• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open Carry encounter at the Police Station

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Additionally, are the rules different if you serve yourself versus hiring a professional?

Howdy Mac702!
You are correct there are both state and federal laws affecting process servers.
High on the list, in every state I've looked at (admittedly few)

1. A service of process must be made by an individual who is above the age of 18.
2. The person performing service of process cannot be a party to the action.
3. The person service process must be a U.S. citizen.

Beyond that, it gets more complicated. Here in Colorado, we work under "Rule 4" of the civil code to serve process.
Then there are federal rules too.

But what I was aware the OP was doing, and likely nobody else caught, was an implied threat to charge the police officers with a felony!
That's right. He alluded to it several times during the video. For those who do not know the federal law, I'll quote it here for edification:

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1501
Whoever knowingly and willingly obstructs, resists or opposes any officer of the United States, or other person duly authorized, in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal or judicial writ or process of any court of the United States...shall, except as otherwise provided by law, be fined not more than $300 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Whoever Assaults or Wounds any officer or other person duly authorized, knowing him to be such officer or other person so duly authorized in serving or executing any such writ, rule, order, process, warrant, or other legal or judicial writ or process
Shall except as otherwise provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both.

I do not know whether the officers he confronted were even aware of his implication, and this particular law is not frequently applied.
But I caught what he was doing when he repeatedly stressed he had papers from a federal court. He was alluding to 18 U.S.C. - 1501.

At least he knew enough about process service to throw that out there, suggesting that the law enforcement officers were violating that federal code by obstructing him from doing his service of process.

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.
Because of the economy, there has been an influx of sewer service technicians all across America.
These guys have no ethical standards. All they want is the money for doing the serve.
As a result, many will falsify an affidavit of service, get it notarized, and returned to the court when he never actually made the serve.
He'll throw the documents down the sewer (Hence the 'sewer service' moniker) or otherwise dispose of the papers he never served.
I've actually gotten a local process server fired for precisely this sort of nonsense.
But back to intimidation:
Because there are so many people doing sewer service, judges are getting quite... judicious... about verifying legitimacy of affidavits.
They'd better be in order, and they'd better be cleanly delivered.
Lawyers know that judges are looking at some process servers with a highly jaundiced eye.
And a lawyer who knows that the client was approached by an armed man to serve a summons or subpeona, will make a case that the defendant was placed under duress by the intimidation presented by the process server being armed. Judges will likely view it as intimidation and throw out the service of process and there ain't squat anybody can do about it. He is, after all, the judge.

A police officer is a sworn agent of the jurisdiction. A process server is a public servant, but has no authority other than to deliver court papers to the defendant.

Here in Colorado, we have Colorado Revised Statute 18-1-701 that permits a process server to engage in activity that may otherwise be construed as criminal conduct if not performed by a public servant. For example, a process server can't be charged with stalking when all they want is to serve papers. They can't be charged with harassment for simply trying to deliver service of process. They can't be charged with trespassing or violation of private property signs because they have a right to access the front door of the defendant's dwelling. They do not enjoy any inherent right to enter a dwelling or place of business. The only saving grace in this instance is that he was entering a public place, i.e. the cop shop. But it won't stop a judge from ruling a server intimidated a defendant by carrying openly.

As I said earlier... it ain't a violation of law, but the perception of the judge that matters.
Cops tend to be intimidating on purpose. They are the authority that comes to compell a citizen to conform to law.
We ain't cops, and ain't supposed to be intimidating. All we do is deliver court papers to a defendant. We have no authority beyond that.
We don't arrest people, nor engage in enforcing law. A sworn officer of the law may require a sidearm because his enforcement efforts often come at peril to his life.
We just deliver papers, and are unlikely to face such harrowing situations as a police officer.

Since I am a professional process server, as well as a bounty hunter, I spend a great deal of my time studying my fields. I may carry a sidearm, but on a serve, it will be concealed. The vast majority of process servers, and bounty hunters too for that matter, do not carry deadly weapons. In almost all situations, police strength pepper spray is enough to handle a threat to the process server or bounty hunter.

So it isn't about 2a rights but rather, professional conduct of a public servant trying to effect service of process.
As I viewed the video, from the perspective of a professional process server, I felt (granted, it is my opinion) the behavior of this particular process server was totally out of line. And if he is currently a member of NAPPS, I believe he should be up for censure!

Hope this helps to clarify... a claim of intimidation can invalidate a successful serve as compelling a defendant to accept by virtue of duress.
Most serves are simply a knock at the door, handing the papers to the defendant and explaining they are being served with a subpeona, summons, complaint, writ or whatever the case might be.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 
Last edited:

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
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.

This is why cross-posting to other states isn't a good idea, at least without clearly identifying the jurisdiction it occurred in. But yes, what you said. I'm astonished how many people tried to chime in and call a police station private property. In what state is that true?

As for the process serving, though I see no reason why process serving can't be armed.

To expand on this, it is worth noting that in Nevada, wearing a gun OC is equivalent to wearing Jeans. It is legal, and unremarkable, and not a problem as long as you don't take it off and wave it around at people. At least that's what the law says (or, more accurately, doesn't say...in NV).

The persons being served were being served for this same type of behavior the last time the plaintiffs were present. In other words, they were serving the cops because the cops are being sued, because they did the same stupid sh.. last time. This is going to be the great circular court case, where each time they serve the defendants, more cops sign up to be defendants next time.

So, if OC is completely legal in this situation (it IS, let's just stipulate that), then there is no intimidation. Unless the process server was also using his jeans to intimidate the cops in the video.



Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
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

Howdy Rob!
You nailed it right on the head pardner!
There is that old saying: "Your right to swing your fist ceases where my nose begins!"
The video shows us a guy who tries to shove his rights down other people's throats, thus infringing upon their rights.
It certainly isn't the way to promote a positive image of open carry, and if anything, will likely result in new restrictions being added to the law.

We were talking about the need to be ambassadors for open carry. By presenting a positive impression of the armed citizen in society at large.
This sort of confrontational "chip on the shoulder" sort of behavior won't work any better than folks who run around trying to shove their particular view of religion down the throats of other citizens. Do they have the right of religious freedom? Sure they do. Does that mean they can trample my rights to religious freedom? No.

We enjoy the right of free speech, but even on that are reasonable limits. You cannot slander another citizen without risking being sued.
You cannot print something slanderous about another person without risking a charge of libel.
But the instant topic is much less about law, and much more about karma.
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.
On the other hand, you present a reasonable demeanor, and you'll get reasonable in return.
If he wants to promote open carry, he should do so on his own time... not while on the client's business.
Conflict of interest.
It would be just as unprofessional as a bank teller trying to convert you to their religion while you only came in to make a deposit or check your balance.
I predict that the process server in the video will find, in due course, his client list will shrink considerably.
He is thinking entirely of his own agenda. And worse, he doesn't seem the least bit concerned how it will reflect back on his client.
I'll bet a Morgan dollar his client hasn't the faintest idea what this guy did while carrying their papers.

In my mind, not only is such behavior unprofessional, it isn't ethical either.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 
Last edited:

Merlin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
487
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
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.

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
 

gmijackso

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
208
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
The video shows us a guy who tries to shove his rights down other people's throats, thus infringing upon their rights.

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

LoneEchoWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Messages
285
Location
Alamosa,Colorado
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. :rolleyes:

The OP was not our visitor, he posted in the wrong forum, if you don't want us to tell you how and what we think then don't post in the wrong section. period. Secondly, in the video itself the LEO states that they are renting the building from a company, not sure how Nevada Law works, thus why you don't post in the wrong state, but id love to see some cites as to where it says no Police station can be on private property? or for that matter where it states that said private property becomes public when a police station, fire station, hospital, or whatnot is built or being used out of that building? Here in Colorado we respect property owners, and we respect our rights and constitution. As for why we didn't "rally" around our "visitor" is because theres so many things wrong with that bait video that its not even funny, we don't rally around people that don't know what there doing, let alone run there business like a 12 year old would.
 

LoneEchoWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Messages
285
Location
Alamosa,Colorado
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

So what your saying is, they were trespassed from that same building asked to not come back while OC and turned around and came back? that will look real great in there case, knowingly trespassing after being asked before to leave. hmm. seems fishy. They have Signage on the doors, the guys have been educated that they cannot OC in the building before, they have even been trespassed before, and knowingly return to where they were asked to leave? If thats not a clear cut case of Trespassing i dont know what is, and untill i see some cites saying a police station cannot be built on private property its clear to me they were trespassing.
 

LoneEchoWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Messages
285
Location
Alamosa,Colorado
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.


Cite showing its a public building?
Looks like these guys were asked to leave in the past for the same reason, they have signage on the doors i am willing to bet was there before there first "encounter" they I'm sure explained why they were being asked to leave the first time, just like the second. So these well "educated" "advocates" returned OC to the building they were asked to leave prior to the video being made. if you all cant find some sort of cite saying ALL police stations MUST be on PUBLIC property, and if they rent a building from a PRIVATE owner that immediately it becomes a PUBLIC Building they were trespassing simple as that.

And as a side note, i thought they were there to do there job and serve something, not make a video about being trespassed, They did not go just to serve they went to cause problems, there Work had a alterer motive, i wonder if the Company they work for would appreciate them making there company look like a bunch of fools. they must own there own. Because i know if i went somewhere to do something other than my job that i was hired for, id be let go.
 
Last edited:

LoneEchoWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Messages
285
Location
Alamosa,Colorado
A government office such as a police station is a public building.

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?
 

LoneEchoWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Messages
285
Location
Alamosa,Colorado
State property is property owned by the state anything registered with the "state" becomes 'State property'. Such property may also referred to crown property. In most states, the state owns zoos, libraries, schools, and parks; some is reserved for restricted use, such as military bases and research laboratories. As for anything registered to the state humans may also fall under that category since we are issues ID cards and are under full control of the state whether it is known or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_property

Government Acquisition of Private Property http://law.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Government_Acquisition_of_Private_Property.pdf
State ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_ownership
Public property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property
Property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

Heres some reading for you to do.
 
Last edited:

LoneEchoWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Messages
285
Location
Alamosa,Colorado
i know im posting alot, but something came to mind. 29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting.

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

as ive said before thats Colorado law, i dont know what your wording in Nevada is but in Colorado you were breaking the law. there were Signs on all entrances and exits.
 

usmcmustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
393
Location
Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
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.”
 

SoLasVegas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
120
Location
Las Vegas, ,
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?

A post office is Federal property and there are Federal laws against possession of a firearm. Same with the SSA.

In a statute regulating concealed carry, a public building is defined as:

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.

There are no laws in NV prohibiting firearms in public buildings. There are laws against concealed carry when a public building is posted, but the statutes say nothing about open carry.

Notice how this doesn't say "owned by" -- it clearly states "occupied by".
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
In Nevada, carry is only prohibited in:

Federal Buildings (including post office),

Schools - NRS 202.265 Possession of dangerous weapon on property or in vehicle of school or child care facility.

Other public buildings - NRS 202.3673 Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building. Notice it says "concealed", not all.

Private property owner/manager may ask you to leave. Signs have no weight of law. If you refuse to leave you may be charged with trespass.

Buildings "occupied" by Government agencies are considered public, no matter if they own or lease the building. You cannot be trespassed from a public building. These are some of the issues we are dealing with. Legally open carrying in a public building. The first thing they throw at you is NRS 202.3673 . But it only applies to "concealed" carry. The try to include open carry "within the spirit of the law". But it's NOT the law.

We know they don't like it, but we also don't like it when they rewrite the laws to meet their agenda. Enforce the laws as written.
 

LoneEchoWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Messages
285
Location
Alamosa,Colorado
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.”

so i take it you do not have wording like the ordinance i posted below? if so the building even if owned by the State had signage up in the state or cites jurisdiction and thus making it illegal to carry into said building, some signs hold no power, some do. Anything "owned" by the state or city can ban OC where signs are posted. Do you or DO you not have a state preemption in your state with wording similar to what i posted below? We in Colorado Respect the Laws and have very few problems with restrictions aside from that black dot on the map called "Denver."
 
Top