The brief that "scared" NLV prosecutors to ask the judge to dismiss the gun ordinance
As an aside, the brief that the prosecution filed was pitiful !! It was as if they did a "search" of Hanes and replaced it with "Bolton." My son, Carlos Bolton, does not even live in NLV nor does he have the same profession as Hanes. I'll see about pdf-ing the prosecution's dismal brief. No wonder NLV is bankrupt. The incompetency and corruption has caught up with them.
The tinted window charge is ******** because the city NEVER BOTHERED TO TEST the tint. And the aggressive charge is also bogus based on the officers assertion that he weaved in and out abruptly in heavy traffic speeding 40 mph in a 35 mph zone (no radar detection - just his eyeballs) in a dangerous manner and that he did this all within 100 feet. At 40 mph traveling 100 feet is less than 2 seconds. Not even Evil Kinevil can do that. My son saw the cop behind him and he was on his best driving behavior. This cop was simply pissed because my son exercised POLITELY his 4th amendment right to not roll down the back window all the way. He had some tires stacked up in the back seat and there was no reason for that cowboy cop to fear for his safety until my son told him WHILE HE HAD HIS HANDS ON HIS STEERING WHEEL 10 AND 2 - that he was open carrying. My son didn't want the cop to shoot him when he reached for his wallet that was next to his gun. The cop freaked out, yelled, and called his buddies to violate the **** out of him and ****** up his arm that was healing from major surgery due to an accident in which the surgeon saved it from amputation. But I digress - sorry, as a mom that had to watch my kid get violated in the U.S.A. - a country that I and my husband both served - I'm really, really, really pissed!
Here's a cut and paste of the brief submitted by my son:
DEFENDANT’S BRIEF
I. DANGEROUS/DEADLY WEAPON IN VEHICLE. With respect to the pending charge against me of a violation of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of a dangerous or deadly weapon in vehicle - the following is offered for consideration.
A. North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.040 defines “dangerous or deadly weapons.” That ordinance sets forth and describes a number of items that are considered “dangerous or deadly weapons” by the City of North Las Vegas, a firearm being one. However, the ordinance excludes certain firearms from its definition. It says: “The term ‘dangerous or deadly weapons’ includes… any firearm other than (emphasis added) (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport.” So, the ordinance excludes from its definition of “dangerous or deadly weapons,” a firearm carried “pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority.” The provision of that exclusion within the ordinance creates a safe harbor for those who have valid permission to carry a firearm concealed (emphasis added) on their person as well as (emphasis added) those who have valid permission to carry a firearm openly (emphasis added) on their person. It, in effect, eliminates any liability under the law with respect to North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 – possession of dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle - for those two categories of lawful firearm possession.
B. Did I have “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority?” In a word, yes. The Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1, permits (emphasis added) its citizens “to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.” Does not Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution afford the right, or in effect, permit (emphasis added) 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 is not the State Constitution the supreme law of the state and therefore inherently a “duly authorized government authority?” Openly carrying (emphasis added) a handgun in a vehicle in Nevada is lawful (emphasis added). Openly carrying a registered handgun (emphasis added) in a vehicle in Clark County is lawful (emphasis added). Openly carrying a registered handgun (emphasis added) in a vehicle in North Las Vegas is lawful as well, because it is done with “a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority,” and in doing such the handgun so carried falls under the exclusion of the City’s own ordinance that defines what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is NOT.
C. It seems clear that by the City’s own codified definitions and specific exclusions as to what a “dangerous or deadly weapon” is termed to be and not to be; that a handgun lawfully and openly carried on one’s person within a vehicle per the permission afforded by the Nevada State Constitution, is by definition NOT a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” Therefore in the instant case, there was no violation of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080, and I was unlawfully arrested and jailed without probable cause.
D. As an aside, but still of pertinence and importance, I submit that had I been lawfully concealed carrying (emphasis added) my handgun, I would not have been arrested, jailed and prosecuted for suspected violation of the city ordinance. Why? Because the lawful concealed carrying of a handgun falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is and is NOT. I would further submit that I was lawfully open carrying (emphasis added) my handgun and there should have been no arrest, incarceration, and prosecution. Why? Because a citizen’s legal and lawful open carrying of a handgun pursuant to the permission granted in Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution ALSO falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is NOT. One might then ask oneself, what is the purpose of the City’s ban on firearms in vehicles? Simply stated, I would suggest that it is to deter individuals from having in their possession and in their vehicle firearms that are illegally possessed for intended unlawful purpose(s). The circumstances surrounding my case do not fit into such category at all. I was lawfully, legally, constitutionally, appropriately, permittedly, ad nauseum, openly carrying my handgun on my person while I was driving my vehicle within the city limits of North Las Vegas. There is no evidence suggesting that I had the handgun for any unlawful purpose. Such circumstance certainly falls within the City’s definition exception as to what a “dangerous or deadly” weapon is and is NOT.
E. 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 contrary to appropriate Nevada Revised Statute(s), only that the City’s apparent misguided and obvious arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of the ordinance in my case, and perhaps others(see footnote), calls into question the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For you see, I, in the circumstances of the case – lawfully open carrying a handgun on my person in a vehicle with the requisite permission and authority of the Nevada State Constitution - should be afforded the “safe harbor” provided by the exclusion definition of the city ordinance which defines “dangerous or deadly weapon,” just as is an individual who is permitted and authorized to lawfully conceal carry a handgun in a vehicle. Anything less would, in my mind, be a misapplication of the ordinance and certainly fly in the face of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
II. REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Although this brief may not be the appropriate venue for such a request, I hereby plead with the court, that should the court determine that the City of North Las Vegas has in fact been arbitrary in their enforcement and prosecution of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080 (and I submit that this is the case), it is requested that the court issue injunctive relief ordering the City of North Las Vegas to immediately and indefinitely cease and desist such arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of said ordinance. North Las Vegas’ continued arbitrary enforcement and prosecution of this ordinance will only continue to result in the misguided arrest, jail, and prosecution of otherwise law abiding citizens.
(footnote Michael Davidson, former chief criminal attorney for the City of North Las Vegas, was quoted in an April 7, 2010 Las Vegas Sun article(EXHIBIT A)as follows: “The intent (of North Las Vegas Municipal Ordinance 9.32.080) was to go after gangbangers, not mom and pop in the RV.”)
Dated this 7th day of September, 2011
___________________________________
Carlos Augustine Bolton
I am sorely disappointed with the NRA for not caring about this case because my son was open carrying. It appears the NRA cares only about people who have permission slips to conceal. And I think that's bull! An NRA rep was present at my son's arraignment and was later dumbfounded that this was an open carry issue. We never saw her again. Too bad - looks like they did a really ****** job with the Hanes case so maybe their lack of involvement served to my son's advantage.
p.s. NO CONTRABAND WAS FOUND IN MY SON'S LEXUS AND HIS CAR WAS IMPOUNDED BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE.