| Author | Post |
|---|
varminter22
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 420 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 03:24 am |
|
In ref to changes brought about by SB-92, I agree with Lonnie and Jared in their previous posts/analysis. This was my interpretation and understanding of the bill since the day it was enacted.
I attended the legislative committee hearings on SB-92 and testified in support. I swear I remember testimony or post hearing conversation that SB-92 (as enacted) would abolish ALL local ordinances (EXCEPT registration in Clark County.)
I recently heard that some officials in Clark County were refusing to honor the law.
So, I sent the letter quoted below. I have yet to receive any responses, but am optimistic we will get a favorable response.
If the response is unfavorable, I'm told the NRA General Counsel may step in and get involved.
A literal interpretation (what other kind is there?) indicates ALL local ordinances go away.
Stillwater Firearms Association
P. O. Box 665
Fallon NV
89407
December 12, 2007
District Attorney David Roger
200 S 3rd
Las Vegas NV 89155-9900
City Attorney Bradford Jerbic
400 Stewart Ave
Las Vegas NV 89101
City Attorney Carrie Torrence
2200 Civic Center Dr
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Sheriff Douglas Gillespie
3141 E Sunrise Ave
Las Vegas NV 89101
Chief Mark Paresi
1301 E Lake Mead Blvd
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Lady and Gentlemen, As you know, the Nevada Revised Statutes concerning firearms law were recently amended in the 74th Legislative Session, effective October 1, 2007.
Among the changes were NRS 244.364, 268.418, and 269.222, which were amended to state:
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, city nor town may infringe upon those rights and powers.
Further, NRS 244.364, 268.418, and 269.222 state:
The governing body of a county/city/town may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms. If the governing body of a city in a county whose population is 400,000 or more has required by ordinance or regulation adopted before June 13, 1989, the registration of a firearm capable of being concealed, the governing body shall amend such an ordinance or regulation to require: (a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the city before registration of such a firearm is required. (b) A period of at least 72 hours for the registration of a pistol by a resident of the city upon transfer of title to the pistol to the resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.
Lastly, Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, was amended to read as follows:
The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989.
A board of county commissioners, governing body of a city and town board in a county whose population is 400,000 or more shall amend any ordinance or regulation adopted by that body before June 13, 1989, that does not conform with the provisions of NRS 244.364, as amended by section 1 of this act, NRS 268.418, as amended by section 2 of this act or NRS 269.222, as amended by section 3 of this act, as applicable, by January 1, 2008. Any ordinance or regulation that does not comply with the applicable provision by January 1, 2008, shall be deemed to conform with that provision by operation of law.
Clearly, handgun registration in Clark County was grandfathered, if amended to allow residents 72 hours and non residents 60 days in which to register.
In view of the phrase “… apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989,” it is equally clear the law does not grandfather any other county/city ordinances; indeed, 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.
We have completed a review of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas municipal codes and Clark County code (at http://www.ordlink.com/codes/lasvegas/index.htm, http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/nolasvegas/index.htm and http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm) and note the required changes are not reflected therein. Clearly, virtually all of the city/county firearms related ordinances (as posted at the above noted links) are now null, void and unenforceable.
Have the city/county ordinances been repealed/amended? Or is there a move afoot to do so as required by Nevada law? Have the sheriff and city police departments been informed that most of the ordinances are now, or on January 1, 2008 will be, null, void and unenforceable?
As we enjoy visiting your fine cities, the 424-member Stillwater Firearms Association and untold numbers of Clark County and Nevada law abiding citizens anxiously await your response.
I can be reached via email at varminter22@charter.net
Sincerely,
J. L. Rhodes
Copies to:
Governor Jim Gibbons
State Capitol
101 N Carson St
Carson City NV 89701
Attorney General Catherine Masto
100 N Carson St
Carson City Nevada 89701-4717
Senator Mike McGinness
770 Wildes Rd
Fallon NV 89406-7843
Senator John Lee
3216 Villa Pisani Ct
North Las Vegas NV 89031-7267
Senator Bob Beers
9428 Grenville Ave
Las Vegas NV 89134-6206
Senator Warren Hardy
5070 Arville St #4
Las Vegas NV 89118-4904
Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea
P O Box 97
Eureka NV 89316-0097
Assemblywoman Francis Allen
P O Box 34718
Las Vegas NV 89133-4718
Assemblywoman Valerie Weber
10001 Harpoon Cl
Las Vegas NV 89117-0931
Churchill County District Attorney Art Mallory
365 S Maine St
Fallon NV 89406
Mr Frank Adams
Executive Director, Nevada Sheriffs and
Chiefs Association
P O Box 3247
Mesquite NV 89024
Ms Carrie Herbertson
NRA ILA State & Local Affairs Division
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 625
Sacramento CA 95814
Mr Glen Caroline
NRA ILA Director, Grass Roots Division
11250 Waples Mill Rd
Fairfax VA 22030
Last edited on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 03:31 am by varminter22
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 05:58 am |
|
Anxious to see what replies you'll receive.
|
varminter22
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 420 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 02:10 pm |
|
Thanks, Tim.
