Ballot Question 1, or universal background checks, which would have made it illegal to privately sell or transfer firearms without involving a dealer, are not enforceable; however this is under threat with the incoming Attorney General Ford and may change in 2019.
Attorney General Adam Laxalt provided this opinion in which he found that citizens cannot comply with the terms of the law. In short, Nevada has chosen a state system and the FBI will not provide duplicate services for private sales. Ballot Question 1 has not been thrown out or delayed from statutory implementation, rather the attorney general has stated that it is not enforceable, meaning that “citizens may not be prosecuted for for their inability to comply with the Act.” While technically illegal, prosecution for a private gun sale is highly unlikely as attempting to comply with the terms of the law (codified as NRS 202.254) would be impossible.
Ballot Question 1, narrowly passed by about 9,000 voters (and only succeeding in Clark County), bans gun sales between private citizens. It was an initiative paid for and marketed by former New York mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Previously, Nevada law allowed free, voluntary background checks for citizens wishing to sell firearms face-to-face. With the revision of NRS 202.254, there are no longer free background checks for private sales and if one wished to get a background check on a private sale, one would have to have a dealer take posession of the firearm and pay $25, as if the firearm was shipped through the mail.
It is believed that the required usage of the FBI NICS system vs. the state system was in part due to gradually "encourage" states to switch to the federal system to better enable a sale/transaction based gun registration system, where gun transfers and sales are used to track who owns a firearm. Without registration, failure to comply with background checks is very difficult to prove.
HOWEVER, THE NEW DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT IS PROMISING TO FIND SOME WAY TO MAKE THE LAW ENFORCEABLE IN 2019. BUY YOUR GUNS PRIVATELY AND OFF THE BOOKS WHILE YOU STILL CAN.
Attorney General Adam Laxalt provided this opinion in which he found that citizens cannot comply with the terms of the law. In short, Nevada has chosen a state system and the FBI will not provide duplicate services for private sales. Ballot Question 1 has not been thrown out or delayed from statutory implementation, rather the attorney general has stated that it is not enforceable, meaning that “citizens may not be prosecuted for for their inability to comply with the Act.” While technically illegal, prosecution for a private gun sale is highly unlikely as attempting to comply with the terms of the law (codified as NRS 202.254) would be impossible.
Ballot Question 1, narrowly passed by about 9,000 voters (and only succeeding in Clark County), bans gun sales between private citizens. It was an initiative paid for and marketed by former New York mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Previously, Nevada law allowed free, voluntary background checks for citizens wishing to sell firearms face-to-face. With the revision of NRS 202.254, there are no longer free background checks for private sales and if one wished to get a background check on a private sale, one would have to have a dealer take posession of the firearm and pay $25, as if the firearm was shipped through the mail.
It is believed that the required usage of the FBI NICS system vs. the state system was in part due to gradually "encourage" states to switch to the federal system to better enable a sale/transaction based gun registration system, where gun transfers and sales are used to track who owns a firearm. Without registration, failure to comply with background checks is very difficult to prove.
HOWEVER, THE NEW DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT IS PROMISING TO FIND SOME WAY TO MAKE THE LAW ENFORCEABLE IN 2019. BUY YOUR GUNS PRIVATELY AND OFF THE BOOKS WHILE YOU STILL CAN.
Universal Background Checks
Private gun sales would have been banned due to the passage of Ballot Question 1. The Attorney General Laxalt published an opinion explaining why this law is unenforceable and that it cannot be implemented. THIS MAY BE CHANGED IN 2019.
Ballot Question 1, will not be enforceable on January 1, 2017. Attorney General Adam Laxalt provided this opinion in which he found that citizens cannot comply with the terms of the law. In short, Nevada has chosen a state system and the FBI will not provide duplicate services for private sales. Ballot Question 1 has not been thrown out or delayed from statutory implementation, rather the attorney general has stated that it is not enforceable, meaning that “citizens may not be prosecuted for for their inability to comply with the Act.” While technically illegal, prosecution for a private gun sale is highly unlikely as attempting to comply with the terms of the law (codified as NRS 202.254) would be impossible. THIS MAY ALL CHANGE IN 2019. Read the full blog post here.
What Did Ballot Question 1 Try to Do?
ATTENTION: ANY INFORMATION BELOW THIS POINT IS SUSPENDED BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ABOVE. THIS INFORMATION IS FOR DOCUMENTARY PURPOSES ONLY OR UNTIL COMPETENT AUTHORITIES DETERMINE OTHERWISE. UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS MAY BE ON THE BOOKS BUT ARE UNENFORCEABLE.
Ballot Question 1 (enacted into law as NRS 202.254; see initiative petition for text of law) requires a private person wishes to sell a firearm to another private person, they must first appear in person at a licensed dealer who will conduct the background check through the existing federal NICS protocol. Sales can still be arranged online and at gun shows. Between the request of the background check and the actual sale/transfer of the firearm, the licensed dealer takes possession of the firearm. If the background check is delayed or denied, the owner needs a background check to get the gun back from the dealer.
The exemptions to the law are:
Those are the only exemptions; there are no other exemptions whatsoever.
The exemptions to the law are:
- Sales/transfer to a law enforcement agency or any peace officer, armed security guard, federal official, or member of the armed forces (for on-duty purposes only; peace officers are not automatically exempt).
- An antique firearm as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(16);
- Sales or transfers to a relative (spouses and registered domestic partners and any of the following relations, whether by whole or half blood, adoption, or step-relation: parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles,
nieces and nephews). Note this does not include cousins, boyfriends, or girlfriends (even if you live together). - Transfer to an estate/trust upon the owner’s death.
- Temporary transfers would also be allowed at an established shooting range ("established" is not defined);
- At a competition;
- At a public performance by an organized group; or
- While in the presence of the owner (you cannot leave the borrower alone with your gun).
Those are the only exemptions; there are no other exemptions whatsoever.
Click for larger version
Do I have to register my guns now?
No, there is no retroactive registration of guns you already own. Question 1 does not require registration. Some have been confusing Nevada's new law with California's "gunmageddon" (which also doesn't require retroactive registration). This law does not require paperwork to be saved or anything reported to state or local authorities on your existing weapons.
Universal background checks are unenforceable (excluding a confession or sting) without knowing definitively who actually owns the gun, so by its very nature, a universal background check needs gun registration. Gun registration needs not background checks, but guns to go through gun dealers. A retroactive gun registration requirement would be met with massive non-compliance and outright rebellion, so, as in the case of California in particular, the preferred method to gun registration is via dealer sale/transaction reporting (see the California DROS-Dealers’ Record of Sale).
Once all guns sales/transactions must go through dealers, they are recorded on ATF Form 4473s, which creates a scattered, analogue gun registry now. However, as California does, requiring dealers to report the sales/transactions to the government will gradually create a registry of every new gun sold and every used gun that legally changes hands. Eventually, through sales/trades of used guns, or a winnowing of exemptions (California recently eliminated the exemption for family member trades or sales), virtually all used guns, after many years, will be in the registry as well.
Wrapping up the gun registration rabbit hole, the curious question is: Why did Question 1 require private gun sales/transfers to go through the federal NICS system while Nevada has a more complete state system that has local and federal records? Easy; once enough states have banned private sales and have their checks run through NICS, it is so much easier to have Congress pass a federal dealer reporting, aka gun registration, system built on a foundation of NICS background checks.
No, there is no retroactive registration of guns you already own. Question 1 does not require registration. Some have been confusing Nevada's new law with California's "gunmageddon" (which also doesn't require retroactive registration). This law does not require paperwork to be saved or anything reported to state or local authorities on your existing weapons.
Universal background checks are unenforceable (excluding a confession or sting) without knowing definitively who actually owns the gun, so by its very nature, a universal background check needs gun registration. Gun registration needs not background checks, but guns to go through gun dealers. A retroactive gun registration requirement would be met with massive non-compliance and outright rebellion, so, as in the case of California in particular, the preferred method to gun registration is via dealer sale/transaction reporting (see the California DROS-Dealers’ Record of Sale).
Once all guns sales/transactions must go through dealers, they are recorded on ATF Form 4473s, which creates a scattered, analogue gun registry now. However, as California does, requiring dealers to report the sales/transactions to the government will gradually create a registry of every new gun sold and every used gun that legally changes hands. Eventually, through sales/trades of used guns, or a winnowing of exemptions (California recently eliminated the exemption for family member trades or sales), virtually all used guns, after many years, will be in the registry as well.
Wrapping up the gun registration rabbit hole, the curious question is: Why did Question 1 require private gun sales/transfers to go through the federal NICS system while Nevada has a more complete state system that has local and federal records? Easy; once enough states have banned private sales and have their checks run through NICS, it is so much easier to have Congress pass a federal dealer reporting, aka gun registration, system built on a foundation of NICS background checks.
|
|
|
ATTENTION: ANY INFORMATION BELOW THIS POINT IS SUSPENDED BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ABOVE. THIS INFORMATION IS FOR DOCUMENTARY PURPOSES ONLY OR UNTIL COMPETENT AUTHORITIES DETERMINE OTHERWISE. UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS MAY BE ON THE BOOKS BUT ARE UNENFORCEABLE.
How do I actually get a background check?
Both parties go to a federally licensed dealer. They will present the gun to the dealer, who will have the buyer/transferee fill out a Form 4473. The dealer will then run a background check using the federal NICS (National Instant Check System). At that point, the sale/transfer will be legal if the background check was not delayed or denied. To return a borrowed gun to the owner, the same process must be repeated.
I'm a cop. Does this apply to peace officers?
Yes, excluding purchases of firearms for on-duty purposes only, you must get a background check or vise versa (if you are selling/transferring to another cop). It does not matter if the sale/transfer is between two peace officers; no one is exempt from general sales and transfers.
If I have a concealed firearm permit (CCW), am I exempt?
No, you must follow the dealer transfer/sale requirements. The law provides no allowance for the Brady exemption when purchasing from a dealer's stock, as the dealer is explicitly required to run a federal background check, not simply record the transaction. No legal clarification has been issued at this point.
How much will it cost me?
No one knows. Question 1 specified that the dealer may charge a "reasonable fee", but there is no figure specified. Current state background check fees are $25. Dealers usually have transfer fees between $25-$100. Pricing will vary from dealer to dealer and could be prohibitively expensive.
Do I need a background check for each gun if I am transferring multiple guns?
One actual background check will be run, however, separate forms may be required and additional fees for multiple weapons may be charged (up to dealer's pricing).
I'm under 21. Can I still buy a handgun? Can I still own a gun?
Federal law prohibits minors (under 21) from receiving handguns from federally licensed dealers. Prior to Jan. 1, 2017, it was legal for minors to buy handguns privately and often did so. Unfortunately, because of Question 1, anyone 18-20 cannot legally purchase a firearm because of the dealer/background check requirement. The except applies only to close relatives; for most minors, this would be a parent or sibling. If you are 18-20, you can still own and carry a handgun and you may purchase it or receive it as a gift from a close relative. Purchasing a firearm for another, as long as it is truly a gift, is not a straw purchase.
Can I still buy online or at a gun show?
Yes, however you will have to go to a dealer to legally transfer the gun. At a gun show, there usually is a designated transfer area or dealer assigned to facilitate transfers. The seller should know where to go. Online orders will still always ship to a dealer. Online classified ads or deals will require arranging which dealer to use for the face-to-face transfer and background check.
What if I don't comply...and get caught?
A first conviction is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail. A second conviction is a category C felony, punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000
Both parties go to a federally licensed dealer. They will present the gun to the dealer, who will have the buyer/transferee fill out a Form 4473. The dealer will then run a background check using the federal NICS (National Instant Check System). At that point, the sale/transfer will be legal if the background check was not delayed or denied. To return a borrowed gun to the owner, the same process must be repeated.
I'm a cop. Does this apply to peace officers?
Yes, excluding purchases of firearms for on-duty purposes only, you must get a background check or vise versa (if you are selling/transferring to another cop). It does not matter if the sale/transfer is between two peace officers; no one is exempt from general sales and transfers.
If I have a concealed firearm permit (CCW), am I exempt?
No, you must follow the dealer transfer/sale requirements. The law provides no allowance for the Brady exemption when purchasing from a dealer's stock, as the dealer is explicitly required to run a federal background check, not simply record the transaction. No legal clarification has been issued at this point.
How much will it cost me?
No one knows. Question 1 specified that the dealer may charge a "reasonable fee", but there is no figure specified. Current state background check fees are $25. Dealers usually have transfer fees between $25-$100. Pricing will vary from dealer to dealer and could be prohibitively expensive.
Do I need a background check for each gun if I am transferring multiple guns?
One actual background check will be run, however, separate forms may be required and additional fees for multiple weapons may be charged (up to dealer's pricing).
I'm under 21. Can I still buy a handgun? Can I still own a gun?
Federal law prohibits minors (under 21) from receiving handguns from federally licensed dealers. Prior to Jan. 1, 2017, it was legal for minors to buy handguns privately and often did so. Unfortunately, because of Question 1, anyone 18-20 cannot legally purchase a firearm because of the dealer/background check requirement. The except applies only to close relatives; for most minors, this would be a parent or sibling. If you are 18-20, you can still own and carry a handgun and you may purchase it or receive it as a gift from a close relative. Purchasing a firearm for another, as long as it is truly a gift, is not a straw purchase.
Can I still buy online or at a gun show?
Yes, however you will have to go to a dealer to legally transfer the gun. At a gun show, there usually is a designated transfer area or dealer assigned to facilitate transfers. The seller should know where to go. Online orders will still always ship to a dealer. Online classified ads or deals will require arranging which dealer to use for the face-to-face transfer and background check.
What if I don't comply...and get caught?
A first conviction is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail. A second conviction is a category C felony, punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000
Does the dealer have to hold my gun for 30 days before it can be transferred?
No, unless the gun is being sold on consignment or pawned. The firearm is not being bought or sold by the dealer; he is simply providing a service (the background check). State law (NRS 647.130) requires secondhand goods with serial numbers (firearms) be held for 30 or 15 days, depending on the county. Local laws may differ.
I let my buddy/neighbor borrow my hunting rifle during deer season. I let my girlfriend borrow my gun. My neighbor is an amateur gunsmith, I let him take my rifle to attach a scope. Is that legal?
No, it is all illegal with a background check on the person receiving the gun from you, and a background check on you, the owner, when the borrower gives the gun back. However, Clark County DA said that he won't prosecute friends lending each other guns.
Can I leave my guns with my relative or let them borrow my guns?
Yes, but only if they are a spouse or registered domestic partners and any of the following relations, whether by whole or half blood, adoption, or step-relation: parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, or a niece or nephew.
I'm in the military and deploying or going on training. I'm traveling/working out of state. Can I leave my guns with a friend?
No. Your friend will need a background check on each firearm you leave behind.
Can we go shooting in the desert or at an "unapproved" range? Can I give my buddy my hunting rifle in the field?
Yes, you still can, however if you let someone use your gun, the borrowed must be in the owner's "immediate presence." Common sense would mean a few feet away or able to control use of the firearm. While this is subject to discretion and interpretation, it would likely prohibit splitting up at the range, while hunting, or out on BLM/Forest Service land while target shooting.
Can my cousin/friend from out-of-state borrow one of my handguns?
Generally, no. Unless they qualify under one of the above exemptions, they are unable to obtain a handgun. Handguns cannot be transferred to a non-state resident by a dealer, per federal law. California residents would likely be denied a transfer because the dealer has no way to prove the transfer would be a temporary, Nevada only, transfer rather than a permanent transfer, and thus illegal under federal law (as California state law prohibits out-of-state gun purchases). Long guns would be eligible for other state residents, however. Prior to universal background checks, simply lending a pistol was no issue, but the background check requirement has made it impossible for non-residents to legally temporarily obtain a handgun.
Can whoever borrowed my gun just give it back to me when they're done or do I need a background check?
It is illegal to simply hand the gun back to the owner when the borrower is finished. Yes, even the owner of the gun needs a background check done before they can legally receive their own firearm.
What exactly is a "transfer"?
"Transfer" is not defined. A transfer could literally be as simple as handing a gun to a friend. Let your roommate use your guns? That's illegal. Give a gun to your girlfriend because she's being stalked after work; that's illegal.
No, unless the gun is being sold on consignment or pawned. The firearm is not being bought or sold by the dealer; he is simply providing a service (the background check). State law (NRS 647.130) requires secondhand goods with serial numbers (firearms) be held for 30 or 15 days, depending on the county. Local laws may differ.
I let my buddy/neighbor borrow my hunting rifle during deer season. I let my girlfriend borrow my gun. My neighbor is an amateur gunsmith, I let him take my rifle to attach a scope. Is that legal?
No, it is all illegal with a background check on the person receiving the gun from you, and a background check on you, the owner, when the borrower gives the gun back. However, Clark County DA said that he won't prosecute friends lending each other guns.
Can I leave my guns with my relative or let them borrow my guns?
Yes, but only if they are a spouse or registered domestic partners and any of the following relations, whether by whole or half blood, adoption, or step-relation: parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, or a niece or nephew.
I'm in the military and deploying or going on training. I'm traveling/working out of state. Can I leave my guns with a friend?
No. Your friend will need a background check on each firearm you leave behind.
Can we go shooting in the desert or at an "unapproved" range? Can I give my buddy my hunting rifle in the field?
Yes, you still can, however if you let someone use your gun, the borrowed must be in the owner's "immediate presence." Common sense would mean a few feet away or able to control use of the firearm. While this is subject to discretion and interpretation, it would likely prohibit splitting up at the range, while hunting, or out on BLM/Forest Service land while target shooting.
Can my cousin/friend from out-of-state borrow one of my handguns?
Generally, no. Unless they qualify under one of the above exemptions, they are unable to obtain a handgun. Handguns cannot be transferred to a non-state resident by a dealer, per federal law. California residents would likely be denied a transfer because the dealer has no way to prove the transfer would be a temporary, Nevada only, transfer rather than a permanent transfer, and thus illegal under federal law (as California state law prohibits out-of-state gun purchases). Long guns would be eligible for other state residents, however. Prior to universal background checks, simply lending a pistol was no issue, but the background check requirement has made it impossible for non-residents to legally temporarily obtain a handgun.
Can whoever borrowed my gun just give it back to me when they're done or do I need a background check?
It is illegal to simply hand the gun back to the owner when the borrower is finished. Yes, even the owner of the gun needs a background check done before they can legally receive their own firearm.
What exactly is a "transfer"?
"Transfer" is not defined. A transfer could literally be as simple as handing a gun to a friend. Let your roommate use your guns? That's illegal. Give a gun to your girlfriend because she's being stalked after work; that's illegal.
The Temporary Transfer Process
How to legally borrow a gun and get it back
|
|
|
ATTENTION: ANY INFORMATION BELOW THIS POINT IS SUSPENDED BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ABOVE. THIS INFORMATION IS FOR DOCUMENTARY PURPOSES ONLY OR UNTIL COMPETENT AUTHORITIES DETERMINE OTHERWISE. UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS MAY BE ON THE BOOKS BUT ARE UNENFORCEABLE.
Can't the governor veto it? Can't we just pass a law to undo it?
No. The governor cannot veto a ballot initiative, but Gov. Sandoval did veto a similar law in 2013. The legislature cannot re-write the law, per the state constitution, for three years. The only fix in the short term is another ballot initiative or perhaps a constitutional challenge. The initiative system allows for abuse of the democratic process by wealthy and influential groups.
Initiatives bypass the checks-and-balances system to take the matter directly to the public. Direct democracy was seen by our founding fathers as mob rule. Wisely, they instituted a representative republican form of government that we know today. Why initiatives are great tools for the voters to change things, they are subject to abuse.
If enough people go along with something, right or wrong, it becomes law. Many criticize the initiative system as being inflexible; poorly-written bills cannot be changed or deficiencies corrected. Initiatives have emerged as a favorite of gun control proponents because they bypass checks-and-balances. No congress or governor can stand in the way. All it takes is votes. And lots and lots of money.
No. The governor cannot veto a ballot initiative, but Gov. Sandoval did veto a similar law in 2013. The legislature cannot re-write the law, per the state constitution, for three years. The only fix in the short term is another ballot initiative or perhaps a constitutional challenge. The initiative system allows for abuse of the democratic process by wealthy and influential groups.
Initiatives bypass the checks-and-balances system to take the matter directly to the public. Direct democracy was seen by our founding fathers as mob rule. Wisely, they instituted a representative republican form of government that we know today. Why initiatives are great tools for the voters to change things, they are subject to abuse.
If enough people go along with something, right or wrong, it becomes law. Many criticize the initiative system as being inflexible; poorly-written bills cannot be changed or deficiencies corrected. Initiatives have emerged as a favorite of gun control proponents because they bypass checks-and-balances. No congress or governor can stand in the way. All it takes is votes. And lots and lots of money.
"I demand a recount to Question 1! Let's file a lawsuit."
First, 9,901 votes are probably not going to be all illegal immigrants, dead people, etc. Second, we have secret ballots. Therefore, all you can do is compare the list of registered voters, who actually votes (if such a thing exists), anyone removed from the rolls, and manually checking names against lists of known felons or dead people. Even if you discovered that 9,902 people were ineligible to vote, then what? All of Nevada's results would have to be thrown out because secret ballots means you don't know who voted which way. Third, this is an issue of a narrow vote, not a question of 2001-style "irregularities." We have no reports of a miscount either.
There is no basis under current jurisprudence to challenge universal background checks. "...shall not be infringed?" Courts don't buy that argument and never have. Question deceptive? No; it's not the ballot's fault if voters didn't research the law before voting.
First, 9,901 votes are probably not going to be all illegal immigrants, dead people, etc. Second, we have secret ballots. Therefore, all you can do is compare the list of registered voters, who actually votes (if such a thing exists), anyone removed from the rolls, and manually checking names against lists of known felons or dead people. Even if you discovered that 9,902 people were ineligible to vote, then what? All of Nevada's results would have to be thrown out because secret ballots means you don't know who voted which way. Third, this is an issue of a narrow vote, not a question of 2001-style "irregularities." We have no reports of a miscount either.
There is no basis under current jurisprudence to challenge universal background checks. "...shall not be infringed?" Courts don't buy that argument and never have. Question deceptive? No; it's not the ballot's fault if voters didn't research the law before voting.
I voted "yes", but now I see that this is a terrible law.
The moral of the story is to get educated and active in the gun rights community. Get involved now and help stop future gun control. Never vote for gun control because compromise is just an erosion of rights with no tangible benefit to safety. Donate to the Nevada Firearms Coalition so we can fight these battles more effectively in the future. Your apathy and/or ignorance passed this law.
You have a choice now: will you comply, or not? Will you allow a liberal, gun-hating legislature to further restrict your rights?
The moral of the story is to get educated and active in the gun rights community. Get involved now and help stop future gun control. Never vote for gun control because compromise is just an erosion of rights with no tangible benefit to safety. Donate to the Nevada Firearms Coalition so we can fight these battles more effectively in the future. Your apathy and/or ignorance passed this law.
You have a choice now: will you comply, or not? Will you allow a liberal, gun-hating legislature to further restrict your rights?
Gun show/Internet loophole fixed?
For those who have not been to a gun show, the vast majority of gun sellers are federally licensed dealers who must perform a background check. In fact, it is actually very difficult to find private sellers at gun shows. Only 3.9% of illegal firearms purchases were made at gun shows (source). Internet gun sales function only as a method of advertising the sale or coordinating a face-to-face purchase. Guns cannot be delivered to buyers by mail (or by UPS, FedEx, etc.) as they must be transferred through a licensed dealer when shipped or sold across state lines. Like a Craigslist ad to meet and sell a used piece of furniture, gun website ads facilitate sellers and buyers coming together.
For those who have not been to a gun show, the vast majority of gun sellers are federally licensed dealers who must perform a background check. In fact, it is actually very difficult to find private sellers at gun shows. Only 3.9% of illegal firearms purchases were made at gun shows (source). Internet gun sales function only as a method of advertising the sale or coordinating a face-to-face purchase. Guns cannot be delivered to buyers by mail (or by UPS, FedEx, etc.) as they must be transferred through a licensed dealer when shipped or sold across state lines. Like a Craigslist ad to meet and sell a used piece of furniture, gun website ads facilitate sellers and buyers coming together.
Where do criminals get illegal guns?
Most criminals get their guns through method that are already illegal. The studies are clear. Criminals mainly obtain guns through theft, through fraud (straw purchases), outright illegal street dealers, and from relatives. In reality, only about 75% of all illegally possessed guns are obtained through illegal sales which would not be regulated by the initiative. The law would not outlaw sales or transfers between close relatives. All the initiative would change is that friends or strangers could not privately sell guns, so the criminal seeking a weapon would have to turn to a relative or engage in already illegal methods. It is naïve to think that criminals, would not simply turn to other, more popular, illegal methods of buying guns.
Most criminals get their guns through method that are already illegal. The studies are clear. Criminals mainly obtain guns through theft, through fraud (straw purchases), outright illegal street dealers, and from relatives. In reality, only about 75% of all illegally possessed guns are obtained through illegal sales which would not be regulated by the initiative. The law would not outlaw sales or transfers between close relatives. All the initiative would change is that friends or strangers could not privately sell guns, so the criminal seeking a weapon would have to turn to a relative or engage in already illegal methods. It is naïve to think that criminals, would not simply turn to other, more popular, illegal methods of buying guns.
ATTENTION: ANY INFORMATION BELOW THIS POINT IS SUSPENDED BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ABOVE. THIS INFORMATION IS FOR DOCUMENTARY PURPOSES ONLY OR UNTIL COMPETENT AUTHORITIES DETERMINE OTHERWISE. UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS MAY BE ON THE BOOKS BUT ARE UNENFORCEABLE.
The initiative is unenforceable (see top of page)
The law provides no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with private sales background checks. The law is a feel-good measure at best that would not be enforceable, except by entrapment, sting, or confession. Nothing in it would actually prevent criminals from getting guns, just outlaw private sales, and curtail one of the many freedoms that Nevada sees fit to give its citizens.
Many illegal sales will go on, and the already illicit transfers between criminals will continue as if nothing changed. Here's how not to get caught if you decide to ignore this unconstitutional, worthless law. Ignore this law at your own risk, but non-compliance with a bad law is a personal choice to make.
Without someone confessing there was no background check or a sting operation, it is practically impossible to prove a violation. All you have to say is that you did obtain a background check and it’s up to the prosecution to prove you didn’t; that’s hard to do. The most important thing to remember is to remain silent and do not discuss anything with the police. Request an attorney. All you have to say is that you did get a background check in compliance with the law. Not where, when, who the gun came from, etc. (or vise versa, if you sold it). The police and prosecutor must prove their case; that's the beauty of innocent until proven guilty.
Nevada currently has approximately 740 licensed FFLs. There are 365 days in a year. Remember that FFLs keep their records in their "bound book" per ATF regulations. Some may have converted to electronic bound books if issued a variance by the ATF, but this is not yet the norm. That means someone has to physically go and paw through their bound book and possibly the 4473 forms at each dealer to prove that a record does not exist. So they would have to reasonably ensure that they inspect every record at every dealer in the state.
If law enforcement/prosecution do not check every dealer or check every record, they leave the door open for the defense to create a reasonable doubt that the one record at the one dealer that they did not inspect could be the form proving that the background check was completed. Remember that by federal law, the NICS system may not be used to create a registration of firearms or gun owners. This means that under federal law the identifying records on their end must be destroyed after the background check is completed. The man-hours required to attempt to prosecute a single violation of this law would be ridiculously prohibitive.
The law provides no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with private sales background checks. The law is a feel-good measure at best that would not be enforceable, except by entrapment, sting, or confession. Nothing in it would actually prevent criminals from getting guns, just outlaw private sales, and curtail one of the many freedoms that Nevada sees fit to give its citizens.
Many illegal sales will go on, and the already illicit transfers between criminals will continue as if nothing changed. Here's how not to get caught if you decide to ignore this unconstitutional, worthless law. Ignore this law at your own risk, but non-compliance with a bad law is a personal choice to make.
Without someone confessing there was no background check or a sting operation, it is practically impossible to prove a violation. All you have to say is that you did obtain a background check and it’s up to the prosecution to prove you didn’t; that’s hard to do. The most important thing to remember is to remain silent and do not discuss anything with the police. Request an attorney. All you have to say is that you did get a background check in compliance with the law. Not where, when, who the gun came from, etc. (or vise versa, if you sold it). The police and prosecutor must prove their case; that's the beauty of innocent until proven guilty.
Nevada currently has approximately 740 licensed FFLs. There are 365 days in a year. Remember that FFLs keep their records in their "bound book" per ATF regulations. Some may have converted to electronic bound books if issued a variance by the ATF, but this is not yet the norm. That means someone has to physically go and paw through their bound book and possibly the 4473 forms at each dealer to prove that a record does not exist. So they would have to reasonably ensure that they inspect every record at every dealer in the state.
If law enforcement/prosecution do not check every dealer or check every record, they leave the door open for the defense to create a reasonable doubt that the one record at the one dealer that they did not inspect could be the form proving that the background check was completed. Remember that by federal law, the NICS system may not be used to create a registration of firearms or gun owners. This means that under federal law the identifying records on their end must be destroyed after the background check is completed. The man-hours required to attempt to prosecute a single violation of this law would be ridiculously prohibitive.
ATTENTION: ANY INFORMATION BELOW THIS POINT IS SUSPENDED BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ABOVE. THIS INFORMATION IS FOR DOCUMENTARY PURPOSES ONLY OR UNTIL COMPETENT AUTHORITIES DETERMINE OTHERWISE. UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS MAY BE ON THE BOOKS BUT ARE UNENFORCEABLE.
Why does this matter?
All too often we make decisions based upon little, if any, knowledge of the topic. That is exactly what the universal background check campaigns convinced the voter to do. They advance a restriction of rights under the pretense of safety, supported by scant evidence, misinformation, and emotion. Universal background checks are the first step to total gun registration and other examples have shown that indeed reporting those background checks can form as the framework for a registration system. Additionally, a success will only encourage anti-gunners to keep pushing their agenda.
The law also requires that the federal, FBI background check system (NICS), is used instead of the existing state system, which meets all federal requirements and has local criminal records and mental health records the federal system lacks. Using the federal system integral to creating a national gun registration system because a state-by-state gun registry would be too piecemeal.
Nevada Carry opposed the initiative because it essentially bans private sales and has ominous implications. The law should, at the very least, have included an exemption for concealed weapon permittees and allowed for public access to a background check hotline. If background checks on private sales are the issue, and not forcing everything through a dealer and thus federal databases, then why not introduce and easy and convenient way for private citizens to perform the background checks themselves?
All too often we make decisions based upon little, if any, knowledge of the topic. That is exactly what the universal background check campaigns convinced the voter to do. They advance a restriction of rights under the pretense of safety, supported by scant evidence, misinformation, and emotion. Universal background checks are the first step to total gun registration and other examples have shown that indeed reporting those background checks can form as the framework for a registration system. Additionally, a success will only encourage anti-gunners to keep pushing their agenda.
The law also requires that the federal, FBI background check system (NICS), is used instead of the existing state system, which meets all federal requirements and has local criminal records and mental health records the federal system lacks. Using the federal system integral to creating a national gun registration system because a state-by-state gun registry would be too piecemeal.
Nevada Carry opposed the initiative because it essentially bans private sales and has ominous implications. The law should, at the very least, have included an exemption for concealed weapon permittees and allowed for public access to a background check hotline. If background checks on private sales are the issue, and not forcing everything through a dealer and thus federal databases, then why not introduce and easy and convenient way for private citizens to perform the background checks themselves?
Why can’t private parties run their own background checks?
The answer to the above question is because there would be no record of the transfer—not that there needs to be one. A dealer would be required to record the transfer in his bound book and the seller to fill out a Form 4473, subject to ATF inspection and recording. There would be zero ability to verify if a background check was done and if registration is the ultimate goal, one less record for the government to have access to.
Nevada Carry argues that the ultimate goal of the supporters of this initiative is to create a full gun registry and universal background checks is the first step. Ad hoc, backdoor gun registration already exists by retaining the sales records of defunct dealers or by combing the records of dealers still in business.
If balancing public safety versus the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms were the true goal, allowing public access to the background check system or granting an exemption to holders of concealed firearm permits should have been implemented. Nevada law already has an existing, voluntary system. This law does not allow a person to conduct their own background check for a private party sale and makes no mention of allowing holders of concealed firearm permits to be exempt from the transfer fee, as they currently are.
The answer to the above question is because there would be no record of the transfer—not that there needs to be one. A dealer would be required to record the transfer in his bound book and the seller to fill out a Form 4473, subject to ATF inspection and recording. There would be zero ability to verify if a background check was done and if registration is the ultimate goal, one less record for the government to have access to.
Nevada Carry argues that the ultimate goal of the supporters of this initiative is to create a full gun registry and universal background checks is the first step. Ad hoc, backdoor gun registration already exists by retaining the sales records of defunct dealers or by combing the records of dealers still in business.
If balancing public safety versus the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms were the true goal, allowing public access to the background check system or granting an exemption to holders of concealed firearm permits should have been implemented. Nevada law already has an existing, voluntary system. This law does not allow a person to conduct their own background check for a private party sale and makes no mention of allowing holders of concealed firearm permits to be exempt from the transfer fee, as they currently are.
Is a magazine ban next?
Background checks never were the problem with gun crime
Gun shows are not a major source of illegal guns. Of 14,285 inmates surveyed by the DOJ, just 0.7% obtained their illegal firearms at a gun show and 1% at a flea market. Another study said that: “that in 1994, only 3.9 percent of [illegal] firearms purchases were made at gun shows.” Contrary to hype spread by the initiative supporters, modern guns cannot be ordered online and shipped to the home of a private person. Gun sale and auction site must ship to a dealer. As for Backpage and web-forums, they are the high-tech version of the old newspaper and magazine want ads.
Almost half (46%) of illegal guns were obtained through 'straw purchases', where a non-prohibited person buys the gun, on behalf of the a prohibited person) by fraudulently claiming they are the actual end-user of that gun. (Source). "Straw purchasers are the primary source of crime guns. Importantly, straw purchasers have no record of a prohibiting offense." (NIJ) Private sales are not the major source of illegal guns. “In one study, the ATF found that 50.9% of all illegal guns trafficked were originated from straw purchases, while only 14.2% came from unregulated private sales—roughly the same percentage of guns that were stolen.”
The majority of failed background checks do not lead to prosecutions, indeed, they are far from flawless. Many denials are in fact, false positives. John Lott, a economist known for his analysis of studies on guns and violence, points out that there is an “initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2 percent,” (from 2009 statistics). Only 4,154 denials out of 71,010, after review, were determined to be potentially criminal attempts to purchase firearms and only 140 cases were referred to prosecutors and only 77 of those cases were prosecuted at all. That’s roughly one one-hundredth of the total denials that were prosecuted. Only 32 cases resulted in a conviction or guilty plea.
Background checks don’t stop mass murderers. None of the most notable mass shooting suspects in recent American history bought their guns in private sales which would be subject to the provisions of the universal background check initiative. Most killers passed background checks or were not deterred by universal background check laws.
Gun shows are not a major source of illegal guns. Of 14,285 inmates surveyed by the DOJ, just 0.7% obtained their illegal firearms at a gun show and 1% at a flea market. Another study said that: “that in 1994, only 3.9 percent of [illegal] firearms purchases were made at gun shows.” Contrary to hype spread by the initiative supporters, modern guns cannot be ordered online and shipped to the home of a private person. Gun sale and auction site must ship to a dealer. As for Backpage and web-forums, they are the high-tech version of the old newspaper and magazine want ads.
Almost half (46%) of illegal guns were obtained through 'straw purchases', where a non-prohibited person buys the gun, on behalf of the a prohibited person) by fraudulently claiming they are the actual end-user of that gun. (Source). "Straw purchasers are the primary source of crime guns. Importantly, straw purchasers have no record of a prohibiting offense." (NIJ) Private sales are not the major source of illegal guns. “In one study, the ATF found that 50.9% of all illegal guns trafficked were originated from straw purchases, while only 14.2% came from unregulated private sales—roughly the same percentage of guns that were stolen.”
The majority of failed background checks do not lead to prosecutions, indeed, they are far from flawless. Many denials are in fact, false positives. John Lott, a economist known for his analysis of studies on guns and violence, points out that there is an “initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2 percent,” (from 2009 statistics). Only 4,154 denials out of 71,010, after review, were determined to be potentially criminal attempts to purchase firearms and only 140 cases were referred to prosecutors and only 77 of those cases were prosecuted at all. That’s roughly one one-hundredth of the total denials that were prosecuted. Only 32 cases resulted in a conviction or guilty plea.
Background checks don’t stop mass murderers. None of the most notable mass shooting suspects in recent American history bought their guns in private sales which would be subject to the provisions of the universal background check initiative. Most killers passed background checks or were not deterred by universal background check laws.
|
|
|