PDA

View Full Version : NRA Files Suit Over Preemption Violation In Nevada


FirstFlight
08-06-2010, 9:48 AM
NRA Files Suit Over Preemption Violation in Nevada


Friday, August 06, 2010


Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association is backing a lawsuit filed against Clark County and the City of North Las Vegas in Nevada District Court. This lawsuit aims to defend the state’s firearms preemption law. NRA counsel filed suit on behalf of plaintiff David Hanes in the case Hanes v. Clark County and the City of North Las Vegas.

“The NRA is committed to defending firearms preemption laws in every state where they exist,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Law-abiding gun owners shouldn’t be subjected to different laws when they cross city or county lines. Nevada's statewide preemption law was designed to prohibit this from occurring.”

Nevada originally passed a preemption law in 1989, meaning that counties and municipalities cannot pass gun laws that are more restrictive than the state law. Some gun ordinances in some parts of the state were “grandfathered” in at that time. However, in 2007, Senate Bill 92 amended the preemption law, removing all grandfathered ordinances with the exception of a handgun registration ordinance.

Unfortunately, to this day, the City of North Las Vegas has failed to fully comply with the amended law. Currently, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal to do so across the state, anyone transporting a firearm through North Las Vegas is in violation of a city ordinance and could face prosecution. David Hanes, a permit holder who frequently hunts and makes trips to the Clark County Shooting Park, is in violation every time he leaves the state-of-the-art, multi-million dollar shooting facility.

“It’s a shame that the City of North Las Vegas has failed to comply with state law and has put so many law-abiding gun owners in jeopardy of a citation just for exercising their Second Amendment rights,” concluded Cox. “The NRA will see this through to ensure that Nevada has a meaningful, statewide firearms preemption law.”

--nra - pvf--



Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services.

ironpegasus
08-06-2010, 10:02 AM
Good that the NRA is finally going after North LV for this, bad that it took almost 3 years to get this challenged. Still, here's to progress!

Wherryj
08-06-2010, 10:03 AM
Elected officials who refuse to follow the law should be charged and imprisoned. That is what THEY do to us peons.

Maestro Pistolero
08-06-2010, 10:06 AM
I hope they are also going after Clark county for prohibiting CCWers and OCers in county parks. If a national park is not a sensitive place, I'm pretty sure Clark county parks aren't either. The County Supervisors abuse their powers to make rules in county parks by overstepping statewide pre-emption when they prohibit firearms carried by CCW permit holders.

jdberger
08-06-2010, 10:12 AM
Sorry - it's not clear here, but what is the law that's being challenged? (What law does North Las Vegas and Clark County have that is pre-empted?)

Also, is there a copy of the complaint available?

Maestro Pistolero
08-06-2010, 10:43 AM
From the ILA:
Currently, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal to do so across the state, anyone transporting a firearm through North Las Vegas is in violation of a city ordinance and could face prosecution. David Hanes, a permit holder who frequently hunts and makes trips to the Clark County Shooting Park, is in violation every time he leaves the state-of-the-art, multi-million dollar shooting facility.

I remember this ordinance, sorry don't have the number. It hasn't been enforced in years, but they have kept it on the books to use against gang members. But, 'gang member' status, not being in and of itself a legal category of prohibited persons, could be a matter of opinion.

The law needs to go. I just hope they look at the parks issue at the same time. All pre-emption except handgun registration was eliminated in 2007. That means the County can't make gun laws, even in it's parks.

Can someone make sure that the Clark County parks/CCW/OC issue is at least on the radar of the NRA/ILA? Gene, anyone? I called the NRA/ILA but they refused to even give a message to counsel. They took my number but informed me I wouldn't be called back. "He only speaks to attorneys", they said.

Maestro Pistolero
08-06-2010, 11:16 AM
Here it is:

http://library.municode.com/HTML/16023/level2/T9_C9.32.html#T9_C9.32_9.32.080

It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-06-2010, 1:10 PM
Here it is:

http://library.municode.com/HTML/16023/level2/T9_C9.32.html#T9_C9.32_9.32.080

It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.

Wow! That is a restrictive law! A near complete ban on transporting guns, period. (unless the fuzzy language of "legitimate sport or recreation is the trigger phrase for 'guns')

turbogg
08-06-2010, 1:19 PM
Wow! That is a restrictive law! A near complete ban on transporting guns, period. (unless the fuzzy language of "legitimate sport or recreation is the trigger phrase for 'guns')

Yeah, and who gets to interpret what is exceptable or not exceptable when you get pulled over with guns in your vehicle. Most likely the judge at your prelimunary hearing, after you've been arrested. Sad.

Flopper
08-06-2010, 1:26 PM
Wow! That is a restrictive law! A near complete ban on transporting guns, period. (unless the fuzzy language of "legitimate sport or recreation is the trigger phrase for 'guns')

Actually I don't think it sounds very restrictive at all since it exempts for (paraphrased) legal uses--which also seem redundant.

I'm actually very surprised that they're even filing this lawsuit since it seems as unenforceable as Berkeley's also pre-empted semi-auto ban (note: it doesn't say that the plaintiff was cited/arrested as a result of this statute).

jdberger
08-06-2010, 1:32 PM
Is it any suprise that North Vegas is the "black" area of town?

Maestro Pistolero
08-06-2010, 1:55 PM
Actually I don't think it sounds very restrictive at all since it exempts for (paraphrased) legal uses--which also seem redundant.

I'm actually very surprised that they're even filing this lawsuit since it seems as unenforceable as Berkeley's also pre-empted semi-auto ban (note: it doesn't say that the plaintiff was cited/arrested as a result of this statute).

It only exempts for sporting use. Fascinating how sporting use gets protection but self-defense does not. Understand that Nevada is a shall-issue, open-carry state. And it is not illegal to have a handgun concealed in your car, without a permit, as long as it isn't on your person. This law says you can't even have it IN your car.

So combine those facts with state pre-emption, and you have a law whose only use is to intimidate, seize weapons and arrest folks for protected, lawful behavior.

The fact that it isn't widely enforced is of no comfort. Think of the Maryland law which classifies videotaping police in course of their public service as wiretapping. It is unenforceable, but nevertheless people get arrested and their property is seized.

Laws which are preempted but not struck invite civil rights abuses by police who may use any tool at their disposal, no matter if the offense is actually chargeable or not.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
08-06-2010, 2:15 PM
I'm actually very surprised that they're even filing this lawsuit since it seems as unenforceable as Berkeley's also pre-empted semi-auto ban (note: it doesn't say that the plaintiff was cited/arrested as a result of this statute).

Sometimes there are reasons for challenging a law that are not apparent on the surface. As for Berkeley's ordinance, it is unenforceable now because the NRA and CRPA Foundation Local Action Project forced them to repeal it, which you can read about here: http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/california-law/83-california-proposed-municipal-ordinances/879-faced-with-nra-crpa-foundation-lawsuit-berkeley-repeals-ban-on-possession-of-certain-semi-automatic-rifles.html