Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 87

Thread: CERT Class Open Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    487

    Question CERT Class Open Carry

    Ok, get ready for what I'm sure will be a wall of text.

    So tonight was the first night of my 6-week CERT course (nvcert.org). I put some careful consideration into it, and I decided to open carry to the class. I also got pre-authorization to bring my 9yr old son. The instructor (via email) said that he could attend, but wouldn't get the goodie bag at the end. She DID say that he would get a certificate of completion though. I suspect names=funding, soo....

    Anyway, I had decided to open carry to the class based on the following considerations: (fully expecting to meet resistance)

    1. The class is held at 4040 N Losee Rd, North Las Vegas. This is the Fire Department Administration Building. Sounds like a public building.

    2. A search of the county registrar records (http://mapsrv.co.clark.nv.us) shows this as being owned by "City of North Las Vegas". A public building. Check.

    3. I have pre-registered for the class, and received written confirmation. I think this is relevant because the building is otherwise closed at the hour that I will be there, but because I am registered (invited), I am not trespassing. (goes towards 'Lawful Purpose')

    4. The program is sponsored by a grant from FEMA, but is still held in a public building, so I don't think any stupid federal stuff should apply.

    5. There is no cost for the program, and no requirements other than pre-registration, as far as I can tell.

    6. Based on these facts, I don't think they could un-invite me (trespass me) after the fact without it being discrimination.

    7. There was no posted signage. Bummer.

    8. I was wearing my favorite shirt, which says "Not Legal In California" on the front.


    So, with all of these facts stated, here's how it went down.

    I arrived a few minutes before the start of the course. When I arrived, there were already 10 or so people there. I had my Glock 36 on my hip in a Serpa holster. Upon walking in, I was directed to pick up the various documents and booklets from the table. I started to do so, and the woman that was leading the class interupted and said "but first, you need to go leave something in your vehicle". I was prepared for this, and had a happy, polite response.

    "It's ok, we're in Nevada!" (gesture, Vanna-style, to my aforementioned shirt)

    With that, she frowned a bit, but was still very polite. She started to say "This is a Fire Department building..."

    Inspired by the recent NHP video, I politely injected "Public Building".

    She repeated "Fire Department building".

    Someone from the group already present chimed in, synchronized with me, and said "Public Building".

    At this point, the other person in charge of the class, apparently a cop, chimed in and said "You can't have that in here". I politely asked who the person of authority in the room was, and he acknowledged that it was him.

    I stated that while I would comply for the sake of not delaying the class, would he please provide me with his card, because I would like to have this matter cleared up before next week's class session. With that, I went ahead outside and unloaded and locked up my gun, put the mag in my back pocket, and went back in. (On occasions where I have to leave my gun in my vehicle ::begrudgingly::, I never leave ammo there)

    I came back in, and he had placed his card on the table where I was to be seated.

    Daniel F. Lake, Ph.D. <LakeD@cityofnorthlasvegas.com>
    Sergeant - North Las Vegas Police Dept
    Homeland Security
    Emergency Manager Liaison

    I proceeded to enjoy the class, participated, and had a great attitude the whole time. I genuinely enjoyed the class, and nothing more was said about the issue, until I brought it up afterwards.

    Afterwards, I approached Sgt. Lake, and asked him to cite me the laws under which he was advising me that I could not carry in that building or the class. He took the standard 30yr vet approach, and tried to convince me without any specifics. I asked him to please be specific, so I could address it specifically. I stated that I was quite familiar with the laws regarding this matter, as they were very important to me. I also stated (inspired by the NHP video) that I was aware that if I am abiding by the law, I am not to be told to do otherwise, as covered under 207.190 referred to as 'coersion'. (thanks guys & gals, you are the wind beneath my wings)

    He first stated that there was NRS that covered it. I asked him if he was referring to 202.3673, the oft-cited law that addresses concealed, but not open carry. He wouldn't elaborate. He then said that North Las Vegas also covered it, to which I replied "Do you mean the law that, while not yet removed from the books, is nullified by SB92, which went into effect nearly 4.5 years ago? Again, he avoids the question. Then he starts down a different path, stating that it is his class, and he has the final decision on who can carry there.

    I stated "I understand that you may feel that way, but that doesn't mean it's supported by the Law. I can respect that you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that you have the authority to overide State Law."

    WIth that, he grumbled a bit, and it was clear that he wasn't interested in discussing it any further. I thanked him for taking the time to discuss it with me, and advised him that I would be contacting him by email regarding this, so that he may provide me with which statute he believes covers his position. I stated that It was not my intention to put him in a bind, or to be difficult, but that "if I don't exercise my rights, that's the best way to lose them". I also stated that "the best way to exercise ones rights is to do so in uncomfortable situations". This seemed to actually enrage him a bit, I don't think he heard anything after the word 'bind', as he promptly replied with:

    "I have been on the force for 30yrs, you couldn't put me in a bind if you wanted to".

    I stated "Well, ok, but I wanted to convey that that was not my intent".

    He then went on to say that he wouldn't be providing anything written, and wouldn't go on record with anything.

    I thought for a moment, because I was expecting this result. So, time for a pause in the festivities. I do not have any leet spyware. All I have is my Windows Phone 7 based phone, which as far as I am aware doesn't have any decent offsite recording apps. I can record audio, but Microsoft saw fit to make it so that if the screen is off, you can't record, and the screen times out after a short period. Without any decent recording gear, I was not able to record any of this. I also wasn't entirely sure about the whole all-party aspect of Nevadas recording laws.

    The post that just went up a bit ago by DVC that pointed to the 7 Rules of recording police would have been a big help a few hours earlier.

    So, with that said, I have no recording of it. Back to the story...

    So, after he advised me that he would not reply to anything in writing, and after careful consideration, I decided to state that the written method was the more polite alternative to Video. Without a written option, I would have to fallback to video.

    This went over about as well as can be expected. He stated that he would never appear on any camera. I stated that he was a Public Servant, carrying out the Public's business, and that while on duty, that was not his choice to make.

    "You can certainly refuse to discuss the matter with me any more, but I was hoping to be able to settle this matter here without needing to involve anyone else higher up the chain."

    He stated that I was free to contact his boss.

    "Ok, that works for me, who is that?"

    "The Chief of Police."

    "Ok, well, I guess that is one avenue, but I don't suspect that would bear any fruit. I think my next stop would be the City Attorney, but this sure would be simpler if you could at least tell me which statute you are standing on.."

    At this point, the woman (Page Spencer <pspencer@LasVEgasNevada.gov>), who had been fairly quiet during this whole thing, finally chimed in with her perspective on it.

    "Some of the activities you will be participating in are just not a good idea with a gun. It would be a safety issue. We are gonna be rolling around on the floor, tied up, doing search and rescue drills in dark places, that sort of thing"

    "I can understand that, and that is a very different situation that telling me that it is against the law, which I know it is not. With that said, if I am within the bounds of the law, isn't that my decision to make, at my own discretion?"

    That pretty much ended that train of thought, and she went back to packing up the class materials.

    That was pretty much the end of the conversation over all. I again thanked the two of them for the class, and their public service, and that I looked forward to seeing them next week.

    I should say that, while this took a long time to type up, the conversation was brief, 3 minutes at most. So I wasn't beating a dead horse, just hitting the high points that were on my mental checklist. I was super-polite the whole time, and enthusiastic to be there.

    So, with all of that, I am interested in not only feedback on what I could have done better, but how I should proceed from here. I figured I would still make the effort to send him a super-polite email requesting, as I said I would, the statute that he was using as his basis for his statements. I don't expect him to reply, but I figure I should still follow through.

    Clearly, what is needed is for an OCDO group signup for the next session of this class. Pack the class with all open carriers. Yeah...

    Ok, fire away brothers and sisters.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Seems to me you did great. The only thing I would have done is had the same conversation and not relented to putting the gun away and staying. I would have left and then started up the food chain with them.

    Having written that I also think you were really stand up and the way cops are around here almost brave. There are several of these types of venues that need pressing but I wouldnt do it without the backing of a few others and some video rolling so you get a big thumbs up.

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    CERT and guns. Volunteers in Police Service VIPS is by Int'l Ass Chiefs of Police

    American Red Cross is affiliated. Both organizations, ARC and IACP oppose the RKABA.

    CERT is FEMA, the most worrisome aspect of the national bureaucracy.

    Read of the parallels with the city leaders of 1925 Germany. (Hint: City Leader in German is gau + leiter)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Next week, take a witness with a recorder, wear your pistol, and require him to either show you the law that he is referring to, or to stop referring to it.

    Use a phrase similar to "I will happily follow the law, as soon as you show me where it says what you tell me it says."

    If he threatens you with arrest, remind him that he has yet to show any law giving him that authority, and ask if he is SURE he wants to do that. If he arrests you, submit peacefully and without argument. At that point, the question simply becomes how much to sue for. When you sue, don't just demand money, but also that all officers in his department be given 10 hours or more of remedial training on the ins and outs of Nevada firearms law.

    If he claims that you are being "disruptive," DO NOT RESPOND TO THAT CLAIM -- act as if the words were never spoken. Your argument will justify his accusation.

  5. #5
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 07:48 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rollbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    383
    With all these issues popping up here and there you would think the NRA/NFAC etc and groups like that will or would send a letter to the A-General stating they want action and officer training if said members of these groups would but send a request letter to their group, if that makes since.

    Wouldn't they have to reply or train or is it on a case by case basis?

    There might be other groups out there that do this, I just named two that I know of that could help.

    Just a thought,
    Jim

    P.S. Great Job. Are you going to OC at the next class?

  7. #7
    28kfps
    Guest
    Very well written. A great report. It would appear you showed him his usual intimidating BS method, which must have worked in the past, had met its match. I am sure after he got home he was giving his actions and your replies a lot of thought. If he ever has another confrontation with such a knowable gun owner, he will handle it different. Just hoping the difference will be to more accurately reflect the law and less BS filled intimidation.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Las Vegan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    145
    Do not be surprised if next week there is a posted sign stating that firearms are prohibited inside the building. That will still not make carrying a gun illegal, depending on who posted tbe sign, under what authority, and what section of the NRS it references. Just be prepared.
    "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
    - President James Monroe

  9. #9
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Las Vegan View Post
    Do not be surprised if next week there is a posted sign stating that firearms are prohibited inside the building. That will still not make carrying a gun illegal, depending on who posted tbe sign, under what authority, and what section of the NRS it references. Just be prepared.
    Well, I wouldn't be surprised either. But... the only NRS I am aware of that prohibits firearms in public buildings is...

    Concealed Firearms

    NRS 202.3673
    3. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of:
    (b) A public building that has a… sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building…

    Those "type" signs are scattered around public buildings in southern Nevada (and I assume other locations in Nevada) with the errant intent of keeping ALL firearms out of such public buildings. Those who put the signs up evidently either have no clue or are knowingly attempting to enforce the "no firearms" policy across the board without statutory authority. Openly carrying a firearm on one's person IN a public building is a lawful activity here in Nevada as long as that public building is not on "the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education,...or public school..." according to NRS 202.265.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Las Vegan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    145
    Exactly my point, Mustang. The signs are incorrect and have no legal basis when they attempt to block open carrying, but the OP may have one more hurdle to overcome next week if the misinformed police officer attempts to use such a sign to justify his previois position.
    "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
    - President James Monroe

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Las Vegan View Post
    Exactly my point, Mustang. The signs are incorrect and have no legal basis when they attempt to block open carrying, but the OP may have one more hurdle to overcome next week if the misinformed police officer attempts to use such a sign to justify his previois position.
    Yep. And, a misinformed police officer may very well feel justified in performing an arrest for the ersatz violation.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    This sounds almost exactly like the issue that I had at a bowhunter education class at the Idaho Fish and Game Department's hunter education center (state building).

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-Class-Refused

    I did straight-up refuse to remove my weapon, but then again, there wasn't a police officer there. Not sure what I would have done if that were the case, because like you, I made the mistake of not having a recorder running at the time (which has since been rectified).

