Henderson City Policy

imported post

The following is a copy of an email I just sent to the Henderson City Attorney.

Ms. Quillin,

In doing business at City Hall, (Water Department), upon entering the building, I have noticed signage stating that no firearms are allowed in the building. The Statute referenced is NRS 202.3673. This law reads as follows:


(b) A public building that has a metal detector at each public entrance or a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building, unless the permittee is not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subsection 4.

4. The provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 do not prohibit:

(a) A permittee who is a judge from carrying a concealed firearm in the courthouse or courtroom in which the judge presides or from authorizing a permittee to carry a concealed firearm while in the courtroom of the judge and while traveling to and from the courtroom of the judge.

(b) A permittee who is a prosecuting attorney of an agency or political subdivision of the United States or of this State from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of a public building.

(c) A permittee who is employed in the public building from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building.

(d) A permittee from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building if the permittee has received written permission from the person in control of the public building to carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of the public building.

5. A person who violates subsection 2 or 3 is guilty of a misdemeanor.

6. As used in this section:

(a) “Child care facility� has the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (a) of subsection 5 of NRS 202.265.

(b) “Public building� means any building or office space occupied by:

(1) Any component of the Nevada System of Higher Education and used for any purpose related to the System; or

(2) The Federal Government, the State of Nevada or any county, city, school district or other political subdivision of the State of Nevada and used for any public purpose.

Ê If only part of the building is occupied by an entity described in this subsection, the term means only that portion of the building which is so occupied.

(Added to NRS by 1995, 2725; A 1997, 63; 1999, 2767; 2007, 1914)

As you can see, this law refers to Conceal Carry Permittees only and does in no way apply to those who open carry such as me. I am not aware of any Nevada law restricting the open carry of firearms in such public buildings.

I have also noticed signage in City Parks stating a no firearms policy. This is directly in violation of State preemption. As I’m sure you know NRS 244.364, NRS 268.418 and NRS 269.222 state that the legislature reserves to itself the right to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition. No county, city or town respectively can infringe upon these rights. State law declares all local laws not in compliance to be null and void. A past AG opinion agrees.

I respectfully request that you advise all such departments that they remove this signage and instruct law enforcement that there is no law against such exercise of rights. As a law abiding citizen I wish to go about my business without interference with the comfort of knowing I am able to defend myself and family.

I look forward to your cooperation in this matter.



I await her response.

TBG

imported post

TBG-

Nice job - keep us updated on your progress. If she responds with an open dialog, you should refer her to the Boulder City City Attorney, Dave Olsen, who has publicly stated his understanding of the preemption:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/feb/17/proposed-gun-regulations-split-boulder-city/

I've found it always helps to validate your argument with agreement from "one of their own" instead of just some non-lawyer's interpretation, such as yours or mine.

Good luck, and thanks for your efforts!

Tim

imported post

I have always thought it was better to hold back some ammo for the backup shot rather than expend it all at once. I hope I'm wrong but I fully expect a negative response from her. If that is the case I will certainly use your suggestion.

TBG

Be sure to keep us up to date on any response!! I am very interested

Update, response received...

I have a response from the Henderson City Atty's office. It's pretty much what I expected of them. I will do a follow up letter. Anyone wanting to suggest contents for it please do so, or feel free to write your own.

Mr. XXX,

Thank you for your email dated June 24th. I apologize for not responding sooner. I do not believe and will not recommend that the signage at City Hall and the Parks needs to be removed or changed. The language quoted is consistent with the provisions of NRS 202.3673, consequently there is no reason to make any changes at this time.

I'm sure you understand that the presence of weapons in the buildings and parks would disrupt business operations and potentially create an unsafe environment for the public. It is therefore reasonable for the City to restrict the presence of firearms in public facilities.

Robert Zentz
Assistant City Attorney
223 Lead Street, MSC 211
P.O. Box 95050
Henderson, NV 89009-5050
Telephone: (702) 267-4639 Fax: (702) 267- 5001

TBG

I think the obvious need here is to make the distinction of the difference between "no firearms" as the sign states, and the "no CONCEALED firearms" as the statue states. Perhaps a much shorter letter (that he'll actually read all of) stating that simply. It may also benefit you to take this on in bite size pieces. Approach a particular building, such as the Water Department, while leaving other things (such as parks) aside until you've finished with your first goal. This allows him to allow or deny things one at a time, instead of feeling as though he's green-lighting your whole topic, which he may be uncomfortable with.

In any case, good job, a response is a start of communication, and nothing can be achieved without communication.

My Reply.

Mr. Zentz,

You state that "I'm sure you understand that the presence of weapons in the buildings and parks would disrupt business operations and potentially create an unsafe environment for the public." Do you sincerely believe that someone intending to do harm to people within those buildings and parks would be dissuaded by the mere presence of those signs? That I, as I go about my business while providing for my own self defense am somehow threatening to anyone? Mr. Zentz I always openly carry as I go about my daily life. I carry in stores, banks, offices and everywhere I go and have been doing so for some time now. I can't point to a single instance where anyone has run away in terror at the sight of me and my firearm. I do however get lots of positive comments and questions about how they too can carry.

Further you state "It is therefore reasonable for the City to restrict the presence of firearms in public facilities." State law does not give the City the authority to impose its idea of "reasonable" as to firearms issues. With state preemption cities may not regulate anything other than the discharge of firearms. I'm afraid I simply can't agree with your statement as I believe that the reasonable thing for the city to do is to follow state law as many of your colleagues agree including a past Attorney General of the State of Nevada.

NRS 268.418 section 1 reads:

“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 city 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.”

There is no Nevada statute that gives any county or city authority to restrict or prohibit the possession of firearms openly carried. Again it is obviously clear that 202.3673 only gives the city the right to prohibit licensed concealed carry within public buildings. As far as city parks are concerned, there are no state statutes that I am aware of that prohibit the open carry of firearms.

I am again asking the City Attorney's office to advise the City Council, law enforcement and anyone responsible for public city buildings and parks with regard to what the law is, and the rights of people to provide for their own self defense. If not it is quite possible that this will end up in the courts which I'm sure you will agree the city can't afford at this time.

Regards

Nicely written, way to keep the pressure on. One more tactic that can be used is to ask them to show you the authority that he / she is referencing, that will give them the opportunnity to look into the law a little, (no promises) and possibly do some self educating.

Tread-

We all saw what a little research lead to with the DA's office. They're trying to twist the law to say that the outright prohibition on carry is the "vehicle by which we prohibit discharge".

And I agree, very nice letter TBG!

Tim

I'm sure you understand that the presence of weapons in the buildings and parks would disrupt business operations and potentially create an unsafe environment for the public. It is therefore reasonable for the City to restrict the presence of firearms in public facilities.

Robert Zentz
Assistant City Attorney
223 Lead Street, MSC 211
P.O. Box 95050
Henderson, NV 89009-5050
Telephone: (702) 267-4639 Fax: (702) 267- 5001

How can an intelligent person really believe this BS. Telling a person that open carries all the time “ I’m sure YOU understand that the presence of a weapons in a building and parks would be disrupting.” And creating an unsafe condition?
That happens to me all the time at the malls, restaurants, wal-mart, home depot, and as I am ridding my motorcycle down the freeway and through town. People run and scream, the mall empties out because seeing my firearm disrupted them. People hurriedly flipping out their cell phones calling 911 because of the unsafe condition created by a legally carried firearm. Just like the times the group walked the Strip one of the most famous roads in the world, stalling traffic because of the unsafe condition and disrupting business to all the Strip properties caused by several carrying open and walking among tourist from across the world and USA most living in a much more gun restrictive environment than here.
Based on those facts it is understandable why the City would restrict the presence of firearms.

My reply would be, "No, I don't understand. I don't believe that the presence of firearms by law abiding citzens would be a disruption. I do however expect all local authorities to obey the law."

There seems to be some regrettable confusion in this thread.

The originally quoted section of the law IS NOT from NRS Section 202.265. That section applies to all listed weapons, including "A pistol, revolver or other firearm ..." whether carried open or concealed. However, Section 202.265 applies only to school properties.

The originally quoted section of the law is taken from NRS 202.3673, which is part of the concealed firearms carry law and applies only to concealed firearms.

The Big Guy seems to be right that there is no State statute prohibiting open carry in a public building. But his references are wrong.

The Big Guy also seems correct in his assessment of State Preemption with regard to Henderson's gun ban in city parks.

Hmmmm!

VegasGeorge said:

There seems to be some regrettable confusion in this thread.

