State v. Chumphol
634 P.2d 451
Nev.
1981
Check Treatment

*1 440 vehicle, any financing. than facilitate its or did more negligent not extend to one entrustment does who

doctrine another, places a vehicle with see Drake v. nor entrusts neither California, Company Cal.Rptr. 667 Plan Morris 1975) (no liability of one who financed sale (Cal.App. driver), allegedly incompetent or to one who automobile Parking right to the vehicle. Mills Continental control has no Corp., P.2d Nev. Accordingly, actions of district court are affirmed in entirety. their J., Manoukian, JJ., concur.

Mowbray, NEVADA, Appellant, v. POOLSAWAS OF THE STATE Respondent. CHUMPHOL,

No. 12610 October Horn, Attorney, Dunlap, B. District Edward R. X. Calvin County, Appellant. Attorney, Washoe

Deputy District Friedman, Reno, Respondent. Terry A.

OPINION Court, Mowbray,

By the J.: Following nonjury court lower ordered the infor- *2 against respondent filed dismissed. mation The district court charged that the statute was concluded with violat- aliens, 202.360(2), applies ing, as it NRS to is unconstitutional. agree and affirm.

We

THE FACTS 1, 1979, July officers of Department On the Reno Police responded complaint to apartment the of a at an tenant com- neighboring plex standing a that tenant doorway was in his brandishing pistol. Upon responding, a the officers encoun- respondent, and removed magnum pis- tered from him a .357 Respondent tol. identified himself as an alien. violating 202.360(2). for later arrested NRS After the dis- judge dismissed the ground trict court information on the that is the statute unconstitutional. appealed The state has that order.

EQUAL PROTECTION provides: 202.360(2) relevant NRS of The July foreign-born person After no unnaturalized possession . . shall own have in . or under his cus- tody any pistol, or control revolver or other firearm capable being upon person. of the argues only prove that it need The state rational basis order court to for this determine that the is statute constitutional. alienage subject which classifications are on State based are judicial scrutiny. Mauclet, Nyquist

to strict v. 432 U.S. 1 Otero, Examining (1977); v. Board Flores De 426 U.S. 572 Griffiths, (1976); (1973); In re U.S. 717 Graham v. Rich- ardson, 403 U.S. appellant cited cases proposition alienage the longer classifications based are no subject scrutiny to strict are not relevant to the discus- Norwich, Both v. here. Ambach 441 U.S. sion Connelie, Foley (1978), v. U.S. involve classifications excluding government aliens from fundamental activities. As High functions, Court “The rule the noted: general exception applicable the is an to standard to clas- alienage, important principles sifications rests on Norwich, in the supra, Constitution.” Ambach inherent 75. Therefore, 202.360(2) we find NRS constitutional if satisfy demonstrating of “that able to the burden its is the state permissible constitutionally is both and sub- interest purpose or stantial, ‘necessary use is ... that its of classification safeguarding accomplishment’ purpose or the its of its Griffiths, supra, re 721-722. In interest.” tendency merely person not exhibit a toward crime does A is a noncitizen. See Raffaelliv. Committee of she because Examiners, 1972). (Cal. theAs California Bar case, in that Supreme Court noted classification based alienage lingering vestige xenophobic of a “is the attitude join . should now be allowed to those anachro .. [other] among pedestals history.” the crumbled classifications nistic Id. at purpose we to conclude that the state’s

Even were is consti cannot, tutionally permissible, which we the statute is not nec argued safeguard essary to interest. NRS 202.3501 carrying adequately forbids unlawful concealable fire subject penalties are and noncitizens alike to the Citizens arms. designated in that statute for its violation. *3 agree judge with For the above reasons we the district court his order. affirm and JJ.,

Manoukian, Batjer, concur. J., concurring: crime penalized for the not be respondent agree that I However, our decision charged. I believe he was with grounds than the constitutional narrower might be respondent’s by counsel. proffered contentions I the. in understand purchased his firearm Reno. filling out a he so after did to concede prosecution as an form, forthrightly his status revealed which he federal prescribed local ordinance waiting period alien, and after bought short, gun, he expired. In when had lawfully, agencies,' acting believed purchase, that belief. all fostered permitted the provides part: 1NRS 202.350 any person It is unlawful for within this state to: Carry (b) person: Any substance, ammunition; (1) explosive other than fixed Any dirk, knife, (2) dagger dangerous or firearm, Any pistol, dangerous revolver or other or other weapon. deádly