Ballot Question 1: The Guinn Center Fact Sheet

The Kenny C. Guinn Center for Policy Priorities released a fact sheet on Ballot Question 1, which would ban private gun sales/transfers by requiring all such sales to go through a dealer. This is being marketed as “universal background checks” as all dealer transactions require a background (Brady) check. Unfortunately, most Nevadans don’t realize that the law is confusing, unenforceable, and would unintentionally criminalize innocent behavior.

Kenny Guinn, a moderate Republican, was the Governor of Nevada from 1997 to 2007.  The Guinn Center describes itself as a “nonprofit, bipartisan, independent research center focused on providing fact-based, relevant, and well-reasoned analysis of critical policy issues facing Nevada and the Intermountain West.” Let’s take a look at some of the claims made in the report, particularly those made by the argument in support of Ballot Question 1.

“In 2010, Nevada reported 14.6 gun deaths for every 100,000 residents, which makes the Silver State’s gun-death rate 40 percent higher than the national average.”

The intent of this statement, from the argument in support, is to paint Nevada as an extraordinarily violent place with guns to blame. Let’s break down the figures:

• 395 firearm deaths (all intents) 14.49 per 100,000
• 100 for homicides and legal interventions 3.73 per 100,000
• 90 homicides (murder) 3.36 per 100,000
• 289 suicides 10.51 per 100,000

Using all firearm deaths to frame the debate is highly misleading. Such statistics include legal use of firearms (self-defense; police and civilian) and suicides. Suicides should not be counted because firearms have little to nothing to do with the decision to commit suicide. The firearm is merely the method and an absence of firearms does little to reduce suicide rates. Despite having stricter gun control laws, countries with little to no legal access to guns still have high suicide rates as other methods of suicide (hanging, poisoning, jumping) are used.

Looking strictly at criminal homicides (subtracting suicides and legal killings), this gives Nevada a score of 3.61 non-suicide gun deaths per 100,000, versus 3.59 nationally, meaning that Nevada has a gun homicide rate slightly above average. Nevadans do not face a significantly higher risk of gun violence than the rest of the United States (especially rural Nevadans).

Source: CDC WISQARS. 2010, Nevada & United States. “Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000.” All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages, ICD-10 Codes: Y22-Y24

“In 2015, Nevada received an “F” given its weak gun control policies and its high rate of gun death rates.”

This was from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an outspoken gun control organization. Various pro-gun sources rank Nevada as among one of the most gun friendly states. An A or an F rating depends wholly on the objectives and the beliefs of the organization rating the state.

“Preliminary data reported in April 2016 found that the new background check system had ‘prevented 50 felons from purchasing a gun from an unlicensed seller in Washington since expanded background checks took effect there in 2014.’”

In the source article, from Bloomberg anti-gun rag The Trace, citing a local Washington news report, states that 3,948 felons were blocked from buying a gun in 2015. The 3,948 number is total gun sales--both from dealers and private sources. There were 50 denials in 14 months, about 3.5 per month. Private gun sale/transfer denials are 1% of the total dealer sale denials.

On top of such misleading statistics, “State court records show there have been no prosecutions related to I-594.” How many guns obtained legally or illegally were used in crimes, background checks be damned? If no one is being convicted under the law, then what actual deterrent is it to criminals?

“Analysts noted that this amounts to a “rejection rate of less than 1 percent of the more than 6,000 private firearm sales during that timeframe,” which is equivalent to the national rate of blocked gun transfers to felons recorded by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in the last 18 years. Following implementation in Colorado, there were 13,600 background checks conducted between private sellers (about 4 percent of total state background checks) and 260 denials (a two percent rejection rate).”

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, an 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.

The report, in its argument in opposition, does tell the truth that universal background checks are the first step towards gun registration and useless without it.

“Enforcement of this measure may be a challenge. National and local government policy makers have acknowledged that a system requiring background checks for firearm sales and transfers is ‘unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration’ for the reasons mentioned previously. As David Kopel wrote in, The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control, the National Institute of Justice has recognized that ‘the only way to enforce the background-check law would be to require the retroactive registration of all currently owned firearms in the United States.’”

Is the Guinn Center Biased Towards Gun Control and Supporting Yes on One?

The report disclaims:

“We note that certain Guinn Center Board Members have acted as advisory members of Nevadans for Background Checks and have provided financial assistance. However, those board members played no role in the scoping and preparation of this report. Following our standard protocol, this Fact Sheet, prior to publication, was reviewed by an external panel of subject matter experts.”

However, the arguments in support and opposition are grossly disproportionate. The “support” section got a map of national gun deaths while the “opposition” section didn’t get a graphic.

Word count per segment

• Support: 797 words
• Opposition: 341 words

Sources cited in whole report:

• 7 pro-gun control sources (Everytown, The Trace, etc.)
• 2 gun rights sources (NRA)
• 2 ‘neutral’ press sources rebutting effectiveness of universal background checks

Additionally, the article gives no mention of who Nevadans for Background Checks is funded or supported by (Michael Bloomberg and his various astroturf gun control groups). In portraying the initiative as a grassroots response to Gov. Sandoval’s veto of a similar law passed by 2013’s legislature, such information honestly stating the initiative was a strategy modeled on Washington and rolled out to Nevada and Maine is crucial. This isn’t something that Nevada's truly want: it’s being foisted on them with lies, out-of-state money, and an anti-gun agenda.

Anti-gun bias factor: 3, report tells the truth, but tells it slant.

Vote no on Ballot Question 1--no more gun control.

California Number One Supplier of Crime Guns to Nevada*

California Governor Jerry Brown criticized states like Nevada and Arizona for having so-called ‘lax’ gun laws. “California has the toughest gun control laws of any state and Nevada and Arizona are wide open. So that's a gigantic backdoor through which any terrorist can walk.” Governor Brown apparently missed the fact that a whole host of California laws were broken by the terrorists in San Bernardino. His state’s draconian gun laws did not prevent this tragedy, but instead reduced the victims to cowering in the face of Islamic terrorists. Hero Shannon Johnson was killed bravely shielding Denise Peraza with his own body.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey said: 

"All of Arizona mourns for the victims in California. To politicize a tragedy of this magnitude and use it as an opportunity to attack our state is out of bounds. Not only will we be ignoring Gov. Brown's advice, but I call on him to retract his incredibly thoughtless and ill-advised comments.” 

In regards to the Paris terrorist attacks last month, Gov. Ducey said, “These acts serve as a reminder that the world remains at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Our national leaders must react with the urgency and leadership that every American expects to protect our citizens.” Gov. Brown did not shy away from acknowledging the threat of Islamic terror. At least Gov. Brown got one thing right. 

“At the same time, I don’t minimize the significance of this terrorist attack. […] It’s a very clear indication that this is a global phenomenon and that people who are committed to this jihadist doctrine are going to be killing people in very unexpected places. So we have to be, as I said, we have to be on our guard and we have to do whatever we can do.”

Nevada's governor's office, issued a statement Sunday afternoon.

"Nevadans share California's grief during this time of tragedy following the horrific events in San Bernardino. However, Governor Brown’s assertion that our state laws create an opening for terrorists is wrong and irresponsible. This type of political rhetoric is discouraging to hear at a time when all Americans are looking for thoughtful, honest leadership. Governor Sandoval’s top priority has always been the safety and well-being of Nevadans and the millions of tourists who travel to our state annually."

Nevada, California’s Criminal Arms Market?

Everytown Research, the discredited research arm of former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun organization Everytown for Gun Safety, has published 'research' (really just statistics explained in a way that makes Nevada look bad) supposedly drawing the conclusion that Nevada is some sort of arms bazaar to California criminals. The reality is quite the opposite.

Everytown says: “[...]  since 2006, the number of Nevada guns recovered at California crime scenes has increased 94 percent.” According to an ATF firearms trace data (cited by Everytown), in 2006, 361 guns traced, came from Nevada, versus 2013, where the number was 699 guns. Saying the guns were recovered from a crime scene is a lie. The stats used are for all guns traced by the ATF, which includes not just guns from crime scenes, but guns confiscated from felons, for instance. Of course, California itself was the largest source of firearms recovered from criminals or at crime scenes.

The actual sources of the guns are never mentioned. For this to be an accurate comparison and used as evidence for universal background checks, how the guns got into the hands of California criminals is vitally important.

• How many of these guns were actually bought in sales which would be prohibited by the universal background check initiative?
• How many of these guns were bought/transferred illegally under existing laws (Straw purchases, illegal street dealers)?
• How many of these guns were legally brought in or sold/transferred to Californians?
• How many of these guns were stolen? 

Everytown isn’t interested in answering these questions, only presenting the appearance of a problem where there is none. Now here’s the kicker. The largest out-of-state source for traced guns in Nevada (again, using the same source and definition as Everytown used) is: California!

https://www.atf.gov/file/55016/download

https://www.atf.gov/file/3286/download

Yes, Nevada does have private gun sales that a criminal from California could abuse. However, the onus is on California for infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. California is also responsible for an influx of felons. “California’s two-strike felons often come to Nevada to avoid their third felony, and thus a potential 25-to-life sentence, and continue committing their crimes. Nevada’s three strike law doesn’t count out-of-state convictions,” Nevada Carry’s anonymous law enforcement source told us.

California’s Gun Laws Just Don’t Work

An effort, lead by California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco, seeks to confiscate all grandfathered 10 round plus magazines, among other ineffective measures. California started the ‘assault weapons’ ban back in the 1980s after a mass shooting at McDonalds, later copied at the federal level for ten years. Clearly this ban had no effect on the terrorists. Brown and Newsom, along with Senator Barbara Boxer, who foolishly praised California’s gun laws after the terrorist attack. Boxer, whose brain must be malfunctioning after years of drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, liked the guns law working to speeding law working after illegal street racers plowed into a crowd.

In California, all ‘assault weapons’ must have been registered by 2001 or altered so that they no longer meet the state’s arbitrary criteria. The ‘assault weapon’ ban is predicated on mostly cosmetic and inconsequential features, such as a pistol grip, flash suppressor, detachable magazine, and collapsing stock. It was alleged based upon specious logic that such features make the weapon more deadly.

Media reports are stating that  the rifles used in the attack were purchased by a friend Enrique Marquez. Police have not released any further details on how the weapons were acquired. They may have been solid in a private party transfer, using a gun dealer as California has banned private gun sales without going through a licensed dealer. Or, Marquez may have bought the weapons as a ‘straw purchase’ where they were intended for suspect Sayed Farook the whole time. Another option, most disconcerting to proponents of universal background checks, is that the law didn’t stop Marquez from illegally selling the weapons to Farook.

Media is also mistakenly describing the weapons as having been modified to be more powerful. An AR-15, like most rifles, is capable of penetrating soft police body armor, walls, and vehicles. Nothing was done to enhance the physical ‘punch’ of the weapons. Only modifications to the weapons functionality were made and illegal 10+ round magazines were used.

Under California law, if you took an AR-15 that was legal to possess in Nevada, removed the standard magazine release, and put one on there that needed a ‘tool’ to release it, such as the tip of a bullet, the weapon, though functionally identical to the prohibited ‘assault weapon’ would then be legal. Swapping out the bullet button for a proper magazine release takes about two minutes or less and requires no tools. At least one of the rifles was modified in attempt to make it fully automatic, but it was done improperly and it failed.

Law enforcement hasn’t said yet how the weapon was modified. AR-15 style rifles are distinctly different in semi-automatic and fully-automatic form. The conversion from semi-to-fully auto is not easy. Semi-auto ARs have a ‘denial hump’, or simply an area of the receiver that hasn’t been milled out. This is to deny the room needed for installing the auto-sear, which holds the hammer from hitting the firing pin and detonating the cartridge until the bolt is locked, preventing an explosion. The rifle would also need several different parts—a full-auto hammer and trigger disconnector, a three position safety catch, and a full-auto bolt—changed to function properly.

A “Lightning Link” could also have been made and installed. This is basically two pieces of metal which basically forces the semi-auto trigger to work in full-auto mode while delaying the stroke of the hammer as described as above. Truly modifying a weapon to be an illegal machine gun (under federal law) requires advanced gunsmithing and mechanical knowledge. Simpler solutions, like the SlideFire stock that moves the trigger finger to rapidly pull the trigger nearly as fast as full-auto fire, are already banned in California.

Another so-called modification was using 30 round ‘high capacity magazines’, which in reality are standard capacity. AR-15 designed Eugene Stoner’s original rife was designed to take 20 round magazines, increased to 30 rounds in 1969 for the M16 variant used in Vietnam. Supporters of restricting magazine capacity erroneously believe that ten round (or fewer) magazines will necessitate more frequent magazine changes. Sheriff Campbell of Boone County, Indiana, demonstrates how magazine capacity makes virtually no difference whatsoever in reloading speed, thus negating any alleged safety.

Fox 5 Gets it Wrong on Background Checks

A Fox 5 (Las Vegas) segment irritated many local gun owners, who felt that the piece was deceptive and improperly edited. It focused on the 2016 universal background check initiative which would ban all private gun sales by forcing those sales to go through a federally licensed dealer. The initiative is believed to be the first step in establishing a national gun registration database. Christine Maddela, weeknight evening co-anchor and Denver native, reported. 

Maddela’s report did balance both sides of the argument. Oddly enough, the message that I thought came across the loudest was “criminals will get guns anyway,” even though the perspective of the piece seemed to be pro-initiative. Despite manipulative edits, the cries against more gun control and the futility of the initiative were loud from a lot of the interviewees. Nonetheless, the broader points of the argument were left out and over-simplified to just two blunted viewpoints.

The piece generated an immediate online backlash against Maddela and Fox 5, causing the next evening’s ‘Rant’ to explode over the topic. Rocky Mountain Gun Shows and local gun dealer Fallout Firearms were also blasted because of statements in the report that were allegedly taken out of context. Online, gun owners took to Facebook and Yelp to post damning reviews against both. Both businesses have since explained their positions and blamed Fox 5 for taking their statements out of context. 

Kourosh Haroni, on Facebook, clarified that he was referring to dealer background checks (required by state and federal law) and not private sales. He and Rocky Mountain Gun Shows do not support the initiative or mandatory background checks on private gun sales.

Fallout Firearms and its employee, Alex Acree, quoted in the piece, immediately disavowed the report and declared their opposition to banning private gun sales. Owner Mike Crowder posted the following on his blog: 

“While setting up at the Rocky Mountain Gun show at Southpoint, Fox five was interviewing the promoter for Rocky Mountain Gun Show and she was hammering on him about the ‘Gun Show Loophole’. He remarked that all transactions done at his gun show between dealers was done legally. Then he brought them over to talk to us since we are his out of state transfer dealer for dealers that come in from out of state. 

“I was unable to respond because I was sick and my throat was so sore that it would have been a disaster, so I asked my salesman Alex Acree to respond to them. 

“She asked him if he saw any transfers between people without background checks at the gun show, and he said no because we are required by federal law to do background checks so we do them. She then told him that other dealers in the show do not support background checks, and that they don't work and does he support that, and he said no, background checks absolutely do work, they catch felons and domestic violence all the time. 

“She then asked if he supported having background checks between individuals and he said no, he did not support background checks, and he has been involved in many private party sales himself. [emphasis added] She then asked him if he was worried about selling a gun to a felon and he replied that if there is concern about selling a gun to a felon, you can download a form on the internet to help with private party sales that makes the person check that they are not a felon or have any domestic violence charges in their background.

“Of course the footage was edited down to make it seem like Alex replied in context that he supports background checks between private parties, and that Karoush Haroni of Rocky Mountain Gun Shows also supports that, but that is not true, and not how the interview went.

“[…] They showed all of a minute of Alex talking but he spent over 30 minutes with the news crew answering all kinds of questions. They picked out the one minute of footage of him speaking and put it into the context that we support private party background checks […]

“I cannot stress enough that my business DOES NOT SUPPORT background checks between individuals for several reasons. 

“#1. I do not feel that the government should be allowed to tell you that you cannot sell your private property without the government getting involved. If we allow the government to get involved in the sale of private property, what's next? Are they going to regulate me selling my car to someone who had a DUI in the past? […]

“#5 The state makes a lot of money off of background checks. Many people think we profit off of that, but we do not. The state charges us $25 for each background check that we pay monthly. We collect the $25 from the customer, and then pay the state at the end of each month. Last year alone my business paid the NV Department of Public Safety close to $60,000.00 in background check money. Other states are not required to go through the department of public safety and they deal directly with the FBI and there is no fee for a background check in most states, and there is no two hour wait before a DPS employee answers a phone. It is almost immediate with response. […] 

“We as a business are so anti-individual background check that any time someone walks in to do a transfer between private parties, we ALWAYS try to talk them out of using us to do it. We explain that it is completely legal for them to do the background check without using us. We ONLY will do a private party transfer in the store if the two people insist that the firearm go through a FFLs A&D books. If we supported individual background checks we would try to get people in the store so we could charge them a transfer fee and make a little money, but we personally do not believe in that and go out of our way to discourage it since it is not illegal to transfer between private parties.
 “I'm not sure what else I can state to help people understand that we are definitely for private individual liberty and against private party background checks. […] 

“We were sort of thrust into this interview because we are the official out of state transfer dealer for the Rocky Mountain Gun Show. The context that was being used at the time was that there were dealers doing sales without background checks at the Rocky Mountain Gun Show, and we were trying to step in and explain that that simply is not true. ALL transfers between a dealer at the gun show are required to have a background check and no funny business was happening at the Rocky Mountain Gun Show. 

"I can assure everyone reading this that we will never do another news interview with ANYONE again. We were trying to assure the news reporter that nothing illegal was happening at the gun show with DEALER transfers, and there really wasn’t a need for more legislation because everything was happening according to federal law." 

Alex was described as a "gun control advocate", despite making no such comment in his clip. Alex clarified his comments on Facebook, stating that he was referring to the required dealer 'Brady checks' on retail sales (which comprise the vast majority of gun sales).Alex said: 

"She apparently forgot the part during the interview after this where she asked if I supported background checks for individuals and I said "No, I don't. I have personally been involved in several private sales...To set the record straight I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment and a Veteran." 

Maddela issued this apology: 

"Last night we interviewed Alex Acree regarding background checks for gun sales within a story about the proposed background check initiative. We want to clarify that his opinions are not necessarily those of his employer Fallout Firearms. We apologize for any confusion.” 

Pro-gun control bias?

Gun control advocate Tim Titolo said in his interview that the background check initiative will make it harder for criminals to obtain firearms by banning private sales. Only slightly harder, actually. Very few criminals actually get guns by sales that would be regulated by the initiative. All the available, pre-existing, criminal outlets would still exist. Maddela and the advocates failed to mention that no mechanism will exist to actually enforce the law or determine if a gun was bought or sold privately without a background check.

Strangely, while a lot of the dealers and personalities, including the self-proclaimed Duke of Fremont street, were against the initiative, the piece definitely slanted toward pro-initiative.

Kristen Kidman, acknowledged as a Fox 5 employee and credited as ‘gun owner’ in the piece, was interviewed, apparently to add credence to the idea that gun owners support private sale background checks. In reality, most do not. It is incredibly misleading, biased, and hardly objective reporting to interview an employee of the same news station, who conveniently has the same opinion that the segment is trying to argue.   

The report did correctly point out that the group leading the universal background check initiative, ‘Nevadans’ for Background Checks, is backed and funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Initiative supporters are very keen to promote themselves as ‘grassroots’ when they are anything but.

Gun owners are wary of media reporting on issues of gun rights. The mainstream media is well-known for having a liberal bias and often distorts coverage of gun related issued. Local gun owners reacted with skepticism in response to Maddela’s teaser Tweets about her piece.

Noted gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg sponsored his own gun-reporting service, The Trace. The Trace is fairly transparent as an anti-gun media outlet dedicated to subtly and not-so-subtly offering pro-gun control propaganda. It claims to present a “moderate” take on the issue of gun violence, yet its articles highlight almost exclusively the problems that guns cause and none of their solutions. While it isn’t the same preaching to the choir as the obnoxious group Moms Demand Action does, it is not the independent journalistic source it claims to be.

Because of the amount of money flowing in to Nevada from Bloomberg an other anti-gun sources, just as in Washington and Oregon, who recently had their own bans on private gun sales enacted, gun owners are wary. Common tactics are getting local news to cover the issue of background checks, ostensibly from the side of supporting them. Reporters were encouraged to apply to a Bloomberg-backed media workshop on 'gun violence'; obviously this was an indoctrination camp on how Bloomberg and his ilk wants gun control covered. 'Did Ms. Maddela attend?' one wonders.

Local TV News Not a Paragon of Public Debate

Local TV news is a horrible medium for reporting nuanced issues. It's a half-hour of coverage, repeated several times, designed to get the most viewership to sell ad-time. Also, because of the ‘sound bite’ culture that pervades the entertainment industry, much information is left out. Is seven seconds really enough to communicate someone’s opinion? Years of experience, education, and thought goes into the formulation of an opinion. Condensing the product of decades into a few seconds is disingenuous as the context necessary to develop and informed opinion is absent from the news material. 

“Not by accident, 7 seconds is the length of the average sound bite in news media. On TV or radio, 7 seconds is how long your spokesperson usually gets to make a point. [...] In online and print media, 7 seconds translates into 23 words or less—a headline and a subhead, or a headline and two bullets. Most of us receive hundreds of emails a day.” (source) 

A full, fair, and accurate investigation into a topic cannot be made in a six and a half minute video filled with cuts measured in mere seconds. The Boston Globe decried this kind of reporting in its investigation of sound bites: 

“There are plenty of reasons to distrust sound bites and the kind of journalism that produces them. First and most obviously, we miss out on the variety and authenticity of hearing people speak at length, and in their own words.” 

Complex reasoning cannot be hashed out in a 23 word clip, especially when the only part of the conversation used is one that promotes the story’s agenda. Presenting all angles of the story, just the flashy and noisy ones that will tune out screaming children, turn heads from ironing boards, and lift eyes from dinner plates, is not something that is within the interest of local TV news. Their job is to attract viewers in order to sell commercial air time; journalism has always been secondary.

Don’t believe me? Just think about those teaser commercials through Prime Time getting you to hang-on until the ‘Death Storm 2015’ weather report or the story “Will this common grocery store product kill you? Find out a 10,” comes on.

AG Gancarski of Folioweekly.com explains the problem with local TV reporting: 

“[…] news outfits are owned by powerful holding companies with real agendas and no real interest in anything local, beyond what's best for business. They share reporters and reportage, editorial perspectives, sponsors and sets, and everything that makes a newscast a newscast. [...] 

“[former Action News reporter Cathi Carson (Florida) said] ‘The problem with local news is they are hyper-focused on the competition instead of the content," she says. "The average viewer is not watching all three news outlets at the same time. They don't care if one station had the story two minutes before the other. Somewhere along the way, the race to beat the other stations became the guiding force in local news.” 

Worst of all is that many people simply do not have the time or the inclination to seek alternative sources of news, such as this blog. By years of literal indoctrination, they accept local TV news and the cable outlets as their only sources of information. This report and future ones like it may be the only information they base a vote on their Second Amendment freedom on.

Thankfully, Twitter, Facebook, and the Internet have been able to change this, but the detailed reporting found in newspapers and magazines have either disappeared or are ignored. Low-information voters, those informed by what they catch briefly on TV or hear from others, are the ones who will make choices, often detrimental, based on reports like this one.

I am charging Fox 5 with dereliction of duty. If they do not have an anti-gun agenda and did not want to portray gun shows and gun dealers as supporting the initiative, why did they select the few relevant sentences from many minutes of interview time they did? Facts from the interviewees don't square with what Fox 5 showed. Such reporting that we saw here does not engender gun owners to trust local media.

Conclusion

Sadly, our culture does not have time for the in-depth, primarily written media of the past. On this blog, some of my articles are wildly popular, others not so much, yet those who do take the time to read get their answers they need. NevadaCarry.org has been steadily demolishing long-standing rumors and myths in the Nevada gun community. Despite a short attention span for society as a whole, those who want to know the truth and the full story will seek it out.

As editor, I am an unabashedly biased journalist-activist. To our friends in local TV news, we want better reporting. Don’t try to indoctrinate people, don’t talk down to us, and don’t try and fool us. Provide accurate and objective reporting or don’t try it at all.

-G. C.

See also: Fox 5 story: Can you have a gun in your car? 

How They'll Lie to Ban Private Gun Sales

Click image to enlarge

Would you vote for a law that made the innocent, everyday gun sales on Facebook illegal? By misleading people, supporters of  2016’s ‘universal background checks’ initiative use false positives to sell their ban on private gun sales. Even the name is misleading. Would you vote for the ‘Ban Private Gun Sales’ Initiative?

Here is how they are going to try and sell the ‘benefits’ of restricting your private property rights and infringing on the Second Amendment, all so they can have the stage set for gun registration.

They’re going to tell you it’s a benefit to the seller. “By completing the sale/transfer at a federally licensed dealer (FFL), the likelihood of a robbery for your cash or firearm is greatly decreased.”

Meeting at a police station, a high-traffic public area, or by being aware, staying smart, and going armed can have the same benefit with none of the negatives.

“Instant background checks give the seller piece of mind knowing they aren’t unwittingly breaking the law by selling or transferring the firearm to a prohibited person.”

Most criminals and prohibited persons don’t buy guns from private sales organized online or at gun shows and usually get them from relatives—something not prohibited by the initiative. And if you’re that worried, Nevada already has free voluntary private background checks available, and most dealers will even now facilitate a private sale.

“All of us are asking: ‘How can I be part of the solution to gun violence?’ Easily! Vote for universal background checks and end the internet and gun show loopholes.”

Laws can’t legislate away criminals. Murder is illegal, yet it still happens. Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Also never mind that all of the murder weapons in the recent high-profile mass shootings were either obtained legally, through a licensed dealer, or through theft/murder.

“Dealers will make $25 for a fraction of their time without the overhead expenses of acquiring and stocking inventory.”

For $25, is the extra hassle really worth the increased number of records which must be retained for 20 years and the time it takes to record the sale/transfer and call in the background check?

“The increased traffic into gun stores will be a wonderful opportunity to sell additional firearms, magazines, accessories, and ammunition to customers who might not have otherwise come into the store.”

What about the multitude of better deals for gun gear and ammo that people are finding online these days?  

“Private sale background checks will benefit sellers by reducing their risk of exposure to liability if the firearm they sell is later used in a crime.”

Only knowingly selling/transferring a firearm to a prohibited person is illegal and a good-faith sale wouldn’t expose a seller to liability.

“Only criminals, terrorists, and smugglers have something to hide from background checks.”

Innocent until proven guilty anyone?

“By law, none of the records are retained, so there is no fear of national or state gun registry.”

Backdoor gun registration exists as FFLs are required to retain their records for 20 years or surrender them to the ATF if they go out of business. Additionally, the ATF and law enforcement can inspect or require records from FFLs at any time as part of an investigation.

“With 97% of Nevadans living within 10 miles of an FFL, the few minutes spent completing the transfer at a dealer is worth it for the peace of mind.”

Is peace of mind worth eroding your personal property rights and infringing on the Second Amendment because of an unenforceable, feel-good law? Would you vote to ban private car sales because there is a DMV nearby?

If stopping sales to prohibited persons were the real goal, why not make it easier to get a background check and why make it harder to sell a gun privately? Meeting at a dealer is a time-consuming burden. The same level of peace of mind and enforceability could be had by establishing free background checks for private sales or opening a public hotline.

Background checks are almost totally ill-relevant to the ultimate goal. By forcing all sales/transfers to go through a dealer, it will be extremely easy to require dealers to report all sales/transfers to the government and thus create a gun registration system. The ‘universal background check’ initiative is the precursor to total gun registration.

The over-riding reason to say no is this: Can you trust that the government will not abuse this power or take it to the next level and require gun registration?