Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: What the candidates are saying

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Right off the bat, I'd like to apologize for the length of this post. A few days ago I emailed letters to the North Las Vegas candidates running for mayor. As of this post, I've received only two responses. They follow the original letter.

    Dear Mr. Thomas,



    I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued hard work on the city council and your dedication to the city of North Las Vegas. Considering today’s trying times, your job, surely, has become that much harder. With all that is happening in our city, economically, it’s important not to lose sight of subjects relating to the lawful acts of the constituents of North Las Vegas.



    I’m a North Las Vegas native. In 1963, my parents had a place on North 5th. My family moved around while I grew, but we’ve always been in the valley. Since 1996, my wife and I have lived in the Eldorado area. With our three children, we enjoy the quality of life that our city has to offer.



    This email stems from the need to bring to light a condition regarding apparent conflicts relative to our state laws and even inside our city’s ordinances during this election cycle. It also grows from several conversations I’ve had with friends and family that also live in our area.



    To begin with, please allow me to review some language in our laws that I am sure you have seen time and time again. Below are amendments to the NRS. The sections highlighted in yellow are those connected to the issue at hand.



    [size= Sec. 2. NRS 268.418 is hereby amended to read as follows:][/size]

    [size= 268.418 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 city may infringe upon those rights and powers][/size]. As used in this subsection, “firearm” means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.

    [size= 2. The governing body of a city may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.][/size]

    [size= 3. 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:][/size]

    (a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the city before registration of such a firearm is required.[size=][/size]

    (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.[size=][/size]

    4. [As][size= Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as ][/size]used in this section[, “firearm”] :

    (a) “Firearm” [size=means any device designed to be used as a ][/size]weapon from which a projectile [is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.] may be expelled through the barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.

    (b) “Firearm capable of being concealed” includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.[size=][/size]

    (c) “Pistol” means a firearm capable of being concealed that is intended to be aimed and fired with one hand.[size=][/size]



    [size= Sec. 4. ][/size][size=Section 5 of chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, is hereby amended to read as follows:][/size]

    [size= Sec. 5. [][/size]The]

    1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, the [size=provisions of this act apply [][/size]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.[size=][/size]

    [size= Sec. 5. ][/size][size=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.][/size]





    The State’s preemption language would apparently affect the ordinances below. However, there seems to be resistance, either intentionally or unintentionally, by the city council and/or the police department to resolve the issue. Even our own ordinances seem to conflict with one another, as highlighted in yellow.



    9.32.010 Concealed weapon prohibited--Allowed with permit.

    No person, except a peace officer, shall wear or in any manner carry concealed upon his person any loaded or unloaded gun, pistol or revolver, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon permitted to be carried by law without having, at the same time, actually in his possession, and upon his person, an unexpired permit to do so issued by the chief of police. (Prior code § 7.22.010)





    9.32.080 Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle--Exceptions.

    It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation. (Ord. 596 § 1, 1978: prior code § 7.22.070)



    Here is the point of this very long message. As a carrier of a “deadly weapon”, as defined by:

    9.32.040 Dangerous or deadly weapon defined.

    The term "dangerous or deadly weapons" includes, but is not limited to, any dirk or dagger; any knife with a blade three inches or more in length, and any snap-blade or spring-blade knife, regardless of the length of the blade; any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool; any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle; any dangerous or deadly weapon within the meaning of any law of this state restricting the use thereof; and any cutting, stabbing, or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm; and any firearm other than (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport. (Prior code § 7.22.040)





    I and others are violating § 9.32.080 even though we would be in compliance with § 9.32.040 and, by extension, § 9.32.010 anytime we travel in our cars while exercising our rights. With this information in mind, it seems of utmost importance to take action to modify our city ordinances by eliminating language that fosters an ambiguity as they relate to the state preemption laws and even within the ordinances of the city of North Las Vegas. Until such action takes place, my friends, my neighbors, my associates and I are outlaws anytime we exercise our rights, in what should be a lawful manner, while in our cars, anywhere in North Las Vegas. The problem is, WE ARE NOT OUTLAWS. We are not cowboys, psychos, or vigilantes. We are husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. We are young North Las Vegans and old. We want to be able to protect the ones we care about without being afraid of breaking any laws. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned ordinances keep us from doing what is right. Criminal laws are passed to restrict bad behavior. So, one might say that consideration is actually given to the bad guys and, more often than not, it’s at the expense of the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. And we, the lawful then become outlaws by our deliberate practice of our freedoms.



    I apologize for what must seem like a brow-beating. I’m sure you already know all of this, or at least have heard these arguments elsewhere. To help to avoid having to answer similar emails, I’ll be sure to pass your response on to everyone I know with the understanding that they should pass it on to everyone they know.





    My questions are these:



    What are your feelings of lawfully armed citizens? And, as Mayor of North Las Vegas, would you, despite all the turmoil going on in our city, avoid putting this issue on the back burner, as has been done in the past, and actively lead the effort to change or eliminate the offending ordinances to keep law-abiding citizens from being punished for wanting to protect themselves, their families and friends?







    With regards,



    xxxxxxxxxx



    Please feel free to contact me:

    xxxxxxxx



    Here are their responses:





    Dear Mr. xxxxxx:

    Thank you for your thoughtful email. I appreciate that you would take the time to write to me abouta very important issue.

    First of all, let me state that I support the Second Amendment to our Constitution. I firmly believe in responsible gun ownership, meaning that people who own and use guns should do so safely and without fear of reprisal for lawful conduct. Without question, weneed to be able to defend ourselves and our families in a time of need.

    Now,to answer your specific question - yes,if local ordinances are in conflict with NRS then I will provideleadership, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office, to makeany necessary modifications. Since Nevada is not a "home-rule" state, state statuteswill always trump local ordinances, butI believe that you have made a good argument for removing anyambiguity in the law.

    My way of doing things - on this or any other issue - will always be to promote and encourage open, intelligent discussion about any valid issue raised by the citizens of North Las Vegas. You have raised valid issues pertaining tolawful gun ownership and self-protection in ourCity, and Iwill fullysupport your rights and the rights of othersto responsibly protect your families. As I have said throughout this campaign, responsible citizens need to know that local government is looking out for their interests. We absolutely need more accountability and urgency in addressing important local issues.

    Pleasecall me at 576-2223 if youhaveany questions orcomments. Ihope that I can count on your support in the upcoming elections.

    Ned Thomas
    NedforMayor@gmail.com
    www.NedThomasforMayor.com


    Dear Mr. xxxxxx,

    First of all, I would like to thank you for being a concerned citizen. As far as, my take on the North Las Vegas gun ordinance. I am against it as it is currently written. I believe someone should be able to purchase and carry a firearm it they can obtain the correct documentation. I hope I have answered your questions and please feel free to contact me if you have any other concerns.

    William Robinson

    Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

    As the others reply, I will post.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Just a note. All of the relevant text did not remain highlighted,when I posted this thread,the way the candidates saw the letters.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    Not bad... He'd get my vote.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    148

    Post imported post

    I'm going with ned, for simply his concern. Number seems to be a register for your rights freak.

    Will investigate further.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Last Saturday, North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Montandon was our guest speaker at our Stillwater Firearms Ass'n dinner/gun raffle.

    It was a rather busy evening and I only got to chat with him for a bit during dinner. Don't know if he will be running for Mayor again. But I can say that he is most assuredly a pro-2nd Amendment guy and would like to fix NLV's ordinances.

    I think you'll probably receive a response from him.

    I liked him a lot!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    varminter22 wrote:
    Last Saturday, North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Montandon was our guest speaker at our Stillwater Firearms Ass'n dinner/gun raffle.

    It was a rather busy evening and I only got to chat with him for a bit during dinner. Don't know if he will be running for Mayor again. But I can say that he is most assuredly a pro-2nd Amendment guy and would like to fix NLV's ordinances.

    I think you'll probably receive a response from him.

    I liked him a lot!
    I didn't send the letter to him because I didn't think he was running. Isn't he restricted from running during this election cycle? However, if he is going to run, I'll send a letter to him. It would be great to get his input.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    I don't know about any restrictions and I do not know his intentions.

    But might be a good thing to get his comments.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    I just noticed that the open letter I posted is addressing Ned Thomas. I did send letters to each of the candidates, address appropriately. So with the first posting there are actually two responses. One is from Ned Thomas and the other is from William Robinson. I still haven't heard from the other candidates.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Here is Shari Buck's response:

    Hello Mr;. xxxxxx,

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the perceived conflicts between State law and City law. I have attached an ordinance passed by the city council in 2008 to bring us in compliance with State law. We are grandfathered in under other provisions of the law. I know that many don't understand our reasoning for keeping the grandfathered status, but this gives our Police Dept. the ability to take "dangerous or deadly weapons" which include more than guns, out of the hands of criminals.

    We are in compliance with State Law. I understand your arguments. But have you been cited in North Las Vegas for carrying a concealed weapon?It is not the intention to cite those with permits. Our intention is to get the bad guys and weapons off the streets. This is a tool that can be used because of the grandfathering and the original language we still have in place.

    You might not think so, but I support the 2nd amendment, and as the daughter of a former police officer, I have his gun in my home for protection. However, if there is a way, which there is here, to allow the carrying and permitting of firearms, and at the same time, trying to keep our citizens safer from criminals, then I think we should use it.

    It is a complicated issue, so I hope you have an understanding of what I am trying to say. Please let me know if I can clarify.

    Sincerely,

    Shari Buck

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    I followed up with another question to Shari Buck.



    Dear Councilwoman Buck,




    Thank you so much for taking time to address my concerns. I appreciate the time you are making for me more than I can say. I’ll try to keep this short by offering a scenario.

    Nevada is an open-carry state. There are no laws preventing the open-carry of a pistol. Nor are there any laws requiring a permit to open-carry.

    I am driving through North Las Vegas with my holstered handgun on my belt. It is plain view. My pistol is properly registered. A North Las Vegas police officer pulls me over for an unknown reason and easily sees my sidearm.

    [size=Am I going to be cited or arrested or punished in any way because of ][/size]§9.32.080 Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle—Exceptions?[size=][/size]

    It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation. (Ord. 596 § 1, 1978: prior code § 7.22.070)

    You see, the ordinance potentially punishes law-abiding citizens who are exercising their rights and protecting themselves.

    Please understand, I am trying to be fair and help you. As I said in my first letter, I’ll pass this to my friends who will, in turn, pass it theirs. I will eagerly wait for you response.

    With great respect,

    xxxxxxx



    Her response was surprisingly quick:

    No, you will not be arrested.

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry








  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    DESERT ATILLA wrote:
    Here is Shari Buck's response:

    Hello Mr;. xxxxxx,

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the perceived conflicts between State law and City law. I have attached an ordinance passed by the city council in 2008 to bring us in compliance with State law. We are grandfathered in under other provisions of the law. I know that many don't understand our reasoning for keeping the grandfathered status, but this gives our Police Dept. the ability to take "dangerous or deadly weapons" which include more than guns, out of the hands of criminals.

    We are in compliance with State Law. I understand your arguments. But have you been cited in North Las Vegas for carrying a concealed weapon?It is not the intention to cite those with permits. Our intention is to get the bad guys and weapons off the streets. This is a tool that can be used because of the grandfathering and the original language we still have in place.

    You might not think so, but I support the 2nd amendment, and as the daughter of a former police officer, I have his gun in my home for protection. However, if there is a way, which there is here, to allow the carrying and permitting of firearms, and at the same time, trying to keep our citizens safer from criminals, then I think we should use it.

    It is a complicated issue, so I hope you have an understanding of what I am trying to say. Please let me know if I can clarify.

    Sincerely,

    Shari Buck
    THAT is a horrible reply from Shari Buck, despite her follow-up that you will not be arrested.

    The point is thus: SB-92 of 2007 clearly (in my opinion) states the legislature has the sole right to regulate firearms (with the exception of handgun rgistration grandfathered in Clark County) and it also states the law applies to all ordinances enacted on, before or AFTER June 1989.

    Ms Buck would NOT get my vote/support.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    varminter22 wrote:
    DESERT ATILLA wrote:
    Here is Shari Buck's response:

    Hello Mr;. xxxxxx,

    Thank you for contacting me regarding the perceived conflicts between State law and City law. I have attached an ordinance passed by the city council in 2008 to bring us in compliance with State law. We are grandfathered in under other provisions of the law. I know that many don't understand our reasoning for keeping the grandfathered status, but this gives our Police Dept. the ability to take "dangerous or deadly weapons" which include more than guns, out of the hands of criminals.

    We are in compliance with State Law. I understand your arguments. But have you been cited in North Las Vegas for carrying a concealed weapon?It is not the intention to cite those with permits. Our intention is to get the bad guys and weapons off the streets. This is a tool that can be used because of the grandfathering and the original language we still have in place.

    You might not think so, but I support the 2nd amendment, and as the daughter of a former police officer, I have his gun in my home for protection. However, if there is a way, which there is here, to allow the carrying and permitting of firearms, and at the same time, trying to keep our citizens safer from criminals, then I think we should use it.

    It is a complicated issue, so I hope you have an understanding of what I am trying to say. Please let me know if I can clarify.

    Sincerely,

    Shari Buck
    THAT is a horrible reply from Shari Buck, despite her follow-up that you will not be arrested.

    The point is thus: SB-92 of 2007 clearly (in my opinion) states the legislature has the sole right to regulate firearms (with the exception of handgun rgistration grandfathered in Clark County) and it also states the law applies to all ordinances enacted on, before or AFTER June 1989.

    Ms Buck would NOT get my vote/support.
    No, based on her reply, I won't vote for her either. BTW, do you know where the language is, specifically, for the Clark County grandfather clause? I'm thinking that if there is specific language for Clark County and there isn't anything specifically for North Las Vegas, we have an even stronger point of argument for the invalidity of the ordinances

    FYI-I do not endorse any particular candidate. I am merely allowing them to disqualify themselves from receiving my vote based on a very important topic.

    .

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    About 2 weeks ago I met our current NLV Mayor at Bargain Pawn. He is frequently there and told me that he purchased from Glen exclusively. He bought his 2nd KelTec P32 when I was there.

    Mike Montandon is a GREAT guy, very friendly, very supportive of the 2nd amendment, he CCWs his P32. However, he is not capable of running in this election because he has reached his term limits. Someone I spoke to said he would be running for governor. If that is the case, I urge everyone to support him.

    However, Im not sure that a Mayor can do much about these laws, isnt it up to the city council? Forgive my ignorance, Im politically retarded.

    BTW, F*ck Shari Buck!

    -Geoff

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    DESERT ATILLA wrote:
    No, based on her reply, I won't vote for her either. BTW, do you know where the language is, specifically, for the Clark County grandfather clause? I'm thinking that if there is specific language for Clark County and there isn't anything specifically for North Las Vegas, we have an even stronger point of argument for the invalidity of the ordinances

    FYI-I do not endorse any particular candidate. I am merely allowing them to disqualify themselves from receiving my vote based on a very important topic.
    No time as I'm on my way to work.

    But, do a search of this forum and you'll find everything!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    DESERT ATILLA wrote:
    BTW, do you know where the language is, specifically, for the Clark County grandfather clause? I'm thinking that if there is specific language for Clark County and there isn't anything specifically for North Las Vegas, we have an even stronger point of argument for the invalidity of the ordinances

    .
    Here ya go.


