Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Letter to Clark County Parks and Park Police

  1. #1
    Regular Member z28power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    143

    Post Letter to Clark County Parks and Park Police

    So, I did a LOT of reading this morning on NRS 244.364 State Preemption, the AG opinion from 2010, CCC 19.04.060, and S.B. 92 and feel that The Attorney General made a mistake in not doing strict interpretation of the law as a court would properly do.

    Basically, CCC 19.04.060 is being used as a scapegoat so that the parks can continue illegally restricting handguns under the guise of being grandfathered out of preemption. Specifically, Clark County Code 19.04.060 states that, "The board of commissioners by resolution shall adopt rules and regulations to govern the individual public parks of Clark County." The Code itself was written as a ordinance regarding the METHOD that rules would be established for individual parks. The code was never, ever, ever, specifically written to restrict firearm possession in a county park. As such, it should not be grandfathered out of State Preemption for firearms, as the rule itself is simply an adopted rule adopted by the Commissioners for these parks. It is true that the resolution of this particular rule was done prior to 1989, which is where you will see Clark County's "go-to move." Clark county is using the fact that one of the rules already posted was regarding possession of firearms as a method of sidestepping State Preemption and continuing to do whatever they wish in contradiction of state law. If you strictly interpret both laws as written, the ordinance is not specifically in regards to firearms, while the NRS 244.364 statute states

    "1.Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the Legislature reserves for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, and no county may infringe upon those rights and powers."

    Clark County Code 19.04.060 is not a specific statute regulating firearms. Therefore the most they can do is in the next paragraph of 244.364:

    "2.  A board of county commissioners may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms."

    I drafted a letter addressed to the County Park Police on the "contact us" page, specifically asking what would be done if confronted by a CC Park Police Officer while Open Carrying. Let me know what you think of this. It needs proofing and revision to ensure the point I am trying to make is clear, while also requesting a specific, official comment on what and how this will be enforced if the time would come.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To whom it may concern:

    As a resident of Nevada for over 20 years, I enjoy Nevada’s Preemption laws regarding Open Carry of Firearms statewide in my everyday life. It has come to my attention that Clark County Parks are continuing to enforce laws that have long since been preempted, and I was curious about the extent to which these laws are being improperly posted & enforced. If I am open carrying, and my daily travels take me to Sunset Park, for example, what would happen if my paths crossed with a Clark County parks police officer on patrol?

    City and state parks have officially recognized state preemption, and have proactively changed signs as well as stopped enforcement of any codes that are negated by NRS 244.364, since any laws restricting firearms are specifically limited to registration of concealable firearms. Furthermore, Clark County 19.04.060 only states the method for adopting rules and regulations by resolution of the County Commissioners. Ref: http://library.municode.com/HTML/162...04.060ESPORURE – although this is an external website, it is referenced by the official clark county website as the latest official and complete listing of county codes & ordinances.

    In this case, grandfathering should not be applicable, since this ordinance was adopted in order to specify the method in which park rules and regulations are adopted, not the individual rules. This is not the intent of the grandfathered exceptions clause during codification of NRS 244.364, as this Code/Ordinance would not be classified as a "specific statute" as mentioned in State preemption. The only thing that would be effectively grandfathered in would be the method with which Commissioners make park rules, this is specifically and strictly what this statute was written for, as can be seen in the language of the ordinance as well as the title of the code. This ordinance was never intended as an explicit method of firearm control, but is now being used as one in an attempt to get around state preemption illegally. As such, 19.04.060 cannot limit restriction of my firearm any further than state law. Furthermore, S.B. 92 (2009), which amended NRS 244.364, specifically limits further and clarifies language to show its intention is clearly to strip the county’s ability to further restrict firearm usage by limiting these restrictions to only discharge and registration of firearms.

    So, on this note, if I were openly carrying my handgun in a secure, holstered fashion at the park, would I be unlawfully detained or arrested in spite of Nevada State Preemption regarding firearm restrictions? As I see that according to State Law NRS 244.364, “no county may infringe upon those rights and powers.”

    I look forward to hearing an official response from you regarding this.

    Sincerely,

    fgdfgfhgsg
    ------------------------------

    Thoughts? Comments?
    Last edited by z28power; 04-08-2014 at 05:59 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Jane Pike is going to get "Snarky" with you, but you go man! I like to see the outrage. Years ago Tim and I were planning a picnic, we painted up injection molded plastic training guns to look realistic, and were going to go have a bBQ with some folks carrying fakes and others real. the idea fizzled. but we were hot on the parks at one time. I have a ton of research if anyone wants to pick up the ball and run.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pointy end and slightly to the left
    Posts
    1,539
    I do applaud your time and effort. With the resent battles won on this I agree it is time to hit this issue again. Looks like you hit the subject well in your letter.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    10
    I wish you luck, Mr. fgdfgfhgsg

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by Speedywrx View Post
    I wish you luck, Mr. fgdfgfhgsg
    You should have heard his teachers try to pronounce that name when taking roll! And telemarketers? Not gonna happen.
    Last edited by b0neZ; 04-09-2014 at 11:59 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528
    deleted
    Last edited by b0neZ; 04-09-2014 at 11:59 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    z28power:

    I too Aplaud You for Your Efforts to Continue to Insist that The Clark County Park and Recreation Department Adhere to Nevada Revised Statute 244.364.

    Nevada Revised Statute 244.364(1) is Clear, in The State REserves for Itself The Regulation of The Possession, etc., of a Firearm and Ammunition for a Firearm, and that no County may Infringe on Those Powers.

    Perhaps You should Consider Challenging The Legality of The Clark County Parks and Recreation Ordinance in Court.

    This was found on The CCRP Website: http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/depts/p...gulations.aspx

    aadvark

  8. #8
    Regular Member z28power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    z28power:

    This was found on The CCRP Website: http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/depts/p...gulations.aspx

    aadvark
    This was found in the park police section, complete with the code listing: Clark County Code 19.04.060, Establishment, posting of rules and regulations.
    http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/a...edtoParks.aspx
    The way they post this on their site makes it seem like the rules below it ARE the ordinance, when in fact they are simply the rules the park makes in accordance with the method set about by 19.04.060.

    In all of your experiences, is this the best way to acknowledge while similarly dismissing this Code and their claim of using it to grandfather in an implicit rule of no firearms, even when the code does not explicitly forbid it and rather only addresses methods the parks use to establish rules? What do you guys think?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    z28power:

    A Plain Reading of Nevada Revised Statute 244.364 should Suffice for Our Purposes here.

    The Terms of NRS 244.364 State '...The State Reserves for Itself...'. There can be NO Mistake of that Language.

    Where Certain Powers were CONFERRED to Clark County, such Power was Limited under Statute to only: 1. Require The Registration of a Firearm which is Capable of being Concealed, under Certain Authority, and 2. to Limit The Unsafe Discharge of a Firearm as Decided upon by The Board of Commissioners.

    Where There are NO Exceptions Authorizing a County to Preclude Possession within its Parklands, The Court would be Hard-Pressed to Rule Otherwise.

    There are NO Revised Statutes that Purport to Limit The Possession of a Firearm within Parks, that I am Aware of.

    The Clark County Board of Commissioners should Act Immediately to Remove any Reolution in Conflict with State Law 244.364, and Align The Enforcement of Firearm-related Matters as is Authorized under only State Law.

    aadvark

    *** ..., and while I am at it..., I found another Rule on The Countys' Website which is Illegal under Preemption Statute. The County Purports to Prohibit a Firearm within The County Courthouse. Again, that is a Violation of NRS 244.364. Under The NRS, a County may Prohibit Concealed Carry within a Courthouse by a Concealed Carry Holder if There is a Security Checkpoint with Metal Detectors, but none of This Applies to or Effects Open Carry. If I Lived in Clark County, and had Money, I would Sue The County for BOTH of These Preemption Violations. ***
    Last edited by aadvark; 04-09-2014 at 02:36 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member z28power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    If I Lived in Clark County, and had Money, I would Sue The County for BOTH of These Preemption Violations. ***
    I unfortunately only can qualify one of these statements, and would need both to move forward aggressively on this.

  11. #11
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by z28power View Post
    I unfortunately only can qualify one of these statements, and would need both to move forward aggressively on this.
    Do these issues need to be addressed? Yes they do. Keep in mind though that you cannot proceed with any kind of action against illegal ordinances or rules unless you have standing. That means you have to be arrested for the supposed violation. The fact that one is a citizen and that these ordinances are on the books does not give you standing.

    Before taking them on, make sure all your ducks are in a row. By that I mean you have the resources to take them on and are willing to pay a personal price for your effort.

    Clark County has made it clear that they don't care what state law is, they are going to do what they want and they will spend whatever it takes to defend their position. Get out your checkbook.

    In order to take them on you need deep pockets behind you. Unfortunately I have been unable to get any of the major firearms rights organizations to back me in my efforts against the City of Henderson and the county. There was some hope I was going to get help but that faded away. Unfortunately it boils down to how much national press the big organizations can get out of the effort.

    My point is not to discourage but to simply make sure that anyone taking this on goes in with eyes wide open. I am willing to share whatever I have learned by my experience and help where I can.

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

  12. #12
    Regular Member z28power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    143
    I was not suggesting I take it on but was emphasizing that I do not have the pockets to do it on my own

    Sent from my phone, so be gentle on my autocorrect spelling mistakes!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    We may get our test case soon. Several people on the FB page have asked about county park carry. And someone on there keeps telling them they will be ok because of the state law. And that the county is just full of hot air and they should go ahead and carry. Stay tuned.

  14. #14
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    I really don't want to throw any more "crap" in here, but isn't the CC Park's "position" similar to the LVMPD's when it comes to OC on "their" property... although they acknowledge the NRS restricting firearm possession specifies CC, they are just operating within the SPIRIT of the statute? Their interpretation of the statue "allows" them to restrict ALL firearms, whether CC or OC, because the statute's intent (from their perspective) was to do just that. They will fight, tooth and nail, to continue their "SPIRITUAL" interpretation of the statute and it WILL take lots of money to challenge them and their slick-suited attorneys... money and time... from my experience in other venues... lots of time... years... which means lots more money.

  15. #15
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    I really don't want to throw any more "crap" in here, but isn't the CC Park's "position" similar to the LVMPD's when it comes to OC on "their" property... although they acknowledge the NRS restricting firearm possession specifies CC, they are just operating within the SPIRIT of the statute? Their interpretation of the statue "allows" them to restrict ALL firearms, whether CC or OC, because the statute's intent (from their perspective) was to do just that. They will fight, tooth and nail, to continue their "SPIRITUAL" interpretation of the statute and it WILL take lots of money to challenge them and their slick-suited attorneys... money and time... from my experience in other venues... lots of time... years... which means lots more money.
    You are absolutely correct. This is exactly what they have told me and several others and I don't see them backing down. Test case + money (lots of it) = victory.

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

  16. #16
    Regular Member z28power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    143
    If this is the case, then we may need to put together something similar to what they did/are doing in the Virginia forums for the Henrico case, where an OCDO forum member was arrested through a clusterf&*( of poor decisions made by LEO following a delayed report of brandishing. Paypal, get other organizations involved, etc. If there ends up being a test case, we don't want case law/court precedent being set against us simply because we couldn't mount an effective offense.

    I'm glad some of of you with experience in interpretation of the law have come in, as I'm still a bit wary regarding the 2010 AG opinion on Preemption as it pertains to the Clark County Code for Parks.(http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvg...GO.pdf#page=80) Most specifically, the legal interprepration that since SB 92 (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/SB/SB92_EN.pdf) only amending sections 3 & 4 of NRS 244.364, Sections 1 and 2 would remain with grandfathering as mentioned the AB 147 of 1989. It can be found in the footer of page 84 regarding the reviser's notes. The fact also remains that when it comes down do it, the AG in 2010 believed that Preemption was still grandfathered by the lack of addressing SPECIFICALLY subsections 1/2, even though the minutes from the initial presentation mention intention to remove ALL grandfathering.
    Here are the minutes from the initial presentation of S.B. 92: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Minu.../Final/548.pdf
    Most notable is a reference on page 7 that specifically acknowledges by the legislators that S.B.92 would "...strike down two Clark County ordinances from 1965..." I have to dig deeper, but assume that one of these ordinances IS 19.04.060? (Upon further examination, it would appear it is not, as it was put into effect in 1967.) Even so, it would seem from that comment that even though the AG mentioned that the bill only modifies subsections 3/4, it would appear that the legislators acknowledged that the bill by committing full uniformity WOULD strike down all Clark County ordinances

    Furthermore, a literal translation of the Preemption law does not specifically allow for an exception in the case of a Clark County code which has a primary purpose of establishing a method for passing and posting park rules. The ordinance itself is not a firearm related ordinance, therefore cannot be considered a "specific statute" that gains grandfathered status.

    I think I'm rambling now. Let me know if I've wandered off course here.

  17. #17
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by z28power View Post
    If this is the case, then we may need to put together something similar to what they did/are doing in the Virginia forums for the Henrico case, where an OCDO forum member was arrested through a clusterf&*( of poor decisions made by LEO following a delayed report of brandishing. Paypal, get other organizations involved, etc. If there ends up being a test case, we don't want case law/court precedent being set against us simply because we couldn't mount an effective offense.

