Is this a veto message or a talk radio script?

The objections lodged by Gov. Brian Sandoval to a bill that would have required background checks for gun sales between private parties are notable primarily because they’re mostly wrong.

Sandoval vetoed Senate Bill 221 on Thursday, listing his criticisms of the measure in a three-page veto message that probably was not cut-and-pasted from a limited distribution Second Amendment newsletter but might as well have been.

First, “the provisions of Senate Bill 221 pertaining to background checks for the private sale and transfer of firearms constitute an erosion of Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and may subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution.”

It’s one thing for the panoply of gun lovers who came to the Legislature warning of gun-grabbing government officials to object on constitutional grounds. They’re wrong, of course, but untrained in jurisprudence. But the governor is a lawyer, a former attorney general and a former federal judge. He knows better.

Background checks have been repeatedly upheld by courts as constitutional. Currently, when buying a weapon from a licensed firearms dealer, you must undergo a background check. SB221 would have simply extended the background check to include sales or transfers between private parties.

To accept the governor’s argument, it’s constitutional if I buy a gun in a gun store and undergo a background check, but it’s an unconstitutional erosion of my Second Amendment rights if I buy a gun from some guy in the parking lot of that same gun store? That’s simply ridiculous.

Second, “the bill mandates that a private person wishing to sell a firearm to a family member must request a background check through a federally licensed firearms dealer.”

But the bill says — at Section 7.8(4) — “The provisions of NRS 202.254 do not apply to: a transfer of a firearm that is a gift or loan between family members who are related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree.” So you don’t need a background check to give your gun to a family member, only if you sell it. (The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Justin Jones, D-Las Vegas, said he’d have been happy to exempt gun sales between family members if that meant quelling opposition, but we all know it wouldn’t have changed a thing.)

Third, the bill changes a legal standard. “Existing law requires ‘actual knowledge’ by the seller that the buyer meets disqualifying conditions or is otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm,” Sandoval wrote. “Senate Bill 221 alters this burden of proof from ‘actual knowledge’ to ‘reasonable cause to believe,’ potentially exposing additional law-abiding Nevadans to criminal prosecution.”

But how “law-abiding” are you if you’re selling a weapon to someone you reasonably believe shouldn’t be able to own a gun? The current standard requires the seller to have seen proof a person was convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally incompetent. You could sell a gun to a man wearing an orange prison jumpsuit with a handcuff dangling from one wrist and not be in violation because you have no “actual knowledge” of the man’s criminal past. “Reasonable cause to believe” is a tighter standard, but a justifiable one. And it’s notable that this provision was in the bill from its first iteration, and it raised no significant objections during myriad hearings on the measure.

Fourth, and finally, Sandoval says “many law-enforcement professionals agree that Senate Bill 221 does not appropriately or effectively address the serious concerns at hand.”

Many? Sandoval cites only the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, which actually supported the bill until it passed the Senate and was heard in the Assembly. (Bill supporters say the 11th-hour turnaround — a breach of lobbying protocol — was due to the National Rifle Association putting pressure on elected rural sheriffs to oppose the measure.)

Meanwhile, a much longer list of cops supported the bill, including Las Vegas police, the Washoe County and Carson City sheriffs, former Clark County Sheriff Bill Young, ex-Henderson Police Chief Richard Perkins and the Police Protective Association, the union that represents Las Vegas officers.

Sandoval’s veto was expected. The only surprise is he didn’t have better reasons for saying no.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.