Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Court Carry: documentation

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721

    Court Carry: documentation

    http://www.washoecourts.com/AdminOrd...Y%20POLICY.pdf

    Cliff notes for those of you without PDF access...

    This joint administrative order from the four chief judges of the 2nd judicial district court (Washoe/Reno/Sparks) orders no weapons of any kind except LEOs performing duties, orders searches of persons entering, orders removal of persons declining consent to search, and orders "persons in violation" to be held in contempt.

    It's a clear-cut run around state pre-emption and nice evidence that they have a policy of depriving people of their civil rights. Only the state can regulate possession of firearms. You can't be held in contempt of a court order if you've never been served the order.

    Am I a "person in violation" if I show up to file my pleading with my Glock on my hip? If I am unarmed but decline consent to search? What a complete crock.
    Last edited by Yard Sale; 06-26-2012 at 01:52 PM.

  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 07:25 PM. Reason: photo insert

  3. #3
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Just another example of judges making law. They have ignored their oath of office and need to be impeached.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  4. #4
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    The sign posted by OC-moto450r says: "By direction of the Nevada Supreme Court..." Have I been asleep sometime and missed the ruling/case by the Nevada Supreme Court that "directs" such action?

    Anyway, it's been my experience that judges do whatever the hell judges want to do. North Las Vegas Municipal Court Judges are a prime example. They have established rules for that court and its administrative surrounds that are so onerous that one might as well already be in jail when they show up at the court-house to conduct any type of business. And... when the staff there are questioned about the lunacy of such orders, they simply reply that the judges have ordered it and that's the way things are here.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Chemical and biological weapons are A-OK !

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rollbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    http://www.washoecourts.com/AdminOrd...Y%20POLICY.pdf

    Cliff notes for those of you without PDF access...

    This joint administrative order from the four chief judges of the 2nd judicial district court (Washoe/Reno/Sparks) orders no weapons of any kind except LEOs performing duties, orders searches of persons entering, orders removal of persons declining consent to search, and orders "persons in violation" to be held in contempt.

    It's a clear-cut run around state pre-emption and nice evidence that they have a policy of depriving people of their civil rights. Only the state can regulate possession of firearms. You can't be held in contempt of a court order if you've never been served the order.

    Am I a "person in violation" if I show up to file my pleading with my Glock on my hip? If I am unarmed but decline consent to search? What a complete crock.

    Might be a stupid question but does this also apply to Fallon? I did not see anything pertaining except TownShip of which I don't think it allpies but some of these morons might think so.

    Thanks,
    Jim

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •