Campus carry

imported post

Pace wrote:

I am torn on this one:

- The students get pretty crazy at UNLV, do you want them drunk with guns?
- That being said, if I sent my daughter there, I'd want her to have protection, a CCW and her pistol in her purse...

Click to expand...

I continue having problems with the folks that bring up the "Crazed Drunks" theory and idealology, WhenI am in Phoenix, AZ andI take my family to dinner at Outback Steakhouse, I am breaking the law ifI OC or CC, Drinking or not. However here in NevadaI am perfectly Legalat theOutback Steakhouse, andjudging from the lack of "Crazed Drunks" reports, I think Nevada got it right.

imported post

Just to be clear, I am refering to the law as it stands, in which there is no across the board ban of friearms on campus by the state, but they do allow the schools themselves to make the decsion. Unfortunatley none of them do make the correct decision. The letter will be asking for myself, not to allow CC of everyone on campus (which I would love, btw). I am in my 30's, hardly drink (and when I do go to the bar, club or lounge, you can bet I am carrying, and never drink more than 1 or 2 drinks), and sure as heck won't be at any toga parties..or maybe I will..;-)

imported post

Good luck inNV.

One problem with laws requiring written permission is that a lot of people might also be worried that if they did give written permission it could open them up to liability if something happened. In addition to anti-gun mentalities, that is probably one of the major reasons why many places do not issue written permissions even when the law allows them to.

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Good luck inNV.

One problem with laws requiring written permission is that a lot of people might also be worried that if they did give written permission it could open them up to liability if something happened. In addition to anti-gun mentalities, that is probably one of the major reasons why many places do not issue written permissions even when the law allows them to.

Click to expand...

The reverse could also theoretically be true.

What about writing something similar to the following in your letter:

"If you deny my request to carry my firearm, I will hold you and the University liable for any crimes against me. As you know, criminals already break the law when they victimize innocent civilians. Only law abiding citizens will leave their firearms off-campus, while criminals, already breaking other laws, will ignore the restriction against weapons on campus. As such, if you deny my request, it is my belief that criminals are the only ones you allow to be armed on campus and if that results in a crime against me, I will sue you."

Or something like that.

Tim

imported post

Wish it was valid, its been held not valid in cases against police officials and government for not protecting people. I dont have the citations but I'm sure its google-able. I remember it from basic criminal law.

Frankly, I think it's a great theory based on the idea that we pay the government and the police to protect and serve the public. If there are any crimes on school property, de facto it means they are not doing their job.

Can you imagine if a car company sold a car that "sometimes worked" or you bought a Television that turned on once in an while, and the company told you "uh, we do our best?"

I think the letter might serve a good purpose just to make a point...

Personally, I like quoting car accident numbers and asking people to ban cars.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Good luck inNV.

One problem with laws requiring written permission is that a lot of people might also be worried that if they did give written permission it could open them up to liability if something happened. In addition to anti-gun mentalities, that is probably one of the major reasons why many places do not issue written permissions even when the law allows them to.

Click to expand...

The reverse could also theoretically be true.

What about writing something similar to the following in your letter:

"If you deny my request to carry my firearm, I will hold you and the University liable for any crimes against me. As you know, criminals already break the law when they victimize innocent civilians. Only law abiding citizens will leave their firearms off-campus, while criminals, already breaking other laws, will ignore the restriction against weapons on campus. As such, if you deny my request, it is my belief that criminals are the only ones you allow to be armed on campus and if that results in a crime against me, I will sue you."

Or something like that.

Tim

Click to expand...

That is kind of along the lines of what will be in my letter, along with a few other things. I will probably leave out the part about sueing though, lol. I don't want to piss him off, or come off threatening. I doubt I will get a yes, but you never know. We'll see.

imported post

Pace-

I understand the part about the govt not being required to protect me. My point was less "please keep me safe" and more "please don't prohibit me from keeping myself safe".

inNv-

I don't mind writing a letter like that. Obviously I'd rather not, so if your way works, hallelujah. If not, I don't mind being the bad guy.

Tim

imported post

inNV wrote:

Just to be clear, I am refering to the law as it stands, in which there is no across the board ban of friearms on campus by the state, but they do allow the schools themselves to make the decsion. Unfortunatley none of them do make the correct decision. The letter will be asking for myself, not to allow CC of everyone on campus (which I would love, btw). I am in my 30's, hardly drink (and when I do go to the bar, club or lounge, you can bet I am carrying, and never drink more than 1 or 2 drinks), and sure as heck won't be at any toga parties..or maybe I will..;-)

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the law as it stands does have an "across the board ban of firearms on campus."


NRS 202.265 Possession of dangerous weapon on property or in vehicle of school or child care facility; penalty; exceptions. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not carry or possess while on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or child care facility, or while in a vehicle of a private or public school or child care facility:
(a) An explosive or incendiary device;
(b) A dirk, dagger or switchblade knife;
(c) A nunchaku or trefoil;
(d) A blackjack or billy club or metal knuckles;
(e) A pistol, revolver or other firearm; or
(f) Any device used to mark any part of a person with paint or any other substance.
2. Any person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
3. This section does not prohibit the possession of a weapon listed in subsection 1 on the property of:
(a) A private or public school or child care facility by a:
(1) Peace officer;
(2) School security guard; or
(3) Person having written permission from the president of a branch or facility of the Nevada System of Higher Education or the principal of the school or the person designated by a child care facility to give permission to carry or possess the weapon.
(b) A child care facility which is located at or in the home of a natural person by the person who owns or operates the facility so long as the person resides in the home and the person complies with any laws governing the possession of such a weapon.
4. The provisions of this section apply to a child care facility located at or in the home of a natural person only during the normal hours of business of the facility.
5. For the purposes of this section:
(a) “Child care facility” means any child care facility that is licensed pursuant to chapter 432A of NRS or licensed by a city or county.
(b) “Firearm” includes any device from which a metallic projectile, including any ball bearing or pellet, may be expelled by means of spring, gas, air or other force.
(c) “Nunchaku” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 202.350.
(d) “Switchblade knife” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 202.350.
(e) “Trefoil” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 202.350.
(f) “Vehicle” has the meaning ascribed to “school bus” in NRS 484.148.
(Added to NRS by 1989, 656; A 1993, 364; 1995, 1151; 2001, 806; 2007, 1913)

imported post

wrightme wrote:

(3) Person having written permission from the president of a branch or facility of the Nevada System of Higher Education or the principal of the school or the person designated by a child care facility to give permission to carry or possess the weapon.

Click to expand...

I think what he meant was that the legislature does not "ban" them totally because it provides an exception.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

wrightme wrote:

(3) Person having written permission from the president of a branch or facility of the Nevada System of Higher Education or the principal of the school or the person designated by a child care facility to give permission to carry or possess the weapon.

Click to expand...

I think what he meant was that the legislature does not "ban" them totally because it provides an exception.

Click to expand...

Arguable, but I did not read it that way.

imported post

Just a matter of semantics.

Bottom line: Firearms are banned unless you obtain written permission - which is virtually impossible at many (if not most) institutions.

imported post

The exception is under thesection on permits:http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3673

NRS 202.3673 Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building; exceptions; penalty.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a permittee may carry a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of any public building.

2. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of a public building that is located on the property of a public airport.

3. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of:

(a) A public building that is located on the property of a public school or a child care facility or the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, unless the permittee has obtained written permission to carry a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subparagraph (3) of paragraph (a) of subsection 3...

=======================================================

The section I have highlighted in RED is pertinent.

Ken

imported post

Just so we're clear..

3. This section does not prohibit the possession of a weapon listed in subsection 1 on the property of:
(a) A private or public school or child care facility by a:
(1) Peace officer;
(2) School security guard; or
(3) Person having written permission from the president of a branch or facility of the Nevada System of Higher Education or the principal of the school or the person designated by a child care facility to give permission to carry or possess the weapon.

Pres. says yes, it's all kosher. Now of course I am about 95% sure the response will be no, but there is a sliver of hope.

imported post

While it may be considered "semantics," and I do recognize the exception (which was the whole premise of this thread in the first place), the law is a "blanket firearms ban."

inNV wrote:

Just to be clear, I am refering to the law as it stands, in which there is no across the board ban of friearms on campus by the state, but they do allow the schools themselves to make the decsion. Unfortunatley none of them do make the correct decision. The letter will be asking for myself, not to allow CC of everyone on campus (which I would love, btw). I am in my 30's, hardly drink (and when I do go to the bar, club or lounge, you can bet I am carrying, and never drink more than 1 or 2 drinks), and sure as heck won't be at any toga parties..or maybe I will..;-)

Click to expand...

Having an exception does not alter the word of the law. In fact, the non-frequent exceptions tends to support it as an actual "blanket ban."

imported post

I am sorry you do not see the law for what it is. There is an exception, which you claim you do see, therefore, it is not a "blanket ban", as you say.

imported post

inNV wrote:

I am sorry you do not see the law for what it is. There is an exception, which you claim you do see, therefore, it is not a "blanket ban", as you say.

Click to expand...

How many such exceptions are you aware of?

I do see the law for exactly what it is. It is a blanket ban, with a remote possibility for exceptions.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

inNV wrote:

I am sorry you do not see the law for what it is. There is an exception, which you claim you do see, therefore, it is not a "blanket ban", as you say.

Click to expand...

How many such exceptions are you aware of?

I do see the law for exactly what it is. It is a blanket ban, with a remote possibility for exceptions.

Click to expand...

How would you have any idea how many people have been allowed? How would you have any idea how many people asked? You don't. So unless you are a president of a NV university of higher education, you really can't ask "how many such exceptions are you aware of?"

And once again, you do not see it for what it says. There isn't "a remote possibility for exceptions", the exceptionsthemself arewritten into the law. Thereare only 3 exceptions, and they are written into the law.

(1) Peace officer;
(2) School security guard; or
(3) Person having written permission from the president of a branch or facility of the Nevada System of Higher Education or the principal of the school or the person designated by a child care facility to give permission to carry or possess the weapon.

^These are the 3 exceptions.
I think you are confusing "exceptions", with those who qualify to be exempt...with these 3 exceptions being written into the law, itqualifies it as NOT being a "blanket ban".

I think I, and others, have said it may be a slim to none chance of getting permission, but it does not hurt to ask.

imported post

InNV, I think we all agree what the law says. The law forbids firearms on campus UNLESS you have written permission.

And you're right that we do not know how many exceptions have been granted by heads of higher education institutions.

However, Mr Wright and I are not merely opining without evidence. We personally know several (including myself) that have requested permission. And the response has always been the same. For examples, see the letters from UNR president Milton Glick (posted at the beginning of this thread.)

Now, that is NOT to say everyone shouldn't write a letter to the presidents of Nevada's colleges. In fact, I would encourage EVERYONE to do so. Flood them with requests! And let your legislators (and us) know the outcome.

imported post

inNV wrote:

wrightme wrote:

inNV wrote:

I am sorry you do not see the law for what it is. There is an exception, which you claim you do see, therefore, it is not a "blanket ban", as you say.

Click to expand...

How many such exceptions are you aware of?

I do see the law for exactly what it is. It is a blanket ban, with a remote possibility for exceptions.

Click to expand...

How would you have any idea how many people have been allowed? How would you have any idea how many people asked? You don't. So unless you are a president of a NV university of higher education, you really can't ask "how many such exceptions are you aware of?"

And once again, you do not see it for what it says. There isn't "a remote possibility for exceptions", the exceptionsthemself arewritten into the law. Thereare only 3 exceptions, and they are written into the law.

(1) Peace officer;
(2) School security guard; or
(3) Person having written permission from the president of a branch or facility of the Nevada System of Higher Education or the principal of the school or the person designated by a child care facility to give permission to carry or possess the weapon.

^These are the 3 exceptions.
I think you are confusing "exceptions", with those who qualify to be exempt...with these 3 exceptions being written into the law, itqualifies it as NOT being a "blanket ban".

I think I, and others, have said it may be a slim to none chance of getting permission, but it does not hurt to ask.

Click to expand...

I think the point that is being made is, it doesn't matter if the law allows for it, if it doesn't happen, it is the same as a ban. this is the danger involved in having to get permission to exorcise your rights.

imported post

Gordie wrote:

I think the point that is being made is, it doesn't matter if the law allows for it, if it doesn't happen, it is the same as a ban. this is the danger involved in having to get permission to exercise your rights.

Click to expand...

Bingo!