North Las Vegas Violating Preemption

timf343 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

usmcmustang said:

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.”

Click to expand...

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.

timf343 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

timf343 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

timf343 said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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." Yes... a rather simple contention/conclusion. Why? Because sentence 2 of paragraph 1 was the only addition/amendment to the statute; SB 92, Section 5.2 clearly states that "The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989." The amendment clearly did not change ALL other provisions of the act, as you and seemingly others have and continue to contend. It amended what it amended... nothing else. If it didn't amend anything but what it amended, then all other provisions of the act remain as they were... specifically, anything NOT having to do with firearm registration and definition. All other provisions of the act aren't affected... specifically the "on or before" provisions. "Provisions," a word you have targeted, simply means what the act provides for... what it is all about, in other words. I'm not real certain as to your specific interest in that word. If you are saying that because a sentence was added to paragraph 1 (the added or amended words relative to firearm registration and definition), ALL the provisions of that paragraph, amended or not, are subject to Section 5.2 of SB 92, I would certainly question your rationale.

"You have stated that it was just the definition that changed." My intent was to communicate that the amendment added a definition as to what a firearm was... simple as that. Nothing changed in the law except now there is a definition of "firearm." I don't see the importance of that definition as it applies to this argument.

Even though you may be "in good company" as to your position on this issue, seems to me the AG and City Attorneys you mention don't have gun owners' best interest at heart. Keeping this "ball spinning" in erratic motion is just what they would like. It's my opinion that the more we argue that what we have here is REAL and UNQUESTIONABLE preemption as a result of SB 92, the more UNREAL AND QUESTIONABLE our efforts become. The fact that some bureaucrat lawyers "agree" with a position doesn't tip too many scales with me. "Positions" in law are like ******** and everybody has one. As far as the NRA lawyers... well, we know what that got us in the Hanes case... again bureaucracy at work, even in the NRA... or most certainly in the NRA.

And just let me say this... this is NOT personal, Tim. I'm hard headed and sometimes "stupid" and I will sometimes question others "sanity," which I know then gets personal... sorry. Let's lighten things up a bit. In a previous post I asked if there are any out there willing to wager on which side or the other this debate will finally come down on... did SB 92 gives us total and complete preemption or did it not? I'll wager $100 that it did not... who wants to get on the other side of that wager, and who wants to hold the bets?

usmcmustang said:

In a previous post I asked if there are any out there willing to wager on which side or the other this debate will finally come down on... did SB 92 gives us total and complete preemption or did it not? I'll wager $100 that it did not... who wants to get on the other side of that wager, and who wants to hold the bets?

Click to expand...

Unless all clark co registration is preempted, we will never have total and complete preemption. Thus, SB92 could NOT have provided total and complete preemption.

wrightme said:

Unless all clark co registration is preempted, we will never have total and complete preemption. Thus, SB92 could NOT have provided total and complete preemption.

Click to expand...

Understood and I guess I misspoke when I referred to what we are debating as "total and complete preemption." More appropriately, I should have said whether or not SB 92 rolled back the clock to "before, on or after June 13, 1989" as it relates to ALL of what is codified in NRS 244.364. Sorry for any confusion.

Just as an aside, Tim…

If my son had used your argument in his case in the brief he submitted to the NLV Municipal Court, he may have been eaten alive. The City Attorney’s brief in support of their case rolled out all the legislative history of both AB 147 and SB 92. Reading every little morsel of their brief and all the exhibits, it really became clear to me that challenging the NLV City Ordinance re: dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle, with your argument would have been extremely risky and ultimately unsuccessful. As it turned out, the argument that my son's brief presented was at least “unfamiliar” to the City Attorney and perhaps even a bit incontrovertible, and caused a degree of “panic,” ergo the motion for dismissal and subsequent court ordered dismissal.

Tim, I see you posted this in a previous post here: "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."

That's quite a leap. Without the specific wording of the enacted legislation (not the proposed or anticipated legislation) nobody can know what would and would not be "pointless." A removal of paragraph 3 on its face, would seem simply to remove the firearm registration requirement here in Clark County, (something we all believe is the right thing to do), right? How would that removal affect the other PROVISIONS of the statute and their effective dates, etc.? I guess in my "stupidity" I'm not following your logic.

I believe a review is in order.....

Link to SB92-Engrossed: SB-92

This bill altered three main statutes; namely, NRS 244.364, NRS 268.418, and NRS 269.222.

Here is the first portion of the Legislative Digest of SB92 as engrossed:

Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
Assembly Bill No. 147 of the 1989 Legislative Session (Chapter 308, Statutes
of Nevada 1989, p. 653) reserved for the Legislature the rights and powers
necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership,
transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in this State.
However, section 5 of Assembly Bill No. 147 provided that the preemptive effect
of the bill applied only to ordinances or regulations adopted by local governments
on or after June 13, 1989. This bill requires the amendment of ordinances or
regulations adopted by local governments before June 13, 1989, that require
registration of a firearm capable of being concealed to impose: (1) a period of at
least 60 days of residency in the jurisdiction before registration of such a firearm is
required; and (2) a period of at least 72 hours for the registration of a pistol by a
resident of the jurisdiction upon transfer of title to the pistol to the resident by
purchase, gift or any other transfer.

Click to expand...

Section 5 of AB147 from the past provided the preemption for "on or after June 13, 1989." The intent stated is to also alter ones prior to June 13, 1989. For intent, we would need to first go to Section 5 of AB147.

For the legislative intent from A.B.147:

Assembly Bill 147 reserves the power to regulate firearms to the state. The measure specifices, however, that the local governments may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.

The bill indicates that its provisions only limit local ordinances or regulations adopted on or after its effective date, and the measure becomes effective upon passage and approval.

Click to expand...

Section 5 of A.B.147:

Sec. 5. The provisions of this act apply only to ordinances or regulations adopted on or after the effective date of this act.

Click to expand...

Now, before proceeding further, I can see no other way to read the intent other than "complete preemption of all ordinances enacted 'on or after June 13, 1989(enactment).'"

Can anyone present a logical opinion based upon that documentation of AB147 to contradict that specific statement?

AB147 Sec 1, 2, and 3.

Now for the meat of AB147.
Section 1:

Sec. 1. Chapter 244 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:

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.
2. A board of county commissioners may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.
3. As used in this section, "firearm" means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.

Click to expand...

This created NRS 244.364.


Section 2.
Same as Section 1, replacing "county" with "city," and "board of county commissioners" with "governing body of a city."

Sec. 2. Chapter 268 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:

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.
2. The governing body of a city may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.
3. As used in this section, "firearm" means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.

Click to expand...

This created NRS 268.418.

Section 3.
Same as Section 1, replacing "county" with "town," and "board of county commissioners" with "town board."

Sec. 3. Chapter 269 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:

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 town may infringe upon those rights and powers.
2. A town board may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.
3. As used in this section, "firearm" means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.

Click to expand...

This created NRS 269.222.


So, AB147 created the three original statutes.

Now, what did SB92 do?

First, lets start with "town," and NRS 269.222:

Sec. 3. NRS 269.222 is hereby amended to read as follows:

269.222
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 town 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 town board may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the
unsafe discharge of firearms.

3. If a town board 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 town board shall amend such an ordinance or
regulation to require:
(a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the town 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 town upon transfer of title to the pistol to the
resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.

4. [As] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as used
in this section [, “firearm”] :
(a) “Firearm” means any device designed to be used as a weapon
from which a projectile [is discharged by means of an
explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.] 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.

Click to expand...

So, this changed the definition of 'firearm' for 269.222, "except as otherwise provided in subsection 1."
This appears to have the sole effect of presenting "'firearm' uses explosion or combustion," "capable of being concealed means ALL firearms with barrel length less than 12inches," and "'pistol' is 'capable of being concealed' & 'intended to be aimed and fired with one hand'; for the intent of the registration provisions of this section of chapter 269.

This portion of the bill provided "specific statute" requiring the changes to registration for towns in counties with greater than 400,000 in population. Other than registration in those towns, the specifics of preemption still apply completely to regulations "on or after June 13, 1989," yet makes it mandatory to alter the registration provisions to be "60 days, 72 hours."


Can anyone present a logical opinion based upon that documentation of SB92 to contradict that specific statement?

SB92 and cities

Cities and NRS268.418 changed almost identically to towns.

Sec. 2. NRS 268.418 is hereby amended to read as follows:

268.418
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.

2. The governing body of a city may proscribe by ordinance or
regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.

3. If the governing body of a city 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 governing body shall
amend such an ordinance or regulation to require:
(a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the city 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 city upon transfer of title to the pistol to the
resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.

4. [As] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as used
in this section [, “firearm”] :
(a) “Firearm” means any device designed to be used as a weapon
from which a projectile [is discharged by means of an
explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.] 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.

Click to expand...

"yada yada, definitions ho hum...."

And, a repeat with changes:
This portion of the bill provided "specific statute" requiring the changes to registration for cities in counties with greater than 400,000 in population. Other than registration in those cities, the specifics of preemption still apply completely to regulations "on or after June 13, 1989," yet makes it mandatory to alter the registration provisions to be "60 days, 72 hours."


Can anyone present a logical opinion based upon that documentation of SB92 to contradict that specific statement?

Tim, I don’t think there’s any convincing here of one over the other… so we’ll just agree to disagree, okay?

I think Wrightme has it pretty much covered.


Without going into all the details we already have… perhaps ad nauseum, I’ll just leave it at this…



Seems to me that there is no contrary argument that before SB 92 was enacted into law and amending NRS 268.418, the regulation of the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada was the sole “property” of the State Legislature; and the only local laws on the books that were “grandfathered” were those enacted before June 13, 1989. Any local laws enacted on or after June 13, 1989, would be contrary to NRS 268.418 and have no legal affect.


Now comes SB 92, which, I’d agree, was a preemption initiative that, in its introduced form was perhaps intended to do away the grandfathering effect of NRS 268.418 and would have rendered all local ordinances respecting the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms, no matter when they were enacted, null and void. But what was finally passed as law was far from what was introduced by SB 92’s sponsor(s). Lobbyists (specifically the Las Vegas Sheriff and all his minions) had their way with the bill. They lobbied for and got a firearm registration scheme for Clark County “in trade for” giving up all local registration laws that were pre June 13, 1989. So, in effect, any pre June 13, 1989 local registration laws were rendered null and void (any post June 13, 1989 local registration laws were already null and void), but Clark County retained a registration scheme . That IS what happened best I can tell.

SB 92 was ultimately crafted to actually merge what was NRS 268.418, i.e. the Legislature’s reservation for itself such rights etc. etc., with a “grandfathering” of local laws enacted before June 13, 1989, into a hybrid of sorts that now still has the Legislature reserving for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada (notice I didn’t have “registration” in there), with a “grandfathering” of local laws enacted before June 13, 1989; and the Legislature now reserving for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the registration of firearms in Nevada with NO “grandfathering of any local registration laws, period ” (local registration laws “before, on or after June 13, 1989” are null and void); however, the Legislature has somewhat divested its rights and powers necessary to regulate the registration of firearms to the degree of allowing Clark County to have a firearms registration scheme. So, at the time it was probably touted as a “win win” situation by both 2d Amenders and Law Enforcement… seems to me that’s what all legislative negotiations are all about… making “losers” feel like winners. The Clark County Sheriff got his registration scheme into law, but in favor of the 2d Amenders any local registration laws in effect that were pre June 13, 1989 became null and void.

One may play with this word or that and concepts and theory and who shot John … but, it’s difficult for me to come to any other conclusions than I just presented. I’m done here.

usmcmustang said:

Tim, I don’t think there’s any convincing here of one over the other… so we’ll just agree to disagree, okay?

I think Wrightme has it pretty much covered.

Click to expand...

I'm not done with the review yet. Have you any disagreement with the specifics of history I have presented thus far, and of my take on the legislative intent and the actual operation of the original statutes, AND the town and city sections of SB92?

usmcmustang said:

One may play with this word or that and concepts and theory and who shot John … but, it’s difficult for me to come to any other conclusions than I just presented. I’m done here.

Click to expand...

Whichever of you two is more correct WILL hinge upon "this word or that." That IS exactly what is in question here, and that is exactly what I am presenting, in the specific order of my choosing, to follow the intent and the words through the entire process.

Now, add in the county:

Sec. 1. NRS 244.364 is hereby amended to read as follows:

268.418
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. The governing body of a city may proscribe by ordinance or
regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.

3. If 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. [As] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as used
in this section [, “firearm”] :
(a) “Firearm” means any device designed to be used as a weapon
from which a projectile [is discharged by means of an
explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.] 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.

Click to expand...

Now, in each specific of SB92, town, city, or county, the wording was specific. It left the preemptive language in place for "on or after June 13, 1989," left the original preemption definition of 'firearm' in place, and required the amendment of ANY pre-June 13, 1989 registration statute to match the "60 days, 72 hours" specifics.

Can anyone present a valid argument that denies that or alters it, concerning the AB147 statute creation, or the SB92 statute amendments?

Now, keep in mind that I am ONLY speaking specifically about the entirety of AB147, but ONLY Sections 1, 2, and 3 of SB92.

usmcmustang said:

The Clark County Sheriff got his registration scheme into law, but in favor of the 2d Amenders any local registration laws in effect that were pre June 13, 1989 became null and void.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. The Clark County Sheriff got a registration scheme that didn't match the one he had prior to SB92. But, it was likely the best he felt he could keep.

The true question is whether preemption is in full effect with the exception of the pre-AB147 registration; which had to be amended to match the statute created in the legislature by SB92.

wrightme said:

Now, in each specific of SB92, town, city, or county, the wording was specific. It left the preemptive language in place for "on or after June 13, 1989," left the original preemption definition of 'firearm' in place, and required the amendment of ANY pre-June 13, 1989 registration statute to match the "60 days, 72 hours" specifics.

Can anyone present a valid argument that denies that or alters it, concerning the AB147 statute creation, or the SB92 statute amendments?

Now, keep in mind that I am ONLY speaking specifically about the entirety of AB147, but ONLY Sections 1, 2, and 3 of SB92.

Click to expand...

The fatigue of this "exercise" is taking its toll, so I'll be the first to say I have no "valid argument" that denies or alters what you have set forth. Truthfully, I would very much like to be persuaded to the other side of the argument and forgo my argument, but so far I haven't been so persuaded.