DESERT ATILLA
Regular Member
imported post
Right off the bat, I'd like to apologize for the length of this post.:banghead: 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 5[suP]th[/suP]. 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= [b]Sec. 2. NRS 268.418[/b] is hereby amended to read as follows:][/size]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"] 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.[/font]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"] 2. The governing body of a city may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.[/font]][/size]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"] 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][/font]
(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= [b]Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as ][/size][/b]used in this section [, “firearm”] :
(a) “Firearm” [size=means any [b]device designed to be used as a ][/size][/b]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=[b]Section 5 of chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653[/b], is hereby amended to read as follows:][/size]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"] Sec. 5. [][/size]The] [/font]
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, the [size=provisions of this act apply [b][][/size][/b]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
[url]www.NedThomasforMayor.com[/url]
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.
Right off the bat, I'd like to apologize for the length of this post.:banghead: 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 5[suP]th[/suP]. 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= [b]Sec. 2. NRS 268.418[/b] is hereby amended to read as follows:][/size]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"] 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.[/font]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"] 2. The governing body of a city may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.[/font]][/size]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"] 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][/font]
(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= [b]Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as ][/size][/b]used in this section [, “firearm”] :
(a) “Firearm” [size=means any [b]device designed to be used as a ][/size][/b]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=[b]Section 5 of chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653[/b], is hereby amended to read as follows:][/size]
[size=[font="Times New Roman"] Sec. 5. [][/size]The] [/font]
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, the [size=provisions of this act apply [b][][/size][/b]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
[url]www.NedThomasforMayor.com[/url]
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.