What is your assessment?
I am not an attorney. But I am encouraged that a district attorney, a private attorney, a city attorney, and the NRA General Counsel attorneys agree. Actually, our local city attorney agreed in writing, saying a local ordinance here is null, void and unenforceable, and is recommending the city council repeal said ordinance.
I am surprised that (apparently) few citizens in Clark County are pursuing the matter.
|
varminter22
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 420 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 08:43 pm |
|
I finally received an email response from the Clark County DA's office. It is dated December 19, 2007, but I just received it yesterday, January 4:
Quote:
>>> Mary-Anne Miller 12/19/2007 4:09 PM >>>
Dear Mr. Rhodes,
We are in receipt of Stillwater Farearms Association's December 12,
2007 inquiry into whether local codes have been changed to reflect the
changes in law regarding local firearms regulations. Please be
advised
that the ordinance implementing these changes has been adopted for
Clark
County. It was finally adopted in early December, and effective
December 18, 2007. Since it is a new amendment to our code, you may
have missed it online, but it can be reviewed at:
http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/clerk/amendments.htm
I hope this addresses your concerns with respect to Clark County, but
if not, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mary-Anne Miller
County Counsel
Office of the District Attorney
Clark County, Nevada
(702) 455-4761
millerm@co.clark.nv.us
To which I replied via email:
Quote:
To: millerm@co.clark.nv.us
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:52 AM
Subject: SFA/Clark ltr Dec12, 2007
Dear Ms Miller,
Thank you for responding to my letter of December 12, 2007.
My original questions contained in said letter were:
1) Have the city/county ordinances been repealed/amended?
2) Or is there a move afoot to do so as required by Nevada law?
3) Have the sheriff and city police departments been informed that most of the ordinances are now, or on January 1, 2008 will be, null, void and unenforceable?
After reading your email, it appears you have answered respectively:
1a) Only partially; not in full compliance with NRS.
3a) No.
While it is laudable Clark County has amended the ordinance concerning registration, it appears Clark County has no intentions of complying with Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, which states:
Quote
"... apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989."
Unquote
And clearly does not grandfather any other county/city ordinances.
Nevada law says no city, county, nor town may infringe upon the Legislature's right to regulate firearms law; and the law specifically states this applies to all ordinances and regulations, even if adopted prior to June 13, 1989.
I have reviewed the recent amendment at http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/clerk/amendments.htm and compared/applied it to the Clark County code at http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm There are many instances (virtually all) of Clark County ordinances that are NOT in compliance with Nevada law.
Is my literal interpretation of the law somehow incorrect? If so, what law intercedes my interpretaton?
Has Clark County overlooked the recently amended Nevada law? Or is it true Clark County will not comply with Nevada law?
Again, untold numbers of Clark County and Nevada citizens anxiously await your response.
Sincerely
Last edited on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 08:44 pm by varminter22
|
Barcroft
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 04:44 am |
|
I want to thank you for your efforts concerning the laws of Clark County; I have been watching this thread, and will continue to watch for other replies from those to whom you have sent inquiry.
|
bplv
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Las Vegas, NV |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 05:03 am |
|
Barcroft wrote: I want to thank you for your efforts concerning the laws of Clark County; I have been watching this thread, and will continue to watch for other replies from those to whom you have sent inquiry.
Agreed
|
varminter22
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 420 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 6th, 2008 11:38 pm |
|
Thanks, guys!
A bit more info:
Title 12 of the Clark County code can be found here: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm
The recent amendment has not yet been incorporated into the above website. The recently (December 4, 2007) enacted amendment (Bill 11-20-07-1) is here: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/clerk/pdf/Amends/3571.pdf
Note the amendment does NOT address the vast majority of (now illegal) firearms related ordinances.
For example, see 12.04.080 (http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm) which states:
12.04.080 Time between sale and delivery of pistol.
When any sale of a pistol is made by a dealer under this chapter, seventy-two hours must elapse between the time of sale and the time of delivery to the purchaser. When delivered, all pistols must be securely wrapped and be unloaded, and must be accompanied by a receipt signed by the dealer, setting forth the name, address, and description of the purchaser or transferee, a complete description of the pistol (including the manufacturer, model and manufacturer’s serial number thereof), the date and time of sale, and the date and time of delivery, of such pistol, and advise to the purchaser or transferee that the pistol must be registered with the sheriff within twenty-four hours. (Ord. 242 § 8, 1965)
Clearly, this is NOT harmonious with current Nevada law; the Nevada legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate ...
