-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Henderson handgun registration.
- Thread starter The Big Guy
- Start date
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Updated info on speaking at the council meeting:
I received an email from a forum member who went to the City Clerks office to inquire about speaking at the City Council meeting. He was told that he could not speak at the regular meeting but could speak to the City Attorney at the advisory meeting before the regular session. He persisted and was then guaranteed that he would be allowed to speak.
In going through the city web site, here is what I found including instructions on how to speak at the regular meeting.
Attending a Council meeting is an opportunity for residents to express their opinions, views and/or concerns to the City of Henderson's decision makers on issues that affect their quality of life. Anyone is allowed to speak to the Council during the Public Comment section of the agenda, regarding any subject, whether or not that subject matter is on the agenda.
And
Public comment will be taken on each agenda item as it is heard. If you desire to provide
public comment on an agenda item, please complete a yellow speaker card and submit it to
the City Clerk prior to the item being heard. Individuals speaking on an item will be limited to
three (3) minutes and spokespersons for a group will be limited to ten (10) minutes.
Hope to "hear" you there.
TBG
I received an email from a forum member who went to the City Clerks office to inquire about speaking at the City Council meeting. He was told that he could not speak at the regular meeting but could speak to the City Attorney at the advisory meeting before the regular session. He persisted and was then guaranteed that he would be allowed to speak.
In going through the city web site, here is what I found including instructions on how to speak at the regular meeting.
Attending a Council meeting is an opportunity for residents to express their opinions, views and/or concerns to the City of Henderson's decision makers on issues that affect their quality of life. Anyone is allowed to speak to the Council during the Public Comment section of the agenda, regarding any subject, whether or not that subject matter is on the agenda.
And
Public comment will be taken on each agenda item as it is heard. If you desire to provide
public comment on an agenda item, please complete a yellow speaker card and submit it to
the City Clerk prior to the item being heard. Individuals speaking on an item will be limited to
three (3) minutes and spokespersons for a group will be limited to ten (10) minutes.
Hope to "hear" you there.
TBG
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Email from City Attorney
The following is the most recent communication from Josh Reid, Henderson City Attorney regarding my opposition to Bill 2743.
I am preparing a reply. (Took me a while to quit banging my head against the wall but my head is clear now).
TBG
Mr. Low:
It’s nice to hear from you again, and I hope that you are well. Similar to our discussion a couple months ago, I would like to provide a response to some of your points below as I respectfully disagree that Bill No. 2743 violates the provisions in NRS 268.418. The City of Henderson has had a gun registration requirement via ordinance since 1954. It is true that the Nevada Legislature limited the ability of cities to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, ownership, transportation and registration of firearms in 1989 with one important exception found in NRS 268.418(3). NRS 268.418(3) allows for cities that have “required by ordinance or regulation adopted before June 13, 1989, the registration of a firearm capable of being concealed” to continue to require such registration.
As you have pointed out previously, in 2007 the Nevada Legislature added additional requirements to grandfathered City firearm registration ordinances in SB 92, including a 60 day residency requirement before registration is required. Bill No. 2743 makes changes to HMC 8.98 pursuant to SB 92, which have since been codified in NRS 268.418. As we discussed, Bill No. 2743 is part of the Henderson Municipal Code Project, which is a year long process to update our municipal code and assure compliance with state and federal laws. Even though the City is modifying HMC 8.98 several years after the effective date of SB 92, Section 5 of SB 92 specifically stated that any grandfathered city “regulation or ordinance that does not comply with the applicable provision by January 1, 2008, shall be deemed to conform with that provision by operation of law.” “Applicable provision” refers to the 60 day residency requirement before registration is required as well as the 72 hour registration requirement after the transfer of title found in Section 3 of SB 92. Accordingly, by the clear wording of both SB 92 and NRS 268.418(3), the City’s grandfathered firearm registration requirement found in HMC 8.98 remains in full effect whether or not it is modified by Bill No. 2743.
In your email below you also make the argument that because HMC 8.98 states that registration is made with the “chief of police” but the City of Henderson has used the Clark County Sheriff’s Office as its registration database that HMC 8.98 is invalid (even though firearm registrations are accepted at Henderson Police stations). It is very common for municipalities to use other local governments or agencies, even private companies, in the enforcement of municipal ordinances in order to reduce costs and redundancies in government. What is essential is that it is the City of Henderson that enforces HMC 8.98 through the Henderson Police Department, the Henderson City Attorney’s Office and the Henderson Municipal Court. The Clark County Sheriff’s Office does not and will not enforce HMC 8.98. NRS 268.418(3) states that in order for a city to have a valid firearm registration requirement the city must have “required by ordinance or regulation adopted before June 13, 1989, the registration of a firearm being capable of being concealed.” As I stated before, the City’s registration requirement was adopted by ordinance in 1954, and it does not matter whether the City outsources the City’s database for firearms registration, just that it is “required by ordinance” in the City.
It is also important to point out that even if the Henderson City Council votes not to pass Bill No. 2743 in order to amend HMC 8.98, the City of Henderson’s firearm registration requirement will still be in effect in HMC 8.98. Bill No. 2743 simply updates HMC 8.98. The change regarding registering with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office is for the ease of City residents, who will still be able to register their firearms at Henderson Police stations. The Sheriff’s Office cannot and will not enforce HMC 8.98 as that is the jurisdiction of the Henderson Police Department.
Please let me know if you have any additional comments or concerns. Your email will be included as part of the meeting record. Regards,
Josh M. Reid | City Attorney | City of Henderson
240 Water Street, PO Box 95050, MSC 144, Henderson NV 89009-5050
702-267-1200 | Fax: 702-267-1201 | josh.reid@cityofhenderson.com
Assistant: 702-267-1210 or cheryl.navitskis@cityofhenderson.com
Office Hours: Monday - Thursday 7:30a.m. to 5:30p.m.
The following is the most recent communication from Josh Reid, Henderson City Attorney regarding my opposition to Bill 2743.
I am preparing a reply. (Took me a while to quit banging my head against the wall but my head is clear now).
TBG
Mr. Low:
It’s nice to hear from you again, and I hope that you are well. Similar to our discussion a couple months ago, I would like to provide a response to some of your points below as I respectfully disagree that Bill No. 2743 violates the provisions in NRS 268.418. The City of Henderson has had a gun registration requirement via ordinance since 1954. It is true that the Nevada Legislature limited the ability of cities to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, ownership, transportation and registration of firearms in 1989 with one important exception found in NRS 268.418(3). NRS 268.418(3) allows for cities that have “required by ordinance or regulation adopted before June 13, 1989, the registration of a firearm capable of being concealed” to continue to require such registration.
As you have pointed out previously, in 2007 the Nevada Legislature added additional requirements to grandfathered City firearm registration ordinances in SB 92, including a 60 day residency requirement before registration is required. Bill No. 2743 makes changes to HMC 8.98 pursuant to SB 92, which have since been codified in NRS 268.418. As we discussed, Bill No. 2743 is part of the Henderson Municipal Code Project, which is a year long process to update our municipal code and assure compliance with state and federal laws. Even though the City is modifying HMC 8.98 several years after the effective date of SB 92, Section 5 of SB 92 specifically stated that any grandfathered city “regulation or ordinance that does not comply with the applicable provision by January 1, 2008, shall be deemed to conform with that provision by operation of law.” “Applicable provision” refers to the 60 day residency requirement before registration is required as well as the 72 hour registration requirement after the transfer of title found in Section 3 of SB 92. Accordingly, by the clear wording of both SB 92 and NRS 268.418(3), the City’s grandfathered firearm registration requirement found in HMC 8.98 remains in full effect whether or not it is modified by Bill No. 2743.
In your email below you also make the argument that because HMC 8.98 states that registration is made with the “chief of police” but the City of Henderson has used the Clark County Sheriff’s Office as its registration database that HMC 8.98 is invalid (even though firearm registrations are accepted at Henderson Police stations). It is very common for municipalities to use other local governments or agencies, even private companies, in the enforcement of municipal ordinances in order to reduce costs and redundancies in government. What is essential is that it is the City of Henderson that enforces HMC 8.98 through the Henderson Police Department, the Henderson City Attorney’s Office and the Henderson Municipal Court. The Clark County Sheriff’s Office does not and will not enforce HMC 8.98. NRS 268.418(3) states that in order for a city to have a valid firearm registration requirement the city must have “required by ordinance or regulation adopted before June 13, 1989, the registration of a firearm being capable of being concealed.” As I stated before, the City’s registration requirement was adopted by ordinance in 1954, and it does not matter whether the City outsources the City’s database for firearms registration, just that it is “required by ordinance” in the City.
