Dont tread on me - are you saying that NLV law is not stricter then state law?
Somewhere i though i read that NLV laws reguarding carrying a firearm is not enforceable due to it being stricter then state laws. I may have it confused on what you were talking about verse what im refering to, can you please clear this up? From the sound of it, it sounds like what your saying is that it is enforceable due to it BARELY being in line with state law??
I certainly don't want to steal any of DON'T TREAD ON ME's thunder, but here are the pertinent parts of the brief that resulted in the city's motion for dismissal of the weapons charge.
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
[1], calls into question the equal protection clause of the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] 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 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
[1] 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.”