Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/16/2008 4:36:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/16/2008 4:37:57 PM EDT by BallisticWoundTrauma]
I noticed today at the park it says no firearms are allowed on Clark County Parks property, it says on the sign that these codes come from 19.04  which is here : CC Code 19:04

I do not see where it says I am unable to carry on Clark County Parks. I believe this to be wrong  saying I cannot CCW carry at the park,  am I right or wrong here ???
Link Posted: 11/16/2008 5:54:37 PM EDT
Must be a broad interpretation of this:

CCC 19.04.060 Establishment, posting of rules and regulations.

The board of commissioners by resolution shall adopt rules and regulations to govern the individual public parks of Clark County. The director of parks and recreation shall ensure that signs containing current rules and regulations are posted at the entrances of the appropriate public parks. (Ord. 3503 § 8, 2007: Ord. 3000 § 7, 2003: Ord. 1526 § 3 1993: Ord. 269 § 6, 1967)
Link Posted: 11/16/2008 7:00:49 PM EDT
The preemption statute, SB92, from the last legislative session should make that county law null & void. Doesn't mean you won't take the ride though.
Link Posted: 11/16/2008 7:52:31 PM EDT
I agree about the preemption statute.

Someone else here says they have seen it prosecuted since then ( lack of sleep is making me forget the instructor's name).

I had enough problems getting the county to even accept a gun case in a park. That was with dopers and bangers carrying.
Link Posted: 11/16/2008 9:22:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RDP:
I agree about the preemption statute.

Someone else here says they have seen it prosecuted since then ( lack of sleep is making me forget the instructor's name).

I had enough problems getting the county to even accept a gun case in a park. That was with dopers and bangers carrying.


Jim Mayhugh said he's seen a similar ordinance prosecuted in Henderson, after SB92 was codified.  Maybe that's what you're thinking of?

Link Posted: 11/16/2008 10:18:35 PM EDT
How can it be prosecuted if it is preempted ?
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 5:15:38 AM EDT
We have two different statutes at work:

Here's the pre-emption statute:

     NRS 244.364  Limited authority to regulate firearms; restrictions concerning registration of certain firearms in county whose population is 400,000 or more.

     1.  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 may infringe upon those rights and powers. As used in this subsection, “firearm” means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.

     2.  A board of county commissioners may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.

     3.  If a board of county commissioners 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 board of county commissioners shall amend such an ordinance or regulation to require:

     (a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the county 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 county upon transfer of title to the pistol to the resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.

     4.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as used in this section:

     (a) “Firearm” means any device designed to be used as a weapon from which a projectile may be expelled through the barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.

     (b) “Firearm capable of being concealed” includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.

     (c) “Pistol” means a firearm capable of being concealed that is intended to be aimed and fired with one hand.

     (Added to NRS by 1989, 652; A 2007, 1289)



And here's the statute allowing Counties the regulation and promulgation of park rules:

NRS 244.309  Powers and duties.  The commission may have the following powers and duties as determined by the board and as set forth by the board in the organizational ordinance:

     1.  To determine policy in regard to recreational, cultural and park facilities.

     2.  To promulgate regulations governing the use of such facilities.

     3.  To prepare plans for additional recreational, cultural and park facilities and the development of existing facilities.

     4.  To operate and maintain existing facilities.

     5.  To fix, and from time to time increase or decrease, rates, tolls and charges for services and the use or availability of facilities.

     6.  To employ technical and clerical staff.

     7.  To prepare and submit annual budgets to the board.

     8.  To purchase or lease land subject to the statutes governing purchases and leases of land by the board.

     9.  To acquire by gift, bequest or devise any real or personal property for recreational, cultural and park facilities.

     10.  To administer any trusts declared for recreational, cultural and park facilities in the county.

     11.  To enter into contracts for the construction and development of recreational, cultural and park facilities.

     12.  To cooperate with the county manager in all matters relating to recreational, cultural and park facilities.

     13.  To do all other acts necessary and pertinent to a park, recreational and cultural program.

     14.  To expend all money collected to the credit of facilities under the control of the commission, but all money received for such facilities must be deposited in the county treasury to the credit of the commission and paid out only upon warrants drawn by the commission upon properly authenticated vouchers of the commission after approval of the same by the county auditor.

