After the recent tragic shooting at Florida State University that left two people dead, politicians across the country — including Nevada — are once again pushing for stricter gun control laws.
But many Nevadans are asking the same question: Will these new laws actually stop criminals, or just punish responsible gun owners?
Senator Catherine Cortez Masto released a statement following the FSU shooting, saying, “My heart goes out to the victims, their families, and the entire Florida State community that has been shattered by an act of senseless gun violence.”
She also thanked first responders who acted quickly to stop the situation from getting worse.
But now, in the middle of Nevada’s 2025 legislative session, that tragedy is being used to promote a slate of new gun restrictions — three major bills that aim to tighten the rules on gun ownership across the state.
Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui, who survived the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, is sponsoring two of those bills — AB 105 and AB 245.
In her words, “It is not my fault that I survived… I have a new fire to never give up, the fights make our communities safer.”
No one doubts her sincerity. What happened on One October was horrific.
But that doesn’t mean every law proposed in the name of “safety” will actually make us safer.
What’s in the Bills?
AB 105 would make it illegal to carry a firearm within 100 feet of a polling location, unless you’re law enforcement.
Jauregui says, “No one should fear going to the polling booth… because someone with a firearm is targeting or threatening the most fundamental American right.”
That sounds serious. But here’s the thing — there is no evidence that legal gun owners in Nevada are showing up to polling places to threaten or intimidate voters.
What this bill really does is create more “gun-free zones” — and history shows that criminals don’t obey those signs. All it really does is disarm the very people who follow the law.
AB 245 would ban anyone under the age of 21 from buying or even possessing a semi-automatic firearm. Violators could be charged with a gross misdemeanor.
But 18-year-olds are considered adults. They can vote, get married, sign contracts, and serve in the military — where they carry rifles every day.
So why can’t they be trusted to own one here at home?
Senate Bill 89, sponsored by Senator Julie Pazina, adds another layer. It would ban people convicted of hate crimes from owning guns.
Her reasoning? “Without action, hate will continue to turn lethal, tearing apart families and communities in an instant.”
Again — on the surface, this sounds like common sense. But the definition of a “hate crime” can be broad and sometimes political.
In some cases, people have been charged with hate crimes for things like graffiti or social media posts. If we start taking away constitutional rights based on loose definitions, it opens the door for abuse.
Do These Laws Work?
Here’s the bigger picture: Gun control laws often sound good but don’t stop crime.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws. They steal weapons, buy them illegally, or get someone else to buy them.
According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, more than 90% of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms — not ones purchased legally at a gun store.
Meanwhile, cities with the toughest gun laws — like Chicago and Baltimore — still have some of the highest rates of gun violence. So clearly, the laws themselves aren’t solving the problem.
What does work?
Enforcing existing laws, increasing penalties for gun crimes, and giving police and prosecutors the tools to go after violent offenders — without making life harder for responsible citizens.
Second Amendment Rights at Risk
Supporters of the bills say they just want to protect communities. But gun rights advocates argue these proposals go too far and create more problems than they solve.
As one local Nevada gun shop owner told us, “We’ve already got background checks, waiting periods, and age restrictions. These new laws won’t stop the bad guys — they’ll just make it harder for young adults and working families to defend themselves.”
Groups like the Nevada Firearms Coalition are watching these bills closely and warning that they could be the first step toward even more restrictive laws down the road.
The Bottom Line
We all want safer communities. But real safety comes from enforcing the laws we already have, targeting actual criminals, and respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Laws like AB 105, AB 245, and SB 89 may sound good to lawmakers in Carson City.
But to many Nevadans, they’re just more government overreach — using tragedy to push an agenda that doesn’t get to the root of the problem.
Because in the end, it’s not the gun — it’s the person pulling the trigger.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
