http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/Publications/AGO_2016-12.pdf Evidently the People misspoke when they spoke.
You understand that everything the GOP wants to do with the budget for the next two years requires the democrats to agree? Don't you?
And none of that will include additional funding to the FBI to allow these background checks in Nevada to be conducted. Even the DOJ said in the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies" that without full registration that UBCs can't be effective.
You have your predictions and I have mine. But I can't believe you didn't know that the gop can't pass a penny of the budget without democrat approval. LOL
I can't believe that you believe much of what you espouse here. I wonder if you realize that the Republicans would love to point at the Democrats for shutting down the government this time - it will help with midterms.
Incorrect http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure I believe we own the house and senate. We don't need democrats, eh?
And what of the attorney general for the state of Nevada stating that the law will not be enforced? Exactly how many more resources will congress need to allocate to the FBI in order to allow them to comply with an unenforceable state-level mandate? How many millions or billions of dollars worth of funding must congress provide them with, that they have every incentive to continue withholding?
I suppose we will see. But you are not suggesting that Trump is MR pro gun rights.....it is low on his list
Might want to think about that a bit more. Dems are not in a position to make THAT much of an impact.
A lot of Dem Senators are up for re-election in Red States and they tend to be a spineless bunch. Trump may end of VA single-payer monopoly to make Veterans Care Great Again! Elections have Consequences: Trump promised veterans an overhaul of the Veterans Administration health-care system based on a ten-point plan, the central core of which would allow veterans the portability to seek care from private-sector providers. President-elect Donald J. Trump is considering a plan to allow military veterans to opt out of medical care at Veterans Affairs hospitals and instead see private doctors of their choosing, a senior transition official told reporters here on Wednesday. Mr. Trump met with several executives of private hospital systems at his Mar-a-Lago estate on Wednesday. After the meeting, Mr. Trump called out to reporters, saying he wanted to describe his ideas for changes to the Department of Veterans Affairs. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/u...veterans-opt-out-of-va-medical-care.html?_r=0 The final point of Trump’s plan was the crucial one: “Ensure every veteran has the choice to seek care at the VA or at a private service provider of their own choice. Under a Trump Administration, no veteran will die waiting for service.” That promise would require a completely new structure at the VA, one built around premium supports rather than the vertical single-payer system that has been in place for decades — and has constantly failed veterans long before Eric Shinseki’s botched leadership. That doesn’t mean that the new administration needs to throw out the VA entirely, however: Veterans would get timely care from either a V.A. facility or a private doctor. The transition official said that Mr. Trump had discussed the possibility of a “public-private option” with the hospital executives. “Some vets love the V.A.,” the official said, and “some vets want to go to the V.A.” The official added that “the idea is to come up with a solution that solves the problem.” Veterans may choose the VA for routine care if they wish, but allow them to have that choice for themselves rather than ask some bureaucrat for permission to exercise it. Deconstructing the single-payer monopoly would allow veterans to seek the best care available when they need it, and not when it fits into the crowded schedule of the VA’s bureaucracy. Barack Obama’s appointee Robert McDonald has made few changes to the VA, which continues to produce nightmarish outcomes, and flat-out lied about firing people to hold them accountable for earlier abuses. He’s continued to lie about it, and Obama himself lied about it two months ago, too. McDonald represents the status quo that Trump pledged to terminate, and it should start with McDonald’s termination on January 20th. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/29/nyt-trump-considering-end-of-va-single-payer-monopoly/ Dems won't jump in front of that bus, either.
Sad! Oops. Bloomberg’s $20M gun control bid in Nevada has fallen apart The NY billionaire dropped at least $20M through his various anti-Second Amendment groups in an effort to get Ballot Question 1 passed in Nevada. The proposal would require virtually all private transfers of gun ownership to be contingent on an FBI background check. And on election day, the measure passed. Great news for gun grabbers, right? Well… it was. That is to say, things were looking good until the FBI came along and said they wouldn’t be participating in the program. The expansion of gun background checks approved by Nevada voters last month will not happen as expected, based on an opinion released Wednesday by the Nevada Attorney General’s Office. Ballot Question 1 requires that private party gun transfers – with a few exceptions – be subject to a federal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System administered by the FBI. The FBI sent a letter Dec. 14 to the state of Nevada’s Department of Public Safety saying it would not conduct these checks. http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/28/nevadas-expansion-gun-checks-blocked/95924384/ Sad! Bob Owens at Bearing Arms is clearly finding more than a little amusement at "Bloomers" Bloomberg’s utter collapse in this battle after apparently making it across the finish line. Like good little leftys everywhere, Nevada’s anti-gun Democrats expected someone else (in this case, the federal government in the form of the FBI) to foot the bill for their edict. The feds have rejected it outright. Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt has noted it is entirely unenforceable. "Bloomers" Bloomberg is out the $20 million or so he spent pushing this faulty referendum into being. http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/12/28/bloomberg-blows-20-million-on-busted-bg-check-bill/ So Dads won't need to get a background check on his son or daughter before passing on a hunting rifle to them. As Bob points out, this is a case of a poorly thought out plan which relied entirely on their program being paid for by somebody else. And in this case they put the law up to a vote before even asking the “somebody else” in question whether or not they were willing and able to provide the required resources. As an old English teacher of mine used to be fond of saying, a failure to plan ahead on your part doesn’t constitute an emergency on mine. Bloomers 2020! http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/...m-gun-control-bid-in-nevada-has-fallen-apart/
I was going to make a similar thread but you beat me to it. Here's the link I was going to use. http://www.ammoland.com/2016/12/nev..._6f6fac3eaa-4260234a05-21101797#axzz4UIHoOEib
The FBI may, at some point down the line, decide that they will indeed perform background checks for private firearms transactions. However the opinion of the attorney general establishes that private individuals who do not perform background checks on firearm transactions will not be arrested, charged, prosecuted, or convicted. Once again you are left with absolutely nothing, and nothing you can say to the contrary will actually change this established fact.
Arrests will do no good if the attorney general will not back the prosecution. And if the attorney general for the state of Nevada will not back the prosecution of individuals who do not comply with an unenforceable law, that would mean those who are affected would have grounds to sue for false arrest.