    My advice is to keep going up the food chain. Be persistent (I checked in every week for an update). Eventually, they will ask their attorney for advice, who will advise them they cannot ignore state preemption. Unfortunately, by the time you receive a definitive response, the class may be over.

    Please be sure, though, that Mr. 30-Years is informed when the decision comes down that you can carry. Hopefully, when he is gorging himself from the public trough through his pension and wearing golden Depends paid for by you and I, his last memory of the job will be of him getting knowledge-slapped by some "mere citizen."
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  13. #13
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Okay... I'm gonna post this here because it's on-point with respect to OCing in public buildings... in this particular case a "police facility." It comes DIRECTLY from the LVMPD PIO and is fresh off the presses... so, without further ado....

    NRS 202.3673 does indeed prohibit anyone except law enforcement personnel from wearing/carrying a concealed firearm into a police facility. Whether concealed or not, we enforce this NRS to include all persons entering a police facility wearing a firearm. It is our position that we are following the spirit of NRS 202.3673 by asserting our right to maintain a safe work environment for both our employees and visitors. Signage to this effect is located here, and at most government buildings throughout Clark County. Should an armed citizen disregard our request to leave the premises, they may be cited or arrested for trespassing. Violation of this law is a misdemeanor.

    So, I guess a citizen openly carrying a firearm on his or her person can stand by to be cited or arrested for trespassing (on public property? - can one trespass on PUBLIC property?) if requested to leave such public property but refuses or otherwise disregards a request to do so.

  14. #14
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    Okay... I'm gonna post this here because it's on-point with respect to OCing in public buildings... in this particular case a "police facility." It comes DIRECTLY from the LVMPD PIO and is fresh off the presses... so, without further ado....

    NRS 202.3673 does indeed prohibit anyone except law enforcement personnel from wearing/carrying a concealed firearm into a police facility. Whether concealed or not, we enforce this NRS to include all persons entering a police facility wearing a firearm. It is our position that we are following the spirit of NRS 202.3673 by asserting our right to maintain a safe work environment for both our employees and visitors. Signage to this effect is located here, and at most government buildings throughout Clark County. Should an armed citizen disregard our request to leave the premises, they may be cited or arrested for trespassing. Violation of this law is a misdemeanor.

    So, I guess a citizen openly carrying a firearm on his or her person can stand by to be cited or arrested for trespassing (on public property? - can one trespass on PUBLIC property?) if requested to leave such public property but refuses or otherwise disregards a request to do so.

    They just admitted that they don't have a leg to stand on....and don't care. They will do as they please. They just admitted that they can't charge one with a gun related crime, so here comes tresspass. If this does not work, what next? oh yeah, obstruction. This is exactly what we need the NVFAC for. There is no way a citizen entering a public building with the intent to do legitimate business can be tresspassed. We need a test case and an organization to stand behind it.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  15. #15
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    They just admitted that they don't have a leg to stand on....and don't care. They will do as they please. They just admitted that they can't charge one with a gun related crime, so here comes tresspass. If this does not work, what next? oh yeah, obstruction. This is exactly what we need the NVFAC for. There is no way a citizen entering a public building with the intent to do legitimate business can be tresspassed. We need a test case and an organization to stand behind it.

    TBG
    How about a FEW test cases... as in how about a half-dozen OCer's "visit" one of the LVMPD's locations and attempt to conduct business there and refuse to leave when ordered to?

    And... it seems that it's not the "entering" of the building that results in the "trespass"... it's the not leaving the building when requested/told/ordered to. And... if they don't charge one with trespass they just might charge one with:

    NRS 203.119 Commission of act in public building or area interfering with peaceful conduct of activities.
    1. A person shall not commit any act in a public building or on the public grounds surrounding the building which interferes with the peaceful conduct of activities normally carried on in the building or on the grounds.
    2. Any person whose conduct is prohibited by subsection 1 who refuses to leave the building or grounds upon request by the proper official is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    3. Any person who aids, counsels or abets another to commit an act prohibited by subsection 2 is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    4. For the purpose of this section:
    (a) "Proper official" means the person or persons designated by the administrative officer or board in charge of the building.
    (b) "Public building" means any building owned by:
    (1) Any component of the Nevada System of Higher Education and used for any purpose related to the System.
    (2) The State of Nevada or any county, city, school district or other political subdivision of the State and used for any public purpose.
    (Added to NRS by 1969, 582; A 1985, 335; 1993, 365)

    Now... that NRS doesn't say that this "act" must be a criminal act... just that the "act... interferes with the peaceful conduct of activities..." and I'm sure they'll attempt to make that case as well when it comes to OCing in a public building.

    Point is... they're gonna do whatever they are gonna do and NOT be concerned with any consequences of their actions. And test cases will be difficult, if not impossible, to get to where they need to be to challenge these cowards. Will the NRA or NRA-like organizations step up to such a challenge? Metro will cite or arrest... but prosecutors will choose not to take the cases to trial, or if taken to trial with pleas of not guilty will request dismissal. In the mean time, the police will continue to cite or arrest... and so "the dance" will continue without interruption. The police don't seem to be concerned at all as to whether the individuals they cite or arrest are in fact prosecuted successfully. They're just concerned about being able to cite and arrest without consequence... and they ARE able and don't care... and that IS the universal problem... not just the OC problem.
    Last edited by usmcmustang; 04-12-2012 at 12:31 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    How about a FEW test cases... as in how about a half-dozen OCer's "visit" one of the LVMPD's locations and attempt to conduct business there and refuse to leave when ordered to?

    And... it seems that it's not the "entering" of the building that results in the "trespass"... it's the not leaving the building when requested/told/ordered to. And... if they don't charge one with trespass they just might charge one with:

    NRS 203.119 Commission of act in public building or area interfering with peaceful conduct of activities.
    1. A person shall not commit any act in a public building or on the public grounds surrounding the building which interferes with the peaceful conduct of activities normally carried on in the building or on the grounds.
    2. Any person whose conduct is prohibited by subsection 1 who refuses to leave the building or grounds upon request by the proper official is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    3. Any person who aids, counsels or abets another to commit an act prohibited by subsection 2 is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    4. For the purpose of this section:
    (a) "Proper official" means the person or persons designated by the administrative officer or board in charge of the building.
    (b) "Public building" means any building owned by:
    (1) Any component of the Nevada System of Higher Education and used for any purpose related to the System.
    (2) The State of Nevada or any county, city, school district or other political subdivision of the State and used for any public purpose.
    (Added to NRS by 1969, 582; A 1985, 335; 1993, 365)

    Now... that NRS doesn't say that this "act" must be a criminal act... just that the "act... interferes with the peaceful conduct of activities..." and I'm sure they'll attempt to make that case as well when it comes to OCing in a public building.

    Point is... they're gonna do whatever they are gonna do and NOT be concerned with any consequences of their actions. And test cases will be difficult, if not impossible, to get to where they need to be to challenge these cowards. Will the NRA or NRA-like organizations step up to such a challenge? Metro will cite or arrest... but prosecutors will choose not to take the cases to trial, or if taken to trial with pleas of not guilty will request dismissal. In the mean time, the police will continue to cite or arrest... and so "the dance" will continue without interruption. The police don't seem to be concerned at all as to whether the individuals they cite or arrest are in fact prosecuted successfully. They're just concerned about being able to cite and arrest without consequence... and they ARE able and don't care... and that IS the universal problem... not just the OC problem.

    So if someone were to do it now, you and I both could be charged with violation of NRS 203.119, section 2.

    In addition, any police officer so confronting an individual in said public building who is peaceably conducting business, thereby causing a scene, could easily be guilty of NRS 203.119, section 1, "A person shall not commit any act in a public building or on the public grounds surrounding the building which interferes with the peaceful conduct of activities normally carried on in the building or on the grounds." So let’s say someone does decide to push it and be arrested for the grievous crime of TRESPASS, why couldn't that person arrest the officer, citizen’s arrest, for violation of this law?

