Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Trespass

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,812

    Trespass

    I know that this applies to several threads on here but I thought it might deserve its own space. What you will see below is my correspondence with Don Turn of NVFAC regarding this subject. You will see what started it followed by our back and forth comments. I'm sure there will be other opinions, great, but let's keep it civil please.

    TBG



    You know it doesn’t matter what a government official thinks is right or wrong. They can only do what they have lawful authority to do. From my review of statutes they have two options. Post it to no concealed carry, or specifically enumerate prohibited activities under the state trespass law. Besides that, everything else is unlawful.

    Don



    Don

    I think they would have a tough row to hoe by trying to use trespass against someone conducting lawful business in a publically owned building. There are some places trying to do that. I understand that Metro, NHP and Nye County Sheriff are all going that route. I don’t see it holding up but most likely will have to eventually go through the system. So far all they do is endlessly threaten with no arrest that I know of.

    Tim



    Tim, it is not hard at all. A written demand is a sign, stating what behavior is prohibited within the building or property.
    If they signed it “no firearms” and cited NRS 207.200 then trespass within building or property would be in violation of the law. I was a State Peace Officer in AZ for 30 years and even though NV laws are some what different. We used the trespass statutes all the time to gain compliance. However, I’m not about to tell any officer in NV how to do their job, especially about firearms, just saying….

    They are using a very liberal interpretation of the CCW statute, which is incorrect.

    Don

    NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.
    1. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:
    (a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or
    (b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,
    Ê is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.

    2. A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods:
    (a) If the land is used for agricultural purposes or for herding or grazing livestock, by painting with fluorescent orange paint:
    (1) Not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
    (I) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 1,000 feet; and
    (II) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary; and
    (2) Each side of all gates, cattle guards and openings that are designed to allow human ingress to the area;
    (b) If the land is not used in the manner specified in paragraph (a), by painting with fluorescent orange paint not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
    (1) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 200 feet; and
    (2) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary;
    (c) Fencing the area; or
    (d) By the owner or occupant of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.
    3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.

    4. An entryman on land under the laws of the United States is an owner within the meaning of this section.
    5. As used in this section:
    (a) “Fence” means a barrier sufficient to indicate an intent to restrict the area to human ingress, including, but not limited to, a wall, hedge or chain link or wire mesh fence. The term does not include a barrier made of barbed wire.
    (b) “Guest” means any person entertained or to whom hospitality is extended, including, but not limited to, any person who stays overnight. The term does not include a tenant as defined in NRS 118A.170.
    [1911 C&P § 500; RL § 6765; NCL § 10447]—(NRS A 1969, 96; 1975, 1169; 1987, 2086; 1989, 997; 2005, 930; 2007, 981; 2009, 141)




    Don

    NRS 207.200 does not apply. a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act. First, it is public property of which I as a citizen am an owner, Secondly, the intent is not to “vex or annoy the owner or occupant” which are the citizens of the jurisdiction, but to conduct lawful business. You can’t be trespassed when you are conducting legitimate business on public property. Firearms are specifically protected by Nevada statute which says that only the legislature may make rules/laws governing them. Openly carried a person can’t be barred entry.

    Signs prohibiting firearms, excepting 202.3673 concerning concealed firearms, have no force in law in Nevada. The statutes you point to are general “keep the hell out of here” signs. 3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.“Without lawful business with the owner of occupant of the property.” That says it all.

    Tim
    Last edited by The Big Guy; 07-11-2012 at 11:58 AM. Reason: missed part of the cut
    Article 1, Section 11, #1 of the Nevada Constitution: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use ..

    Life member GOA and NRA. Member SAF, NAGR, & former member NVFAC.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,575
    State peace officer for 30 years. All I need to know right there. I think I understand why the NVFAC has been so quiet on our needs now.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post

    Don

    NRS 207.200 does not apply. a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act. First, it is public property of which I as a citizen am an owner, Secondly, the intent is not to “vex or annoy the owner or occupant” which are the citizens of the jurisdiction, but to conduct lawful business. You can’t be trespassed when you are conducting legitimate business on public property. Firearms are specifically protected by Nevada statute which says that only the legislature may make rules/laws governing them. Openly carried a person can’t be barred entry.

    Signs prohibiting firearms, excepting 202.3673 concerning concealed firearms, have no force in law in Nevada. The statutes you point to are general “keep the hell out of here” signs. 3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.“Without lawful business with the owner of occupant of the property.” That says it all.

    Tim
    This says it all!

    The 202.3673 signs are lawful, and CCers cannot lawfully carry within the public buildings described in the statute unless they have written permission or come under one of the exceptions.

    The sign, "No Firearms Allowed", on the Clark Co. Library branch I went to is lawful, as this language can only refer to 202.3673. As it can only refer to 202.3673, those who carry concealed can be subject to a misdemeanor charge under 202.2673. This statute does not apply to open carriers.

    Our psychic friend at Metro, who wants to apply the "spirit" of the law (202.3673) to all firearms, including open carried firearms, is out of luck. Since 202.3673 is a criminal statute it is subject to either strict construction or plain meaning, since our constitutional rights are at issue.

    Strict Construction is only applicable where a statute contains ambiguous language. It doesn't apply with 202.3673, since the statute is unambiguous as to who are the subjects of the law: "Permittee" (CCW permit holders), and those carrying concealed into public buildings.

    All that is left is to read the plain meaning, not the spirit, of the law. Open carrying of firearms is not mentioned anywhere within 202.3673. permittees and concealed carry of firearms are specifically mentioned. Plainly, 202.3673 does not prohibit open carry of firearms into public buildings.

    This is why our spiritualist at Metro, and the other "enforcers" do not threaten to charge OCers with a violation of 202.3673. Instead they threaten trespass charges. They know they can't charge 202.3673 for OCers, but they use 202.3673 as the basis to charge trespass, which also doesn't apply.

    Our "law enforcers", who have sworn to uphold the law, pervert the law to satisfy their own personal opinions.
    Last edited by ed2276; 07-11-2012 at 03:18 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,971
    Quote Originally Posted by ed2276 View Post
    This says it all!

    The 202.3673 signs are lawful, and CCers cannot lawfully carry within the public buildings described in the statute unless they have written permission or come under one of the exceptions.

    The sign, "No Firearms Allowed", on the Clark Co. Library branch I went to is lawful, as this language can only refer to 202.3673. As it can only refer to 202.3673, those who carry concealed can be subject to a misdemeanor charge under 202.2673. This statute does not apply to open carriers.

    Our psychic friend at Metro, who wants to apply the "spirit" of the law (202.3673) to all firearms, including open carried firearms, is out of luck. Since 202.3673 is a criminal statute it is subject to either strict construction or plain meaning, since our constitutional rights are at issue.

    Strict Construction is only applicable where a statute contains ambiguous language. It doesn't apply with 202.3673, since the statute is unambiguous as to who are the subjects of the law: "Permittee" (CCW permit holders), and those carrying concealed into public buildings.

    All that is left is to read the plain meaning, not the spirit, of the law. Open carrying of firearms is not mentioned anywhere within 202.3673. permittees and concealed carry of firearms are specifically mentioned. Plainly, 202.3673 does not prohibit open carry of firearms into public buildings.

    This is why our spiritualist at Metro, and the other "enforcers" do not threaten to charge OCers with a violation of 202.3673. Instead they threaten trespass charges. They know they can't charge 202.3673 for OCers, but they use 202.3673 as the basis to charge trespass, which also doesn't apply.

    Our "law enforcers", who have sworn to uphold the law, pervert the law to satisfy their own personal opinions.
    If it is "PUBLIC" property and you pay taxes then doesn't that make you part "OWNER" of the building as it is owned and operated by the taxes payers?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    486
    Related to this topic, but sort of a sidestep:

    How would areas of a public building not accessable to the public be handled? For example, the back side of the glass at the Metro building? The records room, the phone room, etc. These are areas that are secured from entry by the public. Clearly, we are not permitted there at all, so it is not a carry issue there. I'm just curious if whatever authority allows them to block us from accessing the non-public-access areas of the building could be used against us in some convoluted way?

    Similar, even the public access areas close at night, and the public is denied access by locked doors, alarms, security folks, etc. I guess you can't be there for legitimate business if there is no one there to service your request... But maybe I am just 6 hours early?

    I dunno, you know what side I am on in this fight, just saying things out loud so they can be considered in the conversation.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    Related to this topic, but sort of a sidestep:

    How would areas of a public building not accessable to the public be handled? For example, the back side of the glass at the Metro building? The records room, the phone room, etc. These are areas that are secured from entry by the public. Clearly, we are not permitted there at all, so it is not a carry issue there. I'm just curious if whatever authority allows them to block us from accessing the non-public-access areas of the building could be used against us in some convoluted way?

    Similar, even the public access areas close at night, and the public is denied access by locked doors, alarms, security folks, etc. I guess you can't be there for legitimate business if there is no one there to service your request... But maybe I am just 6 hours early?

    I dunno, you know what side I am on in this fight, just saying things out loud so they can be considered in the conversation.
    From my understanding of the statutes, they can bar access but they must bar it to the general public. If it is open to the general public to facilitate business with the government entity, they can't trespass you. If it is open to the public and you are not there to annoy and are not engaged in unlawful activities you should be good to go.

    TBG
    Article 1, Section 11, #1 of the Nevada Constitution: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use ..

    Life member GOA and NRA. Member SAF, NAGR, & former member NVFAC.

  7. #7
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    State peace officer for 30 years. All I need to know right there. I think I understand why the NVFAC has been so quiet on our needs now.
    Amen, brother.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clark County, NV-----------------------Mohave County, AZ
    Posts
    5,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin View Post
    ...How would areas of a public building not accessible to the public be handled? For example, the back side of the glass at the Metro building? The records room, the phone room, etc. These are areas that are secured from entry by the public. Clearly, we are not permitted there at all, so it is not a carry issue there. I'm just curious if whatever authority allows them to block us from accessing the non-public-access areas of the building could be used against us in some convoluted way?....
    There's no problem with certain parts of public property not being accessible to the general public. But if made open to the general public, there had better not be any violations of law prohibiting certain members of the public.
    Blue & Gold Firearms Training; Clark County, NV: NRA-certified, concierge instruction
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    There's no problem with certain parts of public property not being accessible to the general public. But if made open to the general public, there had better not be any violations of law prohibiting certain members of the public.
    Don Turner can take his "30 years" and stick it where the sun don't shine...

    Question: Is open carrying a firearm on one’s person a lawful activity/behavior here in Nevada?


    Answer: Yes, it is.


    Question: In Nevada, if my activity/behavior (whatever it might be) is lawful, i.e., not in violation of statute or regulation, does law enforcement have lawful means to restrict me from entering upon or into or remaining in a public area/building that is open and accessible to the general public?


    Answer: No, it does not.


    Question: In Nevada, is law enforcement’s attempted restriction of my entering upon or into a public area/building that is open and accessible to the general public or it’s forcible or coercible attempts at my removal there from, while I am open carrying a firearm on my person, a lawful enforcement of any statute or regulation?


    Answer: No, it is not.
    Last edited by usmcmustang; 07-11-2012 at 07:42 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    From my understanding of the statutes, they can bar access but they must bar it to the general public. If it is open to the general public to facilitate business with the government entity, they can't trespass you. If it is open to the public and you are not there to annoy and are not engaged in unlawful activities you should be good to go.

    TBG
    Yeah, that makes sense. Like I thought, not a carry issue. It's either open to the general public, or it is not. If it is open to the general public, it is open to OC. Anyone have any idea of the statute that allows them to deny public access to the back-of-house areas? I know it doesn't apply, but it would be good to have it handy in case someone tries to state that they have the authority to restrict your access to the public area. It doesn't apply, but it sort-of counter-applies. The fact that it doesn't apply has weight.

  11. #11
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    396
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 04:59 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member usmcmustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV & Southern Utah
    Posts
    393
    So... according to Sheriff DeMeo: The NRS states no firearms, that is the law, that is why the law states plainly "No Firearms." If you enter the NCSO office with your firearm you will be asked to leave and return without same. If you persist in violation of the law you will be cited/arrested under NRS 202.3673 and charged with a Misdemeanor crime.

    For those of you there in Nye County under the esteemed Sheriff's jurisdiction, don't ya'll feel just overwhelmed by his intelligence, perception, and reading comprehension? Here's what the applicable portion of NRS 202.3673 actually has to say about firearms... CONCEALED FIREARMS... and signage relative thereto. If there are any among us (or any NOT among us) that can "interpret" this law as the esteemed Sheriff of Nye County has, please step forward:


    Applicable portion of NRS 202.3673…

    3. A permittee (by definition one who has been appropriately permitted to conceal carry a firearm) 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…

    Don't ya just wonder how it is the esteemed Sheriff of Nye County is able to do anything that goes beyond tying his shoes in the morning... if he can't even read and comprehend the plain and uncomplicated language of this statute?

    Even our esteemed Clark County Sheriff - or at least his spokesperson - has indicated an "understanding" of the statute... but have chosen to ignore it and instead "enforce" an "understood?" "spirit" of the statute, i.e., it's "spirit" would call for the restriction of ALL firearms, so that's what they enforce.

    Control... control... control... for the sake of control. It doesn't have to make sense.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcmustang View Post
    Don Turner can take his "30 years" and stick it where the sun don't shine...

    Question: Is open carrying a firearm on one’s person a lawful activity/behavior here in Nevada?


    Answer: Yes, it is.


    Question:
    Do Don Turner and the NVFAC support the lawful open carrying of a firearm on one’s person here in Nevada?

    Answer: ?

    Ken

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,812

    Further Communications.

    The following is the latest communication between Don and I. See below.

    TBG


    Tim

    The key provision is that they post a written warning of what is to be prohibited via signage.

    Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass, Is a violation of trespass law.

    By the owner or occupant of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.


    3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.

    This just speaks to evidence of trespass, it is not a free pass to trespass or not trespass. This sentence means that the owner of the building can let you trespass IF you have specific approved business with them. Doesn’t mean you can get cited, just means that they can’t use this as evidence of trespass.

    Not going to run this into the ground with a continuous discussion, but am saying that the trespass statutes could be used much more effectively than what they are doing now.

    Either way, if one gets cited, they have to spend lots of personal $$$ in court to clear their charges and force the law change.

    Our proposed and hopeful pre-emption push is designed to solve all these issues.

    Wish us luck and thanks for your support and efforts.

    Don




    Don

    OK we will have to disagree on this. I think you are reading more into the statute than the plain language meaning. I don’t believe they are speaking of a “sign” when they say written. Even if they are, contained in the statute is the method of signage which states at least 50 sq inches I believe, in orange florescent paint visible from the public entrance.

    Again, they can’t arbitrarily ignore intent which states “vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act.”. None of which apply. To give them authority to make it up as they go along just puts us further into the mire of the police state.

    They are trying to get around the law by coming up with this nonsense and is what I as a member of NVFAC expect the Association to fight.

    Tim
    Article 1, Section 11, #1 of the Nevada Constitution: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use ..

    Life member GOA and NRA. Member SAF, NAGR, & former member NVFAC.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Rollbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    381
    They are trying to get around the law by coming up with this nonsense and is what I as a member of NVFAC expect the Association to fight.

    Tim
    A~Men!

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,812
    This is the email I just recieved. I do not intend to answer it as I see no point in further argument. However, if I were, I would simply point out that the enemies of the 2nd amendment brought us to where we are by chipping away. It would be wonderfull to cut the head from the beast in one fell swoop, but not likely to happen. We must wear them down, chip away, coming at them from many directions all at once. A small victory here and there is far superiour to an all out gamble all or nothing. We loose a small one we can live to fight another day. We loose the big one, and it's all over.

    TBG




    And you will get the fight from us.

    As a strategy, the “battlefield has to be prepared”

    We just can’t wail away at every issue, must start at the top and work down. A pre-emption with penalties is first.

    We also will support members with their issues as well.

    Have you contacted Randy Mackie and offered to help with the Legislative Division?

    Thanks,

    Don
    Last edited by The Big Guy; 07-12-2012 at 11:28 AM.
    Article 1, Section 11, #1 of the Nevada Constitution: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use ..

    Life member GOA and NRA. Member SAF, NAGR, & former member NVFAC.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post

    We just can’t wail away at every issue, must start at the top and work down. A pre-emption with penalties is first.

    We also will support members with their issues as well.

    Have you contacted Randy Mackie and offered to help with the Legislative Division?

    Thanks,

    Don
    Couple of things. I am tired of the group and the attitude of nothing can be done until the legislature meets. That is starting to confirm some things in my mind.

    I have contacted the chairmen of committees of the NVFAC asking what I could do, just as Don suggests. The responses I got back were "let me see what Don wants to do."

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    Couple of things. I am tired of the group and the attitude of nothing can be done until the legislature meets. That is starting to confirm some things in my mind.

    I have contacted the chairmen of committees of the NVFAC asking what I could do, just as Don suggests. The responses I got back were "let me see what Don wants to do."
    One of the bad things I have noticed from the by-laws is that for the first 3 years the president is essentially the absolute dictator with all other board members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the president. It also goes on to state that in order to run for the top 2 spots in the association, one must have served at least a minimum of 2 years on the board. Along with several other items, I believe we need to look at changing this at the members meeting which I would think should be coming up. It should be held within 1 year of the date of incorporation and then every year after.

    I saw that there was a board meeting last April I believe it was. Members are allowed to attend and speak at board meetings but can't vote at that time. I don't recall seeing or hearing of any advisory of a board meeting then or any future meetings. The minutes from that board meeting states that there is to be a board meeting 4 times a year which means one should be held in July.

    We need membership by those of us in the OC movement to assure that our views are considered. We need a strong state association but we need it to work in our best interests.

    TBG
    Article 1, Section 11, #1 of the Nevada Constitution: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use ..

    Life member GOA and NRA. Member SAF, NAGR, & former member NVFAC.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Guy View Post
    We need membership by those of us in the OC movement to assure that our views are considered. We need a strong state association but we need it to work in our best interests.

    TBG
    Now that I would support. Good luck.

    Ken

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    State peace officer for 30 years. All I need to know right there. I think I understand why the NVFAC has been so quiet on our needs now.
    I initialy was going to stay out of this one, but Mr. Turners Speech to the unconstitutional Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs association kept ringing in my head. "we look forward to working with you" he said, (I have the recording.)

    So looking from a distant prospective, We have a retired LEO, turned Shooting park designer for the County, for President.
    Bob Irwin is a admitted "close friend" to the Clark County Sheriff as well as running for office again. Displayed in the past a dissent towards OC.
    Randy mackie is unknown to me. a google search reveals no great legislative triumphs, to be fair hew may just be a guy that is willing to work to make change.

    Those are the top three offices, and it looks like it would take 5 years and a large effort to penetrate. Is it possible that the NVFAC is a "replacement" Or "backup" to the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs? In some respects it looks like more Government, lobbying Government.
    We already have too much of that.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,812
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    I initialy was going to stay out of this one, but Mr. Turners Speech to the unconstitutional Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs association kept ringing in my head. "we look forward to working with you" he said, (I have the recording.)

    So looking from a distant prospective, We have a retired LEO, turned Shooting park designer for the County, for President.
    Bob Irwin is a admitted "close friend" to the Clark County Sheriff as well as running for office again. Displayed in the past a dissent towards OC.
    Randy mackie is unknown to me. a google search reveals no great legislative triumphs, to be fair hew may just be a guy that is willing to work to make change.

    Those are the top three offices, and it looks like it would take 5 years and a large effort to penetrate. Is it possible that the NVFAC is a "replacement" Or "backup" to the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs? In some respects it looks like more Government, lobbying Government.
    We already have too much of that.
    Thank you for your observations. It does look however if we can have enough likeminded to attend the general membership meeting that we can make changes to the by-laws. I have asked Don Turner about the schedule for upcoming meetings and he has not replied as yet.

    The idea of a strong association is sound but the current direction and lack of effort are very disturbing to me. So far there are over 200 members which isn't enough to accomplish much. The last Treasurers report listed about $18,000.00 in the bank which also isn't much to mount a fight on.

    You are correct about the seemingly close ties to Gestapo Doug. One of the main things the association needs to work on is to get rid of one of freedoms biggest local foes and that is the Clark County Sheriff. I don't see them going after him given the leaderships strong ties to him and the county.

    My suggestion is join, get active and make the changes we need to have a truly representative association.

    TBG
    Article 1, Section 11, #1 of the Nevada Constitution: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use ..

    Life member GOA and NRA. Member SAF, NAGR, & former member NVFAC.

Posting Permissions

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