vegaspassat
Regular Member
Pardon the pun, but doesn't this give us more ammunition for battling registration as a whole in our state?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
-
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
New email to mayor and council
The following is the email I just sent to Henderson officials. We have to keep up the pressure and momentum.
TBG
Mayor and Council Members
I was very glad to hear this bill was pulled from the agenda at last night’s meeting. I think it was a wise decision. I look forward to the city bringing codes into compliance with state law.
City codes 8.98.010, 20, 40 and 50 are in direct conflict with state law as these are covered under Nevada statutes. State laws trump city codes. Henderson police are fully authorized and charged with the responsibility to enforce those state laws. This being the case, they need to be removed. This does not impede police in doing their job as nothing really changes from a police powers standpoint.
As you might remember I pushed for the city to stop enforcement of city code 8.99.030(M), firearms in parks, starting back in June of 2010. The city finally agreed that it was in violation of state preemption and the signs in the parks were covered and there has been no enforcement since. I have been repeatedly promised that this code will be repealed. I think that in 2 years since the city stopped enforcement there should have been ample time to repeal this code. It is a simple matter. I ask you to please move to repeal it.
Another code in need of repeal is HMC 2.24.090(H)(I) Emergency measures to maintain peace and order. This city code is not only in direct conflict with state preemption as it was instituted in 1993, (preemption is before June 13[SUP]th[/SUP] of 1989), it is in conflict with NRS. 414.155 which says it is in violation of the U.S. 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment and Article 1 Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of NV. It must be repealed.
I mentioned in an email to City Attorney Josh Reid that nobody wants crime, but you know the old definition of insanity is doing the same thing over repeatedly and expecting a different
outcome each time. Registration is a prime example of that. It has been in existence for 60 years, has cost taxpayers of local Clark County governments millions of dollars to
run, registered millions of firearms, and county and city officials cannot point to any benefit from the program in all this time and for all this money. It is past time to unburden the law-abiding citizens of Henderson of this useless, expensive program. It was an idea that was tried and failed. At this point it is only a “feel good” solution.
I have pointed out that HMC 8.98.030 is grandfathered under sate preemption, however it must be enforced as currently written. There simply is no authority to substitute the county program.
To continue running the program the way it has been invites future litigation, and it will happen. In order to set up the program to register firearms and maintain the database according to current code would be prohibitively expensive for the City of Henderson. Again, for no real benefit.
Politically it makes no sense to fight removing these statutes as it tends to make a large portion of voting citizens angry for zero benefit with regard to public safety.
Please move quickly to repeal these outdated, illegal and useless codes.
Warmest regards.
The following is the email I just sent to Henderson officials. We have to keep up the pressure and momentum.
TBG
Mayor and Council Members
I was very glad to hear this bill was pulled from the agenda at last night’s meeting. I think it was a wise decision. I look forward to the city bringing codes into compliance with state law.
City codes 8.98.010, 20, 40 and 50 are in direct conflict with state law as these are covered under Nevada statutes. State laws trump city codes. Henderson police are fully authorized and charged with the responsibility to enforce those state laws. This being the case, they need to be removed. This does not impede police in doing their job as nothing really changes from a police powers standpoint.
As you might remember I pushed for the city to stop enforcement of city code 8.99.030(M), firearms in parks, starting back in June of 2010. The city finally agreed that it was in violation of state preemption and the signs in the parks were covered and there has been no enforcement since. I have been repeatedly promised that this code will be repealed. I think that in 2 years since the city stopped enforcement there should have been ample time to repeal this code. It is a simple matter. I ask you to please move to repeal it.
Another code in need of repeal is HMC 2.24.090(H)(I) Emergency measures to maintain peace and order. This city code is not only in direct conflict with state preemption as it was instituted in 1993, (preemption is before June 13[SUP]th[/SUP] of 1989), it is in conflict with NRS. 414.155 which says it is in violation of the U.S. 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment and Article 1 Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of NV. It must be repealed.
I mentioned in an email to City Attorney Josh Reid that nobody wants crime, but you know the old definition of insanity is doing the same thing over repeatedly and expecting a different
outcome each time. Registration is a prime example of that. It has been in existence for 60 years, has cost taxpayers of local Clark County governments millions of dollars to
run, registered millions of firearms, and county and city officials cannot point to any benefit from the program in all this time and for all this money. It is past time to unburden the law-abiding citizens of Henderson of this useless, expensive program. It was an idea that was tried and failed. At this point it is only a “feel good” solution.
