a. "An ordinance is unconstitutionally vague if it either forbids
or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Connally
v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Such an ordinance is 'void
for vagueness' and inconsistent with due process of law. Additionally, an ordinance
may be void for vagueness if its imprecision is likely to encourage arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement. Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement,
..... U.S. ....., ....., 112 S.Ct. 2395, 2403 (1992) (stating that the First Amendment
prohibits the vesting of unbridled discretion in government officials); Papachristou
v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 (1972); Eaves v. Board of Clark
County Comm'rs, 96 Nev. 921, 924, 620 P.2d 1248, 1250 (1980)."
City of Las Vegas v. 1017 S. Main Corp., 110 Nev.
1227, 1231, 885 P.2d 552 (1994). No. 42.
b. "The word 'altered' conveys a clear meaning when standing
on its own, and when coupled with other words of limitation, as it is here, its
meaning is not rationally susceptible to an attack on grounds of vagueness." at