    Just thinkin' out loud.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  17. #17
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 07:47 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    I think the point is, you are a citizen (owner of the property), there to conduct legit business, doing nothing illegal, how can you be trespassed?
    This just is not the same as private property.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    (d) The owner or occupant of the building made a sign “written demand” to the public, not to enter the “building” with firearms,…… violators will be trespassed. (this could be the gotcha right here)
    IMHO, such hypothetical sign would have the same legal standing as a sign "written demand" to the public, not to enter the "building" with no shoes.

    In other words, none. A written demand to the public to not trespass on a public building would be an oxymoron. Either they are public buildings, or they are not. If they ARE, they are open to the public, not just 'open to the publics that aren't those guys.'
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    Okay... I'm gonna post this here because it's on-point with respect to OCing in public buildings... in this particular case a "police facility." It comes DIRECTLY from the LVMPD PIO and is fresh off the presses... so, without further ado....

    NRS 202.3673 does indeed prohibit anyone except law enforcement personnel from wearing/carrying a concealed firearm into a police facility. Whether concealed or not, we enforce this NRS to include all persons entering a police facility wearing a firearm. It is our position that we are following the spirit of NRS 202.3673 by asserting our right to maintain a safe work environment for both our employees and visitors. Signage to this effect is located here, and at most government buildings throughout Clark County. Should an armed citizen disregard our request to leave the premises, they may be cited or arrested for trespassing. Violation of this law is a misdemeanor.

    So, I guess a citizen openly carrying a firearm on his or her person can stand by to be cited or arrested for trespassing (on public property? - can one trespass on PUBLIC property?) if requested to leave such public property but refuses or otherwise disregards a request to do so.
    I would forward this to the Attorney General. They are basically saying they are going to enforce laws that don't exist.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  21. #21
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    I would forward this to the Attorney General. They are basically saying they are going to enforce laws that don't exist.
    Yes... this statement: "Whether concealed or not, we enforce this NRS to include all persons entering a police facility wearing a firearm" is a real duesy. And again, they will "enforce" whatever it is they want to "enforce," whether it's law or not. After all, they ARE the POLICE don't ya know. As for the AG, well... let's just say that the Clark County Sheriff has more "influence" than does the AG and I'm quite sure the AG already has the "low down" on what's going on here and has condoned it... either officially or tacitly. But... I'm sure there WILL be challenges to the above statement by at least a few people I'm familiar with who have been "in this fight" for a while now.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    It always amuses me when a government agency which is supposed to enforce the law refuses to OBEY the law.

    If THEY disrespect the law, how can they expect US to respect the law -- or them . . ?

    My grandfather was an LAPD cop. He was STRONGLY prejudiced against Japanese and blacks. He was also known for the polite and professional manner in which he treated blacks, Japanese and Japanese Americans when he encountered them on the job. Once, when asked by another cop -- my dad -- to reconcile his comments with his actions, he responded "Because that's the job. I don't enforce my law, I enforce THE law, and the law says this is how these people are to be treated." I was maybe 5 years old when I saw this, and have never forgotten. My dad was known for the same way of doing his work.

    Too bad cops like these are a vanishing breed.

  23. #23
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    395
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 07:46 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by OC-moto450r View Post
    I agree, but the the NRS says "any building" and only that you have to be warned. Without case law, the overlords will continue to see the NRS just like the LVMPD PIO, the NVHP officer and the NYE County Sheriff........

    The District Attorney here in Pahrump seems to believe they are right also.
    This sounds like an organized criminal conspiracy to me...RICO!!!


    And some soft-headed individuals still think government employees serve the people. LOL
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    It comes DIRECTLY from the LVMPD PIO and is fresh off the presses
    That right there is Plaintiff's Exhibit A of the city's policy and practice of depriving individuals of their rights. Save it!

    When they say they "enforce" it, I'll bet they don't mean they get an arrest warrant or make an arrest. I'll bet you a cup of coffee they cite NRS 202 when they commit felony coercion and demand the carrier leave the building.
    Last edited by Yard Sale; 04-12-2012 at 02:30 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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