Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action is launching an informational website to stop the Californication of Nevadans’ gun rights. The VoteNoQuestion1 website exposes the truth about how a universal background check would criminalize the commonplace activities of many Nevada gun owners.
“The law-abiding gun owners of Nevada need to know that Question 1 would cost them their money and their freedom. It could even criminalize many of their commonplace activities,” said Catherine Mortensen, NRA Spokesperson. “This ballot initiative was bought and paid for by outside gun control groups bent on the Californication of Nevada. Armed with the facts, we believe the freedom-loving people of Nevada will reject Question 1.”
The website www.votenoquestion1.com:
- details new costs and mandates that would be imposed on Nevadans under Question 1;
- shows how commonplace activities of many Nevada gun owners would be criminalized;
- gives Nevadans information on how they can get involved in their communities to defeat the initiative.
“The out-of-state gun control groups behind Question 1 don’t have a network of grassroots supporters like the NRA has,” added Catherine Mortensen. “Our strength as an organization has always been our members. They are smart, informed, and engaged.”
NEVADA Gun Control Ballot Initiative – The Californication of Nevada
Out of state gun-control groups were instrumental in getting the poorly written gun-control initiative on the Nevada ballot.
- Movement bankrolled by anti-gun New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety.
- Of the $3.6 million in contributions to Nevadans for Background Checks over the last two years, $2.9 million came from Everytown
The gun-control initiative is flawed and will turn law-abiding gun-owners into criminals. It will not prevent criminals and dangerous people from obtaining firearms.
- If Question 1 passes, Nevada’s gun control laws will be even more restrictive than the outrageous laws in California.
- Question 1 could require you to get ANOTHER background check when you loan a firearm to your brother-in-law before he goes hunting or to the range. And then you’d have to go back to a dealer and get ANOTHER background check when he gives it back.
The gun-control will cost you money and your freedom. It is a poorly written initiative that serves as back-door to increased government regulations and fees.
- The initiative places no cap on the fees gun dealers can charge for a background check.
- Violating gun control initiative carries stiff penalties. Any transferors who do not comply with these requirements could be charged with a gross misdemeanor and upon conviction would face up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000 on a first offense.Second and subsequent offenses would be punished as a category C felony, which carries a potential punishment of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The gun-control initiative will tax already scarce law-enforcement resources and it will not prevent criminals and dangerous people from obtaining firearms.
Question 1 is a poorly conceived gun-control initiative that will criminalize private transfers and ensnare law-abiding citizens without preventing criminals and dangerous people from obtaining firearms.
- As a general rule, it would apply to all private transfers, not just sales. The simple act of handing a firearm to another person without a background check would be illegal if the initiative becomes law. The overbroad nature of this initiative would criminalize common transfers that take place as part of hunting, recreational shooting, and even self-defense.
- A hunter could temporarily transfer a firearm to another fellow hunter as long as the recipient is in an area where it is legal to hunt and they possess the proper tags and licenses. This narrow exception could mean that a recipient is in violation of the law if they possess the firearm while traveling to their legal hunting destination. Further, if the recipient moves into an area where it is not legal to hunt, there would only be a penalty placed on the transferor, not the recipient. If the recipient stops in town for lunch or on the side of the road to fix a flat tire, they could be in violation of the law and the transferor could be subject to penalties.
- The initiative language does not define an “established shooting range.” This could make exchanging firearms between friends or family illegal while shooting at many ranges in Nevada. Many hunters and target shooters in Nevada shoot on that state’s approximately 48 million acres of federal BLM land. Borrowing a gun to shoot on that land could make you a criminal because it is not “an established range.”
- A member of the military could face criminal charges for having a friend store their firearms while he or she is deployed overseas.
You can’t loan a handgun to a neighbor or cousin for protection – unless you go back to the gun store and go back through the red tape.
A victim of stalking or domestic violence, who cannot afford to purchase a firearm for self-defense, would be prohibited from borrowing a firearm from a friend until the very moment an attacker is standing over them with a deadly weapon.