    NRS 268.418 Limited authority to regulate firearms; restrictions concerning registration of firearms in city in county whose population is 400,000 or more. 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 city may infringe upon those rights and powers. As used in this subsection, “firearm” means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.
    2. The governing body of a city may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.
    3. 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.
    4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as used in this section:
    (a) “Firearm” means any device designed to be used as a weapon from which a projectile may be expelled through the barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.
    (b) “Firearm capable of being concealed” includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.
    (c) “Pistol” means a firearm capable of being concealed that is intended to be aimed and fired with one hand.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    And also per SB-92 of 2007:
    Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989,at page 653, is hereby amended to read as follows:
    Sec. 5. The provisions of this act applyto ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Ok, I've seen this statute plenty of times. I still don't see the "grandfather clause" that Councilwoman Buck is refering to.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    And I don't think you will see the grandfather clause that SHE is referring to.

    The law, as I and many others read it, says their registraton scheme is grandfathered - NOT ANY other ordinances!

    And I personally disagree with her statement that they are in compliance with state law.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    varminter22 wrote:
    And I don't think you will see the grandfather clause that SHE is referring to.

    The law, as I and many others read it, says their registraton scheme is grandfathered - NOT ANY other ordinances!

    And I personally disagree with her statement that they are in compliance with state law.
    I agree with you, totally. I'm starting to think that they are looking at the statutes-see that the language mentions registration, and nothing else. And since nothing else is mentioned in the revision, the old ordinances must still be in force (grandfathered). It's just a theory.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    This is a reply from Angelo Carvalho. He's one of the candidates running for the city council post in the 3rd district of North Las Vegas.



    xxxx,

    I'm sorry for the late reply. I work the long shift through the week end. I believe that aperson that obeys our laws should be able to carry a weapon where ever they want. I have a CCW and do not likethe current law that is in place today in our city. This is one of my first action of change if put in to office.We all know that the the criminalsdon't care about laws and use them against us to commit crimes. I feel that if we all had a gun on our hips like the wild west did that acriminal would think twice before their actions. My contact information is cel # 325-9032 if you have any questions feel free to call.

    Angelo

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    The problem with the interpretation is that most people do not pay attention to Chapter 308 Section 5 of the 1989 Statutes of Nevada, enacting the preemption statutes.

    The 2007 amendment modified not only the NRS codesections, but also the 1989 statute. A search of the NRS will not reveal the text of the modification to the 1989 law.

    It is that amendment to the original enacting that eliminates the grandfather status. Unfortunately, it does require a more complex review. I believe most of those who disagree with our interpretation have failed to read and/or literally interpret the 1989 text.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    xxxx,

    I'm sorry for the late reply. I work the long shift through the week end. I believe that aperson that obeys our laws should be able to carry a weapon where ever they want. I have a CCW and do not likethe current law that is in place today in our city. This is one of my first action of change if put in to office.We all know that the the criminalsdon't care about laws and use them against us to commit crimes. I feel that if we all had a gun on our hips like the wild west did that acriminal would think twice before their actions. My contact information is cel # 325-9032 if you have any questions feel free to call.

    Angelo
    IMHO, this may be the most intelligent candidate running for office. Possibly anywhere.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    Angelo Carvalho and Ned Thomas it is!

  24. #24
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Lawyers... and politicians... being what they are... would complicate soup. Here it is... plain 'n simple: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No caveats... no permits, license or other crap... just personal responsibility. Rights do NOT require permit or license or regulation or registration.

    The KISS principle... Keep It Simple Stupid!

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Lawyers... and politicians... being what they are... would complicate soup. Here it is... plain 'n simple: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No caveats... no permits, license or other crap... just personal responsibility. Rights do NOT require permit or license or regulation or registration.

    The KISS principle... Keep It Simple Stupid!
    I dare anyone to say they don't like to be KISSed. :X



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
  •