Nevadans for Background Checks, paid for in large part by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown group, this week kicked off their first ad to support the upcoming ballot referendum.
As an apparent rebuttal to the news that 14 of Nevada’s 16 elected sheriffs oppose the measure, the new ad features Jim Dunlap, President of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, speaking to how the initiative will reduce gun violence and save the lives of police officers by making it harder for criminals to get guns.
“On behalf of the hundreds of police officers across Nevada that I represent as President of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, we endorse Question 1 because it will make a difference,” Dunlap said. “Officers who patrol the streets understand that no one law can prevent every crime, but we know from other states that have closed the background check loophole that it works and will save lives.”
In an email to Guns.com, Nevadans for Background Checks stress there are a number of law enforcement groups and former lawmen that are in favor of the proposed expansion including the Las Vegas Fraternal Order of Police, former Clark County Sheriff Bill Young, former Washoe County Sheriff Mike Haley, Henderson Police Chief Patrick Moers, retired Deputy Chief Al Salinas, retired Metro Homicide Commander Ray Steiber, former Senior Deputy Chief Jim Childs, and former Henderson Police Chief Richard Perkins.
“We have thousands of law enforcement officers who support Question 1 and our ad campaign reflects that. We know that in states that have closed the background check loophole there are fewer cop killings,” said campaign manager Joe Duffy. “Question 1 will save lives and that’s why we have such strong law enforcement support all across Nevada.”
In response, the National Rifle Association argues Question 1 would criminalize virtually all private firearms transfer in Nevada.
In a statement issued Tuesday:
Under Question 1, many of the common place activities of Nevada’s law-abiding gun owners will be criminalized. For example, if a person were to loan his shotgun to his fiancé, both of them would be required to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer. The fiancé would have to pay a fee for a background check. When finished with the firearm, the couple would both have to return to a federally licensed firearms dealer, pay another fee and undergo another background check. This is the same process a member of the military who gets deployed overseas would have to go through to store his personal firearms with a friend. The initiative provides a self-defense exception for temporary transfers but only if the victim is facing “imminent death or great bodily harm; and . . . lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm.” She couldn’t’ borrow a friend’s pistol to protect herself, unless her attacker was literally standing over her about to attack.