Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Badly written law (NV)

  1. #1
    Regular Member stickslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Woodbridge
    Posts
    181

    Badly written law (NV)

    Well, I was interested in probing the NV laws regarding open carry and concealed carry and have run into some interesting statues regarding that topic. I found that the laws are pretty confusing and borders on absurd if you dig through the analysis.

    cite:

    "According to Attorney General Opinion AG 93-14, a weapon is concealed only if it is hidden on a person, (such as under a jacket,) or if it is in a container that is being carried by that person. For example, if a gun is in a briefcase and the briefcase is in one’s hand, then that person is carrying a concealed weapon. But if that briefcase is on the floor nearby then that person is not carrying a concealed weapon."

    So that means, if your headed out of a gun shop with a new purchase in its shiny new case, then you risk being arrested.

    If you travel by airlines to NV and have brought your firearm (fully declared) with you in a TSA approved case and pick it up from the luggage area and walk with it, then your technically in violation. If you have a permit, then your exempt from this provision.

    More analysis:

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/a...sConcealed.pdf


    Crazy...
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I'm not sure why you posted a message about Nevada Concealed Carry laws on a Virginia Open Carry message forum... But I'll throw you a cookie and bring you back on topic... well, somewhat.

    The Nevada Attorney General's analysis of the law is an interesting tutorial on the difference between "upon his person", which is what the Nevada law uses, and is fairly restrictive, "upon or about his person", and Virginia's own term, the plain but all inclusive, "about his person".

    Nevada would seem to have a deficiency in not providing for a way to transport unloaded guns when needed from time to time. I suppose you'd have to post the question in the Nevada forum to see if they have developed a work-around to that.

    TFred

  3. #3
    Regular Member stickslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Woodbridge
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I'm not sure why you posted a message about Nevada Concealed Carry laws on a Virginia Open Carry message forum... But I'll throw you a cookie and bring you back on topic... well, somewhat.

    The Nevada Attorney General's analysis of the law is an interesting tutorial on the difference between "upon his person", which is what the Nevada law uses, and is fairly restrictive, "upon or about his person", and Virginia's own term, the plain but all inclusive, "about his person".

    Nevada would seem to have a deficiency in not providing for a way to transport unloaded guns when needed from time to time. I suppose you'd have to post the question in the Nevada forum to see if they have developed a work-around to that.

    TFred
    Thanks Fred. Your right, off topic here.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by stickslinger View Post
    Thanks Fred. Your right, off topic here.
    I wasn't kidding, the part about the various prepositions with regard to "his person" was both relevant and interesting!

    The main point of the AG's opinion is that Nevada's choice of "upon" rather than "about" is the cause of the "weakness" of their concealed carry law. There were examples provided of being unable to convict a person simply because they were not in physical contact with a container holding a concealed weapon at the time they were caught.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 03-23-2012 at 11:52 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member stickslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Woodbridge
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I wasn't kidding, the part about the various prepositions with regard to "his person" was both relevant and interesting!

    The main point of the AG's opinion is that Nevada's choice of "upon" rather than "about" is the cause of the "weakness" of their concealed carry law. There were examples provided of being unable to convict a person simply because they were not in physical contact with a container holding a concealed weapon at the time they were caught.

    TFred
    That is interesting. So, I would assume if you can manage to dangle your pistol case on a chain connected to your wrist, then you technically would not be in violation as you are not physically touching the case and it wouldn't be "upon" you at all.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by stickslinger View Post
    That is interesting. So, I would assume if you can manage to dangle your pistol case on a chain connected to your wrist, then you technically would not be in violation as you are not physically touching the case and it wouldn't be "upon" you at all.

    But the chain is upon you, so it probably wouldn't be any different than having the gun in the case in your hand.

    However, you could have a fanny pack wrapped around your dog and train your dog to follow you, and I don't see any way that they could argue that your dog is upon your person. And the dog is a dog too, not a person, so the dog cannot be prosecuted.

    I suppose you'd have to post the question in the Nevada forum to see if they have developed a work-around to that.
    1. Open Carry.
    2. Get A Concealed Firearm Permit.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Bear in mind, that AG opinion (also available here: http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...download&cid=2) is an AG opinion and although it does carry weight, it is not law.

    I agree with:
    Nevada would seem to have a deficiency in not providing for a way to transport unloaded guns when needed from time to time.
    and believe we need to amend our law; but have never heard of a case of prosecution.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    but have never heard of a case of prosecution.
    . . .a case of prosecution of a case . . ?

    Considering the circular nature of the law, a circular question seems strangely appropriate.

    This law remains only because it has not been challenged in court.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    . . .a case of prosecution of a case . . ?

    Considering the circular nature of the law, a circular question seems strangely appropriate.

    This law remains only because it has not been challenged in court.
    I meant to say I've not heard of anyone being prosecuted for transporting a firearm in a case, ie "concealed carry." A common example (cited in this forum) is the situation of a person carrying a newly purchased firearm (unloaded) from the store to his home, etc.

    To which law do you refer (above)?

    Note that the AG opinion is NOT law; it is merely an AG's opinion. Of course that carries some weight, but it is not law.
    Last edited by varminter22; 03-25-2012 at 07:39 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    I asked this question of a local District Attorney. His reply was "Are you serious?". They are not interested in arresting/prosecuting people for doing these kinds of things.

    I'm sure, if you were up to some illegal activity AND you were found carrying a firearm in a case, you could be charged. But people carrying a newly purchased firearm from the gun store or to the firing range, should not be concerned.

    This is one DA's view. The view of your County DA may vary.
    Hoka hey

  11. #11
    Regular Member stickslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Woodbridge
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    I asked this question of a local District Attorney. His reply was "Are you serious?". They are not interested in arresting/prosecuting people for doing these kinds of things.

    I'm sure, if you were up to some illegal activity AND you were found carrying a firearm in a case, you could be charged. But people carrying a newly purchased firearm from the gun store or to the firing range, should not be concerned.

    This is one DA's view. The view of your County DA may vary.
    My first thoughts exactly, "are you serious?" when I first read through the law. Perhaps your local D/A will have a look at that him/herself and bring it up to other D/A's to show how idiotic the opinion is.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by FallonJeeper View Post
    I asked this question of a local District Attorney. His reply was "Are you serious?". They are not interested in arresting/prosecuting people for doing these kinds of things.

    I'm sure, if you were up to some illegal activity AND you were found carrying a firearm in a case, you could be charged. But people carrying a newly purchased firearm from the gun store or to the firing range, should not be concerned.

    This is one DA's view. The view of your County DA may vary.
    And that is the problem. Enforcement of the law must be at least two things: consistent and predictable.

    Different state of course, a couple years ago, the off-duty LEOs that were hired for security patrols advised my HOA board to institute a community-wide speed limit of FIVE mph. We probably have about 3 miles of roads within the community. Their openly admitted goal: Set a rule that forces everyone to violate, so that they can stop whomever they decide looks suspicious. Fortunately, I was able to demonstrate that it would take nearly a half-an-hour for me to simply drop by my house and pick up something if I drove that slow and support died.

    But you see what I mean... that is NOT a good reason to have a law on the books!

    TFred

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •