I just read SB 92 and the NRS statutes updated with the new law and you are right. Boulder city and Nort LV are no longer grandfathered in with anything. Finally you have a uniform state law. Great!
Count wrote:I just read SB 92 and the NRS statutes updated with the new law and you are right. Boulder city and Nort LV are no longer grandfathered in with anything. Finally you have a uniform state law. Great!
Looking at the OCDO main page I read this:
Nevada
Summary
Nevada is a traditional 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
(letterhead)Stillwater Firearms Association[/b]
P. O. Box 665
Fallon NV
89407[/b]
December 12, 2007
District Attorney David Roger
200 S 3rd
Las Vegas NV 89155-9900
City Attorney Bradford Jerbic
400 Stewart Ave
Las Vegas NV 89101
City Attorney Carrie Torrence
2200 Civic Center Dr
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Sheriff Douglas Gillespie
3141 E Sunrise Ave
Las Vegas NV 89101
Chief Mark Paresi
1301 E Lake Mead Blvd
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Lady and Gentlemen,
As you know, the Nevada Revised Statutes concerning firearms law were recently amended in the 74[suP]th[/suP] Legislative Session, effective October 1, 2007.
Among the changes were NRS 244.364, 268.418, and 269.222, which were amended to state:
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, city nor town may infringe upon those rights and powers.
Further, NRS 244.364, 268.418, and 269.222 state:
The governing body of a county/city/town may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms. If the governing body of a city in a county whose population is 400,000 or more has required by ordinance or regulation adopted before June 13, 1989, the registration of a firearm capable of being concealed, the governing body shall amend such an ordinance or regulation to require: (a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the city before registration of such a firearm is required. (b) A period of at least 72 hours for the registration of a pistol by a resident of the city upon transfer of title to the pistol to the resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.
Lastly, Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, was amended to read 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.
A board of county commissioners, governing body of a city and town board in a county whose population is 400,000 or more shall amend any ordinance or regulation adopted by that body before June 13, 1989, that does not conform with the provisions of NRS 244.364, as amended by section 1 of this act, NRS 268.418, as amended by section 2 of this act or NRS 269.222, as amended by section 3 of this act, as applicable, by January 1, 2008. Any ordinance or regulation that does not comply with the applicable provision by January 1, 2008, shall be deemed to conform with that provision by operation of law.
Clearly, handgun registration in Clark County was grandfathered, if amended to allow residents 72 hours and non residents 60 days in which to register.
In view of the phrase “… apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989,” it is equally clear the law does not grandfather any other county/city ordinances; indeed, 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.
We have completed a review of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas municipal codes and Clark County code (at http://www.ordlink.com/codes/lasvegas/index.htm, http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/nolasvegas/index.htm and http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm) and note the required changes are not reflected therein. Clearly, virtually all of the city/county firearms related ordinances (as posted at the above noted links) are now null, void and unenforceable.
Have the city/county ordinances been repealed/amended? Or is there a move afoot to do so as required by Nevada law? Have the sheriff and city police departments been informed that most of the ordinances are now, or on January 1, 2008 will be, null, void and unenforceable?
As we enjoy visiting your fine cities, the 424-member Stillwater Firearms Association and untold numbers of Clark County and Nevada law abiding citizens anxiously await your response.
I can be reached via email at varminter22@charter.net
Sincerely,
J. L. Rhodes
Copies to:
Governor Jim Gibbons
State Capitol
101 N Carson St
Carson City NV 89701
[/b]Attorney General Catherine Masto
100 N Carson St
Carson City Nevada 89701-4717
Senator Mike McGinness
770 Wildes Rd
FallonNV 89406-7843
Senator John Lee
3216 Villa Pisani Ct
North Las VegasNV 89031-7267
Senator Bob Beers
9428 Grenville Ave
Las VegasNV 89134-6206
Senator Warren Hardy
5070 Arville St #4
Las VegasNV 89118-4904
Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea
P O Box 97
EurekaNV 89316-0097
Assemblywoman Francis Allen
P O Box 34718
Las VegasNV 89133-4718
Assemblywoman Valerie Weber
10001 Harpoon Cl
Las VegasNV 89117-0931
Churchill County District Attorney Art Mallory
365 S Maine St
Fallon NV 89406
Mr Frank Adams
Executive Director, Nevada Sheriffs andChiefs Association
P O Box 3247
Mesquite NV 89024
Ms Carrie Herbertson
NRA ILA State & Local Affairs Division
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 625
Sacramento CA 95814
Mr Glen Caroline
NRA ILA Director, Grass Roots Division
11250 Waples Mill Rd
Fairfax VA 22030
True enough. That is what it says.Thanks. The new state law states that if they don't amend their ordinances by Jan 1st then by "operation of law" the ordinances will be considered to comply with the new state law.
Clearly, this is NOT harmonious with current Nevada law; the Nevada legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate ...12.04.080 Time between sale and delivery of pistol.
When any sale of a pistol is made by a dealer under this chapter, seventy-two hours must elapse between the time of sale and the time of delivery to the purchaser. When delivered, all pistols must be securely wrapped and be unloaded, and must be accompanied by a receipt signed by the dealer, setting forth the name, address, and description of the purchaser or transferee, a complete description of the pistol (including the manufacturer, model and manufacturer’s serial number thereof), the date and time of sale, and the date and time of delivery, of such pistol, and advise to the purchaser or transferee that the pistol must be registered with the sheriff within twenty-four hours. (Ord. 242 § 8, 1965)
12.04.160 Condition of pistols sold.
All secondhand and used pistols, except antique pieces, sold or purchased, shall be in a safe and operable condition. (Ord. 242 § 16, 1965)
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.)The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.
I am still seeking an education concerning why the law doesn't mean what it says.Hello,
I appreciate your perspective. Different provisions of the statute,
when read separately, certainly can lead to different conclusions.
Accordingly, I reviewed the legislative history (as is appropriate when
dealing with an ambiguous statute). While the bill definitely started
out as a total preemption bill, the history makes clear that the
legislators added language that they intended to work a compromise with
law enforcement to allow the continuation of the ordinances in Clark
County, provided they were amended to address the transient possession
issues.
If you receive Attorney General direction to the contrary, please so
advise me, and we will reconsider our ordinance. I will also bring your
concerns to our legislative staff.
Mary-Anne Miller
County Counsel
Office of the District Attorney
Clark County, Nevada
(702) 455-4761
millerm@co.clark.nv.us
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?
This is the SAME statute that (prior to Oct 1, 2007) GRANDFATHERED all of Clark County ordinances.The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.
A board of county commissioners, governing body of a city and town board in a county whose population is 400,000 or more shall amend any ordinance or regulation adopted by that body before June 13, 1989, that does not conform with the provisions of NRS 244.364, as amended by section 1 of this act, NRS 268.418, as amended by section 2 of this act or NRS 269.222, as amended by section 3 of this act, as applicable, by January 1, 2008. Any ordinance or regulation that does not comply with the applicable provision by January 1, 2008, shall be deemed to conform with that provision by operation of law.
...So as of October 1, the North Las Vegas and Boulder City laws were illegal and in conflict with state law...
...in accordance with Section 1, 2, and 3 of this SB 92...
Count wrote:...in accordance with Section 1, 2, and 3 of this SB 92...
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