Centennial Hills Library

A bit of a read, but I think you'll all enjoy...

So there I was going to the Centennial Hills Library. I was open carrying like I had without issue 2 or 3 times before. There is a sign on the entrance that states "Firearms prohibited in this building". But we all know what that means on a public building.

I was there with the wife and kids, the "Security Guard" noticed my OC when I walked in.

After about thirty minutes when said "Security Guard" politely informed me of their policy of firearms not being allowed. I informed him that I understood, however, legally they are not allowed to have such a policy because the library is a public building, and the law only gives them the authority to restrict Concealed Carry, and that's not what I was doing. He seamed genuinely surprised/interested that that's all the law restricted. However he had to defer to the Branch Manager, whom he called over the radio.

As we waited, we just chatted about nothing of consequence, other than him being from CA, which explained his confusion.

After a few minutes the Assistant Manager came over, and they let me explain the situation and the law. She said she would defer to the Branch Manager when she returned in a few minutes.

After the "Security Guard" and I continued to chat a couple more minutes he needed to make a another round and let me be. The Assistant Manager came back over as well as the Guard. She showed me a print out of the policy that stated no firearms were allowed per NRS 202.673. She then showed me a print out of NRS 202.673. As she read it to me she got to the important line at which point I interrupted and said ~ there, that's the key word, CONCEALED, and I was not concealing and was within my legal rights. She asked what law talks about Open Carry, to which I said there was none, and fortunately in NV unless it's specifically ILLEGAL, it is presumed LEGAL.

She said again that she would need to get the Manager. I volunteered to come with her to the office. She said that's fine, I would just need to wait in the hall. Which I did, while her and the "Security Guard" went back to the office area.

After what seemed like 10 minutes the Guard came back out and said that everything is fine and I was okay to resume my excellent library experience with my family. We walked together back to his station. He informed me that after their deliberation on the matter, and him calling his boss, they determined that they were wrong and I was correct. After a couple more minutes the Assistant Manager came back out and apologized and said that I was within my rights to continue to open carry in the library. They would also contact the "Director" about getting their policy and signage changed. She also said that this had never come up because everyone they've ever confronted about it, politely just left.

At this point, I just went about my business.

The Branch Manager never did come out to speak with me. However, everyone involved was very polite, and the conversation never got heated.

All in all a good experience, with some education given and hopefully some change in incorrect/unlawful policy, signage & training.

Thanks for reading.

There is a letter from the director on the forum here to me. She quoted the wrong statute and also said because the library had a special place in the NRS they were exempt from such law. I had a guard almost draw down in me and my empty holster at the rainbow branch. We had a pretty strong bit of work going on here about the library system but for some reason we all just dropped it. I suspect any contact with the director will not be as easy.

Wow. Isn't it amazing what can happen when the people with the responsibility to make decisions actually WANT to make an informed decision based on facts, and allow you to present the facts!

Usually the "confrontation" isn't worth it, and makes no headway, so we just don't bother to try to help them anymore.

If they took this through the "branch manager" and "director," how many libraries might this affect, and how can we use the precedent?

If we can get an AG opinion that preemption extends to sub-municipal public entities, like library districts, they can kiss our butts. Pending the outcome of SB 175, I think I'd like that to be my next challenge. As you all know, I had a similar, but less in-depth challenge at the Henderson Paseo Verde library.

I had an incident with The Henderson Library a few years ago. They actually told me they were going to call the cops on me if I didn't leave. I told them I would wait for the police, and I did. The police were under the assumption that it was a public building and therefore they had no jurisdiction. I don't know what the officers told the library manager and security guard but they were obviously not happy. Unfortunately I just didn't have the time to take them on as my life was busy with other pursuits like working on the City of Henderson. That thread is on here somewhere.

I think what we need to do is get complete preemption through and get rid of registration. Hopefully the Gov will sign it. Then we should have an OC meetup at one of the Library meeting rooms to plan out events for the next year. Won't that be fun? What do you think they would say if about 20 or so of us showed up armed for the meeting?

TBG

garand_guy said:

If we can get an AG opinion that preemption extends to sub-municipal public entities, like library districts, they can kiss our butts. Pending the outcome of SB 175, I think I'd like that to be my next challenge. As you all know, I had a similar, but less in-depth challenge at the Henderson Paseo Verde library.

Click to expand...

The AG defends the actions of the State, its political subdivisions, and actions of the employees of such. My experience with AG opinions is that they do not work in our favor.

• They do not carry the weight of law.
• Have no public oversight or accountability.
• provide law enforcement with "excuses" for misconduct and violations of rights.

I do not want to hinder anyone's actions, or "kneecap" Just want to share my experiences.

The Big Guy said:

I think what we need to do is get complete preemption through and get rid of registration. Hopefully the Gov will sign it. Then we should have an OC meetup at one of the Library meeting rooms to plan out events for the next year. Won't that be fun? What do you think they would say if about 20 or so of us showed up armed for the meeting?

TBG

Click to expand...

I think I had offered on the past to pay for the room. So I will need to recheck the cost but probably would still do it.

Here is the letter I received that also by the way states the wrong NRS. 370.040 which has zero to do with libraries. At this time I forget what it was but she was off by a number or so.

Vegassteve said:

Here is the letter I received that also by the way states the wrong NRS. 370.040 which has zero to do with libraries. At this time I forget what it was but she was off by a number or so.

Click to expand...

They are concerned for the safety of the children and she hopes you understand the basis of the district policy? It is quite evident what that basis is: irrational, unfounded fear of firearms and the factually incorrect premise that the mere presence of a firearm, carried either openly or concealed, endangers children per se.

It is in the same vein as the irrational, paranoid and factually devoid arguments the cops and anti-gun groups spouted off during the Senate committee hearing on SB 143, constitutional carry.

I open carried at the Centennial Hills library a few years ago. I wasn't challenged about it, but that was because the guard had poor observation skills and didn't see my firearm the couple of times I passed by him. I didn't go back there after that, as I don't have a need to go to the library. I was only there that particular day because my wife and son wanted to get library cards and some books.

The Big Guy said:

I had an incident with The Henderson Library a few years ago. They actually told me they were going to call the cops on me if I didn't leave. I told them I would wait for the police, and I did. The police were under the assumption that it was a public building and therefore they had no jurisdiction. I don't know what the officers told the library manager and security guard but they were obviously not happy. Unfortunately I just didn't have the time to take them on as my life was busy with other pursuits like working on the City of Henderson. That thread is on here somewhere.

I think what we need to do is get complete preemption through and get rid of registration. Hopefully the Gov will sign it. Then we should have an OC meetup at one of the Library meeting rooms to plan out events for the next year. Won't that be fun? What do you think they would say if about 20 or so of us showed up armed for the meeting?

TBG

Click to expand...

I'm down for it. We can call it "Open Carry Certification" and charge $50 a head. Kidding! It would be great to have an information session open to the public though.

I'm going to write the AG for his opinion on preemption, specifically whether it extends to libraries. Anyone want assist in proofing the letter?

I would be interested in what the NRS is the "Director" was trying to reference in her letter, and does the "Director" really have such authority?

garand_guy said:

I'm going to write the AG for his opinion on preemption, specifically whether it extends to libraries. Anyone want assist in proofing the letter?

Click to expand...

You write it up, and I'll proof it. Though I'm not an expert. Feel free to use my experience in your letter.

garand_guy said:

I'm going to write the AG for his opinion on preemption, specifically whether it extends to libraries. Anyone want assist in proofing the letter?

Click to expand...

I'm an expert proofreader, if you need one, not to take anything away from any other offers you get. That said, don't expect an answer from the AG unless the question comes from a public official.

njkennelly said:

I would be interested in what the NRS is the "Director" was trying to reference in her letter, and does the "Director" really have such authority?

You write it up, and I'll proof it. Though I'm not an expert. Feel free to use my experience in your letter.

Click to expand...

MAC702 said:

I'm an expert proofreader, if you need one, not to take anything away from any other offers you get. That said, don't expect an answer from the AG unless the question comes from a public official.

Click to expand...

I'll PM you both when I get it written.

That letter was interesting, because the question really is whether or not the library regulation statute is meant to include firearms.

Vegassteve said:

Here is the letter I received that also by the way states the wrong NRS. 370.040 which has zero to do with libraries. At this time I forget what it was but she was off by a number or so.

Click to expand...

She meant to cite NRS 379.040:

NRS 379.040  Library to be free and accessible to public; regulations of trustees.  The library and reading room of any consolidated, county, district or town library must forever be and remain free and accessible to the public, subject to such reasonable regulations as the trustees of the library may adopt.

[4:187:1925; NCL § 5598]—(NRS A 1967, 1061; 1985, 10)

http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-379.html#NRS379Sec040

Ken

garand_guy said:

I'm going to write the AG for his opinion on preemption, specifically whether it extends to libraries. Anyone want assist in proofing the letter?

Click to expand...

It appears you have your mind set. If you go on the AG website, pull up opinion 2010-16 It covers pre-emption and the ability of political sub divisions of the state to set, or enforce new, and grandfathered statutes. In the event they respond to your letter, they may, in high probability direct you to the existing AG opinion. so it wont hurt to have it in your pocket.

http://ag.nv.gov/Publications/Opinions/

AG Opinion 2010-16 begins on page 80 of the PDF.

It specifically says that Clark County ordinances banning possession of firearms were grandfathered in, as they existed in 1981. I assume those are still in effect in Clark County parks to date, then?

That opinion is flawed though as the 2007 bill repealed all of that. I dont understand how she read it any different but she did. And not one of the national or state orgs that are suppose to help us ever challenged her. Even after some of repeatedly pointed out the flaw.

I'm aware of that opinion. I think it's rather narrowly worded to cover Clark County Park ordinances. Clearly it's illegal and the AG then was in cahoots with Clark County.

I have been advised to wait until after SB 175 passes and also that the AG rarely gives opinions to citizens. Can't hurt to wait a bit and try, anyhow.

The other alternative is simply education and good examples, as outlined above.

End of the day, this is America and none of us should allow any petty bureaucrat to walk over us.

Vegassteve said:

That opinion is flawed though as the 2007 bill repealed all of that. I dont understand how she read it any different but she did. And not one of the national or state orgs that are suppose to help us ever challenged her. Even after some of repeatedly pointed out the flaw.

Click to expand...

Which goes to my point. If you were embattled in a lawsuit, Would you ever be successful in an attempt to get the opposing attorney to publish an opinion favorable to your side? I have met no one from the private sector who has been represented 1st party by the AG. The AG represents the State period. The State exists to control/Govern. They govern by force, whether it makes sense or not. Check out this dandy excerpt regarding motorcycle helmet compliance in 2002 the AG went in deep: Quoting AG opinion 2002-41

It is just as clarifying all the way through. Not once did the test that Nevada adopted come up. The state has no intention of following th elaw they adopted. (That is your job) The AG has never worked for us, they won't start now.