• 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.

CC without permit?

Loneviking

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

timf343 wrote:
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?
The reason that this is different is twofold:

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.
 

schizrade

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
37
Location
, ,
imported post

Loneviking wrote:
timf343 wrote:
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?
The reason that this is different is twofold:

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.
Last I checked it is the same in Cali. You can carry concealed on your own PP.
 

timf343

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

I don't want to come across as hypocritical, since I OC without "explicit permission" of law. But in this case, there is language forbidding CC without a permit. I'm just trying to understand what legal text excludes your home from this requirement. Some have suggested you may do so at your business if you own the business. What about if you have permission of the business owner? Again, what text in the NRS limits the geography of the permit requirement?

Not trying to beat this to death, I just don't think I've gotten a convincing answer. Consider this NRS code section:
NRS 202.3667

Permittee to carry permit and proper identification when in possession of concealed firearm; penalty.

1. Each permittee shall carry the permit, or a duplicate issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 202.367, together with proper identification whenever the permittee is in actual possession of a concealed firearm. Both the permit and proper identification must be presented if requested by a peace officer.

2. A permittee who violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of $25 for each violation.
(Added to NRS by 1995, 2724)
(emphasis added)

I believe the red words above are pretty explicit. "Whenever" means any time, including when you're at home. I agree that the enforcement of this (for those at home) is impossible and probably never addressed. But I disagree that any reason, including being impossible to inforce, makes it legal.

Tim
 

schizrade

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
37
Location
, ,
imported post

timf343 wrote:
I don't want to come across as hypocritical, since I OC without "explicit permission" of law. But in this case, there is language forbidding CC without a permit. I'm just trying to understand what legal text excludes your home from this requirement. Some have suggested you may do so at your business if you own the business. What about if you have permission of the business owner? Again, what text in the NRS limits the geography of the permit requirement?

Not trying to beat this to death, I just don't think I've gotten a convincing answer. Consider this NRS code section:
NRS 202.3667

Permittee to carry permit and proper identification when in possession of concealed firearm; penalty.

1. Each permittee shall carry the permit, or a duplicate issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 202.367, together with proper identification whenever the permittee is in actual possession of a concealed firearm. Both the permit and proper identification must be presented if requested by a peace officer.

2. A permittee who violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of $25 for each violation.
(Added to NRS by 1995, 2724)
(emphasis added)

I believe the red words above are pretty explicit. "Whenever" means any time, including when you're at home. I agree that the enforcement of this (for those at home) is impossible and probably never addressed. But I disagree that any reason, including being impossible to inforce, makes it legal.

Tim
Well that would be the burden of whoever is trying to prosecute that "crime". I do not see how this could reach into your home. We have a team of 3 lawyers, along with many military and State officials that all agree that it is NOT illegal for people to conceal carry on private property/business without permit. If it was illegal, the Washoe County DA would have arrested all of us at work. Only one person out of 6 that carry's has a CCW. The ADA's are in once a month picking up various paperwork.

Like I said, I think you are applying this too liberally.
 

Writer

New member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

Since I can't find a topic area regarding castle doctrine, this seems like the most related area to ask this question. In Nevada, if someone breaks into your home, you have the right to use deadly force. The presumption of the law is in the favor of the homeowner. However,does Nevada law incorporate the protections that many other states have in protecting the homeowner from civil suit from the criminal (or his family) who broke in?
 

timf343

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

IANAL

I am not aware of any castle doctrine per se, protecting a homeowner from criminal prosecution, but there is a protection against civil action. I would think that a solid criminal defense would rely upon this code as it clearly spells out that any person can reasonably conclude an intruder presents a fear or risk of death or injury.

And that code section is NRS 41.095. Notice the date of enactment. Seems the 1989 legislature was very gun friendly.

NRS 41.085 and 41.130, any person who uses, while lawfully in his residence or in transient lodging, force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or another person lawfully in the residence or transient lodging if the force is used against a person who is committing burglary or invasion of the home and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that burglary or invasion of the home was being committed. An action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of the person who committed burglary or invasion of the home may not be maintained against the person who used such force unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
2. As used in this section, “residence” means any house, room, apartment, tenement or other building, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer or boat designed or intended for occupancy as a residence.
(Added to NRS by 1989, 1798)
 

Writer

New member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

Thank you for the quick response. Your references were exactly on point. Though not referred to as "castle doctrine" (I'm not sure that term was even being used in 1989 when these statutes were passed) it seems that Nevada statutes contain the essence of that concept.

Obviously, anybody can sue anybody for anything, but this statute makes the hill pretty steep for an injuredperp (or his survivors)to sue a homeowner for defending his home.

I agree with you that the protectionsunder this statute would be neutralized if the homeowner's actions resulted in a criminal conviction. But, absent a criminal conviction, the homeowner should be fairly safe from havingan injuredburglar become the new homeowner through a civil lawsuit.
 

Loneviking

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

And for crimes committed outside the home, look at this interesting section:

NRS 41.135 Liability of victims of certain crimes limited for injuries to offender. A person who is convicted of committing or attempting to commit:

1. A felony;

2. An act that would have been a felony if committed by an adult; or

3. A misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor that constitutes domestic violence pursuant to NRS 33.018,

Ê may not bring an action against the victim or the estate of the victim for injuries sustained by the offender or damage to property of the offender that occurred during the course of the crime or delinquent act.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 968; A 1989, 1453; 1997, 2, 1811)



So, if someone is attempting to rob you by force and you shoot them, you would likely be shielded from civil liability.
 

Writer

New member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

Timf343, I think your logic on the issue of Open Carry is correct regarding the law, but the difficulty can arise in a real-life situation if someone who is in your presence thinks that you are brandishing a weapon. There are enough people who have been so brainwashedby the media andpoliticians that the mere sight of a gun can give them conniptions. Though you would probably prevail in a legal action, you might still have to go through some unpleasantness before things got sorted out.

Concealed-carry instructors that I have talked to about this issue have counselled me that in places like downtown Vegas or Reno, where there are lots of people around, open carry on a busy street can cause a commotion. Particularly among tourists who don't know the laws in Nevada and think that anyone carrying a gun must be intending to do another Columbine.
 

Loneviking

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

Writer wrote:
Timf343, I think your logic on the issue of Open Carry is correct regarding the law, but the difficulty can arise in a real-life situation if someone who is in your presence thinks that you are brandishing a weapon. There are enough people who have been so brainwashedby the media andpoliticians that the mere sight of a gun can give them conniptions. Though you would probably prevail in a legal action, you might still have to go through some unpleasantness before things got sorted out.

Concealed-carry instructors that I have talked to about this issue have counselled me that in places like downtown Vegas or Reno, where there are lots of people around, open carry on a busy street can cause a commotion. Particularly among tourists who don't know the laws in Nevada and think that anyone carrying a gun must be intending to do another Columbine.
Au contraire! Rarely is there a problem in Nevada with OC--check the OC thread and see. Five of us had a dinner, while armed, on Wed. at a busy resturant in Reno. Nary a peep....
 

Writer

New member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

Loneviking, that's very interesting. Could you double-check the reference? When I clicked on the link, it didn't take me to the passage you quoted.
 

Writer

New member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

Loneviking, I found the reference. I must have clicked on the wrong link. I'm not used to being up this early.

Yes, your citation regarding the issue outside the home is very reassuring. It's refreshing to live in a state that doesn't hang a carrot in front of a felon who is injured while commiting a crime.
 

timf343

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

Loneviking wrote:
Au contraire! Rarely is there a problem in Nevada with OC--check the OC thread and see. Five of us had a dinner, while armed, on Wed. at a busy resturant in Reno. Nary a peep....
+1

This is the usual reason cited by anti-OC folks, and rarely true. I've never once seen people running and screaming at the sight of my firearm.

I think most CCW instructors recommend against it, because there are admitted tactical advantages in being concealed (there are likewise advantages in OC by the way). Plus, it might have a little to do with self preservation. OC with no license, no class, no TUITION.

I've seen others say that anyone who OC's is likely doing so to show off, or because they can't get a CCW. On the other hand, the only reason I got my CCW was to avoid committing a "crime" if my OC weapon accidentally became concealed, such as if my shirt becomes untucked.

That is the same mentality that anyone sitting next to a defense attorney in court did something wrong to land himself there. If you're a defendant, you're guilty. If you're openly carrying a gun, you have a shady past and can't legally qualify to get a CCW. If you opt to remain silent to the police, you're hiding something. If you like your rights and believe in the constitution, you're an extremist.
 
Top