| Author | Post |
|---|
Sheepdawg
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:44 pm |
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote: I have more questions, was he pestered for a blue card? did they leave his firearm loaded, and hand it back ? but it appears the thread has moved onto how to beat a speeding ticket. oh well......
I feel the same way about the direction of the post thats why I stopped checking in on it.
I was pestered about the fact I was not carrying my blue card. He placed my unloaded gun in one saddle bag and the ammo in the other.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 04:08 pm |
|
Posted on that forum:
Under NRS 202.3662, CCW applications and permits are considered confidential and information may only be released to law enforcement for the purpose of conducting an investigation. Since a CCW has no investigatory relevance to a traffic stop, it is technically a violation of state law for that confidential information to be released.
I know no one probably cares, I just thought I'd point it out. The local PD's get away with far too much when it comes to abusing those of us who are legally armed, and this is just one more example.
Tim
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 962 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 04:17 pm |
|
Well if you beet the underlying crime of the speeding, then there was
no reason for the stop and seizing in the first place.
So it helps the federal civil case. Cop can't argue he pulled you over for
speeding if the court says it didn't happen.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:33 pm |
|
This law NRS 202.3662 was added to the books in 1997, presumably as a direct result of Attorney General Opinion 97-06, which concerned this very question.
Deputy District Attorney Leon Aberasturi from the Lander County DA's office asked the Attorney General whether concealed weapon permits were a matter of public record. Attorney General Frankie Sue del Papa responded that yes, CCW permits were public records, relying heavily upon a California Supreme Court ruling rather than Nevada's own case law (Donrey of Nevada v Bradshaw).
A copy of the AG's opinion can be found on pages 36-38 of this document: http://ag.state.nv.us/publications/a...e/1997_AGO.pdf
NRS 202.3662 Confidentiality of information about applicant for permit and permittee.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 202.3665 and 239.0115: (202.3665 relates to the revocation of a permit because of a violent crime or felony conviction, and 239.0115 outlines that certain "confidential" records are open to public inspection after the longer of 30 years or a person's death)
(a) An application for a permit, and all information contained within that application; and
(b) All information provided to a sheriff or obtained by a sheriff in the course of his investigation of an applicant, are confidential.
2. Any records regarding an applicant or permittee may be released to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of conducting an investigation or prosecution.
3. Statistical abstracts of data compiled by a sheriff regarding permits applied for or issued pursuant to NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, including, but not limited to, the number of applications received and permits issued, may be released to any person.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote: I have more questions, was he pestered for a blue card? did they leave his firearm loaded, and hand it back ? but it appears the thread has moved onto how to beat a speeding ticket. oh well......
??? Odd. I did not notice any discussion in this thread about how to beat a speeding ticket.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
The Nevada Shooters forum drifted off topic.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:42 pm |
|
SlackwareRobert wrote: Well if you beet the underlying crime of the speeding, then there was
no reason for the stop and seizing in the first place.
So it helps the federal civil case. Cop can't argue he pulled you over for
speeding if the court says it didn't happen.
Interesting conclusion. But, not in line with existing practices.
A stop is to investigate a possible infraction. The court determines if the allegation of a possible infraction is valid. The court determination that an allegation isn't valid does not negate the investigation, it only shows that the investigation did not produce enough evidence for the allegation to hold up in a court of law.
As in notable criminal cases, a "not guilty" verdict does not equate to "no crime was committed." It only equates to "culpability for a crime was not proven in a court of law."
The OJ case comes to mind. The court found OJ "not guilty." That does not automatically mean that OJ did not commit the crime, it only means that the court did not determine that he was guilty, within the confines of the evidence presented.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:47 pm |
|
timf343 wrote: The Nevada Shooters forum drifted off topic.
"Drifted"??? 
Except for a few posters who attempted to keep it on the firearm issue, that whole thread is about speeding. Wow.
I did not realize you drifted off-topic here to discuss a thread on another forum. 
Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:47 pm by wrightme
|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:01 am |
|
Regarding inNV and others....
"A criminal is a criminal is a criminal"
Just my take on this....
To be a Criminal one must be CONVICTED of a Criminal act. Criminal Acts typically are referred to as either "Misdemeanor" or "Felony". These act must have an element of INTENT.
An Infraction is NOT A CRIMINAL ACT.... it is simply an infraction of a MINOR law. IF charged with an infraction the prosecution does NOT have to prove intent, just that the law was violated!
I can't believe I read this entire thread and no one else thought to put this into writing....
BTW if I am wrong with my above analysis I would welcome mature, reasoned, and thoughtful clarification.
And NO, IANAL! but I am not an idiot either!
Edited to change "and" between "simply" and "infraction" to an "an" for grammatical correctness
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:03 am by JoeSparky
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:37 am |
|
timf343 wrote: NRS 484.999 General rule: Performance of act forbidden by chapter or failure to perform act required by chapter is misdemeanor; authority of court to order repeat offender to pay for and attend school for driver training.
1. It is unlawful and, unless otherwise declared in this chapter with respect to a particular offense, it is a misdemeanor for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in this chapter.
2. The court may order any person who is twice convicted of violating a provision of this chapter to pay tuition for and attend a school for driver training which is approved by the Department for retraining such drivers. The person so ordered may choose from those so approved the school which he will attend. A person who willfully fails to comply with such an order is guilty of a misdemeanor.
|
Current time is 12:41 am | Page:   ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
|