    I'm glad some of of you with experience in interpretation of the law have come in, as I'm still a bit wary regarding the 2010 AG opinion on Preemption as it pertains to the Clark County Code for Parks.(http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvg...GO.pdf#page=80) Most specifically, the legal interprepration that since SB 92 (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/SB/SB92_EN.pdf) only amending sections 3 & 4 of NRS 244.364, Sections 1 and 2 would remain with grandfathering as mentioned the AB 147 of 1989. It can be found in the footer of page 84 regarding the reviser's notes. The fact also remains that when it comes down do it, the AG in 2010 believed that Preemption was still grandfathered by the lack of addressing SPECIFICALLY subsections 1/2, even though the minutes from the initial presentation mention intention to remove ALL grandfathering.
    Here are the minutes from the initial presentation of S.B. 92: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Minu.../Final/548.pdf
    Most notable is a reference on page 7 that specifically acknowledges by the legislators that S.B.92 would "...strike down two Clark County ordinances from 1965..." I have to dig deeper, but assume that one of these ordinances IS 19.04.060? (Upon further examination, it would appear it is not, as it was put into effect in 1967.) Even so, it would seem from that comment that even though the AG mentioned that the bill only modifies subsections 3/4, it would appear that the legislators acknowledged that the bill by committing full uniformity WOULD strike down all Clark County ordinances

    Furthermore, a literal translation of the Preemption law does not specifically allow for an exception in the case of a Clark County code which has a primary purpose of establishing a method for passing and posting park rules. The ordinance itself is not a firearm related ordinance, therefore cannot be considered a "specific statute" that gains grandfathered status.

    I think I'm rambling now. Let me know if I've wandered off course here.
    If you want to get some good insight into the "legislative intent", I suggest you contact former State Senator John Lee, who is now the Mayor of N. Las Vegas, and ask him. It was his bill. He is on our side.

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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pointy end and slightly to the left
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by z28power View Post
    If this is the case, then we may need to put together something similar to what they did/are doing in the Virginia forums for the Henrico case, where an OCDO forum member was arrested through a clusterf&*( of poor decisions made by LEO following a delayed report of brandishing. Paypal, get other organizations involved, etc. If there ends up being a test case, we don't want case law/court precedent being set against us simply because we couldn't mount an effective offense.

    I'm glad some of of you with experience in interpretation of the law have come in, as I'm still a bit wary regarding the 2010 AG opinion on Preemption as it pertains to the Clark County Code for Parks.(http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvg...GO.pdf#page=80) Most specifically, the legal interprepration that since SB 92 (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/SB/SB92_EN.pdf) only amending sections 3 & 4 of NRS 244.364, Sections 1 and 2 would remain with grandfathering as mentioned the AB 147 of 1989. It can be found in the footer of page 84 regarding the reviser's notes. The fact also remains that when it comes down do it, the AG in 2010 believed that Preemption was still grandfathered by the lack of addressing SPECIFICALLY subsections 1/2, even though the minutes from the initial presentation mention intention to remove ALL grandfathering.
    Here are the minutes from the initial presentation of S.B. 92: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Minu.../Final/548.pdf
    Most notable is a reference on page 7 that specifically acknowledges by the legislators that S.B.92 would "...strike down two Clark County ordinances from 1965..." I have to dig deeper, but assume that one of these ordinances IS 19.04.060? (Upon further examination, it would appear it is not, as it was put into effect in 1967.) Even so, it would seem from that comment that even though the AG mentioned that the bill only modifies subsections 3/4, it would appear that the legislators acknowledged that the bill by committing full uniformity WOULD strike down all Clark County ordinances

    Furthermore, a literal translation of the Preemption law does not specifically allow for an exception in the case of a Clark County code which has a primary purpose of establishing a method for passing and posting park rules. The ordinance itself is not a firearm related ordinance, therefore cannot be considered a "specific statute" that gains grandfathered status.

    I think I'm rambling now. Let me know if I've wandered off course here.
    Z28power. Talk is cheap and all I can offer you is talking support. So for what it is worth I want to thank you for launching a new attack on this issue.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    You can get standing without being arrested. I was able to get standing, show harm, and prevail in the sheriffs and chiefs lawsuit. Organize a picnic at Sunset park, pay for a pavilion, 50-100$ get asked to leave for "whatever reason" presto you have harm! there are other ways as well but getting arrested is not the only way.

    Should they decide to refund your money, it would put you in a bind.... However if you spent $$$ on advertising your open carry picnic at that location, and it was interrupted? Presto more harm! you can use transportation, etc. just get crafty.

  20. #20
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    You can get standing without being arrested. I was able to get standing, show harm, and prevail in the sheriffs and chiefs lawsuit. Organize a picnic at Sunset park, pay for a pavilion, 50-100$ get asked to leave for "whatever reason" presto you have harm! there are other ways as well but getting arrested is not the only way.

    Should they decide to refund your money, it would put you in a bind.... However if you spent $$$ on advertising your open carry picnic at that location, and it was interrupted? Presto more harm! you can use transportation, etc. just get crafty.
    Yes, you can get standing without being arrested. The way to do that is to get them, in writing, to tell you that you will be arrested. I've tried that route and they won't commit in writing.

    I don't think being "asked to leave" the park would get you status to go after illegal firearms ordinances and get them overturned. It might work, but I have my doubts.

    All I'm saying is go in with eyes wide open.

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

  21. #21
    Regular Member z28power's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    Yes, you can get standing without being arrested. The way to do that is to get them, in writing, to tell you that you will be arrested. I've tried that route and they won't commit in writing.

    I don't think being "asked to leave" the park would get you status to go after illegal firearms ordinances and get them overturned. It might work, but I have my doubts.

    All I'm saying is go in with eyes wide open.

    TBG
    This is why I asked in my letter what would happen if I were peacefully carrying in the park.

    I haven't sent this letter off yet, FYI. I am awaiting response from NLV Mayor Lee regarding S.B. 92, per your helpful recommendation as it's founder
    Last edited by z28power; 04-11-2014 at 05:21 PM. Reason: clarification

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    If you are forced to leave, and you have paid.... That establishes harm. The harm in the NVSCA case was under $300 (i was forced to obtain a Florida permit ) that is how it works.

  23. #23
    Regular Member mp06011999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    Do these issues need to be addressed? Yes they do. Keep in mind though that you cannot proceed with any kind of action against illegal ordinances or rules unless you have standing. That means you have to be arrested for the supposed violation. The fact that one is a citizen and that these ordinances are on the books does not give you standing.

    Before taking them on, make sure all your ducks are in a row. By that I mean you have the resources to take them on and are willing to pay a personal price for your effort.

    Clark County has made it clear that they don't care what state law is, they are going to do what they want and they will spend whatever it takes to defend their position. Get out your checkbook.

    In order to take them on you need deep pockets behind you. Unfortunately I have been unable to get any of the major firearms rights organizations to back me in my efforts against the City of Henderson and the county. There was some hope I was going to get help but that faded away. Unfortunately it boils down to how much national press the big organizations can get out of the effort.

    My point is not to discourage but to simply make sure that anyone taking this on goes in with eyes wide open. I am willing to share whatever I have learned by my experience and help where I can.

    TBG
    It saddens me that none of the people or organizations "with means" that claim to defend our rights will get involved. It will probably be the reason I do not renew my NRA membership.
    We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. - https://www.lp.org/platform

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    I really don't want to throw any more "crap" in here, but isn't the CC Park's "position" similar to the LVMPD's when it comes to OC on "their" property... although they acknowledge the NRS restricting firearm possession specifies CC, they are just operating within the SPIRIT of the statute? Their interpretation of the statue "allows" them to restrict ALL firearms, whether CC or OC, because the statute's intent (from their perspective) was to do just that. They will fight, tooth and nail, to continue their "SPIRITUAL" interpretation of the statute and it WILL take lots of money to challenge them and their slick-suited attorneys... money and time... from my experience in other venues... lots of time... years... which means lots more money.
    Of course, if they were sued in state or federal court they would lose. Statutes dealing with constitutional rights, such as keeping and bearing firearms, are interpreted by strict construction, not by the "spirit" of the law.

  25. #25
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by ed2276 View Post
    Of course, if they were sued in state or federal court they would lose. Statutes dealing with constitutional rights, such as keeping and bearing firearms, are interpreted by strict construction, not by the "spirit" of the law.
    So YOU say. I'm not convinced since all "rights" and "laws" are merely a lawyer's or group of lawyers' (state and federal courts) opinion(s). There's no lengths to which lawyers will go to find ways to "judge" one way or the other. Thinking otherwise places too much trust in our judicial system... trust that is most always betrayed. And, if you are correct in your take on the lawsuit aspect of this situation, why haven't the "gun rights" organizations with the big bucks stepped up here to do battle?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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