Cark County, it begins.

The following is an email I sent to D.A. David Roger and the reply from Mary-Anne Miller of his office:


D.A. Roger

I am writing regarding an issue that is of great concern to me and many other citizens of Clark County. Over the past year I have been in contact with City Attorney Quillin and A.C.A. Zentz of Henderson with regard to the city’s enforcement of policies that are in direct violation of State Statutes. Namely signage on city buildings and parks. With involvement of Mayor Hafen and the City Council, they have determined that this signage and the enforcement thereof is in direct violation of state law. They have therefore agreed to amend these policies and change the signage to conform. I have great admiration for these City Officials as they are going against their personally held beliefs in order to follow current law. Below is a copy of an email I received from A.C.A. Zentz .

In addition the following authorities have also concluded that state preemption nullifies local ordinances and policies:
City Attorney David R. Olsen, Boulder City, NV.
City Attorney Chet Adams, Sparks, NV.
Chief Public Information Officer Tom Jacobs, Nevada Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa

Mr. Roger the same problem exists with the counties enforcement of policies and statutes in direct violation of state law NRS 244.364 established in 1989 and amended in 2007. As you know, the state preempted firearms regulations by local authorities except for the discharge thereof and the Clark County handgun registration scheme. State law prohibits the possession of weapons on School grounds, child care facilities, and anywhere the state legislature meets. There is no reference in state statutes to the carrying openly of firearms upon the person in government buildings or properties including parks.

I am asking that you advise the County Commission, Parks and Recreation Department, Sheriff Gillespie and all others responsible for policy and enforcement that the state has preempted local laws and that it is indeed legal to open carry firearms in and on County property. As a citizen of Clark County I expect that the elected officials and employees of the county follow the laws proscribed by the state legislature.

Sincerely

Jon T. (Tim) Low
Henderson NV
702 568 6923 work tel
timlow@cox.net


The folowing is the reply: (as expected)


Dear Mr. XXX,
District Attorney David Roger referred your inquiry to me, and ask that I explain the County's position on this matter. While some local ordinances regulating firearms were superseded in 2007 by Senate Bill 92, it was the determination of this office and the County, after thoroughly reviewing the legislative history, that Clark County remained "grandfathered" in, and that its ordinances were still enforceable. (The County's ordinances were amended to reflect a 60 day residency period before registration was required).
There was, and as evidenced by your work in this area, still is some disagreement about the enforceability of the County's ordinances. Because of the continuing controversy, this office sent our analysis of the issue and a request for an opinion to the Attorney General's office, for a decision on whether the County's ordinances were still enforceable. The Attorney General declined to provide an opinion. Litigation involving the interpretation of the County's ordinances and similar ordinances in North Las Vegas' was instituted by a private citizen, and North Las Vegas and the County raised the issue of being "grandfathered in" as a defense. The case against North Las Vegas and the County was dismissed on a procedural issue, so this issue has not yet been determined on its merits
It is my understanding that there is legislation pending before the Nevada Legislature which may resolve this issue. Until such legislation is enacted, or a Court rules these ordinances unenforceable, or the Board of County Commissioners voluntarily amends these ordinances, they remain enforceable.
I understand that this history may not be acceptable to you, but I wanted to give you the County's full legal position in response to your question. If you would like to read any of the briefs from the litigation that I mentioned above, please let me know, and I will be happy to email them to you.
Very truly yours,

Mary-Anne Miller
County Counsel
Office of the District Attorney
P.O. Box 552215
Las Vegas, Nevada 89155
702.455.4761
Mary-Anne.Miller@ccdanv.com


TBG

Seems that she is jumping up and down saying that our registration scheme has not been pre-empted and is wanting to ignore the parts of your letter that you actually asked and suggested that they modify to be in compliance WITH EXISTING STATE LAW!

It hasn't been ruled on because they drop the changes before it goes to trial.

JoeSparky said:

Seems that she is jumping up and down saying that our registration scheme has not been pre-empted and is wanting to ignore the parts of your letter that you actually asked and suggested that they modify to be in compliance WITH EXISTING STATE LAW!

Click to expand...

They are acting under color of law plain and simple. They very well know they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
AG Masto failed to give her opinion because she did not like the outcome if she were to tell the truth on the meaning of the law. We shall keep up the good fight.

TBG

Do you have the actual county code that says no parks and no guns period in certain buildings, like the library. I cant seem to find it. If there is none then what law are they enforcing that they can prohibit us and OC? I have not heard back from the library lady for a month or so now, so I will be sending follow up next week.

A question to ask -- in open meeting: "If you won't obey state law, what authority do you have to force me to obey your local laws?"

Resonse and my answer.

The follwing is the current chain of communication:



Ms. Miller

Thank you for your reply. In short, what are you telling me will happen to me if I carry my firearm on County Property?

Sincerely



Mr. Low,
I'm sorry but I cannot predict what may happen in that event. There are any number of local ordinances that are not enforced upon every violation. Some are only rarely enforced. A law enforcement officer retains the discretion on whether to enforce an ordinance depending on many factors, including but not limited to the conditions surrounding a violation, complaints from citizens asking for enforcement, and the law enforcement resources available to devote to enforcement and any followup prosecution.

Very truly yours,

Mary-Anne Miller



Ms. Miller

In all my years of dealing with public servants, formally as a member of the media, and as a private citizen, that has got to be one of the most political non-answers I have ever received. Since you are passing the buck to the police, I shall inquire of the Sherriff. The Sherriff can’t answer the question of what the D.A.’s office will do if there is an arrest, so would you please ask your boss if he will prosecute if the police arrest for simple possession of a firearm on county property? As a citizen I have a right to know.


TBG

More in depth reply to DA's office.

The following is a new note to the DA's office. I await an answer.

TBG



Ms. Miller

There is a point in your answer I require clarification on. You state that the County laws are “grandfathered” . Can you please point me to the relevant statutes as all I can find is NRS 244.364 as amended in 2007 which states specifically that the county (Clark) may regulate the discharge of firearms, and keep it’s handgun registration scheme, period.

As you stated SB92 modified state preemption, it says : “The provisions of this act apply to ordinances or regulations adopted BEFORE, on or after June13, 1989.” That seems to very bluntly limit the authority of Clark County to regulate firearms as mentioned above. How does the DA read that to construe that Clark County can do anything other than regulate the discharge and keep the blue card law?

I suspect the current AG refused to issue an opinion on the subject because she would have to give the correct interpretation and then the County would have to change its policies and ordinances. A purely political maneuver. As you probably know the AG in 1995 had the opinion that the law said what it means. I don’t think that has changed in the intervening years. The DA is aware now I’m sure that many of his peers are obeying the law as written. I can assure you the discussions I have had with Ms. Quillin, City Attorney of Henderson, has left no doubt what she personally feels about the law. Even so, she is doing her duty as an Officer of the Court and City Official. Though she and I disagree strongly, I admire her very much for taking the stand she has.

I have studied Judge Susan H. Johnson’s Findings and Conclusions in Hanes v N. Las Vegas and Clark Co. It is unfortunate that it looks like someone is going to have to be arrested or at least threatened with arrest before Judge Johnson or another Judge will be able to set things straight. I am confident that the court will make the correct decision.

The only controversy here is that our DA is making a purely political decision based on personal feelings instead of following very clear language in state law. Spending taxpayer dollars defending an indefensible position. Just because the County raises the “grandfather” issue does not make it true. It is only an issue because the DA is trying to find something, no matter how thin, to cloud the issue.

How can the DA expect the citizens of Clark County to obey county ordinances if he does not follow state law? A law that the average 5th grader could read and comprehend. This is not about an honest disagreement. It is about the DA twisting the meaning because he does not like the law. How sad.

Damn BG you're like a pit bull. Keep giving them hell so it will force their hand.

When you're ready to have a BBQ, I'll bring the pollo asada(marinated chicken). The stuff I get is THE BEST.

I'm still working on this. I have several ideas. This is going to be a tough nut to crack but one way or another it can be done. I have received a message from the DA's office which forwarded a response from AG Masto the logic of which still escapes me. I am still reviewing it and trying to figure out the best way to respond to its nonsensical determinations.

One thought I have is this, and it will likely take a court battle. How can a state law that applies only to the people of one county and not the others pass US 14th amendment muster? Since state law codifies Clark County ordinances under NRS and does not apply equally to the rest of the citizens of this state, how can it be constitutional? IE: Blue card registration, parks, ect. There is that pesky little Equal Protection bit that keeps going through my mind.

From Wikipedia: "Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States."

Any thoughts from our Monday morning lawyers?

TBG

New email to D.A. Roger

Mr. Roger, Miss Miller

I have taken some time to review the Attorney Generals response and believe that her conclusion is flawed in that she states:

“Section two of the Reviser’s Notes addresses the 2007 amendments from S.B. 92. Section two states that provisions amended by S.B. 92 apply to all ordinances and regulation, even those adopted prior to June 13, 1989. Therefore since S.B. 92 only substantively amended NRS 244.364(3) and (4) and it did not substantively amend NRS 244.364(1) and (2), section two of the Reviser’s Notes is not applicable to Clark County code 19.060.04 and regulations adopted pursuant to its authority.”

We have a problem with language here. As Ms. Masto stated in her determination, the wording of this act must be given its common meaning. The key here is that the actual wording of Section 2 says “the provisions of this act, as amended on October 1 2007, not “provisions amended by S.B. 92”. The meaning is clear that NRS 244.364 was amended, not that those provisions were alone amended. It is referring to S.B. 92 in its entirety, and not in just those actual words that were amended. The placement of the comma has meaning. It says what it means in that the act preempts all local ordinances except those that are clearly outlined under the act.

Regards



Any comments or ideas?

TBG

Sabotage70 said:

It hasn't been ruled on because they drop the changes before it goes to trial.

Click to expand...

Bingo. The Prosecutor sides with the LEOs this way. If there is no precedent, they can keep making false arrests and hide behind qualified immunity. It never becomes settled law.

It seems the DA's office has stopped replying to me. Their arrogance is beyond unbelievable. I'll keep pinging on them however.

TBG

I sent a letter to my Councilman Stavros Anthony. I heard back from his asst.So we will see where this goes.

I also wrote to Tom Collins office. The response is in the post after this one. It seems to me that the 2007 bill deltes the part about laws before 1989. Thoughts before I respond to them?

PDF attached.

Vegassteve said:

I also wrote to Tom Collins office. The response is in the post after this one. It seems to me that the 2007 bill deltes the part about laws before 1989. Thoughts before I respond to them?

Click to expand...

They are trying to say that only the two provisions (3&4) that were directly ammended are above local control no matter when passed. That is not the way it reads. what it really says the the entire act is ammended. Just doublespeak on their part. Shakespear was right about Lawyers.

TBG

How do we bring a case against the county? How much money do we think we need?

Vegassteve said:

How do we bring a case against the county? How much money do we think we need?

Click to expand...

The judge in the case against Clark County and NLV ruled that in order to bring a case you need either have been arrested or at least directly threatened with arrest for violation of the ordinance. The fact that there is a law in existance is not a threat to you and therefore you have no standing. Strange huh?

As far as money goes, it looks like the officials of Clark County are willing to spend whatever it takes of the taxpayers money to fight it. In other words you get to pay your legal expenses and the County's too. I don't know about you but there is a limit to my financial reserves. I can wait, bide my time, keep proding them with logic and facts. Maybe we need to garner signitures to get local and state laws ammended or eliminated. Maybe wait for a case big enough that we can get lots of outside legal and financial support.

Time is on our side. Henderson, Sparks, Boulder City are down. We need people working on other cities and counties. The more that fall in line officially, the stronger our case is against Clark County and Clark County is the key. The longer we go with no problems with juristictions who are in line with the law the stronger our case is that the sky will not fall in when people are allowed to exercise their natural freedoms.

TBG

we need to find someone with deep pockets to risk arrest, too bad this kind of civil disobedient activism is very rare.