By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo has vetoed a trio of gun control measures pushed through the Legislature on party line votes by majority Democrats in a move certain to result in a confrontation over Second Amendment rights.
According to Fox News, Lombardo’s action is “an early indication of how he’ll respond to ambitious measures backed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.” It was the first veto of his governorship, which began in January. The former Clark County sheriff was elected last fall, defeating the incumbent Democrat.
As noted by KLAS News in Las Vegas, the three bills now returned to the Legislature are:
- Assembly Bill 354: Prohibits guns at polling locations, vote centers, election sites, ballot drop-off locations, and ballot tabulation areas. The bill also updates definitions regarding ghost guns.
- Assembly Bill 355: Prohibits individuals under 21 years of age from owning and possessing certain assault weapons.
- Senate Bill 171: Prohibits anyone convicted of a hate crime from owning, purchasing or possessing a firearm for 10 years.
In a tersely-worded statement on his website, Gov. Lombardo said, “I will not support legislation that infringes on the constitutional rights of Nevadans. As I stated in my letters, much of the legislation I vetoed today is in direct conflict with legal precedent and established constitutional protections. Therefore, I cannot support them.”
Lombardo sent letters to House Speaker Steve Yeager and Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, explaining his concerns.
“AB 354,” he wrote, “is impermissibly vague in relation to its 100 feet gun-free radius surrounding a ‘ballot-box.’ Ballot boxes appear in common community gathering locations across our state, including grocery stores, shopping centers, gyms, and libraries. It is untenable to prohibit law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights in these areas. Finally, AB 354’s aim to end the transfer of certain firearm parts and receivers would place an impermissible burden on constitutionally protected conduct because possession of firearms, firearm frames, and receivers is within the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.”
In a separate letter, Lombardo explained, “AB 355 is presumably intended to decrease gun violence in communities across the state – an admirable goal. However, last year, in Jones v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to adults younger than 21. In a 2-1 panel decision, the court found that the Second Amendment ‘protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them.’ This ruling was subsequently vacated by the Ninth Circuit so the trial court could readdress its legal findings after the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen…In Bruen, the Court held that gun restrictions are constitutional only insofar as there is a tradition of such regulation in United States history. The United States has little, if any, tradition of entirely prohibiting the possession of semiautomatic firearms to those under 21 years of age. Additionally, this month, a federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, noting that the Second Amendment’s protections ‘extend in full to law-abiding adults aged eighteen or older[,]’ ruled that there was insufficient support for the 2 of 2 proposition ‘that restrictions on the purchasing [and possession] of firearms by 18-20 year olds is part of our Nation’s history and tradition.’”
And in his letter about the Senate bill, Gov. Lombardo stated, “SB 171 would go much further than existing law by depriving individuals of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Moreover, the limited nexus between certain misdemeanor offenses and gun violence makes it untenable to pass a law that immediately puts the defendant’s Second Amendment rights in jeopardy. This would effectively open the door to more laws restricting others convicted of gross misdemeanors from owning firearms to protect their homes and families. Many of the more violent and egregious offenses under Nevada law that are commonly associated with hate crimes can and should be prosecuted as felonies in the first place, especially when there is a connection between the underlying crime and the use of guns. It is a better solution to make these types of hate crimes felonies than to further penalize low-level offenders – especially when existing law sufficiently addresses the issue.”
House Democrats have enough of a majority to vote for override, but Senate Democrats may not have the votes to do that, according to CNN.
