A Republic, If You Can Keep It

But Not If These Folks Have Their Way

Some folks think that the way to secure the blessings of liberty is to restrict it at every turn. Nowhere is this more evident than in Nevada’s latest legislative mischief, where Democratic lawmakers have taken it upon themselves to propose new restrictions on the good citizen’s right to bear arms—never minding that the Constitution, that old inconvenient document, plainly says they ought not to.

Leading this latest crusade is Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, who has introduced Assembly Bill 105, a measure that would make it unlawful to carry a firearm within 100 feet of an election site. They claim it is to ensure the integrity of the voting process, though one would be hard-pressed to find an instance where an upstanding, armed citizen has threatened the ballot box. The bill generously allows for law enforcement officers, private security, and those keeping their firearms tucked away in their carriages—so long as they do not “brandish” them, which, one suspects, is subject to interpretation by those who already distrust the commoner’s right to self-defense.

Not content with merely hemming in the rights of responsible adults, Jauregui has also introduced Assembly Bill 245, which would prevent anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing or possessing a semi-automatic shotgun or rifle. Curious that a young person, at 18, may be sent off to war, entrusted with defending the nation, but here in Nevada, these lawmakers would see him unfit to keep so much as a scattergun at home.

Politicians think a person gains wisdom and responsibility upon blowing out the candles on their 21st birthday, but such enlightenment is not determined by the calendar.

Meanwhile, State Senator Julie Pazina has introduced Senate Bill 89, which aims to prohibit firearm ownership for those convicted of “hate crimes.” Now, hatred is an ugly thing, to be sure, but it is an even uglier thing when the law becomes a tool of caprice, where definitions shift like sand in the wind.

The bill seeks to prevent those convicted of offenses based on race, religion, or a host of other characteristics from owning a firearm for ten years—a fine notion until one considers how broadly such crimes may be defined. Today, a crime of hate is one thing; tomorrow, it may be merely disagreeing with the prevailing orthodoxy. And in that case, the right to self-defense becomes subject not to law but to the whims of those in power.

It bears mentioning that these measures resemble bills passed in 2023 and vetoed by Governor Joe Lombardo. One would think that such a rebuke would deter these fine legislators from wasting more time on ill-fated schemes. But common sense is not so easily imposed upon those who fancy themselves the architects of a safer world—no matter how many freedoms they must strip away to build it.

The battle between liberty and those who would curtail it is never quite settled. And if history has taught us anything, it is that when the people surrender their rights bit by bit, they never return without great toil and sacrifice.

These bills sit in committee, their fate uncertain.