NV Attorney General says OC subject to local statutes!

[CowboyKen]

imported post

I wonder how Rep. Lee and the others who wrote this bill feel about this interpretation. Is there a mechanism for legislative review of such things?

What legislation should be introduced (and by whom) at the upcoming session to fix this?

Is there anything we can do (phone calls, letters, e-mails) to facilitate new legislation or legislative review?

Ken

 

[varminter22]

imported post

I too disagree with the AG opinion written by John C. Berrier, Legal Researcher – Criminal Division, Office of Nevada Attorney General.

The law, as amended by SB-92, seems clear to me.

Perhaps we'll have to waitand hope the NRA's law firm will get to the bottom of this.

 

[Darth Tater]

imported post

While I mean no disrespect, I don't agree with waiting for ANYONE to do anything about this. We need to contact our state representatives, bring this up, and make an issue of this. I am telling you now, this is a slippery slope the AG is on. I thought the reason for the preemption statutes in the first place was because of the red light/ green light effect of going from N Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City. Depending on what color the street signs are, it determines whether you are legal, or commiting a crime. (For those that don't know, the signs in N Las Vegas are blue, not green like the rest of CC. N Las Vegas says you cannot carry a firearm loaded in your vehicle, Code section listed elsewhere in this post.) What would be our options at this time??

Darth Tater

"Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, than beat you with experience." - ME

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Darth, with all due respect, it has been mentioned several times that work is already in progress to counter the ordinances that are still on the books in municipalities of Nevada, which would actually render the AG opinion moot. I do not recommend ignoring this item, and I do agree that contacting our Assembly and Senate members is quite appropriate, especially given the obvious intent behind the original wording of AB147, and the recent obvious intent behind the wording as enacted of SB92.

Your option of contact is quite appropriate.

Darth Tator wrote:

While I mean no disrespect, I don't agree with waiting for ANYONE to do anything about this. We need to contact our state representatives, bring this up, and make an issue of this. I am telling you now, this is a slippery slope the AG is on. I thought the reason for the preemption statutes in the first place was because of the red light/ green light effect of going from N Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City. Depending on what color the street signs are, it determines whether you are legal, or commiting a crime. (For those that don't know, the signs in N Las Vegas are blue, not green like the rest of CC. N Las Vegas says you cannot carry a firearm loaded in your vehicle, Code section listed elsewhere in this post.) What would be our options at this time??

Darth Tater

"Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level, than beat you with experience." - ME

 

[varminter22]

imported post

Darth Tator wrote:

While I mean no disrespect, I don't agree with waiting for ANYONE to do anything about this. We need to contact our state representatives, bring this up, and make an issue of this. I am telling you now, this is a slippery slope the AG is on. I thought the reason for the preemption statutes in the first place was because of the red light/ green light effect of going from N Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City. Depending on what color the street signs are, it determines whether you are legal, or commiting a crime. (For those that don't know, the signs in N Las Vegas are blue, not green like the rest of CC. N Las Vegas says you cannot carry a firearm loaded in your vehicle, Code section listed elsewhere in this post.) What would be our options at this time??

Darth Tater

I cannot disagree.

I think I made the above statement because of the fact this is NOT new. A search of this forum will reveal I sent letters (with copies in the posts) over a year ago on this subject.

I took the issue to the NRA and they agreed with my assessment. Due to the fact they got very busy with writing amicus briefs in support of the DC vs Heller case, it took some time to move forward with this issue.

However, the NRA did retain a noted law firm to pursue this very issue. Action is pending right now. The law firm recently sent letters to the County & City managers. I do not know the current status. It is possible the matter will go to court.

Larry

 

[Sheepdawg]

imported post

After reading the whole of AB147 myselfI have to wonder,has the NV Attorney General read it? I don't claim to be a smart man, but though out the entire document I see the same basic words repeated over and over "will void all local regulations" How do you spell Duh?:banghead:

 

[wayneco]

imported post

Nevada laws are written and interpreted through strict construction, that is to say the plain meaning of how it was written and intended, not how it could be twisted by an activist like themselves.

Simply stated, they are deriving meaning that isn't there, it would never stand up in court.

I am not a lawyer.

 

[CowboyKen]

imported post

wayneco wrote:

Nevada laws are written and interpreted through strict construction, that is to say the plain meaning of how it was written and intended, not how it could be twisted by an activist like themselves.

Simply stated, they are deriving meaning that isn't there, it would never stand up in court.

I am not a lawyer.

Problem is, that in order for it to get to court., someone has to risk a criminal record and spend a whole lot of money defending themselves against prosecution. Where the prosecutor will role out the AG's opinion! You may lose and go to jail. Doesn't seem worth it.

IMHO we need to get our legislators to make this thing PERFECTLY CLEAR or we lose.

Ken

 

[varminter22]

imported post

CowboyKen wrote:

wayneco wrote:

Nevada laws are written and interpreted through strict construction, that is to say the plain meaning of how it was written and intended, not how it could be twisted by an activist like themselves.

Simply stated, they are deriving meaning that isn't there, it would never stand up in court.

I am not a lawyer.

Problem is, that in order for it to get to court., someone has to risk a criminal record and spend a whole lot of money defending themselves against prosecution. Where the prosecutor will role out the AG's opinion! You may lose and go to jail. Doesn't seem worth it.

IMHO we need to get our legislators to make this thing PERFECTLY CLEAR or we lose.

Ken

I disagree - for a couple of reasons.

#1 - We are talking misdemeanor offenses.

#2 - Read through previous discussions on this subject. A law firm is looking at the issue.

 

[wayneco]

imported post

The irony of course is that our legislators thought they wrote and passed a law in late 2007 ending all of this nonsense.

The AG sounds like an activist if that's her position, the researcher John C. Berrier from the AG's office sounds like they shouldn't be in the business of reading the laws if that's how they read it, it doesn't sound like the plain interpretation our lawmakers intended.

I shed a tear every time I see what seems like NV turning into CA. I left CA for a reason ten years ago, specifically to get away from CA's nonsense, weapons legislation specifically included.

I really don't want to have to move to UT or WY simply for basic personal protection rights, we in the 2A community really can't let NV continue to be Californicated.

I hope this law firm aforementioned makes some progress in this regard, do you know who they are and who's doing what?

 

[Felid`Maximus]

imported post

I sent e-mails to State Senator Bill Raggio and Assemblyman Ty Cobb on the 19th.

 

[chrsjhnsn]

imported post

wayneco wrote:

The irony of course is that our legislators thought they wrote and passed a law in late 2007 ending all of this nonsense.

The AG sounds like an activist if that's her position, the researcher John C. Berrier from the AG's office sounds like they shouldn't be in the business of reading the laws if that's how they read it, it doesn't sound like the plain interpretation our lawmakers intended.

I shed a tear every time I see what seems like NV turning into CA. I left CA for a reason ten years ago, specifically to get away from CA's nonsense, weapons legislation specifically included.

I really don't want to have to move to UT or WY simply for basic personal protection rights, we in the 2A community really can't let NV continue to be Californicated.

I hope this law firm aforementioned makes some progress in this regard, do you know who they are and who's doing what?

I was at that NRA reception at the Reno Hilton, oops GSR Oct 10, and asked Wayne LaPierre why NRA isn't very active in Northern NV, he said they're trying.
Looks like we grassroots guys have a lot of work, we need a NV guns net like calguns.net

 

[CowboyKen]

imported post

varminter22 wrote:

CowboyKen wrote:

wayneco wrote:

Nevada laws are written and interpreted through strict construction, that is to say the plain meaning of how it was written and intended, not how it could be twisted by an activist like themselves.

Simply stated, they are deriving meaning that isn't there, it would never stand up in court.

I am not a lawyer.

Problem is, that in order for it to get to court., someone has to risk a criminal record and spend a whole lot of money defending themselves against prosecution. Where the prosecutor will role out the AG's opinion! You may lose and go to jail. Doesn't seem worth it.

IMHO we need to get our legislators to make this thing PERFECTLY CLEAR or we lose.

Ken

I disagree - for a couple of reasons.

#1 - We are talking misdemeanor offenses.

#2 - Read through previous discussions on this subject. A law firm is looking at the issue.

I have read it all (I started this thread) and almost every thread on this site.

To me, conviction of a misdemeanor makes you a criminal with a criminal record. Not to mention that you would most likely lose your firearm and your permit would be revoked. Oh, and how much money would your defense cost? Is the NRA going to pay for that?

I hope the NRA lawyer will do something worthwhile. In the meantime I still think we need to aggressively chase our legislators on this. JMHO.

Ken

 

[Vegassteve]

imported post

chrsjhnsn wrote:

wayneco wrote:

The irony of course is that our legislators thought they wrote and passed a law in late 2007 ending all of this nonsense.

The AG sounds like an activist if that's her position, the researcher John C. Berrier from the AG's office sounds like they shouldn't be in the business of reading the laws if that's how they read it, it doesn't sound like the plain interpretation our lawmakers intended.

I shed a tear every time I see what seems like NV turning into CA. I left CA for a reason ten years ago, specifically to get away from CA's nonsense, weapons legislation specifically included.

I really don't want to have to move to UT or WY simply for basic personal protection rights, we in the 2A community really can't let NV continue to be Californicated.

I hope this law firm aforementioned makes some progress in this regard, do you know who they are and who's doing what?

I was at that NRA reception at the Reno Hilton, oops GSR Oct 10, and asked Wayne LaPierre why NRA isn't very active in Northern NV, he said they're trying.
Looks like we grassroots guys have a lot of work, we need a NV guns net like calguns.net

We have a great group in NV. Stillwater Firearms. They are in Fallon but take care of all of us in the state.

 

[varminter22]

imported post

Vegassteve wrote:

We have a great group in NV. Stillwater Firearms. They are in Fallon but take care of all of us in the state.

Well, we try. But we can only do so much!

Thanks, Steve!

 

[varminter22]

imported post

varminter22 wrote:

Vegassteve wrote:

We have a great group in NV. Stillwater Firearms. They are in Fallon but take care of all of us in the state.

Well, we try. But we can only do so much!

Thanks, Steve!

Maybe that didn't sound quite right.

What I meant was, we do actively promote 2nd amendment rights and the shooting sports. And we do activlely lobby for same in our legislature. I believe we can safely say we made a positive difference in the 2007 legislature.

We've even enjoyed success in individual counties. But there is only so much we can do in some counties. Some things need to be addressed by citizens in individual counties.

 

[Loneviking]

imported post

varminter22 wrote:

varminter22 wrote:

Vegassteve wrote:

We have a great group in NV. Stillwater Firearms. They are in Fallon but take care of all of us in the state.

Well, we try. But we can only do so much!

Thanks, Steve!

Maybe that didn't sound quite right.

What I meant was, we do actively promote 2nd amendment rights and the shooting sports. And we do activlely lobby for same in our legislature. I believe we can safely say we made a positive difference in the 2007 legislature.

We've even enjoyed success in individual counties. But there is only so much we can do in some counties. Some things need to be addressed by citizens in individual counties.

The problem is that some things need to be addressed on a state level and there is no grassroots sort of organization statewide. I've been following this thread, and while I'm glad to see that there is a lawfirm retained by the NRA looking into action on the county level, wouldn't it be cheaper/faster/easier to just have the preemption statute amended to clarify that all regulations previous to 1989 were repealed?

Any thoughts on forming a state organization? I'm in Carson with four days off during the week and could work on issues at the legislature.

 

[Robin47]

imported post

Boy I would sure hate to see Navada go the way that California did a long time ago.

I really like Navada, and might live there sometime.

To get people Involved in this Issue, you have the Internet, hunting groups, and can write your Legislatures, which Im sure you did.

Theres also " Navadans Rights Pamphlets" concerning self protection, these could be made up by us who are on the front lines ! Just like the ones in California teaching and educating people , and LEO's what your rights are.

"Do you not want the right to defend yourself anywhere "? This is a right NOW in Navada. And that State law has the full right to preempt anti-gun local laws. You know countering the AG's website by showing the State preemption laws might help in bringing out the truth.

In California the sheriff of orange county, wanted to take back some of the CCW's and it really caused an uproar, making her look bad. And things worked out there.

Bringing things to light really helps. So don't give up ! Freedom never comes easy.

"KEEP NAVADA FREE "!!! Robin47

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Robin47 wrote:

Boy I would sure hate to see Navada go the way that California did a long time ago.

I really like Navada, and might live there sometime.

To get people Involved in this Issue, you have the Internet, hunting groups, and can write your Legislatures, which Im sure you did.

Theres also " Navadans Rights Pamphlets" concerning self protection, these could be made up by us who are on the front lines ! Just like the ones in California teaching and educating people , and LEO's what your rights are.

"Do you not want the right to defend yourself anywhere "? This is a right NOW in Navada. And that State law has the full right to preempt anti-gun local laws. You know countering the AG's website by showing the State preemption laws might help in bringing out the truth.

In California the sheriff of orange county, wanted to take back some of the CCW's and it really caused an uproar, making her look bad. And things worked out there.

Bringing things to light really helps. So don't give up ! Freedom never comes easy.

"KEEP NAVADA FREE "!!! Robin47

The problem is that the AG website opinion is AFTER the preemption law was passed, and takes into account that preemption law, but interprets it differently than I see it written or intended.

 

[Robin47]

imported post

Yes it looks like it might have to be settled in court, some LEO will try to enforce it and there will be a court case.

What ever happened to the "Oath" to protect our Constitutional Rights ?

Also if enough people exersize their rights it will be a showing of what the "PEOPLE"

want in Navada, reguardless of one persons "opinion" as to what the law saids.

This is the way it started in Calif, false opinion and the twisting of law.

Good luck if your fight for the truth ! Robin47