Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: NV Attorney General says OC subject to local statutes!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    The Firearms FAQ page on the AG's web-site has re-appeared after being unavailable for a couple of years. She seems to say that preemption does not apply to local statutes limiting open carry. And that it is OK for you to be "confronted by law enforcement!"

    Is there anything we can do about this?

    http://ag.state.nv.us/about/faqs/firearms/carry.htm



    Can I carry a firearm on my person in Nevada?


    Currently, there are no State of Nevada statutes prohibiting the open carrying of firearms. However, in Nevada there are some local statutes prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms within their jurisdictions.

    Any person wishing to carry a firearm in open view – before doing so – is strongly encouraged to contact that jurisdictions’ law enforcement agency to determine if a statute against the open carrying of firearms does exist and that agency’s enforcement policy concerning the open carrying of firearms.

    Caution! The open carrying of firearms – especially in congested urban areas – may be the cause of you being confronted by law enforcement!

    ===============

    Ken

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    CowboyKen wrote:
    The Firearms FAQ page on the AG's web-site has re-appeared after being unavailable for a couple of years. She seems to say that preemption does not apply to local statutes limiting open carry. And that it os OK for you to be "confronted by law enforcement!"

    Is there anything we can do about this?

    http://ag.state.nv.us/about/faqs/firearms/carry.htm



    Can I carry a firearm on my person in Nevada?


    Currently, there are no State of Nevada statutes prohibiting the open carrying of firearms. However, in Nevada there are some local statutes prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms within their jurisdictions.

    Any person wishing to carry a firearm in open view – before doing so – is strongly encouraged to contact that jurisdictions’ law enforcement agency to determine if a statute against the open carrying of firearms does exist and that agency’s enforcement policy concerning the open carrying of firearms.

    Caution! The open carrying of firearms – especially in congested urban areas – may be the cause of you being confronted by law enforcement!

    ===============

    Ken
    Good catch - that looks like a pretty unprofessional and nonplegal post by the Atty Gen., including incorrect use of the word "statute" and the idea that the police have the power to "confront" people who are just following the law.

    we are tracking Nevada as compeltely preempted - can somebody from Nevada follow up witht eh AG's office to get thier post removed? Thanks.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    CowboyKen wrote:
    Is there anything we can do about this?

    http://ag.state.nv.us/about/faqs/firearms/carry.htm


    Can I carry a firearm on my person in Nevada?

    Currently, there are no State of Nevada statutes prohibiting the open carrying of firearms. However, in Nevada there are some local statutes prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms within their jurisdictions.

    Any person wishing to carry a firearm in open view – before doing so – is strongly encouraged to contact that jurisdictions’ law enforcement agency to determine if a statute against the open carrying of firearms does exist and that agency’s enforcement policy concerning the open carrying of firearms.

    Caution! The open carrying of firearms – especially in congested urban areas – may be the cause of you being confronted by law enforcement!

    ===============

    Ken
    Good catch - that looks like a pretty unprofessional and nonplegal post by the Atty Gen., including incorrect use of the word "statute" and the idea that the police have the power to "confront" people who are just following the law.

    we are tracking Nevada as compeltely preempted - can somebody from Nevada follow up witht eh AG's office to get thier post removed? Thanks.
    That op-ed piece on the AG website is definitely not in line with current Nevada State Law. I have no doubt that follow-ups with the AG office will be swift.
    Thanks to Cowboy for that catch.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    I sent via theonlinecomment section to the AG office:


    Dear Office of the Attorney General,



    In the FAQ about carrying firearms in plain view the office of the attorney general fallaciously claims that local laws may restrict the practice. Perhaps the office is unaware of NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222 which explicitly prohibit counties, cities, and towns from regulating purchasing, possessing, registration and licensing of firearms, and additionally states that the state legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate practically all aspects of firearms except for discharge. The only exception to complete preemption is the handgun registration in Clark County which residents are required to do within three days. Non-residents can be within Clark County for 60 days before they are required to register their handguns. The NRS specifically allows for this exception, and it is the only exception I am aware of that was grandfathered in. If any other local statutes do exist they are a violation of state law and should be unenforceable. As a citizen of Nevada, I urge the office to remove this faulty claim.



    Thank you,

    Xxxx Xxxx

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    I sent via theonlinecomment section to the AG office:


    Dear Office of the Attorney General,



    In the FAQ about carrying firearms in plain view the office of the attorney general fallaciously claims that local laws may restrict the practice. Perhaps the office is unaware of NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222 which explicitly prohibit counties, cities, and towns from regulating purchasing, possessing, registration and licensing of firearms, and additionally states that the state legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate practically all aspects of firearms except for discharge. The only exception to complete preemption is the handgun registration in Clark County which residents are required to do within three days. Non-residents can be within Clark County for 60 days before they are required to register their handguns. The NRS specifically allows for this exception, and it is the only exception I am aware of that was grandfathered in. If any other local statutes do exist they are a violation of state law and should be unenforceable. As a citizen of Nevada, I urge the office to remove this faulty claim.



