Nevada Concealed Carry VS Federal Interstate Transport Law

Here is our Nevada Law concerning concealed weapons:

" NRS 202.3653 Definitions. As used in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. “Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

2. “Department” means the Department of Public Safety.

3. “Permit” means a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive.

4. “Revolver” means a firearm that has a revolving cylinder with several chambers, which, by pulling the trigger or setting the hammer, are aligned with the barrel, placing the bullet in a position to be fired. The term includes, without limitation, a single or double derringer.

5. “Semiautomatic firearm” means a firearm which:

(a) Uses the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to extract a fixed cartridge and chamber a fresh cartridge with each single pull of the trigger; and

(b) Requires the release of the trigger and another pull of the trigger for each successive shot.

(Added to NRS by 1995, 2721; A 1997, 1175; 1999, 850; 2001, 2579; 2005, 596; 2007, 3151)"

There is no exception for "unloaded"

However, there is Federal for Interstate Transport preemption:

"Per Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926A, regardless of prohibitive local laws, one may transport a firearm from one place where a firearm is legal to another place where firearms are legal without fear of prosecution, if the firearm is transported in a specific way. To be protected under this law, neither the firearm nor the ammunition can be readily accessible from the passenger compartment, or if the vehicle has no compartment other than the driver’s compartment, then the firearms and ammunition must be in a locked case other than the glove box or console. The law imposes no requirement to transport a firearm in such a manner, unless one is seeking protection from prohibitive local laws. This law is unlikely to be useful in Nevada, where restrictions on firearms are relatively minimal."

But as pointed out earlier, it's for interstate (state to state) not intrastate (within a state).

Transporting from Ohio to Nevada in a vehicle in a "specific way" is legal. It may be a stretch to carry your firearm in a "specific way", at every hotel along your travel and consider that interstate transport.

What are your thoughts?
This law is specific to vehicles and not does not include pedestrian travel.

Do stops at hotels and restaurants, along your trip, get included in the "Interstate Transport"?
I think not.

First of all, nothing in the Nevada Revised Statutes would make transporting a firearm in a case in your car unlawful. It is only concealed carry if you are carrying the case on your person, like in your hand. In theory, I suppose it is possible that 926A might protect you in the circumstance if the locked container was somehow upon your person while you were in your vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment. In this circumstance, I suppose it may be possible for there to be a prosecution under 202.350 if the container is somehow upon your person, for which one might proclaim 926A as a defense.

Of course, if one makes sure the locked container is not on one's person and is merely in their vehicle, they would not have to worry about 202.350 at all.

But as for the federal law, there are some interesting questions here without clear answers.

18 USC 926A

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Click to expand...

To me it appears that every county and city gains its authority from the State and for federal purposes would be considered a political subdivision thereof.

I don't know how the courts would interpret it, but imagine a person is traveling from Arizona to Idaho, and they pass through North Las Vegas with a firearm transported in accordance to Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926A. Suppose NRS 244.364, which in theory prevents local ordinances from regulating firearms in Nevada, is not used as a defense in court, or for some reason is held to be meaningless by dumb judges. Imagine that North Las Vegas tries to enforce municipal code 9.32.080 against this person.

9.32.080 - Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle—Exceptions.

It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.

(Ord. 596 § 1, 1978: prior code § 7.22.070)

Click to expand...

Without a doubt, the very intent of Title 18 USC 926A is to shield that traveler from prosecution. This would be a case of interstate travel, and under the interstate commerce clause Congress has clear authority to make such law protecting this traveler.

If we shake things up a bit, and a person is traveling from Henderson to Elko, and drives through North Las Vegas, it is less clear. By the sheer wording of the federal law, it seems to me that he would be protected. Yet, I can see a prosecutor arguing that it does not apply because the federal law is titled "interstate transportation of firearms" or even that it would be an unconstitutional extension of the commerce clause to limit intrastate transportation regulations.

Yet, at the same time, the Feds are more than happy to prosecute people growing medical marijuana in California for use in California, and the courts have upheld the federal prosecution despite what appears to me to be a clear lack of authority under the commerce clause.

Traveling from hotel to hotel within the same city that bans guns in cars seems even more precarious than traveling between political subdivisions in the same state, because now you are even in the same political subdivision. Does the word "place" in the federal law mean "place under a specific political subdivision" or does it actually mean "place" in the dictionary sense, as in, any place at all. If it means the latter, it seems to me that you could nearly always transport your firearms in your car despite such a municipal code, since the municipal code only proscribes guns in a vehicle and the starting point and destination (the hotels) would be legal to own and carry the firearm.

