Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Request for opinion from NV Atty General

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

    Post imported post

    This is LONG but well worth the read.

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

    Post imported post

    The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto
    Attorney General
    Nevada Department of Justice
    100 N. Carson Street
    Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717


    Re: Opinion Request Regarding NRS 244.364


    Dear Attorney General Masto:

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

    First, does NRS 244.364 give Clark County the authority to adopt and enact a local ordinance or regulation which prohibits the carrying, possessing or discharging of firearms in Clark County parks and park facilities? Second, do the Constitution of the United States and the Nevada State Constitution allow Clark County to proscribe the possession of a firearm in county parks?


    BACKGROUND INFORMATION

    On April 15, 2009, the Clark County Department of Parks & Recreation received notice from Mr. Tim that he was planning a visit to Clark County parks in the near future, would be openly carrying a firearm, and would be participating in a picnic with others who would also be openly carrying firearms. He stated that Clark County Code 19.04.060 (hereinafter "CCC 19.04.060") was no longer lawful, and was unenforceable under NRS 244.364 which, he stated, prohibited counties from establishing or enforcing any law regarding the possession of firearms, with the exception of discharge and the Clark County blue card registration.


    Nevada Revised Statute 244.364 became effective on July 1, 1989. In section one of that statute, the State of Nevada reserved to itself the power to regulate matters relating to the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada. After giving that power exclusively to the State, however, section two gave each county's board of county commissioners the power to establish ordinances or regulations which proscribe any unsafe discharge of firearms.


    CCC 19.04.060 gives the Clark County Board of Commissioners the authority to adopt rules and regulations to govern the individual public parks of Clark County. Pursuant to that authority, the Board of Commissioners has adopted rules and regulations governing the public parks of Clark County. These rules prohibit, among other things, the carrying, possessing, or discharging of any firearms within any County park or park facility without the written approval of the Director of Parks & Recreation or designee. To this point, there have been no challenges regarding a conflict between the NRS 244.364 and CCC 19.04.060.


    Mr. 's notice precipitated several e-mail conversations between Mr. and the Commander of Clark County Park Police. The Commander contacted our office and requested an opinion in order to know better how to proceed. As a result of subsequent discussions between Mr. and Park Police regarding the possibility of a conflict between the state statute and the county code, our office believes that the opinion of the Nevada State Attorney General is critical in determining whether NRS 244.364 gives counties in Nevada the authority to enact ordinances or regulations prohibiting the carrying or possessing of firearms within their jurisdictions. Therefore, our office requests that you consider Clark County's analysis as well as the attached analysis of Mr. , and that you render an opinion clarifying the effect of NRS 244.364 on CCC 19.04.060.


    Our analysis follows.


    CLARK COUNTY ANALYSIS

    The text of NRS 244.364 reads:

    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.


    2. A board of county commissioners may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.


    3. If a board of county commissioners 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 board of county commissioners shall amend such an ordinance or regulation to require:


    (a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the county 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 county 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.


    Sections one and two are the sections most relevant to the question at hand. There are some general principles which have been established when determining whether a general statute and a code section are compatible, allowing the ordinance to be enforced. First, generally, in order to be valid, an ordinance must conform to, and not violate, general statutes. Additionally, if a statute is enacted which conflicts with an earlier ordinance, the ordinance is automatically repealed. 6 McQuillin, Law of Municipal Corporations, §21.32 3d ed. (2007). In determining whether there is a conflict, it is generally held that where general statutes contain no express terms of repeal, the presumption is always against an intention to repeal an earlier statute or ordinance. Ronnow v. City of Las Vegas, 57 Nev. 332, 65 P.2d 133 (1937). In cases where a general statute preempts discrete areas of the subject matter rather than the entire field, an ordinance regulating a portion of the subject which is not preempted is not in direct conflict with, nor impliedly preempted by that statute. Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. 4th 853, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2nd 746, 44 P.3d 120 (2002).


    A review of the twenty years during which both NRS 244.364 and CCC 19.04.060 have been in effect does not reveal any legislative action or Federal or Nevada State case law which indicates that the statute and the ordinance are in conflict. Our office has no argument with the conclusion that, in section one of NRS 244.364, the Nevada State Legislature seeks to reserve to itself all matters relating to the registration, ownership, or transfer of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, except by specific statute. There is ambiguity, however, with the meaning of the word 'possession' used in section one. According to Black's Law Dictionary:


    The law, in general, recognizes two kinds of possession: actual possession and constructive possession. A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing, at a given time, is then in actual possession of it. A person, who, although not in actual possession, knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of it.


    Black's Law Dictionary 1163 (6th ed. 1990); Palmer v. State of Nevada, 112 Nev. 763, 920 P.2d 112 (1996).


    By stating that, '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 in Nevada,’ the Legislature placed the word 'possession' within a list of words relating to the ownership, control or registration of a firearm. Of the two meanings Black's Law Dictionary gives to 'possession,' constructive possession is the most reasonable fit. The Legislature intended to regulate a person's power and intention to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons. There is no indication that the statute required the firearm to be under direct physical control.


    On the other hand, the rule adopted pursuant to CCC 19. 04.060 specifically prohibits 'the carrying, possessing or discharging' of any firearm within any county park or park facility. In this rule, 'possessing' is between two words which require the direct physical control of the firearm. Using the most reasonable meaning in each context, NRS 244.364 allows the Clark County Parks & Recreation rule to be enforced because it provides a vehicle by which the county commission proscribes the unsafe discharge of firearms.


    There are several state statutes which prohibit the carrying of a firearm in specific places and situations. For example, NRS 202.257 makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance to 'have actual physical possession' of any firearm except for the purpose of self-defense within his personal residence. NRS 202.3673 does not allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon while on the premises of a public airport, public school, child-care facility, property of the Nevada System of Higher Education or any public building with a metal detector at each public entrance, without written permission or an exemption under section four of that statute. NRS 202.265 expressly states that, except as otherwise provided in that section, a person 'shall not carry or possess' a pistol, revolver or other firearm while on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or child care facility, or while in a vehicle of a private or public school or child care facility.


    NRS 244.300 gives county commissioners the power to operate, manage, improve and maintain public parks, golf courses and other public recreational and cultural centers and areas. Along with this broad power comes the responsibility to keep these public places at least as safe as the public places regulated by state statute. Throughout NRS Chapter 455B, owners, managers and operators of parks open to the public are required to post safety rules and regulations conspicuously in their parks. The counties are the managers and operators for many of these parks. NRS 244.364(2) also acknowledges at least part of that responsibility when it gives counties the power to regulate the safe discharge of firearms. The Parks & Recreation rule made pursuant to CCC 19.04.060 prohibits the 'carrying, possessing, or discharging' of any firearms in public parks and park facilities. These are the same words NRS 202.265 uses when forbidding firearms in public schools. The state statute and the county rule use the same method to achieve the same result. They both make sure there is no unsafe discharge of a firearm. The method of the rule is no more restrictive than that of the state statute. When the Legislature enacted NRS 244.364, it contemplated that the power given in section two would allow counties to use the same method of enforcement used in one of its own statutes.


    A study of the legislative history of NRS 244.364 sheds more light on the intent of the Nevada State Legislature when it considered Assembly Bill No. 147 (A.B. 147) in the 1989 Legislature. Three provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes would later be enacted from this bill. One of those provisions was NRS 244.364. On February 9, 1989, Speaker of the Assembly, Joseph Dini, wrote a letter to Attorney General Brian McKay requesting answers to several questions regarding A.B. 147. The first question in Assemblyman Dini's letter was whether A.B.147 would repeal or make ineffective local discharge ordinances. In his answering letter on February 17, 1989, Attorney General McKay responded to that question with the following:


    This statute would preempt for state regulation all forms of governmental regulation involving firearms and ammunition in Nevada, with one exception. That exception allows cities, counties, and towns to prescribe by ordinance or regulations which would prohibit discharging firearms on the public streets or other public places, in urbanized areas, or into structures, vehicles, aircraft or watercraft. Such unlawful discharge ordinances would be the only type of local ordinance or regulation permitted if A.B.147 became law. Therefore, the answer to your question is A.B.147 would not repeal or make ineffective local unlawful discharge ordinances of the type described herein.


    See 2/17/1989 letter attached.


    In a February 21, 1989 letter from Lorne J. Malkiewich, Legislative Counsel, to Assemblyman Dini, Mr. Malkiewich explained the implications of A.B. 147 in these words:


    That is, a local government has no right to interfere with or complement the legislation of the state by prescribing additional regulations or auxiliary provisions for the same purpose. As an example, since Assembly Bill No. 147 authorizes local governments to regulate the unsafe discharge of firearms, local ordinances may be more stringent than state laws regulating the discharge of firearms. However, if a local government enacted an ordinance requiring the licensing of all handguns, such an ordinance would invade the exclusive province of the legislature and would be void unless specifically authorized by state statute.


    See Attached 2/21/1989 Letter.


    Despite the efforts to unify the regulation of firearms and ammunition throughout the state, the final text of A.B. 147 included section five which stated that the provisions of the act applied only to ordinances or regulations adopted on or after the effective date of the act. Clark County's regulation prohibiting the possession, carrying or discharging of firearms in public parks and park facilities of Clark County was adopted by the Clark County Commission on January 5, 1981. Therefore, the bill allowed the rule to be grandfathered into the new NRS 244.364 regardless of its compliance with the preemption of section one of that statute.


    See attached text of Assembly Bill #147. See also attached Clark County Commissioners Agenda Item #23, 8/5/81.


    In addition to the grandfathering of all previously adopted ordinances, when the three provisions from A.B. 147 were enacted, the Legislature had been advised by legal counsel that the purpose of section one in each of the new statutes was different from the purpose of section two. As a result of that difference, counties, cities and towns would have the power to adopt regulations for the purpose of making the discharge of firearms safe within their jurisdictions. Additionally, Legislative Counsel advised that those local governments could adopt regulations which were more stringent than state laws regulating the discharge of firearms. Considering NRS 202.265, which prohibits the same action in public schools as the county regulation prohibits in county parks, Clark County's regulation stops well within the advice given by counsel, which would allow the county regulation to be even more stringent than the state statute.


    In 2007 Senate Bill 92 proposed an amendment to NRS 244.364. This resulted in the addition of section three of the current statute. In an Assembly Committee on Government Affairs meeting on May 10, 2007, Senator John Lee described the situation which had led to the proposed amendment:


    Assembly Bill No. 147 of the 65th Session brought the licensing of firearms into one uniform law. Previously, every county had different ordinances on its municipal books. Assembly Bill No. 147 of the 65th Session made that disappear with one law which each person in Nevada would know and understand.


    To pass this law, Clark County negotiated a carve-out which said they would be treated differently than the other 16 counties. They were able to keep their ordinances or regulations previously accepted by local government before June 13, 1989.


    Things have changed in Clark County. We have conventions that come to Las Vegas that are entirely about guns and shooting.



    See attached committee minutes.


    In the end, the third section of NRS 244.364 was the result of a compromise which Ray Flynn, Assistant Sheriff, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department characterized in his statement at that meeting:


    The way the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) is written, if the county were to change any of the gun registration laws on its own, it would automatically void them. This is why it needs legislative intervention.


    The way S.B. 92 is written, it meets the needs of Clark County, but also recognizes that times have changed.


    See minutes Id.


    Thus, despite the discussion of repealing all grandfathered ordinances, the only amendments to grandfathered ordinances and rules required by the changes of 2007 were those which would allow visitors who were not permanent residents of the county the right to legally keep their concealed firearms for the duration of their stay. It also did not change the authority given in section two. Our conclusion is that the amendment of 2007 allowed the Clark County Parks & Recreation rule, which was adopted with its current wording by the Clark County Board of County Commissioners on January 5, 1981, to remain in effect. It also left the authority of counties to regulate the safe discharge of firearms in their jurisdictions untouched.


    Though our office has not found any Nevada case law which discusses the possibility of firearm ordinances such as the CCC 19.04.060 violating a general statute like NRS 244.364, neighboring states have addressed the issue. Washington and Arizona state courts have determined that an ordinance which is a limited prohibition reasonably related to particular places and necessary to protect the public safety, health, morals and general welfare is not preempted by state statute. City of Tucson v. Rineer 193 Ariz. 160, 971 P.2d 207 (Ariz. App.1998). see also Second Amendment Foundation v. City of Renton, 35 Wash. App. 583, 668 P.2d 596, 599 (Wash. App. 1983). Similarly, California courts have addressed the issue with a three pronged test to determine if the general statute preempts the local ordinance. First, the subject matter of the general statute must be so fully and completely covered by general laws as to clearly indicate that it had become exclusively a matter of state concern. Second, the subject matter, even though only partially covered by general law, must be couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern would not tolerate further or additional local action. Third, the subject matter, even though only partially covered by general law, is of such a nature that the adverse affect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighed the possible benefit to the locality. Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. 4th 853, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 746, 44 P.3d 120 (2002).

    The rule adopted by the Clark County Board of County Commissioners is limited to particular property, its parks and park facilities, and the county has great interest in protecting the safety, health, morals and general welfare of those who visit these places. In addition, the statute, though generally preempting the field of firearm regulation, expressly grants counties broad power to regulate the discharge of firearms in the county. It would make no sense to add this grant of power to counties if the legislature intended to reserve to itself every aspect of firearm regulation. City of Tucson .v Rineer, Id.


    An issue which Mr. did not mention in his notice to the Clark County Department of Parks & Recreation, but discussed at length in his attached letter to you, was that of the constitutionality of Clark County's rule. His argument is that the rule fails to comply with both the Nevada State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. This issue, since it specifically concerns the state constitution, bears some analysis.


    The most recent U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the Second Amendment guarantee to keep and bear arms is District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.CT. 2783 (2008). The specific decision was:


    In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.


    Heller, p. 38.


    The Court specifically limited its holding to the situation regulated by the District of Columbia's ordinance, possession of an operable firearm in the home for the purpose of immediate self-defense. It also distinguished its holding from certain longstanding limitations on Second Amendment rights:

    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
    sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. FN 26


    FN 26. We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.


    Heller, p. 33-34


    Public parks and park facilities are places owned or leased, and operated by local governments for the purpose of inviting anyone seeking rest, relaxation, exercise, and sometimes even entertainment. It includes the very young to the very old, and all who enter have the expectation of safety during their visit. They are in the same category as a public building, airport, or school, where the Court in Heller considered a prohibition on the carrying of firearms a lawful regulatory measure.


    A year after the Heller decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Nordyke v. King 563 F.3d 439, considered whether the Second Amendment prohibited a local government from regulating gun possession on its property. The case considered the constitutionality of a county ordinance which forbade the possession and carrying of firearms on county property. After a long discussion of the applicability of the Second Amendment to local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held that the Second Amendment did not contain an entitlement to bring guns onto government property, and that the county ordinance did not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller analyzed it. Nordyke, P. 20.


    The Clark County rule does not go as far the California ordinance, as it only prohibits the possession of firearms on county parks and park facilities, not all of the property owned or operated by Clark County. Therefore, we have concluded that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, having jurisdiction over Nevada State Federal Questions, would consider the Clark County rule constitutionally enforceable.




    CONCLUSION

    Our conclusion is that the Clark County rule prohibiting the possession, carrying or discharge of firearms while in parks, or park facilities was grandfathered into the current state statute, NRS 244.364, as the rule was adopted by Clark County in 1981, eight years before the enactment of the state statute. We further conclude that the rule is within the exception articulated in NRS 244.364(2), which gives counties broad powers to regulate the unsafe discharge of firearms within their jurisdictions. Finally, we conclude that the state statute which allows the prohibition is constitutional under both the Nevada State and the U.S. Constitutions.














    We look forward to hearing from you in this matter. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.




    Sincerely,


    DAVID ROGER
    DISTRICT ATTORNEY

    By: MARY ANN PETERSON
    Deputy District Attorney

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

    Post imported post

    A couple of key points presented by the county. I have reviewed them and consider them all to be nonsense.

    Preemption of "possession" does not mean physical possession, but constructive possession. So it doesn't preempt counties from establishing laws against actually holding a firearm in your holster, but rather preempts them from establishing laws against being able to have them in general (in your home, car, etc.)

    NRS 244.364(2) allows counties to establish rules regulating discharge. Prohibiting physical possession of firearms (which is not preempted according to them) is the "vehicle" by which the county prohibits discharge.

    The language in their rule is the same as NRS 202.265 forbidding firearms in public schools, permissible as a "more stringent" prohibition of discharge as allowed according to 1989 legislative counsel.

    Senate bill 92 in 2007 only amended new section 3. They don't refute that section 1 was amended, but claim it is irrelevant because it does not limit their prohibition anyway, since it's their vehicle for denying discharge.

    My request cites US and NV constitutional issues. They did a pretty good job defending the US constitution issues with the pansy SCOTUS opinion in Heller, but neglected to mention the NV constitution issues at all. IMHO, the NV constitution is even more permissive than the US Constitution on this topic.

    They cited California case law as an example of preemption. California, right.

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

    Post imported post

    Seems pretty ridiculous to say that the law allowing the regulation of discharge of firearms allows them to regulate possession on the person basically because possession on the person can lead to discharge. Based on that logic couldn't they even extend it to say that possession in the sense of ownership could lead to discharge? Just as they claimed that state restrictions on schools would prevent the "vehicle of discharge" from possession on the person, they could then claim state laws prohibiting ownership by felons and claim that it is to prevent their "vehicle of discharge."

    They could practically create any gun law they wanted if they expand the logic of "vehicles of discharge." Just think of all the vehicles of discharge they could prohibit with various laws that restrict the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I think yuo guys are pretty smart and i worship you tim!

    Regulate DISCHARGE of FIREARMS. The shooting of firearms, when not in self defense.

    Not carrying. Duh

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Weasle-speak!

    What part of "preemption" don't these people understand?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    So, even if the law states that it reserves the rights for state statute only, and then goes on to say that local athorities cannot make them more stringent EXCEPT for discharging, it's still legal?

    That makes no sense. If the statute were going allow that then it wouldn't need to go into such detail describing what the state is allowed to regulate ie: possession, registration, owning, transfer, discharge, ext... all things the state is allowed to regulate as they see fit (as stated in the statute) and yet only one of those things is on the list where counties and local governments are allowed to "mess with" and thats discharging. So they can make it illegal to target practice at a state park, but shouldn't be able to make it illegal to carry. At least that's how I'm reading it.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    I agree with you, and that's why I think Clark County's argument is quite ludicrous. It's amazing to me that we've had to wait more than a year for their explanation and this is what they've come up with. I fear the AG may still side with them, but at least now I feel like we have a fighting chance for a favorable AG opinion (as opposed to if Clark County actually had a more legitimate argument).

    Tim

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    The AG's opinion is somewhat irrelevant in this matter as it is a political office and this is a political matter at this point. If the AG sides with Clark County, nothing changes. If the AG sides with OC, then Clark County marshals may or may not stop/start enforcing it, but the county ordinance won't change.
    Frankly, I believe the AG's opinion on this matter will be based entirely on politics and not at all based on the law.

    The only way to actually settle this is to have the clark county ordinance changed or through a court case having a judge either affirm or strike down the ordinance. Even then it will be a battle between politics (judges are elected remember) and law and which the judge cares about more. As well as whether the judge is pro or anti gun.

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

    Post imported post

    I have a written promise from the Clark County DA that Clark County will comply with whatever the AG comes back with. So the way I felt was that if the AG opinion is unfavorable, nothing changes. If it's favorable, all we can do is hope they keep their promise. And if not, go public.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    I wonder what the legislators think who authored the preemption law about all this monkey business with Clark County?

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    I wrote every single one of the legislators who sponsored the original bill and are still in office. Not a single reply from any of them. Instead, I was passed off to the legislative counsel's office and got nothing.

    Tim


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Whew, boy, where do I begin ...

    I personally believe the Clark County letter is WAAAAY off base and makes terribly inaccurate conclusions.

    I've been "working" this issue since SB-92 was enacted by the 2007 Legislature.

    From my non-attorney/non-professional opinion, here is one excerpt:
    In essence, (we) asked how local firearms ordinances in Clark County can be allowed to stand when NRS 244.364, 268.418, and 269.222, as amended by SB-92 of 2007, state that 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, city nor town may infringe upon those rights and powers.

    Further, NRS 244.364, 268.418, and 269.222 state the governing body of a county/city/town may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms. 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.

    Lastly and of extreme importance, Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, was amended to read as follows:

    The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.

    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.

    In view of the phrase “… apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989,” it is equally clear the law does not grandfather any other county/city ordinances; indeed, 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. Please see attachment (1) (enclosed.)



    Attachment (1)

    Introduction
    The question before us is thus:
    Does current Nevada law (specifically NRS 244.364, 268.418, and 269.222, and Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653) render void all county, city and/or town ordinances pertaining to firearms that are more restrictive than state law?

    We believe the answer is a resounding “yes.”

    Discussion
    Current Nevada law unequivocally states “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, city nor town may infringe upon those rights and powers.”

    Assembly Bill 147 of 1989 (as enacted,) “grandfathered” local ordinances, stating, “The provisions of this act apply only to ordinances or regulations adopted on or after the effective date of this act.”

    Senate Bill 92 of 2007 (as enacted,) amended Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, to read “The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.”

    Much has been made of “intent” – with some people stating the intent was to NOT invalidate any existing local ordinances. However, a review of testimony provided during committee hearings clearly shows intent to preempt all local ordinances.





    The following are excerpts/quotes from the history, actions and testimony





    (taken from the official record, file name AB147_1989.pdf, available at
    leading to the enactment of AB-147 of 1989:
    Quote

    Mr. Eric S. Cooper, Under Sheriff for the LV Metro PD, pointed out the matrix in Exhibit K, which indicated the Clark Co and City of LV ordinances that would be ELIMINATED if AB-147 passed. He stressed every one of those ordinances would be totally eliminated themoment AB-147 too effect.

    Exhibit K:



    Mr. Schofield asked Mr. Cooper, if AB-147 passed, would it be acceptable to adopt the current local ordinances in conjunction with AB-147. Mr. Cooper responded, “if the 3 day waiting period and the registration requirements were maintained in Clark County, it would be acceptable, however, he couldn’t not speak for the city and county fathers who had passed the 21 other ordinances which would be totally eliminated if AB-147 passed.”

    Bill Glaze testified, "Essentially, AB-147 will eliminate the variance of confusing local firearms laws that merely makes unwitting criminals out of law-abiding citizens. ...law-abiding citizens will not be punished for unknowingly violating the law and law enforcement will not be forced to interpret and enforce an array of confusing local firearms laws."

    Mr. Tom Kempley testified, "AB-147 will prohibit local "gun control" ordinances ... and ensure that Nevada's firearms laws will be enforced uniformly and consistently throughout the state."

    Mr. Edward F. Bruce testified, "The bill (AB-147) says in effect that the State's power to regulate firearms shall not be infringed by any county, city, or political subdivision, but shall not interfere with their rights to regulate discharge ordinances ..." "AB-147 does provide this Legislature and all future Legislatures with the vehicle to protect the citizen gun owner and to get at the criminal's misuse of firearms as opposed to a hodgepodge of local ordinances that vary from county to city. We don't need that. We need uniformity."

    In his February 10, 1989 letter to the Legislative Counsel Bureau, then Speaker of the Assembly Joseph E. Dini said of AB-147, "a bill to establish uniform firearms laws statewide. This is a preemption statue that provides the legislature with the right to regulate firearms, but not take away powers of local control, discharge ..."

    Speaker Dini asked several questions of the LCB, to which the LCB replied on February 21, 1989:

    1. Would AB-147 repeal or make ineffective local discharge ordinances?

    Answer: No, this bill authorized the governing body of each county, city or town to "proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms."

    5. Would AB-147 repeal or make ineffective any (state) laws which regulate loaded firearms?

    Answer: No. ... any ordinance enacted by a local government regulating loaded firearms would have to be specifically authorized by statue or it would be rendered void by AB-147."

    6. Does AB-147 provide to the elected legislators the right to regulate firearms under the provisions of the bill?

    Answer: Yes. The purpose and effect of the bill (AB-147) is to reserve to the members of the state legislature the exclusive right to regulate "the transport, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition" in the state. No existing power to legislate is taken away from the legislature. Instead, the legislature has manifested its intention to assume exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of certain matters relating to firearms. Unless specifically authorized by statute, any ordinance enacted by a local government regarding those matters is void, regardless of whether the law conflicts with an existing state statute.

    8. Does the bill, if enacted, wipe out county or local ordinances?; and, does the bill provide that the Legislature may enact similar legislation, if warranted?

    Answer: 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 ordinance (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 AB-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 AB-147 or it may specifically authorize local governments to adopt the ordinances rendered void by the bill. AB-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.

    Further, in a letter to Speaker Dini on March 22, 1989, the LCB stated:

    Effect of AB-147.

    Answer: If AB-147 is passed, the ordinances in question would be preempted by state law. The legislature reserves power of the "transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms" in that bill. The ordinances in question clearly fall within the scope of the exclusive state jurisdiction proposed by this legislation."

    In his February 17, 1989 letter to Speaker Dini, then Attorney General Brian McKay stated:
    Question 5: Would AB-147 repeal or make ineffective any law regulating loaded firearms?

    Answer: AB-147 would not repeal or make ineffective any state statutes, but would invalidate all local ordinances or regulations concerned with the possession or transportation of firearms and ammunition which appear to include laws regulating loaded firearms.

    Question 6: Does AB-147 provide to the legislature the right to regulate firearms under the provisions of the bill?
    Answer: ... Indeed, the intent behind AB-147 ... would reserve to the legislature alone the power to enact laws concerning firearms and ammunition, with the single exception of local ordinances and regulations for the unsafe discharge of firearms.

    Question 8: Does AB-147, if enacted, wipe out all county or local ordinances?; and does the bill provide that the legislature may enact similar legislation, if found warranted?

    Answer: AB-147 would make invalid all local ordinances and regulations concerned with the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, with only those ordinances and regulations prescribing the unsafe discharge of firearms being an exception to the general rule.

    In conclusion, AB-147 has as its declared purpose the reservation the state legislature alone of the power to regulate firearms and ammunitions in Nevada. ... Any efforts by a county, city, or town to enact legislation on the subject ...would be subject to being declared void as infringing upon the rights and powers of the state legislature."

    Unquote


    Conclusion
    In 2007, SB-92 was enacted and stated the law applies to all local ordinances adopted on, before or after June 13, 1989 – with the sole exception of counties’ (with a population of 400,000 or more) grandfathered handgun registration ordinance adopted before June 13, 1989.
    Here is a link to a pdf version of the AB147 status and actions from the 1989 legislative session leading up to its passage: http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Do...AB147_1989.pdf


    Here is a link to Ch 308 of 1989: http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Do...tatsNV1989.pdf (Please NOTE this old copy has not been updated to include the SB-92 (2007)amendment"The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989."

