I've received several emails and comments about the 12/18 post "All Hell's Breakin' Loose". I had an email exchange with an employee of the business license department. I've visited with a seller at the gunshow and someone who purchased items at the show. Each person tells the story a little differently.
What to do? You got me. It will be intersting to see what happens at the next show at Cashman, and there will only be one or two there next year as Cashman is booked for some bowling events.
I do know this...Las Vegas', North Las Vegas' and Clark County's pistol permit requirement is a violation of our Section 11 rights! The pistol permit requirement is also a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights. What part of "shall not be infringed" do these guys not get?!
So can we get the "Pistol Permit" ordinances overturned? Will they be overturned 1/1/08? Stay tuned and I'll continue to see how this all plays out.
What to do? You got me. It will be intersting to see what happens at the next show at Cashman, and there will only be one or two there next year as Cashman is booked for some bowling events.
I do know this...Las Vegas', North Las Vegas' and Clark County's pistol permit requirement is a violation of our Section 11 rights! The pistol permit requirement is also a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights. What part of "shall not be infringed" do these guys not get?!
So can we get the "Pistol Permit" ordinances overturned? Will they be overturned 1/1/08? Stay tuned and I'll continue to see how this all plays out.
Posts
9 comments:
I'm not sure what the heck is currently going on in Clark County. But it appears that someone needs to get some FACTS!
I opine most (if not all) local ordinances in Clark County must go away on January 1, 2008 - and I anxiously await responses to my letter of December 12:
(letterhead)
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 www.ordlink.com/codes/lasvegas/index.htm, http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/nolasvegas/index.htm and 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
I took my time reviewing this debacle before responding instead of my usual off the cuff response.
I did some checking of my own, here are my thoughts.
As I read this situation it's clear that Clark County/L.V. are in fact abusing the "Blue Card" regulations to interfere in lawful commerce.
They are overriding the Fed. regulations, and NRS.
Neither the Fed/BATFE or NRS make any such distinctions between the sale of hand guns and long guns.
Reading these alleged "Regulations", it is clear that Nevada dealers (or individuals?) from outside LV-CC desiring to participate in gun shows held in Clark County are put at a significant, discriminatory disadvantage.
No other Nevada county imposes such inane regulations, dealers from any of the other 16 Nevada counties or another state will not have been informed of these "regulations", or have had a genuine opportunity to comply with them.
Attempting to comply after being informed at the last minute will not work. As stated in the "regulations", the process requires the application to be approved by the city council and sheriff's office, no doubt it takes weeks or months to complete!
I know for a fact that these regulations prevented out of state dealers from making hand-guns sales at the last show, even though they had made advance arrangements with Nevada dealers.
If these "Regulations" are allowed to stand, and enforced, gun shows in the L.V. area will fade away, which of course is the goal of the anti's.
This most likely includes the S.H.O.T. show and it's MILLIONS in revenue (some guns are sold there, particularly late in the show) and Wally Beinfeld's big Antique Arms Show, among others.
Why would they fade away?
Because in order to be successful gun shows have to draw vendors and buyers from far outside the immediate area.
L.V. gun shows have typically drawn vendors and customers from several states, NV, UT, AZ, CA, OR and even WY, OH, OK, and TX!
With these "Regulations" even NV dealers from another county are S.O.L. for hand gun sales.
Sure, the out of county and out of state dealers MAY be able to arrange for one of the Clark County dealers to handle their sales, a service which usually adds $25.00 or more to the price, often just enough to kill the sale.
Buyers also do not want to waste an extra hour completing their purchase, they want to see the entire show, not stand in line, or ride a bus!
When dealers (and individuals?) find that they cannot sell hand-guns, they will stop coming to the shows, when buyers find fewer dealers, THEY will stop coming to the shows.
Great decision Clark County, now tell us again about this crises of lost Sales Tax revenue!
Very suspicious timing!
This "Enforcement" appeared right after the MSM began it's latest ongoing pogrom attacking our RKBA, and just in time for the holiday, when it's virtually impossible to get any information or response from L.V. Gov. Org. until next year.
I have to believe this is an effort at maneuvers to make legal points prior to SB-92 taking effect.
Something along the lines of the old saying that "Possession is 9/10th's of the law".
Re-implementing enforcement of these "regulation's" just before SB-92 takes effect is a clear tactic to set some sort of "Precedent", no doubt the anti's in LV/Clark intend to weasel out of full compliance with SB-92.
I believe that any number of lawyers should be happy to initiate a suit for "Tortuous interference in lawful commerce", based on the points I raised in my first paragraph.
I never do gun shows, I'm fortunate enough to not live in Clark County, but I will still pledge $100.00 right now toward support of a suit to end these stupid and discriminatory "Regulations".
We need to stop this sort of Kalifornication of Nevada RIGHT NOW!
I clearly recall the NSCA lobbyist stating at their "Explanatory Meeting" regards implementation of SB-92 that this sort of activity was NOT going to be a concern.
And they wonder why I'm so "Unprofessional" that I remember their past acts, and don't trust them?
This sort of #@!%&*! is why I cringe at the trite phrase, "Just enforce existing law".
Too damn many of the laws we already have are unconstitutional garbage!
All concerned supporters of our RKBA should contact Carry Herbertson of the NRA-ILA, cherbertson@mycingular.blackberry.net asking that NRA get involved, maybe then NRA will take notice and make an effort to stop this?
As I said at the beginning of this rant, this is clearly an effort by Clark County to create a legal precedent for the purpose of NOT adhering to as many provisions of SB-92 as they can get away with.
All of us should contact Governor Gibbons about this too.
And those of you who live in Clark County, I strongly suggest that you contact your city councilmen and mayor to voice your displeasure, perhaps mentioning recall petitions and lawsuits!
Richard/sia said it well.
Letters/emails/fax's SHOULD be flooding the desks of Clark County officials. But I wonder how many people are actually sending their comments/opinions.
Until overturned by the state judiciary, or preempted by the legislature, it seems the only recourse is for Clark County residents to contact their elected officials, vote for better officials, or pursue court action.
We need to start documenting exactly who has "Standing" to challenge these alleged regulations.
"Standing"s basically means that not just any Nevada citizen can challenge the regulation, a court will demand that a plaintiff must be able to show "Harm", that the regulations affected them personally.
I'm pretty sure I would have "Standing", even though I was not present at the last show!
I am a manufacturer of firearms, the company I manufacture for WAS at the show.
They WERE prevented from selling products I manufacture at the show, despite having made every reasonable advance effort to comply with all pertinent state and federal law.
As a result that company and myself were both prevented from realizing our reasonable expectation of significant show related sales income.
Typically these products sell out at every show, at this last show NONE of the products were able to be sold!
Once we have a good number of persons and companies with "Standing", we should make one last appeal to the LV/CC authorities.
If they do not respond appropriately, voiding the alleged regulations, a class action suit should be fairly easy to win.
With the cost shared by many plaintiff's the expense should be manageable.
Our cost should also be recoverable, a demand for damages would not be unreasonable.
What response, if any, have we had from Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association, shooting clubs, NRA, state legislators, etc.?
I expect that we are going to have to sue, I expect LV/CC to thumb their noses at SB-92.
I expect little or no help from our legislature as LV/CC assert control due to their population.
The LV mayor is already on record claiming that HE should be in charge of our state!
I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.
The question becomes how long we allow this situation to continue before we file suit, and who will join us in the effort?
Quote
What response, if any, have we had from Nevada State Rifle & Pistol Association, shooting clubs, NRA, state legislators, etc.?
Unquote
I have been told the NRA General Counsel agrees with our assessment/letter of December 12, 2007.
I would NOT expect anything from the NSRPA. As far as I can tell, the NSRPA has been virtually dormant/impotent for some years.
Has anyone organized a "Pool" on how long before we hear anything definitive from L.V./C.C. regards their intentions on adhering to SB-92, or not?
We should track and contact everyone who is denied their section 11 right in the L.V./C.C. area from this day forward.
They will have "Standing" for the suit I expect we are going to have to file.
Apparently, the DA did send me an email response to my letter, but I did not receive it. I hope to get it in the next day or two.
I finally received the email response from the Clark County DA's office. I don't know why I didn't receive it when it was originally sent, but I finally got it on January 4, 2008:
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
UNQUOTE
Since this did NOT answer my questions and it appears Clark County has no intentions of complying with the law as we see it, I responded with the following today, January 5, 2008:
QUOTE
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 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
UNQUOTE
Again, IF my literal interpretation is somehow incorrect, can someone PLEASE tell me where I'm wrong??!!
More action appears necessary. See latest reply from the Clark County DA's office:
QUOTE
Hello,
I appreciate your perspective. Different provisions of the statute,
when read separately, certainly can lead to different conclusions.
Accordingly, I reviewed the legislative history (as is appropriate when
dealing with an ambiguous statute). While the bill definitely started
out as a total preemption bill, the history makes clear that the
legislators added language that they intended to work a compromise with
law enforcement to allow the continuation of the ordinances in Clark
County, provided they were amended to address the transient possession
issues.
If you receive Attorney General direction to the contrary, please so
advise me, and we will reconsider our ordinance. I will also bring your
concerns to our legislative staff.
Mary-Anne Miller
County Counsel
Office of the District Attorney
Clark County, Nevada
(702) 455-4761
millerm@co.clark.nv.us
UNQUOTE
I am still seeking an education concerning why the law doesn't mean what it says.
Win or lose, there will be more to come on this issue.
Post a Comment