(Of course, note that if the entire political subdivision prohibits guns, whether they are in vehicles or otherwise, if you make unnecessary stops in that city, you would lose protection under 18 USC 926A... In this case, we are only talking about stopping at hotels because it is legal to carry on foot in our example.)

In theory I could see the Feds one day proclaiming that states cannot infringe on 2nd amendment rights, and using that as a justification for stopping prosecution of people transporting guns even intrastate, but we are not there yet except for purposes of the feds telling states they cannot ban ownership of handguns in the home.

Felid`Maximus said:

...If we shake things up a bit, and a person is traveling from Henderson to Elko, and drives through North Las Vegas, it is less clear.

Click to expand...

Driving through North Las Vegas while concealed carrying is definitely NOT a violation of the City Ordinance, although having a firearm in the vehicle NOT on your person may be. I would also go out on a limb here and say that open carrying while in a vehicle is also NOT technically a violation of the City Ordinance. The City Ordinance re: dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle; and the City Ordinance that defines a "dangerous or deadly weapon" is quoted as follows:

9.32.080 - Deadly weapon prohibited in vehicle

It is unlawful for any person to have in his possession in any automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other type of vehicle any dangerous or deadly weapon, but this restriction shall not be deemed to prohibit the carrying of ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business, or for the purpose of legitimate sport or recreation.


9.32.040 - Dangerous or deadly weapon defined

The term "dangerous or deadly weapons" includes, but is not limited to, any dirk or dagger; any knife with a blade three inches or more in length, and any snap-blade or spring-blade knife, regardless of the length of the blade; any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool; any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle; any dangerous or deadly weapon within the meaning of any law of this state restricting the use thereof; and any cutting, stabbing, or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm; and any firearm other than (a) one carried pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, or (b) an ordinary rifle or shotgun lawfully carried for purposes of hunting or other lawful sport.

Of course, the definition was written at a time when NO ONE was considering that anyone would be open carrying and only directly addressed concealed carrying, i.e., a firearm carried "pursuant to a valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority...", or stated otherwise... with a "concealed carry permit." However, I would propose that open carrying also "conforms" to the definition of what a dangerous or deadly weapon is not as well. As we all know, the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1, permits (emphasis added) its citizens “to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.” Does not Article 1, Section 11, Subsection 1 of the Nevada Constitution afford the right, or in effect, permit (emphasis added) its citizens to “bear arms,” even those driving their vehicles within the confines of the city limits of the City of North Las Vegas; and is not the State Constitution the supreme law of the state and therefore inherently a “duly authorized government authority?” So, open carriers do have a "valid permit, issued by a duly authorized government authority, and therefor are not in violation of the NLV City Ordinance when traveling in or through North Las Vegas while open carrying in their vehicles.

I have a headache... ugh...

I just want an easy, legal way to carry from my car to hotel room, and from hotel room through casino to get to the street where I can OC.... Being a Canadian who is not a resident alien, I can not get a CCW for the carry through the casino (while not illegal to do so, hotel/casino security is very quick to point out that I am not allowed to open carry in their establishment.

I'll just keep doing what I did last time, and hope...

FallonJeeper said:

Do stops at hotels and restaurants, along your trip, get included in the "Interstate Transport"?
I think not.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do -- these are "reasonable stops," because you have to eat and sleep. Stops at attractions or visits to friends and family along the way are also considered "reasonable."

Going to Wisconsin by way of Florida might be a bit of a stretch, but I've made that trip more than once. The prosecutor has to prove his assertion that you are not making a single journey between two points, you aren't the one who has to prove that you are.

DVC said:

Yes, they do -- these are "reasonable stops," because you have to eat and sleep. Stops at attractions or visits to friends and family along the way are also considered "reasonable."

Going to Wisconsin by way of Florida might be a bit of a stretch, but I've made that trip more than once. The prosecutor has to prove his assertion that you are not making a single journey between two points, you aren't the one who has to prove that you are.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the US code only addresses transport in the vehicle, if I read it correctly. I'm not sure it would protect from prosecution.

FallonJeeper said:

Ah, but the US code only addresses transport in the vehicle, if I read it correctly. I'm not sure it would protect from prosecution.

Click to expand...

I believe there was a case of a guy who got bumped on a flight and had to spend the evening in (New Jersey?). When he went to check his luggage in the next morning for his flight out he was arrested for having firearms/ammo in his checked luggage. If memory served they say the "stop" nulified the law. Don't remember how it ended but I'm sure someone with a healthier brain stem than me will remember the details. I think this is the same law as is being discussed with regard to automobiles.

TBG

the District of Columbia still hasn’t returned his guns

2A