NRA-ILA press release [via ammoland.com]: NRA Nevadans for Freedom launched its first television ad this week against the Question 1 gun control ballot initiative.
The 30-second ad will run in the state’s two largest television markets, Las Vegas and Reno. “Stand With Law Enforcement,” features Attorney General Adam Laxalt alongside Nevada sheriffs Ken Furlong (Carson City), Chuck Allen (Washoe County), and Gerald Antinoro (Storey County). The state’s top law enforcement officer and sheriffs make a powerful case for why Question 1 “is not going to do a thing to prevent crime,” and will instead turn well-meaning Nevadans into criminals.
“There is a reason nearly every single sheriff in Nevada opposes the Michael Bloomberg’s gun control ballot Question 1,” said Robert Uithoven, NRA Nevadans for Freedom campaign director. “Our sheriffs know that it will not make us safer, and will turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals. We urge all Nevadans to stand with law enforcement and oppose Question 1.”
“Stand With Law Enforcement” is a seven-figure ad buy. New York billionaire Bloomberg is trying to drown out Nevadan’s voices with a false misinformation campaign.
Under Question 1, many of the common place activities of Nevada’s law-abiding gun owners will be criminalized. For example, if a person were to loan his shotgun to his fiancé, both of them would be required to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer. The fiancé would have to pay a fee for a background check.
When finished with the firearm, the couple would both have to return to a federally licensed firearms dealer, pay another fee and undergo another background check. This is the same process a member of the military who gets deployed overseas would have to go through to store his personal firearms with a friend.
The initiative provides a self-defense exception for temporary transfers but only if the victim is facing “imminent death or great bodily harm; and . . . lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm.” She couldn’t’ borrow a friend’s pistol to protect herself, unless her attacker was literally standing over her about to attack.
Transcript of “Stand With Law Enforcement”:
Out of state politicians are pushing Question 1.
“They say Question 1 is about background checks.” – Attorney General Adam Laxalt
“But Question 1 is solely gun control.” – Sheriff Ken Furlong
“Gun control.” – Sheriff Chuck Allen
It will turn well-meaning Nevadans in criminals.
“Loan a gun to your cousin? Jail.” – Sheriff Ken Furlong
“Store a gun with your neighbor?” – Sheriff Chuck Allen
“Jail.”- Attorney General Adam Laxalt
“It’s not going to do a thing to prevent crime.” – Sheriff Gerald Antinoro
“Question 1 is a bad idea.” – Sheriff Ken Furlong
“And it would be a bad law for Nevada.” – Sheriff Chuck Allen
“Stand with law enforcement.” – Attorney General Adam Laxalt
“And vote no on Question 1.”- Sheriff Chuck Allen
About the NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
For more information, please visit: www.nra.org. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.
I know many people who are pro-gun and still want UBCs. And no matter what we do or say, they will support UBCs. It’s not ignorance on their part because they have access to the facts. It’s stupidity caused by fear.
Scared people can be manipulated to do the stupidest things imaginable. That’s why the G wants everyone scared.
UBCs cannot be enforced whatsoever unless a complete registry is also formed.
Yes, and I know too many pro-gun people who aren’t offended by the idea of a registry.
You can explain the facts to them until you’re blue in the face and nothing penetrates.
Ralph knows too many people who call themselves pro-gun.
Question 1 in NV has a section on ‘Temporary Transfers’ that will criminalize normal and harmless gun owner activites. Section 6 (Temporary Transfers) states what you ‘CAN’ do, therefore everything not listed you cannot do.
Essentially, unless you are directly with someone else when hunting, or at a ‘designated range’ (and who gets to make that list?), or in immediate jeopardy you cannot even hand your firearm to someone else.
Out in the desert shooting with a buddy? Don’t hand him your firearm (illegal as not at a designated range).
Have a friend who does light gunsmithing, or has the tools to do repairs and upgrades? Unless you both go to an FFL and get a background check, then do it all over again when you ‘transfer’ it back, illegal.
Have a female friend who’s a CCW holder, but her gun is in the shop for repairs? Don’t loan a pistol, as that is illegal (not imminent jeopardy).
Leaving town and want to leave your collection with your friend in his safe? Illegal.
This legislation, which is a near carbon copy of i594 from Washington, would also make certain tools ‘firearms’ for the purpose of requiring a background check. Don’t hand the nailgun that uses primers to your buddy on the job site…that would be illegal under this legislation.
Seriously, read the legislation. The ‘universal background check’ portion is only part of what is bad. The temporary transfers section will make criminals out of normal everyday gun owners for activities that are common and harmless.
Even here in Australia the law is not so strict / badly written.
Swapping or trying different firearms, loads and teaching new shooters at the range would all be banned. All legal here.
Their objective I suppose
That’s assuming you get the permit for a gun in the first place and comply with all the stringent permit, ammunition purchasing and firearm storage regulations,. I hate to sound like I’m defending Question 1, but saying it’s not as bad in Australia is like comparing a forest fire to a camp fire. Sure, you got that minor victory, but your forest is still burned all the fuck down.
The world will be a better place with Bloomberg dead. Just saying.
Not arguing the point, but it does depend in large part on who gets his money.
Bloomberg, Bill and Melinda Gates, etc., spent over $11 million to push through the background check initiative 594 in Washington. Police never wanted it, District attorneys have no idea how to interpret it, and not a single person to my knowledge has been arrested for violating it.
Not crime prevention. It’s crime creation.
And as a Washingtonian I’m STILL waiting on one of the big pro-2A groups to do something about I594 before we have to fight against a freaking AWB.
Thanks for a not a whole hell of a lot NRA. >:(
I also live in WA. Our biggest concern now is Bog Ferguson. We must vote him out come November. That is step one. I am not naive and know he will probably win, in which case step 2 is fight his January legislation. In the meantime, buy, buy, buy.
Gee there is more or less UBC in Illinois. And…NOTHING. Nothing changed. Bangers still bang. Thousands shot in Chiraq. Law abiding gun owners are inconvenienced/screwed. I can’t even buy or sell a gun to my own brother (which I’ve done in the past) without BS. Whatever…
First: there is no such thing as a “loophole” in a law. All laws are specifically written. This law was written so that gun dealers would need to give background checks. The exclusion of that requirement for private sales is not a “loophole,” and only an intellectually dishonest person would call it that.
Second: if the measure passed, people would need more time to be educated on the law than the two months from election day to date of enactment (1/1/17).
Third: there would be no way to enforce the law without some form of gun registry. The government would need to have a list of who owns what serial number (which that doesn’t help guns currently in circulation) in order to enforce the law at the time of sale and at time of transfer.
For these reasons alone (plus the whole rights issue), the people shouldn’t accept this bill as it is deceptive and half-asses practicality.
Additionally, the NRA’s claim that the law “would turn well-meaning Nevadans into criminals” if it passed can be said of almost every law. If I buy sand dollar during a vacation to the Bahamas and attempt to bring it back to America, I can be charged under the Lacy Act for simply having a souvenir. Well-intentioned people go to jail all the time for stupid things. It shouldn’t happen, but it does in many different areas.
There are always loopholes in the law, otherwise lawyers would go out of business.
In the effort to create law the legislation has to be codified, written in a specific language (usually including a little Latin), and voted on. As soon as the law is ratified the lawyers go to work trying to figure out ways the now-written and firm law missed covering specific points through which he can make a legal argument that HIS client did not, in fact, violate the “letter of the law”. Those are the loopholes.
So long as “the people” and their government representatives are required to write out specific rules and then the courts must follow them explicitly, the lawyers will work to find any semantic or grammatical trick they can to conclude the law does not apply in their case.
Case in point: Warrant says 123 S. OBrien Street – actual address is 123 S. O’Brien Street. Warrant is invalid and any evidence collected at the correct address on O’Brien street, no matter how damning, is now inadmissible. Loophole.
Thank you NRA for endorsing the law that gave us non-universe “background checks” in the first place.
It must be entertaining to watch those jokers when you ask “Hey, if BG checks are sensible for sales from an FFL–so much so that you brag about the law that requires them nationwide–why aren’t they sensible anywhere else?”
NRA is a beltway drinking club. When was the last law$uit they initiated for Us? There are other 2A Foundations far more aggressive.
I got into a discussion (argument) with a liberal about universal background checks. He kept trying to convince me that it was only about sales and not loans and borrowing. Nothing will convince these people of the truth. They only listen to their dimwitted liberal counterparts. The truth has no meaning to them.
Just to be sure I read through all the comments already posted and no surprise – neither the NRA nor any of the comments point out that the NICS system for background checks is in itself an unconstitutional infringement of the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
If you concede that the government the Second Amendment was intended to protect you from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce any list of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of their lists?
UBCs are only the current manifestation of the original problem, which was agreeing in the first place that the government could decide who may or may not keep and bear arms. It does not matter if you or your neighbors or the government find certain people owning firearms scary, prohibiting those people from exercising their natural right is infringement and is a violation of the Second Amendment.
The point is that the government is SUPPOSED to be a little scared by the people owning firearms, that’s in fact the whole point.
Cliff H for the win!
Props to NRA for this ad, which I think is well-crafted, hard-hitting, and persuasive to the fence-sitters (for a change).
Now if only they can run it at worthwhile hours on worthwhile stations, it might do some good. If they only budget enough money to run it at 3 AM on the BUZZR channel, you can kiss your rights goodbye.
Comments are closed.