Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo put his veto pen to work once again – this time killing two of the most aggressive gun control bills passed by the Democratic-controlled state legislature. As reported by Steve Sebelius of KTNV Channel 13, Lombardo has now vetoed 33 bills in the 2025 session, including Assembly Bill 245 and Senate Bill 89, both of which targeted lawful firearm ownership in ways Lombardo found unconstitutional, excessive, and ineffective.
In doing so, Lombardo reaffirmed what many see as his role as a critical check on legislative overreach. His vetoes, particularly on these two gun bills, have been met with praise by gun rights advocates and sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers who had reintroduced versions of previously rejected proposals.
AB 245: The Semi-Auto Age Ban That Failed Again
Assembly Bill 245, brought forward by Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui, D-Clark County, sought to ban possession of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for anyone under the age of 21. The bill made it a gross misdemeanor for a legal adult under 21 to simply handle or possess common firearms such as a semi-auto shotgun, one often used for waterfowl hunting.
Lombardo vetoed a similar bill in 2023 and made it clear in his 2025 veto letter that AB 245 was not only redundant but went even further. “This bill is facially overbroad,” Lombardo wrote, noting that it would ban the use of common hunting firearms among young adults who lawfully enjoy sports shooting and wildlife activities.
The text of AB 245 confirms his concerns. It criminalized gun possession for anyone under 21, with exceptions only for military, law enforcement, or those participating in regulated competitions or hunting. Even lawful handling at home was tightly restricted. The bill also imposed harsh penalties on those who sold firearms to anyone under 21.
SB 89: Hate Crime Label Sparks Firearm Ban Debate
Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Pazina, aimed to prohibit firearm possession for anyone convicted of a hate crime involving violence, even if the original crime wasn’t related to guns. Under the bill’s language, a conviction for a gross misdemeanor hate crime could result in a 10-year ban on Second Amendment rights.
Lombardo vetoed a similar bill in 2023, and once again found fault with SB 89. In his veto message, he argued that the bill was “critically flawed” because it attempted to strip constitutional rights for crimes that had no connection to firearms. He warned that this created a dangerous precedent for punishing political expression.
In the full bill text, SB 89’s broad wording indeed raised concerns. A person could be banned from firearm ownership even for vandalism or threats if deemed hate-motivated. As the governor noted, no other constitutional right would be taken away for a similar offense – not speech, not voting, not religion – only the right to bear arms.
Gun Rights Advocates Applaud the Governor’s Stand
William, host of Copper Jacket TV, praised Lombardo’s actions in a recent video. He called AB 245 “absolutely terrible” and SB 89 “disproportionate,” emphasizing that young adults who can vote, enlist, and marry should not be arbitrarily blocked from exercising one of their constitutional rights.
“What makes this so frustrating,” William explained, “is that these bills are aimed at law-abiding people… people who are just trying to enjoy their rights responsibly.” He pointed out that SB 89’s 10-year ban could apply even for non-violent actions like graffiti, if categorized as hate-motivated.
His commentary echoed Lombardo’s main argument: punishment must fit the crime. Removing someone’s right to self-defense or sport shooting for a misdemeanor with no firearm involved, William said, was “overreach, plain and simple.”
Democrats Reintroduce Rejected Bills – and Lose Again
According to KTNV’s Steve Sebelius, this year’s AB 245 and SB 89 were nearly identical to 2023 bills vetoed by Lombardo. But Democratic lawmakers pushed ahead anyway, defending their decision as a matter of principle.
Sebelius reported that Democratic sponsors felt obligated to keep fighting for public safety, even if the governor opposed their methods. Still, the repeated failure to pass these measures into law has raised questions about the efficiency of Nevada’s legislative process – and how deeply divided state leaders remain on gun policy.
Gun Control Laws Shouldn’t Be a Game of Repetition
Here’s what’s fascinating to me: these weren’t brand new ideas. Lawmakers knew the governor had already rejected nearly identical proposals. They didn’t modify them meaningfully – they just sent them up again, hoping something would change.
This raises the question: are these efforts genuine attempts at policy reform, or are they political messaging tools meant to make headlines during an election cycle? If safety is truly the goal, shouldn’t legislators be working with the governor to find workable solutions instead of just submitting copy-paste legislation and hoping for a different outcome?
Veto Messages Show Sharp Legal Reasoning
Lombardo’s veto letters didn’t just say “no.” They made legal arguments grounded in constitutional interpretation. For AB 245, he wrote that banning semi-automatic shotguns for adults under 21 was unjustified and would criminalize everyday sporting practices. He cited overbreadth and pointed out that Nevada already prohibits handgun purchases by those under 21, which makes further restrictions unnecessary.
For SB 89, his legal critique was even sharper. He warned of the slippery slope involved in stripping rights based on politically charged crimes. “There is no nexus to firearms,” he wrote, highlighting how the bill infringed on a core constitutional liberty without clear justification.
These were not emotional rejections – they were rooted in precedent and proportionality.
Nevada as a Firewall Against California-Style Gun Control
William from Copper Jacket TV placed these developments in a broader context. “Nevada borders California,” he said, “and Democrats here are trying to bring in California-style gun control. But Lombardo is holding the line.”
He referred to California, Oregon, and Washington as the “blue wall,” with restrictive ideologies that threaten to spill eastward. Nevada, he argued, is a battleground where the outcome affects not just its own citizens, but possibly policy debates nationwide.
Whether you agree or not, it’s a fair point: states like Nevada can influence the national Second Amendment conversation based on how they resist or adopt blue-state firearm policies.
Vetoed, But Not Forgotten – What Comes Next?
While AB 245 and SB 89 are now dead, that doesn’t mean the fight is over. As Sebelius noted in his KTNV report, Democrats continue to reintroduce these ideas every session. It’s possible they’ll return with tweaks or be bundled with other legislation to force compromise.
One more bill, AB 105, which would ban guns at polling places, is still awaiting the governor’s decision. Lombardo vetoed a similar bill in 2023, but that one included ghost gun provisions. Whether he finds the new version less objectionable remains to be seen.
A Critical Role for Checks and Balances
For now, Lombardo’s vetoes show that Nevada’s executive branch still has teeth. The governor isn’t rubber-stamping every bill that passes through a supermajority legislature. In William’s words, it’s good to see that “checks and balances are working.”
Without Lombardo’s intervention, Nevada might have already enacted a semi-auto age ban and a decade-long firearms prohibition based on subjective motivations in misdemeanor crimes. These aren’t minor changes – they’re serious threats to individual liberty, especially when they target rights with vague or political definitions.
A Win for Gun Owners, a Message to Lawmakers
In one week and with two strokes of a pen, Governor Joe Lombardo shut down two of the most controversial gun control bills in the state. Whether you’re a gun rights supporter or not, these actions reflect a critical balancing act between government power and personal freedom.
Democrats will likely be back next session with similar ideas, but for now, gun owners in Nevada can breathe a little easier. As William of Copper Jacket TV put it, “any progress is good progress” – especially when it means preserving rights, not limiting them.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.