ClearCast Episode 5: A Federal Court Says Nevadans May Not Buy a Gun If They Possess a Medical Marijuana Card

6 September Update:

[Editor’s note] Thanks for all the responses we received!

I’m going to take a few minutes here and address some of the concerns brought to my attention1)because we care!. The points are not related, but I present my points in list form so it is easiest to read.

First, here is the video for you to enjoy:

 

 

If you scroll down, you will see a transcript from the conversation, along with my original analysis from last week.

1. “She claims she wasn’t using, but I don’t buy that.”

This is the most discussed angle of the case, which I just find a little silly, given that there are many an issue in dispute from this Order. This is not one of them.

Some of you may not be versed in the intricacies of appellate law2)Come on, get it together, but you should know that the 9th Circuit panel accepted Ms. Wilson assertion that she does not consume marijuana as true. And it was not an option. Let’s go to the text:

However, taking Wilson’s allegations as true, as we must
on an appeal from a motion to dismiss, Usher v. City of Los
Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987), she is not
actually an unlawful drug user. Instead, she alleges that,
although she obtained a registry card, she chose not to use
medical marijuana for various reasons, such as the difficulties
of acquiring medical marijuana in Nevada, as well as a desire
to make a political statement. Regardless of her motivations,
we agree that Wilson’s claims do not fall under the direct
scope of Dugan.3)p. 12(emphasis added)

Ah, there it is. What’s going on? There is a (good) rule in appellate law, that the reviewing court accepts all of the allegations of the appealing party as true in a motion to dismiss.

This is necessary because none of these three, 9th Circuit judges were not present4)or even in the state of Nevada when the evidence was introduced. Appellate judges just aren’t in a position to evaluate Ms. Wilson’s claim.

Therefore, in order to give her appeal its full weight, they accept the allegations as true.5)If they would have decided for Ms. Wilson, they could have sent the case back to Nevada district court to have the evidence issues fully litigated. Ms. Wilson was never even given a chance for a trial. Her claim was dismissed even before the summary judgment phase.

Even if are still inclined to disbelieve Ms. Wilson6)You do you!, just know that the 9th Circuit here did not decided against her because they thought she was lying about consumption. They accept her allegations that she only possess the card but doesn’t consume and still denied her gun rights just as a medical marijuana card holder.

 

2.  What’s the Deal With This Term “Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance“?

Great question! Wouldn’t “unlawful user” be sufficient?7)in English, yes, but this is the law What would you say if I told you “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” is actually of term of art, in law?8)I know; contain yourself

Because I care for you, dear reader, I dissected the Code of Federal Regulations9)You are not the only person asking, wait, what is this? I will explain because we are all about empowering you. Most everyone is familiar with the ‘Separation of Powers’ under our Constitution. The legislature writes the laws, the executive enforces the law, the judicial branch evaluates. It is not practical for the legislature to write out every detail of new laws, so often the rule making (that is, how the law will be put into effect. For example, the legislature will say “No drug users can buy guns,” but how that law is enforced (will the federal government assign an agent to every gun store? Maybe an open letter would be more efficacious) will be assigned to the appropriate executive department, in this case the ATF. and found the definition. I will reproduce it in full so you may see it in all its glory:10)Remember as you read, people classified as an “unlawful user” may not buy a gun in Nevada

Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.11)source (emphasis added)

Thoughts on what the bold section above means? Where did I put my Wittgenstein12)Doubtful, we want to be having a function vs. essence discussion with legal code (Drudge-esq) alarm13)Must have left it in the sandbox again..darn?14)It’s “not limited to…within a matter of days or weeks before”

I have now read that sentence at least 6 times. It makes less sense with each rereading. The problem is the word “recently,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “during a period of time that has just passed15)Did they really split the infinitive? Oy.

Above, we have the government applying the word “recently,” then denying the word’s definition. How can something be “recent” if it hasn’t happened in weeks?16)That’s how it’s done Ron Darling

I don’t have much else to add on this point other than, if you don’t like this, write your congresswoman.

One last point on this section of the CFR. Did you notice that they made a distinction in the definition for members of the armed services17)In theory, I’m not against this?

Would the case have turned out differently if she was retired from the Air Force? Should it?18)I can see both sides

This is not useful for gun sellers that want to obey the law.

This is the open letter19)the link in the opinion is broken cited in the Opinion that the ATF sent to the gun sellers.

..It’s pretty obvious why the seller denied Ms. Wilson a firearm. Can’t blame him; the man is just trying to run a small business without federal interference.

[End Update. Thanks for coming back. Just wait until Friday when I drop 2000 words about the legal ramifications of misnaming a Wade Phillips'20)Apparently “dog” is a defense? “Blitz”… -Brian]

Are We Going to Allow a Federal Court to Distinguish Away Our 2nd Amendment Rights?

[Editor’s note] Hello and welcome to your Labor Day Weekend ClearCast!

Did you hear what a California federal court did your 2nd Amendment rights?

Our friends in the media have only begun to notice what happened in San Francisco earlier this week.

Yes, you read that right. A federal court said that Nevadans may not buy a gun if they are a registered medical marijuana patient.

(I can hear the chorus of objections of all sides…not to worry folks, that’s what we are here for.)

Unfortunately, Mr. Flake and Mr. Barlow had/have client obligations this week, and asked me to supplement this ClearCast.

First, you need to understand that Nevada is under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, as you can see below:

circuit map

Now you understand why a ruling from San Francisco can affect your gun rights. On to the show!

Beneath the video I added aides to help with the discussion.

[Still noting]

Here is a link to the opinion. And here is a link to the ATF form discussed (the question is “e”). Here is how the DEA schedules different drugs.

I think Mr. Barlow and Mr. Flake have the global analysis of this case exactly right: that one of our fellow Nevadans wanted to use the federal courts to expand the scope of the 2nd Amendment (count me in the group that think’s Ms. Wilson’s protest is reasonable), and said protest went horribly wrong, and in fact, they achieved the exact opposite of the desired result.21)This is has been a horrific Summer for fans of conservative jurisprudence [and I’m not talking about North Carolina, that nonsense isn’t conservative, it’s just racist partisanship], or at least as the media describes it. Recall the reproductive rights case handed down by the SCOTUS a few weeks ago? They essentially cemented access to an abortion as a fundamental right. It seems, from afar, that the conservative strategy to undermine abortion was to distinguish away the rights in small phases. For example, see the difference between the rights articulated in Roe v. Wade verses Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In this year’s Texas case, the anti-abortion folks got a little too overzealous, and decided to run that Texas law (requiring abortion clinics to have all the same medical equipment as a hospital, without justification [except that they don’t like abortion, which doesn’t count]) all the way up the chain. Instead of getting the abortion prohibition [which always seemed unlikely], the Supreme Court drew a bright line for how far abortion restrictions can go. The court would have never commented on abortion without prompting; now, (from my humble perspective) they will need a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion.

I see something similar here. It seems absurd that a medical condition would prevent someone from buying a gun; so the lawyer here thought he was onto something. However, these constitutional challenges are not free (literally in terms of cost, but also in terms of political risk) because you are at risk of a judge taking your facts and making the law he wants. This means if you are going to bring a constitutional challenge, especially because it affects everyone, you have a duty to argue this case correctly. I agree with my employers, the lawyer here made a huge error of omission of not questioning the government’s assertions that medical marijuana has no medicinal value and/or medical marijuana users are more inclined to be violent. We, as Nevadans, would be better off if they would have never brought this legal challenge. Please don’t challenge constitutional law if you are unable to/won’t prepare sufficiently. It affects all of us.

Before you head off for your Labor Day fun, I want to show my liberal friends why I support my 2A brothers and sisters. I am going to quote a graf22)Yes, I just did that from Wilson:

Because the degree of fit between 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter and their purpose of preventing gun violence is reasonable but not airtight, these laws will sometimes burden–albeit minimally and only incidentally–the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are reasonably, but erroneously, suspected of being unlawful drug users. However, the Constitution tolerates these modest collateral burdens in various contexts, and does so here as well. For instance, the Fourth Amendment allows an officer to burden an individual’s right to be free from searches when the officer has “reason to believe” the person is armed and dangerous, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968), a standard comparable to the “reasonable cause to WILSON V. LYNCH believe” standard of § 922(d). Moreover, as previously noted, there are various ways for individuals in Wilson’s position to minimize or eliminate altogether the burdens that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter place on their Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter survive intermediate scrutiny, and the district court did not err in dismissing Wilson’s Second Amendment claims.23)pp 18-19

You see now, liberals? Yes, that’s right. The constitutional amendments are stronger, together24)sorry. They are using that awful Terry decision (where the Supreme Court gutted the 4th Amendment under specious reasoning)25)This is only my opinion to justify why the 2nd Amendment does not mean what we all understand it to mean in a post-Heller world.

ALL of us need to support ALL constitutional rights, or we ALL will be sorry..

Thanks for watching!

-Brian

Transcript:

Jonathan: Welcome to ClearCast, today’s episode of ClearCast. Today, we’ve got Jordan Flake, and myself, Jonathan Barlow, we’re attorneys here, and there’s a super-interesting case that came out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that’s based in California, yesterday, and it ducktails two very hot-topic issues in the law and society today. It dealt with gun rights, under the Second Amendment, and Medical Marijuana use, and the rights of those who hold Medical Marijuana cards under State law. The Ninth Circuit is a part of the Court of Appeals that covers nine Western States, including mainly California, is the largest one, of course, but it also covers Nevada, which is where we are.

