To carry or not to carry....(calling DTOM)

FallonJeeper said:

The problem is this. The law only applies to concealed carry in those places.

NRS 202.3673  Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building; exceptions; penalty.

But, the law has a paragraph on what the sign says and the wording is "NO FIREARMS". No mention of Concealed or open carry for the wording of the sign.

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.

The DMV's have gone the extra step and identified Concealed Carry is prohibited. But the other places are playing a game and hoping you aren't informed or paying attention, and that you'll just obey their sign.

Click to expand...

And if anyone is confused by the wording of the sign, reread the introduction I underlined.

FallonJeeper said:

The problem is this. The law only applies to concealed carry in those places.

NRS 202.3673  Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building; exceptions; penalty.

But, the law has a paragraph on what the sign says and the wording is "NO FIREARMS". No mention of Concealed or open carry for the wording of the sign.

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.

The DMV's have gone the extra step and identified Concealed Carry is prohibited. But the other places are playing a game and hoping you aren't informed or paying attention, and that you'll just obey their sign.

Click to expand...

If the sign says no caramel apples, juicy fruit gum, or people wearing red shirts it would still only apply to conceal carry as it is in the conceal carry section.

This is the argument I had with the City of Henderson and it took a year and some persistence to get them on the same page.

TBG

I totally agree with you guys. I was just pointing out how stupid it is, and how they want to play the word game. They won't even acknowledge the title of the NRS, they enforce the sign as posted, not the NRS.

Just to update, NHP did change their signs, Tim, Tiger Lilly and I have all OC'ed with no issues, (noting speedy service) Captain Thom Jackson wrote me a letter stating something to the effect of; he caught his guys passing around some literature, that was more misleading than the signs they had up prior to my "visit."

As for north Las Vegas, When Tim and I were handing out subpenas, we ventured to north Las Vegas P.D. on Lake Mead. Upon entering I noticed the sign out front was still up, but not the one on the door. the sign out front references only handguns that are being registered. So we went in, handled business, most didn't notice some did but paid us no extra attention.

Excellent. I will get a letter written up tonight. Who all should I send it to again?

I didnt have time (again) to get my letter written. Im sorry guys I will try to get to it tomorrow.

alright, it took me long enough but here is what I got


Dear Sir or Ma'am,

On 23 September 2013 applied for my concealed carry permit with the Las Vegas metropolitan police department. On the day that I went to their location openly carrying my firearm, meaning it was plainly visible by ordinary view. If we look at NRS 202.3673 it reads:


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.


Please note that I have changed font color and added italicized/lettering for emphasis.

After I got my number and waited in the waiting area I was called to a desk where I was treated EXTREMELY rudely. The man behind the counter (Tim or Tom I think) gave me a mixture attitude, curt replies, and tossing my ID's to me after he had looked at them. He then began to interrogate me about my CCW class, asking questions like "How many rounds did you fire? How many yards did you fire? How many people were in your class?"

After I answered his questions he left the desk for a few minutes and came back. Shortly after he came back an officer approached me. "Sir, you can't be in here with your firearm, I'm going to have to ask you to leave" he said. Not wanting to cause trouble, I offered to place it in my car. The officer said that would be fine.

At this point, knowing that I was not doing anything wrong I asked "Sir, this is a public building isn't it?" His answer was "Yes, but we can restrict who can bring firearms in here. If you have a problem with me you can speak to my supervisor who is standing right over here."

On my way back in from putting my pistol in my car, I noticed the officer and his supervisor were both watching me from the entrance of the building. As I walked up, I introduced myself and told them that in my class we were instructed that open carry of firearms in public buildings like the DMV was not restricted. Jose Hernandez, the officer's supervisor, told me that the signs on the doors gave them authority to regulate who can carry in the building. Other than the rude female taking fingerprints, the rest of my visit went unhindered.

All of this leads me to the purpose of my letter. I have clearly outlined what the law says. Metro's actions are clearly in violation of the law. Why is Metro being allowed to continue this illegal activity? NLVPD, NHP, and the DMV were all at one point enforcing similar rules. Once they were made aware that their actions were not in compliance with the law, they stopped enforcing their own version of what the think law says.

I am very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter, and most importantly how you think Metro will be held accountable for their actions.


Best regards,
~Derek Lacy


I think; therefore I am DANGEROUS

You are correct. The only name I got was the supervisor's, mentioned in the letter. I had the officer's name and number as well as the teller written on a piece of paper, but my girlfriend threw it away.

Even missing the particulars, it is very good that this letter is being written and sent. The authorities KNOW they are in the wrong. They need to continually hear from us that we know it, too, even though they know that we know that they know there is nothing we can do about it... yet.

If you have not sent it yet, read through it again. There are a few typos. Good letter!

I will read through it tomorrow for typos. I was hoping to send it in conjunction with mp3.14159's (or whatever his screen name is) letter.