It is also important to point out that even if the Henderson City Council votes not to pass Bill No. 2743 in order to amend HMC 8.98, the City of Henderson’s firearm registration requirement will still be in effect in HMC 8.98. Bill No. 2743 simply updates HMC 8.98. The change regarding registering with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office is for the ease of City residents, who will still be able to register their firearms at Henderson Police stations. The Sheriff’s Office cannot and will not enforce HMC 8.98 as that is the jurisdiction of the Henderson Police Department.
Please let me know if you have any additional comments or concerns. Your email will be included as part of the meeting record. Regards,
Josh M. Reid | City Attorney | City of Henderson
240 Water Street, PO Box 95050, MSC 144, Henderson NV 89009-5050
702-267-1200 | Fax: 702-267-1201 | josh.reid@cityofhenderson.com
Assistant: 702-267-1210 or cheryl.navitskis@cityofhenderson.com
Office Hours: Monday - Thursday 7:30a.m. to 5:30p.m.
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Response to Josh Reid
As promised, here is my response to the Henderson City Attorney's letter above.
TBG
Mr. Reid
It is interesting how you ignored most of my comments on Bill 2743. Much of 8.98 has been superseded by state statutes and therefore state law rules. In researching this response I found an additional state statute covering 8.98.020 per below. I would think under your Henderson Municipal Code Project, mentioned in your email, you would be interested in eliminating any codes that clearly have been superseded by state law. The point is, if it is covered and enforceable under NRS, why have it on the books in Henderson? Henderson Police are fully authorized to enforce state statutes.
8.98.010 - Concealed weapons prohibited except by permission. This is superseded by NRS 202.350(1d.3.) and 202.3657
8.98.020 – Police officers exempted. This is superseded by NRS 202.350 (4a.)
8.98.040 – Exchange of weapons to be registered. This is superseded by NRS 268.418(3b.)
8.98.050- Concealable weapons defined. This is superseded by NRS 268.418(3b.)
I agree unfortunately that 8.98.030 is valid under state preemption but only to the extent that it remains intact and unaltered and enforced as written. US Legal Dictionary defines grandfathered as meaning: “The term grandfather clause in its current application refers to a legislative provision that permits an exemption based upon a preexisting condition.” In order to remain grandfathered there can be no changes to the wording or meaning. If those words and or meanings are changed, the conditions mentioned no longer exist and that code no longer meets the definition and therefore is null and void. The only exception is to add the state mandated language concerning 60 days of residency and the 72 hour window.
If as you say the code is grandfathered under NRS 268.418 and enforceable, that the Chief of Police has the authority to outsource the running of the program, why is it you are now trying to change the wording of the code to authorize the Sheriff to run the program? One would think that if the code is valid as is, there would be no reason to attempt to change the wording by adding the following. (Except for the state imposed language referenced above.) Isn't this a waste of city time and resources?
In accordance with NRS 268.418, it is unlawful for any person with at least
sixty days of residency in the city to own or possess within the incorporated
area of the City, any pistol or other firearm capable of being concealed unless
the same has been registered with the Sheriff of Clark County within 72 hours
of such receipt of said pistol or firearm, whether obtained by purchase, gift or
any other transfer
As you are well aware there is absolutely no reference in NRS 268.418 to the “Sheriff of Clark County”. I can only assume that this is your attempt to try to cover the fact that there is no authority to outsource the running of the registration program to Metro.
You further state: “The change regarding registering with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office is for the ease of city residents, who will still be able to register their firearms at Henderson Police stations.” I’m confused. Are you saying that if this wording is not included in the code, citizens will no longer be able to register at a Henderson police station? Where would we then have to go to register with the Henderson Chief of Police per HMC 8.98.030?
Under my information request I asked for any written authorization, contract, code or agreement in place that allowed the Chief of Police to delegate this responsibility to Metro under 8.98.030. No such documentation was found per your office. The only thing provided was a cover letter from Metro saying they had signed a new mutual aid agreement with the City of Henderson. No copy of the contract was provided. This obviously did not cover my request and I believe was simply an attempt at misdirection. Even if there was a mention of the Sheriff taking responsibility for 8.98.030 for the city of Henderson it would be invalid as it is post preemption.
You state that “firearm registrations are accepted at the Henderson Police stations” indicating that somehow it makes it a Henderson Program. When I have registered my firearms at the Henderson police station I have done so on county forms under the Clark County registration program and was issued a county blue card in response. Would this mean then that if a non-resident of Henderson attempted to register at the Henderson police station that person would be turned away and not allowed to register because he/she is not a Henderson resident? What if someone living in Las Vegas, has a firearm registered with the county, decides to move to Henderson, would their gun not be registered under 8.98.030 because they did not register it at a Henderson police station? I have a handgun that was registered with Metro under blue card by the Las Vegas dealer I bought it from. Am I guilty under 8.98.030 because I did not take it to a Henderson police station to register it? The city of Las Vegas has a code that mandates that city residents must register under the county blue card program. This predates preemption. North Las Vegas has a similar code however it is unenforceable as its date is 2008 which of course is well past preemption.
You state: “the City of Henderson has used the Clark County Sheriff’s Office as its registration database”. If this is the case, my question would be if a Henderson Officer stopped someone with a Las Vegas address within the city of Henderson, found a firearm, they would not then be able to run a registration check on it as city law does not bind non-residents and so they would have no authority to check it. Is that correct? In light of that they would not be able to charge them under HMC 8.98.030, and as they have no authority to enforce other than Federal or State law and Henderson code they could not charge them under the Las Vegas code.
In past correspondence with your office A.C.A. Zentz told me that registration was done as a courtesy to the residents of Henderson so they would not have to go to a Metro station to register. This has also been referred to by other members of your office. He indicated that citizens of Henderson were required to register with the Sheriff under blue card and cited county ordinance. The one truly consistent thing about the correspondence that comes from your office is the inconsistency of the answers. I would be more than happy to supply you with a copy of that email if you don’t have it.
You further state: “It is very common for municipalities to use other local governments or agencies, even private companies, in the enforcement of municipal ordinances in order to reduce costs and redundancies in government. “ I can’t imagine that there is an example of this outsourcing regarding codes directed at individuals that can result in criminal charges against a citizen, i.e. police powers. Certainly not without an ordinance authorizing these powers and a contract. It is my belief, and I think quite obvious, that what you are attempting to do is legitimize 8.98.030 by using county registration to satisfy city code.
In the quote above you mention redundancies. So my question again is, why not get rid of city codes that are redundant to state law?
At no time did I imply that Metro would be enforcing Henderson Municipal Code. It is my belief that they have no authority to do so as even you have stated. I’m not sure where you came up with that.
Finally you state: “even if the Henderson City Council votes not to pass Bill No. 2743 in order to amend HMC 8.98, the City of Henderson’s firearm registration requirement will still be in effect in HMC 8.98. “ I’m sure that at some point in the future that will be tested in a court of law and it is my sincere belief that it will not hold up on several counts.
I find it sad that some people are so afraid of inanimate objects that they are eager to put in place and maintain laws that are completely ineffective and costly. 8.98.030 is a perfect example as over the past 60 years millions of firearms have been registered in Clark County at a cost of millions of dollars and county and city officials are still unable to point to examples of how these laws have solved any crimes or protected the people at large. If I remember correctly A.C.A Michael Oh told me that of the 160 arrests for violation of 8.98.030 since preemption in 2007 that they all were related to other criminal activities. Doesn’t this prove that only the law-abiding citizens obey laws and criminals don’t? Criminals are criminals by definition because they don’t obey laws. Law’s such as 8.98.030 are directed to those law-abiding citizens, not the criminal.
I would be very interested to hear just once any proponent of these laws who was able to articulate with reason and logic any benefit other than they make them feel good.
Regards
As promised, here is my response to the Henderson City Attorney's letter above.
TBG
Mr. Reid
It is interesting how you ignored most of my comments on Bill 2743. Much of 8.98 has been superseded by state statutes and therefore state law rules. In researching this response I found an additional state statute covering 8.98.020 per below. I would think under your Henderson Municipal Code Project, mentioned in your email, you would be interested in eliminating any codes that clearly have been superseded by state law. The point is, if it is covered and enforceable under NRS, why have it on the books in Henderson? Henderson Police are fully authorized to enforce state statutes.
8.98.010 - Concealed weapons prohibited except by permission. This is superseded by NRS 202.350(1d.3.) and 202.3657
8.98.020 – Police officers exempted. This is superseded by NRS 202.350 (4a.)
8.98.040 – Exchange of weapons to be registered. This is superseded by NRS 268.418(3b.)
8.98.050- Concealable weapons defined. This is superseded by NRS 268.418(3b.)
I agree unfortunately that 8.98.030 is valid under state preemption but only to the extent that it remains intact and unaltered and enforced as written. US Legal Dictionary defines grandfathered as meaning: “The term grandfather clause in its current application refers to a legislative provision that permits an exemption based upon a preexisting condition.” In order to remain grandfathered there can be no changes to the wording or meaning. If those words and or meanings are changed, the conditions mentioned no longer exist and that code no longer meets the definition and therefore is null and void. The only exception is to add the state mandated language concerning 60 days of residency and the 72 hour window.
If as you say the code is grandfathered under NRS 268.418 and enforceable, that the Chief of Police has the authority to outsource the running of the program, why is it you are now trying to change the wording of the code to authorize the Sheriff to run the program? One would think that if the code is valid as is, there would be no reason to attempt to change the wording by adding the following. (Except for the state imposed language referenced above.) Isn't this a waste of city time and resources?
In accordance with NRS 268.418, it is unlawful for any person with at least
sixty days of residency in the city to own or possess within the incorporated
area of the City, any pistol or other firearm capable of being concealed unless
the same has been registered with the Sheriff of Clark County within 72 hours
of such receipt of said pistol or firearm, whether obtained by purchase, gift or
any other transfer
As you are well aware there is absolutely no reference in NRS 268.418 to the “Sheriff of Clark County”. I can only assume that this is your attempt to try to cover the fact that there is no authority to outsource the running of the registration program to Metro.
You further state: “The change regarding registering with the Clark County Sheriff’s Office is for the ease of city residents, who will still be able to register their firearms at Henderson Police stations.” I’m confused. Are you saying that if this wording is not included in the code, citizens will no longer be able to register at a Henderson police station? Where would we then have to go to register with the Henderson Chief of Police per HMC 8.98.030?
Under my information request I asked for any written authorization, contract, code or agreement in place that allowed the Chief of Police to delegate this responsibility to Metro under 8.98.030. No such documentation was found per your office. The only thing provided was a cover letter from Metro saying they had signed a new mutual aid agreement with the City of Henderson. No copy of the contract was provided. This obviously did not cover my request and I believe was simply an attempt at misdirection. Even if there was a mention of the Sheriff taking responsibility for 8.98.030 for the city of Henderson it would be invalid as it is post preemption.
You state that “firearm registrations are accepted at the Henderson Police stations” indicating that somehow it makes it a Henderson Program. When I have registered my firearms at the Henderson police station I have done so on county forms under the Clark County registration program and was issued a county blue card in response. Would this mean then that if a non-resident of Henderson attempted to register at the Henderson police station that person would be turned away and not allowed to register because he/she is not a Henderson resident? What if someone living in Las Vegas, has a firearm registered with the county, decides to move to Henderson, would their gun not be registered under 8.98.030 because they did not register it at a Henderson police station? I have a handgun that was registered with Metro under blue card by the Las Vegas dealer I bought it from. Am I guilty under 8.98.030 because I did not take it to a Henderson police station to register it? The city of Las Vegas has a code that mandates that city residents must register under the county blue card program. This predates preemption. North Las Vegas has a similar code however it is unenforceable as its date is 2008 which of course is well past preemption.
You state: “the City of Henderson has used the Clark County Sheriff’s Office as its registration database”. If this is the case, my question would be if a Henderson Officer stopped someone with a Las Vegas address within the city of Henderson, found a firearm, they would not then be able to run a registration check on it as city law does not bind non-residents and so they would have no authority to check it. Is that correct? In light of that they would not be able to charge them under HMC 8.98.030, and as they have no authority to enforce other than Federal or State law and Henderson code they could not charge them under the Las Vegas code.
In past correspondence with your office A.C.A. Zentz told me that registration was done as a courtesy to the residents of Henderson so they would not have to go to a Metro station to register. This has also been referred to by other members of your office. He indicated that citizens of Henderson were required to register with the Sheriff under blue card and cited county ordinance. The one truly consistent thing about the correspondence that comes from your office is the inconsistency of the answers. I would be more than happy to supply you with a copy of that email if you don’t have it.
You further state: “It is very common for municipalities to use other local governments or agencies, even private companies, in the enforcement of municipal ordinances in order to reduce costs and redundancies in government. “ I can’t imagine that there is an example of this outsourcing regarding codes directed at individuals that can result in criminal charges against a citizen, i.e. police powers. Certainly not without an ordinance authorizing these powers and a contract. It is my belief, and I think quite obvious, that what you are attempting to do is legitimize 8.98.030 by using county registration to satisfy city code.
In the quote above you mention redundancies. So my question again is, why not get rid of city codes that are redundant to state law?
At no time did I imply that Metro would be enforcing Henderson Municipal Code. It is my belief that they have no authority to do so as even you have stated. I’m not sure where you came up with that.
Finally you state: “even if the Henderson City Council votes not to pass Bill No. 2743 in order to amend HMC 8.98, the City of Henderson’s firearm registration requirement will still be in effect in HMC 8.98. “ I’m sure that at some point in the future that will be tested in a court of law and it is my sincere belief that it will not hold up on several counts.
I find it sad that some people are so afraid of inanimate objects that they are eager to put in place and maintain laws that are completely ineffective and costly. 8.98.030 is a perfect example as over the past 60 years millions of firearms have been registered in Clark County at a cost of millions of dollars and county and city officials are still unable to point to examples of how these laws have solved any crimes or protected the people at large. If I remember correctly A.C.A Michael Oh told me that of the 160 arrests for violation of 8.98.030 since preemption in 2007 that they all were related to other criminal activities. Doesn’t this prove that only the law-abiding citizens obey laws and criminals don’t? Criminals are criminals by definition because they don’t obey laws. Law’s such as 8.98.030 are directed to those law-abiding citizens, not the criminal.
I would be very interested to hear just once any proponent of these laws who was able to articulate with reason and logic any benefit other than they make them feel good.
Regards
The Big Guy
Regular Member
That's exactly the tactic it took with his predecessor on the city building and park carry. Only took a year but I made them understand the issue wasn’t going away. Ditto on this one.
I’m not sure I’m going to change Reid’s mind, however my plan is to put doubt in the mayor, city manager and members of the city council’s minds about his legal advice which of course is faulty.
Try to make them fear large size legal problems down line.
Now what is desperately needed is a real big showing at Tuesday night’s city council meeting. Henderson residents, I’m not too proud to beg. Show up and speak. All you have
to do is fill out a card saying you want to speak before the meeting, get up there, give your name and address and then tell them you oppose Bill 2743. Give them a short reason, or not, doesn’t matter
because I think all the bases will be covered. Just tell them that you don’t make it a habit of attending council meetings but this Bill has made you mad enough to show up. Something like that. Pick something out of my letters if it suits you and just say you agree with it, or speak your own thoughts. The point is we need a big turnout. Drag like-minded family and friends there too. Kicking and screaming if need be.
I don’t mind carrying the load but in this case I need you to give up one evening to lend me a hand. I've got 3 years and hundreds of man hours invested in these issues and all I'm asking of you is to send and email and show up for this council meeting. (You see I will try to shame you into attending too.)
A short statement will be read on behalf of the NVFAC and I have some hope, though I’m not holding my breath, that the NRA/ILA will be there too. It was pretty short notice after all.
Thanks in advance.
TBG
Last edited:
28kfps
Regular Member
Goes without saying we pay our law enforcers and lawmakers income. This really puts the citizens who are expected to follow such laws at a disadvantage. Lawmakers and enforcers spend (just for the sake of argument) 40 hours a week paid with our tax dollars, at a desk oftentimes to hammer out bogus, entrenched, side tracking, patronizing, condescending, full of themselves and often dictating responses to correspondence, then go home to spend the rest of the day with their families. It is no wonder why so many less informed gun owners decided to just comply to the intimidation.
For most citizens they spend 40 hours a week of employment to bring in income to pay the taxes and provide for the home front then if having the ability and time spend their home time to battle in attempt to keep the lawmakers and enforcers inline.
I guess the only good part at least in this country as cumbersome as it is we are allowed to do battle.
Thanks TBG for being a part of the many open carry NV. push-back team. Wow the lawmakers likes acronyms. OCNPBT.
For most citizens they spend 40 hours a week of employment to bring in income to pay the taxes and provide for the home front then if having the ability and time spend their home time to battle in attempt to keep the lawmakers and enforcers inline.
I guess the only good part at least in this country as cumbersome as it is we are allowed to do battle.
Thanks TBG for being a part of the many open carry NV. push-back team. Wow the lawmakers likes acronyms. OCNPBT.
vegaspassat
Regular Member
Hey Big Guy, I am not a resident of Henderson but I'd like to attend this meeting if it isn't too late. Where and when is it again? Since I'm not a Henderson resident will I not be allowed to speak?
Last edited:
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Certainly attend. The more the better. No, I don't think you should speak. It would be like the Bloomberg gang (Mayors against gun violence) who lobbied in our last legislative session and tried to pass themselves off as Nevada folks. That is until it was discovered that they had city of NY email addresses. SAF and a couple other firearms rights groups are now going after them for using city of NY personnel and facilities to lobby here in NV. I hope the son of an illegitimate goat gets hung from the NY city hall door.
TBG
vegaspassat
Regular Member
Alright then. And this might be a dumb question but just to make sure - carry of firearms is not allowed right?
Excellent question! Open carry SHOULD be allowed, right? And doesn't Henderson allow it in police stations and other places with much greater respect for state law than Clark County or the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas?
The Big Guy
Regular Member
I've never been in council chambers but city hall is posted under NRS 202.3673 CC law and they know this only applies to CC not OC. It took me a year to get them to admit to that. I've carried in city hall many times and even in the secure City Attorney's office. It is posted no conceal carry per NRS 202.3673.
Now, having said that, I will not be OC at this council meeting. I've thought long and hard about it. I'm sure someone showing up with a firearm
would be new for them and I don't want to direct the focus away from the issue at hand. It is waaaay too important. The last thing we need at this meeting is for a stink to be raised over OC and make us look like people who are just out to make trouble. The time to push that issue is at a later date at a meeting having nothing to do with city firearms code.
I hope you will understand.
TBG
Dunezrunner
New member
I'm pretty sure they have metal detectors at the entrance to the room. Does this make the firearms not allowed?
usmcmustang
Regular Member
CONCEALED firearms.
The Big Guy
Regular Member
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Reid speaks
The following is link to the RJ and an interview with Josh Reid on City Bill No. 2743.
This should make you mad enough to show up...
TBG
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/g...-change-changes-city-handgun-registration-law
The following is link to the RJ and an interview with Josh Reid on City Bill No. 2743.
This should make you mad enough to show up...
TBG
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/g...-change-changes-city-handgun-registration-law
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Hot off the press, er, email...
I just received this email from Josh Reid, Henderson City Attorney.
Thank you for all the pressure you put on him, he felt it.
TBG
Mr. Low:
I hope that you are well. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I have asked that C-3 (Bill No. 2743 relating to handgun registration, etc.) be withdrawn from tonight’s agenda. This means that, after the Council approves the agenda for tonight’s meeting, the item will not be heard. This also means that the ordinance process would have to begin again if the bill, or any ordinance revision to 8.98, would have to be re-noticed for the public pursuant to the Nevada Open Meeting Law, re-read into title, and then heard and approved or denied, at a subsequent City Council meeting.
We appreciate your comments, and those of other interested parties, and we will take additional time to review those comments before any future changes are made to the ordinance. You should still feel free to come and speak about your issues and concerns during the public comment portions of tonight’s Council meeting, or any future Council meeting. Regards,
Josh M. Reid | City Attorney | City of Henderson
240 Water Street, PO Box 95050, MSC 144, Henderson NV 89009-5050
702-267-1200 | Fax: 702-267-1201 | josh.reid@cityofhenderson.com
Assistant: 702-267-1210 or cheryl.navitskis@cityofhenderson.com
Office Hours: Monday - Thursday 7:30a.m. to 5:30p.m.
I just received this email from Josh Reid, Henderson City Attorney.
Thank you for all the pressure you put on him, he felt it.
TBG
Mr. Low:
I hope that you are well. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I have asked that C-3 (Bill No. 2743 relating to handgun registration, etc.) be withdrawn from tonight’s agenda. This means that, after the Council approves the agenda for tonight’s meeting, the item will not be heard. This also means that the ordinance process would have to begin again if the bill, or any ordinance revision to 8.98, would have to be re-noticed for the public pursuant to the Nevada Open Meeting Law, re-read into title, and then heard and approved or denied, at a subsequent City Council meeting.
We appreciate your comments, and those of other interested parties, and we will take additional time to review those comments before any future changes are made to the ordinance. You should still feel free to come and speak about your issues and concerns during the public comment portions of tonight’s Council meeting, or any future Council meeting. Regards,
Josh M. Reid | City Attorney | City of Henderson
240 Water Street, PO Box 95050, MSC 144, Henderson NV 89009-5050
702-267-1200 | Fax: 702-267-1201 | josh.reid@cityofhenderson.com
Assistant: 702-267-1210 or cheryl.navitskis@cityofhenderson.com
Office Hours: Monday - Thursday 7:30a.m. to 5:30p.m.
Last edited:
usmcmustang
Regular Member
I just received this email from Josh Reid, Henderson City Attorney.
Thank you for all the pressure you put on him, he felt it.
TBG
Mr. Low:
I hope that you are well. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I have asked that C-3 (Bill No. 2743 relating to handgun registration, etc.) be withdrawn from tonight’s agenda. This means that, after the Council approves the agenda for tonight’s meeting, the item will not be heard. This also means that the ordinance process would have to begin again if the bill, or any ordinance revision to 8.98, would have to be re-noticed for the public pursuant to the Nevada Open Meeting Law, re-read into title, and then heard and approved or denied, at a subsequent City Council meeting.
We appreciate your comments, and those of other interested parties, and we will take additional time to review those comments before any future changes are made to the ordinance. You should still feel free to come and speak about your issues and concerns during the public comment portions of tonight’s Council meeting, or any future Council meeting. Regards,
Josh M. Reid | City Attorney | City of Henderson
240 Water Street, PO Box 95050, MSC 144, Henderson NV 89009-5050
702-267-1200 | Fax: 702-267-1201 | josh.reid@cityofhenderson.com
Assistant: 702-267-1210 or cheryl.navitskis@cityofhenderson.com
Office Hours: Monday - Thursday 7:30a.m. to 5:30p.m.
In effect then, the bill was defeated… and, the current city code will not be revised to either conform or not conform (either to the city’s interpretation of things or to what the state legislature really intended) to statewide preemption.
But, what does that do to how the current city code, visa vi statewide preemption, is or will be enforced by the city? Withdrawing the bill certainly doesn’t address that, does it? So, all things considered, “it’s deja vu all over again,” no? The city lives to fight another day; and in the meantime are the city cops, prosecutors, and judges going to go about their every-day “duties” none the wiser?
I do laud all the work you and others (spearheaded by you) accomplished with this. It was certainly a major feat, but I’m at a loss to determine how it changes things to bring the city in line with statewide preemption. Henderson and all the cities within Clark County simply want to make believe the state legislature somehow is WRONG about what they can and can’t do re: firearm registration, etc. That seems pretty obvious to me. And they will do whatever it takes – introduce a bill – withdraw a bill – make believe things do or don’t exist - to “have it their way.”
So… what now?
The Big Guy
Regular Member
When you do not have a proper defensive position you are left with 2 alternatives, retreat, or attack. They decided to sneak attack. We halted that and now the momentum is on our side. The victory was a small one all things considered but a victory all the same. There was no thought of making a positive change at this meeting as we had nothing on the agenda. Our entire strategy for tonight was to stop them and push them back. In this case status quo is a positive victory. There are plans to further our momentum and they will be revealed in time. Their position was weak and backing off showed that they knew it.
Do I think they may have something up their sleeve, yup, I'm sure they do.
TBG
The Big Guy
Regular Member
It's official
The bill was dropped in committee. It is dead.
I'd like to thank all of you who made the difference with your phone calls and emails. I'd also like to thank the NVFAC for their support as well. We made them feel the heat.
Now, the real work begins anew.
TBG
The bill was dropped in committee. It is dead.
I'd like to thank all of you who made the difference with your phone calls and emails. I'd also like to thank the NVFAC for their support as well. We made them feel the heat.
Now, the real work begins anew.
TBG