PA Bill Number: HB1472
Title: In primary and election expenses, further providing for reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons and for late contributions ...
Description: In primary and election expenses, further providing for reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons and for late contrib ...
Last Action: Referred to STATE GOVERNMENT
Last Action Date: Apr 22, 2024
Breaking through the noise in the background checks initiative :: 09/27/2016
The Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, where 28 people died in a Newtown, Conn. school shooting – including 20 children 7 years old or younger – sparked a national debate on gun violence and legislation.
Nevada was no different. In 2013, the Democratic-controlled Legislature narrowly passed a bill that would require background checks on all firearms transfers. However, Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed the measure, saying it was an “erosion of Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights.” One of his main concerns was that giving a gun to a family member would require a background check.
Out of that veto, the Question 1 ballot initiative requiring background checks on all gun transfers was born, especially with no chance in the 2015 Legislature as Republicans controlled both chambers.
Current law states anyone who buys a gun from a licensed firearm dealer has to go through a background check. They fill out a form and pay $25 to screen for certain prohibited persons – felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers among others.
Private transfers between individuals are not regulated by background checks. This includes internet purchases and from private individuals at gun shows, often referred to by critics as the “gun show loophole.”
Both sides have been engaged in a fierce public relations battle about whether or not nearly all gun transfers should require a background check. In many ways, it’s become a proxy war between the National Rifle Association and their ardent pro-gun stances versus former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who bankrolls Everytown for Gun Safety. Foot soldiers and vast amounts of campaign money have flooded the state in an attempt the Silver State. So what’s the deal?
Proponents argue the initiative, known as Question 1, will help save lives, curb some gun violence, prevent straw purchasing – where someone who can legally purchase a gun does so for someone prohibited – and expand an enforcement tool for police. Opponents say those arguments are false and it will be unenforceable and overbearing, infringing on rights.
What do the proponents say?
Jennifer Crowe is a spokeswoman for Vote Yes on 1, the principle organization advocating for the background check initiative, and said background checks wouldn’t have stopped incidents like Sandy Hook or the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, but they would stop other less-publicized incidents.
More importantly, it could potentially save lives, she said.
“Background checks are the only systematic way we have to enforce laws about who can possess guns and closing the loophole will logically make it harder for people who aren’t supposed to have them to get them,” said Crowe, who is a gun owner.
Here's a breakdown of what Question 1 would do:
• Require background checks on all transfers of guns, including loans
• Most family transfers would be exempt, including spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews, though transfers between cousins would not be exempt.
• Loaning a gun for public performances would be exempt as would loaning a gun at an approved shooting range, while hunting with the owner of the gun and while using a gun while facing "imminent death or great bodily harm."
• Any other time the owner is present, the background check is waived
• First offense is a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $2,000 fine. Second offense is a Class C felony, punishable by up to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine.
What do the opponents say?
Opponents like the National Rifle Association aren’t sold.
“What this initiative would do is make illegal some very common, ordinary activities of everyday law abiding citizens in Nevada today dealing with gun transfers,” said Robert Uithoven, the NRA’s lead spokesman in Nevada.
To Uithoven and other objectors, Question 1 is too loosely defined and could criminalize fairly normal practices. They also feel it’s unenforceable and targets currently law-abiding citizens.
“Their whole campaign would have you believe that this entire thing has to do with background checks, that there’s some kind of loophole,” Uithoven said. “They love to use the word loophole, that there’s a loophole in the law. The law is the law. Just because the law doesn’t reflect their wishes doesn’t mean there’s a ‘loophole.’”
For instance, Uithoven pointed to the portion for family exemptions, which does not include cousins. Lending a gun to a neighbor or close friend, even one a person knows intimately, would also require a background check.
Dan Reid, the NRA’s Nevada state liaison, said it was an overreach and current law follows how other industries are monitored.
“It kind of follows how we regulate other industries,” Reid said. “If it’s a commercial transaction, it’s heavily regulation versus a private, incidental transaction. Commercial kitchens, for example, heavily regulated. Backyard barbecues, not regulated.”
For instance, Uithoven points to the hunting exemption. If Question 1 passes, a friend would not be able to loan another friend a gun to go hunting without a background check, something Uithoven said frequently happens. As would giving a gun to a friend for storage on the fly.
Uithoven and Reid also argued the law was unenforceable and would burden law enforcement with having to prosecute new cases.
Crowe likened the argument that it was both unenforceable and imposing to talking in circles.
“First it was this unenforceable law and now it’s going to put every law abiding person in jail and it’s going to strain law enforcement resources. How can it be both?” she said. “That doesn’t really make any sense.”
Do background checks work elsewhere?
There is far from a scientific and policy consensus on whether or not expanded background checks work.
A 2013 study by the National Institute of Justice analyzed several ways to combat gun violence and found the efficacy of universal background checks was contingent on the ability to reduce straw purchasing while requiring gun registration. A 2015 report from the Kenny Guinn Center for Policy Priorities also found several questions remaining in enforcement.
Yet other studies suggest the opposite. A 2015 study published in the Annual Review of Public Health analyzed data from 13 states with expanded background checks. It found there may be some proof they are effective in preventing violence.
Another study by Johns Hopkins University looked at Missouri before and after it repealed it’s background check law and found gun homicides spiked while total homicides decreased.
Crowe said it’s important to consider the law itself as an enforcement mechanism instead of something to be enforced. The only way to determine whether or not someone can purchase a gun is via a background check, she said.
“This argument that it’s unenforceable doesn’t make sense because closing the loophole allows us to better enforce the laws already on the books that prohibit felons from having guns,” Crowe said. “From a prosecutor’s standpoint, what we hear is this gives them more tools to go after violent criminals.
What does Nevada law enforcement say?
Law enforcement remains split in terms of official support or opposition to the measure. Police unions, including the Las Vegas Fraternal Order of Police and the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers support Question 1, as do former Washoe County Sheriff Mike Haley and former Clark County Sheriff Bill Young.
“It won’t stop all bad guys from buying weapons,” Haley said. “But what it will do is ensure the system now where thousands of people are buying weapons in the state of Nevada through either the black market or online, it will slow that process down. It will make people think about the very important responsibility of owning a weapon.”
However, 16 of the 17 county sheriffs in the state oppose the initiative, including Haley’s successor, Washoe County Sheriff Chuck Allen.
“I guess I just look at more of the imposition and infringement on law abiding citizens owning a firearm,” Allen said. “You want to loan one or transfer one or even sell one to someone you know, to me it’s just an extra burden, not only on those individuals, but more importantly on the law enforcement agencies that would have to follow and track these folks.”
Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo is the lone holdout of the sheriffs. He is officially neutral on the initiative, but said he supports it in spirit, not necessarily in letter.
Lombardo questioned whether or not background checks should be a constitutional issue, as all ballot initiatives are and said the way this one is written is overcomplicated. An easier solution would be to open the state background check system to everybody, making performing a background check a phone call away.
Enforcement was not the issue, he said.
“There’s no requirement to call us and attempt to take that person into custody and charge them,” he said. “You do find out if the person is prohibited. There’s no mechanism for us to become aware of that, no different than it is now. But as a matter of normal police activity, that’s where it would be enforced.”
Debate over the 'reasonable fee' the 'imminent death' exemption
Opponents like Uithoven and Reid also point to other loosely defined sections of the initiative as points of concern, including one portion that states the firearm dealer conducting the background check can charge a “reasonable fee.” What exactly a “reasonable fee” is does not appear in the language at all.
Currently, background checks cost $25 at licensed firearm dealers. Crowe said she expected dealers would charge a similar fee for private individual checks because gouging customers would not be beneficial for business.
Jay Hawkins, training manager at Reno Guns and Range, said the law could have another effect on gun stores.
“From a business standpoint, it’s clearly going to create an unnecessary workload because you’re going to have individuals who want to make transfers who are forced to do it through a gun store,” he said.
Crowe countered both of those arguments by pointing out more people in the stores meant more potential business via accessories, clothing or even other gun sales.
Another portion Uithoven and Reid pointed to as loosely defined was the “imminent death or great bodily harm” exemption, which also lacks a specific definition.
“This happens every day all across the country, someone coming out of a sticky, ugly domestic situation just feels like for the extra benefit of their own personal protection that a 911 call, no matter how quickly the police get there, may not be fast enough to save my life or the life of my children,” Uithoven said. “How do you demonstrate, how do you prove, based on whatever that terrible situation this person has been in ‘imminent death or great bodily harm?’”
Anyone who outright feared for their lives would be covered under the law, Haley said.
“Public safety always looks at the core transaction,” Haley said. “What happened? And what happened in those cases is a victim has armed themselves because they feel threatened. That is allowed under this initiative.”
What's the level of public support for Question 1?
Public opinion is largely on the side of background checks. Numerous polls show national support at around 90 percent. A KTNV poll in July showed support for Question 1 at 66 percent. Opposition stood at 28 percent, with the rest undecided.
Grassroots organizations have also declared their support. Moms Demand Action, a coalition of mothers campaigning for gun legislation reform, has been active in the state as has the left-leaning Battle Born Progress.
Several other large unions are on board as well, including the Service Employers International Union, the Nevada State AFL-CIO and the Culinary Workers Local 226.
But after all the changes, there’s still a notable opponent. Gov. Sandoval, a former federal judge, still opposes the measure, telling the Associated Press in June the measure didn’t address the “complex issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.”
Crowe said public opinion shows they are on the right side of the debate.
“Clearly there’s a disconnect with a lot of our elected officials whether we’re talking about politicians or elected law enforcement,” Crowe said. “There’s a disconnect between where those folks are and where the majority of Nevadans are on this issue.”
The background check initiative will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot with three other questions.
