Nevada Democrats Working Overtime To Pass Useless Gun Control Laws That, At A Minimum, Will Transform Otherwise Law-Abiding Nevadans Into Criminals, And, At A Maximum, Violate the Constitutional Rights Of Nevadans
The Democrats on the Assembly Judiciary Committee are looking for any possible way to chip away at the once rock-solid right to keep and bear arms, the latest fiasco being support for AB 291 that proposes to let any Nevada town, city or county pass their own gun control measures and AB 153 make criminals out of Nevadans who store their weapons improperly. These are the same politicians who want to give sanctuary to people illegally present in Nevada but are only too happy to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding Nevada citizens. Why are these assembly members so determined to keep illegal aliens out of the criminal justice system by granting them sanctuary but are equally determined to increase the number of law-abiding Nevada citizens thrown into the criminal justice system with misdemeanor and felony charges?
Call these assembly members m and tell them not to California our Nevada: Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair: Steve Yeager (D-9), (775) 684-8549 Vice Chair: Lesley Cohen (D-29), (775) 684-8855 Shea Backus (D-37), (775) 684-8505 Skip Daly (D-31), (775) 684-8563 Ozzie Fumo (D-21), (775) 684-8839 Brittney Miller (D-5), (775) 684-8833 Rochelle Nguyen (D-10), (775) 684-8541 Sarah Peters (D-24), (775) 684-8559 Selena Torres (D-3), (775) 684-8599 Howard Watts (D-15), (775) 684-8835 Chris Edwards (R-19), (775) 684-8857 Alexis Hansen (R-32), (775) 684-8851 Lisa Krasner (R-26), (775) 684-8848 Tom Roberts (R-13), (775) 684-8853 Jill Tolles (R-25), (775) 684-8837 Urge these Nevada politicians not to follow the example of California politicians, and the low-information voters they influenced, who violated the rights of and made over-night criminals of otherwise law-abiding Californians for approximately 2 years. Lt. Governor (now Governor) Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party championed California Proposition 63 and it passed in November, 2017. The California Democratic Party even contributed $1.15 million to the pro-Prop 63 campaign. On March 28th, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez declared the California Proposition 63 ban on firearm magazines of greater than 10 rounds to be unconstitutional in its entirety. So, in California you have politicians and even a majority of California voters who wantonly violated the rights of law-abiding Californians for two years until a federal judge declared their gun magazine control scheme unconstitutional. We don't want violations of our federal and Nevada constitutions here in Nevada. Some quotes from Judge Benitez decision: (Page 5) Indeed, while some think guns cause violent crime, others think that wide-spread possession of guns on balance reduces violent crime. None of these policy arguments on either side affects what the Second Amendment says, that our Constitution protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.’” (Page 6) In the United States, the Second Amendment takes the legislative experiment off the table.14 Regardless of current popularity, neither a legislature nor voters may trench on constitutional rights. “An unconstitutional statute adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity.” Silveira, 312 at 1091. (Page 6) The rights contained in the Second Amendment are ‘fundamental’ and ‘necessary to our system of ordered liberty.’ The government recognizes these rights; it does not confer them.” Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 417-18 (7th Cir. 2015) (Manion, J., dissenting). (Page 12) It is enough to make an angel swear. Suffice it to say that either the law-abiding hunter returning home with a 30-round rifle magazine, or the resident that receives from another a 15-round pistol magazine, or the enthusiast who makes a 12-round magazine out of a 10-round magazine, may be charged not with a minor infraction but with a felony. And perhaps not ironically, conviction as a felon carries with it the complete forfeiture of Second Amendment rights for a lifetime. For Second Amendment rights, statutory complexity of this sort extirpates as it obfuscates. And in the doing, it violates a person’s constitutional right to due process. “[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.” Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926); see also United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997) (quoting Connally). (Page 86) This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now. Read the entire decision by clicking below: 
|
| ||