-
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.
-
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.
first time
- Thread starter wet_willy
- Start date
i_chance_all
Regular Member
imported post
just put in a call to north las vegas police and they are looking into it and going to contact there legal.. I will post when I hear from them.. now can we get someone to check with BC.. I was shocked he was very open to look into it most police just say no you cant or that what the law was thats what it will be....
just put in a call to north las vegas police and they are looking into it and going to contact there legal.. I will post when I hear from them.. now can we get someone to check with BC.. I was shocked he was very open to look into it most police just say no you cant or that what the law was thats what it will be....
Erus
Regular Member
imported post
Count wrote:
Looking at the OCDO main page I read this:
Nevada
Summary
Nevada is atraditional open carry state with seemingly complete state preemption of firearms laws. However, several localities have passed and are enforcing "Deadly Weapons" laws which appear to conflict with the preemption laws. Were this not the case, Nevada would qualify as a "Gold Star" open carry state.
So, Moderators... All that is left is the Clark County Blue card (resident registration) issue and we get a Gold Star???? Or does the elimination, as of 01/01/08, of North Las Vegas and Boulder City's restrictions on OC mean we can have it now?
Some of us here in Nevada reallywant that nostagic validation. Well, ok I do anyway. lol
:lol:
Erus
Count wrote:
Looking at the OCDO main page I read this:
Nevada
Summary
Nevada is atraditional open carry state with seemingly complete state preemption of firearms laws. However, several localities have passed and are enforcing "Deadly Weapons" laws which appear to conflict with the preemption laws. Were this not the case, Nevada would qualify as a "Gold Star" open carry state.
So, Moderators... All that is left is the Clark County Blue card (resident registration) issue and we get a Gold Star???? Or does the elimination, as of 01/01/08, of North Las Vegas and Boulder City's restrictions on OC mean we can have it now?
Some of us here in Nevada reallywant that nostagic validation. Well, ok I do anyway. lol
:lol:
Erus
tarzan1888
Regular Member
imported post
Erus wrote:
Sounds good to me.
Tarzan
Erus wrote:
Sounds good to me.
Tarzan
varminter22
Regular Member
imported post
After hearing that the Clark County officials wereplanning to NOT abide by the law as amended by SB-92 in Nevada's recent 74th legislative session, I wrote the letter quoted below.
Nearly one month has transpired and I have yet to hear from any of the action addressees.
I've heard that Clark County District Attorney David Roger did send me an email but I have not yet received it. I'm trying to get that email.
At any rate, it appears Clark County and cities therein do NOT plan to follow Nevada state law.
Many people are contemplating the next step (course of action)to ensure they will follow the law.
Of course everyone is highly encouraged to write a similar letter!!!
P. S. I should have included Henderson NV in the letter. Also, note it has been reported that North Las Vegas Chief of Police Mark Paresi has resigned.
P. P. S. Nevada Law Library is here: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/law1.cfm
After hearing that the Clark County officials wereplanning to NOT abide by the law as amended by SB-92 in Nevada's recent 74th legislative session, I wrote the letter quoted below.
Nearly one month has transpired and I have yet to hear from any of the action addressees.
I've heard that Clark County District Attorney David Roger did send me an email but I have not yet received it. I'm trying to get that email.
At any rate, it appears Clark County and cities therein do NOT plan to follow Nevada state law.
Many people are contemplating the next step (course of action)to ensure they will follow the law.
[/b]
Of course everyone is highly encouraged to write a similar letter!!!
P. S. I should have included Henderson NV in the letter. Also, note it has been reported that North Las Vegas Chief of Police Mark Paresi has resigned.
P. P. S. Nevada Law Library is here: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/law1.cfm
Erus
Regular Member
imported post
Great. It hardly ever surprizes me anymore that WE always have to obey the law, but the government gets to argue and decline to do so.
Guess we'll have to keep watching and see.
:banghead:
Erus
Great. It hardly ever surprizes me anymore that WE always have to obey the law, but the government gets to argue and decline to do so.
Guess we'll have to keep watching and see.
:banghead:
Erus
varminter22
Regular Member
imported post
Count wrote:
BUT do YOU trust the "authorities" in Clark County recognize that? It certainly appears they do not recognize that.
Personally, I would rather they comply with Nevada law and repeal ALL of their currently unlawful firearms related ordinances.
It would be quite simple - repeal all firearms related ordinances with the notable exception of their handgun registration scheme which was grandfathered. State and federal law adequately covers all other issues.
Count wrote:
True enough. That is what it says.
BUT do YOU trust the "authorities" in Clark County recognize that? It certainly appears they do not recognize that.
Personally, I would rather they comply with Nevada law and repeal ALL of their currently unlawful firearms related ordinances.
It would be quite simple - repeal all firearms related ordinances with the notable exception of their handgun registration scheme which was grandfathered. State and federal law adequately covers all other issues.
varminter22
Regular Member
imported post
Title 12 of the Clark County code can be found here: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm
The recent amendment has not yet been incorporated into the above website. The recently (December 4, 2007) enactedamendment (Bill 11-20-07-1) is here: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/clerk/pdf/Amends/3571.pdf
Note the amendment does NOT address the vast majority of (now illegal) firearms related ordinances.
For example,see 12.04.080 (http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm) which states:
And, it must be noted, state and federal law more than adequately covers this situation. To purchase a firearm in Nevada, you either (a) pay a $25 fee for the NICS check, or (b) present a valid Nevada CCW permit, and you complete the transaction and you take the firearm with you.
Another good example, see 12.04.160 (http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm) which states:
This too is clearly in violation of current Nevada law. Does this ordinance serve a purpose? If a person wishes to (knowingly) purchase an inoperable pistol for the purpose of collecting or making repairs in order to use it, why not?? Again, state and federal law should prevail as intended by our legislature.
Indeed, I believe virtually all of Title 12 relating to firearms is unlawful in accordance with Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, which says:
Title 12 of the Clark County code can be found here: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm
The recent amendment has not yet been incorporated into the above website. The recently (December 4, 2007) enactedamendment (Bill 11-20-07-1) is here: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/clerk/pdf/Amends/3571.pdf
Note the amendment does NOT address the vast majority of (now illegal) firearms related ordinances.
For example,see 12.04.080 (http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm) which states:
Clearly, this is NOT harmonious with current Nevada law; the Nevada legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate ...
And, it must be noted, state and federal law more than adequately covers this situation. To purchase a firearm in Nevada, you either (a) pay a $25 fee for the NICS check, or (b) present a valid Nevada CCW permit, and you complete the transaction and you take the firearm with you.
Another good example, see 12.04.160 (http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm) which states:
This too is clearly in violation of current Nevada law. Does this ordinance serve a purpose? If a person wishes to (knowingly) purchase an inoperable pistol for the purpose of collecting or making repairs in order to use it, why not?? Again, state and federal law should prevail as intended by our legislature.
Indeed, I believe virtually all of Title 12 relating to firearms is unlawful in accordance with Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, which says:
with the exception of the handgun registration ordinance that our legislature grandfathered. (I believe that to be unconstitutional, but our legislature DID grandfather the Clark County handgun registration ordinance after being HEAVILY lobbied by the Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Ass'n.)
imported post
If you guys from Nevada can get the author of SB 92 to have a press conference ref. these cities not complying that would help greatly. We did a similar thing a few years back reference a now outdated traveling law in Texas and it helped alot.
If you guys from Nevada can get the author of SB 92 to have a press conference ref. these cities not complying that would help greatly. We did a similar thing a few years back reference a now outdated traveling law in Texas and it helped alot.
varminter22
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks, Count. Good idea.
And more action appears necessary. See latest reply from the Clark County DA's office:
Win or lose, there will be more to come on this issue.
Thanks, Count. Good idea.
And more action appears necessary. See latest reply from the Clark County DA's office:
I am still seeking an education concerning why the law doesn't mean what it says.
Win or lose, there will be more to come on this issue.
timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
For Clark County (not NLV or BC), the only update the applies is NRS 244.364, which clarifies the registration requirement....you must be a resident for 60+ days and must register within 72 hours.
I read and reread the enacted bill and I can't find anything about preemption of anything BUT the registration laws.
Who cares about the blue card if we still have the dangerous NLV and BC laws on the books?
For Clark County (not NLV or BC), the only update the applies is NRS 244.364, which clarifies the registration requirement....you must be a resident for 60+ days and must register within 72 hours.
I read and reread the enacted bill and I can't find anything about preemption of anything BUT the registration laws.
Who cares about the blue card if we still have the dangerous NLV and BC laws on the books?
varminter22
Regular Member
imported post
timf343 wrote:
Oh???
What about:
Now it is amended to say ALL ordinances BEFORE June 13, 1989.
timf343 wrote:
Oh???
What about:
This is the SAME statute that (prior to Oct 1, 2007) GRANDFATHERED all of Clark County ordinances.
Now it is amended to say ALL ordinances BEFORE June 13, 1989.
timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Perhaps my confusion was that I couldn't actually find online Chapter 308 of the 1989 statutes. However, in looking at the three law sections below, I see clearly that each was added to law by Page 652 of the 1989 Statutes.
I didn't understand since the 1989 addition mentioned the "on or after June 13, 1989" but it's not listed on the current NRS. So if the original addition to law was amended, changing it from "on or after" to "before, on or after", it preempts the two local laws. This would have applied immediately upon being enacted, right? So as of October 1, the North Las Vegas and Boulder City laws were illegal and in conflict with state law.
Then lastly, the registration issue, Clark County had until January 1 to revise its code to conform to the clarified registration, which remains, but is relaxed slightly.
I think I get it now...:celebrate
Perhaps my confusion was that I couldn't actually find online Chapter 308 of the 1989 statutes. However, in looking at the three law sections below, I see clearly that each was added to law by Page 652 of the 1989 Statutes.
I didn't understand since the 1989 addition mentioned the "on or after June 13, 1989" but it's not listed on the current NRS. So if the original addition to law was amended, changing it from "on or after" to "before, on or after", it preempts the two local laws. This would have applied immediately upon being enacted, right? So as of October 1, the North Las Vegas and Boulder City laws were illegal and in conflict with state law.
Then lastly, the registration issue, Clark County had until January 1 to revise its code to conform to the clarified registration, which remains, but is relaxed slightly.
I think I get it now...:celebrate
timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
So who wants to have a meetup in Boulder City? They have this incredibly unconstitutional law on the books:
timf343 wrote:
So who wants to have a meetup in Boulder City? They have this incredibly unconstitutional law on the books:
No person except a sheriff, constable or police officer shall fire or discharge any firearms or air guns of any description within one thousand (1,000) yards of any building, street, sidewalk, alley, highway or other public place or have any firearms or air gun in his possession within one thousand (1,000) yards of any building, street, sidewalk, alley, highway or public place unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case
It's hidden in what seems to be a "legal" law, Title 7, Chapter 1, Section 3 "DISCHARGING FIREARMS, AIR GUNS"
timf343 wrote:
imported post
I am looking at SB 92 (the enrolled version) and that only requires the registration ordinances to change, it does not require NLV and Boulder city to change their ordinances reference the other matters. I just read the entire bill and it refers to those cities, counties, or townships having to change the ordinances they had before, to bein accordance with Section 1, 2, and 3 of this SB 92, which onlyrequires theregistration ordinances to be amended. Before you decide to meat in Boulder city and get arrested, please read the bill and let's discuss it here.
I am looking at SB 92 (the enrolled version) and that only requires the registration ordinances to change, it does not require NLV and Boulder city to change their ordinances reference the other matters. I just read the entire bill and it refers to those cities, counties, or townships having to change the ordinances they had before, to bein accordance with Section 1, 2, and 3 of this SB 92, which onlyrequires theregistration ordinances to be amended. Before you decide to meat in Boulder city and get arrested, please read the bill and let's discuss it here.
timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Count wrote:
I read that and interpreted it to mean that counties, cities and towns have until January 1 to revise their laws regarding registration. Otherwise, state preemption law takes effect and supercedes local laws effective October 1. On June 13, 1989, the legislature added the three code sections we're discussing. They were brand new preemption laws that took effect, but they only pre-empted laws created in counties, cities, or towns on or after June 13, 1989. The Boulder City and North Las Vegas weapons laws were on the books, and the Clark County registration law was on the books.
On October 1, 2007, the legislature amended the three sections to include guidelines for how registration is to be regulated (60+ days residency, within 72 hours upon receipt of new gun). They also changed amended the preemption instructions from the original 1989 law (Chapter 308, Section 5) as follows:
Tim
Count wrote:
I read that and interpreted it to mean that counties, cities and towns have until January 1 to revise their laws regarding registration. Otherwise, state preemption law takes effect and supercedes local laws effective October 1. On June 13, 1989, the legislature added the three code sections we're discussing. They were brand new preemption laws that took effect, but they only pre-empted laws created in counties, cities, or towns on or after June 13, 1989. The Boulder City and North Las Vegas weapons laws were on the books, and the Clark County registration law was on the books.
On October 1, 2007, the legislature amended the three sections to include guidelines for how registration is to be regulated (60+ days residency, within 72 hours upon receipt of new gun). They also changed amended the preemption instructions from the original 1989 law (Chapter 308, Section 5) as follows:
The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.
So, while the bulk of the text in SB92 seeked to clarify the registration of firearms in Clark county, the one line above, amending the original act effectively preempt the Boulder City and NLV laws. I believe my interpretation (after varminter helped clear it up) is correct. Do you see it differently Count? Trust me, I don't want to get arrested, but I'm willing to go through the court process of having the state enforce its laws in Boulder City and North Las Vegas.
Tim
varminter22
Regular Member
imported post
timf343 wrote:
Go to www.leg.state.nv.us/law1.cfmand look up each statute.
SB-92 amended more than one statute.
Read them all,paying close attention to the statute that says "before, on or after." In this statute, there is no reference to qualifying "poplulations" or the like.
timf343 wrote:
Go to www.leg.state.nv.us/law1.cfmand look up each statute.
SB-92 amended more than one statute.
Read them all,paying close attention to the statute that says "before, on or after." In this statute, there is no reference to qualifying "poplulations" or the like.
timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Moving discussion to the "Local Ordinances" thread.
Moving discussion to the "Local Ordinances" thread.
imported post
I am affraid I still have to read it as only applying to registration. Moreover, the legislative digest states that it refers registration. So, I suggest getting hold of the author of the bill and finding out the legislative intent.
I am affraid I still have to read it as only applying to registration. Moreover, the legislative digest states that it refers registration. So, I suggest getting hold of the author of the bill and finding out the legislative intent.