     15.  To exercise such additional powers and perform such additional duties as delegated by the board in its discretion for a park, recreational and cultural program.

     (Added to NRS by 1963, 411; A 1991, 399)



So the state pre-emption does not apply to parks, by statute. Cities have a similar exemption.

Wolfie, you might consider making this a sticky.
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 6:14:29 AM EDT
So all the city would have to do as well then is just post a little sign and then it could deny me my 2nd amend rights ???  I am not trying to be an ass here, I am really trying to grasp this..... I don't understand why I am denied my rights in a public park.
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 6:34:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BallisticWoundTrauma:
So all the city would have to do as well then is just post a little sign and then it could deny me my 2nd amend rights ???  I am not trying to be an ass here, I am really trying to grasp this..... I don't understand why I am denied my rights in a public park.


Henderson already has:

8.99.030 Rules and regulations regarding use of parks and park facilities.

A. The following rules and regulations shall apply to all parks and park facilities within the city of Henderson. All parks shall be open from six a.m. to twelve midnight daily, unless otherwise posted. No person shall be in a park or park facility between midnight and six a.m. without the prior express written authorization of the director of parks and recreation or his designated representative.
B. The prior express written authorization of the director of parks and recreation or his designated representative is required for the following activities in a park or park facility:
1. Activities such as dunk tanks, hot air balloons, carnivals, inflatable bounce houses, catering services, festivals, or activities which require the use of tents, awnings or portable shelters;
2. Parking a vehicle or trailer in a park between twelve midnight and six a.m.;
3. Use of a park or park facility for profit or personal gain;
4. Selling or offering for sale any service, merchandise, food, beverage, article or thing, provided that this rule shall not apply to the sale of merchandise which is inextricably intertwined with a statement carrying a religious, political, philosophical or ideological message, or original artwork reflecting an artist’s self-expression; or
5. Fireworks display.
C. The express written authorization of the director of parks and recreation or his designated representative, as required herein or otherwise, may be requested as follows:
1. A written request for such use must be submitted to the parks and recreation director;
2. The park, or portion thereof, must be properly reserved according to city policy;
3. The reservation fee, if any, must be paid;
4. A license (if applicable) must be properly applied for and issued; and
5. Issuance of written authorization shall be at the sole discretion of the director of parks and recreation or his designated representative.
D. All persons using a park or park facility shall abide by any posted rules or guidelines pertaining thereto.
E. Motor vehicles shall be parked or operated only in designated areas. No vehicle maintenance is allowed in the park or parking lot. Motorized skateboards are prohibited. Only authorized motorized vehicles are allowed at any time on park trails, pathways, or nondesignated areas. No motor vehicles shall exceed a speed of fifteen mph in any park, unless otherwise posted.
F. No golfing shall be allowed in a park, unless otherwise posted.
G. No glass or breakable containers of any kind shall be permitted in a park or park facility at any time.
H. Alcohol is prohibited in any portion of a park and park facility, including the parking lot, unless authorized via written consent by the director of parks and recreation or his designee.
I. Bathing and the laundering of personal items such as clothing is prohibited in any portion of a park or park facility, including the parking lot and restroom facilities.
J. No person shall commit any act in a park or park facility that would endanger the health, safety or welfare of any person.
K. Climbing on or swinging from branches of trees or landscaping is prohibited.
L. Where allowed, all pets in a park or park facility shall be restrained and controlled by a leash no longer than six feet. Pet waste must be cleaned up and disposed of properly (HMC 7.04.130).
M. No person other than a duly authorized city employee in the performance of his/her duty shall cut, deface, injure or burn any structure or feature (including landscape feature) of a park or park facility or remove any equipment from a park or park facility.
N. No firearms, archery, paint ball weapons, air guns, BB guns, or like devices shall be allowed in a park or park facility.
O. Where a park, park facility, or an area within a park or park facility has been properly reserved for a particular use, and the permittee has not opened the use to members of the general public, no uninvited person shall remain at the reserved area after being directed by the permittee or his agent to leave. Regardless of whether the permittee has opened the use to the general public, no person shall substantially prevent any other person from viewing, hearing, or otherwise participating in the message the permittee wishes to convey, nor shall any person himself participate in the use and convey a message opposed to that of the permittee without the permittee’s permission.
P. No person shall release, discharge, drop or spread upon or in any park or park facility any litter, trash, rubbish, waste, garbage, refuse, chemicals, or ashes, other than by placing the same in trash containers or receptacles provided by the parks and recreation department.
Q. Horses shall not be permitted in parks or on park pathways or trails unless otherwise permitted by posted signs.
R. Fires for cooking only are restricted to permanent grills provided by the parks and a recreation department. No private or personal cooking apparatus may be used. Noncooking fires are prohibited.
S. Fireworks and other explosives are prohibited except as a part of an approved and permitted fireworks display.
T. Use of city dumpsters for disposing of residential or commercial refuse is prohibited.
U. Skateboarding or in-line skating is permitted on parking lots, sidewalks and trails only. Skateboarding or in-line skating is prohibited on handrails, sports courts, benches, tables, or other park equipment. (Ord. 2699 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2466 § 2, 2006; Ord. 2385 § 3, 2005; Ord. 2384 § 4, 2005; Ord. 2382 § 5, 2005; Ord. 1977 § 1 (part), 2000)


Link Posted: 11/17/2008 6:52:52 AM EDT
Thank you for posting that Jim. It could help keep some otherwise law abiding Nevadan from getting stepped on.
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 9:22:59 AM EDT
I still don't understand how ANY of these dinky ass ordinances passes muster against the following...

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

     1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.


...which is directly from the Nevada State Constitution.

-Caver
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 9:25:29 AM EDT
The good news is it's OK to carry in a state park.  Avoid those others like the plague I guess.
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 10:58:47 AM EDT
I don't agree or like the concept, but I believe that the answer to the question posed about the Nevada Constitution is that despite the constitution's language, the government through court decisions, etc. has determined that it can impose "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions" on us.  So, take the preemption statute which has the exception, and there you go
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 11:30:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JimMayhugh:
We have two different statutes at work:

Here's the pre-emption statute:

     NRS 244.364  Limited authority to regulate firearms; restrictions concerning registration of certain firearms in county whose population is 400,000 or more.

     1.  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 may infringe upon those rights and powers. As used in this subsection, “firearm” means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.

     2.  A board of county commissioners may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.

     3.  If a board of county commissioners 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 board of county commissioners shall amend such an ordinance or regulation to require:

     (a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the county 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 county upon transfer of title to the pistol to the resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.

     4.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as used in this section:

     (a) “Firearm” means any device designed to be used as a weapon from which a projectile may be expelled through the barrel by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.

     (b) “Firearm capable of being concealed” includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.

     (c) “Pistol” means a firearm capable of being concealed that is intended to be aimed and fired with one hand.

     (Added to NRS by 1989, 652; A 2007, 1289)



And here's the statute allowing Counties the regulation and promulgation of park rules:

NRS 244.309  Powers and duties.  The commission may have the following powers and duties as determined by the board and as set forth by the board in the organizational ordinance:

     1.  To determine policy in regard to recreational, cultural and park facilities.

     2.  To promulgate regulations governing the use of such facilities.

     3.  To prepare plans for additional recreational, cultural and park facilities and the development of existing facilities.

     4.  To operate and maintain existing facilities.

     5.  To fix, and from time to time increase or decrease, rates, tolls and charges for services and the use or availability of facilities.

     6.  To employ technical and clerical staff.

     7.  To prepare and submit annual budgets to the board.

     8.  To purchase or lease land subject to the statutes governing purchases and leases of land by the board.

     9.  To acquire by gift, bequest or devise any real or personal property for recreational, cultural and park facilities.

     10.  To administer any trusts declared for recreational, cultural and park facilities in the county.

     11.  To enter into contracts for the construction and development of recreational, cultural and park facilities.

     12.  To cooperate with the county manager in all matters relating to recreational, cultural and park facilities.

     13.  To do all other acts necessary and pertinent to a park, recreational and cultural program.

     14.  To expend all money collected to the credit of facilities under the control of the commission, but all money received for such facilities must be deposited in the county treasury to the credit of the commission and paid out only upon warrants drawn by the commission upon properly authenticated vouchers of the commission after approval of the same by the county auditor.

     15.  To exercise such additional powers and perform such additional duties as delegated by the board in its discretion for a park, recreational and cultural program.

     (Added to NRS by 1963, 411; A 1991, 399)



So the state pre-emption does not apply to parks, by statute. Cities have a similar exemption.

Wolfie, you might consider making this a sticky.


I disagree with the interpretation. How can mere possession of a lawfully owned/carried firearm have anything to do with the usage of a park?

The law permits them to govern usage. Now, shall we allow that to include the ability to restrict race, religion, etc. from coming to the park?

It sounds like someone is reaching on the statute. If a case ever gets appealed, I am sure our strange NV SC will dump it..... if it makes it out of district.

And to top it off, the powers are a "may" and not a shall. So, they technically aren't limitless powers.
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 12:35:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Caver:
I still don't understand how ANY of these dinky ass ordinances passes muster against the following...

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

     1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.


...which is directly from the Nevada State Constitution.

-Caver
The park is government property like a school, police station, or court building.  You cannot cary a weapon into any of those places.

You're right, you have a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.  However, you do not have a constitutional right to use the park.

Link Posted: 11/17/2008 1:23:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2008 1:23:35 PM EDT by BallisticWoundTrauma]
Do I have a constitutional right to use a park when my taxes pay for it ??

They pay for city sidewalk..... I have the right to use it.....
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 1:28:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Feanor:
Originally Posted By Caver:
I still don't understand how ANY of these dinky ass ordinances passes muster against the following...

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

     1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.


...which is directly from the Nevada State Constitution.

-Caver
The park is government property like a school, police station, or court building.  You cannot cary a weapon into any of those places.

You're right, you have a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.  However, you do not have a constitutional right to use the park.



To be perfectly honest, I've always had a big issue with this line of reasoning. First of all, some of my tax money goes to that park, and I think any reasonable person would agree that one should have a right to utilize what they paid for.

This line of reasoning also implies that we only have the rights enumerated in the (State or Federal) constitutions. This completely flies in the face of what it actually says in the State Constitution:

Sec: 20.  Rights retained by people.  This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.


Additionally, I would say that using a publicly funded park is indeed a Constitutional right.

Section. 1.  Inalienable rights.  All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]


After all, why do we build parks except to promote "enjoying" life and "obtaining" happiness? Those are things we are Constitutionally guaranteed, and are the sole purpose of our parks!

Claiming I can't bring a firearm––for the purpose of defending life––into a public park is saying I have to give up one Constitutionally guaranteed right in order to secure another. I can go to the park, but I am not allowed to defend myself with a firearm if I so choose? Makes no sense to any reasonable human being.

This also leads to some very dangerous territory. Is it a Constitutional right to walk down the sidewalk? Go to the shopping mall? Drive on the roads? If my rights to bears arms and for defense of life can be taken away in a public park, then why not roads, sidewalks, or any public place at all?

Does this suggest that our right to keep and bear arms, and defend life and liberty stops at the threshold of our homes?

And let's take this further... how about my freedom of speech? religion? Unlawful search and seizure? We give up all of those Constitutionally guaranteed rights the moment we step outside our homes or decide to go to a public park?

-Caver
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 1:29:08 PM EDT
Sure you do.  The manner in which you use it, the argument goes, can be regulated––such as when, what you can do there, etc.
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 1:43:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Caver:
Originally Posted By Feanor:
Originally Posted By Caver:
I still don't understand how ANY of these dinky ass ordinances passes muster against the following...

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

     1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.


...which is directly from the Nevada State Constitution.

-Caver
The park is government property like a school, police station, or court building.  You cannot cary a weapon into any of those places.

You're right, you have a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.  However, you do not have a constitutional right to use the park.



To be perfectly honest, I've always had a big issue with this line of reasoning. First of all, some of my tax money goes to that park, and I think any reasonable person would agree that one should have a right to utilize what they paid for.

This line of reasoning also implies that we only have the rights enumerated in the (State or Federal) constitutions. This completely flies in the face of what it actually says in the State Constitution:

Sec: 20.  Rights retained by people.  This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.


Additionally, I would say that using a publicly funded park is indeed a Constitutional right.

Section. 1.  Inalienable rights.  All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]


After all, why do we build parks except to promote "enjoying" life and "obtaining" happiness? Those are things we are Constitutionally guaranteed, and are the sole purpose of our parks!

Claiming I can't bring a firearm––for the purpose of defending life––into a public park is saying I have to give up one Constitutionally guaranteed right in order to secure another. I can go to the park, but I am not allowed to defend myself with a firearm if I so choose? Makes no sense to any reasonable human being.

This also leads to some very dangerous territory. Is it a Constitutional right to walk down the sidewalk? Go to the shopping mall? Drive on the roads? If my rights to bears arms and for defense of life can be taken away in a public park, then why not roads, sidewalks, or any public place at all?

Does this suggest that our right to keep and bear arms, and defend life and liberty stops at the threshold of our homes?

And let's take this further... how about my freedom of speech? religion? Unlawful search and seizure? We give up all of those Constitutionally guaranteed rights the moment we step outside our homes or decide to go to a public park?

-Caver


They also have a rule that you may not use foul language at the park,   even if it is in poor taste to sit and curse and what not, if I am talking to someone and happen to say" Thats Fucking Crazy"  they can ban me from using the park as well.....  seems to me like a lot of violations of people's rights are posted on that sign.
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 2:35:32 PM EDT


The park is government property like a school, police station, or court building.  You cannot cary a weapon into any of those places.





The .gov owns the streets and roads too, does that mean we can't CCW on a public road?  

Link Posted: 11/17/2008 6:07:05 PM EDT
RDP, I'm sorry to say that in my opinion of researching the "law", your interpretation isn't the "law" on the books––taking constittions, statutes, case law, etc. into account.  Again, I don't agree with it, but it's what you're gonna find.

Your example about discrimination based upon race, etc––the government would be prohibited by a different "law" from doing that.

I have no doubt that carrying a gun in a park would be considered a time, place, and manner type restriction.  Whether it is reasonable restriction is where the argument would be, and I bet we'd lose the argument in claiming that it is unreasonable.  I don't like it, but that's how I see it going down.

Unfortunately again, you can't use logic and common sense––it's the "law" we're dealing with here  
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 8:11:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2008 8:22:09 PM EDT by SilverState]
Generally, the simple way to look at things is to first determine if there is a statute restricting the activity.  If there is, then the best policy is to not violate the statute, regardless of whether you think the law is fair.

Let's face it, most of us did not think the last AWB was constitutional, but we all lived with it.  And unfortunately, we will probably have to live with a new one, given the current administration.

Here is a link to the Clark County Code.

http://ordlink.com/codes/clarknv/maintoc.htm

Personally, the code about the board of commissioners being able to adopt rules that are particular to one park, and are posted by signs at the entrance to the park, seems a little grey to me (19.04.060).
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 9:19:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbailey223:
RDP, I'm sorry to say that in my opinion of researching the "law", your interpretation isn't the "law" on the books––taking constittions, statutes, case law, etc. into account.  Again, I don't agree with it, but it's what you're gonna find.

Your example about discrimination based upon race, etc––the government would be prohibited by a different "law" from doing that.

I have no doubt that carrying a gun in a park would be considered a time, place, and manner type restriction.  Whether it is reasonable restriction is where the argument would be, and I bet we'd lose the argument in claiming that it is unreasonable.  I don't like it, but that's how I see it going down.

Unfortunately again, you can't use logic and common sense––it's the "law" we're dealing with here  


Someday it may be against the law to own a gun too,  but it's the "LAW" we must abide by it.


Link Posted: 11/17/2008 9:59:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbailey223:
RDP, I'm sorry to say that in my opinion of researching the "law", your interpretation isn't the "law" on the books––taking constittions, statutes, case law, etc. into account.  Again, I don't agree with it, but it's what you're gonna find.

Your example about discrimination based upon race, etc––the government would be prohibited by a different "law" from doing that.

I have no doubt that carrying a gun in a park would be considered a time, place, and manner type restriction.  Whether it is reasonable restriction is where the argument would be, and I bet we'd lose the argument in claiming that it is unreasonable.  I don't like it, but that's how I see it going down.

Unfortunately again, you can't use logic and common sense––it's the "law" we're dealing with here  



The law is beyond a time, place and manner restriction. It is an outright ban on a lawful activity that a preemption statute should cover.

The law allowing the park commission to create rules is permissive and not a right. There is no real basis for their ability to create a rule that violates the preemption change or create one that stops lawful activity.

Let's not even talk about how Park Police is trespassing people....for any reason. Trespassed from a county property??  that is a case the ACLU is jumping on..... not so sure they found a good case yet though.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 5:07:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Caver:
I still don't understand how ANY of these dinky ass ordinances passes muster against the following...

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

     1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.


...which is directly from the Nevada State Constitution.

-Caver


Now try reading the rest of the Nevada Constitution, like the part that empowers the Legislature to enact the laws that we should follow, and empowers the Judiciary to interpret those laws.

I see this all the time, someone takes a single line out of context, and attempts to use it to prove their point while ignoring the parts that don't suit them.

That's one of the reasons that I try to provide the entire text of the pertinent statute when I'm presenting my argument.

The Henderson Justice Court gets a lot of the CCPP tickets, and we have had several weapons violations of late, so I know they are still prosecuting and fining violators.

Be aware that if you choose to plead guilty and pay the fine, NRS 202.340 says that your firearm may be retained by the police.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 6:02:48 AM EDT
RDP, I agree with your conclusion about the park restrictions.  I'm just throwing it out there how I believe they justify it.

Somebody call the ACLU and get them to help us enjoy our rights!  
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 7:07:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JimMayhugh:
Originally Posted By Caver:
I still don't understand how ANY of these dinky ass ordinances passes muster against the following...

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

     1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.


...which is directly from the Nevada State Constitution.

-Caver


Now try reading the rest of the Nevada Constitution, like the part that empowers the Legislature to enact the laws that we should follow, and empowers the Judiciary to interpret those laws.

I see this all the time, someone takes a single line out of context, and attempts to use it to prove their point while ignoring the parts that don't suit them.

That's one of the reasons that I try to provide the entire text of the pertinent statute when I'm presenting my argument.

The Henderson Justice Court gets a lot of the CCPP tickets, and we have had several weapons violations of late, so I know they are still prosecuting and fining violators.

Be aware that if you choose to plead guilty and pay the fine, NRS 202.340 says that your firearm may be retained by the police.


You forgot to put a little smiley face behind that last line

Link Posted: 11/18/2008 10:23:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JimMayhugh:
Originally Posted By Caver:
I still don't understand how ANY of these dinky ass ordinances passes muster against the following...

Sec. 11.  Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

     1.  Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.


...which is directly from the Nevada State Constitution.

-Caver


Now try reading the rest of the Nevada Constitution, like the part that empowers the Legislature to enact the laws that we should follow, and empowers the Judiciary to interpret those laws.

I see this all the time, someone takes a single line out of context, and attempts to use it to prove their point while ignoring the parts that don't suit them.


I hope I didn't make it sound as if I am some sort of anarchist, and don't believe in the power of the legislature and judiciary. And I certainly don't want to claim I'm particularly smart when it comes to the law. However, isn't the whole point of a constitution, to frame the powers granted to the legislature and judiciary?

The state constitution does grant powers to the legislature and judiciary, but before it does that, it enumerates certain rights that are held by the people of Nevada. The very first one––listed under "inalienable rights"––is says I have the right to defend life, protect property.

And section 11 goes on the explicitly state I have the right to bear arms to for security and defense.

So from my simple perspective, those powers granted to the legislature and judiciary are themselves taken out of context if section 1 and 11 are not taken into consideration.


That's one of the reasons that I try to provide the entire text of the pertinent statute when I'm presenting my argument.


I thought I had. Which paragraph did I miss that said "Just kidding!" about our right to bearing arms for security and self defense? I dead serious. I'm not trying to be an ass––I want to see where it says that the legislature can pass laws that violate the state constitution, and that the judiciary can interpret laws in an manner inconsistent with the constitution.


The Henderson Justice Court gets a lot of the CCPP tickets, and we have had several weapons violations of late, so I know they are still prosecuting and fining violators.

Be aware that if you choose to plead guilty and pay the fine, NRS 202.340 says that your firearm may be retained by the police.


I understand your perspective. You are a CCW instructor, and as such, it is your responsibility for your students to understand that if they violate the law, they are going to get hosed for it. And I have no doubt that what you say is true––Henderson PD, and probably other LEO's––are writing a lot of tickets for carry concealed weapons in parks.

What I was trying to say is, even if that is the reality of the situation––if you carry in the park, you will be ticketed, lose your gun, and pay hefty fines––is flat out unconstitutional even from the perspective of the state constitution.

It might be happening, but there does not appear to be any legal basis for it. I'll follow the law, but I sure don't like it and I sure as hell am going to question it.

-Caver
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 11:28:06 PM EDT
Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.
Thomas Jefferson
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 5:01:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Caver:

What I was trying to say is, even if that is the reality of the situation––if you carry in the park, you will be ticketed, lose your gun, and pay hefty fines––is flat out unconstitutional even from the perspective of the state constitution.

It might be happening, but there does not appear to be any legal basis for it. I'll follow the law, but I sure don't like it and I sure as hell am going to question it.

-Caver


It only becomes unconstitutional when an appeal is filed, and the case goes before the Nevada, or U.S. Supreme Court, and the courts rule it as such.

If you are cited for the misdemeanor crime of possessing a firearm in a park, you have to make the decision:

1.) Pay the fine, possibly relinquish the firearm, and get back to your life, or

2.) Plead not guilty, hire a lawyer (you don't qualify for a public defender since no jail time is involved), have a bench trial (no jury trial for misdemeanor offenses), be adjudicated guilty of the offense (the Supreme Court recently remanded a case where a JP dismissed it on constitutional grounds, so apparently only the NV Supreme Court may decide constitutional pleadings), have the case heard by the NV Supreme Court (more lawyer money), and then maybe have the case overturned. Good luck getting the ACLU or NRA to help you legally on that one.

Notice that nowhere did I say I agreed with any of this, but that's how it works. I only try to make sure that people understand the laws and their implications.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 3:51:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BallisticWoundTrauma:
Do I have a constitutional right to use a park when my taxes pay for it ??

They pay for city sidewalk..... I have the right to use it.....



You're confusing Right with Privilege. Parks and City infrastructure are Private Property (owned by the City). That's what gives them the authority to close venues to the public, charge for use, or have you trespassed from city property. They see use of their property as a revocable privilege, subject to their rules.
I ain't saying it's right or wrong, but that's the way they treat it.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 5:05:13 PM EDT
Sidewalks, street, etc. are also owned by the city. Just a thought
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 5:28:57 PM EDT
Many things are not what they seem, and I am learning some of this.  Now to find how to fix it.  That is the real problem.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:27:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RDP:
Sidewalks, street, etc. are also owned by the city. Just a thought


Its funny that when politicians get elected, they actually believe that its THERE property!

Top Top