Group starts petition to close loopholes in background checks

LAS VEGAS — Nevadans for Background Checks today launched a statewide signature gathering effort for the Background Check Initiative, a ballot measure that would help keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill by closing dangerous loopholes in Nevada state law.

During an event held at Victory Missionary Baptist Church in Las Vegas, law enforcement, clergy, and other community leaders today became the first to sign a petition to place the Background Check Initiative on the November 2016 ballot.  Over the next few months, Nevadans for Background Checks will lead an effort to gather more than 100,000 signatures from throughout the state.

Right now, federal law requires background checks on gun sales at licensed dealers; but guns can be legally purchased from unlicensed sellers—online, at gun shows and even from strangers in parking lots—without any background check, no questions asked.  The Background Check Initiative creates a level playing field where all gun sellers must follow the same set of rules, making sure everyone undergoes the same background check when buying a gun.

According to Dr. Robert E. Fowler, pastor of the Victory Missionary Baptist Church, public safety goes hand in hand with community betterment and creating safe and healthy places.  “We are confident those from the various religious communities in Nevada will embrace this common sense approach to reducing gun violence,” Dr. Fowler said.  “Nearly every day there is a shooting in our communities, so the need to take action is immediate.  We are proud to support Nevadans for Background Checks and invite other churches and people of faith to join us in supporting this important initiative.”

“Background checks are real life-savers for thousands of women in our country and our state who are being abused,” said Lisa Lynn Chapman, director of community relations for Safe Nest, a Las Vegas-area domestic violence crisis center. “In states that require background checks for all gun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners. It’s hard to ignore those kinds of numbers. We encourage Nevadans to stand with these women and children by signing the initiative.”

According to Senator Justin Jones, who championed during the 2013 Nevada legislature a similar bill that was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brian Sandoval, the Background Check Initiative takes into consideration the Governor’s concerns. Unlike SB 221, The Background Check Initiative allows Nevadans to sell or give a legally purchased gun to a family member without a background check, and includes common-sense exemptions for hunting, sporting and self-defense loans.

“The Background Check Initiative has no impact on existing gun laws in Nevada,” said Jones.  “Under The Background Check Initiative, unlicensed sellers would meet their buyers at a licensed gun dealer, who would then conduct a background check.  It’s quick and easy to get a background check,” Jones continued.  “Over 90% of federal background checks are completed instantaneously, and over 97% of Nevadans live within 10 miles of a licensed gun dealer.”

“Support for the Second Amendment goes hand in hand with keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people,” said Former Clark County Sheriff Bill Young.  “The Background Check Initiative will close loopholes in Nevada law that make it too easy for felons, domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill to buy guns– while upholding Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights.  It’s a nonpartisan, common sense approach to improving public safety and reducing gun violence that all Nevadans, including gun owners, can get behind”

Polling shows that 86 percent of Nevadans support background checks. Over the next two years, the campaign for the Background Check Initiative will secure widespread statewide support for background checks by building a broad coalition of gun violence survivors, law enforcement, domestic violence advocates, gun owners, families, community leaders, elected officials and concerned Nevadans. They will gather the more than 100,000 signatures from across the state required to put the initiative on the Nov. 2016 ballot.

Comments

  1. Bloomberg has to lie, trying to make believe it’s local people pushing for this.

    Though Nevadans for Background Checks indicates a Las Vegas address for Everytown, all three of the officers listed on Everytown’s NVSoS filing declare the same New York City post office box as their address. All three were also affiliated with the MAIG Action Fund.

  2. rlemerysgt says:

    BATF prosecutes less than 1% of the 2.056 mil rejected since 1997.

    BATF doesn’t do anything about the 95.52% of bad guys (21 mil + since 1997) who don’t even try to buy from a licensed source to begin with.

    BATF doesn’t allow civilians access to NICS for background checks on private sales.

    BATF out of 139,651 rejected in 2010 only prosecuted 44, 26 straw buyers, 11 felons, 7 domestic violence abusers, no crazies.

    BATF let over 297,577 straw buyers pass the background check and buy over 446,363 guns in 2010 (over 2.23 mil+ since 1997)

    Govt. refused to resource to input the mentally ill & felons into NICS database with only 4.865 mil severely mentally ill and felons in NICS database as of Mar 2013 while there are over 31.793 mil of both in the US.

    Govt. refuses to resource people and moneys to pursue the 1.043 mil + people wanted on open felony warrant of whom 50% are probably severely mentally ill as are 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners.

    Man them are some nasty loopholes the government & BATF have created.
    When are you lefties going to fix these BATF & Govt. loopholes instead of making more useless laws that per Haynes vs. US 390, 85, 1968 & Freed vs US 401, 601, 1971 which affirm the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, makes 85% of all gun control laws not applicable as a prosecutable charge eh?

    You know, licenses, registrations, background checks etc, etc, etc…all require someone to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

    So explain again how a law, you cant punish a bad guy with, will reduce violence by said bad guy eh?

    Oh thats right, you lefties will wave your magic fairy wand and sprinkle your magic fairy dust and wish it to happen, LOL!

  3. rlemerysgt says:

    Then of course one must also look at how many people the background check supposedly saves.

Since physically stopping a person from acquiring a gun, is only accomplished by putting them in jail, one only has to work from the avg number of incidents a gun is used by a bad guy in a crime and calculate against the number of bad guys actually put away!

    Of course you anti guntards can prove that people stop trying to lie, do evil by comparing the 4.48% of bad guys who are supposedly stopped from buying a gun results in the well publicized and proven human trait of giving up, as you anti guntards have clearly demonstrated how you give up your pathological lies, hate and ridicule after being stopped in oh so many of your gun control anti rights efforts!

    

In 2010 using NICS, FBI, USDOJ, Police Firearm Dishcharge reports, CDC data, we see…..

1.248 mil violent crimes reported, 74.65% not reported, 322,000 involved a gun, 85% of incidents no shots fired, 15% of shots fired hit target 1 in 7 injuries fatal.



    Which if one calculates out the multiple USDOJ studies showing that over 80% of all violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members, crazies & domestic
violence abusers..we see the following.

    

(total successfully prosecuted by BATF in 2010) 44 x 15% = 6.6 total people involved with shots fired

 6.6 x 15% = 1 person hit by shots fired

 1 x 20% = .2 people hit by shots fired by non criminals, .8 people hit by shots fired by bad guys



    Wow, you do realize that the cost of the near 3,000 plus people employed by BATF, FBI and state agencies for background check process cost the US over $330 million each year, dang.



    So explain again how that $330 mil in background checks is justifiable to save maybe just one or two people?



  4. rlemerysgt says:

    So waiting for you antis to show how maybe saving one injury from bad guys a year at a cost of over $300 mil a year is justifiable!

    http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014justification/pdf/fbi-justification.pdf
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report

    So in 2012-2013 the FBI spent over $68 million on salaries 2-1, and shows an increase of $100 million in salaries and benefits for expansion to support the massive increases in NICS transactions run in 2014!

    So we see that us $168 million in salaries, but wait, that doesn’t cover the entire NICS operations cost to tax payers.

    See, 13 States contact only state, 7 states contact state for handgun & FBI for long guns (80% of all guns purchased are handguns) and the remainder use NICS for both handguns and long guns.

    That means roughly that $168 million (just in salaries and benefits) are being spent in 2014 for 30 states operations of the NICS…hmmm!

    So there must be a way to figure out what cost there is accrued in the states who don’t use the NICS, yeah, we can.

    Can anyone claim government is any more efficient in those 20 states than it is in the 30 states using the federal NICS, no, didn’t think so!

    In 2012 there were 8,725,425 million background checks processed by federal (1,143,049 by e-check)

    10,866,878 transactions were processed by state users
    So lets see $168 mil/30 states = $5.6 mil average cost per state using federal NICS

    20 states x $5.6 mil = $112 mil cost for 20 states not using federal NICS!
    Oh wait, that is only $280 mil cost to tax payers to run the NICS for both federal & states…hmmmm.

    How much does it cost to run all the facilities, and support functions of their daily operations….

    Amazing how one can easily show that taxpayers foot the bill of $330 million a year for NICS, and only show maybe 1 or 2 injuries prevented each year, WOW ISNT THAT SUCH A GREAT THING, well, maybe to a moron socialist it is!

  5. rlemerysgt says:

    Isnt it amazing how the vast majoirty of the claimed loopholes by anti gunnutters, is actually the government failing to do their job!

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf

    Oh wait, those same reports show a 93.8% false positive rate, that means that the govt. had bad data and 93.8% of the 76,142 weren’t actually bad guys, the govt. screwed up, how consistent, the govt. being wrong or incompetent!

    Don’t forget that per USDOJ studies that of the 95.52% of bad guys, they get their guns 50% from thefts and 50% from straw buys. Which when using that same govt. data we see there 297,577 straw buyers who bought 446,366 firearms for the bad guys even though they went through the background check, hmmm.

    But since 1995 the BATF has Form/procedure 3310-4 for multiple firearm paid with cash reporting, you know, straw buys…oh wait, multiple congressional studies show that the BATF cant catch ANYONE using a fake ID, hmmmm.

  6. rlemerysgt says:

    Hey maybe you anti gunnutters can explain why so few bad guys are actually prosecuted each year eh!

    2010, 44 successfully prosecuted out of 139,651 total rejections

 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf


    2009, 32 successfully prosecuted out of 129,357 total rejections

 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf
    

2008, 31 successfully prosecuted out of 135,933 total rejections

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf


    2007, 39 successfully prosecuted out of 128,277 total rejections

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/227604.pdf


    2006, 62 successfully prosecuted out of 134,442 total rejections

http://www.jrsa.org/events/conference/presentations-08/Ronald_Frandsen.pdf

    • I would humbly request your permission to re-post your extremely enlightening comments everywhere I can possibly think of….and I mean everywhere.!

  7. Jim Smith says:

    Currently, there are only 2 ways to legally sell a gun in the US to a private citizen. One is a private sale between individuals (typically like between family and friends) or by a gun dealer licensed with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) from the federal BATF. Only individuals with an FFL can run a background check through the government NICS database of prohibited persons. Private citizens cannot. Note that a person can purchase a firearm online, but the physical transfer of the firearm still must go through an FFL at the seller and an FFL local to the buyer. So if you want to improve the process, you should encourage the government to do 2 things:

    1) Allow any small gun dealer to get an FFL without having a storefront. Currently, thanks to the Clinton administration’s effort to reduce the supply of guns, you can’t get an FFL if you want to sell guns only at gun shows (See question 18a on ATF form 5310 FFL application at http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5310-12.pdf). As a result someone that wants to sell guns but can’t afford the inventory costs, zoning challenges and overhead of a storefront has to sell illegally or discretely at the edge of the law as a “private individual” and hence can’t run a background check. Rather than throwing these “kitchen table” sellers out of the system like Clinton did hoping they would go away, they should allow them to get an FFL and subject them to BATF rules, audits and oversight like they were before the Clinton administration let political anti-gun ideology get in the way.

    2) Give anyone free, public, anonymous online access to the NICS database. I don’t understand why a federal database of people prohibited from owning firearms can’t be available in the public domain like databases for sex offenders. The NICS system is really a go/no go process and no useful information has to be displayed to facilitate phishing expeditions for identity theft other than what was already known by the user making the query. It’s certainly no more revealing than the FAA’s pilot and mechanic license query system, which provides more detailed information on presumably law-abiding citizens. Once this system is implemented, you then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain documented proof that says you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. This would effectively close the so-called private sale loophole and still preserve the anonymity of the parties involved the same way the current background check system does now. If a private sale firearm shows up at a crime scene, the ATF follows their current procedure of using the serial number of the firearm to contact the manufacturer and ultimately the last FFL that sold the firearm to a private citizen to obtain that citizen’s name and address from the ATF form 4473 the FFL is required to keep on file. That citizen is then contacted and produces the piece of paper from the NICS background check that identifies the second private citizen who is then contacted, and so forth.

    The real benefit of this proposal is how it can help identify the illusive killer with questionable behavior patterns or mental health issues that is causing so many problems. As it stands now there is no easy, fast, non-bureaucratic method for someone to determine if a suspicious person (neighbor, employee, student, etc) is a potential threat to society. If someone thinks an individual could be a threat, a query to a public NICS database would at least tell him or her in a few seconds if the individual could obtain a firearm. Then, armed with that information the appropriate authorities could be notified and they could decide if it was erroneous information or whether to investigate further. As it stands now, if you tell authorities you know a suspicious person they will probably ignore you, but if you tell them you know such a person and by the way according to the NICS database he can buy a firearm, they will probably be more inclined to investigate rather than risk embarrassment later if the worst happens. The same would be true if you see a suspicious person with a firearm when the NICS query says he’s prohibited from having one. It would also help provide piece of mind and a method for victims of violent crimes to ensure their assailants either on parole or still at large have not been excluded from the database because of some bureaucratic foul-up.
    Other specific public safety issues where it would be useful are:

     allow potential victims to vet known stalkers or acquaintances under a restraining order
     allow gun clubs to vet potential members
     allow shooting ranges to vet suspicious customers
     allow mental health workers to vet troubled individuals like the Aurora Colorado theater killer
     allow resource officers and school officials to vet suspicious students like the Arapahoe High School killer in Colorado
     allow police officers to vet anyone they contact – (note federal privacy laws and the lack of court records in the NICS database can currently make this task difficult)

  8. Did anyone think of how will they ever be able to enforce such a law? The United States Dept. of Justice even admitted that the only way to be sure that the law is being followed if to have full and complete gun registration….and that’s against Federal Law as well as UnConstitutional.

  9. Raconteur says:

    So, will they enforce this “new & Improved” law like the old one?
    2013: 72,659 federal denials under the Brady Act (NATION WIDE!)
    44 Prosecuted. 13 (THIRTEEN!!!) CONVICTED.
    So how are they going to enforce this new law? With same BS they do the current law. Only the law abiding will do the checks. It will have 0/none/nada effect on the criminals.
    Oh, one other thing: you can’t buy a gun online without going through a dealer. In other words, a background check.

  10. Curt Sundell says:

    And this will stop illegal gun sales how? The last time I checked the creation of another law has not prevented ant crime by any criminal.Please provide a list of where I can buy a firearm online without the transaction having to go through a legal FFL holder.Your “level playing field” already exists legally, and those “strangers” in the parking lot don’t care about your proposed “common sense”.
    Your attempt to elicit an emotional knee-jerk response to violence committed by violent people just doesn’t hold water.
    Sincerely, Curt H. Sundell Jr.

Speak Your Mind

*

Directory powered by Business Directory Plugin