My Rant to The Mirage...

Kinoons · Feb 29, 2012

The two I listed were the first two listed when I typed allow into google.

Even using your 3rd definition, which is to allow to happen via neglect, etc...implies that you are aware of the situation and choose to not to do something about it, or permitted a situation that reasonably would cause that situation to occur. in this instance, and your example about the TSA, while there is an assumption that someone is not following your rules, you don't know any one person for sure.

The Big Guy · Feb 29, 2012

wrightme said:
I do not know the answer to that question. What I DO know is that i am unaware of any exemption to the cc restriction except those enumerated in statute, and that does not include an exception for private property.

And, if someone were to be a test case, it would possibly mean standing for a Category C felony. I do not plan on going for that case myself.

Sounds like there needs to be a push to clarify the law, or better yet, Constitutional carry would solve it all.

TBG

FallonJeeper · Feb 29, 2012

It has been implied, by many, that carrying a firearm on your own property openly or concealed is at the discretion of the owner/resident. I don't see a legal standing in the statutes to support this. I'd like to see something a bit more concrete.

wrightme · Feb 29, 2012

FallonJeeper said:
It has been implied, by many, that carrying a firearm on your own property openly or concealed is at the discretion of the owner/resident. I don't see a legal standing in the statutes to support this. I'd like to see something a bit more concrete.

IMHO, it can be argued that on actual private property, LE would not be aware. As for private property open to the public, I would hesitate.

For instance, if a person were to cc in their own home, what mechanism would place them in the hands of the law.

Kinoons · Feb 29, 2012

Yes, but there is a difference between something being legal, and something being illegal and simply not getting caught.

Heck -- you could carry concealed without a permit, and as long as there is no need for an interaction with an officer you'll never get caught. I'm sure many people who do not care about the law do so daily. I don't want to be included with the majority of those people.

The Big Guy · Feb 29, 2012

wrightme said:
IMHO, it can be argued that on actual private property, LE would not be aware. As for private property open to the public, I would hesitate.

For instance, if a person were to cc in their own home, what mechanism would place them in the hands of the law.

Might have a warrant on some unrelated charge. Wife might get mad at you and turn you in. It could happen.

TBG

wrightme · Mar 1, 2012

Kinoons said:
Yes, but there is a difference between something being legal, and something being illegal and simply not getting caught.

Correct. In this case, the bare reading of statute says that CC is illegal, with exceptions annotated directly in statute. Any CC that is not in a listed exception would be a violation of the statute.

Kinoons said:
Heck -- you could carry concealed without a permit, and as long as there is no need for an interaction with an officer you'll never get caught. I'm sure many people who do not care about the law do so daily. I don't want to be included with the majority of those people.

Correct. In public, the odds of being discovered are much higher than in your own home; but CC in private property is not a listed exception, so.....

The Big Guy said:
Might have a warrant on some unrelated charge. Wife might get mad at you and turn you in. It could happen.

TBG

Yep. So, IF someone were inclined, and was either subject to a warrant, or didn't treat a significant other good enough, might be at risk of discovery.

And, as a Category C felony, not a good place to be.

So, to redirect back into context, it might not be a good practice to CC at the behest of a property owner, unless you have gone through the permit process. And, even if you don't have it with you, it is less risk to violate a civil charge than a felony charge.

28kfps · Mar 1, 2012

Kinoons said:
Not to nitpick a whole lot, but to say that someone allows a person to bring a firearm onto their property without their knowledge is a bit disingenuous. I have no doubt that if the Mirage was aware of the firearm the would escort that person out. Since they are unaware they are not "allowing" anything.

Also, the second ammemdment only protects you from the government restricting your right to bear arms. It has nothing to do with your rights on private property. Just as a private company has no obligation to allow you free speech, they have no obligation to permit you to have a handgun. You, in turn, are free to not spend money there and tell others to not do do as well. Free society at work.

You can nitpick it is allowed. However, I was not really trying to make issue with rights or an obligation and I am not arguing the private property rights however, the statement they do not allow firearms on their property is incorrect. They do in fact allow firearms on their property I believe every day. I am sure Mirage and all of the major casinos well-trained and high tech securities are very aware.

wrightme · Mar 1, 2012

28kfps said:
You can nitpick it is allowed. However, I was not really trying to make issue with rights or an obligation and I am not arguing the private property rights however, the statement they do not allow firearms on their property is incorrect. They do in fact allow firearms on their property I believe every day. I am sure Mirage and all of the major casinos well-trained and high tech securities are very aware.

