North LV question

imported post

I know it's been asked before, but seems to be quite old topics. I also wanted to post my story and bring another "problem" to light.

I stopped at Bass Pro Shop on my way home from work this evening hoping they might have some 9mm ammo in stock (they didn't) and a guy was in there looking for a gun rack for his truck and asked a salesperson for assistance. While asking what they carry he also asks the salesperson "It is legal to have the gun visible in the truck right?". Well the salesperson was a little slow responding, so I responded for him, told him Nevada is an open carry state, and with long guns you're not allowed to carry with a round in the chamber, but otherwise he should be safe. Then, the salesperson, "corrects" me to say that what I said is true, excepting that in North Las Vegas, and Boulder City there are city ordinances which require the ammo and gun to be transported separately from each other. I argued this for a moment and was told that if you did as I suggested in NLV you'd be arrested, I conceded that I may be wrong since I wasn't POSITIVE in what I remembered reading, and better safe than sorry in most instances.

So, I looked it all up again when I got home tonight. I see that the state law DOES in fact preempt all existing or future more restrictive gun law. Doing a search here and in general however, turned up what appeared to be support for the Bass Pro Shop salesman in that they apparently don't care that the law was preempted? I know a trash cleanup has been done semi-recently in NLV and that it was successful, but are there ANY problems still occurring in NLV?

This also brought to my attention that you have seemingly educated people (the Bass Pro Shop guys in this case) giving misinformation to the public as to what is and isn't legal. I know there is likely a hint of liability there in that they don't want to be giving information that gets somebody arrested or detained, even if it is falsely, but it also can't be good for the "cause". In anybodies mind that overheard that conversation, anybody carrying a loaded weapon in NLV in a vehicle is violating the law.

So, to summarize, have there been any recent incidents in North Las Vegas? Have any past incidents been challenged and won? Lastly, what can/should be done to educate people that are likely to answer questions brought up by the public (like the Bass Pro Shop guy)?

Edit: I'm going to add to this that I'm now unsure about my understanding of the preemption of local laws. So, I'm not sure what you can and can't do in North Las Vegas. As I understand the legal definition of preemption, it means that State law has higher authority over local law. But, since state law doesn't specifically allow open carry or vehicle carry, that seems to leave the loophole open for local law to deny it. In effect, there is no state law to "over-rule" the local law, right? Why does everything have to be so difficult? :banghead:

imported post

I am curious to see what OCers do when they are in fact driving and cross into NLV areas I dont normally drive much in NLV to begin with, im a southwester but if ever the cause and more importantly for the drive to the now open clark county shooting park. Id like to know what people do that are OCers. do these NLV statues affect CC as well while driving and carrying CC?

Pardon my ignorance im just now learning all of the laws and familiarizing myself, im a now 4 year implant from CA so glad to be out of that shit hole! Im more used to OCing in Arizona as I own 40 acres outside of Williams and people dont even take a second look at OC there.

imported post

You are correct. Long guns must be carried without a round in the chamber. Technically, this is a hunting law and applies only to those on their way to go hunting, but most of us just go with the idea that police would enforce it regardless of whether you're a hunter.

I carry a Mossberg 590 shotgun in the trunk and usually leave the rounds out of the magazine as well so that if a cop "verifies" it's unloaded, he doesn't actually wind up loading it. There are plenty of gun-smart cops, but there are plenty that are clueless (like LVMPD Sgt Miller who couldn't figure out a level 1 retention holster).

Seems like a worthy topic to work on - making sure loaded long guns aren't a problem if you're not hunting.

Next, North Las Vegas has a municipal code on the books (9.32.080) that says guns can't be carried in any motor vehicle. It makes no distinction over loaded or unloaded, permit or no permit. I called NLV Police and the desk Sgt incorrectly told me that I may carry in my car if I have a CCW, and that I may not OC without a CCW. An email from the previous mayor Mike Montandon (while he was mayor) confirms that 9.32.080 is voided by state law NRS 268.418. However, it seems the police MAY still enforce it if the Duty Sgt is right. During our OC litter pickup, no problems from police. I've OC'd at the gas station right across from the NLV PD HQ with two cruisers also filling up and was noticed but ignored.

Boulder City municipal code (7-1-3) says you may not discharge or have in your possession a LOADED firearm within 1000 yds of a "building, street, sidewalk, alley, highway or public place". The City Attorney Dave Olsen as well as the Chief of Police Tom Finn have both confirmed in writing to me that city code is no longer enforceable (regarding possession - discharge is still enforceable).

I am not aware of any OC activities in Boulder City - kind of a long way to go for most of us - but might be a nice place to have a meetup one day.

Last, despite clear preemption language in NRS 244.364 (counties), NRS 268.418 (cities), NRS 269.222 (townships), Clark County is still enforcing or threatening to enforce unlawful provisions in their municipal code, specifically prohibition of firearms in parks. An official opinion from the NV Atty General is pending. The request was submitted by the Clark County DA's office on July 5, 2009. Nothing moves fast in government.

The request asked the Atty General to provide an official opinion on whether Clark County's prohibition in parks is allowed under NRS 244.364. The DA's office promised (in writing) to obey the opinion of the AG - if the AG believes the ordinance is unlawful under NRS, Clark County will no longer enforce it. If that happens, expect swift action from me to force the other local municipalities to follow suit.

imported post

Thanks for your reply Tim. I had read much of that elsewhere, but wasn't fully aware of your letters and such admitting that the ordinances weren't enforceable. It was that reading that had me believing that I was correct when I first wrote the post, then I found (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum36/12253-3.html I know it's a year old, but since the NRS was enacted in2007, and the post in 2009, it should apply) specifically about half way down the page where Count copies in a letter he received. It was this letter that got me mulling it over in my head, and had me look up the "legal definition" of preemption (http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/preemption/).

Taking that definition, it would seem, to me, that since there is no law allowing such actions, just an absence of a law denying them, that it leaves room for the municipalities to create a law to deny them. No?

imported post

There are flaws in that letter from Mr. Berrier. I've spoken with him and he was really unable to provide me any answers that gave me confidence in his understanding of this particular law.

State law regarding preemption of firearms in cities:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-268.html#NRS268Sec418

The law starts off "Except as otherwise provided by specific statute..."

Without a specific statute allowing a local law to exist, that law is in conflict with NRS. In 1989 when the preemption law was originally enacted, legislators asked the Attorney General several questions. The attorney general states the following about the implicit effect of preemption:
And the AG writes how this would impact local ordinances (this assumed no laws were grandfathered in):
Finally, Section 5 of 2007 Senate Bill SB92 requires counties, cities, and towns to amend any ordinance or regulation that does not conform with the provisions of the amended state law. It goes on to state “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.”

This specific language essentially seems to de-facto repeal the related code sections. I am confident in my reading of the law, but I have opted to wait for the AG to reply before carrying in parks. If AG comes back with a disagreeable position, we'll just have to encourage the legislators next session that they need to solidify the preemption law and removed all grandfathered ordinances.

Tim

imported post

Well, I have to say, I agree with you Tim. Upon re-re-reading the NRS it makes sense once again. Now whether or not to test the issue for me is the question. Most of my business with NLV is passing through on the 15, so I'm probably ok on that aspect, but I don't know that I'm as gutsy as you yet to go about any routine business there.

Thanks for your lending of eyes and gray matter!

imported post

Tim, First thank you for your great work. I just found this site and am a retired Army First Sergeant who lives in NLV. Now that I know the NRS overrides the City Code, I will start to OC here in NLV.

My question is when in my vehicle I just leave my weapon in the holster on my hipand inform the officer if traffic stopped? I haven't been pulled over in ten years so my driving is not an issue, but if stopped cite the NRS. Is on the passenger seat in the open the same as OC?

Thanks and I wll be joining you all for some trash pick ups. On a side note I have a 35' Carver on Lake Mead and we can all get together there sometime. It would be interesting to see what happens after I scan the gate and let everybody in all OCing.

INF(Infantry)TOP(First Sergeant Slang)

Top

imported post

Inftop wrote:

Tim, First thank you for your great work. I just found this site and am a retired Army First Sergeant who lives in NLV. Now that I know the NRS overrides the City Code, I will start to OC here in NLV.

My question is when in my vehicle I just leave my weapon in the holster on my hipand inform the officer if traffic stopped? I haven't been pulled over in ten years so my driving is not an issue, but if stopped cite the NRS. Is on the passenger seat in the open the same as OC?

