“If people don’t read things, the people that are trying to sell us questions on a referendum, even a good friend of mine like Mike Bloomberg, you still need to take responsibility for reading things, knowing what they say and in this particular case I don’t think anyone does know the extent of the overreach that would allow,” Wynn said.
Via Fox Business:
Nevada is one of four states, along with California, Maine and Washington, where voters will decide on November 8 whether to enact tougher laws against firearms purchases.
CEO Steve Wynn, of Wynn Resorts (WYNN), said gun laws are “fuzzy, inappropriate” and include things that overstep any constitutional protection people are entitled to have.
“If you committed to a mental institution which is part of the public record, fair enough. If you’ve committed a violent crime and you’re a real serious felony, not a white collar crime, I think no one would argue with that. But that’s not what the law says and that’s what we are dealing with so often, the expansion of regulatory power,” Wynn said during an interview FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto.
Gun control advocates want to close any loopholes in the federal system that allow ineligible felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill to purchase a firearm from private sellers at gun shows and online without a background check.
“I think that on the face of it, this law and the regulations applying to gun control are now and gun registration on sales includes things that overstep any constitutional protections that people should have,” Wynn said.
Wynn has given the Nevadans for Background Checks initiative $50,000 for tighter background checks for gun purchases and transfers in Nevada. However, after speaking with two of his executives, Wynn found questions within the proposal that would disqualify many from owning a gun.
“If you’ve got testosterone without a prescription, you have to either lie when you ask the question or you tell the truth and in either case you are now a second-class citizen and your constitutional right under the Second Amendment is gone. That to me, it doesn’t meet the test that the former Supreme Court would have agreed is beyond the limits of the regulatory agency,” he said.
Read more here.