So. NV Health District called police on me

imported post

I open carried into the office of the Southern Nevada Health District located on Shadow Lane in Las Vegas today. I was confronted by the Facility Services Manager and a security guard, who told me I could not O.C. there. The guard told me he could call metro (police) on me for doing so, and I replied that he was wrong about the law and that I expected the police would confirm that if he called them. He replied by asking "you really think the law says I can't kick you out of here for carrying a gun?" and then proceeded to call the police via his cell phone in my presence. I could hear the dispatcher say that they would be there in a few minutes. At that point, I told the manager and guard that I would go lock the gun in my car, so that when the police arrived they would not be confronting an armed person.

The building manager, guard and I went outside the building to the parking lot and waited together discussing the law. Within a few minutes, a half-dozen or so police units arrived and initiated an encounter with me which lasted about 10-15 minutes.

A young officer told me he understood it was legal to open carry in the building, but that I could still be trespassed by the building management for doing so.

Another of the officers later attempted to convince me that the law prohibited firearms in all public buildings. He asked me if I had actually carried the gun inside the building and when I told him "yes," he indicated that I had broken the law. I told him I knew for a fact that he was incorrect about that, and he asked another officer to bring out the law book. He turned to the section dealing with the intricacies of concealed weapons in public buildings and started reading me the actual definition of a public building, which was irrelevant. I responded by pointing out that the entire statute applied only to concealed weapons regardless and I was not carrying concealed, at which point he backed down.

The police concluded the encounter by asking me if they could run my gun's serial number to make sure it wasn't stolen, since as a Nye county resident I did not have a blue card to present to them. I told them the gun was locked in the car and I would not resist them, but I did not consent to anything. I was then told I was free to go, and I heard one of the officers ask the security guard if he wanted to trespass me. The guard indicated "no" and the police left. I then returned into the building, this time unarmed, to conclude my business.

Questions:

1) Did the So. NV Health District violate my rights by making me leave a public building where I had every right to be, and also by escalating the situation to the police?

2) Did Las Vegas Metro PD violate my rights by:

a) attempting to convince me I was breaking the law when I was not,

b) failing to inform the Health District personnel that I was within my lawful rights and immediately terminating the encounter, or

c) asking the Health District security guard if he wanted to trespass me for engaging in what had now been clearly established as lawful conduct?

I would appreciate any comments by those knowledgeable about the law.

If it appears this is actionable, I also request assistance in locating any pro-2A attorneys in NV that might be willing to work with me.

imported post

I hope you have names of all those involved.

imported post

I suggest you contact Lee Rowland, northern coordinator ACLU of NV, they are proccing these types of cases for possible actions # 775-786-1033

good work by the way

imported post

spiritof76 wrote:

Questions:

1) Did the So. NV Health District violate my rights by making me leave a public building where I had every right to be, and also by escalating the situation to the police?

Interesting question. They did not violate your rights by calling the police, but probably did so by asking you to leave a public building when you're violating no laws and not being disruptive (the latter is probably the excuse they would cite however).

2) Did Las Vegas Metro PD violate my rights by:

a) attempting to convince me I was breaking the law when I was not,

Police are allowed to lie.

b) failing to inform the Health District personnel that I was within my lawful rights and immediately terminating the encounter, or

Police have no obligation to settle your dispute, although they should have at least tried.

c) asking the Health District security guard if he wanted to trespass me for engaging in what had now been clearly established as lawful conduct?

I firmly believe yes. Not so much in the fact that he asked the security guard, but that he likely would have "trespassed" you had the guard requested it. This same crap was pulled in Seattle. State law preempts local ordinances. So since Seattle can't outlaw OC in public buildings/parks/etc, they said they're just trespass you. http://www.seattle.gov/firearmsrule/

Someone in the Washington forum probably has the answer as to what legal battles are being fought over this one.

I mention it only because it is so similar. You're not doing anything illegal, but you're doing something we don't agree with, so since we can't arrest you for carrying, we'll just kick you out and trespass you if you refuse to leave. This is no different than saying "Red shirts prohibited" and kicking out anyone wearing one.

I would appreciate any comments by those knowledgeable about the law.

If it appears this is actionable, I also request assistance in locating any pro-2A attorneys in NV that might be willing to work with me.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much actionable since nothing really happened and you complied. If you had refused to lock up your weapon and been wearing it when the police arrived, any number of things might have happened that may have been actionable.

Regarding trespassing, The Nevada Supreme Court has held that when an owner of premises asks a guest who was originally invited to the premises to leave, the owner has given a sufficient warning not to trespass, and the disinvited guest commits trespassing if the guest then refuses to leave. (Scott v. Just. Ct., 84 Nev. 9 (1968))

I find it difficult to accept that a public building can trespass an individual who has lawful business there. Can you be trespassed from a courthouse? Where do you go to fight the charge? I think it is for that reason there exists this law: It seems to me that this law is redundant to trespassing, especially the emphasized part, which sounds a lot like TRESPASS (see NRS 207.200). If trespassing from a public building is allowed, what is the purpose of this law?

imported post

To head off some of you who may cite the reference to "public property" in the trespass law, I would suggest that applies to places where you have no lawful business. You have business at the DMV, library, and SNHD and if you're not breaking the law, being "trespassed" seems like a gaping loophole in which arbitrary, otherwise illegal, rules can be enforced.

You do not have business in the city fleet parking lot or the state highway maintenance buildings. These buildings are not open to the public, are probably marked NO TRESPASS and are also probably fenced.

I don't know the case law though, so I may be mistaken.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

You have business at the DMV, library, and SNHD and if you're not breaking the law, being "trespassed" seems like a gaping loophole in which arbitrary, otherwise illegal, rules can be enforced.

Click to expand...

+1

timf343 wrote:

I don't think it's so much actionable since nothing really happened and you complied. If you had refused to lock up your weapon and been wearing it when the police arrived, any number of things might have happened that may have been actionable.

Click to expand...

That may well be the case, and if the case ever ends up in court they will likely raise that argument. However, I did not disarm UNTIL the guard had actually called the police. Only at that point did I do so, in order to avoid a potentially dangerous situation where the police were likely to disarm me involuntarily. Thus I did NOT "voluntarily comply," but that of course is ultimately up to someone else to decide if anything comes of this situation.

imported post

This is an interesting read..



It does bring one question to mind. Does a public building have the ability to trespass you? I mean, what if the DMV trespassed you, you wouldn't be able to conduct any mandatory-in-person business there?

For the sake of this part of the discussion, I am only referring to public buildings where you have a reason to be, for the purpose of conducting business.

imported post

Exactly.

While I don't agree with banning firearms at post offices, at least I can send mail through other carriers (UPS, Fedex, etc.) or at any number of non-post office locations (my own mailbox at my house for example).

But the DMV....I have to get my picture taken for a driver license.

The SNHD....I have to get my health card to work in certain professions.

So, that's my question too - can I be banned/trespassed from a public building where I have a right to be (and in fact, an obligation to be, depending on the circumstances), when I'm doing nothing illegal?

In a quick google search, I'm seeing lots of states/counties/cities have laws on the books and mainly hold that to be trespassed from a public building, you must have no lawful business there, or you must be acting in a way that disrupts or disturbs others conducting their own lawful business there.

So, while some may claim carrying a firearm is disruptive, IMO, disruptive means more like you're jumping in line, harassing others, talking loudly on your cell phone (at a library for example), etc.

imported post

Sadly, you backed down when he called the cops. but being on uncertain ground, I understand your position.

Intimidation 1, Citizenship 0

imported post

I wouldn't say he backed down. I have conducted business in the same office (as a Nevada Professional Engineer) on multiple occasions and instead of openly carrying I have kept my gun in the car.

I appreciate the fact that he started this dialog and education process. His actions might allow me to open carry there in the future without the fear of harassment.

This might spill over to other public buildings that I attend on a regular basis. Like the Clark County government building.

Not everybody has time in their daily business to have lengthy encounters with LVMPD. I really appreciate the professional actions of this gentleman, and his efforts.

imported post

In Washington, those involved would be guilty of criminal acts.

Specifically Coercion, and Official Misconduct.

In addition, again in Washington, some LEO's have a sworn DUTY to arrest violators, and they would add another criminal violation should they fail to do so when notified of/witnessing the criminal act.

All this to say that perhaps you should research the Nevada statutes for similar legislation. Nothing like pointing out an officer's (or other public employee's) conduct as being CRIMINAL to make them sit up and pay attention.

imported post

NRS 207.190 Coercion.
1. It is unlawful for a person, with the intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which the other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to:
(a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of his family, or upon his property, or threaten such violence or injury;
(b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder him in the use thereof; or
(c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force.
2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 shall be punished:
(a) Where physical force or the immediate threat of physical force is used, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
(b) Where no physical force or immediate threat of physical force is used, for a misdemeanor.


Interesting observation, thanks Phssthpok! It is arguable as to whether a sign posted pursuant to NRS 202.3673 (no concealed carry) would have weight against open carry. As there is no state law specifically preventing OC, we all know it to be legal. Without specific law granting authority to public buildings to prevent OC, we all assume it to be legal. But how may a court interpret it?

Does NRS 202.3673 permit, although quite vaguely, public buildings to post no weapons signs? I tend to think NO since it appears only under the CONCEALED WEAPONS section (NRS 202.3653 - NRS 202.369) and not under the more general WEAPONS section (NRS 202.253 - NRS 202.362).

imported post

Good point, Tim. This brings me back to the signs that are posted at the CC library on Flamingo. To paraphrase: You will be charged if you bring a firearm into the building.

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Does NRS 202.3673 permit, although quite vaguely, public buildings to post no weapons signs? I tend to think NO since it appears only under the CONCEALED WEAPONS section (NRS 202.3653 - NRS 202.369) and not under the more general WEAPONS section (NRS 202.253 - NRS 202.362).

Click to expand...

The problem is that NRS 202.3673 not only allows, but specifically REQUIRES that public buildings post a "NO WEAPONS" sign in order for the statute which applies only to CONCEALED weapons (carried by permit holders) to be effective. Open carry is still legal, but this poorly crafted statute calls for a sign that deliberately misleads the public as to what the law actually states.

Here is the relevant text of the statute, with bold emphasis added by me to make the point:

NRS 202.3673

(3) A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of: [...] (b) A public building that has a metal detector at each public entrance or a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building [...]

Click to expand...

imported post

spiritof76 wrote:

timf343 wrote:

Does NRS 202.3673 permit, although quite vaguely, public buildings to post no weapons signs? I tend to think NO since it appears only under the CONCEALED WEAPONS section (NRS 202.3653 - NRS 202.369) and not under the more general WEAPONS section (NRS 202.253 - NRS 202.362).

Click to expand...

The problem is that NRS 202.3673 not only allows, but specifically REQUIRES that public buildings post a "NO WEAPONS" sign in order for the statute which applies only to CONCEALED weapons (carried by permit holders) to be effective. Open carry is still legal, but this poorly crafted statute calls for a sign that deliberately misleads the public as to what the law actually states.

Here is the relevant text of the statute, with bold emphasis added by me to make the point:

NRS 202.3673

(3) A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of: [...] (b) A public building that has a metal detector at each public entrance or a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building [...]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I wonder if they would get you on the No Firearms part. By somehow dividing the NRS up? It is a sticky one I think. I have often thought of OC into my local library, but alas I chicken out.

imported post

Vegassteve wrote:

I wonder if they would get you on the No Firearms part. By somehow dividing the NRS up? It is a sticky one I think. I have often thought of OC into my local library, but alas I chicken out.

Click to expand...

The whole point is that they have no authority to "get you on the No Firearms part." The statute calls for a sign that misleadingly implies an authority that they do not have.

imported post

spiritof76 wrote:

Vegassteve wrote:

I wonder if they would get you on the No Firearms part. By somehow dividing the NRS up? It is a sticky one I think. I have often thought of OC into my local library, but alas I chicken out.

Click to expand...

The whole point is that they have no authority to "get you on the No Firearms part." The statute calls for a sign that misleadingly implies an authority that they do not have.

Click to expand...

How do you mean? Sorry I am dense tonight.

imported post

You have a right to open carry into a public building, because no law prohibits you from doing so. The sign is irrelevant to open carry because the statute authorizing the sign applies only to concealed carry. It's as simple as that.

imported post

spiritof76 wrote:

You have a right to open carry into a public building, because no law prohibits you from doing so. The sign is irrelevant to open carry because the statute authorizing the sign applies only to concealed carry. It's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

Correct. I understand that you do too. I was just wondering if the courts would really see it that way.

imported post

Not sure if it means anything to this part of the thread, but I OC in my local library all the time and no one (even the "security" guy volunteer) ever bats an eye. I know for a fact my firearm has been seen by patrons and staff alike.

This is Pahruimp, Nye county.

There are no signs or metal detectors either.