City’s new gun ordinance in NRA’s cross hairs
A new ordinance to update gun rules in Las Vegas parks could backfire on the City Council if the National Rifle Association gets its way.
The pro-gun lobbying behemoth set its sights on Las Vegas after the council decided to update a 27-year-old firearms ban in city parks.
Prompted by a desire to streamline policies into a single ordinance, the gun rule was part of an extensive revision approved Wednesday that covered everything from camping to smoking to operating electric boats in ponds.
But in modifying the gun rule, against the advice of Department of Detention and Enforcement Chief Michele Freeman, the council piqued the interest of the NRA, which cited a state law prohibiting the city from banning guns in parks under any circumstances.
"The city doesn't have the authority to regulate that," Sacramento, Calif.-based NRA lobbyist Dan Reid said. "The Legislature has specifically referred to themselves the right to do that."
At issue is Nevada Revised Statute 268.418 in which the Legislature declares itself the state's authority "to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada."
The law goes on to state, "No city may infringe upon those rights and powers."
According to the NRA, that means the city has no power to ban guns in parks, but City Attorney Bradley Jerbic disagreed.
Jerbic said because the city ordinance predates the state law, the gun ban is legal.
But Jerbic acknowledged the NRA could use the recent modification, which actually loosened the ban to make an exception for concealed-weapons permit holders, to argue it no longer predates the state's claim.
"Leaving the language unchanged prohibiting everything you are pretty much golden," Jerbic said Nov. 19 while the council was meeting as the recommending committee. "Changing it, we have that risk."
Jerbic still thinks the ordinance is defensible but not as clearly as if it were never changed.
"Obviously somebody may argue if you monkey with it a little bit, you have lost that protection," Deputy City Attorney Val Steed told the council. "But I think we have a better argument."
In addition to statements from Steed and Jerbic about potential legal risks, the council heard a warning from Freeman who argued in favor of maintaining a complete firearm prohibition without the exception for concealed-weapons permit holders.
Freeman said that the full ban made enforcement easier for city marshals and that guns don't belong in parks at all.
"I just don't think weapons and families and children mix," Freeman said. "We are trying to make this place safe, the best way to do that is to operate the way we have been operating."
Council members Stavros Anthony, Ricki Barlow, Bob Coffin and Steve Ross, however, disagreed with Freeman and were in favor of making an exception for concealed-weapon permit holders.
"I can't support it if it is going to prohibit these permitted, concealed weapons," Coffin said. "That is not where the illegal activity and crime is coming from."
The council, during the recommending committee, voted 5-2 to add the exemption, with Councilman Bob Beers and Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian voting against it.
At the council meeting, the entire package of rule changes, including the gun modification, passed 6-0.
What happens next depends in large part on whether the NRA challenges the city in court.
During the meeting in which the council approved the new park rules, brief sparring between Reid and Jerbic suggested the issue was heading toward a courtroom.
"I think we will just have to agree to disagree," Jerbic told Reid. "We will defend the lawsuit; if we lose it, it will be gone."
On Friday, Reid said there has been no decision by the NRA about what to do next, but reiterated concern about the ban and noted the group is aware Clark County has a similar rule within its park system.
"It's on our radar," Reid said.
Contact reporter Benjamin Spillman at bspillman@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0285 .
