Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Second amendment challenge to the Nevada State Parks ban on possession of firearm

  1. #1
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Second amendment challenge to the Nevada State Parks ban on possession of firearm

    LEGAL BACKGROUND

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and enforceable against the States and their political subdivisions, pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The right to keep and bear arms is a privilege and immunity of United States citizenship, which States and their political subdivisions may not deny or abridge.

    Nevada Administrative Code § 407.105(1)(b) prohibits the possession of a functional firearm by Mr. Baker within Nevada State Parks.

    Nevada Administrative Code § 407.105(1)(c) prohibits the discharge of any firearm within Nevada State Parks.

    The Nevada Administrative Code contains no self-defense exception for possession or discharge of a firearm within Nevada State Parks.

    Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 407.0475(3), 193.150 provide penalties for violation of Nevada Administrative Code § 407.105(1)(b)–(c), including 6 months imprisonment, or a
    $1,000 fine, or both.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    On April 12, 2010, Mr. Baker submitted a special use permit application for a group campsite at the Wild Horse State Recreation Area in Elko, Nevada. In this application, Mr. Baker stated that he intended to possess a functional firearm in his tent for self-defense purposes while camping at Wild Horse State Recreation Area.

    On June 1, 2010, Defendants subjected Mr. Baker to a deprivation of the right to keep and bear arms secured by the United States Constitution by threatening to enforce Nevada Administrative Code § 407.105 if Mr. Baker possessed a functional firearm in his tent while camping at Wild Horse State Recreation Area.

    Mr. Baker presently intends to possess a functional firearm in Nevada State Parks, and if necessary discharge that firearm for self-defense, but he is prevented from doing so by Defendants’ threatened enforcement of Nevada Administrative Code § 407.105.

    I wonder if I was to open carry in the State Park, and was caught, issued a citation for $263.10 and thereafter, followed the same arguments as they did in the Baker v. Biaggi et al complaint challenging the statute as unconstitutional, what would the chance be that Wisconsin would stay the proceedings and change the law to allow firearms in the State Parks for defense.

    If I had the financial backing, I would challenge the State Statute as unconstitutional. Here is the State Statute prohibiting firearms in state parks, 29.089 which requires firearms to be unloaded and encased in state parks. There is an exception for hunting when the hunt is administratively approved. Statute 29.091 requires firearms to be encased and unloaded in state wildlife refuges.

    Fine for violating 29.089(2) Possess or control loaded or uncased firearm in state park or fish hatchery $263.10 ( I can handle this amount) the charge isn’t a crime either, looks like it’s only a citation. The outcome would be interesting to say the least.

    Don
    Last edited by cowboyridn; 10-03-2010 at 11:40 AM. Reason: delete .pdf

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •