wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Pace wrote:
In other words, were I to follow the signage requirements in 207.200, I would be posting signs that deny entry to my property. I would not be posting signs that allow entry unless someone is wearing blue.
In fact, my property already is likely to be covered under statute, as indicated by
First, a business such as Walmart with signs indicating "no firearms" is not posted in accordance with subsection 2 of the statute.
Second, a person entering a business for shopping does have "lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property," as does every other person shopping there.
While it is normal that a business owner is allowed to deny entry or service at a whim, a sign denying entry to someone with a firearm (concealed or visible) is not a portion of trespass law in 207.200, until an agent of the owner or the owner informs you that you must leave the property (be 'trespassed'). In fact, the sign is not required for that to happen.
A sign stating "no firearms" has equal weight under law as a sign stating "no shirt, no shoes, no service," except for the listed exceptions to firearms carry covered in statute 202.3673, and those will reference 202.3673.
Pace wrote:
Private property owners can do that can't they? I CAN post my private property "No Trespassing." I can post my property as described in the mentioned 207.200. The signage describes in that specific statute is to deny entry to a property, not to limit it to only those citizens preferred at a business open to the public.Honestly, you shouldn't argue this. Common law is very clear on this, in state and state about the right of any private citizen (or company) to regulate the standards and who they allow on their property. It's the same idea that gives us the right to protect OUR PROPERTY. Honestly, while the law is not on our side in Nevada per se, dont we all want the right to put no tresspass signs on our property, and if some one is in our back yard, pull a weapon and escort them?
The right to property and to prevent unauthorized people from the property should be respected. Its an essential right that works both ways!
In other words, were I to follow the signage requirements in 207.200, I would be posting signs that deny entry to my property. I would not be posting signs that allow entry unless someone is wearing blue.
In fact, my property already is likely to be covered under statute, as indicated by
(c) Fencing the area.
Then take note of the number 3. "lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property."3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.
First, a business such as Walmart with signs indicating "no firearms" is not posted in accordance with subsection 2 of the statute.
Second, a person entering a business for shopping does have "lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property," as does every other person shopping there.
While it is normal that a business owner is allowed to deny entry or service at a whim, a sign denying entry to someone with a firearm (concealed or visible) is not a portion of trespass law in 207.200, until an agent of the owner or the owner informs you that you must leave the property (be 'trespassed'). In fact, the sign is not required for that to happen.
A sign stating "no firearms" has equal weight under law as a sign stating "no shirt, no shoes, no service," except for the listed exceptions to firearms carry covered in statute 202.3673, and those will reference 202.3673.