I have pointed out that HMC 8.98.030 is grandfathered under sate preemption, however it must be enforced as currently written. There simply is no authority to substitute the county program.
To continue running the program the way it has been invites future litigation, and it will happen. In order to set up the program to register firearms and maintain the database according to current code would be prohibitively expensive for the City of Henderson. Again, for no real benefit.
Politically it makes no sense to fight removing these statutes as it tends to make a large portion of voting citizens angry for zero benefit with regard to public safety.
Please move quickly to repeal these outdated, illegal and useless codes.
Warmest regards.
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Time for more action.
As it is closing in on two months since our victory in getting the City of Henderson to drop its attempt to change the city registration ordinance, I am now ready to proceed in pushing the issue of getting rid of the code altogether. This may seem strange but what I have come up with is to make them want to abolish the code by making them enforce the code as is. They can't change it under preemption.
Here is my thinking.
Henderson Municipal code 8.98.030:
It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession a gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed without first having registered it with the chief of police.
(Ord. 67, § 3, 1954)
As has been discussed, nowhere in this code does it give the Chief the authority to delegate this duty to the Sheriff. Secondly it also does not grant the power to do a background check. It simply states you must let the Chief know you have a concealable firearm. Even if the Chief is authorized to outsource this duty, which I don’t believe he may, where does it give him the right to run a background check on me or my firearm? There simply are no procedures outlined under Henderson Code for the registration of concealable firearms. As such it is my belief that under law one must assign the ordinary meaning to the language in this code. Otherwise the code would have to outline specific definitions regarding the language which it does not do. Of course this only applies to private transfers as background checks are run via Brady for purchase from federally licensed dealers (serving two purposes, federal/county).
Under their current method of registration using the county, we are being compelled to go beyond the simple language of the code. We are being compelled to submit to a background check, to have our firearm checked and to automatically register with the county under blue card.
If you assign the ordinary meaning to the language of the code, firearms that I own and keep in another jurisdiction would still be required to be registered with the Henderson Chief of Police. If I borrow a firearm from a friend over in Pahrump, bring it into the jurisdiction, no matter for how short of a time, it would have to be registered with the Henderson Chief of Police.
This law also does not specify citizens of Henderson, it calls out “any person”. Under the plain language of this code people from Las Vegas or Reno or anyplace else who come into the jurisdiction with a concealable firearm must also register it with the Henderson Chief of Police.
In order to comply with the Henderson registration I would think that a simple letter to the Chief of Police stating that you own the firearm, with manufacturer, model and serial number would more than comply with the law. According to the plain language meaning of the law, you would be required to register it before you took possession.
If we can force the city to enforce the law as written I think we can get them to abolish it. If anyone who comes into the city with a firearm had to register with the chief of police, think of what it would do at the PD if they had a long line of Henderson residents and people from other jurisdictions waiting to register. If they were flooded with mail filings. No one, no matter where they are from, would legally be able to possess a firearm, owned, borrowed or rented within the Henderson jurisdiction "without first having registered it with the chief of police."
Of course they are not going to oblige us just by pointing out the problems with this law. This is why I am thinking that a Writ of Mandamus may be in order. I'm shaky on this but I am looking into it as an avenue.
Anyone with experience with writs or having other ideas, I would appreciate your input.
TBG
As it is closing in on two months since our victory in getting the City of Henderson to drop its attempt to change the city registration ordinance, I am now ready to proceed in pushing the issue of getting rid of the code altogether. This may seem strange but what I have come up with is to make them want to abolish the code by making them enforce the code as is. They can't change it under preemption.
Here is my thinking.
Henderson Municipal code 8.98.030:
It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession a gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed without first having registered it with the chief of police.
(Ord. 67, § 3, 1954)
As has been discussed, nowhere in this code does it give the Chief the authority to delegate this duty to the Sheriff. Secondly it also does not grant the power to do a background check. It simply states you must let the Chief know you have a concealable firearm. Even if the Chief is authorized to outsource this duty, which I don’t believe he may, where does it give him the right to run a background check on me or my firearm? There simply are no procedures outlined under Henderson Code for the registration of concealable firearms. As such it is my belief that under law one must assign the ordinary meaning to the language in this code. Otherwise the code would have to outline specific definitions regarding the language which it does not do. Of course this only applies to private transfers as background checks are run via Brady for purchase from federally licensed dealers (serving two purposes, federal/county).
Under their current method of registration using the county, we are being compelled to go beyond the simple language of the code. We are being compelled to submit to a background check, to have our firearm checked and to automatically register with the county under blue card.
If you assign the ordinary meaning to the language of the code, firearms that I own and keep in another jurisdiction would still be required to be registered with the Henderson Chief of Police. If I borrow a firearm from a friend over in Pahrump, bring it into the jurisdiction, no matter for how short of a time, it would have to be registered with the Henderson Chief of Police.
This law also does not specify citizens of Henderson, it calls out “any person”. Under the plain language of this code people from Las Vegas or Reno or anyplace else who come into the jurisdiction with a concealable firearm must also register it with the Henderson Chief of Police.
In order to comply with the Henderson registration I would think that a simple letter to the Chief of Police stating that you own the firearm, with manufacturer, model and serial number would more than comply with the law. According to the plain language meaning of the law, you would be required to register it before you took possession.
If we can force the city to enforce the law as written I think we can get them to abolish it. If anyone who comes into the city with a firearm had to register with the chief of police, think of what it would do at the PD if they had a long line of Henderson residents and people from other jurisdictions waiting to register. If they were flooded with mail filings. No one, no matter where they are from, would legally be able to possess a firearm, owned, borrowed or rented within the Henderson jurisdiction "without first having registered it with the chief of police."
Of course they are not going to oblige us just by pointing out the problems with this law. This is why I am thinking that a Writ of Mandamus may be in order. I'm shaky on this but I am looking into it as an avenue.
Anyone with experience with writs or having other ideas, I would appreciate your input.
TBG
JoeSparky
Centurion
So, a mailed in "registration" with a request for documentation from them that you have in fact complied with this Henderson City Requirement....
It seems that I need to make a ONE registration per envelope campaign for several firearms..... that is ALL that I own, possess, rent, or borrow to be in strict compliance with this ordinance.... May get to be a challenge especially, if anyone on this forum is willing to lend or borrow from other forum members.... (hinting, just a bit with some sarcasm).
I suspect that we could easily overwhelm them with such a campaign!
It seems that I need to make a ONE registration per envelope campaign for several firearms..... that is ALL that I own, possess, rent, or borrow to be in strict compliance with this ordinance.... May get to be a challenge especially, if anyone on this forum is willing to lend or borrow from other forum members.... (hinting, just a bit with some sarcasm).
I suspect that we could easily overwhelm them with such a campaign!
rpyne
Regular Member
A couple of things I noticed in the law. First, it doesn't say what information is required to register (unconstitutionally vague?). And second, it says they must be registered with the chief, not the department.
I would propose that we get thousands of people from all over (post in the general forums here and urge everyone to participate) to send letters to the chief, marked personal and confidential, stating that we have concealable firearms to register in case we ever visit Henderson, giving at most the make and model, and reminding him that the information is confidential for his use only as the law does not allow for registration with anyone else. Send them registered mail, deliver to addressee only, signature required. Make sure to demand he acknowledges the registration in writing.
If someone will post the name and mailing address for the chief, I'll start it off by sending separate letters for each of my concealable firearms, just in case I might take them with me on any trip where I might cross into the city limits of Henderson.
I would propose that we get thousands of people from all over (post in the general forums here and urge everyone to participate) to send letters to the chief, marked personal and confidential, stating that we have concealable firearms to register in case we ever visit Henderson, giving at most the make and model, and reminding him that the information is confidential for his use only as the law does not allow for registration with anyone else. Send them registered mail, deliver to addressee only, signature required. Make sure to demand he acknowledges the registration in writing.
If someone will post the name and mailing address for the chief, I'll start it off by sending separate letters for each of my concealable firearms, just in case I might take them with me on any trip where I might cross into the city limits of Henderson.