Jordan, you have to tell us a little bit about what this case said, and what it does?

Jordan: Well, first of all, the very second that you mention Second Amendment rights, Gun Rights, and Medical Marijuana, hopefully, everybody is just filled with opinions, and filled with all kinds of angst, and that’s fine, that’s what we’re here for. We’re very interested in advancing the discussion.

Let me just run down what happened: A woman in Nevada in 2011 went to go purchase a gun, and Brian’s our off-camera support here; he’ll help us and correct us if we get any of the facts wrong

Brian: Hi, everyone!

Jordan: She went to go purchase a gun in 2011, and she was denied, because she has a Medical Marijuana Card. She is confused; she says, “Well, I have a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and the mere fact that I have a Medical Marijuana Card shouldn’t be a big deal!” In fact, she said she didn’t even use marijuana …

Jonathan: She just kept the card?

Jordan: She just kept the card because maybe it made her feel cool … Made her be able to hang with the cool kids, and show the card, and be like, “Yeah, I don’t really smoke, because I don’t like it …” Anyway, she was denied purchasing a gun, so she brought this lawsuit, essentially saying, “Listen, this is not valid grounds for restricting, and taking away my Second Amendment rights to bear arms and purchase a gun.”

The government came along and …

Jonathan: The Federal Government …

Jordan: The Federal Government, yeah, it’s really important to know, what we’re talking about here is the Federal Government, because the Federal Government classifies marijuana as a “Schedule 1 drug.” A Schedule 1 drug is a drug that is deemed by the Federal Government not to have any practical medical uses; that’s a hot topic for a different day, because I know a lot of you out there will be saying, “Well, Medical Marijuana has been shown to have …”

Jonathan: It’s legal!

Jordan: It’s legal, and it has been shown to have good uses. Well, one of the frustrating thing about this case, jumping ahead in the story a little bit, is that we missed an opportunity to put some of these arguments about how Medical Marijuana helps people in front of the court. That’s one of the things that’s frustrating about it.

Basically, what happened here, is because it’s a Schedule 1 drug, ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Federal Agency, sent out a letter to all the gun sellers in the country, and said, “Listen: If a potential purchaser of a gun has a Medical Marijuana Card, they can’t purchase the gun, because we have restrictions against people with substance abuse issues purchasing guns.”

Jonathan: The interesting thing for this lady is that that the law, or that mailing, came from the ATF, says it doesn’t matter if they don’t even use marijuana, because the gun seller is required to infer … Something along those lines, the gun seller is supposed to infer that the person, because they hold a card, is a user of Schedule 1, regardless of whether they actually use or not.

Jordan: Right, so the purchaser comes running and screaming into court, screaming “My Second Amendment rights have been taken away!” Whenever rights are taken away, whenever constitutionally-conferred rights are taken away from an individual in this country, the court looks at that with what’s called a “Standard of Review,” which can be kind of like, “Does the law that takes it away, is it somewhat reasonable?” There are different levels of scrutiny there, there’s something called “Strict Scrutiny” that says it has to be … Absolutely, the law has to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling purpose, and that’s not really what they said here.

They instead looked at something called “Intermediate Scrutiny,” which is essentially just, “Is the law generally able to fulfill this important, not narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling interest, but just kind of somewhat tailored to fulfill an important interest …” It’s kind of a weird distinction. You’re the Con Law scholar …

Jonathan: Right, and the woman thought she was going to come in here and expand gun rights; that’s what she really was trying to do, was expand gun rights, and the Court did a 180 on her, and actually shot her in the foot, so to speak …

Jordan: The Court came back and said, “Listen: This thing that the ATF has done, and this thing that the Federal Government has done, is basically okay … It’s only moderately restrictive, because guess what, young woman? You can actually go, shred that Medical Marijuana Card, and then go out and get a gun. It’s not like we’re totally taking away your Second Amendment rights, here; we’re just saying that, if you have a Medical Marijuana Card, you can’t get a gun … But you can get rid of the card, or you can purchase a gun in September, and get a Medical Marijuana Card in October …” You know what I mean?

That’s how the Court looked at it, and they said, “It’s not extremely restrictive; it’s not like we’re saying ‘women can’t purchase guns ever,’” because then it’s like … The woman’s like, “Well, I can’t change who I am,” you know what I mean? This is more … The government’s like, “Listen, this job is somewhat generally tailored towards this objective,” but the real issue here, and the thing I was referencing, and I think the last point that we’ll make here is, the plaintiff’s attorney, the attorney who was representing the young woman, really missed an opportunity to shove a bunch of evidence in front of the court, saying “Things have changed with marijuana since the 1980’s.”

They didn’t present any evidence to show that most of the users of medical marijuana are legit, low-crime, oftentimes high-demographic, socioeconomically speaking, way less likely to commit crimes, oftentimes … The typical example would be your 85-year-old grandmother who is using medicinal marijuana because she has glaucoma. The plaintiff failed to make all of these arguments, and unfortunately, that probably resulted in the door being slammed shut on this situation, and who knows when the Court will bring it back up for review.

Jonathan: That’s the interesting last note, is that we have what? Twenty-five or so states that allow Medical Marijuana use. Again, this Ninth Circuit decision only applies to the nine states in the Ninth Circuit, so theoretically, one of the states that’s not in the Ninth Circuit, you could have a similar case come up in the Sixth Circuit …

Jordan: In that case, hopefully, the attorney would bring forth the mountain of evidence that has justified the use of Medical Marijuana in nearly half the states, and basically use that to have a more robust conversation. What happened here was, the attorney didn’t offer the evidence, so the Court just kind of said, “Okay, well, they’re not offering any evidence here; we’re just going to accept the notions and assumptions we have about drugs, based on studies from the 1980’s, which notions and assumptions have been drastically altered through study, and usage, and things of that nature.

Kind of interesting …

Jonathan: Totally. If you live here in one of the nine states in the Ninth Circuit, and you hold a Medical Marijuana Card, and you want to go and purchase a handgun, now you have a decision: If you want to keep your Medical Marijuana Card, you get no gun; if you want a gun, you’ve got to get rid of your Medical Marijuana Card. That’s the state of law right now in these nine states.

Jordan: Right. As we always say to close these things out, we are very interested in your opinions on Medical Marijuana, and Gun Control, and especially this case. I think that, on our blog, we’ll have a link to the decision. Feel free to hit us up on Twitter, or our blog, or Facebook, and let us know what your thoughts are on this.

Thanks so much for joining us for ClearCast.

 

Footnotes   [ + ]

1. because we care!
2. Come on, get it together
3. p. 12
4. or even in the state of Nevada
5. If they would have decided for Ms. Wilson, they could have sent the case back to Nevada district court to have the evidence issues fully litigated. Ms. Wilson was never even given a chance for a trial. Her claim was dismissed even before the summary judgment phase.
6. You do you!
7. in English, yes, but this is the law
8. I know; contain yourself
9. You are not the only person asking, wait, what is this? I will explain because we are all about empowering you. Most everyone is familiar with the ‘Separation of Powers’ under our Constitution. The legislature writes the laws, the executive enforces the law, the judicial branch evaluates. It is not practical for the legislature to write out every detail of new laws, so often the rule making (that is, how the law will be put into effect. For example, the legislature will say “No drug users can buy guns,” but how that law is enforced (will the federal government assign an agent to every gun store? Maybe an open letter would be more efficacious) will be assigned to the appropriate executive department, in this case the ATF.
10. Remember as you read, people classified as an “unlawful user” may not buy a gun in Nevada
11. source
12. Doubtful, we want to be having a function vs. essence discussion with legal code
13. Must have left it in the sandbox again..darn
14. It’s “not limited to…within a matter of days or weeks before”
15. Did they really split the infinitive? Oy.
16. That’s how it’s done Ron Darling
17. In theory, I’m not against this
18. I can see both sides
19. the link in the opinion is broken
20. Apparently “dog” is a defense?
21. This is has been a horrific Summer for fans of conservative jurisprudence [and I’m not talking about North Carolina, that nonsense isn’t conservative, it’s just racist partisanship], or at least as the media describes it. Recall the reproductive rights case handed down by the SCOTUS a few weeks ago? They essentially cemented access to an abortion as a fundamental right. It seems, from afar, that the conservative strategy to undermine abortion was to distinguish away the rights in small phases. For example, see the difference between the rights articulated in Roe v. Wade verses Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In this year’s Texas case, the anti-abortion folks got a little too overzealous, and decided to run that Texas law (requiring abortion clinics to have all the same medical equipment as a hospital, without justification [except that they don’t like abortion, which doesn’t count]) all the way up the chain. Instead of getting the abortion prohibition [which always seemed unlikely], the Supreme Court drew a bright line for how far abortion restrictions can go. The court would have never commented on abortion without prompting; now, (from my humble perspective) they will need a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion.

I see something similar here. It seems absurd that a medical condition would prevent someone from buying a gun; so the lawyer here thought he was onto something. However, these constitutional challenges are not free (literally in terms of cost, but also in terms of political risk) because you are at risk of a judge taking your facts and making the law he wants. This means if you are going to bring a constitutional challenge, especially because it affects everyone, you have a duty to argue this case correctly. I agree with my employers, the lawyer here made a huge error of omission of not questioning the government’s assertions that medical marijuana has no medicinal value and/or medical marijuana users are more inclined to be violent. We, as Nevadans, would be better off if they would have never brought this legal challenge. Please don’t challenge constitutional law if you are unable to/won’t prepare sufficiently. It affects all of us.

22. Yes, I just did that
23. pp 18-19
24. sorry
25. This is only my opinion
Las Vegas Raiders stadium

ClearCast Episode 3: Serious Concerns About the Las Vegas Raiders Stadium

[Editor’s note] Hello and welcome to Friday’s ClearCast!

The whole Las Vegas Valley is discussing the Las Vegas Raiders stadium proposal, but there are still a lot of questions out there about bias1)The LVRJ is owned by the same person trying to acquire the stadium.

Our own Jordan Flake, Esq., although excited at the prospect of a NFL team, is concerned about the finances of the Raiders stadium as a passionate Nevadan.

Mr. Flake was kind enough to give me a few minutes of his time so that these concerns will be made public. He, like you, is worried about Nevada taxpayers.

I have gone through the transcript and added the appropriate links so you may follow along.

Thanks for watching! Have a great weekend.

-Brian

 

Transcript:

Hello. I’m Jordan Flake with Clearcast. On this Clearcast today, we want to talk about something really interesting, I think. It’s this Raider’s stadium that they’re proposing to build here in Las Vegas. As you can hopefully see, it’s a pretty good-looking stadium and it comes with a price tag of 1.9 billion dollars.

That’s right, 1.9 billion dollars is what they’re projecting for the cost. I just want to talk about this for a second. I’m really excited to get any opinions of any of our viewers or listeners. First of all, let me just say, I look at this and my natural inclination is to say that’s cool.

That’s great. I want an NFL team in Las Vegas.

Not a huge Raiders fan2)kidding Raider nation!, but I figure I can learn to somehow become a Raider’s fan, but there’s still some, as always, there’s still some lingering concerns and questions in the background.

Obviously, the first one is where are we going to come up 1.9 billion dollars, and what are some of the concerns swirling around that? What about maintaining it? How about is this what people really want here in Las Vegas?

Is it something that the public is really standing behind? First of all, one of the concerns is that the private investors here have, which include the Adelson’s and the Raiders themselves, the Raiders organization, they basically came to Las Vegas and said, “You want us, the Raider’s here in Las Vegas?

Okay, fine, Nevada. Give us 750 million dollars.” That’s basically what they’re demanding. “750 million or we won’t even, essentially, we won’t even consider it,” and the 750 million goes towards creating the stadium.

The proposal for getting the 750 million is to increase the, what is the name, Brian? Brian’s here.

Brian: Resort tax.

Jordan Flake: Resort tax, yes. Thanks. The resort tax right now is 12.5% of whatever a guest pays for their room. They want to increase that by .8 essentially, so that would make it 13.3 resort tax. That might not seem like a big deal because a lot of residents here in Nevada aren’t the ones paying these resort taxes.

They’re the out of towners who come to Nevada and they just stay in the hotels, but there are two concerns.

 

Is This How We Want the Resort Tax Revenue Spent?

One is we already have a pretty high resort tax.

One of the highest in the nation is Oregon at about 14% for every room, and it’s like, man, does Las Vegas want to be like, “Oh, hey, sorry, last year’s resort tax was 12.5. This year’s resort tax is 13.3. Go Raiders.” You know what I mean?

It’s a little bit in question whether or not that will disincentivize guests from coming to Las Vegas. I don’t know.

I feel like people coming to Las Vegas are so focused in on partying that they’re not really going to get too scared away by the .8% increase, but we do have to keep in mind that we’re competing with other gambling destinations throughout the world at this point and we have to make sure that we’re a reasonable place to visit.

Here’s my real concern with increasing the 12.5% to 13.3% or whatever it would be, is that it really doesn’t give us very much more room to increase that if we really needed it for something else.

Imagine that there was some kind of a statewide emergency that needs to and the state incurs a lot of debt that needs to get repaid in response to a statewide emergency. Imagine we have some other serious budget crisis in Nevada. Then we can’t then very easily … We could take it and we could take that 12.5 and bump it up to 13 or even 13.3, but we can’t very easily once it’s at 13.3 bump it up to 14 or 14.5 without really putting a strain on the marketability of the Las Vegas brand.

Think about what we’re doing here is we’re potentially incurring some taxation type costs, for what? For the entertainment that would be a Raiders franchise. Not a traditionally super winning team recently, of course.3)Now if the Broncos are interested..

That being said, this is a public and private venture.

The public would have that 750 million dollar stake in the stadium. It’s not like the investors are hopefully going to get the full benefit of it.

That’s obviously another concern is the investors are very savvy and we hope, and that’s one of the things we have to be wary of is that they’re taking advantage of the public funds to structure the deal in a way that would just enrich themselves, so that’s obviously another concern.

 

Stadium Maintenance Concerns

More concerns, what if we put up the 750 million as taxpayers, these would be the resort tax, and then they just say, “Oh, we need more money.”

What protections are in this contract and this building of the stadium contract that prevent them from just all of a sudden saying that they need more money or how about what happened to Quebec City in Canada?

In Quebec City, they built a stadium so that an NHL team would come, and you’re scrolling through your NHL knowledge, and it turns out that no hockey team actually came, so they just have this really beautiful multi-million dollar stadium in Quebec City, but they don’t really have any NHL team that would go and play in that stadium, so now they’re having to pay maintenance costs for this stadium and find other uses for it, and they just didn’t get the promised benefit.

What if something like that happened here? We build a stadium and the Raiders, for whatever reasons, find a loophole and decide not to come, or maybe one of the other California cities swoops in and outbids us?

We’re just not sure.

 

Does Popular Opinion Matter?

One other issue is just how do people actually feel about this? Like I said earlier, my tendency is just to be like, “Oh, Raiders, cool. A football team. Yeah. In Las Vegas. I want it.”

They did a poll here, a Rasmussen poll, and it turns out that 55% of Clark County voters are actually against funding the stadium and only 35% are in favor of funding the stadium.

This reminds us of what happened in Cobb County, which is a county in Atlanta, with respect to the Braves stadium. The chairman, Tim Lee, the Cobb County chairman didn’t really pass this by the voters before he tried to use taxes to fund 500 million dollars in a stadium for the Braves in Cobb County, and he, of course, did not win his next election.

One of the options here that our public officials should consider is actually just putting this to a vote. We have some time. We can get it on the ballot4)Unfortunately, this option is not being considered. Let everybody vote.

If they want to put up the 750 million and raise the resort tax and bring in an NFL team, then so be it.

Yay, democracy!

Anyway, those are just some of the concerns and considerations. I’ve just barely scraped the surface.

As always, I’d be very interested to hear what you have to say about the stadium, about the Raiders franchise, about whether or not public funds should be used to fund this public/private venture.

Definitely reach out to us on our blog, on our Facebook page, on our Twitter, and just let us know. Again, if you need any help with any type of legal issue, please feel free to call Clear Counsel Law Group. We’d be happy to assist you.

Thank you so much for joining us for Clearcast today.

 

Footnotes   [ + ]

1. The LVRJ is owned by the same person trying to acquire the stadium
2. kidding Raider nation!
3. Now if the Broncos are interested..
4. Unfortunately, this option is not being considered

Do the Dog Bite Laws in Nevada Need to Change?

Hello and welcome to Episode 2 of ClearCast!

We are sure you have heard about the horrific story of the child in Las Vegas that was killed by a pit bull. The fact that the dog had a previous violent incident has many folks in the Valley upset1)and not unreasonably.

In turn, two of our partners sat down for a few minutes to discuss the current state of the dog bite laws in Nevada.

Good information for all Nevada families!

Thanks for watching.

Analyzing the Current State of Nevada’s Dog Bite Laws

Transcript:

Jordan Flake: Hi, I’m Jordan Flake, and this is Attorney Jared Richards. His is a personal injury attorney. Welcome to today’s Clearcast. We’re talking about a really sad event that occurred just very recently here in Las Vegas. Imagine this scenario: A nine-year-old boy was going to visit his friend’s house. As soon as he showed up at the door, the owner’s pit bull jumped out of the house and attacked the child, a nine-year-old, and ended up killing him. There was a fatality involved with the pit bull.

We brought Jared on today because he’s a personal injury attorney, and he knows a lot about what we would colloquially refer to as dog bite law.

Let’s talk about this for a second here. Just kind of, let’s start really broad and general. Every time a dog bites a person, is the dog owner liable or how does that how does the law kind of even start to work on this? Before we even get to the fatality, if you’re just jogging along and somebody else is jogging with their dog the opposite direction, and that dog bites your ankle?

Jared Richards: Right. First of all, tragic, tragic occurrence, and our heart goes out to the family of the boy. In general, we don’t have any specific statutes that address the negligence aspect of dog bite liability. We have some criminal statutes, but it’s not for general negligence, which means we just go under general negligence law which we call just General Negligence Common Law.

Jordan Flake: There is not some statute that says, “This is dog bite law, NRS1774 in Nevada. There is just we go under what happened in previous cases?

Jared Richards: Right. Kind of.

Jordan Flake: Okay.

Jared Richards: There is a criminal statute, and if you violate the criminal statute then you automatically are going to be liable for damages that are done when you violate the criminal statute. You don’t have to violate the criminal statue …

Jordan Flake: In order to be held …

Jared Richards: In order to be held responsible.

Jordan Flake: Okay.

Jared Richards: Right, but if you violate the criminal statue your [inaudible 00:02:16].

Jordan Flake: What is …?

Jared Richards: What it is is everybody has the duty to act as a reasonably safe and prudent person. It’s my duty, it’s your duty, it’s everybody’s duty at all times.

Jordan Flake: Which is why we can’t drive recklessly.

Jared Richards: That’s why we can’t drive recklessly, we can’t drive drunk, we can’t drive distracted. We have to follow the basic safety rules of society as a reasonably prudent, safe person would do. Now, if we breach that duty and as a result of us breaching that duty somebody gets hurt then we’re on the hook for the damage that we’ve caused.

In the case of a dog the question is going to be up to the jury of what would a reasonably prudent and safe person, as an owner, have done in that situation?

This is where we get into questions about whether the one bite rule would apply or not? The one bite rule is a traditional common law doctrine where the owner isn’t going to be responsible until the animal has actually attacked somebody at least once before because they don’t know that the animal is dangerous.

I don’t know that would actually apply here. What’s really a jury is going to at and say was there sufficient notice to this particular owner that this particular dog was dangerous?

Jordan Flake: Just so everyone knows out there, the background also on this is that that dog was previously cited for attacking another dog.

Jared Richards: Right.

Jordan Flake: The question is, does that constitute sufficient notice so that the owner of the dog would have said, “You know what if a guest is coming to my home or if the front door is open and we’re just dealing with the screen door I better make sure this pit bull is restrained because somebody could come to the door and freak my dog out.”

Jared Richards: If you’re the person who owns the dog or if you’re the insurance company, like the homeowner’s insurance that’s backing up the dog, you’ve got to be careful about that because you’re going to have a lot of juries out there that might think that. If it’s already attacked another animal then it might attack a human. But, there might be juries that think the other way around. It really is going to depend on what the ultimate juries believe. What they think was proper notice to the owner that this was a potentially dangerous animal.

Now, the criminal statute is a little bit different. The criminal statue defines animals under two different varieties, under dangerous and vicious. Dangerous means that when it’s provoked it’s going to get defensive. Vicious means …

Jordan Flake: It goes out looking for trouble.

Jared Richards: Yeah, it goes out looking for trouble. You don’t need to provoke it. Once it’s been either cited as a vicious animal or you observed it be a vicious animal and you’ve seen it go out and bite then you have seven days, you can’t transfer it and you have seven days to get rid of it. If you don’t do that and somebody gets hurt then you’ve committed a misdemeanor. You’ve actually violated criminal law and you are, what we call, negligent to per se. You are just … The law’s going to assume that you’ve breached it.

Jordan Flake: That’s if they’re vicious?

Jared Richards: If the dog is vicious.

Jordan Flake: It seems, kind of, actually light because if you know your dog’s basically a weapon …

Jared Richards: Yeah, and that makes sense. If you’ve gone to the point where you’re actually committing misdemeanors then you’re going to be held viable. You don’t have to actually get to the point of committing the misdemeanor to be held liable. You don’t have to know that you’re dog is vicious. You have to know that the dog is vicious before you get criminally cited. To be civilly liable all you have to know is …

Jordan Flake: The dog is dangerous.

Jared Richards: You have to act as a reasonably sane person would act.

Jordan Flake: It’s interesting, the records show in Clark County that there’s been like 154 complaints made against dogs and only nine have been characterized as dangerous of those 154 that we kept records of and zero have been classified as vicious. I think it’s a pretty rare, apparently, a pretty rare classification.

Jared Richards: That’s interesting. Does that mean that there just aren’t that many vicious animals out there or …

Jordan Flake: Do the standards need to change to where …

Jared Richards: Or do the people who are enforcing the standards just not actually enforce them?

Jordan Flake: Right and that’s going to be the issue going forward here is people are going to look at this case and they’re going to say, “Well, what went wrong? This dog was already cited as having bit another dog and we have a …” The thing that we have here is a deceased child. That’s a total tragedy.

Jared Richards: Right, that kid is dead.

Jordan Flake: It’s just … When I heard about this story I was just shocked. He’s nine. He’s a nine-year-old kid killed by a dog.

Jared Richards: What’s interesting is that for a while there was a movement, again in various states, when you have a vicious breed of animal like a pit bull, an ultra-aggressive breed of animal or at least the public might perceive as ultra-aggressive that the owner is just going to be assumed to be already on notice that this is a dangerous animal and so they’re going to be liable in tort the first time the thing attacks because they’re going to assume they’re already on notice.

