Henderson City Policy

[Difdi]

The signs at Henderson City Hall still were not changed last I looked. I have written the city to ask when it will be done. It has now been over 3 months since I got word that they would acquiesce to the law. I await the response and will share it when I get it.

I have been there several times now with no issues. I speculate that even though they are not enforcing the wording of the current sign, they left it there as a bluff to those who don't know the story.

Things like this cause me to ponder the legality of taking a bit of correction tape (a similar product to white-out) and "correcting" the signage. Is it defacing city property if the sign is illegal?

 

[JoeSparky]

Things like this cause me to ponder the legality of taking a bit of correction tape (a similar product to white-out) and "correcting" the signage. Is it defacing city property if the sign is illegal?

Is correcting an ERROR defacing?

 

[DVC]

Is correcting an ERROR defacing?

Correcting an error isn't DEFACING, it's DIVORCING . . !

 

[MAC702]

... I speculate that even though they are not enforcing the wording of the current sign, they left it there as a bluff to those who don't know the story.

So if we are harassed by ignorant cops or other citizens because of such signage, we have a harassment lawsuit against the city for knowingly lying to all who can view the sign and think we are therefore law-breakers. In fact, I am personally offended if someone even THINKS I am a law-breaker because of such signage. It is not only a personal affront, but one against us all as it makes us out to be purposely throwing our weight around by carrying a firearm, when it is the local government that is, indeed, the law-breaker, and arrogantly so.

 

[The Big Guy]

Update

It has come to my attention that even though the city of Henderson is no longer enforcing city ordinances that are not in compliance with state law, and they have changed signage and copy on their web pages, they have not directly changed the codes. I was promised last november that the attorney for the parks department was working on getting 8.99.030M deleted or changed to conform, it does not look like it has been.

In my search of city law and in consultation with Don Turner of NVFAC, there seems to be several laws, though not enforced, are still on the books that are in violation of preemption and SB92. I will be in contact with the city attorney's office regarding this, or directly with the Mayor and Council.

I agree with Don that these ordinances that were supposed to be removed under preemption should be removed as to prevent the city from trying to reinstate them at a later date.

TBG

 

[The Big Guy]

City Parks Code

Brandon P. Kemble, Assistant City Attorney has asked that I call him regarding this issue next week.

TBG

 

[The Big Guy]

New email from A.C.A. Zentz.

I received this email this morning. I think this is a good sign. I will be contacting them regarding several other ordinances that need to be removed. Hoping to do this in cooperation with NVFAC and have asked the association's opinion on which to key in on.

TBG


Mr. Low,

I appreciate your concerns regarding HMC 8.99.030(M). I can tell you that City Attorney Josh Reid has directed the attorneys to conduct a comprehensive review of the Henderson Municipal Code during this fiscal year. The attorneys will where necessary make recommendations for the revision, deletion or addition of sections to the City Council. During this process HMC 8.99.030(M) will be addressed. While this project will take time we will diligently work toward meeting his stated goal.

Robert Zentz
Assistant City Attorney
240 Water Street, MSC 144
P.O. Box 95050
Henderson, NV 89009-5050
Telephone: (702) 267-1200 Fax: (702) 267- 5001
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic transmission and any accompanying document contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this electronic transmission was sent as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this electronic transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you.

 

[Jay Jacobs]

I received this email this morning. I think this is a good sign...

My compliments on what appears to be a well run and effective campaign on your part to correct some City errors.

I usually travel to Henderson a couple times a year. My Georgia CC permit isn't honored in NV. So OC is my only option when there.

Thanks for your efforts.

 

[The Big Guy]

My compliments on what appears to be a well run and effective campaign on your part to correct some City errors.

I usually travel to Henderson a couple times a year. My Georgia CC permit isn't honored in NV. So OC is my only option when there.

Thanks for your efforts.

Henderson is pretty much open now with them not enforcing what they still have on the books. You can carry in city buildings and the parks. Just trying to do a mop up and get the i's dotted.

We welcome you and your money anytime to the City of Henderson.

TBG

 

[levernut]

Congratulations!

I've been a serial lurker on this forum for about five years now, but just picked up on this thread today. I had to surface to congratulate you on your success and thank you for your efforts. Well done!

Henderson is pretty much open now with them not enforcing what they still have on the books. You can carry in city buildings and the parks. Just trying to do a mop up and get the i's dotted.

We welcome you and your money anytime to the City of Henderson.

TBG

 

[The Big Guy]

I feel another letter to the city attorney coming on.

It looks like Henderson is still enforcing 8.98.030, concealed firearms which as you know states:
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)


Phinney, Darrell Blake, was arrested in Henderson on 05/21/12 for among other things 8.98.030 the Henderson code for unregistered concealable firearms.

Watkins Iii, Robert Allen, was arrested in Henderson on 04/06/12 for among other things 8098.030 the Henderson code for unregistered concealable firearms.


My questions (which I will be asking the City attorney):

1. As Henderson Municipal code 8.98.030 is still being enforced as shown by recent arrest records, when did the City of Henderson stop registering concealable firearms in favor of county registration?
2. As the ordinance clearly states the registration must be with the Chief of Police, and I am told by acting Captain Dane Mattoon that the Henderson Police keep no record of the “Blue Card” registration that they conduct on behalf of the county, that all registrations are forwarded to Metro, under what authority has the Chief abrogated his duty under this ordinance to the county?
3. Under what authority, as an incorporated city within Clark County, can the Henderson Police carry out county registration?
4. As there is no means for registering with the Chief of Police as is called out in 8.98.030, how can this ordinance be enforced?
5. State preemption provides that a resident of this county who falls under registration will have 72 hours to comply. How can 8.98.030 be valid as it has no provision for the grace period?
6. SB-92 was passed and went into force in 2007 and brought all firearms laws under state authority except Clark County registration. The city was given a limited time to comply by bringing their ordinances in compliance. Ultimately how can this ordinance still be on the books and enforced?

