FBI Back-Hands Bloomy in Nevada

[Whutmeworry]

Sorry if this is a dupe.

Hey Bloomturd, the next time you plan on flushing $20 Million down the toilet please at least think about depositing it into my personal bank account instead!!

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/...m-gun-control-bid-in-nevada-has-fallen-apart/

This just reinforces the well-known fact that gun grabbers TRULY don't care whether or not proposed gun control laws will work when implemented, or even WHICH government bureaucracy will be charged with enforcing them!

Heh, heh, heh...

 

[ghettomedic]

Yup, dupe: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/323950-Lott-Bloomberg-has-little-to-show-for-millions-spent-on-gun-control?highlight=nevada+gun+control

 

[UNSUB]

Dupe, dupe, dupe, dupe, DUPE!

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[gws1063]

Not a dupe. Article focuses on the Feds chopping off Bloomturd at the knees by an unwillingness to enforce their part of the "deal", rendering the ballot initiative moot. Maybe the Nevada legislature will fund some alternate mechanism. Yeah - NO, don't think so.

-Gary

 

[Zappa]

Not a dupe. Article focuses on the Feds chopping off Bloomturd at the knees by an unwillingness to enforce their part of the "deal", rendering the ballot initiative moot. Maybe the Nevada legislature will fund some alternate mechanism. Yeah - NO, don't think so.

-Gary

I expected the measure was to be handled by forcing private sellers to use the services of an FFL to do the transfers.
And of course a fee would be involved.
The FBI can't refuse to do the NICS check if called in by an FFL.

 

[firestorm]

I expected the measure was to be handled by forcing private sellers to use the services of an FFL to do the transfers.
And of course a fee would be involved.
The FBI can't refuse to do the NICS check if called in by an FFL.

I think the difference here is that the law itself didn't say that, and the state legislature and AG are against it and unlikely to fudge things to force implementation. the statement from the state AG was basically well, it turns out the FBI won't do this so the law can't be enforced.

 

[Zappa]

I think the difference here is that the law itself didn't say that, and the state legislature and AG are against it and unlikely to fudge things to force implementation. the statement from the state AG was basically well, it turns out the FBI won't do this so the law can't be enforced.

If the problem was in the wording of the law, then Bloomturd pissed away $20M for nothing.
The dumbass should have been smart enough to know the laws, considering how hard he fights for this anti-gun BS.
All he had to do was copy the same thing they did in Washington State back in 2014:

http://smartgunlaws.org/private-sales-in-washington/

Private Sales in Washington
Last updated November 1, 2016.

In 2014, Washington became the first state to enact a law requiring background checks on private sales by voter initiative. 1 The law requires private buyers and sellers to conduct a firearms transaction through a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). The FFL must process the transaction as if the dealer were selling the firearm from his or her own inventory and comply with all federal and state laws regulating firearms dealers, such as performing the required background check on the purchaser

Not that I agree with the WA law, I'm just saying Bloomie is friggin' moron because a working model for his scheme already existed and he didn't follow it.

 

[Dadstoys]

Every time he pisses away money and angel gets it's wings.
I wonder if anyone has kept track of how much he's wasted in total on failed attempts.
Keep burning through your kids inheritance Mikey.

 

[robjax]

the FBI won't do it but the law is still on their books...

 

[drgrant]

Not that I agree with the WA law, I'm just saying Bloomie is friggin' moron because a working model for his scheme already existed and he didn't follow it.

He didn't follow it because it's dramatically more difficult politically to sell "ban all private transfers" (which is what the WA law is) than it is to say "private transfers require a BG check". They are both infringements but its easy to show that the former is a much greater infringement than the latter is.

-Mike

 

[71montess]

Every time he pisses away money and angel gets it's wings.
I wonder if anyone has kept track of how much he's wasted in total on failed attempts.
Keep burning through your kids inheritance Mikey.

As you know, he's got gobs of $$$.

 

[Dadstoys]

As you know, he's got gobs of $$$.

Imagine if he had spend all that money on building children's cancer treatment centers or something along those lines.
That's the legacy I'd rather have than rich anti freedom a-hole.

 

[Rockrivr1]

It's a good thing the State Gov't and AG were against it. If they weren't this would probably end private transfers all together. Seeing this is still on the books though if there is ever a change of heart from the state Gov't this could come back to bite them in the arse. They can laugh now, but to me it would seem prudent to try and get it off the books as soon as possible.

 

[drgrant]

It's a good thing the State Gov't and AG were against it. If they weren't this would probably end private transfers all together. Seeing this is still on the books though if there is ever a change of heart from the state Gov't this could come back to bite them in the arse. They can laugh now, but to me it would seem prudent to try and get it off the books as soon as possible.

Well, kinda, if the law is moot long enough it becomes null. Even if they got a shitty gov/AG gun owners could probably sue and get it nulled that way (which is expensive). My guess is it'll be left alone, unless there are enough votes in their legislature to simply nullify it. Of course the problem with that is an attempt to nullify it might result in a legislative sausage making fest that makes things worse.

-Mike

 

[firestorm]

Well, kinda, if the law is moot long enough it becomes null. Even if they got a shitty gov/AG gun owners could probably sue and get it nulled that way (which is expensive). My guess is it'll be left alone, unless there are enough votes in their legislature to simply nullify it. Of course the problem with that is an attempt to nullify it might result in a legislative sausage making fest that makes things worse.

-Mike

Also aren't they stuck for 3 years either way before the legislature can touch it? Or is that just to modify it?