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

    Post imported post

    Varminter-

    Also of note is the testimony of the opposition in SB92. During the hearings, in which the bill evolved, there was not one mention of opposition to elimination of any local ordinance except registration. The first version the bill has an undisputed purpose and intent. The opposition argued saying such a bill would get rid of registration, which they feel to be a valuable law enforcement tool. They did not, however, oppose the elimination of any other ordinance, and the introduced version of the bill couldn't have been clearer.

    Another thing I found interesting is that the ONLY ones who opposed the bill were the local police departments. Every other person who testified supported the bill. Interesting how our public employees disregard the interests of the public. In the private sector, we have a name for those who disregard the wishes of their bosses. UNEMPLOYED.

    Tim

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    True!

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

    Post imported post

    As a follow-up, I do not see any direct relevance to the DA's argument concerning the 2nd Amendment and the recent Supreme Court case, DC vs Heller.

    As I see it, this is a matter of state law; specifically, NRS 244.364, 268.418, and 269.222, as amended by SB-92in 2007.

    The abovestatutes say thatexcept as otherwise provided by specific statute (and there are none), 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, city nor town may infringe upon those rights and powers.

    That is pretty darned clear to me.

    A county or municipality MAY/CAN, however, proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms. (And, of course, handgun registration in ClarkCounty was specifically grandfathered.) But we are not debatingany local ordinances concerning the unsafe discharge of firearms - we ARE debating about local ordinances thatregulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, and/or transportation of firearms.

    Again, our legislature was very specific in laying out the law.

    And, SB-92 also specifically stated "The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989."


    So, it seems quite clear to me that the bulk of firearms ordinances in Clark County (and cities therein) are in direct violation of Nevada law.

    I also find frivolous and NOT germane the DA's argument concerning "possession." He claims there is "ambiguity" with the meaning of the word "possession." Ridiculous! It matters not how we define "possession" - the state reserves the right to regulate all firearms issues with the exception of allowing local ordinances regulating the "unsafe discharge" of firearms!

    The DA does correctly quote from AB-147 (1989) testimony - BUT it does not further his argument! His argument may have been relevant between 1989 and 2007, but he failed to even mention our current lawas amended by SB-92 of 2007 which applies to ALL ordinances adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989."

    I am not an attorney. But I believe I can read, write and comprehend. I sure hope we have some common sense left somewhere in our system.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    The AG will respond and say that they do not advise private citizens regarding legal matters. Their sole function it to advise state and local government. Been there done that.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Yea, they already told us that (actually, they told several forum members this on separate occasions). This letter, however, was sent by the Clark County District Attorney's office.

    Tim


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

    Post imported post

    It all seems rather lopsided. The CC Attorney has a voice when speaking to the AG. Where is our voice and our chance to bring our side of the argumentto the conversation?

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    CCDA was gracious enough to give us a voice with NVAG by including a letter arguing the opposite side. I'll try to get that letter posted in a few days.

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/51855627.html

    Sure glad those parks are safe from guns!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Post imported post

    Tim I think that should be our first picnic park.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post imported post

    I second.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post



    Left this as a comment in the article

    It's a terrible thing that happened to Kevin. And I'm sure it's even worse for his friends and loved ones to come to this article and read what you guys are writing. To those friends and family, I'm sorely sorry for your loss.

    Now to the rest of you, quit with the racist crap, every race has it's great people, just as every race has it's scum.

    To the people who are calling for others to protect you, stop, protect yourself. The government is there to print our money, support trade between states, and protect our borders. It's OUR (read that "YOUR") responsibility to protect OURSELVES (read that YOURSELF).

    Thoughs who mentioned vigilantes and CCWs are almost right, but we don't need either. As a law abiding citzen it is your constitutional right to own a firearm. It's also "thankfully" completely legal to carry that firearm openly in the state of Nevada. We don't need vigilantes, we need law abiding citizens walking around armed and prepared to defend themselves and others if need be from criminals.

    IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROCTECT YOU!

    --

    Now, my question is, was this a State park? County? Just a local neighborhood park?


  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    It's a city park within the city limits of Las Vegas:

    http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/TextOnly/Find/5140.htm

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
  •