TBG

 

[Dunezrunner]

How do the cities rec centers apply to this? What if they have a daycare inside of it?

 

[The Big Guy]

How do the cities rec centers apply to this? What if they have a daycare inside of it?

State statutes are very clear that you may not carry upon the grounds of licensed day care centers. I would think however that it would only apply to that protion of the facility that is set aside as a licensed day care center.

TBG

 

[Dunezrunner]

Here's the delemma. An open carrier at one of Hendersons Rec centers was asked to leave as they had a sign saying he could not be in there. They walked the OC'er to the front door and show them the No Concealed carry sign. It was pointed out that they were not concealed carrying and that they were legal in a government building to open carry. The OC'er went back to the practice being attended. 10 mins later the staff approached the OC'er and said they talked with the City attorney and the reason the Open Carry was not allowed was due to the Rec center having a daycare inside the facility.

I searched the statues for the OC'er and only found what TBG stated and feel that the rec center should allow the OC to occur and only has grounds to deny it at the actual daycare room. There are no signs stating that the rec center had a daycare and no other reason to no allow the OC to be allowed.

Can anyone point me in the right direction to verify this and/or what should be done to remedy this problem.

thanks

Thomas

 

[Yard Sale]

NRS 202.265
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not carry or possess while on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or child care facility


I can't find any case law on it, so I guess it means carrying at a place that has a child care facility is OK, but carrying at a child care facility is not.

 

[ravir3511]

From what I could find

It would seem that The Big Guy is correct. While the following quote applies to concealed carry, it would indicate that the definitions are applicable for possession (OC/CC) as well

NRS 202.3673 Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building; exceptions; penalty.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a permittee may carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of any public building.

2. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of a public building that is located on the property of a public airport.

3. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of:

(a) A public building that is located on the property of a public school or a child care facility or the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, unless the permittee has obtained written permission to carry a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subparagraph (3) of paragraph (a) of subsection 3 of NRS 202.265.

(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.

5. A person who violates subsection 2 or 3 is guilty of a misdemeanor.

6. As used in this section:

(a) “Child care facility” has the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (a) of subsection 5 of NRS 202.265.

(b) “Public building” means any building or office space occupied by:

(1) Any component of the Nevada System of Higher Education and used for any purpose related to the System; or

(2) The Federal Government, the State of Nevada or any county, city, school district or other political subdivision of the State of Nevada and used for any public purpose.

If only part of the building is occupied by an entity described in this subsection, the term means only that portion of the building which is so occupied.

 

[FallonJeeper]

NRS 202.3673 references NRS 202.265, which I pasted below.

I would hope your bolded text would apply to both NRS, since one refers to the other.

NRS 202.265 Possession of dangerous weapon on property or in vehicle of school or child care facility; penalty; exceptions.

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not carry or possess while on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or child care facility, or while in a vehicle of a private or public school or child care facility:

(a) An explosive or incendiary device;

(b) A dirk, dagger or switchblade knife;

(c) A nunchaku or trefoil;

(d) A blackjack or billy club or metal knuckles;

(e) A pistol, revolver or other firearm; or

(f) Any device used to mark any part of a person with paint or any other substance.

2. Any person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

3. This section does not prohibit the possession of a weapon listed in subsection 1 on the property of:

(a) A private or public school or child care facility by a:

(1) Peace officer;

(2) School security guard; or

(3) Person having written permission from the president of a branch or facility of the Nevada System of Higher Education or the principal of the school or the person designated by a child care facility to give permission to carry or possess the weapon.

(b) A child care facility which is located at or in the home of a natural person by the person who owns or operates the facility so long as the person resides in the home and the person complies with any laws governing the possession of such a weapon.

4. The provisions of this section apply to a child care facility located at or in the home of a natural person only during the normal hours of business of the facility.

5. For the purposes of this section:

(a) “Child care facility” means any child care facility that is licensed pursuant to chapter 432A of NRS or licensed by a city or county.

(b) “Firearm” includes any device from which a metallic projectile, including any ball bearing or pellet, may be expelled by means of spring, gas, air or other force.

(c) “Nunchaku” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 202.350.

(d) “Switchblade knife” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 202.350.

(e) “Trefoil” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 202.350.

(f) “Vehicle” has the meaning ascribed to “school bus” in NRS 484A.230.

(Added to NRS by 1989, 656; A 1993, 364; 1995, 1151; 2001, 806; 2007, 1913)

 

[Dunezrunner]

By reading this, as long as I am not in the preschool room, I can open carry in the rec center. Would a letter to the city attorney help at all to clarify this?

Thanks
Thomas

 

[MAC702]

A letter from the City Attorney to you won't help much, but a letter from the City Attorney to the facility would fix it.

As I posted today in your new thread on Nevada Shooters, if the day care's mere presence on the property made the difference, the gun carrier was committing a serious crime, and one would not be expected to just be escorted out the door for that. The facility clearly doesn't know what they are doing in this regard.

 

[DVC]

The best way to get their attention is to send them a letter warning that you are about to file suit, and offer them ONE chance to avoid it by negotiation.

Your terms (given ONLY at a face-to-face) is that they recognize the law, do so ACCURATELY, and inform their staff IMMEDIATELY as to what the law is. Add that any further insult will result in immediate filing of the suit, with no further warning. Get the person in charge to sign the agreement and understanding.

This will satisfy the requirements of legal notice AND prove that they have been made aware of the law, eliminating any way for them to weasel out of it if you do have to file.