Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Deal reached allowing loaded guns in Nevada state parks

  1. #1
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Deal reached allowing loaded guns in Nevada state parks

    I know we're all hoping to get county parks in line with state law, but this may just be a step in the right direction. Have a read...

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...da-state-park/

  2. #2
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    It would seem to me that if the AG's office is saying that prohibition against guns in state parks is not in line with the recent Supreme Court ruling, that they will have to change their position with regard to County parks.

    TBG

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

    Highly ironic that the Attorney General tells Clark County it's just fine to continue enforcing it's unconstitutional ban on firearms in parks, but immediately backs down when it comes to the state being sued. Just one more piece of evidence that Cortez-Masto is a completely incompetent AG, I guess she just gets to pick and choose which of her sworn duties she actually has to obey, and she clearly doesn't care about Clark County!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Remmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    296
    I just read this article and finally a step towards making parks safe. Hopefully now we can get country and city parks to fall in line as well as national parks to allow anyone to carry not just holders of a CCW

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    132
    National Parks allow OC without a CCW if the state allows it.

    Thats what the law was changed to correct, that all NP's will follow the state law of the state they are located in.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Remmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by paintsnow View Post
    National Parks allow OC without a CCW if the state allows it.

    Thats what the law was changed to correct, that all NP's will follow the state law of the state they are located in.
    I read it differently, as the fed law states it is to follow "State law on carry" NV state law states all parks you are not allowed to carry unless you posses a CCW again like the thread I brought this up in weeks ago its open to interpretation I do feel alot better about carrying in a NP without a CCW with this deal made. Cant wait until they amend the state law to say anyone legally able to purchase and posses a firearm can carry just like this deal reads for state parks.

    heres the thread to the cites and comments about this very topic for all the forum folk out there. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...s-Boulder-City or if your just curious as to my interpretation of the national park carry law.

    This "deal" addresses state parks only, and not the actual state law regarding "any park" so thats what I see on the horizon with this deal being made now. We have a huge base to start to change the actual state law regarding parks from this point forward.
    Last edited by Remmy; 09-24-2010 at 12:42 AM.

  7. #7
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Remmy View Post
    NV state law states all parks you are not allowed to carry unless you posses a CCW again like the thread I brought this up in weeks ago its open to interpretation I do feel alot better about carrying in a NP without a CCW with this deal made. Cant wait until they amend the state law to say anyone legally able to purchase and posses a firearm can carry just like this deal reads for state parks.
    There was never any state law prohibiting carry in any park. It was an administrative code adopted by the Division of State Parks that applied to lands governed by the department. I don't believe the state legislature ever even gave the department the authority to create such a regulation without a stretch of imagination. State law declares that except as provided by explicit statute, the state legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate the possession of firearms. The Division of State parks was only given authority to make general regulations.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 09-25-2010 at 04:20 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    There was never any state law prohibiting carry in any park. It was an administrative code adopted by the Division of State Parks that applied to lands governed by the department. I don't believe the state legislature ever even gave the department the authority to create such a regulation without a stretch of imagination. State law declares that except as provided by explicit statute, the state legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate the possession of firearms. The Division of State parks was only given authority to make general regulations.
    This is not true. Nevada law only preempts towns, counties, villages etc. Much like Michigan, there is no preemption for state agencies or the like. This is how the state park system in Nevada was able to get away with this until now.

    States like Utah and Florida have strong preemption laws, because not only do they apply to all local units of government, but they also apply to any state agency or subdivision unless they have explicit authorization by the state legislature.

    The next step in preemption in many states should be to cover all weapons (not just firearms) and to restrict state agencies. I've tried to do this in Nevada but no one cares, it's sad how many people think the RKBA just applies to firearms..... it doesn't. They are just as ignorant as the brady bunch.... no difference. It is clear from readings from the founding fathers and from Heller and McDonald that arms covers much more than just firearms.

    If the founding fathers meant just firearms, then they would have added a right to bear firearms as the old South African Constitution had.

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    The state agencies gain their authority through the legislature. While there is strictly no law that singles out state agencies as specifically unable to create regulations, I still doubt their authority.

    Here was their NAC
    NAC 407.105 Possession or use of weapons. (NRS 407.0475, 407.065)
    1. In any park, a person shall not:
    (a) Use a bow and arrow, slingshot or paint ball launcher;
    (b) Possess a firearm, unless:
    (1) The firearm is unloaded and inside a vehicle; or
    (2) The person in possession of the firearm has a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, and is carrying the firearm in conformity with the terms of the permit;
    (c) Discharge a weapon, including, without limitation, an air rifle, spring gun or air pistol; or
    (d) Throw a knife, hatchet, spear, stone or projectile,
    Ê except as authorized by the Administrator.
    2. The Administrator may designate zones in which a person may, for the purposes of hunting a species that is designated by the Board of Wildlife Commissioners as a game mammal or game bird pursuant to chapter 503 of NAC, carry and discharge a firearm or bow in accordance with the regulations of the Department of Wildlife. At each park in which a zone is designated pursuant to this subsection, the ranger in charge of the region or the supervisor of the park shall post at the headquarters of the park, and at each area within the park which is designated as a zone in which a person may carry and discharge a firearm or bow for the purposes of hunting, maps of the designated zones within that park.
    3. Target shooting is prohibited in all areas of a park, except in an area designated as a firing range.
    4. Use of a bow to kill, capture or injure a fish is prohibited within 100 feet of a swimmer.
    (Added to NAC by Div. of St. Parks, 12-31-85, eff. 1-1-86; A 3-9-88; 7-25-90; 11-12-93; 3-20-96, eff. 4-1-96; R164-97, 3-1-98; R145-99, 1-18-2000; R118-01, 12-17-2001; R149-05, 5-4-2006)
    It gathers its authority through NRS 407.0475 & 407.065

    NRS 407.0475 Administrator: Regulations; penalty for violation of regulations.
    1. The Administrator shall adopt such regulations as he or she finds necessary for carrying out the provisions of this chapter and other provisions of law governing the operation of the Division. The regulations may include prohibitions and restrictions relating to activities within any of the park or recreational facilities within the jurisdiction of the Division.
    2. Any regulations relating to the conduct of persons within the park or recreational facilities must:
    (a) Be directed toward one or both of the following:
    (1) Prevention of damage to or misuse of the facility.
    (2) Promotion of the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the people of this State through the preservation and use of the facility.
    (b) Apply separately to each park, monument or recreational area and be designed to fit the conditions existing at that park, monument or recreational area.
    3. Any person whose conduct violates any regulation adopted pursuant to subsection 1, and who refuses to comply with the regulation upon request by any ranger or employee of the Division who has the powers of a peace officer pursuant to NRS 289.260, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    (Added to NRS by 1973, 978; A 1975, 801; 1977, 1130; 1985, 368; 1993, 2532)
    NRS 407.065 General powers and duties of Administrator.
    1. The Administrator, subject to the approval of the Director:
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, may establish, name, plan, operate, control, protect, develop and maintain state parks, monuments and recreational areas for the use of the general public. The name of an existing state park, monument or recreational area may not be changed unless the Legislature approves the change by statute.
    (b) Shall protect state parks and property controlled or administered by the Division from misuse or damage and preserve the peace within those areas. The Administrator may appoint or designate certain employees of the Division to have the general authority of peace officers.
    (c) May allow multiple use of state parks and real property controlled or administered by the Division for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, grazing, mining, development of natural resources, hunting and fishing, in accordance with such regulations as may be adopted in furtherance of the purposes of the Division.
    (d) Shall impose and collect reasonable fees for entering, camping and boating in state parks and recreational areas. The Division shall issue, upon application therefor and proof of residency and age, an annual permit for entering, camping and boating in all state parks and recreational areas in this State to any person who is 65 years of age or older and has resided in this State for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted. The permit must be issued without charge, except that the Division shall charge and collect an administrative fee for the issuance of the permit in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of issuing the permit.
    (e) May conduct and operate such special services as may be necessary for the comfort and convenience of the general public, and impose and collect reasonable fees for such special services.
    (f) May rent or lease concessions located within the boundaries of state parks or of real property controlled or administered by the Division to public or private corporations, to groups of natural persons, or to natural persons for a valuable consideration upon such terms and conditions as the Division deems fit and proper, but no concessionaire may dominate any state park operation.
    (g) May establish such capital projects construction funds as are necessary to account for the parks improvements program approved by the Legislature. The money in these funds must be used for the construction and improvement of those parks which are under the supervision of the Administrator.
    2. The Administrator:
    (a) Shall issue an annual permit to a person who pays a reasonable fee as prescribed by regulation which authorizes the holder of the permit to enter each state park and each recreational area in this State and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, use the facilities of the state park or recreational area without paying the entrance fee; and
    (b) May issue an annual permit to a person who pays a reasonable fee as prescribed by regulation which authorizes the holder of the permit to enter a specific state park or specific recreational area in this State and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, use the facilities of the state park or recreational area without paying the entrance fee.
    3. An annual permit issued pursuant to subsection 2 does not authorize the holder of the permit to engage in camping or boating, or to attend special events. The holder of such a permit who wishes to engage in camping or boating, or to attend special events, must pay any fee established for the respective activity.
    4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1 of NRS 407.0762 and subsection 1 of NRS 407.0765, the fees collected pursuant to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of subsection 1 or subsection 2 must be deposited in the State General Fund.
    (Added to NRS by 1961, 180; A 1963, 831; 1971, 2078; 1973, 247; 1977, 794, 1131; 1979, 108; 1985, 287; 1993, 217, 1029, 2532; 1999, 977; 2003, 1216, 3221)
    The state never said, "this agency is responsible for regulating the possession of weapons in the parks." The only regulations they can create are to enforce the sections of the law as well as to prevent misuse and damage and to promote use and enjoyment of the facility. One could stretch that to mean almost anything, but I think the legislature did not intend for them to regulate the carry of firearms for self-defense.

    NRS 244.364, NRS 268.418, and NRS 269.222 specifically mention that a city, town, or county cannot infringe upon their rights, but all say that except by specific statue the legislature reserves the right to itself. I don't think they intended for agencies or even individual government buildings to set their own policies, even though those entities are not a city, town or county. There was no specific statute allowing anyone to regulate this in the parks.

    Although they specifically mention that no town, city, or county can infringe upon those rights, I don't think that necessarily means that others can. Afterall, the rights and powers are reserved to the legislature itself.

    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 ______ may infringe upon those rights and powers.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 09-26-2010 at 12:48 AM.

  10. #10
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    The next step in preemption in many states should be to cover all weapons (not just firearms) and to restrict state agencies. I've tried to do this in Nevada but no one cares, it's sad how many people think the RKBA just applies to firearms..... it doesn't. They are just as ignorant as the brady bunch.... no difference. It is clear from readings from the founding fathers and from Heller and McDonald that arms covers much more than just firearms.

    If the founding fathers meant just firearms, then they would have added a right to bear firearms as the old South African Constitution had.
    I definitely agree!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    12
    It would be a very difficult case to make, that while a national park, and a state park is not a sensitive place in the context of Heller vs DC, that a county park somehow is.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    All I can recommend at this point is that everyone contact your county commissioners. Don't be afraid to let them know you'd be interested in suing the county if it doesn't fix the problem. My own letter to them stated something about "The federal government acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the prohibition in national parks, but the State had to be sued before carry in state parks was allowed. Does the county wish to legislate the change on it's own, or does it want to do so after being ordered by a judge in a lawsuit?" Feel free to spin it however you want. Right now afaik, it's just one guy (me) yelling at the rain, and I'm being ignored.

    Also, I contacted the DA's office, and they're STILL unwilling to budge. Since the AG explicitly declined to opine on the constitutionality of carry in county parks, but only days later, settled the lawsuit against the state acknowledging the unconstitutionality of denied carry in state parks, I asked the DA to request the AG respond to the constitutionality question in their opinion to the county. The response I received:

    No need. They didn't offer any opinion on the constitutional issue before, and it is clear what they think about it now since they made an agreement to allow the possession of loaded firearms in state parks.

    But this is all I got. The DA's office acknowledges that the State is clear on the constitutional position since they made the agreement regarding state parks, but the county won't take it any further. I just don't understand why national parks are now OK, state parks are now OK, but the county is still fighting so hard on the issue in county parks. They have to know it's a battle they can't win, so why continue to throw away taxpayer resources fighting it? And why continue denying law-abiding citizens their right to self-defense?

    DON'T FORGET TO VOTE! Travis Barrick for AG and Don Chairez for DA.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Look at the bold section. It is explicitly stated that firearms are the realm of the State Legislature. Exceptions must be explicitly provided for.

    NRS 244.364 Limited authority to regulate firearms; restrictions concerning registration of certain firearms 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 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.

    (Added to NRS by 1989, 652; A 2007, 1289)
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    Preaching to the choir. The problem though is that this AG read this along with the 2007 Statutes of Nevada to do nothing to change the grandfathered status of pre-1989 ordinances.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by timf343 View Post
    Preaching to the choir. The problem though is that this AG read this along with the 2007 Statutes of Nevada to do nothing to change the grandfathered status of pre-1989 ordinances.
    Tim, some of the "choir" in here hasn't been seeing the part I bolded evidently.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    Copy that. I understand now - went back over the thread and I only now see the discussion on the preemption within state agencies.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by timf343 View Post
    Copy that. I understand now - went back over the thread and I only now see the discussion on the preemption within state agencies.
    It appears to me that the legislature specifically took control of firearms laws, and then specifically denied it to the local government bodies, but did not call out agencies separately. As they took control and did not specify that state agencies could regulate firearms, a reading of the statute sure appears to deny it. And our current AG waffles hard about it for some reason.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member Remmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    296
    As expected a national preserve missed the memo granted this was about state parks but the only power that national parks/ national preserves were using to illegally detain, arrest, and issue citations was the nevada code as pointed out by Field.

    http://www.viewnews.com/2010/VIEW-Oc.../38619704.html

    Snip
    "Red Rock Canyon has supplemental rules regarding the possession of a loaded weapon and the intentional discharge of any weapon. The fines for these violations are $250 for possession of a loaded weapon and $100 for intentional discharge."
    By the time next year the Administrative code will be amended to stop regulating firearms and we can all safely enjoy our parks and preserve baring city and county parks here in clark county.
    Last edited by Remmy; 10-08-2010 at 01:19 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Remmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    There was never any state law prohibiting carry in any park. It was an administrative code adopted by the Division of State Parks that applied to lands governed by the department. I don't believe the state legislature ever even gave the department the authority to create such a regulation without a stretch of imagination. State law declares that except as provided by explicit statute, the state legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate the possession of firearms. The Division of State parks was only given authority to make general regulations.
    You are correct my fault for the incorrect language in my post. The city and county parks are using the same code i believe to prosecute and issue citations so with this deal and that code being amended will force them to stop these illegal activities.

  20. #20
    Activist Member DoubleAgentMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    LA County, CA
    Posts
    64
    I'm going to Sunset park today and I will feel naked without my weapon, when will we get this crazy DA out and get someone who has a bit of common sense?

  21. #21
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleAgentMan View Post
    when will we get this crazy DA out and get someone who has a bit of common sense?
    November Second.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Remmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    November Second.
    indeed

  23. #23
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395

    Less than four months to go

    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 09:41 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Tim, some of the "choir" in here hasn't been seeing the part I bolded evidently.
    And the kicker, in my opinion, "As amended by SB-92 of 2007, applies to all ordinances made on, before, or after June 1989."

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    NAC update

    Quote Originally Posted by OC-moto450r View Post
    Does anyone know where they are in the process of amending the NAC?

    NAC 407.105
    My recent inquiry and response:
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Steven B. Silva
    To: varminter22
    Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:23 AM
    Subject: RE: NAC 407.105

    Following the public workshops and public hearing held earlier this year, the proposed NAC amendments were forwarded to the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) for their action. The changes become affective after being received by Parks from LCB and filing with the Secretary of State’s Office. Now that the session has adjourned, I expect that LCB will approve the NAC amendment. Our staff have received instructions that the open carry of firearms is authorized in our parks. Concealed carry with a valid permit was already authorized. Regulations on the discharge of firearms will remain in effect with the exception of discharge of firearms for the purposes lawful defense of self or property. If you have any additional questions, please don’t hesitate to give me a call. I will let you know when we receive the regulations back from LCB.

    Steven B. Silva
    Senior Law Enforcement Specialist
    Nevada Division of State Parks
    901 S. Stewart St, Suite 5005
    Carson City, NV 89701

    775-684-2774
    775-684-2777 Fax
    775-720-2199 Cell


    From: varminter22
    Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:47 AM
    To: Steven B. Silva
    Subject: NAC 407.105

    Dear Mr Silva,

    In view of the passage of AB-282, effective July 1, 2011, has subject NAC been revised?

    Thanks!

    Sincerely,

    CPO J. L. "Larry" Rhodes, USN(RET)
    Board of Directors/Chairman, Legislative Action Committee & Unpaid Nevada Lobbyist/Public Affairs Officer/Past President
    (775) 427-4563
    Stillwater Firearms Ass'n
    P. O. Box 665
    Fallon NV 89407
    www.stillwaterfirearms.org

    Incorporated in 1979, SFA is a Nevada non-profit organization and is affiliated with the National Rifle Association, Civilian Marksmanship Program, United States Practical Shooting Association, and International Confederation of Revolver Enthusiasts. SFA’s purpose is to promote public interest and skill in the use of firearms; to provide proper training and education in the use of firearms; to promote public interest and skill in the sport of target shooting; promote firearms rights and the adoption of legislation adhering to Article 1, Section 11 of the Nevada Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution; and to promote healthy and social recreation for the members of the corporation as well as for the public at large. Membership is available to all persons who have a strong and positive interest in the promotion and proper use of firearms.

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
  •