The originally quoted section of the law IS NOT from NRS Section 202.265. That section applies to all listed weapons, including "A pistol, revolver or other firearm ..." whether carried open or concealed. However, Section 202.265 applies only to school properties.

The originally quoted section of the law is taken from NRS 202.3673, which is part of the concealed firearms carry law and applies only to concealed firearms.

The Big Guy seems to be right that there is no State statute prohibiting open carry in a public building. But his references are wrong.

The Big Guy also seems correct in his assessment of State Preemption with regard to Henderson's gun ban in city parks.

Click to expand...

That is interesting. You will note in the first paragraph that it does reference the correct code. I have no idea how that wrong Ref got in there. I will check my original copy at home. I'm pretty careful with things like that. Obviously the City Attorney's office didn't check it which shows their disdain for the subject and the law.

TBG

Latest letter to Henderson City Attorney

Ms. Quillin

In my past contact with your office, my request that you advise local authorities and the City Council that the city of Henderson is in violation of state law has been denied. Specifically in that the prohibition of open carry of firearms in public buildings and local parks has been preempted by state law.

To briefly restate, NRS 202.3675, which is posted on city buildings, applies only to conceal carry by those with permits. Absolutely nothing is said by statute against the open carry of firearms, and Nevada law NRS 268.418, Limited authority to regulate firearms, preempts city and county governments from regulating such. In 1995, the Attorney General of Nevada issued an opinion regarding preemption and noted that the state has ultimate power with regard to firearm regulation reserving only the discharge of firearms to local governments. It states that in all cases local ordinances are inferior to state law.

Other cities are now taking the appropriate actions to bring their local ordinances and policies in line with state law. Below you will see a letter sent to the Sparks City Attorney Chet Adams and his response.

City Attorney
Chet Adams
431 Prater Way
Sparks, NV 89431
Phone: (775) 353-2324
Fax: (775) 353-1688
E-mail: cadams@cityofsparks.us

Mr Adams

Nevada originally passed a preemption law in 1989, meaning that counties
and municipalities such as sparks cannot pass gun laws that are more
restrictive than the state law. Some gun ordinances in some parts of the
state were “grandfathered” in at that time, I don't know if that was
true here in sparks. However, in 2007, Senate Bill 92 amended the
preemption law, removing all grandfathered ordinances with the exception
of a handgun registration ordinance. Which only applies to Clark County

This is now known as NRS 268.418 Limited authority to regulate firearms;
restrictions concerning registration of firearms in city in county whose
population is 400,000 or more.

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
city 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.

There is also sections NRS 244.364 and NRS 269.222 that deal with county
and unincorporated areas and are worded similar.


Section 12.24.070 of the Sparks Municipal code states that

A. Except as provided in subsection C, it is unlawful for any person to
carry or wear a firearm in a city park.

B. A "firearm" means any weapon with a caliber of .177 inches or greater
from which a projectile may be propelled by means of explosive, spring,
gas, air or other force.

C. Nothing in this section prohibits the carrying or wearing of a
firearm by a peace officer or the carrying of a firearm pursuant to the
terms of a valid concealed weapons permit.
(Ord. 1383 § 1 (part), 1983.)(Ord. 2339, Amended, 09/11/2006)

This is directly in violation of State preemption laws passed in 1989
and 2007, and Section 12.24.070 of the Sparks Municipal code should be
repealed in its entirety to bring it back in line with State Law.


I respectfully request that you advise all such departments that they
remove this signage and instruct law enforcement that there is no law
against such exercise of rights.

As a law abiding citizen I wish to go about my business without
interference with the comfort of knowing I am able to defend myself and
my family.

I look forward to your cooperation in this matter.


On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Adams, Chet <cadams@cityofsparks.us> wrote:

Mr. john-in-reno,
The research conducted by this office indicates that the Nevada Legislature has preempted the ability of the City of Sparks to independently regulate the possession of firearms.
Accordingly, this office will take the appropriate steps to ensure that Sparks ordinances do not conflict with Nevada law.
Chet Adams
Sparks City Attorney


The Sparks City Council just passed bill 2625 repealing section 12.24.070 of the Sparks Muni Code mentioned in the above letter.

Dave Olsen Boulder City Attorney also agrees that state law overrules local ordinance. Here is a copy of an email he sent on this subject dated Sept 13, 2010:

Mr. Dieter,

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I field at least two questions a week from concerned gun owners wanting to know the situation regarding Boulder City's handgun regulations. I must have assumed that I'd contacted you. In any event I apologize for the delay.

As the City Manager has correctly informed you, the Nevada Legislature took action a couple of years ago to preempt local government with regard to the regulation of firearms. The State has the final say on all areas of handgun ownership and use with one exception. The State Legislature has reserved to the local governments the authority to regulate the discharge of firearms. In all other respects (concealed weapon permits, open carry, etc.) the Legislature has sole authority. On that basis, it is no longer unlawful in Boulder City for a person who has an appropriate permit from the sheriff of their county of residence to carry a concealed weapon in Boulder City, the Boulder City Code notwithstanding. We are in the process of amending our code to exclusively address discharge of firearms within the City, but as to concealed or open carry, my office will not prosecute anyone for violating the old City Code.

Hopefully this information answers your question. Feel free to contact me by telephone to discuss any further questions you might have.

David R. Olsen, City Attorney
City of Boulder City
401 California Avenue
Boulder City, Nevada 89005
Office: (702) 293-9238
Fax: (702) 293-9438

In addition, you may be aware of a lawsuit brought against the State of Nevada in which the state has now agreed not to enforce a prohibition against the carry of loaded firearms in state parks until such time as the state can take appropriate corrective action. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/agreement-allows-loaded-firearms-nevada-state-park/. The federal government has lifted its prohibition against the carry of firearms in US parks bringing them in line with the state laws in which they are located.

I’m hoping you will see the fallacy of the City of Henderson trying to continue it’s illegal prohibitions against the state and federal Constitutionally protected right of people to provide for their own defense. I again ask that your office advise the police, city council and those in charge of city parks and buildings that such provisions are against state law and can’t be enforced.

Regards

TBG

very nice, Keep us posted on the progress

Quillin answers

This evening I received the following email from the Henderson City Attorney. My gut feeling is that it could be good in that she has discussed this with AG Masto and yet has not flatly turned me down, but is going to discuss it with the Assistant City Attorney Zentz who if you will review above was not sympathetic to our cause. I take this to mean that she may see some problems with Mr. Zentz original determination. At least I hope so. Otherwise wouldn't she just brush me off? Pressure at this point may be beneficial. Perhaps others from Henderson writing her polite notes may put some additional possitive pressure on her.

Comments?

TBG



Dear Mr. ,

We are in the process of reviewing your email and I have had some very brief discussions with General Masto. I believe that you have been communicating with Bob Zentz from our office. He is out of the office on leave and will not return until early January. This is one of the things that we will be reviewing upon his return.

Regards,

Elizabeth Macias Quillin
City Attorney
P. O. Box 95050, MSC #144
240 Water Street
Henderson, NV 89009-5050
702/267-1200 (office)
702/267-1201 (fax)

What it means is that she is unwilling to commit in any way until she knows where the solid ground is. I think you've won, and are just waiting for the process to complete, otherwise she would fall back on some weasel words about the current enforcement policy.

Someone should be keeping track of the cascade of local gov'ts which are falling into line, how hard or easy the process is, and how soon the policy changes on the street. It may be useful sometime in the future to have this info, either at election time or when evaluating those involved in the process.

I have the utmost respect for those bureaucrats who see what they are doing wrong and immediately change it, without argument -- especially those who are opposed to gun carry.

The City can 'Full-Well' Prohibit CONCEALED CARRY in their City Buildings, however; such Prohibitions Strictly may NOT Extend to or Affect Open Carry.

Update to City Attorney

In order to keep the pressure on, I have sent the following to the Henderson City Attorney:


Ms. Quillin

Since my last contact with you there has come to my attention some further information I believe you need to be aware of. A letter had been sent to the State Department of Motor Vehicles concerning the same issue that I have written you about, in that local DMV offices had posted signs with a reference to NRS 202.3673. It was pointed out to them that this only covers permit holders and in no way limits the right of citizens to open carry. See the response below.

Mr. X,

You are correct. We are in the process of changing the signs.

Tom Jacobs,

Chief Public Information Officer

Nevada Dept. of Motor Vehicles

775-684-4779



I hope this helps to further clarify the subject.

Sincerely

Any word on this yet? I hope it hasn't drifted off into the sunset.