But, just because they are aware that they do not stop everyone does not make it 'allow.' It makes it 'some slip through, and those will be ejected when discovered.'

It is you who are nitpicking it by trying to claim that failure to prevent all firearms from being carried inside is analogous to 'allow.'

MAC702 · Mar 1, 2012

It DOES fit one definition of the word. We are not have a discussion of what to say in a court of law. We are merely having a conversation.

wrightme · Mar 1, 2012

MAC702 said:
It DOES fit one definition of the word. We are not have a discussion of what to say in a court of law. We are merely having a conversation.

Yes. And the claim was that the Mirage "allows" firearms, only because they are unable to 'prevent' all carry. At best, that position is disingeneous.

Having a conversation will involve differing viewpoints. I recognize that. But, when a viewpoint is based in flawed definition application, it is quite valid to point it out.

FallonJeeper · Mar 1, 2012

I agree. That wouldn't stop a lawyer from associating “did not prevent” and “allow” and attempt to use them interchangeably in a law suit.

DooFster · Mar 1, 2012

So after reading this, am I understanding that I can CC if they pretty much tell me to?

Oh this is the reply I got back from them the other day:

----------------------------------
Mr. Chilson,

I am sorry you did not receive my original email,dated 1/30/12, as I
have attached. It looks as though you used a different email account on
your original email. For the safety of all our guests we do no allow
firearms to be carried on property. If you need any further information
please let me know.

Best regards,

Mary McKenzie | Security Administrative Manager

The Mirage. Vegas Starts Here(tm)

P: 702.791.7180 F:702.792.7630

mirage.com

Join the Conversations:

Hang out with The Mirage on Facebook

Tweet with The Mirage on Twitter
-----------------------------------

Please tell me she read the email...of course she didn't...

wrightme · Mar 1, 2012

DooFster said:
So after reading this, am I understanding that I can CC if they pretty much tell me to?
...

I do not see how you can logically conclude that.

If they tell you to CC, they are telling you to violate the law, defined as a category C felony, unless you are a CC permittee. There is NO listed exception for private property in statute. IMHO, if you choose to CC at their behest, you are placing your liberty at jeopardy.

28kfps · Mar 1, 2012

Ok wrightme you can once again claim to be correct in your own mine. As usual your MO. I have no more to say to you on this.

MAC702 · Mar 2, 2012

I came to the same conclusion as wrightme, based on the wording of the law. Did we miss something? I sometimes do.

txbiker · Mar 2, 2012

Liability

I know this has to have been asked somewhere before...

If a casino or place of business does not allow you to protect yourself by stating or otherwise not allowing you to carry, do they then take on the responsibility of providing that protection? Especially since the supreme court has repeatedly ruled that the police are not responsible for protecting an individual.

wrightme · Mar 2, 2012

28kfps said:
Ok wrightme you can once again claim to be correct in your own mine. As usual your MO. I have no more to say to you on this.

Then if I am actually incorrect, you should be able to definitively prove my conclusion is invalid. Can you?

The ONLY method to disprove the logical conclusion I have drawn is to find an exemption in statute for cc on private property. Otherwise, all there is, is a possible presumption of 'George Carlin rule.'

Then, on the other point you seem to belabor, is that failing to stop something is the same as allowing it? That is simply ludicrous. That isn't be 'claim to be correct in my own mind,' it is me pointing out that the position you hold is completely laughable.

I guess, to you, if you cc without a permit, and cops don't arrest you, they are allowing you to cc without a permit?

wrightme · Mar 2, 2012

txbiker said:
I know this has to have been asked somewhere before...

If a casino or place of business does not allow you to protect yourself by stating or otherwise not allowing you to carry, do they then take on the responsibility of providing that protection? Especially since the supreme court has repeatedly ruled that the police are not responsible for protecting an individual.

I see no way for that to stick. You are not required to enter their establishment. Should they tell you to disarm to enter, the choice to enter or not is yours.

MAC702 · Mar 2, 2012

txbiker said:
I know this has to have been asked somewhere before...

If a casino or place of business does not allow you to protect yourself by stating or otherwise not allowing you to carry, do they then take on the responsibility of providing that protection? Especially since the supreme court has repeatedly ruled that the police are not responsible for protecting an individual.

In NV, not that I have seen yet.

From following the WI forum on this website, though, it appears they have that in Wisconsin!

My Rant to The Mirage...

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

28kfps

Guest

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

28kfps

Guest

Campaign Veteran

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran