• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

N. Las Vegas Case Lost

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
I hear the judge ruled in favor of the City of North Las Vegas and Clark County in the matter of Hanes v. Clark County? can anyone confirm this?

Clark County District Court:
Case number A-10-622398-C+
 
Last edited:

Sabotage70

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
844
Location
Fabulous Las Vegas, NV, ,
According to this post from the CC park thread, the case was not supposed to be seen till July.


Thanks for the info and the court case.

The case is Hanes v. Clark County and the City of North Las Vegas, case # A-10-622398-C.


Did some research on the District Court website and, after several Motions to Dismiss asked for by CC and NLV, the judge denied their motions and a court date has been set for a bench trial (judge will decide the matter) on July 5, 2011 @ 1:30 pm with Judge Susan Johnson to decide the matter. Judge Johnson presides over Department 22 and is located in Courtroom 15D on the 11th floor of 330 S. Third St.

I wonder if the court date is just a coincidence and portends a decision in our favor? :banana:

From what I understand about the premption issue this case should be a "no brainer" for the judge and she should promptly nullify all NLV and CC ordinances concerning this matter, IMHO.
 

gmijackso

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
208
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
I'm a little confused now...
At first glance, it looks like the case is still open with a scheduled trial date of July 5.
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=7676999

BUT, if you look at the last minutes from 4/25, it appears as though both sides made a motion for summary judgement, Hanes was denied, but NLV was granted.
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/An...99&HearingID=123115622&SingleViewMode=Minutes

It seems as though they may have denied Hanes' motion, and granted NLV some similar motion to dismiss Hanes' motion? I don't know why there is a denial and a granted with a single "Lacks standing to seek declaratory relief" reason.
 

SimplyTom

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
8
Location
Las Vegas
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is just my opinion from what I can determine.

From what I can determine from the case record of April 24, 2011 the following happened:

Mr. Hanes requested summary judgment ("rule in my favor and nullify the NLV and CC laws judge") and the judge denied his request.

NLV requested summary judgment ("rule in our favor and keep the NLV law intact judge") and the judge granted the request because, in the courts eyes, Mr. Hanes "lacks standing to seek declaratory relief". In essence, the court said Mr. Hanes doesn't have a "requisite personal interest" (isn't the right plaintiff to bring suit against NLV possibly?) in overturning the NLV law. This could be because he may not be a resident of NLV.....just a guess on my part.

What's interesting is that the other defendant in this case, Clark County, didn't seek a counter-motion, as NLV did, for summary judgment also. This could be because Mr. Hanes, by being a resident of CC, does have a "requisite personal interest" in overturning the CC law.

Still, the case is still set to be heard on July 5, 2011 with CC as the only defendant since NLV was granted a summary judgment in their favor.

All is not lost though because Mr.Hanes can appeal the judges decision to the NV Supreme Court which functions as the NV Appeals Court. This probably won't happen until the case is decided in July.

If someone has a different interpretation of what happened in this case please share.

Tom
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
If true this is really a let down. Seemed like a slam dunk for us. How or whom let us down on this? What will it take? One of us actually getting arrested?
 

gmijackso

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
208
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Conclusions Of Law, Paragraph 10, in part
...Although the court does not require Mr. Hanes to await arrest or prosecution before entertaining a challenge to the codes or ordinances, the threat of enforcement must at least be credible, and not simply imaginary or speculative.

Sounds to me like the courts just said they won't or can't enforce the code. If Mr. Hanes' belief that enforcement is imaginary or non-credible, then obviously no fear of enforcement can exist, right?
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
Conclusions Of Law, Paragraph 10, in part


Sounds to me like the courts just said they won't or can't enforce the code. If Mr. Hanes' belief that enforcement is imaginary or non-credible, then obviously no fear of enforcement can exist, right?

Soooooo....they must at least threaten arrest? Then if you ask the city/county authorities and they tell you that you will be arrested, then you have a case? Until then the code means nothing. Seems to me the judge is saying that the local codes can't be enforced, but you can't get them to change it until they try. Hmmmm. Do I have that right?

TBG
 

gmijackso

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
208
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Soooooo....they must at least threaten arrest? Then if you ask the city/county authorities and they tell you that you will be arrested, then you have a case? Until then the code means nothing. Seems to me the judge is saying that the local codes can't be enforced, but you can't get them to change it until they try. Hmmmm. Do I have that right?

TBG

That's kinda how I understood it too. IANAL though. But, it also stands in line with my previous thoughts and mentions in another thread that the municipalities/LEO would rather have the law on the book and not enforce/not be allowed to enforce rather than enforce it and have it tested and removed. This is because, to me looking through their eyes, with a non enforcible law on the books, there still stands a chance that somebody might "abide" by the "law" and thereby conform to their desires, whereas if the law were removed that chance is also removed. It's kind of a managing of the people through indirect intimidation via a dead law stuck in limbo. They desire everybody to adhere to the dead law, but to enforce that would mean removal of the dead law, so they'll happily not enforce and keep the percentage of the people they can get to adhere to the law via fear of prosecution.

Tricky and wrong in all aspects, but tis what it appears to me.

The thing I found most interesting is the "threat of prosecution" part. To me, a law abiding citizen, the fact that a law exists has always meant that breaking said law, would likely invoke prosecution. So, to me, the existence of a law alone, threatened prosecution of said law for its violation. The court has pretty plainly said that is not the case. Would be interesting to know what other laws the court feels this way about.
 
Last edited:

TigerLily

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
141
Location
Polygammyville, Utah
Well, my son was just arrested and jailed on May 26th in North Las Vegas for alleged violation of the city ordinance - dangerous or deadly weapon in vehicle. He was stopped by a NLV Motor Officer for a minor traffic violation. When my son advised the cop he was open carrying, the cop freaked and called a 413. They arrested him, impounded his car, and carted him of to the NLV detention center. I would think that this instance would satisfy the court, don't all of you?
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
Get in touch with the Lawyer in Reno that brought the case, and the NRA and let them know immediately.

TBG
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
Plus one what the BigGuy said. Also contact Stillwater Firearms, I think they were helping in tat case also.
Guess we need to call for a NLV boycott?
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Get in touch with the Lawyer in Reno that brought the case, and the NRA and let them know immediately.

TBG

No offense to the Big Guy, But Please read the WHOLE case before you invite the attorney , or the NRA into the mix again... the first criteria in a civil case is "Harm" if you bump someones car, but do not leave a mark or injury, what on earth can they sue you for.

I have the whole case on pdf and will send it to anyone that wants it, or can possibly provide a link, if I can talk the web guy into putting it on the website. P.M. Me

My take is that the NRA did not find a suitible "injured person" nor did they lay down a foundation, or a case. in the second pleading the atty, for Hanes (up in Reno!?!) did a better job, but did not even work. IMHO I think this was theater and that it has Bolstered NLVPD- Is this a way to increase membership for the NRA ?
 
Last edited:
Top