So, I did a LOT of reading this morning on NRS 244.364 State Preemption, the AG opinion from 2010, CCC 19.04.060, and S.B. 92 and feel that The Attorney General made a mistake in not doing strict interpretation of the law as a court would properly do.
Basically, CCC 19.04.060 is being used as a scapegoat so that the parks can continue illegally restricting handguns under the guise of being grandfathered out of preemption. Specifically, Clark County Code 19.04.060 states that, "The board of commissioners by resolution shall adopt rules and regulations to govern the individual public parks of Clark County." The Code itself was written as a ordinance regarding the METHOD that rules would be established for individual parks. The code was never, ever, ever, specifically written to restrict firearm possession in a county park. As such, it should not be grandfathered out of State Preemption for firearms, as the rule itself is simply an adopted rule adopted by the Commissioners for these parks. It is true that the resolution of this particular rule was done prior to 1989, which is where you will see Clark County's "go-to move." Clark county is using the fact that one of the rules already posted was regarding possession of firearms as a method of sidestepping State Preemption and continuing to do whatever they wish in contradiction of state law. If you strictly interpret both laws as written, the ordinance is not specifically in regards to firearms, while the NRS 244.364 statute states
"1.Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the Legislature reserves for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, and no county may infringe upon those rights and powers."
Clark County Code 19.04.060 is not a specific statute regulating firearms. Therefore the most they can do is in the next paragraph of 244.364:
"2. A board of county commissioners may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms."
I drafted a letter addressed to the County Park Police on the "contact us" page, specifically asking what would be done if confronted by a CC Park Police Officer while Open Carrying. Let me know what you think of this. It needs proofing and revision to ensure the point I am trying to make is clear, while also requesting a specific, official comment on what and how this will be enforced if the time would come.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts? Comments?
Basically, CCC 19.04.060 is being used as a scapegoat so that the parks can continue illegally restricting handguns under the guise of being grandfathered out of preemption. Specifically, Clark County Code 19.04.060 states that, "The board of commissioners by resolution shall adopt rules and regulations to govern the individual public parks of Clark County." The Code itself was written as a ordinance regarding the METHOD that rules would be established for individual parks. The code was never, ever, ever, specifically written to restrict firearm possession in a county park. As such, it should not be grandfathered out of State Preemption for firearms, as the rule itself is simply an adopted rule adopted by the Commissioners for these parks. It is true that the resolution of this particular rule was done prior to 1989, which is where you will see Clark County's "go-to move." Clark county is using the fact that one of the rules already posted was regarding possession of firearms as a method of sidestepping State Preemption and continuing to do whatever they wish in contradiction of state law. If you strictly interpret both laws as written, the ordinance is not specifically in regards to firearms, while the NRS 244.364 statute states
"1.Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the Legislature reserves for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, and no county may infringe upon those rights and powers."
Clark County Code 19.04.060 is not a specific statute regulating firearms. Therefore the most they can do is in the next paragraph of 244.364:
"2. A board of county commissioners may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms."
I drafted a letter addressed to the County Park Police on the "contact us" page, specifically asking what would be done if confronted by a CC Park Police Officer while Open Carrying. Let me know what you think of this. It needs proofing and revision to ensure the point I am trying to make is clear, while also requesting a specific, official comment on what and how this will be enforced if the time would come.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Nevada for over 20 years, I enjoy Nevada’s Preemption laws regarding Open Carry of Firearms statewide in my everyday life. It has come to my attention that Clark County Parks are continuing to enforce laws that have long since been preempted, and I was curious about the extent to which these laws are being improperly posted & enforced. If I am open carrying, and my daily travels take me to Sunset Park, for example, what would happen if my paths crossed with a Clark County parks police officer on patrol?
City and state parks have officially recognized state preemption, and have proactively changed signs as well as stopped enforcement of any codes that are negated by NRS 244.364, since any laws restricting firearms are specifically limited to registration of concealable firearms. Furthermore, Clark County 19.04.060 only states the method for adopting rules and regulations by resolution of the County Commissioners. Ref: http://library.municode.com/HTML/16....html#TIT19PARE_CH19.04USPA_19.04.060ESPORURE – although this is an external website, it is referenced by the official clark county website as the latest official and complete listing of county codes & ordinances.
In this case, grandfathering should not be applicable, since this ordinance was adopted in order to specify the method in which park rules and regulations are adopted, not the individual rules. This is not the intent of the grandfathered exceptions clause during codification of NRS 244.364, as this Code/Ordinance would not be classified as a "specific statute" as mentioned in State preemption. The only thing that would be effectively grandfathered in would be the method with which Commissioners make park rules, this is specifically and strictly what this statute was written for, as can be seen in the language of the ordinance as well as the title of the code. This ordinance was never intended as an explicit method of firearm control, but is now being used as one in an attempt to get around state preemption illegally. As such, 19.04.060 cannot limit restriction of my firearm any further than state law. Furthermore, S.B. 92 (2009), which amended NRS 244.364, specifically limits further and clarifies language to show its intention is clearly to strip the county’s ability to further restrict firearm usage by limiting these restrictions to only discharge and registration of firearms.
So, on this note, if I were openly carrying my handgun in a secure, holstered fashion at the park, would I be unlawfully detained or arrested in spite of Nevada State Preemption regarding firearm restrictions? As I see that according to State Law NRS 244.364, “no county may infringe upon those rights and powers.”
I look forward to hearing an official response from you regarding this.
Sincerely,
fgdfgfhgsg
Thoughts? Comments?
Last edited: