Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 83

Thread: North Las Vegas Violating Preemption

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    North Las Vegas Violating Preemption

    Although I think that this Topic has been discussed at length, on atleast one occasion prior, I think that The City of North Las Vegas is Violating Preemption on the following Firearm-related Subject-matter:
    1. North Las Vegas Code 9.32.080, concerning Firearms in Vehicles, AND
    2. North Las Vegas Code 12.16.020(20), concerning Firearms in Parks.

    According to Michael Davidson, North Las Vegas’ Chief Criminal Attorney, said His Interpretation is that the Ordinance is Legal because when the State Law was last revised in 2007, the Intent was to preserve pre-1989 Local Gun Laws that had nothing to do with Firearm Registration. He said there have been dozens of Cases in recent years where Convictions that included Violation of that Ordinance have been upheld in North Las Vegas Municipal Court without a single Appeal of the Weapons Ban made to District Court in Clark County. 'The Intent was to go after GangBangers, not Mom and Pop in the RV', Davidson says.

    The City of North Las Vegas is Preempted under Nevada Revised Code NRS 268.418(1).
    Furthermore, Clark County is also Preempted under Nevada Revised Code NRS 244.364(1).

    However, BOTH Statutes allow for the Registration of Pistols in Counties, and Cities found within those Counties, whose Populations are greater than 400,000 Persons, with certain inapplicable times, those being:
    1. Within 72 Hours IF you are a Resident, OR
    2. Within 60 Days, IF you are NOT a Resident, and are merely Passing through such as a Vacation.

    I found Information that The NRA is going to Sue North Las vegas over this very matter, and it has been Filed accordingly as per the Information found on: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=14105

    Furthermore, Las Vegas is also Violating Preemption by:
    1. Prohbiting Firearms in their Parks under Las Vegas City Code 13.36.055(A)(1).
    Last edited by aadvark; 11-12-2010 at 03:37 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    wrightme:

    Thank you for the additional Link!

    aadvark

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    wrightme:

    Thank you for the additional Link!

    aadvark
    No problem!

    I have it on good authority that information posted there is usable in its entirety. I am the webmaster, and the author is a personal friend of mine.


    It sure was not "overnight" to see it reach the current status.
    Last edited by wrightme; 11-12-2010 at 03:44 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    wrightme:

    I assume, in Good Faith, that you, unlike myself, Live in Nevada.

    Is the Clark County District Court Firearms Friendly, or is it likely that The National Rifle Association, and its Plantiffs, will need to File and Appeal to a Nevada Judicial Circuit Court?

    aadvark

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    wrightme:

    I assume, in Good Faith, that you, unlike myself, Live in Nevada.

    Is the Clark County District Court Firearms Friendly, or is it likely that The National Rifle Association, and its Plantiffs, will need to File and Appeal to a Nevada Judicial Circuit Court?

    aadvark
    Simply checking my location provides that answer, which your profile coincidentally does not answer.

    I am in Northern Nevada, and do not know how the CC District Court is.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    wrightme:

    I was oblivious of the Fact that the Location is stated in your Profile, until you stated it to me.
    However, I will look closer next time!

    As for the later Question, hopefully, The District Court of Clark County may be Firearms-Friendly.

    aadvark

  8. #8
    Regular Member crzyjarmans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    las vegas,nv
    Posts
    37

    las vegas

    I Live in las vegas,and i believe its not legal to carry in the court house

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by crzyjarmans View Post
    I Live in las vegas,and i believe its not legal to carry in the court house
    ROFL!

    I do believe he meant from a Court decision PoV, and not a Court access PoV.
    Last edited by wrightme; 11-15-2010 at 05:54 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Regular Member crzyjarmans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    las vegas,nv
    Posts
    37

    my bad

    sorry for the misundarstand the question

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Nevada Revised Code NRS 202.3673 states: 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a Permittee may Carry a Concealed Firearm while the Permittee is on the Premises of any Public Building *** 3. A Permittee shall not Carry a Concealed Firearm while the Permittee is on the Premises of: (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 [Public] Building *** 5. A Person who Violates Subsection 2 or 3 is Guilty of a Misdemeanor. *** 6. As used in this Section: (b) 'Public Building' means any Building or Office Space Occupied by: (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.

    Here is my Argument: NRS 202.3673(3) states that CONCEALED CARRY is what is Off-Limits, therefore, Open Carry is NOT Off-Limits.

    Open Carry in a Public Building is NOT Prohibited under THE DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND FIREARMS ARTICLE, therefore, ONLY CONCEALED CARRY is Off-Limits, in, say, The Clark County CourtHouse or Las Vegas Metro Station.

    Furthermore, because of NRS 268.418(1) AND NRS 244.364(1), neither Clark County nor Las Vegas can usurp this.

    *** I am NOT a Lawyer, and I DO NOT have any LEGAL EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS ***

    P.S.: NRS 202.265 Prohibits Open Carry on School Property, AND NRS 202.3673(3)(a) Prohibits Concealed Carry on School Property, so School Carry is OUTRIGHT Prohibited no matter which way you approach it, less the exceptions under NRS 202.3673(4).
    Last edited by aadvark; 11-22-2010 at 12:54 PM.

  12. #12
    lasvegas22
    Guest
    The incorporated city of North Las Vegas has a city ordinance that prohibits the transportation of loaded guns in vehicles. Although this ordinance is in violation of NRS 268.418, the City of NLV has simply decided to ignore the state law. You may be cited, arrested, and prosecuted by the City of NLV for violating this ordinance. Moreover you shouldn't carry a firearm in public places like school property, park etc.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Sabotage70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fabulous Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by lasvegas22 View Post
    The incorporated city of North Las Vegas has a city ordinance that prohibits the transportation of loaded guns in vehicles. Although this ordinance is in violation of NRS 268.418, the City of NLV has simply decided to ignore the state law. You may be cited, arrested, and prosecuted by the City of NLV for violating this ordinance. Moreover you shouldn't carry a firearm in public places like school property, park etc.


    On a side note: How the hell do you a a star already with one post? And a post that rehashes everything that has been discussed in multiple threads.
    EDC=XDm40 16+1+16+16

    RED DRAGONS!!!!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Unfortunately, we lost the Hanes case. But it is being appealed.

    Am sure there must be other documents. But here is the case:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...804_152404.pdf

    And the judge's (we believe erroneous) decision:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...428_154432.pdf

    And this didn't help any - AG's (we believe erroneous) opinion:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...arm Regulation[1].pdf

    More info:

    District case number is A-10-622398-C
    Att'y of record website: http://www.parsonsbehlelaw.com/bio/RewGoodenow.asp

    Go to
    http:// https://www.clarkcountycourt...s/default.aspxand and click on "District Civil/Criminal Records"
    then enter case number: A-10-622398-C
    Which yields:
    QUOTE
    Search By: Case Case Search Mode: Number Case Number: A-10-622398-C Case Status: All Sort By: Filed Date
    Case Number Style Filed/Location Type/Status
    A-10-622398-C David Hanes, Plaintiff(s) vs. Clark County of, Defendant(s) 08/05/2010
    Department 22 Other Civil Filing
    Open
    UNQUOTE
    Last edited by varminter22; 09-16-2011 at 10:10 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Unfortunately, we lost the Hanes case. But it is being appealed.

    Am sure there must be other documents. But here is the case:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...804_152404.pdf

    And the judge's (we believe erroneous) decision:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...428_154432.pdf

    And this didn't help any - AG's (we believe erroneous) opinion:
    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...arm Regulation[1].pdf

    More info:

    District case number is A-10-622398-C
    Att'y of record website: http://www.parsonsbehlelaw.com/bio/RewGoodenow.asp

    Go to
    http:// https://www.clarkcountycourt...s/default.aspxand and click on "District Civil/Criminal Records"
    then enter case number: A-10-622398-C
    Which yields:
    QUOTE
    Search By: Case Case Search Mode: Number Case Number: A-10-622398-C Case Status: All Sort By: Filed Date
    Case Number Style Filed/Location Type/Status
    A-10-622398-C David Hanes, Plaintiff(s) vs. Clark County of, Defendant(s) 08/05/2010
    Department 22 Other Civil Filing
    Open
    UNQUOTE
    I have to Disagree, respectfuly.

    The Judge threw that case out based on no harm,
    Hanes Cited his harm as not being able to travel to the range or gun store, and other lawful business.
    The Ordinace has an exemption written in that states you may travel to the gun store or range, or conduct lawful business. That case was tossed out properly, and will be again unless they get a trial De Nova and change their facts. (possible in NLV)

    I am not a lawyer but the second I read the Harm in Hanes case I flipped. (Did the NRA attorney not read the statute he was fighting?)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    I, too, Disagree.

    I Expect an Successful Appeal!

  17. #17
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    I, too, Disagree.

    I Expect an Successful Appeal!
    What are "we" disagreeing too/about? I got lost in some of this.

    What I don't agree is that the NLV City Ordinance has been preempted by the 2007 change/amendment to the the original NRS which in effect grandfathered the NLV ordinance because it was in effect BEFORE the "kickoff" date established by the NRS. All the 2007 amendment addressed was registration of firearms. If you read the legislative history, etc., on that amendment, there can be no other conclusion; and I respectfully submit that if you read the amendment as a preemption of ALL firearms laws/ordinances, you are wishfully fooling yourself. If this anticipated appeal you speak of is going to once again "attack" the ordinance on the grounds of "preemption," it's a looser.

    The only way to "attack" the ordinance is by attacking the NLV City ordinance that defines what a "dangerous or deadly weapon" is and is NOT. By definition a firearm "carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority" is NOT a "dangerous or deadly weapon." So carrying with a CCW is not in violation of the ordinance. Likewise, lawful open carrying is also not in violation of the ordinance... because Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution affords the right, or in effect, "permits" its citizens to “bear arms,” even those driving their vehicles within the confines of the city limits of the City of North Las Vegas; and the State Constitution is the supreme law of the state and therefore inherently a “duly authorized government authority." So, both CCW and OC are "covered" and within the exception definition of what a dangerous or deadly weapon is NOT.

    So, bottom line here is that a constitutional argument, if one were to be made, isn’t that North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 is unconstitutional or has been preempted by appropriate Nevada Revised Statute(s), only that the City’s apparent misguided and obviously arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of the ordinance calls into question the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and of course the 4th Amendment with reference to probable cause.

    Okay, here’s the “real” deal… in 2007, SB 92 did the following to Nevada’s statewide preemption… it did away with that part of the original NRS that “grandfathered” (were in effect before June 13, 1989) local ordinances that apply to gun registration and replaced it with a gun registration scheme applicable to counties of 400,000 or more and cities and towns within those counties, ergo the language in Section 5.2 of the bill… before, on, or after June 13, 1989. So, statewide, the only gun registration law that Nevada has is as set forth in SB 92… any and all local ordinances as regards gun registration ARE preempted… none are “grandfathered.”

    What SB 92 did not do is preempt ALL the gun laws… it, in fact, reemphasized that those “other” gun laws (not registration laws) were and are still “grandfathered,” ergo the language in Section 5.1 of the bill… on or after June 13, 1989 . So, the North Las Vegas “dangerous or deadly weapon in vehicle” ordinance (enacted well before June 13, 1989) is, in effect, “grandfathered.”

    SB 92…
    Sec. 5.

    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.
    Last edited by usmcmustang; 09-18-2011 at 12:22 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    USMC Mustang is correct, although he did not include the part where we can spank them for arbitrary enforcement. This issue is tricky because they dismiss when The offense is defended.

    In a civil Case (such as the NRA brought up) there MUST be Harm, to move the case forward.

    (try taking me to court because I "almost" hit your car in the parking lot.)

    Hanes never got pulled over, did not get arrested, suffered no "injury" and has NO case.

    The NRA realizes this, I have reviewed the PnA with Carrie, and they carry on. Is this a ca$e of "acting like your right$ matter?"

    aardvark, we all want the man off our backs, but I would like to hear from you what standing Hanes can possibly have, without harm.

    Can you tell us what makes his appeal so solid?

  19. #19
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    USMC Mustang is correct, although he did not include the part where we can spank them for arbitrary enforcement. This issue is tricky because they dismiss when The offense is defended.

    In a civil Case (such as the NRA brought up) there MUST be Harm, to move the case forward.

    (try taking me to court because I "almost" hit your car in the parking lot.)

    Hanes never got pulled over, did not get arrested, suffered no "injury" and has NO case.

    The NRA realizes this, I have reviewed the PnA with Carrie, and they carry on. Is this a ca$e of "acting like your right$ matter?"

    aardvark, we all want the man off our backs, but I would like to hear from you what standing Hanes can possibly have, without harm.

    Can you tell us what makes his appeal so solid?
    Well... I thought I did... "So, bottom line here is that a constitutional argument, if one were to be made, isn’t that North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 is unconstitutional or has been preempted by appropriate Nevada Revised Statute(s), only that the City’s apparent misguided and obviously arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of the ordinance calls into question the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and of course the 4th Amendment with reference to probable cause."
    Last edited by usmcmustang; 09-18-2011 at 12:56 PM.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    Sec. 5.

    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.
    Boulder City, Henderson and Reno disagree with you and believe preemption did void all their ordinances. The former mayor of North Las Vegas also believed preemption was the purpose and effect of SB92. Clark County and the current North Las Vegas mayor agree with you that SB92 only affected registration in Clark County.

    Admittedly, SB92 was bastardized into something nearly unrecognizable by the lobbying of some local governments (since when does a government employee get paid to lobby?!?!?) But, looking at the text you posted above, the important paragraph is obviously paragraph 2 of Section 5.

    That paragraph says "the provisions...AS AMENDED..." To me that means any paragraphs of NRS 268.418 that was amended. I don't really understand any other way to read it. So then I read what paragraphs of NRS 268.418 were amended by SB92 and those are paragraphs 1, 3 & 4. So...in what you posted, paragraph one applies to NRS 268.418 paragraph 2, and your paragraph two applies to NRS 268.418 paragraphs 1, 3 & 4.

    The net effect in the way the Cities of Boulder City, Henderson, and Reno read this amendment is that any non-registration ordinances they used to have are now void. Obviously there is some disagreement with other municipalities, which makes this issue ripe for a Supreme Court precedent, or an attempt by the legislature to make this less ambiguous. Certainly there is no question what the introduced version of SB92 meant.

    It is interesting to read SB176 from this year's legislature. It unfortunately died in committee, but was a multipurpose bill that would have brought us constitutional carry, and more changes to the preemption law. It sought to remove paragraph 3 of NRS 268.418. If your reading is correct, this would be pointless, since such a change would have no effect on anyone or anything. If my reading is correct, this change would have outlawed registration (on top of every other local gun law which is already outlawed). I contend that this is further evidence that my reading is correct, because it seems unlikely a legislative change would be proposed, the net effect of which would be no changes now or in the future.

  21. #21
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by timf343 View Post
    Boulder City, Henderson and Reno disagree with you and believe preemption did void all their ordinances. The former mayor of North Las Vegas also believed preemption was the purpose and effect of SB92. Clark County and the current North Las Vegas mayor agree with you that SB92 only affected registration in Clark County.

    Admittedly, SB92 was bastardized into something nearly unrecognizable by the lobbying of some local governments (since when does a government employee get paid to lobby?!?!?) But, looking at the text you posted above, the important paragraph is obviously paragraph 2 of Section 5.

    That paragraph says "the provisions...AS AMENDED..." To me that means any paragraphs of NRS 268.418 that was amended. I don't really understand any other way to read it. So then I read what paragraphs of NRS 268.418 were amended by SB92 and those are paragraphs 1, 3 & 4. So...in what you posted, paragraph one applies to NRS 268.418 paragraph 2, and your paragraph two applies to NRS 268.418 paragraphs 1, 3 & 4.

    The net effect in the way the Cities of Boulder City, Henderson, and Reno read this amendment is that any non-registration ordinances they used to have are now void. Obviously there is some disagreement with other municipalities, which makes this issue ripe for a Supreme Court precedent, or an attempt by the legislature to make this less ambiguous. Certainly there is no question what the introduced version of SB92 meant.

    It is interesting to read SB176 from this year's legislature. It unfortunately died in committee, but was a multipurpose bill that would have brought us constitutional carry, and more changes to the preemption law. It sought to remove paragraph 3 of NRS 268.418. If your reading is correct, this would be pointless, since such a change would have no effect on anyone or anything. If my reading is correct, this change would have outlawed registration (on top of every other local gun law which is already outlawed). I contend that this is further evidence that my reading is correct, because it seems unlikely a legislative change would be proposed, the net effect of which would be no changes now or in the future.
    This is how Sections 5.1 and 5.2 read to ME… and with respect, I am at a loss as to how you and possibly others can defend a “different interpretation.”

    1. Everything in the act (except the now enacted firearm registration provisions) remains as it WAS (before amendment), and therefore those unamended portions apply to ordinances or regulations passed on or after June 13, 1989. So, in effect, those local ordinances in effect prior to June 13, 1989 that are not firearm registration specific, are STILL grandfathered.

    2. Those things in the act that were amended by SB 92 (the now enacted registration provisions) do NOT remain as they were (before amendment), i.e., registration ordinances or regulations; and therefore those amended portions apply to ordinances or regulations passed before, on or after June 13, 1989. So, in effect, any registration specific local ordinances that are inconsistent with the act as amended that were enacted at any time (before, on or after June 13, 1989) are preempted.

    I am in total agreement with you that the language of SB 92 as originally introduced did indeed call for total preemption of all local ordinances or regulations related to the regulation of firearms that were enacted before, on or after June 13, 1989. But, like so many bills, that’s not what was finally “negotiated” and enacted into law. And, it’s not the intent of the originator(s) of the bill that should be scrutinized, but that of the intent of the legislators that voted for the passage of the bill as it was ultimately presented to them. As I recall, the then Chairman of the committee that worked on this bill, even made the public comment that after it had been “massaged,” that “It was no longer a preemption bill.”

    I’m of the opinion that to “defend” SB 92 as if it were a preemption bill, is a losing proposition. But… we shall see what we shall see. Anyone care to place a wager?
    Last edited by usmcmustang; 09-18-2011 at 06:43 PM.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    This is how Sections 5.1 and 5.2 read to ME… and with respect, I am at a loss as to how you and possibly others can defend a “different interpretation.”
    Senate Bill 92 Section 5 modified the 1989 Statutes of Nevada Chapter 308, which was the enacting statute of NRS 268.418. The modification is as you previously quoted.

    So I read it like this:

    If the paragraph (provision) of NRS 268.418 was modified/amended, it meets the requirements of Section 5 paragraph 2. If not, it defaults back to the original text of the 1989 statute, which is section 5 paragraph 1.

    Paragraph 1 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2
    Paragraph 2 unamended: Section 5 paragraph 1
    Paragraph 3 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2
    Paragraph 4 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2

    I had this debate with myself before coming to this conclusion, but it seems as simple as that. If amended, it's subject to the new text. Paragraph 1 was definitely amended, and that's the meat of the preemption.

  23. #23
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by timf343 View Post
    Senate Bill 92 Section 5 modified the 1989 Statutes of Nevada Chapter 308, which was the enacting statute of NRS 268.418. The modification is as you previously quoted.

    So I read it like this:

    If the paragraph (provision) of NRS 268.418 was modified/amended, it meets the requirements of Section 5 paragraph 2. If not, it defaults back to the original text of the 1989 statute, which is section 5 paragraph 1.

    Paragraph 1 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2
    Paragraph 2 unamended: Section 5 paragraph 1
    Paragraph 3 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2
    Paragraph 4 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2

    I had this debate with myself before coming to this conclusion, but it seems as simple as that. If amended, it's subject to the new text. Paragraph 1 was definitely amended, and that's the meat of the preemption.
    And you are absolutely correct that paragraphs 1, 3, & 4 were amended and therefore "meet the requirements of Section 5 paragraph 2." However, the amendments only apply to firearm registration and defining a firearm. So, when it comes to the firearm registration "scheme" and defining a firearm, the "before, on or after June 13, 1989" clause IS operative.

    And, once again, you are absolutely correct that paragraph 2 was unamended and therefore "defaults back to the original text of the 1989 statute"... "on or after June 13, 1989."

    So... maybe I'm not "getting your point"... sometimes I can be pretty dense. How does that argument support your contention of total preemption?
    Last edited by usmcmustang; 09-18-2011 at 07:59 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by timf343 View Post
    Senate Bill 92 Section 5 modified the 1989 Statutes of Nevada Chapter 308, which was the enacting statute of NRS 268.418. The modification is as you previously quoted.

    So I read it like this:

    If the paragraph (provision) of NRS 268.418 was modified/amended, it meets the requirements of Section 5 paragraph 2. If not, it defaults back to the original text of the 1989 statute, which is section 5 paragraph 1.

    Paragraph 1 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2
    Paragraph 2 unamended: Section 5 paragraph 1
    Paragraph 3 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2
    Paragraph 4 amended: Section 5 paragraph 2

    I had this debate with myself before coming to this conclusion, but it seems as simple as that. If amended, it's subject to the new text. Paragraph 1 was definitely amended, and that's the meat of the preemption.


    Your statement here… “IF amended, it’s subject to the new text” (before, on or after June 13, 1989) “twists” what the amendment actually passed into law. SB 92 doesn’t say anything about “IF” amended… it says “AS” amended.


    Section 5.2 of SB 92 says: “The provisions of this act, as amended (not IF amended) on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.”

    It’s very clear to me and should be to anyone looking at this without wishing and wanting it to be otherwise, that Section 5.2 of SB 92 amended NRS 268.418 with respect to firearm registration and firearm definition ONLY. And that those portions of NRS 268.418, AS so amended, apply to any local ordinances that were adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.


    There’s a big difference between the words “AS” and “IF.” Switching those two words out, one for the other, is a big mistake and leads one down a “twisty” road of delusion… in my opinion.
    Last edited by usmcmustang; 09-19-2011 at 12:08 PM.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    The use of the words "if" and "as" are not nearly as important as the word "provision". What is a "provision" of law? Is it a single sentence? Is it a single paragraph? An idea?

    It is your contention that the first sentence of paragraph 1 applies only to ordinances created before 1989, while sentence 2 of paragraph 1 applies to all ordinances. I find it a difficult concept that one must refer to both 1989 statutes and 2007 statutes in order to calculate that different sentences within the same paragraph of law are not applied in the same way. For this confusion, I do blame the legislators who twice now have failed to incorporate dates into the actual NRS, making this otherwise simple law a research headache.

    I contend that paragraph 1 is a single provision. Since that provision was amended, it now applies to all ordinances. You have stated that it was just the definition that changed. But isn't the definition an integral part of what a law means?

    Also, consider that when requesting an official opinion from the Attorney General, the Clark County District Attorney's office did not raise the same points. Instead, they argued that their ordinances which prohibit the carrying of firearms in county parks are the means by which they assert their power under paragraph 2 -- in other words, they acknowledge that preemption is in full effect, but they have an exception because by prohibiting weapons from being carried, they in effect prohibit firearms from being discharged.

    You are right that I have a personal interest in the law being the way I have read and interpreted it, but I do think I'm in good company, since the NRA attorneys, and the City Attorneys in Boulder City, Reno and Henderson all agree with my reading, and I hope you will reconsider your label of my thought process since we're all here to learn in a friendly environment.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •