By Sen. Scott Hammond, Sen. Keith Pickard, Assemblyman Tom Roberts, Assemblywoman Melissa Hardy and Assemblyman Glen Leavitt

All of us here at the Legislature are fathers, mothers, siblings or spouses. All of us have people who depend on us, people who love us and whom we love fiercely in return. We are teachers, plumbers, ranchers, social workers, realtors, business professionals. We engage in public service in order to make our communities safer and stronger, and to make sure that the Nevada of today gives our children the same opportunities that it has given us.

All of us are devastated every time there is a mass shooting. It affects our national consciousness and shakes us to the core. Historically, Nevada has led the country in working across party lines to pass sensible gun legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them – be they those whose mental health is under question or those who have restraining orders filed against them.

At the start of this session, we all knew there would be more legislation coming forward regarding this issue. We all hoped, as in the past, that we could have meaningful conversations and come up with laws that would continue to be a national model. We all endeavored to continue Nevada’s legacy as a leader in bipartisanship — and doing what is best for our entire state.

Instead, we got a poorly thought out and rushed-through piece of legislation, all too similar to Question 1 from the 2016 ballot — and which the then-attorney general found was unenforceable. There were serious issues with the language then, and they unfortunately remained in the final version of the SB 143, which the governor has signed.

There is no reason to believe that this bill won’t be wrapped up in lawsuits calling for clarification and interpretation of ambiguous and conflicting language. It will almost certainly have to be revisited by the Legislature in future sessions. This is what happens when a bill is rushed through in the name of politics. (Look no further than the Affordable Care Act. Congress is still working out kinks, states are still struggling with implementation, and health care is still unaffordable to far too many Americans.) And, much like the ACA, everyone had to wait until the eve of the bill’s passage to find out what was in it.

Our colleagues across the aisle responded to our concerns by repeatedly saying we have to “do something.” It was said throughout that week that “doing something is better than doing nothing.”

It is?

That may be true in many areas of life, but it certainly is not true in legislative politics – our state is already overrun with laws, rules, and regulations that do more to hinder than help. Just ask anyone who has ever owned a small business. Sometimes, the best option is to take the time to listen to people of good faith on both sides and come up with something that works for all Nevadans, not just a particular out-of-state political lobby.

Proponents took the opportunity to bring forward some who had been victims of gun violence. That brought a level of emotion to the entire proceeding that most bills don’t inspire. Our hearts were with every person who testified during the committee hearing and who sat in the gallery during the floor debates and votes. These victims earned our sympathy and our respect for taking the time to participate in the process on an issue about which they were passionate.

But the sad truth is that most of the people who appeared before us would not have had their loved ones saved by the provisions of SB 143. That’s because most of our mass shootings come from people who have either stolen the firearms used, or who obtained them in a legal way that nobody would ever have thought to red-flag.

It also seemed to be forgotten or dismissed during the hearings that Nevada is far more than the glitzy Las Vegas Strip. Most of our state is rural — and in our rural communities, sportsmanship is and always has been part of their culture. Yes, the majority of the population resides in Clark County, and yes, Question 1 did pass by 0.45 percent, but when we make laws, we have to remember that we are making laws for the entire state, not just one specific county.

It should also be noted that the process of passing SB 143 was fundamentally flawed. We often vote on bills that were introduced same-day or within just a few days. That’s not unusual. And yes, we often have joint committee hearings to expedite the process. The Legislature is only given 120 days to complete their business and this expedited processing sometimes becomes necessary. But that generally does not apply to bills concerning constitutional protections, major issues of the day, and legislation that carries with it a huge amount of emotional baggage and possible unintended consequences.

Our colleagues claimed to welcome amendments that would fix some of the legal flaws in the bill (for example, what is the definition of “transfer”?) But when the reasonable amendments came to the floor — amendments that both sides could have supported — they were summarily dismissed by the majority. There was none of the bi-partisanship that was promised on the first day of session. SB 143 was apparently preordained to pass without any necessary corrections.

The lack of time afforded to the issue also does a disservice to the people of Nevada. It denied them the time and opportunity to engage with their elected officials in a meaningful way, and also denied them the opportunity to examine for themselves what impact this bill would have on them and on their lives. In truth, it simply gave Nevadans more of the same dysfunction they experienced after the 2016 ballot effort.

So, we are forced to ask ourselves, what is the real result of this legislation? Who actually feels the effects of this? It won’t be the victims of gun violence – it will be the legal gun-owner, the mothers and fathers who seek a firearm to protect themselves and their families, and the rural communities that have long embraced a culture of sportsmanship.

Nevada could have done better, and SB 143 could have been written with all Nevada families in mind, rather than passing a measure bought and paid for by a New York City billionaire. Nevada deserves better. Victims, survivors and their families deserve better.

All of us would have voted for sensible legislation had the opportunity been presented to us. None of us ever want to see children gunned down in a school or community space ever again. But we can’t do something for the sake of doing something – it doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way. The citizens of this state deserve the very best the Nevada Legislature can do, and SB 143 fell well short of that mark.

Sen. Scott Hammond represents Senate District 18. Sen. Keith Pickard represents Senate District 20. Assemblyman Tom Roberts represents Assembly District 13. Assemblywoman Melissa Hardy represents Assembly District 22. Assemblyman Glen Leavitt represents Assembly District 23.