Nevada Sheriffs: Bloomberg-Backed Background Checks Aren’t Going to Happen

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

Oopsy.

The universal background checks passed under Nevada’s Question 1 were
scheduled to go into effect January 1, but the state’s sheriffs are making
clear that it’s not going to happen.
In fact, sheriffs say the December 28 opinion handed down by Nevada
Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt basically renders the checks moot by
proving them unenforceable.










Breitbart News reported that Laxalt pointed out how the language of
Question 1 actually ensnared those who framed it, rendering it
“unenforceable” by presuming the FBI would do that which the FBI refuses to
do while simultaneously failing to grant the Nevada Department of Public
Safety the authority to act in the FBI’s stead — as a “Point of Contact”
(POC) for sales in Nevada.

Framers of Question 1 wanted licensed gun dealers to serve as POCs
throughout the state, but the FBI refused this plan of action in a letter
dated December 14. The FBI said they were willing to let the Nevada DPS
serve as POC on the universal checks, but that is not possible because the
DPS was not granted authority to do so by those who designed the Nevada
checks.



The Reno-Gazette Journal is reporting that sheriff’s across the state
reacted to Laxalt’s opinion by making clear that they have no plans to
enforce the background checks once the January 1 effective date arrives.

For example, the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office voiced “support” for Laxalt’s
opinion, saying, “We will not enforce any provisions of this ballot
initiative until the issues have been resolved.” Washoe County Sheriff’s
Office spokesman Bob Harmon said, “Based on the Nevada Attorney General’s
opinion, the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office cannot enforce this law at this
time.” And the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office is advising residents of its
county to “proceed with private party firearm sells and transfers as they
did prior to the passing of ballot question #1.”

Storey County Sheriff Gerald Antinoro went even further, saying Question 1
“is not enforceable even without the opinion.”



The bottom line–Bloomberg & Co. appear to have acted prematurely in
celebrating the passage of gun control in Nevada.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/30/nevada-sheriffs-
bloomberg-backed-background-checks-arent-going-to-happen/

[a425couple]

Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
Oopsy.
The universal background checks passed under Nevada's Question 1 were
scheduled to go into effect January 1, but the state's sheriffs are making
clear that it's not going to happen.
In fact, sheriffs say the December 28 opinion handed down by Nevada
Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt basically renders the checks moot by
proving them unenforceable.

I am regularly very thankful for our elected local sheriffs.

[Just Wondering]

Post by a425couple

Post by Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas
The universal background checks passed under Nevada's Question 1 were
scheduled to go into effect January 1, but the state's sheriffs are
making clear that it's not going to happen.
In fact, sheriffs say the December 28 opinion handed down by Nevada
Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt basically renders the checks moot by
proving them unenforceable.

I am regularly very thankful for our elected local sheriffs.

In this case, it involves the FBI flat-out refusing to do
background checks on private sales.
http://www.breachbangclear.com/fbi-says-no-nevada-background-check-initiative/
The FBI recently sent a letter to the Nevada Department of Public Safety
saying, in short, that the FBI would not conduct background checks on
private firearms transfers as called for in the new law. In the letter,
the FBI noted that the State of Nevada “… cannot dictate how federal
resources are applied.”

[pyotr filipivich]

Downside - the law is still on the books.

Just like the Washington State law - just because it is not
enforced, does not mean it is not a law.

In both cases, someone is going to have to litigate said law to
get it removed. Or get the State legislature to repeal it.

But until then, even if it is unenforceable, it is on the books.
--
pyotr filipivich
"We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society, for our law
has ceased to be law and become instead its opposite -- mere force at the
disposal of whoever is at the controls." Charles A. Reich, _The Greening of America_, (c) 1971

[benj]

Post by pyotr filipivich
Downside - the law is still on the books.
Just like the Washington State law - just because it is not
enforced, does not mean it is not a law.
In both cases, someone is going to have to litigate said law to
get it removed. Or get the State legislature to repeal it.
But until then, even if it is unenforceable, it is on the books.

And unenforceable law is even better than an enforced one. Because it
allows it to be selectively enforced and thus used as an instrument of
political control. So long as it remains on the books it remains as a
tool to be applied to all political enemies.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that benj <***@nobody.net> on or about Mon, 2 Jan
2017 17:07:38 -0500 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in

Post by benj

Post by pyotr filipivich
Downside - the law is still on the books.
Just like the Washington State law - just because it is not
enforced, does not mean it is not a law.
In both cases, someone is going to have to litigate said law to
get it removed. Or get the State legislature to repeal it.
But until then, even if it is unenforceable, it is on the books.

And unenforceable law is even better than an enforced one. Because it
allows it to be selectively enforced and thus used as an instrument of
political control. So long as it remains on the books it remains as a
tool to be applied to all political enemies.

Exactly - a society of men, not laws. Effectively a lawless
society, for no one can say, with any certitude, where the an act will
be punished or not.

[Diogenes]

Post by benj

Post by pyotr filipivich
Downside - the law is still on the books.
Just like the Washington State law - just because it is not
enforced, does not mean it is not a law.
In both cases, someone is going to have to litigate said law to
get it removed. Or get the State legislature to repeal it.
But until then, even if it is unenforceable, it is on the books.

And unenforceable law is even better than an enforced one. Because it
allows it to be selectively enforced and thus used as an instrument of
political control. So long as it remains on the books it remains as a
tool to be applied to all political enemies.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris.
"We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not
a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we
mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any
government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when
there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many
things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live
without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?
What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that
can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and
you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.
Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you
understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged


----
Diogenes

The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .