usmcmustang
Regular Member
Boulder City, Henderson and Reno disagree with you and believe preemption did void all their ordinances. The former mayor of North Las Vegas also believed preemption was the purpose and effect of SB92. Clark County and the current North Las Vegas mayor agree with you that SB92 only affected registration in Clark County.
Admittedly, SB92 was bastardized into something nearly unrecognizable by the lobbying of some local governments (since when does a government employee get paid to lobby?!?!?) But, looking at the text you posted above, the important paragraph is obviously paragraph 2 of Section 5.
That paragraph says "the provisions...AS AMENDED..." To me that means any paragraphs of NRS 268.418 that was amended. I don't really understand any other way to read it. So then I read what paragraphs of NRS 268.418 were amended by SB92 and those are paragraphs 1, 3 & 4. So...in what you posted, paragraph one applies to NRS 268.418 paragraph 2, and your paragraph two applies to NRS 268.418 paragraphs 1, 3 & 4.
The net effect in the way the Cities of Boulder City, Henderson, and Reno read this amendment is that any non-registration ordinances they used to have are now void. Obviously there is some disagreement with other municipalities, which makes this issue ripe for a Supreme Court precedent, or an attempt by the legislature to make this less ambiguous. Certainly there is no question what the introduced version of SB92 meant.
It is interesting to read SB176 from this year's legislature. It unfortunately died in committee, but was a multipurpose bill that would have brought us constitutional carry, and more changes to the preemption law. It sought to remove paragraph 3 of NRS 268.418. If your reading is correct, this would be pointless, since such a change would have no effect on anyone or anything. If my reading is correct, this change would have outlawed registration (on top of every other local gun law which is already outlawed). I contend that this is further evidence that my reading is correct, because it seems unlikely a legislative change would be proposed, the net effect of which would be no changes now or in the future.
This is how Sections 5.1 and 5.2 read to ME… and with respect, I am at a loss as to how you and possibly others can defend a “different interpretation.”
1. Everything in the act (except the now enacted firearm registration provisions) remains as it WAS (before amendment), and therefore those unamended portions apply to ordinances or regulations passed on or after June 13, 1989. So, in effect, those local ordinances in effect prior to June 13, 1989 that are not firearm registration specific, are STILL grandfathered.
2. Those things in the act that were amended by SB 92 (the now enacted registration provisions) do NOT remain as they were (before amendment), i.e., registration ordinances or regulations; and therefore those amended portions apply to ordinances or regulations passed before, on or after June 13, 1989. So, in effect, any registration specific local ordinances that are inconsistent with the act as amended that were enacted at any time (before, on or after June 13, 1989) are preempted.
I am in total agreement with you that the language of SB 92 as originally introduced did indeed call for total preemption of all local ordinances or regulations related to the regulation of firearms that were enacted before, on or after June 13, 1989. But, like so many bills, that’s not what was finally “negotiated” and enacted into law. And, it’s not the intent of the originator(s) of the bill that should be scrutinized, but that of the intent of the legislators that voted for the passage of the bill as it was ultimately presented to them. As I recall, the then Chairman of the committee that worked on this bill, even made the public comment that after it had been “massaged,” that “It was no longer a preemption bill.”
I’m of the opinion that to “defend” SB 92 as if it were a preemption bill, is a losing proposition. But… we shall see what we shall see. Anyone care to place a wager?
Last edited: