• 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.

open carry legal in Reno, Carson, etc?

calmp9

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
195
Location
, ,
imported post

I was actually impressed with her. She responded right away.
 

CowboyKen

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

calmp9 wrote:
I was actually impressed with her. She responded right away.

Unlike the Boulder City City Attorney who was elusive at best until Tim forced him out of his hidey hole.

Ken
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

At a minimum, a thorough compilation of communications from various "authoritative" officials, such as Ms Fraley, the Boulder City Attorney, the North Las Vegas Mayor, etc....should all serve as an affirmative defense to any actions taken against you, civil or criminal. Along with a copy of the three NRS sections, I carry copies of the above referenced messages (and I'm now printing the one from Ms Fraley as well) in my car.

Other than hand my ID out the window, I don't answer any questions from the police, and will not volunteer the presence of a weapon. If I am CC and my CCW is requested, I will produce it pursuant to NRS. But again, I will not answer any questions, other than to say I am not CC if my CCW is requested and I am not in fact CC.

In the event my rights are violated, and my vehicle is searched (say by an overzealous North Las Vegas cop), and my firearm is discovered, I will then produce the documents I keep handy.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

timf343 wrote:
At a minimum, a thorough compilation of communications from various "authoritative" officials, such as Ms Fraley, the Boulder City Attorney, the North Las Vegas Mayor, etc....should all serve as an affirmative defense to any actions taken against you, civil or criminal. Along with a copy of the three NRS sections, I carry copies of the above referenced messages (and I'm now printing the one from Ms Fraley as well) in my car.

Other than hand my ID out the window, I don't answer any questions from the police, and will not volunteer the presence of a weapon. If I am CC and my CCW is requested, I will produce it pursuant to NRS. But again, I will not answer any questions, other than to say I am not CC if my CCW is requested and I am not in fact CC.

In the event my rights are violated, and my vehicle is searched (say by an overzealous North Las Vegas cop), and my firearm is discovered, I will then produce the documents I keep handy.
I agree.

However, it is said that LEOs are informed if you have a CCW permit when they radio in your name/info.

I personally opine this is a violation of
NRS 202.3665 and 239.0115:

(a) An application for a permit, and all information contained within that application; and

(b) All information provided to a sheriff or obtained by a sheriff in the course of his investigation of an applicant,

Ê are confidential.

2. Any records regarding an applicant or permittee may be released to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of conducting an investigation or prosecution.

3. Statistical abstracts of data compiled by a sheriff regarding permits applied for or issued pursuant to NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, including, but not limited to, the number of applications received and permits issued, may be released to any person.

(Added to NRS by 1997, 1174; A 1999, 851; 2007, 2077)
because, in my opinion, a "routine" traffic stop (or other "routine" encounter) does NOT meet the definition of "conducting an investigation."

Having said that, I suspect it would be a very difficult battle to remove this policy. Probably would require a court case and/or an amendment to the law quoted above.
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

timf343 wrote:
But isn't it in fact an investigation into a crime? Albeit a traffic infraction (hopefully), would it not still qualify as an investigation?
I suspect you're right.

But, geez, 40 mph in a 35mph zone, and in the absence of other evidence of criminal activity, why ... ???

Will the bad guys that unlawfully carry firearms disclose they are carrying when they're pulled over ???

This is a "joke" - a bad joke. It ain't the CCW permit holders they have to worry about.

But like I said, probably a very tough battle to change it. Might not even be worth trying. But I still don't like it. This just gives the "poor cops" out there a chance to be even worse.
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

"Absent any other criminal activity..."

Well, to a point I agree, but I suspect that in addition to being a revenue source, many criminals are caught during routine traffic stops. A buddy of mine (not exactly a hardened criminal) had a warrant out for him for child support and was caught during a seat belt violation in Washington State, and was extradited all the way back to Florida. By bus. His THREE WEEK JOURNEY across the country consisted of being handcuffed in a bus and traveling from one county jail to the next picking up and dropping off other bad guys...

You bring up a good point about the bad guys not revealing the fact that they have a weapon. At the same time, isn't one of the negative risks of OC that bad guys figure out OC can be done without a permit...not that they care about the permit, but that the cops no longer have a reason to demand ID?

In other words, the law says anyone CC with a license must produce their ID and CCW upon demand from an officer. If a cop sees the firearm (it's printing through your clothing, it was momentarily revealed in the wind, while you reached for your wallet, whatever), he can demand ID. As a legal CCW holder you tolerate the momentary interruption and continue on your way. A bad guy at this point though is caught, and gun is confiscated.

To that end, carry it openly, the cop can't demand ID (he can still ask of course), and the bad guy keeps his gun.

This in no way deters me from OC by the way. I firmly believe that it's better for 10 criminals to go free than imprison 1 innocent person. In the same way, it's better there are 10 illegal guns that aren't confiscated so long as innocent people don't lose their right to self defense. It's a difficult concept for some, but I do see their point.

And you're right, it's a joke, a bad joke. Aren't most gun laws? Disarm the innocents who will obey the asenine rules, while the criminal has absolutely no intention of obeying serious laws (like robbery, murder, etc.), let alone misdemeanor restrictions. Do you think the felon cares when the judge says "You get 25 years for murder, and a 6 months for illegal concealment of a firearm."?
 

varminter22

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
927
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

timf343 wrote:
"Absent any other criminal activity..."

Well, to a point I agree, but I suspect that in addition to being a revenue source, many criminals are caught during routine traffic stops. A buddy of mine (not exactly a hardened criminal) had a warrant out for him for child support and was caught during a seat belt violation in Washington State, and was extradited all the way back to Florida. By bus. His THREE WEEK JOURNEY across the country consisted of being handcuffed in a bus and traveling from one county jail to the next picking up and dropping off other bad guys...

You bring up a good point about the bad guys not revealing the fact that they have a weapon. At the same time, isn't one of the negative risks of OC that bad guys figure out OC can be done without a permit...not that they care about the permit, but that the cops no longer have a reason to demand ID?

In other words, the law says anyone CC with a license must produce their ID and CCW upon demand from an officer. If a cop sees the firearm (it's printing through your clothing, it was momentarily revealed in the wind, while you reached for your wallet, whatever), he can demand ID. As a legal CCW holder you tolerate the momentary interruption and continue on your way. A bad guy at this point though is caught, and gun is confiscated.

To that end, carry it openly, the cop can't demand ID (he can still ask of course), and the bad guy keeps his gun.

This in no way deters me from OC by the way. I firmly believe that it's better for 10 criminals to go free than imprison 1 innocent person. In the same way, it's better there are 10 illegal guns that aren't confiscated so long as innocent people don't lose their right to self defense. It's a difficult concept for some, but I do see their point.

And you're right, it's a joke, a bad joke. Aren't most gun laws? Disarm the innocents who will obey the asenine rules, while the criminal has absolutely no intention of obeying serious laws (like robbery, murder, etc.), let alone misdemeanor restrictions. Do you think the felon cares when the judge says "You get 25 years for murder, and a 6 months for illegal concealment of a firearm."?

I don't want to get way off topic here, but consider:

How is the fact the LEO is informed you have a CCW permit going to result in catching more criminals?? All an LEO must do is ASK, and we are required by law to disclose/produce a CCW permit if we're carrying.

Actually, I believe you are incorrect. LEOs CAN lawfully demand ID. I believe there was a supreme court case stemming from an incident here in Nevada - and they ruled you must identify yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong!

If a bad guy/felon is openly carrying and the LEO has reason to inquire, he will then find out the guy is unlawfully carrying. The absence of a CCW permit is irrelevant.
 

Loneviking

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
344
Location
Carson City, Nevada, USA
imported post

Varminter, on that ID requirement, the court concluded that the only ID is a verbal reply of your name and city where you live. That's it, nothing more, no requirement to provide DL or any other form of ID. The NRS section in controversy was NRS 171.123 which is for 'Terry stops'.
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

As I understand it, the ID requirement is also limited to certain scope as well. I believe LE can only demand ID (even if you are walking down the street) if there is reason to believe you have been, are currently, or will imminently be, involved in criminal activity. I imagine this is pretty lenient (I've been plenty of guys "pulled over" while walking), but I don't think LE can blindly demand ID from every pedestrian without an articulable reason. I have no cite, that's just the way I understood it.
 

h2ojunkie

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
37
Location
, ,
imported post

Section 3 "...to ascertain his identity..." is the section the courts ruled on in regards to a previous post. The court ruled that you don't have to provide documentary identification, and that verbal identification of Name/Address are sufficient.

You are only required to provide ID if you are being detained under NRS 171.123 (see red highlights).


NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of his parole or probation.

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

(Added to NRS by 1969, 535; A 1973, 597; 1975, 1200; 1987, 1172; 1995, 2068)


And furthermore, the fact that you are open carrying does not give probable cause to detain you or seize your weapon to run the serial number(see red text below). As you will see below the officer must "reasonably believe" that not only are you carrying a dangerous weapon, but you are ALSO a threat to the safety of the officer.

I would argue that the simple fact of legally carrying a firearm does not meet the standard required to lawfully detain you in the first place, but should they detain you a legally carried firearm most certainly does not meet the standard of being a threat to the officer.

Of course, good luck arguing this one on the sidewalk with any cop. Youwon't win no matter how many print outs ofthe law you have in your wallet.

All you can do is remain polite, ask if you are being detained, politely state you do not consent to any searches, then comply with the officers request. Once you've complied with any requests from the officer, ask him/her for suspicion of what crime you were detained.

Oncethe incident is over, grab a pen and paper and write down everything you can remember immediately, as you will need these details if you plan to follow up later.



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.

(Added to NRS by 1969, 535)


Just keep in mind, everything I just said is meaningless during a traffic top, as you are being detained for the traffic stop at that point, and the officer has every legal right to disarm you for the duration of the traffic stop (even if we all agree it's silly).

Also remember, police have every legal right to ask you anything they want at any time. You have every legal right to decline to answer (with the noted exception of your name/address when being detained).

There is no good that comes out of getting upset. Simply assert your rights in a polite and professional manner. Most officers will respect that, and if you do run across one that doesn't, your best course of action is to comply with the officers demands, and file a complaint after the incident is over.


Here is a link to the Supreme Court case mentioned:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf
 

timf343

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
1,409
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
imported post

h2ojunkie wrote:
<snip>
There is no good that comes out of getting upset. Simply assert your rights in a polite and professional manner. Most officers will respect that, and if you do run across one that doesn't, your best course of action is to comply with the officers demands, and file a complaint after the incident is over.
h2o

I enjoyed your whole post, well discussed analysis. But I wanted to comment on one of the statements you made above, highlighted in red. I agree with this completely regarding any physical demands the officer makes, but do NOT make any statements whatsoever! If he says hands behind your back, do it. If he says lay on the ground, do it.

But refuse any demands for information (short of the requirement to identify yourself, as you clarified above, thank you). Don't worry about this pissing him off so bad that he arrests you. 99.9% of cops are professional enough not to place you under false arrest even if they do not respect your assertion of rights.

If you ARE arrested, you either met the 0.1% (hire a good lawyer lucky bum, you get to retire to the beach after going through a little discomfort) or there was enough to arrest you in the first place, and no amount of you talking would have stopped it. And if that's the case, offering ANY information only risks making your situation worse.
 

h2ojunkie

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
37
Location
, ,
imported post

timf343,

Thank you for clarifying that point to the community. It's so ingrained my mind to not answer questions or provide information other than what is legally required that I just "assumed" that in my post.
 
Top