EDITORIAL: Gun Control And The Urban Steamroller

The ‘lock and load lawmaking’ that went on last week in Carson City is likely a sad belweather for the upcoming session. The 2019 legislative season has scarcely begun and already the Democrat leadership is taking no prisoners; throwing their full weight as a near supermajority behind urban-centered legislation with little regard for rural Nevadans. Senate Bill 143, which requires background checks on all private sales and transfers of firearms, was just the first example. There will likely be many more to come this year.

First off, SB 143 is a bad law; poorly conceived and shoddily written. Like most fix-it-quick schemes issuing from the political left, it causes more problems than it solves – raises more questions than it answers. Rather than an honest attempt to hit the center of the target on the problem of gun violence, SB 143 goes off half-cocked. It is built only to score easy political points with an urban base, largely ignorant of guns or gun ownership.

In short, the bill does little more than make the activists feel good. With the governor’s signature secured scarcely an hour after passage of the bill, no doubt everyone returned home and slept well, feeling safer. But they are not really safer at all. Nothing was accomplished towards curbing gun violence. In the real world, bad guys can, and will, still obtain firearms on the street. And they will still put them to deadly use. Nothing has changed there.

But the bill will be quite effective at burying a law-abiding populace under unnecessary red tape and regulation; as any self-respecting big-government law would. In addition to that, SB 143 stomps on long-held traditions of the outlying communities. The residents of Nevada’s unique rural culture once again will find themselves being steam-rolled over in the state’s urban-centric push toward a one-size-fits-all approach to governing.

The bill’s lack of relevancy to the rural experience reveals the broad cultural divide existing on this issue and many more. Indeed, the two sides speak entirely different languages. The wording in SB 143 may seem sensible and clear for urbanites, a few of whom may keep a single weapon in the back of a closet, taking it out two or three times a year for a trip to the gun range. But it leaves gaping holes of uncertainty out in the rurals where an outdoor/hunting tradition makes firearms ubiquitous and where guns are widely used and shared among friends and family. A responsible legislative process would allow time and effort for listening and understanding on both sides; and an eventual joining in the middle. Last week’s urban assault didn’t even attempt that.

And that hits at the root of the deeper problem. Earlier this year, there was a lot of lip service from the new governor about working across the aisle, playing to the center, and bringing the interests of all Nevadans together in a unified effort. But witnessing the way this first major bill of the session went down, it is clear that nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, it seems that the urban-based liberal majority feels it knows best for all people. And it intends to fully flex its muscle to dictate how things will be for everyone.

In last week’s process, there was no real listening, no attempt at understanding, no discussing, no negotiating and certainly no moving to the middle. When Republicans proposed a modest amendment to clarify language that would better fit a rural reality, the Democrats viewed it as a threat and swatted it down. Within just four days the Democrats had rammed their political agenda through on this issue, without even a look back at the scorched rural earth they had left behind.

After the vote was taken, there had reportedly been an agreement to allow legislators, not earlier afforded a voice in the whirlwind process, a last opportunity to speak. At that time, Assemblyman Chris Edwards bravely stood to speak on behalf of his rural constituents, which includes the residents of Overton. Scarcely a sentence into his brief prepared remarks, Edwards was interrupted by the majority leader who silenced him on a point of order. The majority was not even willing to extend the courtesy of listening to the other side, even after they had muscled through their victory. That is truly a sad state of affairs; and, we fear, an ominous portent of things to come.

On this page we have made space for the comments that Mr. Edwards would have made last week on our behalf. We hope this will make his local constituents aware of his views on this subject.