The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 25, 2010, 08:46 PM   #1
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,304
Baker v. Biaggi, Nevada RKBA Case

Over at Only Guns and Money Blog, there is an article on the case, Baker v. Biaggi. Filed in the U.S. District Court for Nevada, Northern District, July 13, 2010.

Read the article and the complaint, here.

James Manley, of the Mountain States Legal Foundation is the lead attorney with Robert Slayer of Elko.

Added to the (growing) list of cases in the 2A Cases thread.

Essentially, a Boise man is challenging a Nevada law that bans functional firearms in all State Parks. This law also bans the discharge of firearms, even for self-defense.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 25, 2010, 11:26 PM   #2
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,476
The basis for the suit is most interesting, expanding on the meaning of "home" in the SCOTUS cases.

I wish a similar suit would be pursued in North Carolina and believe it might be of the low-hanging fruit variety.

North Carolina's Administrative Code contains the following prohibition on firearms in state parks:

Quote:
15A NCAC 12B .0901 FIREARMS: WEAPONS: EXPLOSIVES
(a) No person except authorized park employees, their agents, or contractors, or officers of the state shall carry or possess firearms, airguns, bows and arrows, sling shots, or lethal missiles of any kind within any park.
The legislative authority for the rule is cited as § 113‑35 of the North Carolina General Statutes, which provides:

Quote:
The Department (of Environment and Natural Resources) shall make reasonable rules governing the use by the public of State forests, State parks, State lakes, game refuges, and public shooting grounds under its charge.
The above is in spite of the fact that § 14‑415.23 of the North Carolina General Statutes states:

Quote:
It is the intent of the General Assembly to prescribe a uniform system for the regulation of legally carrying a concealed handgun. To insure uniformity, no political subdivisions, boards, or agencies of the State nor any county, city, municipality, municipal corporation, town, township, village, nor any department or agency thereof, may enact ordinances, rules, or regulations concerning legally carrying a concealed handgun. A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to permit the posting of a prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun, in accordance with G.S. 14‑415.11(c), on local government buildings, their appurtenant premises, and parks. (1995, c. 398, s. 1.)
gc70 is offline  
Old October 20, 2011, 06:23 AM   #3
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,304
Nevada hasn't quite gotten around to changing their regulations. The prior PI was set to expire on Sept. 30th, so all parties petitioned the court in a stipulated order to extend the PI for another 6 months.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov....74727.25.0.pdf
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 1, 2012, 03:00 PM   #4
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,304
I hadn't gotten around to checking this case for some time, now.

I was delighted to discover that on Feb. 22nd, a stipulated agreement was filed to Dismiss the case, without prejudice.

Apparently, back in Oct. of 2011, the rulemaking was completed and Nevada has cured the deficiencies found in the complaint. The Judge ordered the dismissal and the case is now closed.

Quote:
02/22/2012 26 STIPULATION of Dismissal without prejudice by Plaintiff Al Baker. (Manley, James) (Entered: 02/22/2012)

02/27/2012 27 ORDER APPROVING 26 STIPULATION of Dismissal. The parties hereby stipulate that Ds Eric Johnson, David K. Morrow, Steven Weaver, Andrew Bass and Leo Drozdoff are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 2/24/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
While it took some time, this is what happens when reasonable people sit down and iron out their differences and the court merely applied the emphasis to do so.

It's also a complete win for our side!
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06748 seconds with 7 queries