Las Vegas Sun

July 7, 2015

Currently: 97° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Governor doesn’t work for the NRA

Let me set the stage: I am 68, white, male, born in Texas, lived in Colorado 45 years and now in Nevada. I own registered handguns, rifles and shotguns, and belong to a shooting club — a stereotypical member of the National Rifle Association, right? Not so fast: I cherish our freedom and honor our Constitution. But, I recognize the Second Amendment has been used as a paper dragon by the gun freaks and defense industry for years.

Gov. Brian Sandoval’s veto of Senate Bill 221, the background check on guns bill, looms on the horizon. This is despite 86 percent of Nevada residents favoring this bill. And, in light of the Friday automatic-weapon shoot-up in California, with the gunman reportedly carrying three dozen magazines with 1,300 rounds of ammo, isn’t it time the governor listens to his constituents, rather than the NRA, funded by the defense industry, and just says “enough is enough”?

We should hold ourselves and our governor to a higher standard than the NRA.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 15 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. This is plainly another case of using gun related violence,this time in Santa Monica,California, to impose more govenment controls and regulations on private citizens. Again the reason being given is that the imposition of a new background check law will somehow prevent shootings like the one just metioned. This reasoning is plain wrong. In the long run citizens must resist any attempts by the government to impose such laws. When will the backers of such laws realize that the government seeks ultimate control of every aspect of our lives. A backgroungd check will not prevent a madman from murdering if he has his mind set on killing. To believe this is a hopeless fantasy. The Governor knows this and refuses to impose more government controls,which is nothing more than creeping government intrusion in our lives. Ultimately the government will seek to take away all the guns in society. Why? It is the nature of those in power in government to seek even more power, and the free existence of guns in the hands of citizens is a theat to the government's quest for ultimate power and control over our lives. The bill should be vetoed without any hestitation or regrets.

  2. The first two comments of the day leave me a bit bemused. Let's see if I've got this right: It is ok for the "gub'mint" to have access to everything posted to social media (including this website) by anyone and everyone using it; it's ok for the "gub'mint" to store any and all of your phone records for eternity in their new, soon to be operational, repository in Utah; but it is some sort of government overreach to have everyone buying a gun submit to a background check? As our Constitutional amendments are summarily being stripped away, or at least circumvented, all is well, as long as that antiquated, irrelevant 2nd amendment remains sacrosanct...LOL.

  3. Good leaders don't govern by polls which change with the wind. They govern by principles which remain unchanged.

    Carmine D

  4. Exactly because of the government's stripping away of First and Fourth amendment rights and protections, the Second Amendment right is more relevant. I opine the Founding Fathers would agree too and that's the reason for it [Second Amendment].

    Carmine D

  5. Enjoyed the letter, Mr. Standley. Totally agree that no one is coming for anyone's guns. The Second Amendment is still intact. Even if this background check legislation is signed into law here in Nevada.

    I would like to add that the polling for this issue was conducted by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They are not what the NRA paints as rabid foaming at the mouth anti-gun types who want to take guns away from everyone. They are people who know what gun violence is doing to America. And they are doing their level best to lobby for it.

    The funny thing about this poll is it was conducted WELL BEFORE the legislation hit the Nevada Senate.

    Now, because our Legislature signed it, and have passed it to get signed, Governor Sandoval went into scramble mode.

    He doesn't want to sign it. And an overwhelming number of Nevadans actually do want him to sign it into law.

    So, what does he do?

    He does what any nutcase, weak Tea/Republican Party politician does.

    He creates his own poll.

    Via the telephone.

    AFTER our Government has spoken.

    He rejects what the people say. Because we are not saying what he wants to do, he skews a poll to fit his stupid agenda.

    In the battle of the polls, Governor Sandoval loses out. He is desperately looking for something to back up reasons why he won't sign this into law. He fashions a poll to say something that overall generally is false.

    Because Governor Sandoval is in the pockets of the NRA and the pro-gun lobby.

    He wants a passing grade from them. Not the constituents of Nevada.

    We have no alternative but to show him the error of his political ways when he comes up for reelection. Especially if he vetoes this legislation.

    We vote him out if he sides with the NRA. Go work for them, Sandoval. But not as a Governor. He's working at becoming a one and done Governor.

    I will ensure that happens by mobilizing my entire neighborhood to send you back to work at Jones Vargas so fast it will make your head spin.


  6. "We should hold ourselves and our governor to a higher standard than the NRA."

    Standley -- I see you offered nothing whatsoever to prove the NRA is attempting to influence our governor. You're also showing a lot of ignorance on this issue. The Second Amendment is federal and neither our governor nor legislature can amend it, etc. Nevada's counterpart is found @ I suggest you and your fan club here read it then try again to get it right.

    This part of our Constitution was changed by the voters in 1982 specifically "so that a future Legislature could not come in and easily change the law to allow some type of control [over firearms]"-- see generally Pohlabel v. the State of Nevada, 268 P.3d 1264 (2012).

    Our governor is doing the right thing by vetoing this bill.

    "...the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." -- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. (slip opinion at 64) (2008)

  7. Gun proliferation has been a cancer on our society since the Civil War. They allowed Civil War veterans to keep their firearms instead of destroying them, and millions of Americans have suffered ever since.

    Bob Jack brings up Santa Monica. I worked for the Santa Monica Police Department and the shooting took place on my old walking beat. This lunatic had a long history of fascination with both guns and bombs. You can't stop the lunatics from getting these materials so you have to get rid of the guns and bomb making materials.

    People are unwilling to give up these things so millions are going to shot to pieces in the future. Many Americans have a fascination with guns, bombs and illicit drugs. The rest of us have to incur the cost which is in the billions of dollars a year.

    As an American all you can really hope for is that you don't get your ass shot off when you walk out the front door of your house.

  8. Excellent point Gerry. Only lunatics and Christian fundamentalists like Timothy McVeigh, who battle the liberal, secular Government every day for the right to worship as they choose, would make bombs out of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel.

    Law abiding citizens should not be penalized by restricting their right to purchase unlimited amounts of ammonium nitrate as fertilizer and diesel fuel for their 4x4s.

    In addition, no identification or background checks should be required for fertilizer purchases because this allows the Government to track buyers and sellers, an obvious restriction of participation in the Free Market Economy.

  9. KillerB has finally found something other than those pesky consent laws to fret about...

    "I see you offered nothing whatsoever to prove the NRA is attempting to influence our governor."

    From the NRA's action website:

    "Please respectfully contact your state Assemblyman and urge his or her opposition to this dangerous and harmful legislation. Contact information for your state legislators can be found here. Governor Brian Sandoval Phone: (775) 684-5670 E-mail by clicking here."

    Here's another:

    And another:

    And another:

    And another:

    As for the Nevada Constitution, if the GOP were so confident and it were so clear that SB221 was unconstitutional, they would have no problem with challenging it in court. Instead, Governor Sandoval cowed to the NRA.

    I'm ashamed to be a Sandoval.

  10. "...Governor Sandoval cowed to the NRA."

    ksand -- thanx for completely validating my original post here.

    "...the right to keep and bear arms [is] among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty..." -- Pohlabel v. the State of Nevada, 268 P.3d 1264 (2012)

  11. Conservatives are violently against anything that smacks of potentially controlling gun violence. One of their common arguments is that "We need guns in private hands to protect ourselves from excessive government abuse."

    Just possibly that's true.

    HOWEVER...In February Christopher Dorner finally decided he could no longer stand the abuse the government heaped upon him. He decided to take to the streets of California and, in Sharon Angle's words "...exercise his first amendment rights." Not ONE of the anti-gun-control enthusiasts spoke out to support Dorner's use of his right to use guns to defend himself from his government.

    Even now, conservatives, such as Gov Sandoval, who favor protecting our rights tend to ignore our right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Particularly that first one - "right to life..."

  12. "One of their common arguments is that "We need guns in private hands to protect ourselves from excessive government abuse." Just possibly that's true."

    renorobert -- how uniformed you are.

    "That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights." -- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. (slip opinion at 25) (2008)

  13. Stacy Standley kind of invalidates any of the points he or she was trying to make by including blatantly false statements.

    "This is despite 86 percent of Nevada residents favoring this bill." - Please cite the source for this claim. There was a poll in which 86% of respondents said they supported some form of background check for gun purchases. At no point was it true that 86% supported this bill or even supported the specific types of background checks included in this bill.

    " light of the Friday automatic-weapon shoot-up in California..." - The June 7th shootings in Santa Monica did *NOT* involve an automatic weapon.

  14. A militia is a citizens' army on call.

    "The Continental Army was created on 14 June 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the colonies to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander.[2] The army was initially led by men who had served in the British Army or colonial militias and who brought much of British military heritage with them. As the Revolutionary War progressed, French aid, resources, and military thinking influenced the new army. A number of European soldiers came on their own to help, such as Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who taught the army Prussian tactics and organizational skills."

    Carmine D

  15. teamster - The shooter in California did *NOT* use an "assault rifle".

    Go look up the legal definition of "assault rifle". If it is not fully automatic (fires more than one round per pull of the trigger) then it is not an "assault rifle"

    I guess you will never realize how badly you torpedo your own arguments when you also insist on using the wrong terms...making most of your statements blatantly false.

    You say things like "And that's why we need a new ban on assault rifles."

    But you fail to realize "Assault Rifles" have been banned since 1934. Go read the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Both define the term "assault rifle".

    Kind of sad that you're demanding a ban on the wrong thing because you don't know enough about the topic to use the correct terminology.