    Thank you,

    Xxxx Xxxx

    Felid`Maximus,good job on the letter.

    It is very disturbing when the AG doesn't seem to know or understand the laws of the state, which she is supposed to enforce.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Disturbing, indeed.

    And this is precisely the reason I urged the NRA to investigate - and the NRA did retain a noted law firm to pursue the issue.

    See other related posts in this forum.

    These things take time. But I certainly am anxious to see the results!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Why would the AG know anything about the law? It's not an earned position, it's a political job elected by voters (who, by and large, also don't know the law.)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    wayneco wrote:
    Why would the AG know anything about the law? It's not an earned position, it's a political job elected by voters (who, by and large, also don't know the law.)
    Sad, but unfortunately true.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    wayneco wrote:
    Why would the AG know anything about the law? It's not an earned position, it's a political job elected by voters (who, by and large, also don't know the law.)
    From her web-site:
    General Masto is a native Nevadan. She attended the University of Nevada Reno, graduating with a Bachelor of Science Degree in 1986 with a major in Finance. She graduated Cum Laude from Gonzaga University School of Law, in Spokane, Washington in 1990.

    Prior to working at Clark County, General Masto served two years as a federal criminal prosecutor for the United States Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C. During her tenure as an Assistant United States Attorney, she prosecuted criminals for felony possession and distribution of drugs.

    ================================

    She should know the law. It is her JOB.

    Ken

  10. #10
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    I recieved an e-mail reply.


    Dear Mr. Xxxx:



    Your e-mail to the Nevada Attorney General’s Office has been forwarded to me for review and response.



    This office is very much aware of NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222. Basically these state statutes are supremacy legislation over the local statutes governing the regulation of firearms (with the exception of the no shooting / no discharge of firearms authority). From the time of the enactment of these statutes, the Nevada State Legislature is now the controlling authority over local firearms statutes.



    Strict constructionist reading of these statutes shows that there is no language repealing any local statutes regarding firearms; again, just the supremacy language. Hence all existing local firearms statutes at the time of this legislation are “grandfathered” in, including your reference to the Clark County ordnance requiring handgun registration (and any other local firearms’ statute).



    An excellent example of the Nevada State Legislature as the controlling (supremacy) authority over local firearms statutes is Nevada Senate Bill 92 (Statutes of Nevada, Page 1289, amending NRS 244.364). This is the legislation that changed the handgun registration requirements in Clark County.



    In more simple terms, at the time of the enactment of these statutes, the State of Nevada took control of local firearms’ statutes. The State of Nevada, in taking control of these local firearms’ statutes, did not repeal them! Nor is there any conflict with local and state statues.



    These local firearms’ ordinances still in effect! That is why there is the conditional statement on the Nevada Attorney General’s website urging caution about the possibility of local ordnances prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.



    All existing local firearms statutes, as they now read, they are legal and enforceable unless amended or repealed by the Nevada statute. Hence, there is no “faulty claim” to be corrected andyour interpretation of NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222 is not correct.



    Thank you contacting the Nevada Attorney General’s Office concerning this matter.



    John C. Berrier

    Legal Researcher – Criminal Division

    Office of Nevada Attorney General

    100 N Carson Street

    Carson City, NV 89701

    Telephone: (775) 684-1240
    :X

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Per that interpretation, even people with CCW permits would be prohibited from carrying in some cities.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    While I am disheartened to read that response, I do not agree with that "read" of SB92. Specifically, right from the pdf (have not reviewed the relevant NRS yet):

    Sec. 4. Section 5 of chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, is hereby amended to read as follows:
    Sec. 5. [The] 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, the provisions of this act apply [only] to ordinances or regulations adopted on or after [the effective date of this act.] June 13, 1989. 2. 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 believe the AG opinion to be in error.

    NOTE: Text in brackets and yellow is "strikethru" text removed from the 1989 statute by SB92.

    SB92

    Here is a link to the specified Ch308 Statute of Nevada 1989

    Here is a link to the original AB147, the testimony concerning it, AND the opinion of Lorne J. Malkiewich, (State of Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau) on the wording contained in AB147, and how that wording would affect local ordinances in existence (page 46-49, questions; page 50-55). The portion relevant in this instance is the AG response to question #8 on page 55 of the document. As it is a scanned in version, I will need to type the text in to provide it here. the Reader's Digest version is that AB147 makes void existing regulations, which is exactly the opposite of the view of the AG office now.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    Per that interpretation, even people with CCW permits would be prohibited from carrying in some cities.
    Here is the question......
    What cities still have regulations regarding open or concealed carry of firearms?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    Here is a link to the original AB147, the testimony concerning it, AND the opinion of Lorne J. Malkiewich, (State of Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau) on the wording contained in AB147, and how that wording would affect local ordinances in existence (page 46-49, questions; page 50-55). Also included is the opinion of then-Attorney General Brian McKay (beginning page 60). The portion relevant in this instance is the Malkiewich response to question #8 on page 55 of the document, followed by the AG response. As it is a scanned in version, I will need to type the text in to provide it here. the Reader's Digest version is that AB147 makes void existing regulations, which is exactly the opposite of the view of the AG office now
    Lorne J. Malkiewich
    8. Does the bill, if enacted, wipe out the county or local ordinances; and, does the bill provide that the Legislature may enact similar legislation, if warranted?

    Yes to both questions. Any local ordinance that regulates the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms and ammunition would be rendered void by the bill, unless such an ordinance was specifically authorized by state statute. For example, two Clark County ordinances (Sections 200 and 210 of chapter 4 of title 12 of the Clark County Code) regulating the possession and transfer of firearms capable of being concealed would be rendered void by Assembly Bill No. 147. They touch upon the subjects that the legislature has reserved for itself exclusively. The legislature may enact legislation to take the place of any local ordinance rendered void by the preemptive nature of Assembly Bill No. 147 or it may specifically authorize local governments to adopt the ordinances rendered void by the bill. Assembly Bill No. 147 does not in any way constrain the legislature's prerogative to legislate upon the subject of firearms. Instead, it constrains the legislative autonomy of the political subdivisions of the state to regulate independently certain matters relating to firearms.
    This opinion by Mr. Malkiewich, and the then-Attorney General (Brian McKay, p66) response for the original bill shows clear intent to cause repeal of ordinances by AB147. Nothing in SB92 changes the intent of AB147 in any way. In fact, SB92 to me shows clear intent to further strengthen State Preemption.
    Also, near the end of the document, Amendment 505 was added to provide the preemption date as "on or after the date of enactment." to prevent existing local ordinances from being repealed. It is clear to me that SB92 was specifically intended to cause such repeal, by introducing the wording "on, before, or after...."



    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    These are just a few examples of places where we are restricted if preemption doesn't apply:

    Washoe County Code 50.075 defines any weapon concealable as a concealed weapon, and any firearm with a barrellength of less than 12" as a concealed weapon. That would make open carry of handguns potentially illegal. 50.076 makes it illegal to carry a concealed handgun withouta permit.

    Washoe county code also allows a sheriff to revoke a concealed carry permit with or without reason with no hearing. 50.083

    WCC 95.220 - No person may possess a firearm at a county park.

    WCC 50.034 - During Civil emergency, the sheriff can prohibit possession of firearms by non LEOs.

    WCC25.055 - Security employed by adult clubs cannot possess a firearm on the job.

    Henderson requires that one obtains permission from the chief of police before they can carry concealed. Henderson Municipal Code: 8.98.010

    Reno prohibits weapons on the premises of a city municipal court. (presumably includes parking lot) 8.12.160 and themayor mayprohibit the sale of firearms and ammunitionduring a declared state of emergency.

    Las Vegas 10.68.010 - Requires residents of Las Vegas to have a permit issued by the "Sheriff of the Metropolitan police" to carry a concealable firearm, and have the permit with them. That would mean that unlicensed open carry would be illegal (for residents only.)


    Storey County Code9.16.020
    Itis unlawful for any person, within the limits of the towns of Virginia City and Gold Hill, and other designated congested areas, to carry upon the person any pistol, revolver, gun or other firearm having a barrel length less than twelve inches, or any dagger, sword, or other dangerous knife, blackjack, metal knuckles, or other dangerous weapon.
    [/quote]

    SCC 9.16.070 allows for people with valid permits to carry though.

    North Las Vegas Municipal Code 9.32.050 : People with a concealed weapon can not loiter on public streets or any place of public resort, or wander from place to place, without business to preform.

    NLVMC 9.32.080 - Weapons are prohibited in vehicles.
    9.32.010 - One needs a permit issued by the chief of police to carry a conceaeld weapon.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    As NRS202 has specifics about issuance and revocation by the Sheriffs, such Washoe regulation concerning CC permits appears to be counter to state law.


    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Perhaps the next thing to do is confront the Office of the AG with what you dug up onAB147, wheretheAttorney Generalat the time said that it would void local laws.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    My digging this up is "late in the day" on that specific effort.

    My sleuthing is for the benefit of those who read this thread. By the way, props go to varminter22 for tracking down those documents and providing them for me to host at the SFA website.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Well her "impressive" resume (personally, I find people who cling to gov't career service in high level justice jobs anything but impressive, generally speaking) working in the US Attorney's office didn't prepare her in the least to know the laws of the State of Nevada and clearly from her web page on OC she either doesn't or doesn't care that she's purporting as fact law that has no basis in the NRS.

    The fact she worked in Clark County, nearly California in it's detest of 2nd Amendment freedoms, only underscores her implicit contempt for the freedoms we have as Nevadans.

    Let me be the first to tell you, she very likely wants to be this state's next governor. If she doesn't come clean on the 2A rights, let's make sure we back her competition.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    IANAL but the reply from the state attorney general's office sounds like a bunch of shite. That's a very creative reading of SB92, I wonder if the bill's sponsors know that this is how the current activist attorney general intends to read it.

    time to call our reps.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    I wonder how Rep. Lee and the others who wrote this bill feel about this interpretation. Is there a mechanism for legislative review of such things?

    What legislation should be introduced (and by whom) at the upcoming session to fix this?

    Is there anything we can do (phone calls, letters, e-mails) to facilitate new legislation or legislative review?

    Ken

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    I too disagree with the AG opinion written by John C. Berrier, Legal Researcher – Criminal Division, Office of Nevada Attorney General.

    The law, as amended by SB-92, seems clear to me.

    Perhaps we'll have to waitand hope the NRA's law firm will get to the bottom of this.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    While I mean no disrespect, I don't agree with waiting for ANYONE to do anything about this. We need to contact our state representatives, bring this up, and make an issue of this. I am telling you now, this is a slippery slope the AG is on. I thought the reason for the preemption statutes in the first place was because of the red light/ green light effect of going from N Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City. Depending on what color the street signs are, it determines whether you are legal, or commiting a crime. (For those that don't know, the signs in N Las Vegas are blue, not green like the rest of CC. N Las Vegas says you cannot carry a firearm loaded in your vehicle, Code section listed elsewhere in this post.) What would be our options at this time??

    Darth Tater

    "Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, than beat you with experience." - ME



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Darth, with all due respect, it has been mentioned several times that work is already in progress to counter the ordinances that are still on the books in municipalities of Nevada, which would actually render the AG opinion moot. I do not recommend ignoring this item, and I do agree that contacting our Assembly and Senate members is quite appropriate, especially given the obvious intent behind the original wording of AB147, and the recent obvious intent behind the wording as enacted of SB92.

    Your option of contact is quite appropriate.

    Darth Tator wrote:
    While I mean no disrespect, I don't agree with waiting for ANYONE to do anything about this. We need to contact our state representatives, bring this up, and make an issue of this. I am telling you now, this is a slippery slope the AG is on. I thought the reason for the preemption statutes in the first place was because of the red light/ green light effect of going from N Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City. Depending on what color the street signs are, it determines whether you are legal, or commiting a crime. (For those that don't know, the signs in N Las Vegas are blue, not green like the rest of CC. N Las Vegas says you cannot carry a firearm loaded in your vehicle, Code section listed elsewhere in this post.) What would be our options at this time??

    Darth Tater

    "Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, than beat you with experience." - ME

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Darth Tator wrote:
    While I mean no disrespect, I don't agree with waiting for ANYONE to do anything about this. We need to contact our state representatives, bring this up, and make an issue of this. I am telling you now, this is a slippery slope the AG is on. I thought the reason for the preemption statutes in the first place was because of the red light/ green light effect of going from N Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City. Depending on what color the street signs are, it determines whether you are legal, or commiting a crime. (For those that don't know, the signs in N Las Vegas are blue, not green like the rest of CC. N Las Vegas says you cannot carry a firearm loaded in your vehicle, Code section listed elsewhere in this post.) What would be our options at this time??

    Darth Tater
    I cannot disagree.

    I think I made the above statement because of the fact this is NOT new. A search of this forum will reveal I sent letters (with copies in the posts) over a year ago on this subject.

    I took the issue to the NRA and they agreed with my assessment. Due to the fact they got very busy with writing amicus briefs in support of the DC vs Heller case, it took some time to move forward with this issue.

    However, the NRA did retain a noted law firm to pursue this very issue. Action is pending right now. The law firm recently sent letters to the County & City managers. I do not know the current status. It is possible the matter will go to court.

    Larry

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
  •