Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rather weak excuse for a veto since other states already have background checks.
The Nevada congress thought differently and the bill had overwhelming approval from the electorate. I have to laugh at his hotline for citizens to call in with their opinion before the vote, amateur hour.
Quote:
“While I support enhanced reporting requirements concerning mentally ill
persons, the provisions of Senate Bill 221 pertaining to background checks for
the private sale and transfer of firearms constitute an erosion of Nevadans’
Second Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and may subject
otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution.â€
Rather weak excuse for a veto since other states already have background checks.
The Nevada congress thought differently and the bill had overwhelming approval from the electorate. I have to laugh at his hotline for citizens to call in with their opinion before the vote, amateur hour.
Yeah, lol, politicians actually asking the opinion of constituents who put them in office to represent them is a little outdated and amateur, isn't it
Well, as the only person to post on here that is actually from Nevada, thank you governor I will remember this next election day. People from Nevada love their guns, and it is not uncommon for someone to give a firearm as a present to a family member. This bill would have required that in order to do so, you would have had to do a background check between family members. This is why the governor vetoed the bill. This piece of legislation was nothing more than a knee jerk response to the Sandy Hook shooting and I for one am glad it was vetoed.
Yeah, lol, politicians actually asking the opinion of constituents who put them in office to represent them is a little outdated and amateur, isn't it
Well if you're going to let people that call in determine your course of action on a bill that has already been passed by the legislature then the answer is yes. There were 100,000 out of around 2M voters, who knows if there was any screening to verify their status, maybe they could call in multiple times.
Maybe he could just step down and let them run the state like American idol, who needs a governor when you can just have residents vote in a telephone poll.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
