The Nevada question of Liberty

Print Friendly

By Niger Innis

As a longtime civil rights activist who is keenly aware of attempts to restrict or eliminate our rights, I am opposed to the Question One gun control ballot initiative that will appear on the Nevada ballot in November. This anti-freedom initiative does not increase our civil rights. It undermines them. Question One does not improve public safety. It suppresses our fundamental liberties. It would do little, if anything, to stop criminal activity in our state, and would instead turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals for everyday activities.

The erosion of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is an erosion of freedom itself. The founding fathers made sure to give the states and individuals an insurance policy against tyranny. It is not an accident that the Founding Fathers choose to embed the God-given right of self-defense in the Second Amendment. The ability to defend ourselves, our families, our property, our community, state and nation is fundamental to the protection of liberty itself. As a civil rights leader, I know how precious liberty is.

Question One would impose new government mandates and taxes on law-abiding Nevadans that will cost them time, money, and freedom. It could easily turn many gun owners into criminals for simply lending a gun to a co-worker, friend or neighbor. Members of our military who serve overseas wouldn’t be able to leave their personal firearms in the care of a close friend without going through multiple background checks. If a woman couldn’t afford a firearm and chose to borrow one from a friend, Question One would make it nearly impossible for her to defend herself. If you read through the language of the initiative carefully, as I have done, you will find that it would criminalize every day activities of many law-abiding Nevadans.

There is one group, however, that will not be affected by the freedom-sucking mandates of Question One: criminals. As we all know, criminals do not obey the laws. It is ridiculous to think that criminal thugs will subject themselves to government background checks and fees like the rest of us. Instead, they will get their guns the way they always have, from theft and from other criminal associates.

Because I love freedom and fear government tyranny, I am asking you to do your civic duty to protect our rights and stand up for our community. Join the movement to secure our liberties. Fight alongside Nevadans for State Gun Rights to defeat Ballot Question One in November. When we band together, I know we really can make a difference. As a citizen of Nevada and a leader in the civil rights community, I do not support Ballot Question One and strongly urge all voters to vote no on Question One.”

Niger Innis is an activist with Nevadans for State Gun Rights and a spokesman for Congress of Racial Equality.

Comments

  1. Amen !

  2. Rick Kammerman says:

    Guns do not kill people any more than pencils misspell words or spoons make you fat. As the author and the NRA have pointed out, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If you want fewer deaths caused by firearms, you need to address the issue of mental health in this country. Restricting the use of guns for law-abiding-citizens will simply make crime easier for criminals.

  3. Rick Kammerman says:

    After I posted the above post, I went on to read the post by Brian Brannman who is a retired Navy Medical Provider. I realized that I may not have understood the intent of the ballot measure and re-read it. The measure is an attempt to require individuals who acquire a gun via purchase or transfer to have a gun shop handle the transaction which will also require a background check. Specifically exempted is the transfer of a gun to family members for any reason, for hunting or for self defense. While any type of gun control has been strongly resisted by supporters of the Constitution which gives everyone the right to bear arms, the proposed measure is a small step which will help keep guns out of the hands of some folks that should not have them. It will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It seems to me that the circumstances that required the framers of the Constitution to allow everyone the right to bear arms, have changed. The risk to citizens is not that the Government will overthrow all of the freedoms and establish a dictatorship but that you or your kids will get shot at random in a mall or school somewhere. To me that seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

  4. Dear NRA…..

    STOP “negotiating” excuses to INFRINGE on OUR RIGHTS.

    If there must be background checks, let’s try this idea…

    Are there any ‘legislators’ that are interested in a CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK?

    Since SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that..

    Let’s try a “Background Check” that DOES NOT INFRINGE on anybodies RIGHTS…

    A FULL, IN DEPTH background check for ALL Politicians, Bureaucrats, and ALL government employees, and set MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE,JOB SKILLS AND CHARACTER QUALITIES that must be met before they can run for office, be appointed of hired.

    That way, WE, THE PEOPLE, get a much better class of politicians and
    bureaucrats, as well as EMPLOYEES that can be trained to do the jobs
    they are being hired for.

    Any bets on how hard the political class will fight to prevent it?

    THAT would be a Background Check that nearly ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS will support.and I don’t much care if the illegals and their sycophants don’t like the idea.

  5. another moderated site

Speak Your Mind

*