{"id":12953,"date":"2017-01-09T01:07:57","date_gmt":"2017-01-09T08:07:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/politicalhat.com\/?p=12953"},"modified":"2017-01-09T01:07:57","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T08:07:57","slug":"one-close-election-balances-another","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/2017\/01\/09\/one-close-election-balances-another\/","title":{"rendered":"One Close Election Balances Another"},"content":{"rendered":"

     Last November, Bloomberg’s anti-2nd<\/sup> Amendment brigade outspent pro-2nd<\/sup> Amendment lovers and passed, by less than 1%<\/a>, a flawed anti-2nd<\/sup> Amendment initiative measure that required FBI background checks for almost transfers of possession<\/em> of firearms, even temporary ones amongst people at a hunting trip. However, it would seem that despite all of the out-of-state money Bloomberg spent on the initiative, they didn’t bother spending it on competent lawyers<\/a> to draft the measure, because by its very wording, IT IS UNINFORCEABLE.<\/p>\n

\n

“Ballot Question 1 requires that private party gun transfers \u2013 with a few exceptions \u2013 be subject to a federal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System administered by the FBI.<\/p>\n

“The FBI sent a letter Dec. 14 to the state of Nevada’s Department of Public Safety saying it would not conduct these checks. The department asked for a legal opinion on the letter\u2019s ramifications.<\/p>\n

“Because the text of the new Background Check Act says private-party transfers and sales must be done through the FBI background check system, the Nevada Attorney General\u2019s Office opinion states, ‘citizens may not be prosecuted for their inability to comply with the Act unless and until the FBI changes its public position and agrees to conduct the background checks consistent with the Act.’<\/p>\n

“In a statement, the attorney general\u2019s office said, ‘without this central feature (the FBI background check), the Background Check Act cannot commence.'”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     Oopsie<\/a>!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

     The opinion was delivered by the Nevada Attorney General, who won by less than 1%. One can but wonder, thankfully, what idiocy would have transpired if Adam Laxalt had been defeated by zombie-rights advocate Ross Miller<\/a>…<\/p>\n

     Of note, the law required the background check be done by the FBI, with Nevada’s current Criminal Background Check System being clearly excluded<\/a> from the requirements for compliance:<\/p>\n

\n

“Question 1 mandated that all private firearm transfers be cleared directly through the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (‘NICS’) rather than Nevada\u2019s existing ‘point of contact’ background check system, which queries state and federal databases (including NICS).”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     Specifically<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

“Act doesn’t grant Nevada DPS the authority to perform the checks, and pointed out that it ‘unambiguously’ requires the licensed dealers used in the transaction to perform the check directly through the FBI\u2019s NICS system and ‘not the Central Repository’ administered by DPS.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     Why did Bloomberg’s minions<\/a> require the FBI and only the FBI conduct the background check?<\/p>\n

\n

“If the crafters of the ballot question had required that the state repository be contacted, this likely would have required a fiscal note telling how much this additional work would cost the state budget.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     Considering how narrow the vote was, this well might have made a difference in the outcome.<\/p>\n

     Of course, even if the FBI were to have agreed, the measure was still critically flawed<\/a> in other ways due to poor drafting:<\/p>\n

\n

” The lawsuit filed Thursday by a private gun seller adds a new threat to the law, arguing that it improperly creates a ‘taxable event’ for gun sellers in violation of the state Constitution. It also says that would violate the sellers\u2019 right to due process in the event they did not have the checks conducted.<\/p>\n

“The complaint filed in Clark County Court names the state Departments of Taxation and Public Safety.<\/p>\n

“According to the complaint, a retailer performing a background check for a private gun sale or transfer would have to take possession of the firearm as if it was part of the store\u2019s inventory and then charge the seller a sales or use tax.<\/p>\n

“That would place a financial burden on the seller, said Las Vegas attorney Donald Green, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of client Peter Reece, an occasional gun seller at gun shows who does not have a federal firearm license.<\/p>\n

“The new background check law is ‘1 million percent silent on the issue of creating a taxable event,’ Green said.<\/p>\n

“‘You can\u2019t just do that,’ he said. ‘It’s not an exception under the tax code.'”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

     Yet again, the collected wisdom of generation trumps the idiocy of Bloomberg and his hired minions.<\/p>\n

     Yet again, even down-ticket races matter when it comes to our Constitutional liberties!<\/p>\n

     Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s position can be found here<\/a>, or below:<\/p>\n

\n

Opinion by the Attorney General of Nevada regarding Enforcability of the "Background Check Act"<\/a> by ThePoliticalHat<\/a> on Scribd<\/p>\n