Jordan Flake: You buy a pit bull you know you’re buying a pit bull and you know what you’re doing.

Jared Richards: There’s been a counter movement in the past couple of years where you’ve had certain states that pass anti-discrimination laws against breeds of animals. I know that Nevada has also implemented that to a certain extent in the criminal statue. It does make you wonder how that would play in the tort. Can a jury still assume that, I don’t know if you buy a Rottweiler or you buy a pit bull, you buy a mountain lion, that at some point you have notice that the animal you bought does pose a danger to others just because of it’s breed.

Jordan Flake: It’s very, very interesting and I think very fertile for academic discussion is it’s obviously very unethical to look at race in human beings as a measure of whether or not there’s a potential for them to a commit a crime.

Jared Richards: We tend to anthropomorphize, I’m going to screw up the word, these animals and although … Listen, I like animals too. I like dogs. They have feelings too. However …

Jordan Flake: The stats don’t like. Pit bulls kill humans. They do. I just looked at the stats. It’s incredible. Pit bulls are the ones that … It’s overwhelmingly 70% children but they’re being by a lot of pit bulls and …

Jared Richards: Significantly more pit bulls have killed …

Jordan Flake: Than Golden Retrievers.

Jared Richards: Or Poodles.

Jordan Flake: Or Poodles or Chihuahuas. It turns out there …

Jared Richards: Not that many Chihuahua deaths.

Jordan Flake: Okay, so maybe last point here, the kid’s name was Derion Stevenson. If the Stevenson’s were to come into your office and talk to you about this case and they said, “Hey listen, we’re going throw unimaginable pain and suffering. We have his funeral costs and it’s just been horrible for us. What are our prospects for recovering in this case. What insurances are out there?”

Jared Richards: That’s an interesting question because the natural insurance that you would assume would apply would be the homeowner’s insurance. Most people in the State of Nevada or the United States of the world don’t really have enough assets to cover an injury like this. My goodness, the boy is dead. Unless you’re Wal-Mart you’re probably not going to have the kind of money to really truly compensate this family, not that money can. You won’t have the kind of money to truly compensate.

What you’d look at first is the homeowner’s insurance. The problem you’re going to have and something you have to look at is there are certain homeowner’s insurances that specifically exclude coverage of what the insurance company defines as vicious animals.

Jordan Flake: Which may be different that the state definition, by the way.

Jared Richards: Right. If I’m going to rely on statistics I’m probably going to rely on the statistics of insurance companies excluding then the state because …

Jordan Flake: Absolutely.

Jared Richards: Insurance companies are, sorry, cold heart less data driven beasts where this state …

Jordan Flake: The odd makers and actuaries know their stuff.

Jared Richards: The state does as well.

Jordan Flake: The state, yeah, a lot of interest and so forth.

Jared Richards: A lot of political interest going on. The first danger is is this specifically excluded by the insurance policy and if it is, and this is research I haven’t done, is it even allowed to exclude this then there may be additional umbrella insurance. After that you need to make the decision, do you go after the actual personal assets of the family and if you did would they just file bankruptcy? At that point even though you’ve lost a child, which is horrible, trying to take away all the property of somebody else also ruins their life. It may not make your life better. Those are all things that are difficult to weigh and sometimes it’s right and sometimes it’s not. Those are all things that that person, they need an attorney. They just need one.

Jordan Flake: Absolutely.

Jared Richards: Whatever attorney they go to they should go to one that has experience in personal injury, preferably experience in animal tort and that is compassionate enough they could actually try to walk them through some of these very, very difficult choices and issues that they’re going to have to deal with.

Jordan Flake: Absolutely. Thank you for joining us for Clearcast. Let’s just do a few little takeaways.

First of all, Jared is a great personal injury attorney. He’s my partner but still he’s a great personal injury attorney. If anybody out there has a question about a dog bite case or some other personal injury please seek his expertise. He will do a free consultation.

Second, is we would love to hear what you think. If you could chime in on the blog or on Twitter or Facebook and let us know what you think about pit bulls, about whether or not the laws are too lax, whether or not there’s any justice in this situation, what you know … You may know something about this story or have an opinion that we don’t. We love going back and reading over those comments.

Three, just thank you so much for joining us for Clearcast and we’ll hope to see you here in the future.

Thanks so much.

Jared Richards: Thank you.

 

Footnotes   [ + ]

1. and not unreasonably
Clear Counsel Law group

Contact Info

1671 W Horizon Ridge Pkwy Suite 200,
Henderson, NV 89012

+1 702 522 0696
info@clearcounsel.com

Daily: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
Saturday & Sunday: By Appointment Only

Copyright 2019 Clear Counsel Law Group® | Nav Map

Nothing on this site is legal advice.