OPEN FORUM: A Law With Too Many Flaws

Editor’s Note: The following is a speech prepared by Assemblyman Chris Edwards which he intended to give on the floor of the State Assembly on Friday after the passage of Senate Bill 143. Unfortunately, he was silenced by the Democratic majority leadership on a point of order. We publish it here in its entirety for the benefit of his local consituents.

By CHRIS EDWARDS
Nevada State Assemblyman

We’re supposed to make laws, not FLAWS. This bill is replete with flaws. When I heard that the sponsors had been writing this bill for 6 years, I expected a masterpiece of legal writing. This bill, however, is filled with some of the most imprecise, ambiguous, non-defined terms. In law, we must be more clear and precise. By rejecting the Republican amendment on Wednesday, the Senate failed to fix them. By the Assembly passing it unchanged, you failed our voters.

The sponsor pitched this bill as closing a background check loophole at gun shows. The text shows this is not true.

You don’t close a gun show loophole if you’re not at a gun show! This should be obvious but the legislature has ignored this. Forcing people to conduct background checks at NON-GUN SHOW locations is a gross overreach. This bill treats every square inch of Nevada as a 24/7 gun show. The voters did not vote for this.

You don’t prevent gun Sales to people who should not have access to guns by prohibiting law-abiding gun owners from loaning their weapons to friends for a day, a week or even an entire hunting season. There is no sale, so there is no legitimate need for a background check. Requiring background checks for merely loaning a weapon is not what the voters voted for. This requirement for transferring weapons in a non-sale manner is a gross overreach.

You don’t stop gun violence by criminalizing normal human interactions like handing your gun to a friend to inspect, admire or shoot.

I know that the sponsor was sincere in trying to prevent this bill from harming military personnel. But the sponsor doesn’t understand the complicated nuances of the military, like the legal definitions of when Reserve or Nation Guard personnel are actually considered to be on active duty and serving in their official capacity as the bill calls for.

I am baffled why he would not have asked for input from military veterans like myself who understand the nuances and how to address them. I would have been more than happy to lend my 28 years of military experience to make sure the bill do not harm our military folks.

The sponsor’s sister did not provide him the full picture because he didn’t know the right questions to ask. Her understanding of the amount of time military personnel have to prepare for deployments was coorect for some instances. It was not correct for many others. The sponsor did not know to ask about specialized units like the 101st, 82nd airborne, 10th Mtn Div, Navy Seals, Delta, SAC and many others. He also didn’t know to ask about emergency fills for deploying units. In these situations, military personnel do not have months or even weeks to prepare. They may have as little as two hours. Last time I was activated I had 2 days to close down my house, car and life; pack and get on a plane heading to the Middle East.

We had a chance to work together in a bipartisan manner to create a bill for Nevada. You failed. You instead adopted a flawed New York-California overreach bill that will be unenforceable and struck down in the courts.

I call upon Governor Sisolak to veto this bill and let the legislature do this right for the people of Nevada, without outisde interference from Bloomberg or other outside anti-gun lobbyists.