Henderson City Policy

[gmijackso]

If I'm following this correctly, the last reply from her before these two, was in December 2010. The Tuscon shooting was January 8 2011. To that, I wonder what her excuse is for ignoring you from December 9 to January 8, and also, on what planet does somebody get nearly 3 months of "grievance", or whatever she wishes to call it, for a family members co-worker being shot but not killed. Lets face it, that is the true extent of the connection and summation of the situation here.

Personally, I would take these letters, and move past the city Attorney at this point. This is pretty clear evidence that she is unable or unwilling to do her job for any of the reasons she lays out in her letters. I would bring it before the City Council and ask to have her removed from her position as she has become unable to perform several of the "Essential Functions" as laid out by the job description for which she was appointed. http://www.cityofhenderson.com/human_resources/docs/Class Specs/City Attorney.pdf

The planning calendar (http://www.cityofhenderson.com/city_clerk/meeting_schedule.php) suggest that the next City Council Meeting is 4/12/2011, which goes against their "rule" that they be on the first and third Tuesday of the month (that would have been 4/5/2011) probably worth calling to confirm. Perhaps you have time to get something on the Agenda. It apparently isn't posted until 3 days prior to the meeting, so perhaps it isn't finalized yet.

Good luck. I wish I still lived in Henderson and could put up a legitimate fight with you.

 

[The Big Guy]

If I'm following this correctly, the last reply from her before these two, was in December 2010. The Tuscon shooting was January 8 2011. To that, I wonder what her excuse is for ignoring you from December 9 to January 8, and also, on what planet does somebody get nearly 3 months of "grievance", or whatever she wishes to call it, for a family members co-worker being shot but not killed. Lets face it, that is the true extent of the connection and summation of the situation here.

Personally, I would take these letters, and move past the city Attorney at this point. This is pretty clear evidence that she is unable or unwilling to do her job for any of the reasons she lays out in her letters. I would bring it before the City Council and ask to have her removed from her position as she has become unable to perform several of the "Essential Functions" as laid out by the job description for which she was appointed. http://www.cityofhenderson.com/human_resources/docs/Class Specs/City Attorney.pdf

The planning calendar (http://www.cityofhenderson.com/city_clerk/meeting_schedule.php) suggest that the next City Council Meeting is 4/12/2011, which goes against their "rule" that they be on the first and third Tuesday of the month (that would have been 4/5/2011) probably worth calling to confirm. Perhaps you have time to get something on the Agenda. It apparently isn't posted until 3 days prior to the meeting, so perhaps it isn't finalized yet.

Good luck. I wish I still lived in Henderson and could put up a legitimate fight with you.

I have been considering asking to have at least a phone conversation with the City Manager if not a face to face. One of the problems is if she is deemed unable to do her job I would assume Mr Zentz the A.C. A. would take over and he has shown to be uninterested in this matter and uncaring as to the law. The reason for no contact from December to January was that she had said that A.C.A. Zentz who was out on leave until then and was the initial contact on the subject would be consulted upon his return. Read back through and you will see it. I have no idea at this point how long she was away. All I know is that her communications don't seem to be that of a seasoned attorney. As you are aware she communicates with pure emotion with no reference to the law. I have not decided yet if I should respond to her latest "Mommy" email, or move on. I'm leaning on moving on to other avenues.

TBG

 

[Vegassteve]

Here is the young mans blog. If his mom is as big a lib as he is, I can see a uphill fight for our rights.

http://tylerquillin.wordpress.com/

 

[phreak]

Move on and bravo.

 

[The Big Guy]

Here is the young mans blog. If his mom is as big a lib as he is, I can see a uphill fight for our rights.

http://tylerquillin.wordpress.com/

Here is the link to her background on the Henderson city web site:
http://www.cityofhenderson.com/city_managers/bios/city_attorney_meet_the_city_attorney.php

TBG

 

[Nevada carrier]

Write a letter to be State Bar of Nevada and include documentary evidence of ethical misconduct.

 

[jdholmes]

She's a lawyer? Wow...her arguments suck and her notes are unprofessional with typos all over the place...this is weird.

She doesn't get to talk to you as a mom - you contacted her as a professional, expecting her to do the job she is paid to do!

She has to know if you shared those correspondences with her higher ups that she would be in hot water.

Feels like you are close though! Awesome.

 

[The Big Guy]

Proposed letter to mayor and council members.

This is a draft of a letter I propose to send to Mayor Hafen and City Council members. (yes I know there are a couple of typos in it). Any comments before I finish it up and send it?


Mayor Andy A. Hafen
Council Member Gerri Schroder
Council Member Debra March
Council Member Kathleen Boutin
Council Member Steven D. Kirk
Henderson City Hall
P.O. Box 95050
Henderson, NV 89009-5050

Mayor and Council Members:

My wife and I have been residents of Henderson for 12 years. We own a home and raise our children here.
I operate an electronics business within the City of Henderson as well.

I have been in contact with the City Attorney’s office since June of 2010 regarding the city’s policy on the possession of firearms in city buildings and parks. This policy is in violation of state law as the State of Nevada has sole authority in this area. It has complete preemption excepting for the discharge of firearms within city limits. Please reference NRS 268.418 section 1 reads:

“Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the Legislature reserves for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, and no city may infringe upon those rights and powers. As used in this subsection, “firearm” means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.”

In doing business at City Hall I noticed a sign on the doors that prohibit the possession of firearms within the building. The sign references NRS 202.3673 which reads:

(b) A public building that has a metal detector at each public entrance or a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building, unless the permittee is not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subsection 4.

4. The provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 do not prohibit:

(a) A permittee who is a judge from carrying a concealed firearm in the courthouse or courtroom in which the judge presides or from authorizing a permittee to carry a concealed firearm while in the courtroom of the judge and while traveling to and from the courtroom of the judge.

(b) A permittee who is a prosecuting attorney of an agency or political subdivision of the United States or of this State from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of a public building.

(c) A permittee who is employed in the public building from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building.

(d) A permittee from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building if the permittee has received written permission from the person in control of the public building to carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of the public building.

As you can see, this law refers to Conceal Carry Permittees only and does in no way apply to those who open carry such as me. I am not aware of any Nevada law restricting the open carry of firearms in such public buildings. Neither has the City Attorney’s office been able to point to any.

I have also noticed signage in City Parks stating a no firearms policy. Again, this is in violation of NRS 268.418. The City Attorney’s office has not been able to come up with any state statute regarding this either. As you I’m sure are aware, if there is no specific law against it, it is legal. As there are no state
laws banning the open carry of firearms, and there are no statutes against carrying in
city buildings or parks, then it is indeed legal and localities may not regulate otherwise.

In 1995, the Attorney General of Nevada issued an opinion regarding preemption and noted that the state has ultimate power with regard to firearm regulation reserving only the discharge of firearms to local governments. It states that in all cases local ordinances are inferior to state law.

City Attorney Chet Adams of Sparks NV wrote the following:

The research conducted by this office indicates that the Nevada Legislature has preempted the ability of the City of Sparks to independently regulate the possession of firearms.
Accordingly, this office will take the appropriate steps to ensure that Sparks ordinances do not conflict with Nevada law.


Subsequent to this, the City of Sparks did indeed change it’s statutes and policies.

David R. Olsen, City Attorney, Boulder City, NV. wrote:

As the City Manager has correctly informed you, the Nevada Legislature took action a couple of years ago to preempt local government with regard to the regulation of firearms. The State has the final say on all areas of handgun ownership and use with one exception. The State Legislature has reserved to the local governments the authority to regulate the discharge of firearms. In all other respects (concealed weapon permits, open carry, etc.) the Legislature has sole authority. On that basis, it is no longer unlawful in Boulder City for a person who has an appropriate permit from the sheriff of their county of residence to carry a concealed weapon in Boulder City, the Boulder City Code notwithstanding. We are in the process of amending our code to exclusively address discharge of firearms within the City, but as to concealed or open carry, my office will not prosecute anyone for violating the old City Code.

Tom Jacobs, Chief Public Information Officer, Nevada Dept. of Motor Vehicles wrote this regarding a letter that had been sent to the State Department of Motor Vehicles concerning the same issue that I have written you about, in that local DMV offices had posted signs with a reference to NRS 202.3673. It was pointed out to them that this only covers permit holders and in no way limits the right of citizens to open carry. See the response below:

“You are correct. We are in the process of changing the signs.”

In addition there was lawsuit brought against the State of Nevada in which the A.G. Masto has now agreed not to enforce a prohibition against the carry of loaded firearms in state parks until such time as the state can take appropriate corrective action. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...da-state-park/. The federal government has lifted its prohibition against the carry of firearms in US parks bringing them in line with the state laws in which they are located.

It is my understanding that City Attorney Quillin has turned this matter over to the Mayor and Council. It is my intention to attend that meeting and my sincere hope that the Council will not ignore the law. The City Attorney has drug her feet on this matter and indeed responds emotionally to the issue rather than in the manner I would expect of an Attorney discussing a matter of law. It was said to me that if the Council does not follow state law, why would it expect citizens to follow local ordinances and policies? Makes sense to me.


TBG

 

[The Big Guy]

Further update.

I have sent the above letter to the Mayor and Council Members.

In addition Gun Owners of America has agreed to get involved in at least a small way and I thank them for that.

TBG

 

[The Big Guy]

NV Parks Update.

The old link to the story regarding A.G. Masto backing down on the carrying of loaded firearms in State Parks is gone. However there is a new link for the story carried in today's Sun.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/agreement-allows-loaded-firearms-nevada-state-park/

TBG

 

[The Big Guy]

Update

2 weeks and no reply from Mayor or City Council Members.

 

[The Big Guy]

New msg form Assistant City Attorney

Mr. xxx,

I have been asked to respond to your letter dated April 1, 2011. The City Attorney has scheduled a series of individual meetings with the Mayor and members of the City Council next week. The purpose of these meetings is to brief each of them on the issues you have raised and to present her proposed action. Based on the feedback received in those meetings the City Attorney will take appropriate action.

Robert Zentz
Assistant City Attorney
223 Lead Street, MSC 211
P.O. Box 95050
Henderson, NV 89009-5050
Telephone: (702) 267-1200 Fax: (702) 267- 5001


Note: City of Henderson case number efm 11-62261

TBG

 

[Nevada carrier]

Public meetings?

 

[The Big Guy]

Public meetings?

No, I take it to say individual meetings with each. But hey, at least we have a case number, whatever that is?

TBG

 

[Nevada carrier]

Nevada has an open meeting law, I would call or write them to find out if they are indeed going to be open or closed. If they are closed, I would ask them on what grounds they deem the meetings to be exempt from the open meeting statutes. One of the statutes specifically outlines the grounds for closing meeting from public attendance.

Whether or not these meetings are open or closed will often set the tone of the meeting. If it is closed it's tenner will be something on the order of, "How can we get around preemption." If open it could take on a whole different tone.

For what it's worth here is the AG's information concerning the Nevada Open Meeting Law (OML).

Nevada law provides for some exemptions from the requirements of the OML, such as judicial proceedings, certain proceedings of state and local ethics commissions, and meetings of the legislature and legislative committees.

There are also certain exceptions to the OML which allow a public body to temporarily close its meeting to the public. The OML permits a public body to close its meeting to consider a person's character, alleged misconduct, professional competence, or physical or mental health. Such a session, whether open or closed, cannot be held unless the subject of the meeting has been given written notice of the time and place of the meeting by certified mail at least 21 days prior to the meeting, or by personal service at least five days prior to the meeting, and cannot be held if the person is an elected member of a public body, or to discuss the appointment of any person to public office or as a member of a public body.

I believe that if the Mayor, City Attorney and City council are having a meeting, they must be made open to the public under this law. Secret meetings are contrary to liberty and due process; they are in direct conflict with the democratic process.

 

[The Big Guy]

Oml

I'm guessing that private meetings between City Officials in an office is not covered by the open meeting law. I'm sure that is why the C.A. is meeting with each individually and not in Council chambers. We are dealing with a matter of policy here and not a specific law that I'm aware of so I doubt that it really needs official Council action, could be wrong. I think the best thing to do is wait until they have had their little get togethers and see what they come up with. if it goes against us and it turns out they have violated OML, then I will have to deal with that then.
Thanks for the imput though, I will keep it in mind.

TBG

 

[Nevada carrier]

Who pays the city attorney's salary? The people! Who does she serve? The people! If the mayor and city council members want to have privileged conversations with an attorney, they need to hire one personally and pay for it out of their own pocket. So long as these city officials are on the people's payroll they don't get to keep secrets.

 

[stuckinchico]

Write a letter to be State Bar of Nevada and include documentary evidence of ethical misconduct.

+1000
This also the way to make sure judges that are not in line with the law. except its usually handled by a judicial review committee.

 

[Nevada carrier]

+1000
This also the way to make sure judges that are not in line with the law. except its usually handled by a judicial review committee.

Oddly enough, you do not need to be a lawyer or hold a license to practice law to become a judge. But yes, there is judicial oversight that can sanction unethical and/or illegal acts. I propose that judges face a "three strikes" rule. If they have three cases overturned on appeal they're thrown off the bench. also, I propose that if a judge is convicted of an illegal act that is a felony they automatically receive the maximum fine and prison term and forfeit any possibility of parole, early release or protective custody while in prison. This would be an effective deterrent.

 

[JoeSparky]

Oddly enough, you do not need to be a lawyer or hold a license to practice law to become a judge. But yes, there is judicial oversight that can sanction unethical and/or illegal acts. I propose that judges face a "three strikes" rule. If they have three cases overturned on appeal they're thrown off the bench. also, I propose that if a judge is convicted of an illegal act that is a felony they automatically receive the maximum fine and prison term and forfeit any possibility of parole, early release or protective custody while in prison. This would be an effective deterrent.

On general principles I object to any "special" law, penalty, benefit for any "special" class of person, or race, sexual orientation, employment, education level, and residential location.... It violates our Federal Equal Protection (Liability) under law in the Constitution!