No actually thats from the language in the Nevada laws. i believe i cite just above it actually but its NRS 207.200.
Yep, I was curious if anyone knew of a similar law in CO.
No actually thats from the language in the Nevada laws. i believe i cite just above it actually but its NRS 207.200.
Additionally, are the rules different if you serve yourself versus hiring a professional?
Correct. A few people jumped the gun here. A police station by definition CANNOT be private property. If you are conducting lawful business, they cannot trespass you.
As for the process serving, though I see no reason why process serving can't be armed.
1. Laws in Colorado are not laws in Nevada
2. OP posted in the wrong state
3. His service was sloppy and would have killed a case here in Colorado
4. Sometimes these videos do nothing but make OC advocates look like lunatics to the general populace
5. Head on attacks such as this are like ******* in the wind..
I personally don't care to take on the PD head on, I personally don't like bully advocacy, I prefer to advocate one encounter at a time, and educate people so then they can educate others.. once you get there.. VOTES will change the system.. Gestapo activism IMO is counterproductive..
--Rob
Now to the point of "intimidation". Does a process server who carries openly break a law? No.
Does a judge consider such to be intimidation? You betcha he does.
The video shows us a guy who tries to shove his rights down other people's throats, thus infringing upon their rights.
You throw your weight around, and sooner or later, somebody is going to throw it back at you.
You try to bully others, and eventually a bigger bully comes along to even the score.
When the Sheriff Office serves in NV, do they need to disarm? Is it 'intimidation' to have an officer of the law serve? Odd.
PS Those who responded from CO sure have an 'interesting' method of rallying around your visitors.
Point taken.
With that said, the original case is about these same individuals being denied access to this same building for OC. So, the video of them getting blocked again while trying to serve the offenders from the first visit does have a certain beautiful irony to it. And it will support their original case to demonstrate that their original incident was not a one-off aberration, but in fact a systemic violation of civil liberties.
Of course, I can imagine this case growing to the point that everyone in the building is a witness and defendant in said case. Lol.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
Please cite. I'd like to know which "rights" of this/these public servants you believe the OP has infringed upon by conducting legal business in a public building.
At what point is it the appropriate time to be the one returning the weight, or "throwing it back" as you state? You are presenting the assumption that the OP is the one "throwing his weight around, and "being a bully". Perhaps it would be reasonable to believe that he is in fact responding to an over zealous, and illegal, action being that has been done in the past, and is in fact happening again in the video that was posted. Perhaps all Americans should just stay on the ground after being pushed down and having their milk money stolen, regardless of what each item represents in reality.
A government office such as a police station is a public building.
I want my 12 minutes back.
A goverment building Such as a POST OFFICE is public building then too, and you cant OC in the Postoffice, the Social Security Admin is a "Public" building that has no Weapon signs posted all over it and you cant carry in there...
Cite where your getting this info please?
NRS 202.3673
(b) “Public building” means any building or office space occupied by:
(1) Any component of the Nevada System of Higher Education and used for any purpose related to the System; or
(2) The Federal Government, the State of Nevada or any county, city, school district or other political subdivision of the State of Nevada and used for any public purpose.
If only part of the building is occupied by an entity described in this subsection, the term means only that portion of the building which is so occupied.
Okay, right off the bat here I have a disclaimer… I’m a simpleton with simple, uncomplicated thoughts.
“Public” facilities, be they buildings or areas imply to me that “public” funds (funds derived from some sort of taxation of the “public”) have been expended to purchase, erect, and/or maintain them. That’s what makes them “public.” They are of and for the “people” or the “public” because the “public” has paid for them either totally or partially.
Now, are there laws in existence, both federal and state, that “restrict” the “peoples’” access to “public” facilities, either totally or partially? Of course there are. One example is the federal law which restricts the personal possession of weapons in and around U.S. Postal facilities (“public” facilities) and other facilities. Because of that law you will not see me or others who are aware of that law attempting to open carry into a post office. There are also state law(s) here in Nevada restricting possession of weapons in and around schools (“public” facilities). Again, I and we don’t attempt to open carry in schools or school facilities. So let’s be clear, by LAW there are “public” facilities that are restrictive with respect to otherwise lawful weapons’ possession.
However, the lawful possession of a weapon in those “public” facilities that are not covered by LAW that would restrict such possession is just that… lawful possession. A sign displayed in or on a “public” facility that restricts lawful possession of weapons that does not have the “force” of LAW is simply that, a sign. And… a member of the “public” (you know someone who helped finance that “public” facility) cannot be threatened or coerced (trespassed) to leave that “public” facility by threat of a “sign.” Now, “private” facilities or property is another issue. If I’m a private property owner, I have the right to “refuse service to anyone,” basically. So, if I don’t “like” having people walking around in my facility with a sidearm, then I can request that they leave my property. If they refuse, I can “trespass” them… my property… my rules.
Here in Nevada, most if not all the signage that is displayed in “public” facilities restricting the possession of firearms makes reference to the Nevada statute that applies solely to concealed carry of firearms… the statute does not address the lawful open carry of firearms. The signs actually reference the Nevada Revised Statute by number and then go on in “language” to say “NO or ALL firearms prohibited.” In effect, the signs misquote the actual law in order to “fool” the “public” into believing there’s a law that restricts the lawful open carry of weapons in a particular “public” building.
So, what you see on these videos are a few people who are challenging what is going on here in Nevada that is NOT in accordance with LAW… simple as that. They have been successful in some areas…. The Nevada DMV offices is one example. The DMV offices had signs up, but after challenge realized that the signs were not applicable to lawful open carry and now open carry in DMV offices is relatively business as usual.
Hey… one is either a lawful “open carry” proponent and advocate… or not. Those of you there in Colorado (and elsewhere maybe) who have “problems” with those who are and who take action to maintain and extend the rights afforded by the 2A and by state constitutions (at considerable personal risk) should “take a hike.”