Reject Questions 1 and 2
Question 1’s intent is to add more regulatory red tape involving weapons. Sixteen of Nevada’s county sheriff’s do not support Question 1. State Attorney General Adam Laxalt as do many rural county prosecutors such as Churchill County DA Art Mallory don’t, either.
The strongest desires to approve Question 1 comes from Clark County where the sheriff, the D.A. and U.S. Senate hopeful Catherine Cortez Masto all favor this initiative. Ballot questions like this punish law-abiding citizens.
“Most gun registrants are not paying any attention to it,” Mallory said of Question 1’s wording. “As the attorney general and three sheriffs said in their television ad, this poses unreasonable restrictions on restrictions law abiding citizens.”
Question 1 would expand private transfers of a firearm to be conducted through a federal firearms dealer and subject to fees. We’re certain the criminals will abide by that.
Sheriffs and police chiefs said there is too much government overreach as the ballot question calls for a background check if one were to loan a gun to a friend or relative. We agree with Mallory that this places more regulatory provisions on law-abiding citizens. If for one minute the Clark County sheriff and DA, along with former AG Masto, believe this law is going to curb violence, they’re mistaken.
Under current law, federal firearms dealers must run a background check when selling a firearm regardless of where the transfer takes place.
The LVN, therefore, encourages defeat of Question 1 because it is nothing more than a flawed ill that solves nothing.
QUESTION 2: Nevada has medical marijuana. Now, a ballot measure, if passed, would approve the use of recreational marijuana.
The Obama Administration has turned its back on federal law. In an article for a law journal, Robert Mikos wrote, “The DOJ’s policy amounts to a sort of de-facto legalization: while the federal ban remains on the books, it will not be enforced as written.”
According to the Argument for Passage, proponents say Question 2 will benefit Nevada by making small amounts of marijuana legal for adults 21 years of age and older (which we dispute because teenagers can still obtain alcohol), establish strict rules for cultivation, production, distribution and sale in Nevada and generate millions of dollars in new tax revenue to support K-12 education.
Promises, though, have literally gone up in smoke in Colorado.
The Colorado Department of Public Safety reports motorist fatalities have increased 44 percent; hospitalizations related to cannabis use increased from 803 per 100,000 (from 2001 to 2009) to 2,413 per 100,000; and the current prevalence rates for marijuana use have increased significantly for 18-to-25-year-olds in the past decade. Furthermore, Colorado leads other states in combined opioid, marijuana, alcohol and cocaine use; and law enforcement has busted 88 cartels and is seeing more involvement with organized crime. Translation: Coloradoans were sold a bag of bad weed!
Nevada leads the nation in almost every negative health category, and recreational marijuana must not be one, either. The LVN advocates a no vote on Question 2. Any revenue generated from taxes on recreational marijuana will go the same route as Colorado: Usage for increased law enforcement, the courts and rehabilitation … and very little for education.