Vegas Question

imported post

Pace wrote:

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!

Click to expand...

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.
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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Then take note of the number 3. "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.

imported post

----

imported post

wrightme wrote:

First, a business such as Walmart with signs indicating "no firearms" is not posted in accordance with subsection 2 of the statute.

Click to expand...

Though I agree with your point, this is not necessarily supreme, since subsection 1 does state it is not limited by subsections 2 or 4.

imported post

I agree that the private property owners requests should be respected out of decency, and I try not to patronize places that have such signs. But the dangerous thing about giving such signs legal weight regardless of the circumstances is that they could have people arrested for not noticing the 8 point font letters saying "NO GUNS ARE ALLOWED" located 3 feet to the right of the door.

imported post

You forgot to mention that sign was also posted 12 inches off the ground and behind tinted glass.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

First, a business such as Walmart with signs indicating "no firearms" is not posted in accordance with subsection 2 of the statute.

Click to expand...

Though I agree with your point, this is not necessarily supreme, since subsection 1 does state it is not limited by subsections 2 or 4.

Click to expand...

But subsection 1 is "intent." Absent intent, the limitations of 2 and 4 are the applicable points.

Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:
(a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or
(b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,

Click to expand...

A sign as discussed in this thread is not "having been warned."

imported post

Well, many states do have no tresspass laws that specifically say signs, but say it must be readable etc.

If they dont want gun owners in their business, I will go elsewhere.

imported post

I think the current state laws are perfectly adequate. A business owner can remove just about anyone from their place of business for just about any reason. To me it seems laws that allow police to arrest people on private property without warning for such an offense will only lead to people who make honest mistakes being punished. Anyone who is truly a nuisance can be banned from a place and arrested for trespassing if they continue to be a nuisance.


As to whether a massive no guns sign could possibly be used as evidence to prosecute someone for trespassing under current law, I would rather it be up to interpretation whether someone came to annoy the owner than have a zero tolerance law that said any time a legible sign existed anyone who carried would go to jail. Something could have been temporarily obscuring such a sign or something too.


There are many reasons a person may not want someone on their property. I doubt any of the states that have made it a law that guns are illegal in every building that has a sign would think of also making it so that people who don't wear shoes could be arrested or people who bring cameras into places that say no cameras could be arrested without the management asking them to leave first. Most people don't even read the notices on the doors and some doors are loaded full of notices and advertisements.

imported post

Pace wrote:

Whether or not people read signs, the courts have determined that signs at entrances are enough warning in many, many cases. Can you imagine all the idiotic lawsuits from people who stand too close to a cliff if signs were not valid warning devices?

I'm getting a German Shepard for my new house: I hope that the sign warning people of the dog is enough incase some idiot comes into the backyard wanting to steal my airsoft targets

Frankly, I believe the law should give private property complete rights to exclude anyone, defend it at all costs. These stupid laws that allow people to go onto your property and your business are why we don't have laws that allow us to defend our house and home. Nevada doesn't have the Castle Doctrine in its law, despite being common law in the United States.

You may not get it, but your defending some ultra-liberal ideas that private property isn't completely private.

Click to expand...

No, I am defending the right to go where most members of the public are allowed. I am also defending my right as a homeowner to fence my property.

As far as Castle Doctrine, it DOES have that in existing statute. It does not extend very far from the property lines.
NRS 200.120

NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined.

Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518)

Click to expand...

Further, there is some civil immunity available per NRS 41.095

NRS 41.095 Presumption that person using deadly force against intruder in his residence has reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; “residence” defined.

1. For the purposes of 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)

Click to expand...

I draw a distinction between a business that is owned by private individuals and open to the public, and a property owned by private individuals and NOT open to the public.

The statute already in discussion DOES mention signage. It is specific to "no trespass," and does not address "selective deny" as would be in a "no firearms" sign. Should Nevada have such "selective deny" statute, it is a new one on me.

imported post

----

imported post

I linked the existing statute, and did not make that argument you falsely created for me.

When I had my NRA Instructor course, existing state law is not part of the curriculum.

I was very active this year with AB288, which would have strengthened existing regulation to a level more near what is commonly referred to collectively as "Castle Doctrine."

Our existing statute clearly defines it, and what you are arguing against is not what I mentioned or alleged.


What is it that you feel an NRA Certified Instructor (other than myself) could inform me about? I clearly pointed to existing statute, indicating that I AM familiar with existing law.

imported post

Pace wrote:

You can not shoot someone for stealing your car. YOu can not shoot someone because they said they wanted to hurt you. You can not even shoot someone who is wielding a knife under most circumstances!

Click to expand...

Read the statute I linked. I never even implied that anyone could shoot someone for stealing my car. You are creating a position for me that I did not take; a strawman.

Pace wrote:

If anyone has told you that you have a right to shoot anyone in the state of nevada for any other reason than "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" they are completely WRONG, and they have never taken a NRA course, or a CCW course.

Click to expand...

Nothing I wrote should have given you that impression in the least. Once again, read the statute I linked. Do not assume I have meant something other than what the statute provides.

imported post

That is not what the Castle Doctrine means -- the idea that a Home is your Castle means that you have absolute right to defend your castle from invaders; ie, if someone breaks in, you can shoot to kill.

My apologies, I've met too many people who are carrying weapons (and some CCW holders) who think that the gun means they can prevent crimes, go after criminals, etc with their weapon.

Again, my apologies

imported post

Pace wrote:

That is not what the Castle Doctrine means -- the idea that a Home is your Castle means that you have absolute right to defend your castle from invaders; ie, if someone breaks in, you can shoot to kill.

My apologies, I've met too many people who are carrying weapons (and some CCW holders) who think that the gun means they can prevent crimes, go after criminals, etc with their weapon.

Again, my apologies

Click to expand...

That is one interpretation. There are still limitations upon its statutory reach in states where implemented. I know of no "blanket" definition that is used to call a state "Castle" or not that includes any "absolute right to kill someone doing a B&E.

The idea might mean that to you, but that does not mean it means the same to those who write the legislation.

imported post

In fact, here is a decent writeup in wikipedia about Castle, and some non-absolutes that apply.

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.
In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

• An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
• The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
• The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
• The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
• The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.
Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

In some states, Texas comes to mind, there may be specific statutory allowance for deadly force for the protection of property from theft, but that is not a "blanket" specific either.

While current Nevada statute is not strong wrt Castle, Castle Doctrine does seem inherent in the NRS which I quoted.

imported post

..

imported post

While current Nevada statute is not strong wrt Castle, Castle Doctrine does seem inherent in the NRS which I quoted.

Click to expand...

Not at all, the law only gives the right for deadly force in the instance the person is in immediate danger of DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY.

imported post

Pace wrote:

While current Nevada statute is not strong wrt Castle, Castle Doctrine does seem inherent in the NRS which I quoted.

Click to expand...

Not at all, the law only gives the right for deadly force in the instance the person is in immediate danger of DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY.

Click to expand...

That is not inherent in the wording of 200.120. Where are you getting it from?

More to the point, what definitions are you using for Castle Doctrine?

imported post

Pace wrote:

Well, many states do have no tresspass laws that specifically say signs, but say it must be readable etc.

If they dont want gun owners in their business, I will go elsewhere.

Click to expand...

You may, of course, do as you like. But that is NOT the law in Nevada and to tell others that it is, or that they are somehow obliged to follow your view even if it is not the law is, IMO, presumptuous.

Such signs have no legal standing in Nevada.

Ken