• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

John Ralston and sheriff tonite sent a note. ralston is a idiot it seems.

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
As to the state killing the chicken, that didn't work for other places such as NLV, did it?

Well, the "chicken" became a zombie... walking dead... because whatever the state actually did is still very much in question and that is why such "places as NLV" still hold on to their ordinances. Such a situation as we have also needs to be "fixed" and "fixed" totally and unequivocally by the STATE.
 

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
It's not a state law, it's a loophole in state law.

You are absolutely correct and I wouldn’t argue any differently. However, the STATE certainly created the nutrient rich environment by which the County was allowed to spawn its ordinance. Now that it has been “allowed” to require the registration of firearms, why would it want to do otherwise? I thoroughly understand taking a position that calls into question the cost and crime reduction efficiency of the ordinance, but as an analogy, that same position hasn’t had much affect on curtailing the DUI checkpoints within Clark County. For it’s a known fact that the resources and methods used for DUI checkpoints catch far less drunk drivers than would normal patrolling during the same time period. It’s not about the efficient use of resources; it’s about the perception of what those resources are accomplishing, be it DUI checkpoints or firearm registration… both a “good” thing in the eyes of many, no matter the “waste” of resources.
Okay… I’m done here. I’ll just leave with this final thought… the State Legislators obviously wanted Clark County to be allowed to have a firearm registration ordinance. I don’t think that point can be argued. They certainly didn’t believe the County would be so benevolent as to NOT have one, considering the history and all. I’m of the opinion then that the “attack” on this ordinance should be at the state level, not with the County Commissioners. But… that’s just my opinion and others will differ.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
You are absolutely correct and I wouldn’t argue any differently. However, the STATE certainly created the nutrient rich environment by which the County was allowed to spawn its ordinance. Now that it has been “allowed” to require the registration of firearms, why would it want to do otherwise? I thoroughly understand taking a position that calls into question the cost and crime reduction efficiency of the ordinance, but as an analogy, that same position hasn’t had much affect on curtailing the DUI checkpoints within Clark County. For it’s a known fact that the resources and methods used for DUI checkpoints catch far less drunk drivers than would normal patrolling during the same time period. It’s not about the efficient use of resources; it’s about the perception of what those resources are accomplishing, be it DUI checkpoints or firearm registration… both a “good” thing in the eyes of many, no matter the “waste” of resources.
Okay… I’m done here. I’ll just leave with this final thought… the State Legislators obviously wanted Clark County to be allowed to have a firearm registration ordinance. I don’t think that point can be argued. They certainly didn’t believe the County would be so benevolent as to NOT have one, considering the history and all. I’m of the opinion then that the “attack” on this ordinance should be at the state level, not with the County Commissioners. But… that’s just my opinion and others will differ.

Actually, yes, it CAN be argued. Specifically, the first version of preemption was total state preemption. It met with resistance from special interest groups, and from anti-gun legislators who held committee power. The exemptions were carved out so it would actually pass.

State legislators were 'mixed' in what they wanted. We got the fruits of that, which was incomplete preemption.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Elements of truth everywhere here.

Remember, however, the Clark County handgun registration scheme/ordinance was enacted by the County decades before the state legislature enacted preemption. And the 'grandfather' clause (in the preemption bills) came about LARGELY because of heavy-handed lobbying by the Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Ass'n (which, no doubt, was because of the historically anti-gun Clark County sheriffs.)

I certainly agree we should pursue the "fix" in the state legislature - I doubt the Clark County Commissioners will ever do anything.
 
Last edited:

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
.... And the 'grandfather' clause (in the preemption bills) came about LARGELY because of heavy-handed lobbying by the Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Ass'n (which, no doubt, was because of the historically anti-gun Clark County sheriffs.)

So we finally agree the Sheriffs and Chiefs are not exactly the best of friends when it comes to the 2-A. Can you tell me as a board member your thoughts on why the NVFAC will not oppose the Sheriffs and Chiefs, Much less write them a letter requesting information pursuant to NRS 239?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
So we finally agree the Sheriffs and Chiefs are not exactly the best of friends when it comes to the 2-A. Can you tell me as a board member your thoughts on why the NVFAC will not oppose the Sheriffs and Chiefs, Much less write them a letter requesting information pursuant to NRS 239?

I am not aware of ANYONE who thought they were 'best of friends when it comes to the 2-A.'
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
So we finally agree the Sheriffs and Chiefs are not exactly the best of friends when it comes to the 2-A. Can you tell me as a board member your thoughts on why the NVFAC will not oppose the Sheriffs and Chiefs, Much less write them a letter requesting information pursuant to NRS 239?

Finally agree??? Astute readers of this forum will recall I've always said the NSCA is not our friend on 2nd Amendment issues. As you no doubt know, I've been at odds with them on many occasions since 2007.

I've also said that some individual sheriffs are pretty good, but the NSCA (as a group - especially when Frank Adams was the Executive Director) was not good.

As to a letter/NRS 239, I'm not recalling your specifics; link to previous discussion? And please do contact NVFAC directly. (No, I am not "putting you off", but I am simply one guy - best to go straight to the Board/Pres. After all, I am not the NVFAC official spokesman.)
 
Last edited:

jfrey123

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
468
Location
Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
Back to topic: Calling registration a state law borders on completely inaccurate, as the state only allows Clark County to maintain their existing registration. Evidence?

12.04.200 - Registration of firearms capable of being concealed.permanent link to this piece of content

It is unlawful for any person with at least sixty days of residency in the county to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a pistol or other firearm capable of being concealed, unless the same has first been registered with the sheriff or with a police department of any of the incorporated cities of Clark County.

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16214&stateId=28&stateName=Nevada


Me thinks if registration was a state law, it wouldn't be covered under a county code. Maybe this public figure needs to be reminded of this.
 

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
Back to topic: Calling registration a state law borders on completely inaccurate, as the state only allows Clark County to maintain their existing registration. Evidence?

12.04.200 - Registration of firearms capable of being concealed.permanent link to this piece of content

It is unlawful for any person with at least sixty days of residency in the county to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a pistol or other firearm capable of being concealed, unless the same has first been registered with the sheriff or with a police department of any of the incorporated cities of Clark County.

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16214&stateId=28&stateName=Nevada


Me thinks if registration was a state law, it wouldn't be covered under a county code. Maybe this public figure needs to be reminded of this.

You have stated the "obvious" and no one is disagreeing that "the law" (firearm registration) IS the county's law. If one doesn't follow "the law," the County will come after you, not the State. However, without the State law that has granted the County "permission" to have such a law, well... ? So, the matter becomes not which jurisdiction (State or County) is the operative one, but where to "attack" it. There will be much disagreement on that issue. And for someone, "public figure," or not, to suggest that the situation "exists" because of State law, is totally accurate. Change the State law and you have erradicated the County Code. Change the County Code and there's still the State law that could perhaps come back sometime in the future and bite all in the ass again... perhaps...perhaps. In my opion Ralston (whom I have no allegiance to), was simply implying that it is the State that has ultimate "control" of this situation.
 
Last edited:

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
You have stated the "obvious" and no one is disagreeing that "the law" (firearm registration) IS the county's law. If one doesn't follow "the law," the County will come after you, not the State. However, without the State law that has granted the County "permission" to have such a law, well... ? So, the matter becomes not which jurisdiction (State or County) is the operative one, but where to "attack" it. There will be much disagreement on that issue. And for someone, "public figure," or not, to suggest that the situation "exists" because of State law, is totally accurate. Change the State law and you have erradicated the County Code. Change the County Code and there's still the State law that could perhaps come back sometime in the future and bite all in the ass again... perhaps...perhaps. In my opion Ralston (whom I have no allegiance to), was simply implying that it is the State that has ultimate "control" of this situation.

So then why are we boycotting the shooting park and other county things? We have to start someplace and local is the place in this case because the state boys are not in session every year. So we get it out of the county now and the do the state when in session.

And for my opinion ralston was in no way thinking like you said. I would be more inclined that he thinks the blue card is statewide.
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
So then why are we boycotting the shooting park and other county things? We have to start someplace and local is the place in this case because the state boys are not in session every year. So we get it out of the county now and the do the state when in session.

And for my opinion ralston was in no way thinking like you said. I would be more inclined that he thinks the blue card is statewide.

Steve, the Blue Card registration is but one issue with the county. Even if this was not in play with regard to Clark County, we still have them thumbing the old shnoz at state pre-emption with regard to county buildings, parks and such. Still reason to boycott the park. No one has said that Clark County has no culpability with regards to blue card, simply that the state has allowed the county to have this law and restricts the remainder of the state from having same. They make us in Clark County, by state statute, less of a citizen then in any other county.

What would you say if the state came back now and said because the Reno/Sparks area has grown so large that they too can have gun registration? No matter how you look at it, it would be state authorization.

Let's go after the laws with whatever method we can, state, local or court.

TBG
 
Top