Detained/Harassed by Las Vegas MPD on The Strip during my New Year's trip

Sonora Rebel · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Vegassteve wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

"Registration of firearms capable of being concealed. (Clark County (NV) Code 12.04.200)
It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a gun, pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed, unless the same has first been registered with the sheriff or with a police department of any of the incorporated cities of Clark County. (Ord. 242 §§ 20, 1965)"

You wear an empty holster... Somebody will query where the gun is. If you don't have a 'Blue card' for the gun... yer screwed. NV does not recognize (reciprocity) AZ CWP's.

As to my 'police' background... Baltimore City Police Academy/Maryland Police Training Commission 18 weeks. Special Weapons and Tactics, Small arms, In-Service Training (road course), First Aid/CPR... 'n some nickle-dime stuff.3 1/2 years... 'left because I re-enlisted in the Regular Navy (again). 20+ years active (AO(AW)) 3 combat deployments, 10 yrs Fleet Reserve, 11 years classified work under SPAWAR.'Been to Fallon several times. I don't think I'd OC downtown around the 'Nugget 'n stuff tho.

I don't agree withthe County Ordinance (that's your projection) but the OP went trollin' for a response to his actionsand got what he wanted. Now he's complainin'.Some people want attention... he got it. 'Nuff said!

Click to expand...

Your complete lack of understanding does not surprise me. First of all as a visitor he did not need a Blue Card. Second he did not have on his person a gun, can you understand that? Third there was no concealed gun so AZ permit is not an issue.

You seem to like to ignore the facts as they are given and only hear what you want. You have ZERO credibility with me and I hope with most on here.

Your understanding of Nev is also not correct. I open carry all over Las Vegas with zero issues. In Casinos even. This guy just ran into a couple of rogue mall cops and rogue LVMPD.

"It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a gun, pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed..."

I think the presence of an empty holster would trigger a response to the presence of a gun. If a visitor may OC (as you indicate) then why didn't he just do that? The way I read this Ordinance... 'Vegas is a nogun area to vistors and those w/o the Blue card, OC or CC.

I've OC'd in AZ/NM for years priorw/o a CWP... and parts of Nevada too... but NOT in 'Clark County'. All that other junk he was packin'... cuffs, kubotan, voice recorder etc is screwball city. Is the Ordinance Constitutional? No! Is Registration Constitutional? No! However... the primary business of Las Vegas istourism, entertainmentand gambling. We know who's got their fingers in that pie. The LEO's and Casino Security are gonna PROTECT that enterprise. There's enuff nut-cases in 'Vegas to fill the Grand Canyon as it is. This was just another annoyance. 'Pretty certain as the thing went down... it became a 'Just get him outt'a here' deal. (then ya have the gun in the restroom episode) If... (as you claim) guns are legal in the Casino's... why the fuss over that situation?I've never observed anyone OC in any casino, anywhere... 'posted or not. It's just common sense.

I read the whole 'transcript'... and I could relate to what those cops were thinkin' 'n why. (BTDT) Ennyhoo... I'm not one to carry on a popularity contest... so all that is 'so-what' to me. As far as what cops do in 'Vegas... If ya don't like their peaches... don't go shakin' their tree.

wrightme · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Vegassteve wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Click to expand...

"It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a gun, pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed..."

I think the presence of an empty holster would trigger a response to the presence of a gun. If a visitor may OC (as you indicate) then why didn't he just do that? The way I read this Ordinance... 'Vegas is a nogun area to vistors and those w/o the Blue card, OC or CC.

I've OC'd in AZ/NM for years priorw/o a CWP... and parts of Nevada too... but NOT in 'Clark County'. All that other junk he was packin'... cuffs, kubotan, voice recorder etc is screwball city. Is the Ordinance Constitutional? No! Is Registration Constitutional? No! However... the primary business of Las Vegas istourism, entertainmentand gambling. We know who's got their fingers in that pie. The LEO's and Casino Security are gonna PROTECT that enterprise. There's enuff nut-cases in 'Vegas to fill the Grand Canyon as it is. This was just another annoyance. 'Pretty certain as the thing went down... it became a 'Just get him outt'a here' deal. (then ya have the gun in the restroom episode) If... (as you claim) guns are legal in the Casino's... why the fuss over that situation?I've never observed anyone OC in any casino, anywhere... 'posted or not. It's just common sense.

I read the whole 'transcript'... and I could relate to what those cops were thinkin' 'n why. (BTDT) Ennyhoo... I'm not one to carry on a popularity contest... so all that is 'so-what' to me. As far as what cops do in 'Vegas... If ya don't like their peaches... don't go shakin' their tree.

A visitor may OC. A visitor does not need to register. Neither of those statements matters in this instance. There was no firearm.

You say that the presence of the holster implies the presence of a firearm. Why?

You are cherry-picking ordinance in an attempt to support your point, even though at least two persons (who I know personally) who KNOW the relevant statute intimately tell you that your interpretation is not correct.

OC is not illegal in casinos. Such acts as firearms in casinos would fall under whatever policies the business owners have in place, same as non-gaming businesses. If you wish, you can compare casinos to banks.

Your statements about government, LE, and casinos may be accurate, but they are not statements of fact. They are also arguable in court when it comes to such instances as the OP talks about.

Gordie · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

12.04.110 Registration of pistols within seventy-two hours.

Any resident of the county receiving title to a pistol, whether by purchase, gift, or any other transfer, and whether from a dealer or from any other person, shall, within seventy-two hours of such receipt, personally appear at the county sheriff’s office, together with the pistol, for the purpose of registering the same with the sheriff. It shall be the duty of the sheriff to register the pistol, and he may, and is hereby authorized to cooperate in any manner he sees fit with other law enforcement agencies, and with licensed dealers, relative to registration of pistols, so that efficient registration shall be secured at minimum cost and duplication. (Ord. 3571 §3, 2007: Ord. 242 §11, 1965)

12.04.200 Registration of firearms capable of being concealed.

It is unlawful for any person with at least sixty days of residency in the county to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a pistol or other firearm capable of being concealed, unless the same has first been registered with the sheriff or with a police department of any of the incorporated cities of Clark County.

NRS 483.141 “Resident” defined.

1. “Resident” includes, but is not limited to, a person:

(a) Whose legal residence is in the State of Nevada.

(b) Who engages in intrastate business and operates in such a business any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, or any person maintaining such vehicles in this State, as the home state of such vehicles.

(c) Who physically resides in this State and engages in a trade, profession, occupation or accepts gainful employment in this State.

(d) Who declares himself to be a resident of this State to obtain privileges not ordinarily extended to nonresidents of this State.

2. The term does not include a person who is an actual tourist, an out-of-state student, a foreign exchange student, a border state employee or a seasonal resident.

In none of the Clark Co., Las Vegas, North Las Vagas, or Henderson codes is there any direct prohibition on open carry. As I've said before, there is a history of ignoring the rights of gun owners in Clark Co.

SonoraRebel

If a visitor may OC (as you indicate) then why didn't he just do that?

Maybe he didn't want to carry a gun at that moment. That would explain why he didn't have one on him at the time.

Sonora Rebel

The way I read this Ordinance... 'Vegas is a nogun area to vistors and those w/o the Blue card, OC or CC.

Read all of the applicable ordinances and you will find that this is not true.

Clark Co. code 12.04.110

Clark Co. code 12.04.200

N.R.S. 483.141

Sonora Rebel

All that other junk he was packin'... cuffs, kubotan, voice recorder etc is screwball city.

There are many people who would say that carrying a gun is "screwball city".

Sonora Rebel

It's just common sense.

The Brady Bunch would say that a total ban on firearms is common sense.The common sense approach would be to not harass a person that is causing no trouble and threatening no one.

Sonora Rebel

As far as what cops do in 'Vegas... If ya don't like their peaches... don't go shakin' their tree.

Yeah, we wouldn't want them to have to worry about following that stupid old CONSTITUTION thing now, would we?

Would you say the same thing to Melanie Hain? Was she "shakin' their trees"? Or, was she excersizing her rights?

wrightme · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Sonora,

To make it a little more clear, several of those who are speaking of the relevant statutes in this case are members of a group who actively and directly worked to improve legislation in the most recent Nevada legislative session. Several of those here who are members of that group personally worked DIRECTLY on the very regulations you are misunderstanding, misconstruing, misquoting, or misreading. This activity includes assisting representatives in rewriting prospective legislation, in this case, legislation that DIRECTLY changes existing statute.

To put it bluntly, you are arguing with those who are virtually authors of some of the statute. In this specific case, registration for Clark County was unable to be removed by state pre-emption legislation. The existing wording was the only wording that was allowed to loosen the regulation in Clark County. We really worked for complete state pre-emption last session, and Clark County prevented it in this specific statute. We hope to do better this session.

Felid`Maximus · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

I think the PD was potentially unlawful in their search, and thus items found may have been discovered unlawfully, depending on what is considered reasonable suspicion, but in my opinion there was little reason to be suspicious. The PD was definitely unreasonable in their lecturing in my opinion. I think it is rediculous that anyone would be offended by an empty holster. If it were me, I would write to the casino a letter describing the empty holster and say it was empty( because you didn't bring your gun inside and just left the holster onright? ) and see if they'll remove their ban on you.Not that I would probably go back there, but it would be interesting to see if they realize they were in error.

However, I must say that one is much better protected legally in Nevada by only having a firearm and nothing else that could be construed as a weapon, especially if it could be construed to be a weapon in 202.350 (1) (a), or if it is concealed.

UsNevadansneed to repeal the restriction in 202.350 (1) (a) and repeal the vague part about concealing "any other dangerous or deadly weapon" (felony) In my opinion virtually every object could be stretched to be "dangerous" and maybe even "deadly."

The preemption in NRS 268.418and NRS 244.364 also unfortunately only protects one from local firearms regulations, and all other weapons can be almost endlessly regulated by localities.UsNevadansshould also try to get preemption to cover all weapons.It is silly that we can carry firearms but it is more legally questionable to have these lessor weapons.

If they try to charge you with your "kubotan" being a dangerous weapon or stretch it to be one mentioned in 202.350 as illegal to possess, I would find that strange however, since I believe public universities within Nevada have included "Kubotan" training in self-defense classes, andstate law makesUniversities have stricter weapons laws. (I think I read something about those 'Kubotan classes' at UNR... you might want to check.)

202.350

NRS 202.355 and 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, a person within this State shall not:

(a) Manufacture or cause to be manufactured, or import into the State, or keep, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend or possess any knife which is made an integral part of a belt buckle or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a switchblade knife, blackjack, slungshot, billy, sand-club, sandbag or metal knuckles;

(b) Manufacture or cause to be manufactured, or import into the State, or keep, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, possess or use a machine gun or a silencer, unless authorized by federal law;

(c) With the intent to inflict harm upon the person of another, possess or use a nunchaku or trefoil; or

(d) Carry concealed upon his person any:

(1) Explosive substance, other than ammunition or any components thereof;

(2) Dirk, dagger or machete;

(3) Pistol, revolver or other firearm, or other dangerous or deadly weapon; or

(4) Knife which is made an integral part of a belt buckle.

2. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 202.275 and 212.185, a person who violates any of the provisions of:

(a) Paragraph (a) or (c) or subparagraph (2) or (4) of paragraph (d) of subsection 1 is guilty:

(1) For the first offense, of a gross misdemeanor.

(2) For any subsequent offense, of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

(b) Paragraph (b) or subparagraph (1) or (3) of paragraph (d) of subsection 1 is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

Marco · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Tourism + gambling + prostitution (legal) + LOTS ofmoney = no weapons

Prostitution hasn't been legal in Clark County for >three decades.
Your lack of knowledge about LV (Clark County) is evident.

[line]
As a former Harrahscorp. employeeI'm shocked.
Those properties became part of Harrahs afterI retired.

Joe Howard is/was the VP of Security operations, Frank Salisbury is the person in charge of training security and Tom Flynn is VP over Surveillance as well as the surveillance Director at Caesars Palace.
Not that these people will be able to help you but filing a complaint about the way you were treated will ensure the video evidence is preserved.

I would also consider contact Gaming control and file a complaint based on the fact that you had to take down bets to be unlawfully harassed.

I would FOIA everything then file a complaint followed by a lawsuit against LVMP.

