-
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.
-
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.
Request for opinion from NV Atty General
- Thread starter timf343
- Start date
Vegassteve
Regular Member
imported post
Tim I think that should be our first picnic park.
Tim I think that should be our first picnic park.
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
imported post
I second.
I second.
Celt
Regular Member
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?
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?
timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
It's a city park within the city limits of Las Vegas:
http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/TextOnly/Find/5140.htm
It's a city park within the city limits of Las Vegas:
http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/TextOnly/Find/5140.htm
timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I spoke with the DA's office yesterday and they requested an update from the Atty General's office.
As of 10/27 there are no major re-writes pending on the issuance of their opinion, and we should expect the review process to take another week or two.
They certainly are taking their sweet time about it, but hopefully we'll have a reply before much longer now that they confirm the opinion is written and merely pending additional review.
Even if it's bad news, at least we have a definitive thing to fight.
I spoke with the DA's office yesterday and they requested an update from the Atty General's office.
As of 10/27 there are no major re-writes pending on the issuance of their opinion, and we should expect the review process to take another week or two.
They certainly are taking their sweet time about it, but hopefully we'll have a reply before much longer now that they confirm the opinion is written and merely pending additional review.
Even if it's bad news, at least we have a definitive thing to fight.
The Big Guy
Regular Member
imported post
I was just rereading the "letter", and noticed that our DA's office may have inadvertently stuck their foot in their mouth on another subject. It reads as follows:
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.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that flat out admitting that you have the right to open carry in buildings like the Henderson City hallthat have signs at the door stating no firearms allowed except by Police Officers under section NRS 202.3673? The operative word here being "CONCEALED". What about open carry in all the places listed above? I don't know of any other statute that addresses open carry in these places.
Perhaps a letter should be sent to them thanking them for clarifying that issue.
I was just rereading the "letter", and noticed that our DA's office may have inadvertently stuck their foot in their mouth on another subject. It reads as follows:
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.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that flat out admitting that you have the right to open carry in buildings like the Henderson City hallthat have signs at the door stating no firearms allowed except by Police Officers under section NRS 202.3673? The operative word here being "CONCEALED". What about open carry in all the places listed above? I don't know of any other statute that addresses open carry in these places.
Perhaps a letter should be sent to them thanking them for clarifying that issue.
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
imported post
Good sound decision on preemption in the parks, just wish it directly affected us.
The technique might work however!
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Judges-ruling-ends-Seattles-gun-ban-84272067.html
Good sound decision on preemption in the parks, just wish it directly affected us.
The technique might work however!
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Judges-ruling-ends-Seattles-gun-ban-84272067.html
gmijackso
Regular Member
imported post
Too bad. Looks like their preemption law was written slightly better than ours, and removes much of the ambiguity that causes the issue here.
Too bad. Looks like their preemption law was written slightly better than ours, and removes much of the ambiguity that causes the issue here.
I think their adding "entire field of firearms regulation" and including "transfer" and "transportation" makes their preemption law a cut above ours. I was somewhat hoping the wording of their law would be more similar to ours.
timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Our legislature has similar wording on the fields of firearms it preempts:
Nevada:
transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing
Washington (reordered to make it easier to compare):
transfer, sale, purchase, possession, transportation, registration, licensing, acquisition, discharge
Nevada includes the extra word "ownership" and Washington includes the two extra words "acquisition and discharge".
When the DA's office wrote their request to the AG, part of their argument was that since the word possession sits between other words related to "ownership, control or registration of a a firearm", possession doesn't necessarily mean physical control. To continue their argument, "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."
I think their logic for even presenting the argument this way demonstrates just how weak their argument is.
[size=][/size]
Our legislature has similar wording on the fields of firearms it preempts:
Nevada:
transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing
Washington (reordered to make it easier to compare):
transfer, sale, purchase, possession, transportation, registration, licensing, acquisition, discharge
Nevada includes the extra word "ownership" and Washington includes the two extra words "acquisition and discharge".
When the DA's office wrote their request to the AG, part of their argument was that since the word possession sits between other words related to "ownership, control or registration of a a firearm", possession doesn't necessarily mean physical control. To continue their argument, "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."
I think their logic for even presenting the argument this way demonstrates just how weak their argument is.
[size=][/size]
gmijackso
Regular Member
imported post
Well, I had apparently overlooked that the NRS included transportation. The answer then to their "possession in the not-so-literal sense" is that we are wishing to transport. Carrying is a form of transportation.
Well, I had apparently overlooked that the NRS included transportation. The answer then to their "possession in the not-so-literal sense" is that we are wishing to transport. Carrying is a form of transportation.