What a difference a month makes.
No sooner was the ink dry on Nevada’s new law requiring supposedly “universal” background checks for lawful firearm transfers, than the anti-gunners came out and demanded another new law in the Silver State.
Last Sunday, the Las Vegas Sun published an editorial saying, in effect, that since Nevada voters accepted new gun control by approving Question 1 on the November ballot, now is the time to push for even more restrictions.
“Now, it’s time for Las Vegas-area lawmakers to go a step further to protect Nevadans and push to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines in the state,” the Sun lectured. “There is simply no legitimate civilian use for magazines that hold dozens upon dozens of rounds of ammunition.”
“Dozens upon dozens.” My, oh, my. What size magazine, exactly, would be acceptable to the apparent self-defense and firearm technology experts at the Las Vegas Sun?
As if that weren’t enough, the Sun doubled down on its hyperbole, fretting that “it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which someone would need a 100-round magazine to protect their home from intruders.”
Gosh. Because we all know that all criminals use 100-round, and even bajillion-round “clips” ... right? Just like “ghost guns” and those scary “things that go up”!
But we have to ask: What size magazine, exactly, would be acceptable to the apparent self-defense and firearm technology experts at the Las Vegas Sun?
They answer that question by way of noting that some states have imposed restrictions limiting magazine capacities to as low as 10 rounds—which the Sun pronounces “would be an acceptable model for Nevada.”
Isn’t it great to have such knowledgeable people defining which self-defense capabilities are “acceptable” and which ones aren’t?
The Sun then goes on to quote Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, who said, “There’s no need to have a high-capacity magazine for any practical reason.”
Well, that is, unless you’re Sheriff Joe Lombardo.
For anyone else facing the threat of criminal attack, what’s the saying? “Let them eat cake”?
Let’s not wade off into practical considerations, however. This is about scary, icky guns! This is about feelings!
For the record, it’s also about the false assurances and broken promises of the gun-ban gang.
As you may recall, Nevada was one of four states this November where anti-gun billionaires like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg bankrolled deceptive anti-gun ballot initiatives.
With millions of dollars in Bloomberg’s money, ballot initiative organizers filled the airwaves with misleading ads claiming, in effect, that all it would take is just one more law—in this case, a law that makes it a crime for you to “transfer” a firearm without a criminal background check, with the word “transfer” being undefined in the law—to finally break the back of violent crime in the streets.
Yet every time the gun-ban lobby wins that “just one more law,” it immediately changes its tune and calls the new law “just a first step.”
We’ve seen this over and over and over again for decades.
Never mind that—despite Bloomberg dumping millions into the election—Nevada voters accepted Question 1 in November by a margin of less than 1 percent. “There’s no need to have a high-capacity magazine for any practical reason.” — Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, who carries one every day.
If less than half of one percent of those Nevadans had voted the other way, Question 1 would have failed.
And never mind that “universal” background checks don’t do much of anything, except transform honest, peaceable people into paperwork criminals ... and engender disrespect for the law ... and force law enforcement officers to ignore the law ... while leaving actual armed criminals untouched.
“Universal” background checks may not have failed at the political level in Nevada, but you can bet they’ll fail on a practical level.
And never mind that magazine bans, like “universal” background checks, have already failed to have any “actual impact” on crime.
When they fail in Nevada, just as they’ve failed elsewhere, the usual suspects—from Bloomberg to the rest of the gun-ban lobby—will come back and say, “See? It wasn’t enough! Universal background checks and high-capacity magazine bans were only important first steps! We need more common-sense gun safety laws!”
And then they’ll push more, and more, and more—ad nauseum infinitum. Just as the Las Vegas Sun has done already.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.
