• 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.

Trespass

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
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:

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
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.
 

ed2276

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
366
Location
Las Vegas,NV
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:

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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?
 

Merlin

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

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
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
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...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.
 

usmcmustang

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

Merlin

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

usmcmustang

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

CowboyKen

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
524
Location
, ,
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
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
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
 

Rollbar

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
383
Location
Nevada
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!
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
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:

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
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."
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
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
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,231
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
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.
 
Top