wrightme
Regular Member
ASSuming isn't a good basis for discussion.
Claiming he is a criminal isn't valid without basis in law.
The laws don't need to be the same for relevance.
-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter DON`T TREAD ON ME
- Start date
ASSuming isn't a good basis for discussion.
Claiming he is a criminal isn't valid without basis in law.
The laws don't need to be the same for relevance.
Dodoandduck
Regular Member
Yes, I do mean "our" cause, however used "their" cause due to the "spirit" of this conversation originating in a Colorado forum where "our" cause may not be the same as "their" cause. I believe I have commended Tigerlily, Dave and Tim for their efforts to help us all. My comment about voting was directed at continuing to vote in individuals who will not, through their own agenda, erode away the laws and rights already abided to us by "our" constitution and who will continue to fight for "our" rights.
wrightme
Regular Member
You were the SECOND one in this thread presenting the attitude, so claiming to do something before the attitude and stuff is self-defeating.
JoeSparky
Centurion
I will kindly disagree on this point... in the law allowing restrictions on "Concealed Carry" there is specific language for the posted sign to have upon it. The specified language makes NO reference to concealed ONLY carry.
I'll be back in a bit with a link, quote, or retraction.....
usmcmustang
Regular Member
Yes, Joe... the statute re: concealed carrying has wording, maybe specific wording, for signage. That "wording" is IN the concealed carry statute. How in the world can it be inferred to prohibit OPEN CARRYING? If the state had a statute prohibiting swimming in the nude in public parks and posted signs that said "Swimming Prohibited," because the particular statute prohibiting swimming in the nude said that a sign displaying the words "Swimming Prohibited" could be displayed... would that make sense? Would you seem to believe that someone showing up to go swimming with their speedos on should be turned away because of the sign? Well, they're "almost" naked so let us enforce "the spirit" of the law... what a crock of $hit.
Beat ya to it.
NRS 202.3673 Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building; exceptions; penalty.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a permittee may carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of any public building.
2. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of a public building that is located on the property of a public airport.
3. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of:
(a) A public building that is located on the property of a public school or a child care facility or the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, unless the permittee has obtained written permission to carry a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subparagraph (3) of paragraph (a) of subsection 3 of NRS 202.265.
(b) A public building that has a metal detector at each public entrance or a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building, unless the permittee is not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subsection 4.
4. The provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 do not prohibit:
(a) A permittee who is a judge from carrying a concealed firearm in the courthouse or courtroom in which the judge presides or from authorizing a permittee to carry a concealed firearm while in the courtroom of the judge and while traveling to and from the courtroom of the judge.
(b) A permittee who is a prosecuting attorney of an agency or political subdivision of the United States or of this State from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of a public building.
(c) A permittee who is employed in the public building from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building.
(d) A permittee from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building if the permittee has received written permission from the person in control of the public building to carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of the public building.
5. A person who violates subsection 2 or 3 is guilty of a misdemeanor.
6. As used in this section:
(a) “Child care facility” has the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (a) of subsection 5 of NRS 202.265.
(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.
Ê 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.
Last edited:
usmcmustang
Regular Member
I'll reply to this just as I did to Joe... anything and everything in this statute IS Concealed Carry LAW... doesn't apply to Open Carry... it CANNOT...
the statute re: concealed carrying has wording, maybe specific wording, for signage. That "wording" is IN the concealed carry statute. How in the world can it be inferred to prohibit OPEN CARRYING? If the state had a statute prohibiting swimming in the nude in public parks and posted signs that said "Swimming Prohibited," because the particular statute prohibiting swimming in the nude said that a sign displaying the words "Swimming Prohibited" could be displayed... would that make sense? Would you seem to believe that someone showing up to go swimming with their speedos on should be turned away because of the sign? Well, they're "almost" naked so let us enforce "the spirit" of the law... what a crock of $hit.
Last edited:
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
It turns out the OP works nights. As I am sipping my coffee and reading this I get concerned, Thank you to everyone who Cited and Straightened out the legal points. I learned a little about forum etiquette, I did post in I believe 4 states. I thought the 4 states I chose were in approxamatly the same mindset we are in in Nevada. I was wrong.
The sign that the officers were referring to was a image of a pistol with a circle an a line through it The sign was insufficiant to ban CC in the building much less OC.
There was much to do about us "antagonizing" " harrassing" Or otherwise giving the officers a hard time. I would like to know where it says their job is to be easy? mine isn't, there is no one running around to make sure I don't have a bad day. At the end of the day I was excercising my second ammendment, as well as my right to redress grievences, I was under the impression that the second amendment applied to Colorado as well, so I posted there.
Is it strange that out of the 4 states, the only anger I saw came out of Colorado.....Hmmmm!
I will tell you that I do not just wake up one day and decide to go "prancing" on someones wheaties. I am an active letter writer and am prepared to back it up hence the reason we were there. The video did look a little commercial but it was a big step up froom the raw footage ( my first encounter streaming on line) I also had an opportunity to discuss this incident with A METRO member about five layers up from the supervisor that was at the encounter, (we have coffee from time to time) we talked about the propensity for law enforcement to escalate instead of de- escalate. This situation demonstrates that exquisetly. Metro has asked for help in the way of a workshop or something.
Some of the guys in Colorado may think this is bad for us but I believe that it helps both the OC community, as well as LEO's if used as a learning tool. Thats how we roll.
IN LIBERTY,
The sign that the officers were referring to was a image of a pistol with a circle an a line through it The sign was insufficiant to ban CC in the building much less OC.
There was much to do about us "antagonizing" " harrassing" Or otherwise giving the officers a hard time. I would like to know where it says their job is to be easy? mine isn't, there is no one running around to make sure I don't have a bad day. At the end of the day I was excercising my second ammendment, as well as my right to redress grievences, I was under the impression that the second amendment applied to Colorado as well, so I posted there.
Is it strange that out of the 4 states, the only anger I saw came out of Colorado.....Hmmmm!
I will tell you that I do not just wake up one day and decide to go "prancing" on someones wheaties. I am an active letter writer and am prepared to back it up hence the reason we were there. The video did look a little commercial but it was a big step up froom the raw footage ( my first encounter streaming on line) I also had an opportunity to discuss this incident with A METRO member about five layers up from the supervisor that was at the encounter, (we have coffee from time to time) we talked about the propensity for law enforcement to escalate instead of de- escalate. This situation demonstrates that exquisetly. Metro has asked for help in the way of a workshop or something.
Some of the guys in Colorado may think this is bad for us but I believe that it helps both the OC community, as well as LEO's if used as a learning tool. Thats how we roll.
IN LIBERTY,
usmcmustang
Regular Member
Yep... I realize that. Just didn't want to have Joe confused. ;-)
JoeSparky
Centurion
I don't believe that I was confused. Yep, I understand where you are coming from with a law restricting "concealed carry" and a sign "prohibiting weapons" In the posted law I was refering to the bolded portion in 3b.... I agree.... CONCEALED is NOT Open carry and Open carry is NOT concealed yet the sign requested by the statute refers to ALL WEAPONS in a section specific to CONCEALED CARRY RESTRICTIONS.
And this was an action by the Nevada State Legislature if I am not mistaken...
Forgive my inability to successfully mention the ridiculousness of a sign banning "all firearms" in a piece of law specific to CONCEALED CARRY ONLY restrictions.
Last edited:
LoneEchoWolf
Regular Member
No Colorado doesn't have Laws banning just any public buildings from OC or CC but those buildings that have signs on all Entrances and exits, or permanent security devices I.E. Courthouses, federal buildings (but thats federal laws) Our police station (here at least) doesn't have signs up so its a none issue. And if he were to do that in Colorado where signs are clearly visible, it would be illegal for him to enter any Government Ran building that has no weapon signs posted on all entrances and exits and i believe i cited that in a few posts IN COLORADO, so in Colorado YES he would have been a criminal for that. Just as he assumed we in Colorado had similar laws i Assumed the same thing. Its not like i got up in the morning and wanted to start a fight, i was basing my reply on the same thing he based his OP on, thinking we had similar laws. And as for the attitude i was referring to, yes i was rude to a alleged criminal because at that time, as far as i was aware he was breaking laws, on video. as i said before, instead of just throwing a video up with no reference to laws and just assume that it stands for everyone is foolish, then getting angry and rude because in Colorado the laws are different and was taken wrong instead of calm explaining what your laws are as opposed to ours is the wrong way to handle things. yes of course i was defending my State you would not believe how many people post crap that makes ALL OC look bad regardless of where you live. chalk this up to a learning experience, Ive learned that your laws are much different than ours, which i didn't know before because i never lived there. and that i should maybe be a bit more stand off about my way of replying since some people cannot calmly explain there cause no matter what.
FallonJeeper
Regular Member
The funny thing is, there are Sheriffs office buildings (Churchill County to name one) where the sign is posted "no firearms" and others that allow open carry (Lyon County Silver Springs sub station to name one).
My question is if some offices get it, why can't all of them get it?
My question is if some offices get it, why can't all of them get it?
Merlin
Regular Member
It's all about the mindset of the elected officials and bureaucrats. This is why it is so important to find people who "get it" to elect into offices. Like Tim.
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
FallonJeeper
Regular Member
There is some truth to that. The Sheriff is an elected official. But most of the people "enforcing" the laws or misinterpreting the laws are not.
Are you sure you joined the right website?
Shoobee
Regular Member
Last edited:
Shoobee
Regular Member
Nevada is a beautiful state. Especially Tahoe and Reno. Vegas also.
Some day when I retire from this California rat hole I will probably move to a shall-issue state.
Its no wonder Nevada gets overrun.
Vegassteve
Regular Member
Yes there is, all the time and every place. There is no exception in the 2nd none. No one gets you wrong, we know where you stand. This is a forum for those that support and fight for our rights, not just part time rights. We dont need people who think like you in Nevada. We dont need you and your time and place crap, infecting our state.
9026543
Regular Member
Another typical refugee from Commiefornia with the idea that part times rights are just fine.
We have some of those move to rural MO where we enjoy firearms and the first damn thing they do is start trying to impose their oppressive ideas on the free citizens of MO. So we generally we give them the stay the hell out of our business and go elsewhere treatment.