Governor still wrong on background checks

Back in 2013, Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed a bill that would have extended the criminal background checks currently conduced in gun stores to all gun sales in Nevada, including those between private parties.

His reasons — laid out in a three-page veto message — were unusually spurious for Sandoval, who’s established a reputation for fair-minded, evidence-based governance.

Now, with a voter-approved initiative on the November ballot that would impose background checks similar to those he vetoed in 2013, the governor had another chance to examine the issue. (In fact, the initiative was carefully written to accommodate some of the governor’s 2013 objections.)

Sadly, however, Sandoval hasn’t budged from his original stance, which has not become any more true with the passage of time.

“Consistent with his previous actions on this issue, the governor does not support Question 1,” wrote the governor’s spokeswoman, Mari St. Martin, in a statement. “He has concerns that the measure would unnecessarily restrict rights of law-abiding Nevadans and that it does not actually address the complex issue of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.”

Well, the governor should put his mind at ease: Both his concerns are unfounded.

First, background checks on gun sales are perfectly legal, and have been reviewed and upheld by the courts. Question 1 would simply extend the exact same background checks to all gun sales, including those between private parties, so that every gun sale is covered. (There are exemptions in the measure, including for the transfer of guns between family members and for people who loan guns to others for hunting or target shooting.)

It makes little sense to require a background check inside a gun store when a person can simply step outside and buy a gun from a private seller without any legal scrutiny. And since it’s already illegal for so-called prohibited persons to purchase guns, no law-abiding person’s rights are jeopardized by background checks.

Second, background checks of the kind contained in Question 1 are effective. According to the FBI, federal background checks have stopped at least 1.3 million people nationally from legally buying a firearm. Some opponents of background checks quibble with those numbers, saying they including erroneous rejections and other flaws. But it’s clear that, according to the FBI, background checks do work and do keep (some) firearms out of the hands of (some) criminals.

Opponents of Question 1 — and of gun regulation in general — will reply that background checks won’t stop determined criminals from stealing a gun or buying one on the black market. That’s true, but irrelevant: They may as well argue Question 1 won’t also cure cancer or make hot-dogs calorie-free — that’s not the purpose of the measure, and nobody ever claimed it would fix every problem.

All Question 1 is intended to do is to ensure people not legally allowed to possess a firearm cannot legally buy one in a private-party sale. And the only real way for a private seller to know for sure if a potential buyer is legally allowed to purchase a firearm is a background check.

Sandoval is correct that the issue of gun violence is complex, and there’s far more that needs to be done. Felons who try unsuccessfully to buy guns should be prosecuted for that crime (most are not). The courts and mental health system need to communicate effectively with background check databases, and ensure information is as accurate and as up-to-date as possible.

But those are not reasons to oppose Question 1. In fact, there are no good reasons to oppose Question 1.

And while Sandoval’s position does have the virtue of consistency, it continues to suffer the flaw of inaccuracy.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.