Loneviking
Regular Member
imported post
timf343 wrote:
First, and most obviously, there is nothing explicitly in the NRS that applies this CCW section to private property. Nevada, as most states do, follows a rule of 'strict interpretation', meaning that they strictly follow the law as it's written.
Second, historically, firearms are part of the inherent right to self defense. The right to self defense is a right that everyone has; it is not a right granted by the state; and your property has historically in Nevada, had about the same treatment as the Castle doctrine. The only time, realistically, that the police are going to be on your property is if there has been a shooting and the issue is not going to be 'how was he carrying'? The issue is going to be 'was the shooting justified'?. Not only that, but lawful use of deadly force can, in some jurisdictions, be a bar to prosecution for carrying illegally. That used to be the case in California---whether that is still true, I don't know.
timf343 wrote:
The reason that this is different is twofold:While I tend to agree with you, I believe the debate helps me understand.
To play devils advocate, schizrade, you say that NRS doesn't apply on your private property. But I'm not allowed to have drugs, or beat my wife, or give alcohol to my children, all codified in NRS. There is no exemption on private property. Why is this different?
First, and most obviously, there is nothing explicitly in the NRS that applies this CCW section to private property. Nevada, as most states do, follows a rule of 'strict interpretation', meaning that they strictly follow the law as it's written.
Second, historically, firearms are part of the inherent right to self defense. The right to self defense is a right that everyone has; it is not a right granted by the state; and your property has historically in Nevada, had about the same treatment as the Castle doctrine. The only time, realistically, that the police are going to be on your property is if there has been a shooting and the issue is not going to be 'how was he carrying'? The issue is going to be 'was the shooting justified'?. Not only that, but lawful use of deadly force can, in some jurisdictions, be a bar to prosecution for carrying illegally. That used to be the case in California---whether that is still true, I don't know.