And, it must be noted, state and federal law more than adequately covers this situation. To purchase a firearm in Nevada, you either (a) pay a $25 fee for the NICS check, or (b) present a valid Nevada CCW permit, and you complete the transaction and you take the firearm with you.
Another good example, see 12.04.160 (http://www.ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/index.htm) which states:
12.04.160 Condition of pistols sold.
All secondhand and used pistols, except antique pieces, sold or purchased, shall be in a safe and operable condition. (Ord. 242 § 16, 1965)
This too is clearly in violation of current Nevada law. Does this ordinance serve a purpose? If a person wishes to (knowingly) purchase an inoperable pistol for the purpose of collecting or making repairs in order to use it, why not?? Again, state and federal law should prevail as intended by our legislature.
Indeed, I believe virtually all of Title 12 relating to firearms is unlawful in accordance with Section 5 of Chapter 308, Statutes of Nevada 1989, at page 653, which says:
The provisions of this act, as amended on October 1, 2007, apply to ordinances or regulations adopted before, on or after June 13, 1989. with the exception of the handgun registration ordinance that our legislature grandfathered. (I believe that to be unconstitutional, but our legislature DID grandfather the Clark County handgun registration ordinance after being HEAVILY lobbied by the Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Ass'n.)
|
Erus
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pahrump, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 241 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 7th, 2008 12:57 am |
|
varminter22 wrote:
12.04.080 Time between sale and delivery of pistol.
When any sale of a pistol is made by a dealer under this chapter, seventy-two hours must elapse between the time of sale and the time of delivery to the purchaser. When delivered, all pistols must be securely wrapped and be unloaded, and must be accompanied by a receipt signed by the dealer, setting forth the name, address, and description of the purchaser or transferee, a complete description of the pistol (including the manufacturer, model and manufacturer’s serial number thereof), the date and time of sale, and the date and time of delivery, of such pistol, and advise to the purchaser or transferee that the pistol must be registered with the sheriff within twenty-four hours. (Ord. 242 § 8, 1965)
I have (recently even) purchased handguns in Las Vegas, (Clark County) and had NO wait time between sale and delivery, but I WAS required to show a blue card for any other handgun I owned before doing so. (I guess if you already own one, you don't need a "cooling off" period)
Thanks for all the info and heads up, varminter22.
Erus
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Jan 9th, 2008 07:34 am |
|
Sent this letter to the City Attorney, Mayor, and Council members in Boulder City:
Sent to
attorney@bcnv.org, anderson@bcnv.org, lstrickland@bcnv.org, tchandler@bcnv.org, citymanager@bcnv.org, court@bcnv.org, police@bcnv.org, pacini@bcnv.org
Good evening,
My name is Tim XXX. I live in the Spring Valley township area of unincorporated Clark county and do business from time-to-time in Boulder City. I carry a firearm for personal protection while in most of the county, but I have to disarm, unload, and encase my firearm upon entering your city to comply with municipal code 7-1-3.
I am writing today concerning Nevada SB92 (Senate Bill 92) passed in the 2007 legislature and signed into law by the governor. This law codifies a statewide preemption of all firearm laws except the Clark County registration (blue card) and the rights of counties, cities and townships to regulate the discharge of firearms.
Originally, NRS 268.418 was added to law during the 65th session in 1989 and only preempted laws enacted on or after June 13, 1989. As your code was in effect prior to that date, the 1989 preemption did not have any effect upon Boulder City law. In the amendment signed into law by the governor, and effective October 1, 2007, the original act was amended to preempt all local laws (except, as stated above, registration and/or discharge of firearms) before, on or after June 13, 1989 (any time).
In reading your municipal code, my interpretation and understanding is that there is a conflict between state law now in effect and your local law. While the first part of the code section is completely legal within state law ("...discharge any firearms or air guns of any description within one thousand (1,000) yards..."), the second part of the code regarding possession ("...or have any firearms or air gun in his possession within one thousand (1,000) yards...") is clearly in conflict.
I would like to know if and when Boulder City will be amending Code 7-1-3 to comply with state law and when such amendment will take effect, so that I may legally carry my firearm in self-defense while in Boulder City.
Thank you kindly for the courtesy of a reply.
Tim XXX
Last edited on Wed Jan 9th, 2008 07:46 am by timf343
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Jan 9th, 2008 07:54 am |
|
And this letter to North Las Vegas Police:
Good evening,
My name is Tim XXX. I live in the Spring Valley township area of unincorporated Clark county and do business from time-to-time in North Las Vegas. I carry a firearm for personal protection while in most of the county, but I have to disarm before entering your city to comply with municipal code 9.32.080. To comply with city law is very difficult as a legal trip to or through your city requires me to go home or find another secure location for the firearm to be stored while out of my possession.
I am writing today concerning Nevada SB92 (Senate Bill 92) passed in the 2007 legislature and signed into law by the governor. This law codifies a statewide preemption of all firearm laws except the Clark County registration (blue card) and the rights of counties, cities and townships to regulate the discharge of firearms.
Originally, NRS 268.418 was added to law during the 65th session in 1989 and only preempted laws enacted on or after June 13, 1989. As your code was in effect prior to that date, the 1989 preemption did not have any effect upon North Las Vegas law. In the amendment signed into law by the governor, and effective October 1, 2007, the original act was amended to preempt all local laws (except, as stated above, registration and/or discharge of firearms) before, on or after June 13, 1989 (any time).
In reading your municipal code, my interpretation and understanding is that there is a conflict between state law now in effect and your local law. I believe the amended state law preempts nearly the entire 9.32 section of your code (with the exception of 9.32.110, banning the firing of a firearm).
I would like to know how the North Las Vegas Police Department will deal with incidents involving this issue and to what extent enforcement will occur.
Thank you kindly for the courtesy of a reply.
Tim XXX
Last edited on Fri Jan 11th, 2008 03:54 pm by timf343
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Jan 9th, 2008 11:10 pm |
|
SUCCESS!
A reply from the Mayor of North Las Vegas, and it looks like a step in the right direction.
Tim,
Thanks for writing. I have been trying for years to get our unconstitutional code changed, but didn't have the support of my council. Now that SB92 has passed, our current code is moot, and we have to rewrite it. I am working with legal on a draft that does better than just making us compliant with State Law. It should be passed in a month or so. Thanks for paying attention, we need more of you,
Mayor Mike
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10th, 2008 01:59 am |
|
And as suspected, the North Las Vegas Police responded saying they would enforce municipal codes:
Mr XXX
Thank you for your inquiry into our enforcement of North Las Vegas's Municipal Codes. It is and will continue to be our intention to enforce the codes as passed by the Mayor and City Council of the City of North Las Vegas.
Joseph Chronister
702-633-1812
|
varminter22
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 420 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10th, 2008 02:28 am |
|
timf343 wrote: SUCCESS!
A reply from the Mayor of North Las Vegas, and it looks like a step in the right direction.
Tim,
Thanks for writing. I have been trying for years to get our unconstitutional code changed, but didn't have the support of my council. Now that SB92 has passed, our current code is moot, and we have to rewrite it. I am working with legal on a draft that does better than just making us compliant with State Law. It should be passed in a month or so. Thanks for paying attention, we need more of you,
Mayor Mike
THAT is GREAT news!
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10th, 2008 05:47 pm |
|
varminter22 wrote: THAT is GREAT news!
I think the best part is that recognition by one local leader, and a movement to change municipal code puts pressure on other local leaders to follow suit or publicly explain why they feel they are exempt when everyone else is in compliance.
I did get a response from the City Manager in Boulder City, who agreed to speak with the City Attorney about the matter, and she promised a reply.
Tim
|
varminter22
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 420 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 03:57 am |
|
| That is more good news. Thanks, Tim.
|
h2ojunkie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 06:04 am |
|
timf343 wrote: And as suspected, the North Las Vegas Police responded saying they would enforce municipal codes:
Mr XXX
Thank you for your inquiry into our enforcement of North Las Vegas's Municipal Codes. It is and will continue to be our intention to enforce the codes as passed by the Mayor and City Council of the City of North Las Vegas.
Joseph Chronister
702-633-1812
Sounds to me like some legal opinion is needed on NLV, and further citizen action to challenge.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 03:58 pm |
|
The personal concession by the mayor that the law is "unconstitutional" and "moot" ought to be enough for any judge to dismiss the charges if ever arrested under this law. If the highest police authority in the city (the mayor) says the law is "moot" and I'm later arrested under that law, I'd have a strong defense.
Technically though the police would be doing nothing wrong if they did enforce the code. Since there is intent within the council to consider the legislation, I think it'd be best to give them the month they asked for and if no movement, challenge in court.
|
bobernet
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 06:49 pm |
|
timf343 wrote: ... I think it'd be best to give them the month they asked for and if no movement, challenge in court.
IANAL, but my understanding is that to "challenge [it] in court" you'd first need to be arrested/charged with the offense.
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
bobernet wrote: timf343 wrote: ... I think it'd be best to give them the month they asked for and if no movement, challenge in court.
IANAL, but my understanding is that to "challenge [it] in court" you'd first need to be arrested/charged with the offense.
I'd sign up for that. But first I'd want to make sure I had my CCW in place so they can't trump up the charges, like illegal conceal, etc.
Then the question becomes how do I get them to pull me over without breaking a law -- such as speeding, etc.
|
bobernet
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 11th, 2008 07:44 pm |
|
If they are enforcing it, simply getting out of your car and walking in front of the police station while open carrying would likely suffice. ;-)
|
Current time is 06:19 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|
