THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Nevada may expand gun background checks


image_pdfimage_print

By Megan Messerly, Las Vegas Sun

Advocates of gun control raked in $3.6 million over the last two years to place an initiative to tighten background checks for gun purchases and transfers in Nevada on the November ballot and ensure it passes.

The initiative is part of a broader national push to establish universal background check laws state by state after an effort to do so on the federal level failed in 2013. Mostly recently, Washington passed an expanded background check law through the ballot initiative process in 2014, and Oregon’s legislature approved a similar law last year.

In total, 18 states have enacted background check laws that go beyond what federal law requires. Nevada is poised to become the 19th.

Read the whole story

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (5)
  1. Michael Lee says - Posted: January 28, 2016

    Good news. States have to take control.
    Congress sure has not reacted to the peoples will.

  2. Dogula says - Posted: January 28, 2016

    And you think YOU speak for ‘the people’s will’?
    How about the actual wording of the Bill of Rights? What isn’t clear about ‘shall not be infringed’?

  3. Rick H says - Posted: January 28, 2016

    Dog even Scalia has noted gun ownership is not limitless. A fair number of gun safety laws have passed the test of being constitutional and some have not. So the way our system works, is a State or Federal law is law of the land, unless the Supreme Court demes it in whole or part a violation of the constitution. If they either refuse to hear a case (the law remains in affect) or hear it and uphold the law, then that law provides the basis on how a particular part of the constitution is to be interpreted under today’s views. Pretty simple really.

    Rick

  4. Hmmm... says - Posted: January 28, 2016

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    What isn’t clear about “A well regulated militia…”?

    Seems context is crucial for ascribing meaning.

  5. rock4tahoe says - Posted: January 28, 2016

    Hmm. Also notice that the 2nd Amendment is one sentence. This is why the NRA dropped the “A well regulated Militia” from their marketing materials during the 1970’s when Wayne and the lobbyists took over the NRA.