• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What the candidates are saying

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
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.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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!
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
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
 

DESERT ATILLA

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
90
Location
, ,
imported post

Here is a response from a city council candidate for ward 3.

Dear xxxxx:

I am sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have been answering questionnaires for endorsement interviews andgoing to speaking engagements all week and going door to door on the weekends. Please forgive me for for my crazy schedule.

I have to admit that this section of our North Las Vegas City Ordinances is not my strongest. I am much more knowledgable about land use and zoning issues. But I will do my best to answer your questions.

1.I fully supportlawfully armed citizens.People have the right to bear arms in this country, and everyone has the right toprotect themselves and their families.I do advocate that citizens with children take the added precaution of locking up their firearms so they are not accessible to children. I am also anadvocateof restrictingaccess torapid fire assault weapons and armor-piercing ammunition. But I do support firearms and hunting rifles.

2. Yes, I am willing to actively lead an effort to change or eliminate any conflicting and confusing ordinances, includingordinancesthat would allowlaw-abiding citizens tobe punished for wanting to protect themselves, their families and friends.

That said, I now need some clarification:

1. Now, as I read 9.32.040Dangerous or deadly weapon defineda fireare(a)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 is not considered a dangerous weapon. Therefore, if the firearm is registered and you have a concealed weapons permit, you would not be in violation of [size=[b]9.32.080 Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle. [/b]][/size]So are we interpretingthese provisions in the same way? Or are you concerned about lawfully armed citizens with registered firearms who do not have concealed weapons permits?

I want to make sure I fully understand your points before I present any questions or requests to the City Attorney's Office.

Please feel free to bring me up to speedon this issue. You can email me back. Or feel free to call me at home at 631-4307 or on my cell at 496-2786.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me and educate me regarding this issue.

Anita Wood
Candidate, NorthLas Vegas City Council, Ward 3
 

DESERT ATILLA

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
90
Location
, ,
imported post

I thought this might be a good time for some teaching, whether she wins or not.

My response to her:

Dear Anita Wood,



Thank you so much for responding to my inquiries. I appreciate your time and honesty. The problem that I see in the language of the ordinances actually stems from the State Constitution. Our state has no restrictions handgun carry as long as the firearm is carried openly. In other words, lawful citizens don’t need a permit to carry a pistol if they are carrying in such a manner as to be discernible by ordinary observation. The following passage of the NRS specifically defines what concealed carry means. And it is concealed carry that requires a permit.



[size=NRS ][/size]202.3653 Definitions. As used in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:

[size= 1. “Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.][/size]



So, as you can see, a citizen who is in possession of a registered handgun and openly carrying in their car, and who does not have a concealed carry permit, would, technically, be in violation of a flawed ordinance. As I stated in my earlier correspondence, I am a law-abiding citizen, as are my family, friends and associates. Laws like those that we’ve discussed threaten our freedoms and our good standings in our community. I hope I’ve helped in clarifying the issue.



All my best,
 
Top