|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member 
|
I've created a pamphlet for Nevada laws concerning open carry. It prints out onto one page. It mentions all of the NRS numbers for laws, with links to them from browsers. In the .doc version, in order to access links, hold down control while clicking them. In the PDF, just click them. Edit1 (June 20): I did a very minor edit to the document by removing an extra quotation mark that was pointed out to me from the right side of the second blue quote box, for aesthetic reasons. In case anyone was curious, there were 11 downloads previous to this very minor aesthetic change. Edit2 (June 21): Despite reading this aloud a few times, I left out the word "as" in a sentence. Now it is there. "There are a few exceptions to the law which, such as being" Also, I added a period to the end of the sentence in paranthesis at the top mentioning Clark County's registration exception to preemption, and put a closing paranthesis where it was missing in the second paragraph. - 9 AM June 21. There were 11 downloads previous to this edit too, perhaps by the same people! July 30: A new version was posted several posts down but didn't replace this one. I was originally unsure of the utility of the information listed. In the Sept. 6 version this information will be included and two versions will no longer exist. Aug4 Edit: There were 243 downloads prior to correction of faulty information by AnakinsKid. Sept 6, 2008. (80 downloads prior to new version) - Okay, I think its better to just put all the information into one, whether it concerns concealed or open carry. So all of the information that was in the new alternative one that I had posted several posts down is now in this one. In addition, I realized I never mentioned the restriction in the Legislative building. I also changed the wording referring to the NAC on roadside parks with my improved understanding of it. The federal law section in the july 30 one was more detailed than the one I left for download in this post earlier, so now I included that in here. For NAC 202.020, I have also reworded it to better reflect my understanding of it. (The September 6 version was downloaded 174 times) Dec 10, 2008. I ammended it to take into account the new ruling on national parks and wildlife refuges. Dec 11, 2008. I forgot to mention when the rule takes effect. The pre-publication version of the rule I read said it took effect on the date of publication with the federal registrar. It was publicated with the Federal registrar on Dec. 10, but the publicated version says it takes effect January 9, 2009. (The December 11 version was downloaded 88 times.) Jan 16, 2009. The law that preempts towns from making regulations is now listed along with the laws that restrict counties and cities. Additionally, the comment on preemption has been reworded, and the laws which regulate these localities are labeled. Also, I removed the mention that the new national park rule took effect on January 9 since it is past the date and it would look cleaner without mention of it. Also, now that the current Attorney General's website has a mention to open carry (the old pamphlet said that the current website made no mention of it), I removed the old reference to the archived attorney general website (found using http://www.archive.org/index.php for http://ag.state.nv.us/ and clicking on the July 24 2002 archive,) and replaced it with the current one. I kind of liked how the old FAQ asked "Can I carry without a permit?" which drove the point of no permit being necessary, but the new one is easier for people to find than the archived version and is more current. January 16, 2009 (10pm): See the thread about the AG saying local laws still apply: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum36/20658.html. Until this gets sorted out the pamphlet has been temporarily revised to not mention state preemption. Hopefully soon the Jan 16 version I created earlier today can replace it. (Jan 16 version was downloaded 41 times.) February 10, 2009: Unfortunately the AG problem still hasn't been resolved, but I have updated the pamphlet again. I reworded the part discussing the preemption law because the one I had hastily assembled in the last version had some long sentences, unclear language, and forgot to mention the registration in Clark County. I also amended the section on roadside parks to mention rest areas, which the regulation also applies to. Also, I added to the section on schools to note that the penalty for loitering near a school while armed is a higher penalty than loitering without being armed. (Feb 10 version downloaded 42 times) March 4, 2009: The links in the Feb 10 version of the PDF got broken somehow. I just now noticed it. So, sorry to the people who got the version with broken links. I've now reposted the Feb 10 PDF and now when you click on the blue text it should go to the law on the legislature website