Poll: What will happen now to Bloomberg’s Nevada Question #1?

As John Lott reported just before Hanukkah:

Bloomberg’s Nevada ballot initiative eked out a win this November by less than one percentage point, and only because of the almost $20 million spent on it, amounting to an incredible $35.30 per vote. In Maine, the same initiative failed by eight percentage points despite equally unlimited spending.

The initiative, Question #1 on the ballot, was of course another of Bloomberg’s attempts to force gun purchasers to prove their innocence before possessing a firearm. It failed in every county of Nevada except Clark, home to Las Vegas, the state’s only major urban center. It looked as if the city people and the hoplophobic billionaire were going to force everyone else in the state to obey their will.

Then last week came much more cheerful news: the FBI refused to do the background checks and the state’s attorney general said he couldn’t implement the law.

The FBI insisted that states can’t dictate policy to it. According to Sebastian of Shall Not Be Questioned:

The issue is that Nevada is designated as a Point-of-Contact (POC) state, meaning that … they have a state background check system that is designated by the FBI to conduct background checks under the Brady Act. Bloomberg’s new law states that the checks have to be conducted by the FBI’s National Instant Check System. Given that Nevada is a POC state, the FBI will not conduct checks on behalf of Nevada. The law cannot be complied with, and is therefore completely unworkable and unenforceable.

And isn’t that a whopping huge mistake for Bloomberg to have spent $20 million on? But isn’t that also typical anti-gun ignorance and arrogance? Us? Need to know the law? But laws are only for the little people!

So. Currently, Nevadans don’t have to obey Michael Bloomberg after all. But we’re wondering what comes next. What will ultimately happen to Nevada Question #1? Will the terrible law die or will someone connive a means of imposing it on the people after all?

To weigh in with your opinion, take the newest TZP poll, either on the polling site or below.


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

8 thoughts on “Poll: What will happen now to Bloomberg’s Nevada Question #1?”

  1. I can see Obama issuing an executive memo to the FBI, instructing them to conduct the checks, on his way out the door. On the bright side, that would also be a good first test of Trump’s new found appreciation of RKBA.

  2. I had a thought while reading this. If Mr Bloomberg is truly interested in alleviating violence wouldn’t make more sense for him to spend his zillions on low or no interest loans to inner city youth for college, homes, neighborhood programs to shut down gangs, family education and support, and how about Michele Obamas observation of wholesome nutrition deserts. I mean it seems he’s wasting a lot of money on things that won’t work and ignoring the real causes of the problem. I know if I had his resources I would put most of it right back into human development rather than trashing the Bill of Rights.

    1. Jim,we all know bloomberg doesn’t give a rats a** about people.He has an agenda of victim disarmament and civilian subjugation ,as all good communists do.

  3. I think that Nevada legislature will have to get rid of this law to save face. Otherwise, it is a huge embarrassment for them, having passed this law, and now having it as a big old albatross for all to see. I don’t think that another shot at it by Bloomberg would work, because after the state sees what a joke this thing is, I can’t imagine some other effort gaining any ground.

  4. Now, if we can just dump Bloomberg’s 594 in WA (Seattle really) we’ll be making progress. BTW, 594 got significant financial support from Gates, Allen, Hanauer, and Ballmer.

  5. The law is not enforceable because (as in most western states) there is no gun registration in NV. If asked, all a person has to say is, “It’s my gun”. Bloomberg might try to fix that with a new initiative imposing registration and an in-state background check.

  6. The FBI prefers states to act as the POC because states have access to more things like protective orders and mental health records (not to mention it’s on the state’s dime). I’m pretty sure the Federal Brady Law does not allow a hybrid system (It allows a hybrid system for long arms vs. handguns but not two systems fir different types of transfers of the same gun). Basically Federal law says either NICS or State POC. The Nevada Constitution prohibits ballot initiatives from being amended or repealed for 3 years. The legislature has a few choices. Pass a totally independent law (like the Governor vetoed a few years ago), wait 3 years and amend Question 1 (again have to overcome a veto), or end the state POC totally.

  7. New Mexico has had a nearly identical law introduced, pushed by the same Bloomberg money. The proposed law has all the same flaws as the NV law. There is a legislative open meeting at the State Legislature building January 31, at 1330 and I’ll be there. Interestingly, at least for now, concealed carry is allowed in the , in New Mexico State Capitol building (“The Roundhouse”).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *