Open Carry Laws

Vegas_Dave · Mar 16, 2008

imported post

So then based on this letter, even carrying a gun out of a store in its case is carrying concealed.

BobCav · Mar 16, 2008

imported post

Varminter, thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for and that certainly clears it up. However,without an exception to the law, as Vegas_Dave said: carrying in a case from your car to a range is technically and as defined, legally "concealed".

While I'm all for fewer laws (and more good men), I don't like to leave certain things open to the "interpretation of anyone". I'd rather have the exception spelled out. Right is right.

sprat · Mar 16, 2008

imported post

domicile/residency

on the old packing dot org site, this subject was discussed in great lengtht, one can have residence in two states, this is even mentioned by the BATF. one can not vote in two states but you can purchase firearms if you are a resident in two different states. there is legal precedent for this, plus if bob decided he wanted to go to Kalifornia for the day or utah, every thirty days then he would not be in Nevada 90 daysconsecutively

timf343 · Mar 30, 2008

imported post

So as I continue to cause my eyes to bleed while reading through NRS, I found NRS 171.123 regarding temporary detention of a suspect (aka Terry stop).

Well, right below is NRS 171.1232, which reads as follows:

NRS 171.1232 Search to ascertain presence of dangerous weapon; seizure of weapon or evidence. 1. If any peace officer reasonably believes that any person whom he has detained or is about to detain pursuant to NRS 171.123 is armed with a dangerous weapon and is a threat to the safety of the peace officer or another, the peace officer may search such person to the extent reasonably necessary to ascertain the presence of such weapon. If the search discloses a weapon or any evidence of a crime, such weapon or evidence may be seized.
2. Nothing seized by a peace officer in any such search is admissible in any proceeding unless the search which disclosed the existence of such evidence is authorized by and conducted in compliance with this section.

The section I bolded is what concerns me. There is no reference in this entire Chapter to RETURNING seized property. So, is this a loophole that weapons may be seized during ANY terry stop, even if that stop results in no probable cause for arrest?

Notice the bolded text makes clear distinction between "evidence of a crime" and the blanket "a (any) weapon".

Not a pessimist, just trying to understand loopholes that might need fixed.

Tim

BobCav · Mar 30, 2008

imported post

1. If any peace officer reasonably believes that any person whom he has detained or is about to detain pursuant to NRS 171.123 is armed with a dangerous weapon and is a threat to the safety of the peace officer or another,

Key to this, is "reasonably believes is armed AND reasonably isa threat".

Armed, yep! (duh..) Threat? Define threat.Threaten with a weapon? Absolutely not. Believe me, if I'm Terry Stopped and my weapon is siezed, my recording and witness testimonies will reveal that I was NOT threatening andif all three aren't met, it's departmental retraining time for them and lawsuit time for me!

Here's the catch...the Police will ALWAYS AND FOREVER say the judgement of one of their "finest" is ALWAYS reasonable. (Otherwise he wouldn't have passed, right?)

varminter22 · Mar 31, 2008

imported post

Agree with Bob.

"Armed" is NOT synonymous with "dangerous."

An LEO MUST have "probable cause" OR MUST be able to articulate "reasonable supsicion" that a crime has been, or is about to be committed. A "gut hunch" is NOT good enough.

Rains · Mar 31, 2008

imported post

I talked to my lawyer about this very issue. The cops can and will confiscate your weapon. This is done when the cop decides you were failing to maintain a lane or whatever other small traffic violation, which under the law, he can arrest you for, which results in your weapon being taken, since you cant well take it to jail with you. It will take you legal fees and time to get it back from the state. However, if they can make any weapons charges stick, the state keeps your gun and melts it down into a licence plate or something else useless.

varminter22 · Mar 31, 2008

imported post

Rains wrote:

I talked to my lawyer about this very issue. The cops can and will confiscate your weapon. This is done when the cop decides you were failing to maintain a lane or whatever other small traffic violation, which under the law, he can arrest you for, which results in your weapon being taken, since you cant well take it to jail with you. It will take you legal fees and time to get it back from the state. However, if they can make any weapons charges stick, the state keeps your gun and melts it down into a licence plate or something else useless.

I'm calling "bull...." on this one. While I don't doubt this is possible, I do NOT believe this would happen under normal circumstances.

I have received a couple of minor tickets over the years. NEVER even came close to what you describe.

What kind of "weapons" charges are you talking about?? If one is going about his daily life and commits some minor (such as traffic) offense while carrying (CCW or openly), I submit you have nothing to worry about.

I am not an attorney, but again, "armed" is NOT synonymous with "dangerous."

An LEO MUST have "probable cause" OR MUST be able to articulate "reasonable supsicion" that a crime has been, or is about to be committed. A "gut hunch" is NOT good enough.

Nope. Under normal circumstances, I ain't buying your statement. Now, add in some other criminal activity, etc, and all bets are off. And, of course, you would have legal recourse.

Vegas_Dave · Mar 31, 2008

imported post

Agreed.

You must be perceived as a threat to either the LEO or somone else. IF you are perceived as a threat, they can search you and confiscate your "deadly weapon" since you are a threat.

Rains · Mar 31, 2008

imported post

In Nevada, a police officer has the legal authority to arrest you for /anything/ short of a parking ticket. This means a 15$ Public Intoxication ticket can be arrestable. Same with doing 67 in a 65. Youre still breaking the law. All Im saying is that if a cop is in a bad mood and you are unfortunate enough to be the guy he's been looking to badger, he can place you under arrest for any charge he wants (failing to maintain, speeding, etc). Given, you will most likely get off the charge just by going to court and saying '67 in a 65? Can I get a break?' And you probably will get nothing.

But remember, this whole time, your gun is still being held by the state pending resolution of the charge for which you were arrested. As long as its not a weapons charge of any sort that you get stuck with, your weapon will most likely be returned to you. But that doesnt change the fact that for that month or two, you wont have that gun.

Im not meaning to say cops will take your gun. Im just presenting the possibility of a cop having a bad day and deciding to take it out on you. Its a waste of time for you and the state, but most likely, nothing will be said to the cop because of technicalities, and its difficult to prove his intent to harass you, etc.

Again, not meaning anything as dramatic as you guys say - just another possible scenario in which your time can be horribly wasted.

varminter22 · Mar 31, 2008

imported post

Rains wrote:

In Nevada, a police officer has the legal authority to arrest you for /anything/ short of a parking ticket. This means a 15$ Public Intoxication ticket can be arrestable. Same with doing 67 in a 65. Youre still breaking the law. All Im saying is that if a cop is in a bad mood and you are unfortunate enough to be the guy he's been looking to badger, he can place you under arrest for any charge he wants (failing to maintain, speeding, etc). Given, you will most likely get off the charge just by going to court and saying '67 in a 65? Can I get a break?' And you probably will get nothing.

But remember, this whole time, your gun is still being held by the state pending resolution of the charge for which you were arrested. As long as its not a weapons charge of any sort that you get stuck with, your weapon will most likely be returned to you. But that doesnt change the fact that for that month or two, you wont have that gun.

Im not meaning to say cops will take your gun. Im just presenting the possibility of a cop having a bad day and deciding to take it out on you. Its a waste of time for you and the state, but most likely, nothing will be said to the cop because of technicalities, and its difficult to prove his intent to harass you, etc.

Again, not meaning anything as dramatic as you guys say - just another possible scenario in which your time can be horribly wasted.

Understand. And I reckon you're probably 100% correct.

But, wow, it sure would be fun. Might cost a few $$$. But IF a cop arrested me for spitting on the street, took me to jail, and held my firearm for a couple of months, well, I think I would have some fun with that cop.

The "fun" probably wouldn't be worth the $$$ involved. But that cop would certainly be scrutinized about his gestapo tactics after all the media reporting!

Perhaps this issue is of enough importance for you to contact your Nevada legislators requesting a bill to correct this sillyness?

lockman · Mar 31, 2008

imported post

In big bold letters label the case "FIREARM CASE". I would think that would meet that obviose gun case wording.

timf343 · Mar 31, 2008

imported post

varminter22 wrote:

The "fun" probably wouldn't be worth the $$$ involved. But that cop would certainly be scrutinized about his gestapo tactics after all the media reporting!

Do you mean the anti-gun media? I don't know how bad the cop will look after the story on your arrest:

"Fully armed man arrested for minor offense:

Somedipshiz -- PA -- Lost Wages, NV

After an afternoon stop to issue a ticket for loitering, police arrested a man in possession of a fully armed assault weapon and confiscated the dangerous weapon.

What should have been a routine $20 ticket turned out to be anything but. "We found the fully loaded weapon after the suspect refused a search, making us suspicious" said Officer X. A copy of the police report later indicated the gun was loaded with 17 rounds of hollow point (aka "cop killer") ammunition.

Police were able to get this gun off the street thanks to the efficient police work. Nevada has no laws prohibiting possession of loaded firearms, so without the loitering charge, police would have been powerless to stop this man and remove this gun from the streets."

varminter22 · Apr 1, 2008

imported post

timf343 wrote:

varminter22 wrote:

The "fun" probably wouldn't be worth the $$$ involved. But that cop would certainly be scrutinized about his gestapo tactics after all the media reporting!

Click to expand...

Do you mean the anti-gun media? I don't know how bad the cop will look after the story on your arrest:

"Fully armed man arrested for minor offense:

Somedipshiz -- PA -- Lost Wages, NV

After an afternoon stop to issue a ticket for loitering, police arrested a man in possession of a fully armed assault weapon and confiscated the dangerous weapon.

What should have been a routine $20 ticket turned out to be anything but. "We found the fully loaded weapon after the suspect refused a search, making us suspicious" said Officer X. A copy of the police report later indicated the gun was loaded with 17 rounds of hollow point (aka "cop killer") ammunition.

Police were able to get this gun off the street thanks to the efficient police work. Nevada has no laws prohibiting possession of loaded firearms, so without the loitering charge, police would have been powerless to stop this man and remove this gun from the streets."

Well, I suppose anything is possible. But I think your example is a bit of exageration.

Unless one is committing a real crime, an LEO would have NO reason to confiscate your firearm(s).

timf343 · Apr 1, 2008

imported post

That's why I asked the question - no reason to do so, but allowed within the law.

Wizardrex · Apr 4, 2008

imported post

CowboyKen wrote:

Also be aware that any property owner/lease holder, or their representative, may ask you to leave or to check your gun if they provide for that and you must comply. Most casinos in Vegas will not allow you to open carry on their property. Have fun!

Ken

Yes. This is true now in a defacto sort of way if not de jure. But I have spoken with informed individuals who have stated that some years ago, perhaps 20 or thirty, folks wearing sidearms were common in casinos and bars. The old Helldorado Days celebrations were known for this. Here in Pahrump folks would ride their horses to a bar for example and then go in fully armed and have a few drinks. In Nevada it is not unlawful to drink while armed but the .08 rule as with driving a car applies similarly to being armed. So, if you go to a bar and drink while armed, assuming that the bartender doesn't object, you must avoid getting up to the .08 level.

Also, there is the "public place" reference to consider. Technically, a "public place" is not a private place. If you invite the public in, you are not supposed to discriminate as if the place were your bedroom. You may keep everyone out of your home but you may not keep individuals who are behaving lawfully out of your place of public business. Imagine standing at the door of Wal-Mart and saying to all of the fat people that they may not enter. Generally, the public is unaware of this. And, the concept of a "right to bear arms" isn't fully beloved by one and all. There is much caselaw on the "public place" point.

timf343 · Apr 4, 2008

imported post

"Right to refuse service to anyone". There are laws saying I can't discriminate against employees, but if I want to hang a sign saying no fat people allowed in my business, it's well within my right. Why don't businesses do this? Because fat people spend money that's just as good as the money thin people spend.

Wizardrex · Apr 4, 2008

imported post

timf343 wrote:

"Right to refuse service to anyone". There are laws saying I can't discriminate against employees, but if I want to hang a sign saying no fat people allowed in my business, it's well within my right. Why don't businesses do this? Because fat people spend money that's just as good as the money thin people spend.

Most fat people would not fight you and would simply be insulted and then leave. However, if you were to post a sign on your front door banning fat people a major portion of your business would be lost and you would go broke. Lots of folks sympathetic to the fat people would avoid your shop. Additionally, I suspect that if an "injured" fat person were to sue, you would lose. Also, beware of fat arsonists. :shock:

To avoid the sign on the front door and to simply accost the fat individuals as they enter would mean a guaranteed loss in court for you.

On the subject of carrying firearms, the brainwashed public often would be negative. But we must continue to constructively proceed.

timf343 · Apr 4, 2008

imported post

Wizardrex wrote:

timf343 wrote:

"Right to refuse service to anyone". There are laws saying I can't discriminate against employees, but if I want to hang a sign saying no fat people allowed in my business, it's well within my right. Why don't businesses do this? Because fat people spend money that's just as good as the money thin people spend.

Click to expand...

Most fat people would not fight you and would simply be insulted and then leave. However, if you were to post a sign on your front door banning fat people a major portion of your business would be lost and you would go broke. Lots of folks sympathetic to the fat people would avoid your shop. Additionally, I suspect that if an "injured" fat person were to sue, you would lose. Also, beware of fat arsonists. :shock:

To avoid the sign on the front door and to simply accost the fat individuals as they enter would mean a guaranteed loss in court for you.

On the subject of carrying firearms, the brainwashed public often would be negative. But we must continue to constructively proceed.

Obviously fat people is a silly example, but if a business posts no firearms, your constitutional right to carry does not trump the right of the property owner, even though they are generally "open" to the public.

CowboyKen · Apr 4, 2008

imported post

Wizardrex wrote:

CowboyKen wrote:

Also be aware that any property owner/lease holder, or their representative, may ask you to leave or to check your gun if they provide for that and you must comply. Most casinos in Vegas will not allow you to open carry on their property. Have fun!

Ken

Click to expand...

Yes. This is true now in a defacto sort of way if not de jure. But I have spoken with informed individuals who have stated that some years ago, perhaps 20 or thirty, folks wearing sidearms were common in casinos and bars. The old Helldorado Days celebrations were known for this. Here in Pahrump folks would ride their horses to a bar for example and then go in fully armed and have a few drinks. In Nevada it is not unlawful to drink while armed but the .08 rule as with driving a car applies similarly to being armed. So, if you go to a bar and drink while armed, assuming that the bartender doesn't object, you must avoid getting up to the .08 level.

Also, there is the "public place" reference to consider. Technically, a "public place" is not a private place. If you invite the public in, you are not supposed to discriminate as if the place were your bedroom. You may keep everyone out of your home but you may not keep individuals who are behaving lawfully out of your place of public business. Imagine standing at the door of Wal-Mart and saying to all of the fat people that they may not enter. Generally, the public is unaware of this. And, the concept of a "right to bear arms" isn't fully beloved by one and all. There is much caselaw on the "public place" point.

Sir,

You are incorrect as to the limit on how much one may drink. "NRS 202.257 Possession of firearm when under influence of alcohol, controlled substance or other intoxicating substance; administration of evidentiary test; penalty; forfeiture of firearm.

1. It is unlawful for a person who:

(a) Has a concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his blood or breath; or..."

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRs/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec257

When they lowered the DUI limit to 0.08 in order to continue to get federal highway money they did not change the firearms law.

Also, I disagree about your view on who may be "kept out." The NRS on trespass provides for baring anyone for any, or no, reason.

Ken

Open Carry Laws

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member