Criminal background checks for firearms sales law has a Catch-22

Question 1 has been impaled on a Catch-22.

You remember Question 1, don’t you? It was on all the ballots in Nevada and passed with 50.45 percent of the vote, failing in every county except Clark. It requires almost all private sales or transfers of firearms to be cleared by a criminal background check first. Failure to comply would result in up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine.

Now Attorney General Adam Laxalt has opined that the drafters of Question 1 were too smart for their own good and created a law that cannot, at this time, be enforced, because the federal agency that is specifically required to carry out said background checks refuses to do so. 

The ballot summary stated: “The background check would be conducted using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and the federally-licensed dealer would be able to charge a reasonable fee for conducting the background check and facilitating the firearm transfer between unlicensed persons.”

But earlier this month the official in charge of FBI’s criminal background check system sent the state a letter saying his office would not conduct those background checks because Nevada is one of the many states that has entered into a sort of mutual aid pact in which the state becomes the Point of Contact for background checks. The state Department of Public Safety is given access to the NICS data bank and uses that and its own resources to conduct background checks for firearm sales.

The head of NICS said a state cannot require a federal agency to expend resources and it will not.

Laxalt’s opinion concludes:



The law specifies one and only one method for conducting criminal background checks, thus prohibiting the state from doing so. Therefore, the law is unenforceable.

Here is a passage from Joseph Heller’s book that explains Catch-22:

Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. “Is Orr crazy?”
“He sure is,” Doc Daneeka said.
“Can you ground him?”
“I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That’s part of the rule.”
“Then why doesn’t he ask you to?”
“Because he’s crazy,” Doc Daneeka said. “He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he’s had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to.”
“That’s all he has to do to be grounded?”
“That’s all. Let him ask me.”
“And then you can ground him?” Yossarian asked.
“No. Then I can’t ground him.”
“You mean there’s a catch?”
“Sure there’s a catch,” Doc Daneeka replied. “Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy.”
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
“That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed.
“It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.

Here is how the AG opinion signed by Bureau Chief Gregory Zunino further explains it:




6 comments on “Criminal background checks for firearms sales law has a Catch-22

  1. Bruce Feher says:

    Leave the people alone already!

  2. I have several firearms I intend to keep until I am gone, so when I die and the family comes to pick up the stuff it will include firearms, so will they need to get a background check on themselves to take the firearms out of the house? I was going to give them before my demise but our society is so messed up, I want the security of firearms in the house. Just a thought.

  3. Doug Ansell says:

    Love the Catch-22 quote!

    Sent from my MacBook Wheel

  4. Steve says:

    Said all along this thing was poorly written.

    From Ralston we see NVSOS and DPPS saw trouble with Q1 as well.

    “The Department of Public Safety has indicated that passage of Question 1 would require a
    renegotiation of POC status or the development of an alternative agreement with the FBI in order to accommodate the provisions of the question.”

    Being a ballot question requiring implementation, the legislature is barred from making any changes for 3 years. This makes three separate, supporting, opinions showing it is verifiably unenforceable. So Q1 is going to court, or the FBI is going to acquiesce, but for the time being Q1 is not the law of the state of Nevada.

    In any case, sheep, the law (if it survives a court battle) does allow for inheritance transfers.
    (how magnanimous of it to “allow” us to exchange our own property among family members)

  5. Athos says:

    “Morons. I’ve got morons on my team.”

  6. Adam Jones says:

    Hello Thomas! There should be a stringent law on the firearm sales. As the criminals are always looking for ways to possess as many firearms as possible for committing crimes, it would help deter them now. Apart from that, the background check must be conducted by a reliable background checking company so that the result would be more accurate and complied to the local and federal background check. Government should focus more on the background check issue and should make it mandatory for firearm sales. It would definitely helpful in combating crimes in Nevada.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s