Thanks and I wll be joining you all for some trash pick ups. On a side note I have a 35' Carver on Lake Mead and we can all get together there sometime. It would be interesting to see what happens after I scan the gate and let everybody in all OCing.

INF(Infantry)TOP(First Sergeant Slang)

Top

Click to expand...

i think ive seen that carver, im hoping to have my 18 foot four winns on the lake this summer plenty!

imported post

boat name is actually "2 Nauti". Out on the "N" dock at LVBH. Great view.

imported post

lol yup ive seen her out there!

imported post

Inftop wrote:

My question is when in my vehicle I just leave my weapon in the holster on my hip and inform the officer if traffic stopped? ... Is on the passenger seat in the open the same as OC?

Click to expand...

I'm not Tim but I'll do my best. Anywhere in the vehicle is ok providing that it is not concealed upon the person. This applies the same as if you were walking the street meaning it can't be in a pocket, covered by clothing, in a fanny pack etc. If you were legal outside the vehicle, and got inside, you're most likely legal unless your clothing has been repositioned such that it covers your weapon.

Technically you need not inform the officer in Nevada. There have been discussions as to what a prudent course of action is regarding this, but it is very much up to you. It is a fine balance between being respectful and safe by informing the officer, and avoiding the harassment may receive and possibly "admitting" that you feel the situation of carrying is dangerous by informing the officer as well. Probably best determined on a case by case basis IMHO.

imported post

"Finally, Section 5 of 2007 Senate Bill SB92 requires counties, cities, and towns to amend any ordinance or regulation that does not conform with the provisions of the amended state law. It goes on to state “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.”"

Can you direct me to where this preemption is found in NRS? I located Senate Bill 92 (approved June 4, 2007) with this paragraph at the end, but can't find where it got into the final law. I'd really like to carry around a printout of this section of the law.

It's not on the 418 chapter http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-268.html#NRS268Sec418, or in the the 202 chapter. :banghead:

imported post

You've found the single biggest reason I think Clark County misunderstands this law.

NRS 268.418 was enacted by Chapter 308 of the 1989 Statutes of Nevada (page 652-653), in AB147. Unfortunately, the only electronic copy I have is a photocopy of an actual book, which I've attached.

Similarly, SB92 was enacted into Chapter 320 of the 2007 Statutes of Nevada. Section 4 of that Chapter amended Chapter 308 of those 1989 Statutes. At no time did the actual NRS ever reflect a date or mention anything about grandfathering in of old statutes, which makes this a very easy thing to overlook.

And my argument has been that the clear language of the NRS would lead any reasonable person to believe there was no grandfathering of old statutes.

imported post

Well, I finally found Chapter 5 as part of SB92 when it entered into the law, with Chapter 320 about 4/5 of the way down the list:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/statutes/74th/Stats200711.html#Stats200711page1288

"ê2007 Statutes of Nevada, Page 1291 (Chapter 320, SB 92)ê

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.
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 applicable provision by January 1, 2008, shall be deemed to conform with that provision by operation of law."

However, I can't find this wording when I go to the various published NRS pages (NRS 268.418, etc.). Where is this Chapter 5? Where did it make the transition from a passed bill into the body of the law? Please help! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

imported post

When it was enacted, it became part of the "2007 Statutes of Nevada". This is not the same thing as NRS.

Chapter 308 of the 1989 statutes was enacted by passing Assembly Bill 147. The text of that Chapter codified into NRS 244.364, 268.418 and 269.222. Section 5 of the 1989 statute says "The provisions of this act apply only to ordinances or regulations adopted on or after the effective date of this act." The act became effective June 13, 1989.

Then the governor signed into law 2007 Senate Bill 92 and became Chapter 320 of the 2007 Statutes of Nevada, and was comprised of 5 sections:

1. Amend NRS 244.364
2. Amend NRS 268.418
3. Amend NRS 269.222
4. Amend Chapter 308 of 1989 Statutes of Nevada
5. Void all non-compliant local laws... "shall be deemed to conform with that provision by operation of law"

So as you can see, neither Section 4 nor Section 5 affected NRS at all.

imported post

Thanx. So now I know to refer any LEO to both places. Onward and upward.