Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 135

Thread: Clark County Parks

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

    Post imported post

    From NLV Litter Pickup topic, I started this new thread about CC Parks:

    I can handle that. Just wear a gun you don't mind losing for a few months...

    Also, anyone who does so should be aware of this page:

    http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/dep...rk_Police.aspx

    Clearly marked near the top of that page is a reference to "19.04.060 Clark County code prohibits the possession of firearms in all county parks."

    I just sent them this note through their contact page. I encourage others to do the same.
    On your web page, you reference Clark County code 19.04.060 prohibiting the carry of firearms in parks. This code is no longer lawful and is not enforceable under state law.

    NRS 244.364 prohibits counties from establishing or enforcing any (local) law regarding the possession of firearms, with the exception of DISCHARGE and the Clark County blue card registration.

    As I will not be discharging my firearm, unless attacked by a criminal, and my firearm is registered with the county, I expect that my lawful carry of a firearm will not be interfered with by an officer in your department.

    I am planning a visit to county parks in the near future, and will also be participating in a picnic with others who will also be openly carrying firearms. We're not sure of the dates, times, or places yet.

    I am writing to provide you advance notice, not because I am seeking your permission, not to help you keep tabs on my lawful activities, nor because I'm doing anything wrong. I am providing you with advance notice because I do not want to have to educate any park officers as I would much rather enjoy my day with my friends without interruption.

    I am requesting a reply from someone in your department acknowledging my note and confirming that your department will in fact not disrupt the lawful activities of legally armed citizens.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Today I received a response (my original inquiry was dated 04/30/2009, so a little more than 2 weeks for a response)

    Mr. Farrell, I have received your email and have reviewed its contents, thank you for presenting me with your comments regarding firearms in County Parks. I have reviewed the NRS (244.364) you cite, however your interpretation of the statute is incorrect. It does not prevent the County from creating rules, codes or regulations governing the possession of firearms in the County Parks and it does not give citizens the authority to carry firearms in the County Parks

    The County Code (19.04.060) prohibiting firearms in the County Parks stands. Please feel free to visit any of the parks you choose but please leave your firearm at home

    Thanks.

    Roy A. Michael
    Division Commander
    Clark County Park Police
    Office - 702-455-7532
    Cellular - 702-249-5962
    michaera@co.clark.nv.us
    Please feel free to email or call this guy if this confuses you too.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    I sent him this note:

    Thanks for the reply.

    From the NRS:

    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 county 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.

    If the legislature is the only governing body in the state which may regulate possession or transportation of firearms, and no county may infringe upon those rights, how does that allow any leeway whatsoever for the county to create rules or regulations regulating the possession of a firearm?

    I will be visiting county parks and I will be open carrying. Despite your note to the contrary, I will not be leaving my lawfully possessed firearms at home. I carry everywhere else, including banks, restaurants, bars, stores, etc. None of these private property owners hassle me about my free exercise of my civil rights and my desire to protect myself and my family. It seems odd that PUBLIC parks would be off limits to law-abiding citizens exercising a constitutionally protected right. As such, if arrested, I will bring immediate suit for violation of 18 USC 242, not to mention illegal imprisonment and false arrest. From the FBI's web page at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilright...tm#section242:

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

    This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

    Even if your department maintains this position, I would appreciate a further reply regarding your interpretation of NRS 244.364 and what in the text of that law leads you to conclude you have the right to infringe upon the right of the legislature (aka the People of Nevada) to regulate the possession of firearms.

    Thanks,
    Tim

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Another reply from CC Park Police

    Mr. Farrell, my position remains the same, please don't un-necessarily place your self in an unlawfulsituation. The intent and authority of the County Code is to keep the parks safe from the presence of firearms. The Clark County District Attorney agrees with the County Code that prohibits firearms in the parks.
    Again, I encourage you to visit and usethe County parks but ask that you do it without bringing your firearm.
    Thanks.
    Roy A. Michael
    Division Commander
    Clark County Park Police
    Office - 702-455-7532
    Cellular - 702-249-5962


  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    And reply:

    "See you in court I guess."
    I know, silly reply. I was a little heated. Should have taken a walk and came back to the keyboard.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    I sent this note over to the DA's office to a legal researcher that has been talking to me for the last year regarding the illegal park prohibition:
    Ms Bolin-

    I've been in touch with Roy Michael, Division Commander for Clark County Park Police. He's given me the same position that your office has. I've explained that I will be carrying my firearm in parks very soon and expect not to be hassled by their department but it looks like I will very likely be unlawfully detained, illegally arrested, and my property stolen from me in violation of Nevada law (NRS 244.364) and US law (18 USC 242). Should I be detained by officers at gun point, this will be aggravating circumstances under 18 USC 242 allowing for severe criminal penalties against any offending officers.

    I take these criminal threats by his department very seriously and thought you should know the conversation that has transpired given the history of the research you've been engaged in.

    I have copied him on this email so that the two of you may begin a dialog within the DA's office, as this issue is about to become widely publicized and will need more immediate attention from you office. I am prepared to be arrested to protect my rights and that of others.

    On Sunday, a large group of lawfully armed citizens will be meeting peacefully in North Las Vegas to conduct a litter pickup in protest of a pre-empted law in the North Las Vegas municipal code (9.32.080). This municipal code says citizens may not have a gun in their vehicle while in North Las Vegas. While county code is preempted by NRS 244.364, city code is preempted by nearly identical language in NRS 268.418.

    This litter pickup has already gotten the attention of the Las Vegas Review Journal:

    http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/vin/Gun_ow...is_Sunday.html

    There are also several local radio stations who may have an interest in covering this issue.

    In the days following the NLV Litter Pickup, I intend to hold a Open Carry picnic at Sunset Park. There will be 20-30 or more armed citizens exercising their God-given, US Constitution protected (upheld a year ago by the US Supreme Court as an individual right), Nevada Constitution protected, Nevada law protected right to bear arms.

    We expect the county will agree that it does not have the authority to supercede the human right of self-defense guaranteed to all humans and protected by US and State law. Nor should it want to. No one has any reason to fear lawfully armed, law-abiding citizens.

    I know you asked me to wait till the end of June, but other issues have presented themselves that makes this a more expedient issue.

    If you do not have the time, I ask that you escalate the issue to your management so your office may be prepared to deal with this issue more publicly.

    Thanks for your help and support,

    Tim Farrell

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    And a follow up note to the CC Park Police Commander:

    Mr Michael-

    I would ask that your officers do not put themselves in an unlawful situation.

    I have asked that you please provide me with whatever justification you've used in order to determine that the county does have the authority to regulate possession of a firearm, despite very clear text in NRS 244.364.

    If you are able to provide me with an explanation backed up by code I can verify, I am happy to reconsider my position. However, I have not been given any reason to believe that my interpretation is incorrect. The text of the NRS seems quite clear.

    Also, please note that the Mayor of North Las Vegas, Michael Montandon, has conceded that NLV City Code (9.32.080) prohibiting possession of firearms in vehicles, has been preempted NRS 268.318, which contains nearly identical text to NRS 244.364 (it applies to cities rather than counties). Additionally, the City Attorney for the City of Boulder City, Dave Olsen, has also conceded that BC City Code (7.1.3), prohibiting the possesion of firearms within 1000 yards of any building, has been preempted by NRS 268.318. Though I do not have direct involvement or relationship to the dialog, I have heard Storey and Washoe County have also agreed that NRS 244.364 has preempted and made unenforceable any similar firearms related laws in their respective counties.

    Thanks,
    Tim Farrell

  8. #8
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Mr. Farrell, my position remains the same, please don't un-necessarily place your self in an unlawful situation
    timf343 wrote:
    I would ask that your officers do not put themselves in an unlawful situation.
    That is funny! :celebrate

    I hope all goes well at the park.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    I suggest forwarding a copy of the correspondence back and forth to the Sponsors and Co-Sponsors listed on the following document......

    SB92-Enrolled

    They may be quite interested to see that municipalities are not honoring the language, OR the spirit of SB-92 as Enrolled.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Good idea!

    I think what is interesting is when these municipalities try to give you a bunch of nonsense about the "legislative intent". This is the legislative counsel's digest from the ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED BILL:

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/SB/SB92.pdf

    Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
    Assembly Bill No. 147 of the 1989 Legislative Session (Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, p. 653) reserved for the Legislature the rights and powers necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in this State. However, section 5 of Assembly Bill No. 147 provided that the preemptive effect of the bill applied only to ordinances or regulations adopted by local governments on or after June 13, 1989. This bill amends that section to include and preempt ordinances or regulations adopted by local governments before June 13, 1989.
    The rest of the nonsense that was added to the enrolled version was just to allow Clark County to keep it's BLUE CARD registration law on the books.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    AND, the original bill that SB92 expounded upon includes AG opinions that the original pre-emption WOULD render existing legislation in municipalities null and void. varminter and I have this available.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

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

    Post imported post

    AND, the original bill that SB92 expounded upon includes AG opinions that the original pre-emption WOULD render existing legislation in municipalities null and void. varminter and I have this available.



    wrightme wrote:
    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
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Another reply from Roy:

    Hello Mr. Farrell,I appreciate your concern regarding the enforcement responsibilitiesof my officers.
    The justification you request regarding our enforcement of the prohibition of firearms in the County parks exists by County Code, recently reviewed, interpreted and supported by the Clark County District Attorney's Office. Further debating the issue seems un-necessary.
    I believe I have properly informed you of our lawful responsibilities regarding firearms in the parks and have encouraged you to visit and use the parks in the safest manner prescribed, without the possession of a firearm.
    Please follow the regulation.
    Roy A. Michael
    Division Commander
    Clark County Park Police
    Office - 702-455-7532
    Cellular - 702-249-5962


  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    And my reply (yes I'm pissed):

    I do appreciate your reply. We clearly disagree. I am prepared to be arrested. This is your notice that any arresting officer will immediately be sued for violation of 18 USC 242, and should the arrest be handled as a "felony stop" with guns drawn and my being forced to the ground to be disarmed, I will seek the maximum criminal penalties allowed by law, 10 years in federal prison.

    Tim Farrell


  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Here's the note I sent to the senators and assembly:

    Good afternoon-

    I am a Nevada resident living in the City of Las Vegas. I am writing to ask for your help. I apologize in advance for the long read, but I believe the background and detail I'm providing is pertinent.

    Having read the originally introduced version of the bill you sponsored (Thank you by the way!!), it seems quite clear to me the legislative intent of the Bill. The Legislative Counsel's Digest sums it up so even a regular guy like me, with no legal training whatsoever, can understand.

    The final, enrolled version of the bill that passed both houses and was signed by the Governor includes additional language from the original version, and it seems like that additional text is to keep grandfathered Clark County's "Blue Card" registration of handguns. While I would have like to see that useless county ordinance disappear too, SB92 goes a long way in ensuring law-abiding Nevadans are not unknowingly breaking any local ordinances while peacefully carrying their firearms for self defense. The original bill, AB147 from 1989 is also pretty clear.

    I have been in discussion with various local governments and the response is mixed. Most are IGNORING the state law and continuing to unlawfully enforce their own local ordinances upon otherwise innocent citizens.

    In North Las Vegas, City Municipal Code 9.32.080 (http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com...GENERALLY.html) states one may not be in possession of a firearm, whether loaded or not, while in their vehicle. Mayor Mike Montandon agrees that SB92's amendment to NRS 268.318 nullifies city code. However, he has been unsuccessful in getting the City Council to remove it from the books. And despite the Mayor's assertion that the law is nullified, North Las Vegas police state they continue to enforce the law selectively. They promise anyone with a CCW permit will not be cited, nor someone traveling to/from hunting or target practice. But this goes away beyond their authority as you, our representatives, have clearly limited that authority with no gray area.

    In Boulder City, City Municipal Code 7.1.3 (http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/cod...&keywords=) states one may not be in possession of any firearms, loaded or not, within 1000 yards of any building (you can't even have them in your home under strict interpretation of that law!). City Attorney Dave Olsen confirms that NRS 268.318 preempts their law, but the Boulder City City Council has responded indicating they have "higher priority items" on their agenda and don't know if/when they'll get around to removing it. Until then, Boulder City Police Chief Thomas Finn has promised the local police will continue to enforce any laws on the books, including 7.1.3.

    In Clark County, Code 19.04.060 allows for the establishment of rules and regulation for public parks. One of those "rules" they have implemented is no firearms permitted. Doesn't matter if they're loaded or not. Doesn't matter if they're concealed or not. Doesn't matter if they're safely in the trunk of your car while you attend a picnic. If you have a gun in a park, you're guilty of a misdemeanor. Clark County Park Police (Division Commander Roy Michael) confirms they will enforce this rule 100% on all citizens and if I have a firearm in the park, I'll be arrested, charged with a misdemeanor crime, and have my firearm seized.

    As you can see, these rules and regulations are violations of state law (268.318 for cities and 244.364 for counties) but they don't care. They're blatantly ignoring the law, while threatening law abiding citizens with arrest for a peaceful, constitutionally protected activity. Citizens are not permitted to disregard laws with which they do not agree, why are local governments permitted to do so?

    To make matters worse, the Nevada Attorney General seems to misunderstand the law too. Per this link on her web site, the AG confirms that local statutes are in effect and citizens are strongly encouraged to contact local law enforcement to determine whether they may possess a firearm. http://ag.state.nv.us/about/faqs/firearms/carry.htm

    Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of preemption? Preemption is supposed to make it EASIER to travel peacefully throughout the state without fear of prosecution for an unknown local statute.

    I know it's probably too late in this session to introduce a new bill to fix this problem (by statutorily forcing local municipalities to remove the preempted statutes from their books) but your help with fixing the Attorney General's web site is a great start. And if possible, it would make a huge impact upon the opinions of the NLV Police, BC Police, and Clark County District Attorney if you are able to publicly confirm that the legislative intent of 2007-SB92 and 1989-AB147 is to preempt and eliminate all local ordinances regarding the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms (except the grandfathered Clark County Blue Card registration). If you're not able to issue an "official" statement, an email reply confirming the purpose of the law will also be quite useful.

    Many thanks in advance for any replies I do receive.

    Regards,

    Tim Farrell

  16. #16

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    And, as wrightme said, of vital importance (in my humble and outspoken opinion) is this portion of SB-92 as enacted into law:
    Sec. 4. Section 5 of chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, is hereby amended to read as follows:



    Sec. 5.
    1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, the provisions of this act applyto 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.


    Sec. 5.
    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 applicableprovision by January 1, 2008, shall be deemed to conform with that provision by operation of law.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Right on, Tim! I'm starting to think that it's time to organize some kind of defense fund. This needs to be a topic at our meet on Sunday.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    DESERT ATILLA wrote:
    Right on, Tim! I'm starting to think that it's time to organize some kind of defense fund. This needs to be a topic at our meet on Sunday.
    Any chance of getting NRA or GOA to step up and help financially, or at least with finding a really good pro-gun (and preferably pro-bono) lawyer?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    DESERT ATILLA wrote:
    Right on, Tim! I'm starting to think that it's time to organize some kind of defense fund. This needs to be a topic at our meet on Sunday.
    Great job Tim!

    I live in Arizona, which seems to be a much more free state when it comes to the 2nd ammendment and I admire that you are fighting for your rights. Although I couldn't make a large donation to your defense fund, I certianly would want to help. I'm sure a lot of us Arizonians would like to show our support by being at the park with you or helping out with donations if there are any arrest. Good Luck!

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

    Post imported post

    AnakinsKid wrote:
    DESERT ATILLA wrote:
    Right on, Tim! I'm starting to think that it's time to organize some kind of defense fund. This needs to be a topic at our meet on Sunday.
    Any chance of getting NRA or GOA to step up and help financially, or at least with finding a really good pro-gun (and preferably pro-bono) lawyer?
    Actually, I have been playing phone tag today with Carrie Herbertson from NRA. She left a VM regarding them having retained a law firm here in Vegas. Letters sent to the City Atty's for each local city, plus the county DA's office have apparently been unanswered.

    Once I get a better read from her I'll provide an update here.

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

    Post imported post

    Actually, the law firm is in Reno.

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

    Post imported post

    varminter22 wrote:
    Actually, the law firm is in Reno.
    WOW, thats helpfull!

    A Lawfirm in Reno to fight a problem in Vegas. Go Figure.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    I don't have confirmation of this, but if I had to guess it would be Parsons, Behle, and Latimer. On the NV Legislative web site, a list of paid lobbyists shows Mr. Rew Goodenow as a paid lobbyist representing the NRA:

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Lobbyist/...amp;Session=75

    Mr. Goodenow's email address is to the domain of the Salt Lake City based law firm Parsons, Behle and Latimer, with addresses in SLC, Reno, and Las Vegas.

    Again, it's mere speculation, but it seems logical given the facts.

    Tim

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    geoffw wrote:
    varminter22 wrote:
    Actually, the law firm is in Reno.
    WOW, thats helpfull!

    A Lawfirm in Reno to fight a problem in Vegas. Go Figure.
    While some of the regulations that are not being pre-empted are in Clark County and/or Las Vegas, I see this as a State problem.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •