eleanors38]

7. Well, Wellstone, even a slug can hit a homer if the pitch is slow and obvious enough...

I can't think of a more meaningless legislative effort that requires a state get the FBI to do BG tests when that state has no authority to do this, and when the FBI has already said they cannot/will not do this. Frankly, I wish there were bg tests for all tranfers, save within the family. But, I can't help but believe this legislation was merely a means to sucker more Democrats into an anti-gun stand (not good in NV), but which stood not a chance of surviving longer than a shot of vodka on a tank turret in the Sahara.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. From the FBI:

Thirteen states have agencies acting on behalf of the NICS in a full Point-of-Contact (POC) capacity. These POC states, which have agreed to implement and maintain their own Brady NICS Program, conduct firearm background checks for FFLs’ transactions in their respective states by electronically accessing the NICS. Upon completion of the required ATF Form 4473, the FFLs conducting business in the POC states contact a designated state agency to initiate a NICS background check in lieu of contacting the NICS Section.
Full POC states (contact state/territory for all firearm background checks, including permits): California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics

IMHO, since Nevada is a full POC state, it is the state's responsibility to offer to FFLs and other authorized entities the means to get an BGC. The state simply saying, "Call the FBI" is bogus and may violate the state's agreement with the FBI. I know there is federal funding attached to certain levels of participation but a significant share of the cost of being a full POC state is paid by the state.

[Kang Colby]

5. Excellent news!!! n/t

[Straw Man]

9. NY's "SAFE" Act hit a similar snag.

The drafters thought they could use the Federal NICS systems to do their newly-mandated background checks for ammo purchases. The Feds said, "Umm ... we're plenty busy enough as it is without taking on the burden of enforcing a STATE law."

However, the law remains on the books in NY, causing most online ammo retailers to have suspended all sales into the state, or at the very least to insist on shipping only to a federally licensed firearms dealer, who will then charge the buyer a fee for performing ... absolutely nothing. No paperwork, no background check, no nothing. Where else can you get paid $35 + tax to sign for a FedEx package?