Editorial chastises Laxalt for ignoring the will of the voters by not ignoring the will of the voters

The insert in the morning newspaper never misses a chance to promote its progressive/liberal/gun-grabbing agenda and to lash out at a Republican. Today’s editorial is exhibit A.

This past week District Court Judge Joe Hardy ruled that the 2016 Question 1 initiative, which intended to require background checks for the sales of guns between private individuals, was unenforceable, just as Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s office had ruled shortly after passage.

The editorial accused Laxalt of gloating and ignoring the will of the people, saying he and Gov. Brian Sandoval “barely lifted a finger in trying to implement it.”

You see, the backers of the initiative had outsmarted themselves. In trying to get a fiscal note on the ballot measure that said it would cost no Nevada tax dollars, their draft said the background checks would be conducted by the FBI through its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and not the customary method of using the Nevada Department of Public Safety. The FBI refused to conduct the checks.

As for ignoring the will of the people, the measure passed with only 50.45 percent of the vote, failing in every county except Clark. Would it have passed at all if the voters were told how much it would cost them?

“When the feds responded to the state’s cursory inquires (sic) about the law by saying they were not obligated to perform the checks, Laxalt and Sandoval were all too happy to drop the matter and move on,” the screed falsely claims. “Instead of demanding, haranguing, maybe even suing, they quickly demurred.”

As for barely lifting a finger and quickly demurring, the editorial ignores the section of Judge Hardy’s ruling that detailed the numerous communications between the state and the FBI. (See pages 6 through 10.)

“But when voters go to the polls this November, they should remember how Laxalt reacted before, during and especially after the ruling,” the putrid polemic pouts. “This is a man who clearly views himself above the will of the people and imagines an imperial governorship in which he can ignore the voters at his discretion.”

Apparently, the insert editorialists believe that members of the executive branch should ignore the voters and rewrite a law that the voters approved, albeit by a slim majority in one urban county. As Judge Hardy noted, the FBI requirement “was not inadvertent drafting on a peripheral point. It was a conscious choice relating to a central provision …”

So Laxalt and Sandoval should have just ignored the will of the stupid voters who had no idea what they were really voting for anyway.



9 comments on “Editorial chastises Laxalt for ignoring the will of the voters by not ignoring the will of the voters

  1. Deleted says:

    If the Sun never failed to ignore an available attack on a republican that paper would be too voluminous to print.

    And of course they are correct; by ignoring the expressed will of more than 50% of the voters (and surely a much higher percentage of the people that would have supported the measure who didn’t vote) Nevadans own bastard did indeed ignore “the people”.

    The hack.

  2. So, he and Sandoval should’ve rewritten what the voters approved?

  3. Dave says:

    “..putrid polemic pouts..” You have not lost a step.

  4. Anonymous says:

    He should have fought for what the people of Nevada wanted. That is his job after all no matter how hard he tries to make his job about what the people sending his campaign contributions from other states tell him.

    The hack.

  5. Bill says:

    Dave, I think it goes beyond “putrid polemics” and is simply a case of (a) willful and gross ignorance or (b) dishonest political bias.

    Both the Sun and Deleted/Anonymous either 1. don’t know anything about State and Federal Government or 2. they are indulging in their own nasty misinformation and name calling or 3. Both. Given their past histories, probably both.

    The Initiative was financed by outside money. It barely passed. The initiative expressly provides that the FBI is to do the background checks. The initiative did not have a funding mechanism and it did not have one on purpose in order to not have a Fiscal Impact Statement attached to it on the ballot.

    Bloomberg’s New York lawyers, were attempting a slight of hand. By prescribing that the FBI would do the background checks they did not have to have a Fiscal Impact Statement Attached to the initiative because, no state agency nor any state funds were involved.

    The initiative barely passed. I think it probably failed in every county except Clark, but I am not sure.

    When presented with the Initiative, the FBI said they would NOT do the background checks and no state initiative could force them to do so. Period. End of story.

    The Legislature passed no appropriation because no appropriation was called for by the Petition.

    When asked for a legal opinion, as is it’s duty, the State Attorney General’s office said, that in accordance with the express requirement that the FBI was to do the Background checks and since the FBI refused to so, the Initiative Petition could not be enforced.

    The Editor or the Editorial Board of the Las Vegas Sun knows or should know that a State cannot force the Federal Government to do anything. There is the small matter of the Supremacy Clause.

    The attacks on Attorney General Laxalt by Steve Sisolak and the Las Vegas Sun are disingenuous and dishonest.

  6. Rincon says:

    Since the FBI won’t do the background checks, it’s a done (for) deal. I’m not sure what the big deal is about the cost though. One would assume that the purchaser would pay for it. Although it may be less complete, a background check suitable for apartment rentals costs about 20 bucks and takes very little time.

  7. JustMeAgain says:

    Oh hi guys. The Man in the Cowboy Hat is right. Again.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Problem is he’s always right and far less often correct.

  9. Steve says:

    fixed it fer ya, Patrick.

    “Problem is he’s mainly correct and far less often right wing.”

    Strong the Libertarian is, in that hat.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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