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Thanks to Joe Sparky and rpyne for the offer of help. I may just take you up on that soon. The first thing I want to do is contact the city attorney, mayor and council to let them have a chance to digest this.
By the way, Clark County Code 12.04.200 says:
It is unlawful for any person with at least sixty days of residency in the county to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a pistol or other firearm capable of being concealed, unless the same has first been registered with the sheriff or with a police department of any of the incorporated cities of Clark County.
For those who live in Clark County that means if you are registered in Henderson, you are good to go anywhere in the unincorporated area of Clark County as well. Since there is no requirements listed for registering with the Chief of Police of Henderson, there can't be background checks run. It does not say you have to be a resident of Henderson. As rpyne puts it, the law is constitutionally Vague.
TBG
By the way, Clark County Code 12.04.200 says:
It is unlawful for any person with at least sixty days of residency in the county to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a pistol or other firearm capable of being concealed, unless the same has first been registered with the sheriff or with a police department of any of the incorporated cities of Clark County.
For those who live in Clark County that means if you are registered in Henderson, you are good to go anywhere in the unincorporated area of Clark County as well. Since there is no requirements listed for registering with the Chief of Police of Henderson, there can't be background checks run. It does not say you have to be a resident of Henderson. As rpyne puts it, the law is constitutionally Vague.
TBG
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Hellow Josh, it's me again.
The following is the letter I have worked up to send to Henderson city officials. Think they are tired of me yet?
Please forgive the sloppy cut and paste. It is a work in process.
TBG
Mr. Reid
In further study with regard to firearms registration the following have come to my attention.
Henderson Municipal code 8.98.030:
It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession a gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed without first having registered it with the chief of police.
(Ord. 67, § 3, 1954)
As there are no definitions regarding this code, it must be read and interpreted using plain language.
The words “any person” are used in this code. Therefore using plain language, this code would apply to anyone residing in any jurisdiction that brings a firearm into the City of Henderson.
The code also states according to plain language interpretation that a person must register the firearm before taking ownership or possession.
The code would apply to all firearms in the possession of the person no matter if they are owned, borrowed or rented.
State statute preempts those portions of the code and says a person must be in the jurisdiction for 60 days, or a current resident has 72 hours to register after obtaining a new firearm that requires registration. The code therefore needs to be changed to reflect state law. This requires the striking of most of the code without the attempt to add other language to the code such as authorizing the county code to replace the city code as was attempted most recently with city Bill 2743. Under the grandfather clause of state preemption the meaning of the code may not be changed.
The term “own” in the code would be construed to mean ownership without regard to whether that firearm is kept within the jurisdiction or not.
You have mentioned on several occasions that it is common for cities to outsource certain functions. This may be true, however it does not give the Chief of Police the authority to replace a program that he alone is duty bound to maintain and enforce according to city code, with a program from another jurisdiction.
The Henderson code does not say that a person registering with another jurisdiction will meet the requirements of the Henderson code such as county ordinance 12.04.200 does. This county ordinance states that registration with the incorporated cities within Clark County meets county requirements. It also does not say that the Chief may cooperate with other jurisdictions with regard to registration as Clark County ordinance 12.04.110 gives the Sheriff the authority to cooperate with other jurisdictions and private dealers. The Sheriff can cooperate with other jurisdictions to register under blue card. This would be for those citizens of incorporated cities who wish to have their firearms registered for use in the unincorporated areas of the county, but the Henderson code does not give any other jurisdiction the authority to register for Henderson under HMC 08.98.030.
If the chief can legally outsource this function, and I believe he cannot according to the code, the administrator of the program is duty bound by city code to run it according to the clear plain language of that code.
Under Henderson’s current method of registration using the county, we are being compelled to go beyond the simple language of the code. We are being compelled to submit to a background check, to have our firearm checked and to automatically register with the county under blue card.
This code gives no authorization to force City of Henderson residents to register with another jurisdiction. In this case Clark County. Its plain language meaning is that we register with the Chief of Police. Further it does not authorize that a background check be run on the person registering. There is no authorization in the code for the serial number of the firearm to be traced. To do so would require probable cause to believe that the firearm is stolen property or has been used in a crime. This would require a warrant.
There are no requirements outlined within the code as to what registration includes, therefore it must be the minimum necessary to meet the plain language of the code. In this case I would say name, address, make and model would fulfill the requirement under the code.
There is no requirement under 8.98.030 that persons present themselves in person, nor bring the firearm with them such as County ordinance 12.04.110 requires of unincorporated county residents. In fact a registered letter addressed to the Chief notifying him of intent to register should suffice.
If your intention is to keep this code you must obey it to the letter of the plain language meaning and bring it into compliance with state law. The Henderson police must stop registering for Clark County ordinance 12.04.110 in place of HMC 8.98.030 and begin a registration process for the citizens of Henderson allowing them to comply with the law. The Henderson Police also need to stop enforcement of this code until that process is in place and all Henderson residents have had the opportunity to comply.
I assure you this issue is not going away until such time as this code is enforced as written, changed by state law or abolished.
The following is the letter I have worked up to send to Henderson city officials. Think they are tired of me yet?
Please forgive the sloppy cut and paste. It is a work in process.
TBG
Mr. Reid
In further study with regard to firearms registration the following have come to my attention.
Henderson Municipal code 8.98.030:
It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession a gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed without first having registered it with the chief of police.
(Ord. 67, § 3, 1954)
As there are no definitions regarding this code, it must be read and interpreted using plain language.
The words “any person” are used in this code. Therefore using plain language, this code would apply to anyone residing in any jurisdiction that brings a firearm into the City of Henderson.
The code also states according to plain language interpretation that a person must register the firearm before taking ownership or possession.
The code would apply to all firearms in the possession of the person no matter if they are owned, borrowed or rented.
State statute preempts those portions of the code and says a person must be in the jurisdiction for 60 days, or a current resident has 72 hours to register after obtaining a new firearm that requires registration. The code therefore needs to be changed to reflect state law. This requires the striking of most of the code without the attempt to add other language to the code such as authorizing the county code to replace the city code as was attempted most recently with city Bill 2743. Under the grandfather clause of state preemption the meaning of the code may not be changed.
The term “own” in the code would be construed to mean ownership without regard to whether that firearm is kept within the jurisdiction or not.
You have mentioned on several occasions that it is common for cities to outsource certain functions. This may be true, however it does not give the Chief of Police the authority to replace a program that he alone is duty bound to maintain and enforce according to city code, with a program from another jurisdiction.
The Henderson code does not say that a person registering with another jurisdiction will meet the requirements of the Henderson code such as county ordinance 12.04.200 does. This county ordinance states that registration with the incorporated cities within Clark County meets county requirements. It also does not say that the Chief may cooperate with other jurisdictions with regard to registration as Clark County ordinance 12.04.110 gives the Sheriff the authority to cooperate with other jurisdictions and private dealers. The Sheriff can cooperate with other jurisdictions to register under blue card. This would be for those citizens of incorporated cities who wish to have their firearms registered for use in the unincorporated areas of the county, but the Henderson code does not give any other jurisdiction the authority to register for Henderson under HMC 08.98.030.
If the chief can legally outsource this function, and I believe he cannot according to the code, the administrator of the program is duty bound by city code to run it according to the clear plain language of that code.
Under Henderson’s current method of registration using the county, we are being compelled to go beyond the simple language of the code. We are being compelled to submit to a background check, to have our firearm checked and to automatically register with the county under blue card.
This code gives no authorization to force City of Henderson residents to register with another jurisdiction. In this case Clark County. Its plain language meaning is that we register with the Chief of Police. Further it does not authorize that a background check be run on the person registering. There is no authorization in the code for the serial number of the firearm to be traced. To do so would require probable cause to believe that the firearm is stolen property or has been used in a crime. This would require a warrant.
There are no requirements outlined within the code as to what registration includes, therefore it must be the minimum necessary to meet the plain language of the code. In this case I would say name, address, make and model would fulfill the requirement under the code.
There is no requirement under 8.98.030 that persons present themselves in person, nor bring the firearm with them such as County ordinance 12.04.110 requires of unincorporated county residents. In fact a registered letter addressed to the Chief notifying him of intent to register should suffice.
If your intention is to keep this code you must obey it to the letter of the plain language meaning and bring it into compliance with state law. The Henderson police must stop registering for Clark County ordinance 12.04.110 in place of HMC 8.98.030 and begin a registration process for the citizens of Henderson allowing them to comply with the law. The Henderson Police also need to stop enforcement of this code until that process is in place and all Henderson residents have had the opportunity to comply.
I assure you this issue is not going away until such time as this code is enforced as written, changed by state law or abolished.
Last edited:
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Final draft, letter sent.
This is the final draft of the letter to Josh Reid and Henderson City officials. We shall see what response I get.
TBG
Mr. Reid
In further study with regard to firearms registration the following have come to my attention.
Henderson Municipal code 8.98.030:
It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession a gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed without first having registered it with the chief of police.
(Ord. 67, § 3, 1954)
As there are no definitions regarding this code, it must be read and interpreted using the plain language meaning.
The words “any person” are used in this code. Therefore using the plain language meaning this code would apply to anyone residing in any jurisdiction that brings a firearm into the City of Henderson regardless if said firearm is registered anyplace else.
The code also states according to plain language interpretation that a person must register the firearm before taking ownership or possession.
The code would apply to all firearms in the possession of the person no matter if they are owned, borrowed or rented.
State statute preempts those portions of the code and says a person must be in the jurisdiction for 60 days, or a current resident has 72 hours to register after obtaining a new firearm that requires registration. The code therefore needs to be changed to reflect state law. This requires the striking of most of the code without adding other language such as was attempted most recently with city Bill 2743. Under the grandfather clause of state preemption the meaning of the code may not be changed.
The term “own” in the code would be construed to mean ownership without regard to whether that firearm is kept within the jurisdiction or not. This of course would only apply to Henderson residents.
You have mentioned on several occasions that it is common for cities to outsource certain functions. This may be true, however it does not give the Chief of Police the authority to substitute a program that he alone is duty bound to maintain and enforce per city code, with an ordinance from another jurisdiction.
The Henderson code does not say registration with another jurisdiction will meet the requirements of the Henderson code such as county ordinance 12.04.200 does. This county ordinance states that registration with any of the incorporated cities within Clark County meets county requirements for registration. This would apply only to the City of Henderson as it is the only incorporated city with such a code. The language of the Las Vegas City Code does say that Las Vegas residents must register with the County Sheriff and this precedes preemption. The Henderson code has no such language.
It also does not say the Chief may cooperate with other jurisdictions with regard to registration as Clark County ordinance 12.04.110 gives the Sheriff the authority to cooperate with other jurisdictions and private dealers. The Sheriff can cooperate with other jurisdictions to register under blue card but he cannot force them to. This would be for those citizens of incorporated cities who wish to have their firearms registered for use in the unincorporated areas of the county per Clark County Code 12.04.200. The Henderson code does not give any other jurisdiction the authority to register for Henderson under HMC 08.98.030.
If the chief can legally outsource this function, and I believe he cannot with regard to the plain language meaning of the code, the administrator of the program would be duty bound to run it according to the clear plain language meaning of the code.
Under Henderson’s current method of registration using the county, we are being compelled to go beyond the simple language of the code. We are being compelled to submit to a background check, to have our firearm traced and to automatically register with the county under blue card. This code gives no authorization to force City of Henderson residents to register with another jurisdiction. In this case Clark County. Its plain language meaning is that we register with the Chief of Police. Further it does not authorize that a background check be run on the person registering. There is no authorization in the code for the serial number of the firearm to be traced. To do so would require probable cause to believe that the firearm is stolen property or has been used in a crime. I believe this would require a warrant.
There are no requirements outlined within the code as to what the process of registration includes, therefore it must be the minimum necessary to meet the plain language meaning of the code. In this case it might include the name and address of the owner, along with make, model and serial number of the firearm.
There is no requirement under 8.98.030 that persons present themselves in person, nor bring the firearm with them such as County ordinance 12.04.110 requires of unincorporated county and Las Vegas residents. In fact a registered letter addressed to the Chief notifying him of intent to register should suffice.
If your intention is to keep this code you must obey it to the letter of the plain language meaning and bring it into compliance with state law. The Henderson police must stop registering for Clark County ordinance 12.04.110 in place of HMC 8.98.030 and begin a registration process for the citizens of Henderson allowing them to comply with city code. The Henderson Police also need to stop enforcement of this code until that process is in place and all Henderson residents have had the opportunity to register under 8.98.030.
Henderson residents need to be informed that under county law a Henderson registration is accepted within the unincorporated areas of the county, but the blue card program is not valid in the City of Henderson. Of course residents of all other areas of the county would not be required to be registered in order to possess a firearm within the incorporated areas of the City of Henderson as it would not meet state law.
I assure you this issue is not going away until such time as this code is enforced as written, changed by state law, abolished by the Henderson City Council, or overturned by a court.
Sincerely
Jon T. (Tim) Low
CC: Mayor Hafen; Council Member Schroder; Council Member March; Council Member Marz;
Council Member Bateman; City Manager Snow; Pres. NVFAC Turner; VP Legislative Div
NVFAC Mackie; NRA State Liaison Reid.
This is the final draft of the letter to Josh Reid and Henderson City officials. We shall see what response I get.
TBG
Mr. Reid
In further study with regard to firearms registration the following have come to my attention.
Henderson Municipal code 8.98.030:
It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession a gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed without first having registered it with the chief of police.
(Ord. 67, § 3, 1954)
As there are no definitions regarding this code, it must be read and interpreted using the plain language meaning.
The words “any person” are used in this code. Therefore using the plain language meaning this code would apply to anyone residing in any jurisdiction that brings a firearm into the City of Henderson regardless if said firearm is registered anyplace else.
The code also states according to plain language interpretation that a person must register the firearm before taking ownership or possession.
The code would apply to all firearms in the possession of the person no matter if they are owned, borrowed or rented.
State statute preempts those portions of the code and says a person must be in the jurisdiction for 60 days, or a current resident has 72 hours to register after obtaining a new firearm that requires registration. The code therefore needs to be changed to reflect state law. This requires the striking of most of the code without adding other language such as was attempted most recently with city Bill 2743. Under the grandfather clause of state preemption the meaning of the code may not be changed.
The term “own” in the code would be construed to mean ownership without regard to whether that firearm is kept within the jurisdiction or not. This of course would only apply to Henderson residents.
You have mentioned on several occasions that it is common for cities to outsource certain functions. This may be true, however it does not give the Chief of Police the authority to substitute a program that he alone is duty bound to maintain and enforce per city code, with an ordinance from another jurisdiction.
The Henderson code does not say registration with another jurisdiction will meet the requirements of the Henderson code such as county ordinance 12.04.200 does. This county ordinance states that registration with any of the incorporated cities within Clark County meets county requirements for registration. This would apply only to the City of Henderson as it is the only incorporated city with such a code. The language of the Las Vegas City Code does say that Las Vegas residents must register with the County Sheriff and this precedes preemption. The Henderson code has no such language.
It also does not say the Chief may cooperate with other jurisdictions with regard to registration as Clark County ordinance 12.04.110 gives the Sheriff the authority to cooperate with other jurisdictions and private dealers. The Sheriff can cooperate with other jurisdictions to register under blue card but he cannot force them to. This would be for those citizens of incorporated cities who wish to have their firearms registered for use in the unincorporated areas of the county per Clark County Code 12.04.200. The Henderson code does not give any other jurisdiction the authority to register for Henderson under HMC 08.98.030.
If the chief can legally outsource this function, and I believe he cannot with regard to the plain language meaning of the code, the administrator of the program would be duty bound to run it according to the clear plain language meaning of the code.
Under Henderson’s current method of registration using the county, we are being compelled to go beyond the simple language of the code. We are being compelled to submit to a background check, to have our firearm traced and to automatically register with the county under blue card. This code gives no authorization to force City of Henderson residents to register with another jurisdiction. In this case Clark County. Its plain language meaning is that we register with the Chief of Police. Further it does not authorize that a background check be run on the person registering. There is no authorization in the code for the serial number of the firearm to be traced. To do so would require probable cause to believe that the firearm is stolen property or has been used in a crime. I believe this would require a warrant.
There are no requirements outlined within the code as to what the process of registration includes, therefore it must be the minimum necessary to meet the plain language meaning of the code. In this case it might include the name and address of the owner, along with make, model and serial number of the firearm.
