Nevada Public Radio Listen Live

"Fresh Air"
Facebook Twitter Follow Nevada Public Radio

Support Nevada Public Radio
KNPR's State of Nevada About SON Archives Participate Specials
TODAY
Gillespie On Bundy, Officer Shootings
Reno: News From The North
Columnist: No Way Any Convention Is Coming To Las Vegas
Bundyfest: It Could Happen
Life In Baker, California
Bryce Harper Benched In Washington
RECENT
The HOA: Help Or Headache?
Is The Cosmopolitan Of Las Vegas For Sale?
Reno A Frontrunner For Tesla Plant
Reid Vs. Heller On Bundy Standoff
Lowden Embraces Changing Senate Elections
The State Of The Clark County School District
States Look At Marijuana Laws
Gut Feeling: What We Learned From The Hadza About Digestion
Missing Out On A High School Diploma
Las Vegas City Council Votes For Horse-Drawn Carriages
The Good Foods Of Lent
Utah Keeps 'Utes' As Mascot
Why Don't We Know Who's Behind the Kelly Cheating Scandal?
The Progressive Bluegrass Sounds Of The Infamous Stringdusters
Castro And Patrick Spar Over Immigration
Boycott Las Vegas Say Social Conservatives
How Safe Is Your Food?
Robert Coover And The Return Of The Brunists
Behind The Bundy Ranch Standoff
Can 'Serious' Reading Happen Online?
Lynne Jasames On Why 'It's Okay To Cry'
BASE Jumping: The Allure And The Danger

Sen. Justin Jones Talks Background Checks
Sen. Justin Jones Talks Background Checks

Listen
AIR DATE: June 18, 2013

GUEST

State Sen. Justin Jones

BY MARIE ANDRUSEWICZ -- Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed a bill that would require background checks for gun sales, saying it created an unreasonable burden on those conducting the transaction, particularly on collectors looking to transfer firearms among relatives.

State Senator Justin Jones thinks that the sale of a gun is worth at least he same amount of time spent dealing with bureacracy as registering a car at the DMV.

“I really don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to go through a five-minute background check in order to confirm that the person that they’re selling their gun to is not a felon or someone who is severely mentally ill,” says Jones. “I just don’t think that’s a harsh penalty for someone going through the sale of a gun.”

Jones says his bill, which had already passed the Assembly and the Senate, was stalled at the last minute by an organization that had originally endorsed the bill, the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs.

“I talked to law enforcement throughout this process,” says Jones. “It was only frankly in the 11th hour, when some of the rural sheriffs got involved, I suspect as a result of NRA influence, that they changed their position.”

According to a poll by Progress Now Nevada, 86 percent of Nevadans are in favor of universal background checks for gun owners.

“Five minutes? More than 500 licensed firearm dealers in the state?” says Jones of his bill’s requirements for getting a background check.  “I just don’t think that’s a difficult thing for the average person to do in order to ensure that they are not selling their gun to the wrong person.”

    comments powered by Disqus
    COMMENTS:
    Creating more useless laws and other nonsense will not do any good. Taking mentally ill people off the streets and keeping them off will bring about noticeable change. Medicating them and sending them back out into society simply is not working. Blaming guns, knives, and the kitchen sink is getting ridiculous.
    BRBruceJun 23, 2013 02:02:08 AM
    Please tell me how this bill would violate people's second amendment rights!!!! And please thank senator jones for me for all his hard work!!
    Linda LaneJun 18, 2013 20:32:46 PM
    THE GROUNDSWELL FOR BACKGROUND CHECKS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A KNEE-JERK REACTION BY WELL-MEANING,BUT IGNORANT PEOPLE, IN RESPONSE TO A SERIES OF UNSPEAKABLE TRAGEDIES. THERE IS NOTHING IN ANY OF THE PROPOSED BILLS WHICH WOULD HAVE PREVENTED ANY OF THE TRAGEDIES. ANY PERSON WISHING TO PURCHASE A GUN CAN SIMPLY LIE ON THE APPLICATION IF THEY COULDN'T PASS IT TRUTHFULLY. THERE HAS YET TO BE DEVISED A USABLE SYSTEM OF RECORDING AND UPDATING MENTAL PROBLEMS. MOST OF MY FRIENDS, LIKE ME, HAVE SUBSTANTIAL GUN COLLECTIONS AND ARE CONSTANTLY TRADING WITH EACH OTHER. TO PASS THE CHECK THIS BILL WOULD COST US $30 PER TRADE.
    FRANK BUCKLEYJun 18, 2013 10:07:28 AM
    I have to disagree with the gun bill. He fails to mention the cost and the burden it would place on many gun shops in town; aside from that he fails to even mention the data that would be recorded and kept by the ATF. I work at a gun shop and I know how backgrounds work. I am all for stopping crime and stopping illegal gun sales, but this wont change a thing. The bill is just another way for the state to make more money. Let me guess did he mention the fact that the fees for the background do not go to the shop that is running the check, but instead it goes to the state. I doubt that. Even if the bill passed how would he stop criminals who get weapons through theft or through purchases that are out of state. I have nothing against him and honestly feel that he is trying to help, but what I do not understand is the lack of information regarding the bill.
    Roberto OrozcoJun 18, 2013 09:39:16 AM
    Senator Jones gives me hope for Nevada. Gov Sandoval does not. Having lived in various US states, and out of the country, I have not experienced such an apathetic and immune place in regard gun violence (and violence in general). What one of the callers who cited Chicago as an example for gun control laws not working fails to understand is Nevada is a high exporter of guns for other states via straw purchases. For those who have an issue w background checks, it is baffling. This resistance for progress trickles down to the issues of education, mental health, and personal safety. Senator Jones should be applauded for not getting sucked into the cycle of concern of future elections over the welfare of the people. Cheers.
    LeslieJun 18, 2013 09:30:45 AM
    Evidently Mr. Jones and most of his fellow legislators have not read enough history to know that on average 2,000,000 people per year are murdered by their own governments (see the substantial work of Dr. Rudolph Rummel, University of Hawaii, on "democide"), i.e. one's odds of being killed by their own government as it seeks wealth and power are hundreds of times higher than those of being killed by a criminal with a gun. If that's not the ultimate argument for a strong second amendment, I just don't know what to say to them. To think such things as politicide, genocide, etc., could not happen here is supremely naive and arrogant, not to mention ignorant of all of history. Remember, only police states think only government agents should have guns.
    Tom HurstJun 17, 2013 15:11:09 PM
    © 2013 NEVADA PUBLIC RADIO   
    Web hosting facilities provided by Switch.