Nevada’s gun rights just scored a crucial victory—courtesy of enlightened limited‑government principles that respect personal defense and constitutional protections. A federal settlement ensures devices that make semiautomatic rifles fire like fully automatic “machine guns” won’t reach Nevadans. These “forced reset triggers” had even earned a nod from federal agencies, until a coalition of 16 states, Nevada led by Attorney General Aaron Ford, reversed course. Ford—who was acting in defense of public safety, given Nevada’s history with mass shootings—said “these forms of devices…are against our law” and pledged to keep them out of the Silver State  .

While the federal government agreed to return the devices in other states, it recognized Nevada’s legal prohibition, honoring state sovereignty over Second Amendment interpretation (). This is no small matter—when Washington overreaches, state-level governance must step in. For our part, we celebrate this win but remain realistic: borders are porous, and devices banned in Utah could sneak into Mesquite. It’s a reminder that national security starts at home, at the local level, where enforcement and accountability matter most ().

Now comes the hard part: fighting off future schemes to undermine lawful gun ownership. The federal settlement is temporary; Congress holds the true authority. Nevada’s stand is more than symbolic—it’s a pushback against one-size-fits-all federal overreach—and a model for states that value individual liberty without compromising public safety. We’ve won this round, but the battle over who has the right to bear arms and define freedom continues. Readers, what’s your view on Nevada’s approach—smart checks on federal power, or compromising safety?

Original source: KTNV & NBC/MyNews4

Copyright 2025 702 Times, NV Globe. All rights reserved.