SlackwareRobert · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Well, the biggest mistake I read in the whole incident....
I would have asked the cage girl to also provide me with the crap table camera footage
along with my money. If the table was hot, the police action could have cost
a lot of money that they would than be getting sued for. And since Iv'e been
banned from the casino that would be my only chance to get the tapes.

At the least I want to know if my numbers won, or crapped out. But I stick
with the smaller casinos where everyone knows each other for the most part.

Closest I ever came to trouble was paying someone $50 for a small brown bag.
Started thinking how that looks on the cameras, and opened it to get a piece of beef
jerky out to eat. :shock:
I loved parking my motorcycle in the handicapped spaces for the 2 months
my permit was issued though. This also brings a lot of attention by the police, but at least
with handicap permits, they seem to acknoledge the law and move on.
A couple of times they were peeved I had it, but did nothing else except
mutter to themselves.

Now I would carry if I could find a casino without all those loud flashing slots,
but it is bad enough keeping my chips from disapearing as it is without
worrying about my hip holster being jostled by the packed crowd.

Sonora Rebel · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

People... it's kind'a obvious that the INTENT of the OP with all this 'statement' nonsense was to jerk somebody's chain and it worked. Melanie Hain in PA had no such intent or 'mission agenda' beforehand.

Obviously... Nevada needs some 'work' to sort out it's Constitution and abide by the 2A... but there's major 'money' forces in 'Vegas who're most likely puttin' the ka-bosh on all that. It's bad for business. Just 'cause somethin's 'legal' doesn't mean it's 'prudent'.

IF OC is OK in those casinos... then why the theatrics? Again... INTENT! I'm not readin' anything into that Ordinance that isn't there. The Ordinance does not reference the reader to other Statute(s) or Ordinances or define applicability to residents only. "It is unlawful for any person..." That's pretty clear language.

If the casino's had a 'Check weapons at the door' thing in effect... I could understand the empty holster. A 'reasonable suspicion' is created when security spots the holster...

"LC2: Ok. Well, well- what security's concern was, was that you have the open holster, so they were just wondering where the firearm was."

and wants to know where the gun is. It's not normal behavior to carry an empty holster. Did he hand off the gun to somebody who's concealing it... ? For what purpose? Then he starts runnin' his yap about his 'statement' purpose. OK... Do that someplace else pal...

We're in the gambling / entertainment business... Aus machen! 86!

He provoked the situation on purpose... that's obvious. What isn't obvious is what the OP has omitted... 'causeI doubt the veracity of the entire situation as it actually went down. If he has a major Jones about it... Sue the City... Sue the Casino... Sue the LVPD... that's his option. What I'm smellin' here is agit-prop on the part of the OP. Some of you will take that bait... I kind'a know better.

Bye!

rds801 · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

I can't believe all this is over an empty holster. I carry an empty holster once in a while. Not to make a statement but because I take my hangun out and leave the holster on. Wow, first people are scared at the sight of guns and now they are scared at the sight of an empty holster? I don't think the OP was trying to cause trouble. He was just having a good time gambling. Funny, if he would have been carrying I bet someone would come on here and say he was trying to cause trouble and create a problem. No gun and people are still saying that. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And how dare you carry a voice recorder around while you are obeying all laws?:cuss:

wrightme · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Our constitution is not the problem. Our legislation is not the problem. Clark County is a problem. Sonora Rebel wrote: [/b]

People... it's kind'a obvious that the INTENT of the OP with all this 'statement' nonsense was to jerk somebody's chain and it worked. Melanie Hain in PA had no such intent or 'mission agenda' beforehand.

Obviously... Nevada needs some 'work' to sort out it's Constitution and abide by the 2A... but there's major 'money' forces in 'Vegas who're most likely puttin' the ka-bosh on all that. It's bad for business. Just 'cause somethin's 'legal' doesn't mean it's 'prudent'.

IF OC is OK in those casinos... then why the theatrics? Again... INTENT! I'm not readin' anything into that Ordinance that isn't there. The Ordinance does not reference the reader to other Statute(s) or Ordinances or define applicability to residents only. "It is unlawful for any person..." That's pretty clear language.

If the casino's had a 'Check weapons at the door' thing in effect... I could understand the empty holster. A 'reasonable suspicion' is created when security spots the holster...

"LC2: Ok. Well, well- what security's concern was, was that you have the open holster, so they were just wondering where the firearm was."

and wants to know where the gun is. It's not normal behavior to carry an empty holster. Did he hand off the gun to somebody who's concealing it... ? For what purpose? Then he starts runnin' his yap about his 'statement' purpose. OK... Do that someplace else pal...

We're in the gambling / entertainment business... Aus machen! 86!

He provoked the situation on purpose... that's obvious. What isn't obvious is what the OP has omitted... 'causeI doubt the veracity of the entire situation as it actually went down. If he has a major Jones about it... Sue the City... Sue the Casino... Sue the LVPD... that's his option. What I'm smellin' here is agit-prop on the part of the OP. Some of you will take that bait... I kind'a know better.

Bye!

Sonora Rebel wrote:

It's not normal behavior to carry an empty holster.

Why? What is "not normal" about such? Just because it might offend someone? I see nothing "not normal" about it.

Sonora Rebel · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

In case y'all missed this the first time around:

"LC2: Ok. Well, well- what security's concern was, was that you have the open holster, so they were just wondering where the firearm was."

PROBABLE CAUSE TO DETAIN! "...wondering where the firearm was."

wrightme · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

We didn't miss it. We do not agree with your take on it. Like I mentioned several times, once it was determined there was no firearm, there was no reason to detain.

Absent any firearm, the holster is irrellevant. Absent a firearm, no statute applies.

Mike · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

wrightme wrote:

We didn't miss it. We do not agree with your take on it. Like I mentioned several times, once it was determined there was no firearm, there was no reason to detain.

Absent any firearm, the holster is irrellevant. Absent a firearm, no statute applies.

It goes beyond this - even a report of a man with a gun, not just a holster,does not provide reasonable suspicion to detain a person and pat him down. Florida v. J.L.; Commonwealth v. Hawkins (Pa.).

Let's assume everything the poster said is correct - he would appear to have a cause of action to sue for damages. The police are not here to detain and humiliate people just because a casino decides to eject a man with a holster - they casino agents of management must still go thru the formality of ejecting the man, and then calling the police if he refuses to leave. This is pretty basic stuff.

And while it may be true that "this is the way it's done on the strip," that does not make it right or legal.

The victim needs to look for a competent lawyer in Nevada to take his case on contingency.

Sonora Rebel · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

That's right... 'n they let him go. BUT... they (Casino security)had every right to trespass him afterward. He's a goof... 'n he was trollin'. Who else but a goof carries all that kind'a junk on 'em? (Don't tell me cops... ha-ha) You OC for personal safety. OK... he could'a done that... That wasn't his intent. His intent was to call attention to himself and cause a problem.

Ok... so the kubotan wasn't expected to be a concern. His pucker factor went off the scale when the cop suggested he be arrested FOR THAT if he made an issue of it. Y'all are full of 'armchair legalities when you have little appreciation for the dynamic of the situation.

He's also put himself at some risk for wanderin' around with an empty holster... which might make him a target for one of the local 'gangsters' as the cop indicated. Y'know... 'you gonna pull that pistol or whistle Dixie?'

Just 'cause somethin' legal doesn't mean youshould do it in certain places. Cops... Security all look for somethin' that's outta place... somethin' that just ain't normal. Some behavior thing... whatever. That's what they did... 'nthey detained him forit. This is a 'humble'... but 'he knew the law'... I know just what was goin' thru that cops mind right then. They have bigger fish to fry on the strip.

wrightme · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

That's right... 'n they let him go. BUT... they (Casino security)had every right to trespass him afterward. He's a goof... 'n he was trollin'. Who else but a goof carries all that kind'a junk on 'em? (Don't tell me cops... ha-ha) You OC for personal safety. OK... he could'a done that... That wasn't his intent. His intent was to call attention to himself and cause a problem.

They seized property. And let him go, but put him under threat of arrest for a trumped up charge. Casino security can "trespass" for any reason, or no reason if they choose. Irrellevant to the issue. The issue is the LE action, not the casino action.

"who else but...." It is irrellevant what your opinion of him and his choice is. You are projecting your morality or choice upon him, and arguing that he is one or another thing, or acting in one way or another based upon your views. Profiling. His intent is HIS to determine, not yours to opine.

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Ok... so the kubotan wasn't expected to be a concern. His pucker factor went off the scale when the cop suggested he be arrested FOR THAT if he made an issue of it. Y'all are full of 'armchair legalities when you have little appreciation for the dynamic of the situation.

Which of us "armchair legalities" did have your alleged "little appreciation for the dynamic?" Have any of us minimized the event? Have any of us claimed that he over-reacted? Did one of us say he should have simply taken his property back in front of the LE?

Sonora Rebel wrote:

He's also put himself at some risk for wanderin' around with an empty holster... which might make him a target for one of the local 'gangsters' as the cop indicated. Y'know... 'you gonna pull that pistol or whistle Dixie?'

Just 'cause somethin' legal doesn't mean youshould do it in certain places. Cops... Security all look for somethin' that's outta place... somethin' that just ain't normal. Some behavior thing... whatever. That's what they did... 'nthey detained him forit. This is a 'humble'... but 'he knew the law'... I know just what was goin' thru that cops mind right then. They have bigger fish to fry on the strip.

Any such "making oneself a target" is simply hyperbole. Being in a casino gambling is more of a risk than that. You seem bent on making it out like the OP got what he deserved.

If the cops "have bigger fish to fry on the strip," they should have done such instead of wasting their time with the OP.

AZkopper · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

wrightme wrote:

We didn't miss it. We do not agree with your take on it. Like I mentioned several times, once it was determined there was no firearm, there was no reason to detain.

Absent any firearm, the holster is irrellevant. Absent a firearm, no statute applies.

Click to expand...

It goes beyond this - even a report of a man with a gun, not just a holster,does not provide reasonable suspicion to detain a person and pat him down. Florida v. J.L.; Commonwealth v. Hawkins (Pa.).

Let's assume everything the poster said is correct - he would appear to have a cause of action to sue for damages. The police are not here to detain and humiliate people just because a casino decides to eject a man with a holster - they casino agents of management must still go thru the formality of ejecting the man, and then calling the police if he refuses to leave. This is pretty basic stuff.

And while it may be true that "this is the way it's done on the strip," that does not make it right or legal.

The victim needs to look for a competent lawyer in Nevada to take his case on contingency.

Floridav. J.L. was about basing Reasonable Suspicion on an anonymous reporting party, with no independant observations or cooberation by the officers. The fact that the reporting party was the casino, and could be contacted (in fact it was the reporting party that directed the police to the OP) makes J.L. a non-issue here.

The casino's have no duty to confront a person they believe may be armed. They are within their rights to call police to contactwho they see aspotentially dangerous subjects.

As I've said, the police completely overstepped Terry and either violated state law or policy by not giving a reciept, but the contact itselfwas legal.

I do believe, however, that the OP was obviously trying to make a political statement (he admitted as much), he knew this was a possible outcome of that, and he got the desired result. Despite some comments here, most do not walk around gun-prohibited areas with empty holsters (at least areas that do not pre-screen entry). In large public gathering areas, especially when they are private property, a reasonable person would know this is inviting confrontation.

Ideally, the police should have just asked the OP to a come semi-private area in the casino (unless he was close to the door, then outside would be best) and made a quick Terry stop, confirmed no obvious firearm in a strict pat down, and cut him loose. The casino could then trespass him if they wished.

Vegassteve · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

I do believe, however, that the OP was obviously trying to make a political statement (he admitted as much), he knew this was a possible outcome of that, and he got the desired result. Despite some comments here, most do not walk around gun-prohibited areas with empty holsters (at least areas that do not pre-screen entry). In large public gathering areas, especially when they are private property, a reasonable person would know this is inviting confrontation.

Ideally, the police should have just asked the OP to a come semi-private area in the casino (unless he was close to the door, then outside would be best) and made a quick Terry stop, confirmed no obvious firearm in a strict pat down, and cut him loose. The casino could then trespass him if they wished.

So now it is against the law to make a political statement in the USA?

He was also not in a gun prohibited area.

jegoodin · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

"Registration of firearms capable of being concealed. (Clark County (NV) Code 12.04.200)
It is unlawful for any person to own or have in his possession, within the unincorporated area of Clark County, a gun, pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed, unless the same has first been registered with the sheriff or with a police department of any of the incorporated cities of Clark County. (Ord. 242 §§ 20, 1965)"

You wear an empty holster... Somebody will query where the gun is. If you don't have a 'Blue card' for the gun... yer screwed. NV does not recognize (reciprocity) AZ CWP's.

As to my 'police' background... Baltimore City Police Academy/Maryland Police Training Commission 18 weeks. Special Weapons and Tactics, Small arms, In-Service Training (road course), First Aid/CPR... 'n some nickle-dime stuff.3 1/2 years... 'left because I re-enlisted in the Regular Navy (again). 20+ years active (AO(AW)) 3 combat deployments, 10 yrs Fleet Reserve, 11 years classified work under SPAWAR.'Been to Fallon several times. I don't think I'd OC downtown around the 'Nugget 'n stuff tho.

I don't agree withthe County Ordinance (that's your projection) but the OP went trollin' for a response to his actionsand got what he wanted. Now he's complainin'.Some people want attention... he got it. 'Nuff said!

He's from the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland, that explains a lot.

Mike · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

Mike wrote:

wrightme wrote:

We didn't miss it. We do not agree with your take on it. Like I mentioned several times, once it was determined there was no firearm, there was no reason to detain.

Absent any firearm, the holster is irrellevant. Absent a firearm, no statute applies.

Click to expand...

It goes beyond this - even a report of a man with a gun, not just a holster,does not provide reasonable suspicion to detain a person and pat him down. Florida v. J.L.; Commonwealth v. Hawkins (Pa.).

Let's assume everything the poster said is correct - he would appear to have a cause of action to sue for damages. The police are not here to detain and humiliate people just because a casino decides to eject a man with a holster - they casino agents of management must still go thru the formality of ejecting the man, and then calling the police if he refuses to leave. This is pretty basic stuff.

And while it may be true that "this is the way it's done on the strip," that does not make it right or legal.

The victim needs to look for a competent lawyer in Nevada to take his case on contingency.

Click to expand...

Floridav. J.L. was about basing Reasonable Suspicion on an anonymous reporting party, with no independant observations or cooberation by the officers. The fact that the reporting party was the casino, and could be contacted (in fact it was the reporting party that directed the police to the OP) makes J.L. a non-issue here.

The casino's have no duty to confront a person they believe may be armed. They are within their rights to call police to contactwho they see aspotentially dangerous subjects.

As I've said, the police completely overstepped Terry and either violated state law or policy by not giving a reciept, but the contact itselfwas legal.

I do believe, however, that the OP was obviously trying to make a political statement (he admitted as much), he knew this was a possible outcome of that, and he got the desired result. Despite some comments here, most do not walk around gun-prohibited areas with empty holsters (at least areas that do not pre-screen entry). In large public gathering areas, especially when they are private property, a reasonable person would know this is inviting confrontation.

Ideally, the police should have just asked the OP to a come semi-private area in the casino (unless he was close to the door, then outside would be best) and made a quick Terry stop, confirmed no obvious firearm in a strict pat down, and cut him loose. The casino could then trespass him if they wished.

I don't follow your logic at all - the casino can call the police but the police have no power to enforce private rules of conduct. The casino must make the first move or else no tresspass has occurred triggering any criminal statute the police may enforce. Recently a big box store had police haul out an open carrier from their store without first asking him to leave in Allentown, PA - the police are now confronting a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit for violation of 4th amendment rights.

As to your belief that a Terry stop was proper, where is the reasonable suspicion of crime afoot? What crime? What suspicion? Maybe I am missing somthing, so educate me.

Sonora Rebel · Jan 12, 2009

imported post

jegoodin wrote:

He's from the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland, that explains a lot.

Yeah... it explains whyI escaped 'long time ago. But... I was a 'street cop'... 'n these guys are street cops... I can relate to that much more than the 'SS' wanna-be's of the MSP. I see a lot of anti-cop sentiment in this thread... from all over.

The OP created a 'situation'... 'same as those bone-heads do for postin' goofy stuff on You-tube. I mean... whussup with the 'cuffs' 'n crap? 'Lookin' for some S&M action in 'Vegas or what? If anything, LVPD cut hima big chunk ofslack.

Detained/Harassed by Las Vegas MPD on The Strip during my New Year's trip

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member