again. March 19, 2009: A federal district court has blocked the national park ruling. So I have amended the pamphlet to take this into account. (The March 19 .doc version was downloaded 96 time) July 3, 2009: The pamphlet has been updated to fix links as well as to take into account the new legislation which will allow concealed carry in National Parks on February 22, 2010. The wording of the first paragraph has also been altered. This revision also takes into account the changes in the list of states that Nevada recognizes concealed carry permits from. (Nevada no longer recognizes Utah or Florida but now recognizes West Virginia and Ohio.) Edit2: Fixed a sentence missing a word in 1st paragraph. (The July 3 doc version was downloaded 38 times. August 9, 2009: The pamphlet has been updated to reflect the disappearance of the comments regarding firearms on the AG website, as well as to clarify the federal law section. Download August 9, 2009 Version as a doc file : http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7494 Download August 9, 2009 Version as a PDF file : http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7496 Attachment: NVCarryPamphletAug9_2009.doc (Downloaded 89 times) Last edited on Sun Aug 9th, 2009 05:12 pm by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
Bravo_Sierra Regular Member 
|
Felid`Maximus wrote: I've created a pamphlet that prints out on one page for Nevada laws concerning open carry. It prints out onto one page. It mentions all of the NRS numbers for laws, with links to them from browsers. Thanks! |
||||||||||
|
Sheepdawg Regular Member 
|
AWESOME!!! |
||||||||||
|
calmp9 Regular Member
|
Felid`Maximus wrote:I've created a pamphlet for Nevada laws concerning open carry. It prints out onto one page. It mentions all of the NRS numbers for laws, with links to them from browsers. Thanks for doing that! I am going to check it out. |
||||||||||
|
icode Regular Member 
|
Thank you very much. Your work is appreciated. |
||||||||||
|
Erus Regular Member
|
It is my understanding that the LACK of any directly OPEN carry law is what we have in Nevada that makes it legal. Can you cite the NRS that states anything about OC being legal, rather than the lack of one that says it is not? Other than this.. great pamphlet. |
||||||||||
|
bobernet Founder's Club Member
|
Erus, That is a direct quote from the former Nevada Attorney General. I agree that it is poorly worded, but it's what the AG posted on her website. |
||||||||||
|
Bravo_Sierra Regular Member
|
Erus wrote:
There isn't anything about OC in the NRS. |
||||||||||
|
Erus Regular Member
|
Yeah B_S that's what I though/always was told/read for myself. Thanks bobernet for the clarification. Goofy wording leaves room for argument I would rather not have, but it's still a good listing of NRS's for the uneducated to START with. Kind of thing to hand to idiot clerks and sheep and righteous "authorotay figgers" |
||||||||||
|
dan-wild Regular Member
|
In Clark County, it appears that handguns must be registered in order to keep and bear. |
||||||||||
|
bobernet Founder's Club Member
|
Yes. If you're a resident of the county for more than 60 days, any concealable firearm must be registered. Registration is free and only takes a few minutes at any metro station. It is unconstitutional, in my opinion, and it sucks - but it's not particularly inconvenient. You can avoid registering (not legally) any guns you buy from private parties, but if you buy from a retail gun dealer, they will submit the registration info directly to metro and issue your "blue card" at the time of sale. The penalty for conviction on registration laws is a misdemeanor. $100+ and/or 6 months max. Last edited on Fri Jun 27th, 2008 06:08 am by bobernet |
||||||||||
|
timf343 Campaign Veteran 
|
The USSC did not evaluate the constitutionality of registration in this most recent 2A case, an in fact, Heller conceded that registration was a reasonable limitation upon the right, so it was left unchallenged in this case. |
||||||||||
|
bobernet Founder's Club Member
|
In pondering this more, I think it would be tough to challenge registration on constitutional grounds. After all, we already have voter registration, and as long as it is not used selectively, capriciously, and there aren't any test or fees associated (that would make it like a poll tax), then I think registration would probably pass constitutional muster. |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
Thanks all for the kind words. PDF Version is downloadable on this post. (August 9, 2009 Version) (September 6 version of the PDF was downloaded 48 times.) (December 11 version of the PDF was downloaded 22 times) (January 16 version of the PDF was downloaded 58 times.) (Broken Links Feb 10, 2009 version downloaded 33 times) (Fixed Links Feb 10, 2009 version downloaded 29 times.) (March 19 version of the PDF was downloaded 167 times.) (July 3, 2009 version of PDF was downloaded 50 times.) Attachment: NVCarryPamphletAug9_2009.pdf (Downloaded 307 times) Last edited on Sun Aug 9th, 2009 05:11 pm by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
Here is a more detailed version that's also modified a bit. Not sure if its better. (The July30 version was downloaded 50 times before it was removed.) Last edited on Thu Dec 11th, 2008 02:20 am by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
If anyone wants to know what's different, aside from reordering a bit, there is red text in this one. Actually, there is more than what is listed in this file too. NAC 202.020 is now mentioned, as well as a penalty for "exhibiting" a firearm in a roadside park. The funny thing about 202.020 is that it is not clear whether the locations listed are just supposed to be on a form that someone sees or if they are also regulations. The update notes below showed the changes made before the July 30 version. Edited to add: These notes are quite old and just show changes between the July 30 version and its successor. If anyone wants to see any older version of the pamphlet or see similar update notes they can be made available upon request. Edited to add: Notes removed. (90 Downloads existed.) Not sure they are worth seeing given how old they were. Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 11:58 pm by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
Hmm this post is bugged. Last edited on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 02:53 am by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
AnakinsKid Regular Member 
|
In the newest update you say, Places One Cannot Carry a Firearm: Per NRS 202.265 one may not have a firearm anywhere on the property of a University, School, or Child Care facility. (Even with a concealed carry permit the buildings are still off limits though the rest of the property no longer is.) What NRS makes the property not off limits for CCW holders? My church shares a parking lot with a Daycare/Preschool that we started, and I'm unsure if I can carry there. If there actually is an exemption for CCW holders, I'm ok. |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
AnakinsKid wrote: In the newest update you say, You're right. Sorry to all for this serious error. I misinterpreted 202.3673 which only mentions the buildings. |
||||||||||
|
AnakinsKid Regular Member
|
Felid`Maximus wrote: AnakinsKid wrote:In the newest update you say, NRS 202.3673 Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building; exceptions; penalty. I would interpret that the same as you did. It doesn't say not to carry on the property, just not in the buildings on the property. |
||||||||||
|
CowboyKen Regular Member 
|
I also note that this seems to say that if you go to a non-school event at say, Thomas & Mack, like a concert, you would seem to be OK to carry there even though it is a UNLV building. (b) “Public building” means any building or office space occupied by: (1) Any component of the Nevada System of Higher Education and used for any purpose related to the System; Ken |
||||||||||
|
bobernet Founder's Club Member
|
Ken, I recently had an opportunity to get some clarification on this. We were taking another couple with us to see Boston/Styx and I called a friend to see if he knew how the police interpreted the law re: carrying at a non-school event at the Thomas & Mack. He said, his understanding was that they considered it illegal, but he would check with the UNLV campus police dept since he knew some of them. After a few phone calls, he called me back and said "yeah, they definitely consider it illegal and will arrest you if caught." I realize that LEO are not lawyers and depending how the DA interprets the statute you may or may not be charged. But at this point, at least expect to be arrested if you're caught carrying there. Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 01:18 am by bobernet |
||||||||||
|
CowboyKen Regular Member
|
Bob, Thanks for the info. I guess it is not surprising but the law does seem clear. If I am ever in that situation and I get in trouble we will all find out what the courts have to say about it. Ken |
||||||||||
|
bobernet Founder's Club Member
|
Just a quick thought... Note that the language employed is, "and used for any purpose related" not "while used." It is true that the T&M is a component of the school system, and it's also true that it is "used for any purpose related..." I'd be careful with that one. Very murky waters to chance a conviction. |
||||||||||
|
aloe Regular Member
|
T&M is on school property is it not? ANd also school zone = 1000 feet near a school, and T&M is within 1000 feet of the nearest UNLV building. I have a question, what if you live within 1000 feet of a school? Is OC and CCW illegal around your neighbourhood? And whats the rules regarding community centers? |
||||||||||
|
bobernet Founder's Club Member
|
CCW overrides the school zone restriction. Unlawful "except..."
|
||||||||||
|
aloe Regular Member
|
bobernet wrote: CCW overrides the school zone restriction. But not in CSN, UNLV due to CCW rules. |
||||||||||
|
bobernet Founder's Club Member
|
You asked about school zones. The Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. That's all I was addressing. State law clearly deals with carry on school property, and CowboyKen already quoted the law in this thread. |
||||||||||
|
aloe Regular Member
|
I live 700 feet away from a middle school. Can I still OC or I have to get a CCW license and go concealed? |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
aloe wrote:
The Federal law, assuming it is constitutional, only applies to K-12 Schools, not colleges. State law only restricts being on the property of schools and colleges but has no mention of school zones. aloe wrote: I live 700 feet away from a middle school. I am not a lawyer, and nothing I say shall be construed as legal advice, but here is my opinion. On your own property or any other private property you are okay because that is an expressly mentioned exception to the federal law. However, once you step off of the curb, the federal law may apply. Also, you have to know that you are withing 1000 feet of a school zone. In my opinion, I never know that unless I can see the school is obviously within that distance. Also, you might consider that maybe you have not measured the distance between your house and maybe it is a bit over 1000 feet. I couldn't tell the difference between 500 feet, 1000 feet, or 2000 feet very easily. In my opinion the law is totally unconstitional. If you would like to read more about its constitutionality, here is something from Duke University: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+637+pdf ... Basically, the Supreme Court already called it unconstitutional in 1996 since they did not find it within the scope of the duties of Congress to regulate it, and it deemed to be an unconstitutional extension of the interstate-commerce clause. Congress of course, was stubborn, and rather than just repeal the law, they just modified it to include claims that "it pertains to interstate commerce." They "declare" that all firearms have moved through interstate commerce, and "assume" that something having moved in interstate commerce in the past means that it pertains to interstate commerce forever. They modified it to include that you have to be found affecting interstate commerce in order to be guilty. Even though this circular logic would indicate you would be just because they say it is so, looking at the reasoning of the Supreme Court when finding it unconstitutional, I would say that it would not be so easy for them to prove that you were affecting commerce. Personally, I find the federal law to be ignorable. Do so at your own risk. It is a serious federal felony charge if you were convicted of violating it. Has anyone heard of a case where someone was prosecuted under the new iteration of the law? (According to http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Nx1.htm there were no cases as of 2005. The same webiste also has a summary of all the changes made after the original was found unconstitutional: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf) It seems to me if someone ever is prosecuted under it, it would go back to the Supreme Court immediately. (And my personal belief is that it would be found just as unconstitutional as its predecessor.) I think there is a good chance that the federal law is nearly unenforceable, or the circumstances which would result in enforcement are very rare. However, I seriously would not recommend loitering right next to a school. If someone did complain about you the law may decide to make you a test case. Constitutionality aside, any time you know (or reasonably should know) that you are withing 1000 feet of a school you are violating the wording of this act. The question is, how much faith do you have that it is unenforceable? ------------------- In order to be convicted of violating this law, 1) The arresting officer knows you are within 1000 feet, and assumes that you do not have a CCW permit. 2) The arresting officer knows about this Federal law and considers it constitional and enforceable. 3) They can prove that you should have known it was within 1000 feet. 4) It can be proven that you were affecting commerce. (Congress declares it.) 5) It has to be deemed constitutional by the courts. Last edited on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:49 pm by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
aloe Regular Member
|
I checked my condo address to the school's address using google earth, and it shows 700 feet based on addresses. However, by checking the distance from the nearest edge of the school to the exit/entrance of my condo complex, its slightly over 1,000 feet so I should be safe when I leave to get milk and supper. |
||||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher 
|
God I love how concise and specific your laws are in NV. Even attorneys don't know how to interpret CA's laws... One thing that bothers me: concealed weapon = felony? Even CA lists this a misdemeanor... (I'm not sure what a Class C felony is... maybe that's like a misdemeanor here - up to 1 year in county jail) One thing that I love: concealing in your car (but not on your person) is OK?! So as soon as I cross the state line I can load my gun (loaded weapons are illegal in most public places in CA) and stash it in the center console? If that's the case then Nevada just went way up on my list of kick-ass states. |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: God I love how concise and specific your laws are in NV. Even attorneys don't know how to interpret CA's laws... NRS 193.130 (c) A category C felony is a felony for which a court shall sentence a convicted person to imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 5 years. In addition to any other penalty, the court may impose a fine of not more than $10,000, unless a greater fine is authorized or required by statute. Yep, fully loaded and stashed in the console is perfectly legal in NV. |
||||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
Felid`Maximus wrote:
And that's without a permit, right? Seems too good to be true... can you point me to some case law? |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: Felid`Maximus wrote: Yes, that is true, without a permit. Attorney General Opinion AG 93-14 supports this by saying that NRS 202.350 only applies to a firearm concealed upon a person or in a container carried by that person (like a purse in your hand). I believe automobiles were a consideration in that opinion. Nevada law also defines a concealed weapon as being "carried upon a person" too. As far as a court case, I can't seem to remember one, but I think the law is pretty solid. NRS 202.350 "Concealed weapon” means a weapon described in this section that is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation. Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 06:57 am by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
Found this in the AG Opinion:Linzetti, 97 Pa. Super. 126 (1929). The word "upon" signifies close contact. A loaded revolver underneath a cushion in the rear seat of an automobile on which the defendant was sitting was not "upon the person," so defendant's conduct was not within the meaning of an act prohibiting carrying a deadly weapon concealed "upon the person." Id. Thus the phrases "concealed upon person," "upon his person," and "upon the person" have been interpreted to include weapons that are in contact with the individual or are being carried within a container by an individual. So, if you can sit on the cushion concealing the firearm, I would say the center console is fair game. I tell ya, after reading the wording the CA legislature uses and how our AG opinions make that even worse, I'm in awe with how straightforward things are for you in NV. Thanks for the help finding the info I needed! |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
AnakinsKid wrote: Felid`Maximus wrote:AnakinsKid wrote:In the newest update you say, Although NRS 202.3673 only prohibits concealed carry in the buildings, NRS 202.265 does prohibit it on the whole property and as far as I can tell NRS 202.265 does not provide any exceptions for concealed carry permit holders. I had read 3673 as if it replaced 202.265 for permit holders, and then when I looked back on it I couldn't see any reason that it would. But now that I'm looking at it again, it does say: except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a permittee may carry a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of any public building. Which would seem to override 202.265, or at least contradict it. I guess I didn't see the "premises" when I looked back at it the second time, although that's probably what made me think it only applied to the buildings the first time. 202.350 at least says in the header "Carrying a concealed weapon without a permit" whereas 202.265 doesn't mention permits whatsoever in its restriction. What do you all think, does 202.3673 allow concealed carry on the property other than the buildings at universities and override 202.265? ----- BTW, there is now a september 6 version to in the first post. Last edited on Sun Sep 7th, 2008 03:19 am by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
wayneco Regular Member 
|
all this "1000' school zone" talk probably merits some clarification. I believe that is K-12 schools only. And yes, god bless america, you can toss a locked and loaded pistol in your glove box and drive all over Nevada and it's totally OK. In fact it's more than OK, I recommend it!  Get a NV or UT/FL CFP and you can carry dang near anywhere... |
||||||||||
|
CowboyKen Regular Member
|
wayneco wrote:
If you are Nevada resident a UT/FL CFP does not work for you. You must have a Nevada permit. Ken |
||||||||||
|
aloe Regular Member
|
wayneco wrote: all this "1000' school zone" talk probably merits some clarification. I believe that is K-12 schools only. UNLV and CSN campuses are located in unsafe neighbourhoods. Just early this year, there was a shooting at a seven eleven/petrol kiosk just across the street from UNLV (maryland and harmon). That is one of the most heavily used intersection by students at UNLV. |
||||||||||
|
varminter22 Regular Member 
|
CowboyKen wrote: wayneco wrote: Actually, I believed that also. NRS 202.3688 (quoted below from http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3653) says: NRS 202.3688 Circumstances in which holder of permit issued by another state may carry concealed firearm in this State; holder of permit issued by another state subject to same restrictions and requirements as holder of permit issued in this State. indicated (to me) that one must obtain a NV permit IF you become a NV resident. HOWEVER, at the NSCA CCW Permit Holders Forum on September 10, 2008, the NSCA's CCW permit subcommittee chairman (and Douglas Co Undersherirff) Paul Howell indicated otherwise. He indicated it is a somewhat grey area, and you can, BUT he advised it might be a good idea to get a NV permit. Kinda makes you wonder why law cannot be written more specifically! |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
I've updated the pamphlet to take into account the new ruling on carry in national parks and wildlife refuges. |
||||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
The only caveat is the peace officer has no authority to enforce federal law. The way it works they can hold you on a state or local charge and then that pending notify feds, however you cannot be directly charged or detained by a peace officer on a federal charge. Isn't this the excuse given by states and cities to not enforce federal immigration laws by local peace officers? |
||||||||||
|
wayneco Regular Member
|
Hey, does anyone happen to know where the latest rev of the Nevada Open Carry flyer is located? Is it the one on the first page of this thread? |
||||||||||
|
wayneco Regular Member
|
I almost forgot: It'd be great if this were made available in .pdf format instead of .doc. Some of us don't do MS Office / Windows. |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
Yep, the one that is available for download on the first page is the most up to date version. I made some minor revisions today as well. A PDF version is also available on my second post in the thread. I now added a link to it from the first post. For convenience, I'll added them to this post too, but now they are gone. Last edited on Sat Jan 17th, 2009 06:03 am by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
wayneco Regular Member
|
Never saw it. I wonder if maybe you can edit your first post in this thread to add links to the pdf version? that'd make it super easy for people to find in the future... and howdy from Incline Village NV! We're living up here for the winter. |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
Now there are links on the first post. I actually just changed it again, today, sorry to the possibly 4-6 people that downloaded the first time I changed it today. I just realized that the pamphlet had said that the current AG website made no mention of open carry, and recently the AG website makes mention of it again. The Attorney general has also basically said that there all local ordinances are in effect. Pamphlet temporarily removed. EDIT: A new temporary version of the pamphlet has been created which no longer states that one is protected from preemption of local laws. Hopefully if things get sorted out this version won't last long. Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 11:55 pm by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
delta246 Regular Member 
|
good stuff , thanks for this i posted this on reno4x4.com under the firearm section as well. thanks again! |
||||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
The AG website is false. The state reserves the exclusive right to regulate the carrying of firearms in Nevada. No local jurisdiction is allowed to make laws ref. carrying. I am not talking here about the ongoing situation with Boulder city, or car carrying in North Las Vegas. The rest is all uniform and we need to contact the AG on the phone and via email to let them know to correct the erronious statement immediately! |
||||||||||
|
CowboyKen Regular Member
|
Count wrote: The AG website is false. The state reserves the exclusive right to regulate the carrying of firearms in Nevada. No local jurisdiction is allowed to make laws ref. carrying. I am not talking here about the ongoing situation with Boulder city, or car carrying in North Las Vegas. The rest is all uniform and we need to contact the AG on the phone and via email to let them know to correct the erronious statement immediately! Count, Please let us all know the response that you get when you talk to them. Thanks. Ken |
||||||||||
|
Lord Vader Regular Member 
|
Count wrote: The AG website is false. The state reserves the exclusive right to regulate the carrying of firearms in Nevada. No local jurisdiction is allowed to make laws ref. carrying. I am not talking here about the ongoing situation with Boulder city, or car carrying in North Las Vegas. The rest is all uniform and we need to contact the AG on the phone and via email to let them know to correct the erronious statement immediately! I did contact them through email. The only person who responded was John C. Berrier, a legal researcher in the Criminal Division. He basically said I was wrong. At the end of the last email he sent me (I responded to his response), he told me that if I was arrested for violating local firearms statutes, they would not represent me. Even if that's true (it might be, but it really doesn't matter), it seemed really unnecessary to mention. Honestly, all his emails seemed to be hostile in response. I can post it all if you want. I also posted it on nevadashooters.com. |
||||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
[size=Dear Mr. xxx: ] [size= ] [size=Your e-mail to the Nevada Attorney General’s Office has been forwarded to me for review and response. ] [size= ] [size=This office is very much aware of NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222. ]Basically these statutes are supremacy and preemption legislation over the local statutes governing the regulation of firearms (with the exception of no shooting / no discharge of firearms authority). [size= ] [size=In this case preemption is the rule of law that if the Nevada State Government, through the Nevada State Legislature, has enacted legislation on a specific subject matter (in this case local firearms regulations), it shall be controlling over local laws and/or preclude local jurisdictions from enacting laws on the same subject if the State of Nevada has specifically stated it has now occupies. Again, there is no language repealing any local firearms statutes, just the language that the Nevada State Legislature now dominates this field (local firearms’ regulation). ] [size= ] [size=Strict statutory constructionist reading of these statutes shows that there is no language repealing any local statutes regarding firearms; again, just the supremacy and preemptive language. ]Hence all existing local firearms statutes at the time of this legislation are (were) “grandfathered” in. In more simple terms, at the time of the enactment of these statutes, the State of Nevada took control of local firearms’ statutes. The State of Nevada, in taking control of these local firearms’ statutes, did not repeal them; just preempted and took control of them! [size= ] [size=An excellent example of the Nevada State Legislature as the controlling / supremacy / preemption authority over existing local firearms statutes is Nevada Senate Bill] 92 (2007, Statutes of Nevada, Page 1289, which amended NRS 244.364). This is the legislation that changed the handgun registration requirements in Clark County, not repealing them! [size= ] [size=Addressing your argument, if NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222 (enacted in 1989) did repeal local firearms statutes (which it did not); why then did the 2007 Nevada State Legislature] pass SB 92 (in 2007) to amend a Clark County firearms’ statute that was supposedly repealed eighteen (18) years earlier by NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222 in 1989? Why pass SB 92 to amend a statue that does supposedly does not exist? [size= ] [size=Answer, because NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222 did not repeal any local firearms’ statutes, just took control of them! ] [size= ] [size=Some examples of local firearms’ statutes that are still in effect are: ] [size= ] [size=North Las Vegas Municipal Code 9.32.010] Concealed weapon prohibited--Allowed with permit. [size= ] [size=No person, except a peace officer], shall wear or in any manner carry concealed upon his person any loaded or unloaded gun, pistol or revolver, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon permitted to be carried by law without having, at the same time, actually in his possession, and upon his person, an unexpired permit to do so issued by the chief of police. (Prior code § 7.22.010) [size= ] [size=Boulder City] Municipal Code 7-1-3 Discharging Firearms, Air Guns: [size= ] [size=No person except a sheriff, constable or police officer shall fire or discharge any firearms or air guns of any description within one thousand (1,000) yards of any building, street, sidewalk, alley, highway or other public place or have any firearms or air gun in his possession within one thousand (1,000) yards of any building, street, sidewalk, alley, highway or public place unless it is unloaded and knocked down or enclosed within a carrying case; provided, that this Section shall not prevent the maintenance and use of duly supervised rifle or pistol ranges or shooting galleries authorized by the City Council. This Section shall not prohibit the stocking of firearms by duly authorized dealers in the same. ](Ord. 28, 1-3-1960, eff. 1-4-1960) [size= ] [size=These and all other existing local firearms statutes, as they now read, they are legal and enforceable unless amended or repealed by the Nevada State Legislature (not local government). ]That is why there is the conditional statement on the Nevada Attorney General’s website urging caution about the possibility of local ordnances prohibiting the open (or other) carrying of firearms. [size= ] [size=Again, given these two examples; it is the responsibility of this office to give a generic warning that there may be local statutes governing the use of firearms. ]There is no firearms’ information on the Nevada Attorney General’s website to be corrected. Your interpretation of NRS 268.418, NRS 244.364, and NRS 269.222 is not correct. The information posted on the Nevada Attorney General’s website is correct and will not be changed. [size= ] Thank you contacting the Nevada Attorney General’s Office concerning this matter. [size=John C. Berrier] [size=Legal Researcher] – Criminal Division [size=Office of Nevada] Attorney General [size=100 N Carson Street] [size=Carson City, NV 89701] [size=Telephone: (775) 684-1240] |
||||||||||
|
DESERT ATILLA Regular Member
|
I don't know if it makes a difference, but can this statement be considered an actual, official opinion of the AG? I haven't seen any kind of publication with the AG's name on it. |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
Well I haven't actually seen anything written by her, or anything written on the subject with her signature on it. I would only imagine she endorses the message her office is making however. It is too bad that the National park ruling is being blocked right now. Back when it was blocked the pamphlet was modified to take note of it. Last edited on Sat Mar 28th, 2009 03:54 am by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
TatankaGap Regular Member 
|
Felid`Maximus wrote: Well I haven't actually seen anything written by her, or anything written on the subject with her signature on it. I would only imagine she endorses the message her office is making however. Your NV carry flyer is an excellent piece of work. Many thanks.  And it looks like you'll get to keep your note about National Park (with some revisions) ~  Last edited on Sun May 24th, 2009 05:59 pm by TatankaGap |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
Thanks Tatanka. It is now revised to take into account the new federal legislation, as well as which states permits are recognized in Nevada (which just changed July 1) and fixes links. Last edited on Sun Aug 9th, 2009 05:15 pm by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
gvaldeg1 Regular Member 
|
CowboyKen wrote: wayneco wrote: As of July 1, 2009, Nevada no longer recognizes Utah or Florida concealed carry permits (CCWs). BTW: Felid Maximus, thanks a million for all of your work on the Guide to Nevada Gun Laws! Since my Utah CCW is no longer good in Nevada, I'll have to open carry until I get a Nevada CCW or my Arizona permit is recognized. Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 02:01 am by gvaldeg1 |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
Thanks. A new version is available to take into account the AG website no longer having a firearms FAQ and to clarify the federal law section. Download August 9, 2009 version as PDF: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7496 Last edited on Sun Aug 9th, 2009 05:15 pm by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||
|
infinitearms Regular Member
|
Do i have your permission to distribute printed copies of this pamphlet at my gun store? Maybe this will help educate the "I know all the gun laws and OC is illegal" types. |
||||||||||
|
Felid`Maximus Activist Member
|
infinitearms wrote: Do i have your permission to distribute printed copies of this pamphlet at my gun store? Absolutely! Feel free to distribute this pamphlet as much as you would like. Sorry for the delayed reply. Last edited on Mon Aug 31st, 2009 02:02 am by Felid`Maximus |
||||||||||