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/agopinions/NVAGOpWhatIsConcealed.pdf


Crazy...

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

TFred said:

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

Click to expand...

Thanks Fred. Your right, off topic here.

stickslinger said:

Thanks Fred. Your right, off topic here.

Click to expand...

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

TFred said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

:idea:

stickslinger said:

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.

:idea:

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

1. Open Carry.
2. Get A Concealed Firearm Permit.

Bear in mind, that AG opinion (also available here: http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&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.

Click to expand...

and believe we need to amend our law; but have never heard of a case of prosecution.

varminter22 said:

but have never heard of a case of prosecution.

Click to expand...

. . .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.

DVC said:

. . .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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

FallonJeeper said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

FallonJeeper said:

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.

Click to expand...

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