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/NewsReleases.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).

...


http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=173

wrightme:

Thank you for the additional Link!

aadvark

aadvark said:

wrightme:

Thank you for the additional Link!

aadvark

Click to expand...

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.

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

aadvark said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

las vegas

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

crzyjarmans said:

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

Click to expand...

ROFL!

I do believe he meant from a Court decision PoV, and not a Court access PoV.

my bad

sorry for the misundarstand the question

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).

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.

lasvegas22 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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/p...se_ClarkCo/20100804141610_20100804_152404.pdf

And the judge's (we believe erroneous) decision:
http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/p...se_ClarkCo/20110428164340_20110428_154432.pdf

And this didn't help any - AG's (we believe erroneous) opinion:
http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/p...arkCo/AG Opinion regarding Firearm 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.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/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

varminter22 said:

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/p...se_ClarkCo/20100804141610_20100804_152404.pdf

And the judge's (we believe erroneous) decision:
http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/p...se_ClarkCo/20110428164340_20110428_154432.pdf

And this didn't help any - AG's (we believe erroneous) opinion:
http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/p...arkCo/AG Opinion regarding Firearm 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.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/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

Click to expand...

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?)

I, too, Disagree.

I Expect an Successful Appeal!

aadvark said:

I, too, Disagree.

I Expect an Successful Appeal!

Click to expand...

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.

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?

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

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?

Click to expand...

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."

usmcmustang said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.