Carson City, NV – -(AmmoLand.com)- Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt applauded a Nevada District Court’s decision to toss out a lawsuit brought by the proponents of Nevada’s stillborn [universal] Background Check Act, also known as Question 1.
The lawsuit sought to shift the blame for the broken initiative from its drafters to Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval. The Court, in a comprehensive 22-page opinion, ruled that “as a matter of law, […] given the undisputed efforts to implement The Background Check Act, it is unenforceable as written.”
The Court rejected each of the proponents’ legal claims, noting that their “arguments have shifted throughout this case” and that they “failed to provide this Court with any authority even remotely supporting” their legal argument. The Court also repeatedly commented on the falsity of the proponent’s factual allegations, observing that they “ignore the facts.” The Court chastised the proponents for their “charged” and “emotional appeals,” explaining they were “unfounded,” “without supporting evidence,” and “improperly placed before the judiciary.”
“The Court’s 22-page decision reaffirms what my office has been saying all along—that the Act ‘is unenforceable as written,’” said AG Laxalt.
“This is not because of anything that I or other Nevada officials have failed to do; in the words of the Court, we have ‘undertaken a real and substantial effort to implement the law.’ Rather, it is a result of Question 1’s flawed drafting. It is unfortunate that the very same people who imposed this defective law on all Nevadans have gone to such lengths to use its brokenness as a reason to politically attack me and other Nevada’s elected officials through litigation. Hopefully, today’s careful decision puts an end to this practice.”
The judge’s order reaffirms that the Attorney General’s opinion “correctly identified and exposed several errors” in challengers’ misrepresentations about the 2016 ballot initiative. Shortly after the Question 1 initiative was passed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wrote to the Nevada Department of Public Safety (DPS) on two occasions stating that they would not conduct the background checks for Nevada because, among other reasons, a state law cannot mandate how federal resources are allocated.
In a December 28, 2016 formal opinion requested by DPS, the Office of the Nevada Attorney General correctly opined that the law could not be implemented without the FBI’s cooperation.
These people should be forced to pay for the courts time. I’ve been saying for years that there should be a penalty for the frivolous. I’ve also felt there should be a Grand Jury type system innplace for civil suits.
Will the Bloomie Crowd be forced to pay all the legal costs in bringing their frivolous and unfounded lawsuit? Seems fair…… but will it happen?
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wrote to the Nevada Department of Public Safety (DPS) on two occasions stating that they would not conduct the background checks for Nevada because, among other reasons, a state law cannot mandate how federal resources are allocated. True.. anticommandeering principles prevent states forcing FedGov to do their bidding. Nor can feds commandeer state officials to do THEIR work. Too bad FBI have not come to Washington and Oregon and refuse to conduct background checks for private sales.. the Nevada bill is nearly word for word Washington’s and Oregon’s. Same principle should apply. Bloomies Idiots are… Read more »
Mr. Laxalt was correct from the start. Mr. Bloomberg’s minions deserve nothing but derision as this is what happens when you simply take the SAME TEXT used in Washington’s i594 and recycle it for use in Nevada’s Question 1 and Maine’s with only minor changes. When the idiots who pushed this initiative in NV didn’t both to check how background checks were conducted (POC state), they pooched themselves, and were double pooched when the FBI told NV to go pound sand. Since the initiative, as written, REQUIRED the FBI to conduct the background checks, neither the AG nor the Governor,… Read more »
I seem to remember the SCOTUS decision on Brady backround checks and the 10th amendment. All I can say Touch’e mofos!