I disagree with Barbara Ellestad, who urged voters to oppose Question 1 in your Early Voting Guide. By passing Question 1, we can do more to keep guns away from criminals while respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners like myself.
I’m a hunter and a member of the National Rifle Association. I don’t want anyone taking my gun rights away. But Question 1 won’t do that. What it will do is protect people like me, and the people I love, from dangerous people by requiring a background check on every gun sale.
Federal law requires a background check only on guns bought from licensed dealers. Question 1 would extend this requirement to all Nevada gun sales, closing a loophole through which people can currently avoid background checks in Nevada by buying guns through online marketplaces or at gun shows.
Question 1 includes exemptions related to hunting, family and self-defense.
As Ms. Ellestad has pointed out, criminals don’t follow all laws. But just like our laws against murder and theft, background checks make us safer even though they can’t prevent every crime. Here in Nevada alone, between 2012 and 2014 background checks blocked 5,379 gun sales to people not allowed to have guns, including felons, fugitives and domestic abusers.
In fact, in states that require a background check on all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are fatally shot with guns, and 48 percent fewer police officers are killed with handguns in the line of duty.
Statistics like those help explain why so many people across this state support closing our background check loophole. In addition to gun owners like me, a long list of law enforcement, faith, business and community leaders have urged Nevadans to vote “Yes” on Question 1.
Finally, Ms. Ellestad refers to the “extra cost and hassle” of requiring background checks on all gun sales. Most background checks take place on the spot, and more than 97 percent of Nevadans live within 10 miles of a licensed gun dealer, where a background check can take place. In other states that have passed similar laws, most background checks cost between $15 and $20. To me, that’s not much cost or hassle for a system that can keep a gun out of the hands of a dangerous person.
I hope you’ll join me in voting to make our state safer by voting “Yes” on Question 1.
Paul Larsen
Las Vegas, NV
Paul Larsen is a Nevadan, a hunter and NRA member.
If question was to pass all that will happen is it will make a lot of Law Abiding citizens Criminals. You could not give any family member a gun as a gift, that would be a Felony. I hope people read and understand question. It will get guns out of the hands of Criminals just like we do not have a drug problem in this country because drugs are illegal. Criminals do not care about the laws and will continue breaking the laws like they have for years. VOTE NO on question #1. I am a retired Law Enforcement Officer with 35 year dealing with criminals. Criminals could care less about any Laws
I totally agree with Barbra Ellestad. Passing Question One would put needless restrictions and hoops to jump through on law abiding gun owners. If you wanted to borrow my .410 single shot shotgun to teach a child how to shoot clay pigeons we would have to go to a licensed gun dealer and do a background check on you for whatever “reasonable fee” the dealer wanted to charge. When you returned it to me we would have to repeat the process and have the dealer run a background check on me before you could return it. As pointed out, by definition criminals ignore laws and this would only apply to law abiding gun ownere.
Why would individuals who remember or have read about the holocaust vote yes on issue #1? Why would you want to put restrictions on your family members ability to protect themselves? Why would you want “licensed Dealers” to make more money on “reasonable fees”? (Wasn’t Obama Care supposed to provide reasonable costs for health care?) WHY would you want ANYONE, especially the government (they can’t even run themselves) to have more control over what you can and can’t do with your own property?
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
It says in the very first line of the constitution for a “Perfect Union” we must provide the following things and one of them is for the “Common Defense” that’s us folks! We are the common (people) for which they need to provide defense to ensure Domestic Tranquility {our peace of mind in our own homes}. Since the few of those who are paid to “serve and protect” can’t be everywhere at once that means we need to have the means to defend ourselves as well. Guess what, we have a Constitutional right to provide for our own defense. VOTE NO to secure the the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
We as American Citizens are held to the same standard as the government in abiding by the Constitution. If you truly believe that the Constitution of the United States was written to uphold the rights of every American how can you vote to reduce the rights of SOME of your fellow men and women? Why are they any less important than anyone else?
Voting yes on this issue will make law abiding citizens, your friends and family members criminals, for teaching thier neighbor’s 17 year old kid how to shoot unless they both get background checks. So now your friend, who wasn’t before, becomes a felon and you’ve ruined the life of a 17 year old kid who is now a felon. Both now lose thier rights to own firearms and susenquently thier right to defend themselves.
It’s a nasty scenario isn’t it?
Criminals aren’t going to pay attention either way so that should not be a factor in your thoughts on this issue. I urge you all to read this issue carefully before you go out and vote yes.
Oh please! First, Barbara Ellestad, and apparently Teri Nehrenz, are fanatical Republicans and follow the party line no matter what. Nehrenz argument is ridiculous. The change won’t make anyone a felon nor will it change your right to protect yourself. Following her line of thoughtlessness, if the Bundys are convicted of a felon should they still be allowed to have firearms? The constitution doesn’t say felons can’t have firearms. If Nehrenz is serious, then there should be NO restrictions on carrying or owning firearms. Felons, mostly non-violent and property crime felons and potential felons like the Bundys should be allowed the same constitutional rights as everyone else. Right?, ladies?
Hardly a fanatical Republican and probably the most NON POLITICAL person in the bunch period but that doesn’t mean that I can’t have concerns over issues. This really doesn’t affect me at all, I don’t live in Nevada. Just putting my opinion in with everyone else’s. I really think the way this is written will hurt the Nevada public and gun owners much more than it could ever help them.
People are pushing this law to pass stating that this will stop unlicensed sales…how? They say that it will stop illegal sales at Gun Shows…not true. Gun show dealers must already be licensed to sell their guns at a gun show in the state of Nevada. It is a bold faced lie they are telling to try to get people to vote yes. How could it possibly stop something that isn’t even an issue? Those who sell at gun shows without a license are already breaking the law, we don’t need to pass a new one to do what, reinforce what’s already in play? It’s a really stupid law and the commercials are lies. There is nobody allowed to sell at a gun show who isn’t already a licensed seller and the venue for the show may require background checks for every sale so you can’t say this will stop something that isn’t really a problem can you. They have hyped everything up to scare people into giving up their constitutional rights…don’t do it.
Also the sales of online guns is not so easy and actually much harder than personal sales because they are federally regulated. “Like any other product, a consumer has the ability to purchase guns, ammunition, Kevlar, parts etc online. Selling guns online seems like a frightening prospect, but in reality it is more secure than most gun transactions. Online gun sites are regulated by the Federal government through mandatory laws that require selling guns online to be administered legitimately.
The most significant law regarding gun purchasing is administered by the federal government. US federal law requires that all guns purchased online must be shipped only to a holder of a Federal Firearms License.
Guns bought online are never shipped to the consumers home, but instead, to a federally licensed gun shop. Selling guns online also requires a FFL-both parties must be licensed appropriately, in order for a transaction to occur. After purchase the online gun retailer will ship the firearm to the local gun dealer, where the consumer will pick it up in person.