Nevada's Stalled Progress on Gun Safety: A Betrayal of Democratic Principles and Human Dignity

The Facts: Nevada’s Gun Law Landscape

Nevada lawmakers took significant steps to strengthen gun laws following the horrific October 1, 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that remains the deadliest in modern U.S. history. The state implemented bans on bump stocks and ghost guns, required universal background checks, and passed laws to prevent child access to firearms. These measures earned Nevada a B- rating from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a grade the state has maintained for three consecutive years. Despite this progress, Nevada ranks 15th nationally in gun death rates at 17.7 per 100,000 people, with a troubling 24% increase in gun deaths between 2014 and 2023.

According to Giffords’ data, 68% of Nevada’s gun deaths are suicides while 29% are homicides. The organization notes that states with stronger gun laws generally have lower gun death rates, yet Nevada has failed to implement several recommended measures including assault weapon restrictions, large capacity magazine bans, waiting periods, and reformed open carry regulations.

Political Context and Recent Developments

The legislative landscape shifted dramatically in 2022 when Democrats lost their trifecta control of state government with the unseating of Governor Steve Sisolak. His Republican successor, Governor Joe Lombardo, has vetoed multiple gun control proposals including bills that would have raised the age for possessing semi-automatic firearms from 18 to 21 and prohibited firearms within 100 feet of election sites.

This year, State Senator Edgar Flores sponsored a bill to create a gun violence prevention office, which was amended to establish a special counsel position within the attorney general’s office. Governor Lombardo vetoed this measure, claiming it risked “turning a public safety initiative into a political tool.” Republican legislators largely echoed this opposition, with State Senator Carrie Buck calling the bill “ideological advocacy dressed up as neutral policy” and a “veiled attempt at ideological overreach.”

The Human Cost of Political Inaction

The most heartbreaking aspect of this stalemate emerges from the December 2023 UNLV shooting that killed three faculty members and severely injured a fourth. Senator Flores revealed that Republican and Democratic student groups at UNLV specifically requested his legislation in response to this tragedy. When legislators oppose such measures, they’re not merely debating policy—they’re ignoring the pleas of survivors and victims’ families who deserve more than thoughts and prayers.

State Senator Melanie Schieble articulated the frustration perfectly when she noted that opposing even this modest measure means “we’re literally not willing to do anything—anything—to prevent gun violence.” Her Republican colleagues’ refusal to collaborate on solutions represents a fundamental failure of governance and a betrayal of their constitutional obligation to protect citizens.

The Principle of Balanced Rights and Responsibilities

As a firm supporter of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I recognize the Second Amendment’s importance in American jurisprudence. However, the founding fathers never intended any right to be absolute and unlimited. The same document that protects gun rights also establishes government’s primary purpose: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.”

When gun death rates increase 24% in a decade, domestic tranquility is shattered. When students fear attending university, the blessings of liberty are compromised. When preventable tragedies continue unchecked, we fail to promote the general welfare. The reasonable regulations proposed—waiting periods, assault weapon restrictions, dedicated violence prevention offices—represent precisely the balanced approach the founders envisioned when they created a government capable of adapting to evolving threats.

The Hypocrisy of ‘Political Tool’ Rhetoric

Governor Lombardo’s veto justification—that a gun violence prevention office might become a “political tool”—represents astonishing hypocrisy. By this logic, any government function could be deemed political. Law enforcement, education, healthcare—all involve political decisions. The real concern isn’t politicization but rather whose politics prevail. Republicans appear comfortable with politics that favor unrestricted gun access but uncomfortable with politics that prioritize human life.

Furthermore, the attorney general’s office is already political—it’s an elected position. The special counsel would simply provide expertise and coordination, much like existing offices focused on environmental protection, consumer affairs, or civil rights. To claim that addressing gun violence uniquely risks politicization is either deeply disingenuous or profoundly misguided.

The Moral Failure of Incrementalism

While Nevada made positive changes to its victims of crime program—extending application deadlines and broadening evidence requirements for compensation—these are reactive measures. They help after tragedies occur but do nothing to prevent them. Assemblymember Erica Roth’s legislation deserves praise for supporting victims, but we must ask why we’re better at cleaning up after shootings than preventing them.

The Giffords organization noted these victim compensation improvements aren’t factored into their scorecard rankings because they don’t prevent violence. This distinction is crucial: good governance requires both caring for victims and preventing future victimization. Nevada’s leadership has embraced the former while systematically rejecting the latter.

The National Implications

Nevada’s struggle mirrors national patterns where common-sense gun measures face opposition based on ideological purity tests rather than practical considerations. The data consistently shows that states with stronger gun laws have lower gun death rates. This isn’t speculation—it’s evidence-based policy making. Yet some politicians continue to prioritize NRA report cards over human lives.

Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt, leads the organization grading states. Her personal experience with gun violence lends moral authority to this cause. When someone who took a bullet to the head advocates for reasonable gun laws, we should listen carefully rather than dismissing her work as “ideological advocacy.”

A Call to Conscience and Constitution

The fundamental question facing Nevada—and America—is whether we value weapons more than human lives. The Second Amendment exists within a constitutional framework that prioritizes life, liberty and happiness. When gun rights impede these fundamental values, we must adjust the balance.

I implore Nevada’s leaders to reconsider their obstructionism. Meet with UNLV students who’ve experienced gun violence. Listen to families who’ve buried loved ones. Examine the data showing what works in other states. Then muster the courage to place human dignity above political expediency.

Our constitutional democracy requires compromise and practical problem-solving. The current stalemate on gun violence prevention represents a failure of both. Until lawmakers prioritize their constituents’ safety over partisan loyalty, the bloodshed will continue—and history will judge this era as one where we possessed solutions but lacked the will to implement them.

The time for empty rhetoric has passed. The time for courageous action is now. Nevada’s children, students, families, and future deserve nothing less than leaders willing to protect them from preventable violence.