There is no requirement under 8.98.030 that persons present themselves in person, nor bring the firearm with them such as County ordinance 12.04.110 requires of unincorporated county and Las Vegas residents. In fact a registered letter addressed to the Chief notifying him of intent to register should suffice.
If your intention is to keep this code you must obey it to the letter of the plain language meaning and bring it into compliance with state law. The Henderson police must stop registering for Clark County ordinance 12.04.110 in place of HMC 8.98.030 and begin a registration process for the citizens of Henderson allowing them to comply with city code. The Henderson Police also need to stop enforcement of this code until that process is in place and all Henderson residents have had the opportunity to register under 8.98.030.
Henderson residents need to be informed that under county law a Henderson registration is accepted within the unincorporated areas of the county, but the blue card program is not valid in the City of Henderson. Of course residents of all other areas of the county would not be required to be registered in order to possess a firearm within the incorporated areas of the City of Henderson as it would not meet state law.
I assure you this issue is not going away until such time as this code is enforced as written, changed by state law, abolished by the Henderson City Council, or overturned by a court.
Sincerely
Jon T. (Tim) Low
CC: Mayor Hafen; Council Member Schroder; Council Member March; Council Member Marz;
Council Member Bateman; City Manager Snow; Pres. NVFAC Turner; VP Legislative Div
NVFAC Mackie; NRA State Liaison Reid.
Last edited:
JoeSparky
Centurion
I agree....
And, I can send my registered LETTERS even though NOT A RESIDENT OF NEVADA OR HENDERSON once I get a complete list of all firearms that I currently own, may borrow at any time in the future, or may acquire. Seems though that I'll need a complete serial number list of all currently existing firearms and those they may produce in the future from ALL US firearm manufacturers or importers to comply with this Henderson ordinance BEFORE I obtain the firearm or enter the City limits of Henderson!
The Big Guy
Regular Member
I very much appreciate your support but what we are going to have to do is get Henderson residents to register by mail, (flood them). You are covered by state preemption mandated language unless you are either moving here, or are going to be in the jurisdiction for more than 60 days.
Either way I don't want to do anything until my demand letter is answered. I'm tingly with anticipation awaiting the response.
TBG
JoeSparky
Centurion
Understood, and I may be awhile getting my list all gathered--- first a list of all firearms manufactures/importers, then the complete serial number listing for all firearms that HAVE BEEN produced and will be produced in the future Cuz I can't tell right now what firearms I may EVER own, possess, borrow, or acquire in the future. LOL
Just imagine a list like that from EVERY person active on this forum all arriving at the desk of the Henderson Chief of Police on the same day!
FallonJeeper
Regular Member
This just in from Chicago:
Chicago abolishes gun registry in place since 1968
http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-abolishes-gun-register-place-since-1968-191119536.html
Chicago abolishes gun registry in place since 1968
http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-abolishes-gun-register-place-since-1968-191119536.html
The Big Guy
Regular Member
2 weeks
No answer yet...
TBG
No answer yet...
TBG
Turbod'1
Regular Member
Was hoping for more when I saw this thread "updated".
Also, when are we do the tour?
The Big Guy
Regular Member
Update
As it has been about 2 months now since my last letter to Henderson City Officials with no response. I can assume at this point that they have no desire to continue with this issue.
I have been in contact with one of the major national firearms rights groups and they are showing initial interest in helping with the cause. I had a very long talk with them. This group has a history of taking on issues such as this and fighting them all the way to SCOTUS.
For those in Vegas I also mentioned to them about your city council abolishing the ordinance with regard to carry of firearms in city parks and replacing it with a new ordinance in violation of state preemption. They seemed interested in this as well.
Chippin' away...
They will start their initial investigation next Tuesday.
More as it develops.
As it has been about 2 months now since my last letter to Henderson City Officials with no response. I can assume at this point that they have no desire to continue with this issue.
I have been in contact with one of the major national firearms rights groups and they are showing initial interest in helping with the cause. I had a very long talk with them. This group has a history of taking on issues such as this and fighting them all the way to SCOTUS.
For those in Vegas I also mentioned to them about your city council abolishing the ordinance with regard to carry of firearms in city parks and replacing it with a new ordinance in violation of state preemption. They seemed interested in this as well.
Chippin' away...
They will start their initial investigation next Tuesday.
More as it develops.
Last edited:
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
Nice job!