Today, Governor Joe Lombardo issued his first series of vetoes of SB171, AB354, and AB355 which arrived to his desk on Monday, following votes in the Senate and Assembly on party lines. The Office of the Governor returned the bills, along with letters from Governor Lombardo explaining his veto justification, to the Senate and Assembly this morning. (see below)

“I will not support legislation that infringes on the constitutional rights of Nevadans,” said Governor Joe Lombardo. “As I stated in my letters, much of the legislation I vetoed today is in direct conflict with legal precedent and established constitutional protections. Therefore, I cannot support them.”

After the series of vetoes, Democrats held a press conference referring to the Governor’s actions as “shameful” and accused the Governor of working on behalf of the “extremist national gun lobby.”

To note, Nevadans overwhelmingly want Voter ID, school choice and school safety, but each of the Governor’s five legislative proposals addressing these issues have been killed by the Democratic majority. In response, the Governor has vowed another veto of the state budget unless his proposals are heard.

The Democratic sponsor of AB355, Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui (AD-41), repeated the “gun lobby” talking points even though her legislation would have likely resulted in a successful legal challenge.

As noted in the Governor’s response to Democratic Assembly Majority Leader Steve Yeager (AD-9):

“AB 355 is presumably intended to decrease gun violence in communities across the state – an admirable goal.  However, last year, in Jones v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to adults younger than 21.  In a 2-1 panel decision, the court found that the Second Amendment “protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them.”  This ruling was subsequently vacated by the Ninth Circuit so the trial court could readdress its legal findings after the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).  In Bruen, the Court held that gun restrictions are constitutional only insofar as there is a tradition of such regulation in United States history. The United States has little, if any, tradition of entirely prohibiting the possession of semi-automatic firearms to those under 21 years of age. Additionally, this month, a federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, noting that the Second Amendment’s protections “extend in full to law-abiding adults aged eighteen or older[,]” ruled that there was insufficient support for the proposition “that restrictions on the purchasing [and possession] of firearms by 18-20 year olds is part of our Nation’s history and tradition.”

Governor’s response to AB354:

Governor’s response to SB171: