Nevada State House
Nevada State House
Change Nevada Law to Protect our Pets like we do our Children
SB 409 was introduced in Nevada by Mark Manendo, Nicole Cannizzaro, David Parks; Kelvin Atkinson, Yvanna Cancela, Moises Denis, Julia Ratti, Tick Segerblom, Pat Spearman and Joyce Woodhouse. (This bill was approved and signed into law by then Gov Sandoval on 6/4/17 - but it failed to protect the "Good Samaritan") Manendo, Cannizzaro and Parks were the primary sponsors of this bill. In short, the state gave immunity to First Responders should they need to break into a vehicle to save an animal in distress but failed to protect you and I, the everyday citizen! Read a full copy of the bill here. The purpose of this petition is to get them to re-introduce a new bill this year to add "Good Samaritan" to Nevada State Law. In Nevada it is illegal to leave a child or animal in a hot vehicle, however, according to State Law you can ONLY break in the vehicle to save the child. You can be held civilly AND criminally liable to saving the animal. It's time that changed! Even on a perfectly lovely 75°F day, it only takes 10 minutes for the internal temperature of a car to rise above 100°F! And on a sweltering summer day at 100°F, it’s pretty much immediately too hot for an animal to be left in the car as temps can reach 150°F within minutes!During an interview with a local TV Station on 6/28/19 in the late morning, it was 92°F outside. The inside of the vehicle was 74°F when the A/C and engine were shut off. Within 15 minutes, the inside temperature of the vehicle had climbed to 123°F and was still climbing when the interview ended. In Nevada, the "Good Samaritan Law" protects Law Enforcement, Fire Fighters, Animal Control and other "First Responders" from any civil liability should they break a vehicle window to rescue a pet in distress that has been left in an extremely hot or cold car unattended. (NRS 202.575). What we need is a law the protects a private citizen, like you or I, should we come face to face with this situation. As it is now, a private citizen is required to call 311 (or their local non-emergency phone number) to report the situation. A call to 911 is ONLY allowed when the pet is in serious danger of dying. You are NOT PERMITTED to touch the vehicle! So, how do you know if there’s enough danger to the animal to require action?1. How hot is too hot?* In areas like Las Vegas, even 70°F is to hot, because in a vehicle with the windows rolled up, temperatures can fly well past 100°F in a matter of minutes!2. What can and should you do to help an animal in a hot or cold car?* According to Nevada State Law, you can't do ANYTHING, except call the police, and if and when they show up, hope the animal hasn't died by then. 3. Not to mention, what can you legally do to rescue that animal, and is it legal to break the car window?* It is ILLEGAL in Nevada to attempt or break into a vehicle to save an animal. How State Rules Differ About Rescuing Animals From Hot Cars In many states, (AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, IN, MA, OH, TN & WI) ordinary citizens are granted legal immunity if they damage someone’s vehicle to rescue “an animal.” There is pending legislation in AL & OR. Other states, like Nevada, DO NOT have “Good Samaritan” laws that protect ordinary citizens who rescue animals that are trapped in hot cars. Of the states that have "Civilian Immunity" Laws in place, here are the average summer temps: Arizona - 105°FCalifornia - 92°FColorado - 90°FDelaware - 88°FFlorida - 92°FIndiana - 85°FMassachusetts - 81°FOhio - 83°FTennessee - 92°FWisconsin - 80°F Combined total, the above states average 88°F during the summer months. And then there's Nevada, which averages 101°F during the summer. Las Vegas pushes that average to a sweltering 106°F, nearly 20°F hotter than the average of the states above! Does this mean that you could or should run around, willy-nilly, smashing car windows with rocks if you live in a state that grants you legal immunity? Of course not. What it does mean is that Nevada needs to get in line with several other states and protect our animals. Citizens can break a car window to save a child, but not an animal. This does not make sense! Sign the petition to send a message to our Elected Officials that it's time to protect our animals like we do our children. Because to some, our animals ARE our children!
Congress: Let all children of U.S. military service members unite with their families!
I’m Jenifer Bass, a U.S. Navy veteran, who served for 10 years, one-third in the Asia-Pacific region. It was due to my travel between ports in countries like Japan and Thailand that I first encountered amerasian children, and descendants, of U.S. service members and civilian contractors previously stationed overseas. Filipino Amerasians are abandoned and neglected biracial children of Filipino mothers and American fathers (mostly members of the US armed forces). In the Philippines alone, more than 52,000-plus children were born and left behind after the U.S. Navy withdrew the last of its military personnel in 1992. Right now, the U.S. government won’t legally recognize them as U.S. citizens, despite having been born to an American parent. The Philippine Embassy won't help them either. As a former US colony between 1898 and 1946, the Philippines was home to millions of US soldiers and their dependents, even after its independence. Until 1992, the country hosted two of the largest US military facilities outside the US – Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base, which played major roles during the Vietnam and first Gulf wars. In 1982 US Public Law 97-359, or the Amerasian Act of 1982, allowed children from Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea, or Thailand to move to the US and eventually become American citizens, but those who were from the Philippines were excluded from the law, an exclusion which was upheld by the US Senate on the basis that many Filipino Amerasians were “conceived from illicit affairs and prostitution”, and were born during peacetime. Today, there are estimated to be more than 250,000-plus children. Many amerasians are caught in a no-man’s land of discrimination and poverty -- most left behind by U.S. service members who are unaware that they’ve fathered children overseas. My friend John Haines is one of these sailors. In 2011, John discovered he was the father of a half-Filipino daughter, Jannette. He attempted to unite with her through the American Homecoming Act -- but was frustrated to learn that the Act did not apply to Filipino children of U.S. service members. Today, all John wants is to be united with his daughter and grandchildren. He, like so many other veterans are living with a “hole in their hearts” as they search for ways to unite with their children. There is hope. The Uniting Families Act of 2018, HR 1520, creates a specialized visa allowing military veterans and eligible civilian contractors to sponsor their children and grandchildren for U.S. citizenship. Currently, blood relationship must be proven by DNA test and the total number of visas granted will be capped at 5,000 each year. The issue takes on more urgency as so many of our veterans from our wars in Southeast Asia are getting older and dying each day -- without the chance to connect, or in some cases, reconnect with their own children. John’s daughter Jannette has already undertaken the DNA testing process, conclusively proving her relationship to her American father. All she’s waiting for is the opportunity to permanently unite with her father. There is a PBS documentary, "Left by the Ship" (2010), documenting a day in the life and the personal struggles as a Filipino amerasian on the never ending search for identity and their struggles to connect to their American military families. Please sign this petition to tell Congress that these families cannot wait another day. Pass the Uniting Families Act of 2017, HR 1520, now!
Impeach Judge Gloria M. Navarro
We the People of the United States petition the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for committing treason and collaborating in the insurrection against the Constitutional authority of the federal government pursuant to Article I Section 8 Clause 15, Article 3 Section 3 and Article 2 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, 18 U.S.C. § 2831 and 18 U.S. § Code 2383. Whereas Judge Navarro, at the direction of the FBI, BLM, and other federal agencies, is unlawfully detaining (Amendment VIII of the Bill of Rights & 18 U.S.C. § 3142), and has been for over nine months, prominent activists within the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom political movement for exercising their First Amendment protected rights—protesting against federal government overreach [the fact it had sold 9,000 acres of public land bordering Bundy Ranch and other people who own grazing rights to the division to a Communist Chinese energy firm represented by Rory Reid (Harry Reid's son), EMM, for $4.5 million, $34.1 million less than its value, and began rounding up the Bundy’s cattle and holding them in inhumane conditions … at least 60 purportedly suffering death or missing]—and, in order to suppress C4CF 's education of the People, they have been charged by the FBI for violating 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States; 18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiracy to Impede and Injure a Federal Officer; 18 U.S.C. § lll(a)(l) and (b) - Assault on a Federal Officer; 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(l)(B) - Threatening a Federal Law Enforcement Officer; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) - Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence; 18 U.S.C. § 1503 - Obstruction of the Due Administration of Justice; 18 U.S.C. § 1951 - Interference with Interstate Commerce by Extortion; 18 U.S.C. § 1952 - Interstate Travel in Aid of Extortion; 18 U.S.C. § 2 - Aiding and Abetting. Among the political prisoners are Cliven, Ammon, Ryan and Mel Bundy, Peter Santilli (a journalist), Ryan Payne, Blaine Cooper, Eric Parker and Jerry DeLumus—all of whom provide C4CF with necessary influence. Whereas the discovery comprises substantial evidence proving the innocence of the defendants but is being concealed from the public at the order of Judge Navarro (in violation of Amendment VI of the Bill of Rights and Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure). These prisoners have also been subjected to mistreatment by the FBI, U.S. Marshall Service and employees of the correctional facilities. Whereas Judge Navarro is consciously proceeding with falsified charges filed by the FBI against C4CF and refusing to grant motions to dismiss after learning that Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and many other local, state and federal officials ordered the BLM to return the cattle to the Bundy’s and withdraw from the land, and being presented with relevant laws [Article I Section 8 Clause 17 & Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Nevada Revised Statute 568.225] were presented to her by the defense. Whereas, after being ordered by Sheriff Gillespie to stand down, Special Agent Dan P. Love of the BLM continued to impede on the rights and jurisdiction of the People of Clark County and all People of Nevada unabated; Committing acts of aggression that should be considered attempts to seriously injure or even kill peaceful protesters, including tazing several individuals and using blunt force (some already challenged by physical disabilities)—an apparent result of its militarization. Sheriff Gillespie stated that "anyone who had been in policing would question their tactics." Whereas Judge Navarro is participating in a cover up of the suppression by the FBI (by way of COINTELPRO tactics) of the right to the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances. One of the main functions of government is to enforce contracts, and in this case not only is the government failing to enforce a contract but it is also the contractor, and have abridged their obligations in addition to preventing the contractee(s) [Cliven Bundy—We the People] from discharging our duties enumerated in Article I Section 8 Clause 15 & 16 of the U.S. Constitution & 10 U.S.C. § 311 and pursuant to Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Whereas Judge Navarro has proven herself unfit to be an impartial Federal Judge; Consistent to the extreme bias expressed by her assistance given to the federal government and its usurpation of power and by covering up the inhumane treatment of political activists who are being unlawfully detained for exercising their rights protected by the First Amendment to enforce the rule of law—to establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, guarantee a Republican Form of Government, and secure the right to life, liberty and property, as ordained by the Creator in the U.S. Constitution.
Remove the penalty that prevents people with disabilities from marrying!
When we think of marriage equality, we think about the ongoing fight LGBT couples face, but another minority group must deal with the stark reality that they are better off living in long-term committed relationships, without marriage. Like LGBT couples, these couples are denied the right to over 1,100 rights afforded to married couples. They have been denied access into their loved ones hospital rooms, faced family disputes over wills and have been denied spousal benefits from their partners workplace or the government in the event of their partners death. These are people with disabilities. Many people rely on the government for medical and financial assistance. Without medical insurance they would have no way to live independently. They would be forced into nursing homes (some already are), which would cost the government significantly more than getting Medicare and/or Medicaid does. At the same time, this assistance comes with a price. The government expects married couples to share income and that affects any assistance the couple receives. For many, their spouse makes too much (even if they make meager SSDI payments). This cuts into the healthcare services these couples receive. For some, their able-bodied partners make too much to allow them to qualify for medical assistance, if married, but not enough to pay out of pocket for costly medical equipment, medicine, or any other needs the disabled partner has. Add in the fact that even when a person with a disability can work, the opportunity for quality medical insurance is hard to find, due to their pre-existing condition and you will understand why many couples with disabilities are forced to live in domestic partnerships. Also, if two people with disabilities marry and they are on SSI or SSDI, their payments are CUT significantly, making it hard for them to maintain independence and afford their own food, shelter, clothing or other necessities. The time to stand up is now!! Let your Senators and Representatives know you want to remove the income caps placed on individuals with disabilities, so they can keep the government assistance and still be able to get married. Every loving couple deserves the right to marry. No one should have to choose between their wheelchair and their love, their therapy and their love, their medication and their love, their ability to eat or have a roof over their head and their love!! Those are not choices!! Help make it possible for those with disabilities to share their love without being penalized!Join our fight for marriage equality for people with disabilities:https://www.facebook.com/MarriageEqualityForPeopleWithDisabilities
Pass a Sexual Assault Survivors' Bill of Rights in Nevada
I'm calling on legislators in Nevada to pass a Sexual Assault Survivors' Bill of Rights that will guarantee comprehensive, common sense civil rights for survivors: Rise’s Five Key Civil Rights: 1. The right to not have your rape kit destroyed before either 20 years or the statute of limitations has passed (whichever is longer).2. The right to be notified of your civil rights related to a sexual assault.3. The right to not be charged for your own rape kit examination.4. The right to access your own medical record related to a rape kit examination.5. The right to a copy of your own police report. Over forty states have backlogs for untested kits. Some states do not cover the full medical expenses of a kit, leaving survivors to pay their own way towards justice. Most states destroy rape kits before the statute of limitations for the crime has passed. The lack of these rights has inspired us to act. This is a crisis for 25 million survivors across America, and it's time for our legislators to do something about it. Sign this petition, then learn more at our website -- and if you have a few minutes to contribute to the cause, take a look here at the quick, easy, ways you can make an impact now!
Demand reform of the timeshare industry’s unfair and deceptive practices
The timeshare industry is infamous for its perceived high-pressure sales techniques, for locking millions of people in perpetuity with non-cancelable contracts, and for practices that can make it difficult for owners to vacation where and when they want. Just read this recent Arizona Republic feature for a heartbreaking look at how these practices affect real people. Dozens of lawsuits have alleged that consumers are subjected to fraud, deception and preying on the elderly, along with violations of numerous local, state and federal regulations. Concurrently, state legislatures in Arizona, Florida and Nevada have introduced bills that would either increase or lessen the rights of timeshare owners. Now, the Coalition to Reform Timeshare (CRT) has been launched to advocate for the rights of more than 9 million timeshare owners in the U.S. By signing this petition, you will be helping CRT expose the industry's dark underbelly by forcefully advocating for a strict code of ethics for timeshare companies, transparency in its sales techniques, and for the rights of all timeshare owners. Signing this petition will also signal your support for establishing a Timeshare Bill of Rights that will promote fair and ethical business practices. The Timeshare Bill of Rights aims to enhance the owner-developer relationship in the long-run by promoting healthy, respectful communication and business practices: 1) The right to a 24-hour cooling-off period prior to signing a timeshare contract to allow for the review of all sales and contract information including, but not limited to, other governing documents, public offering statements and covenants that run with the land. 2) The right to receive complete disclosure of the true market value of the timeshare, prior to the timeshare being purchased. 3) The right to be free of any high-pressure sales techniques and verbal misrepresentations intended to circumvent the assessment period. For example, “Today Only” offers or the requirement of any form of advance payment to attend a timeshare presentation. Developers would be prohibited from collecting and withholding a credit card, driver’s license or other item before or during the timeshare presentation. 4) The right to record the entire sales presentation or to require the developer to record the entire sales presentation, including the closing of the sale, and to retain the recording for a period of 24 months with no waiver. 5) The right to full transparency during the sales presentation without any waiver of verbal representations during the closing of the sale. This right also prevents owners from being required to attend “update meetings” or similar meetings if a sales presentation is conducted during this meeting. 6) The right to full disclosure of the resort owners’ association financials, as well as disclosure of any and all HOA fees, including indirect resort costs imposed on owners which may increase maintenance fees and special assessments. This right also includes yearly owner roster notifications that disclose the number of weeks or points under developer control with the HOA, not excluding resale and rentals the HOA has control over. 7) The right to have the rescission period for a contract extended to one week after a person returns from their vacation to allow appropriate family and/or legal counsel review. The rescission date would be clearly noted in the contract based on input from the consumer on when they return home. 8) The right to be free of sales calls from the timeshare developer before or after the sale and the right to be free of attempts by the timeshare developer to have a consumer re-activate a previously rescinded sales contract. 9) The right to full disclosure of the entire cost of timeshare ownership, including available interest rates, before a consumer signs a contract. This would include projected increases in maintenance fees based on the average maintenance fee increase for the past five years for an individual property. 10) The right to have sales agents and timeshare companies subscribe to an industry code of ethics. 11) The right as a timeshare owner or vacation club member to have priority booking of reservations over the general public. 12) The right to unilaterally terminate an unencumbered, non-deeded timeshare interest with written notice to the developer upon making the current “use year” maintenance fee payment. CRT is inviting timeshare owners to become members, share personal stories of problems with timeshare ownership, and show lawmakers and the timeshare industry that there is a real demand for change. To join the Coalition or share your story, go to ReformTimeshare.org.