Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: LV "nuisance" law aimed at OC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    Help a Californian challenge this FUD...

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...p;postcount=14
    Here is the skinny on OC in Las Vegas. When I took my ccw class in Las Vegas several weeks ago the instructor (who happens to be a Clark County Deputy Sheriff) gave us the following info...

    While OC is legal in Nevada it is highly frowned upon in Las Vegas! If you try it (especially on the strip or in a casino) the result will likely be 8-10 police officers pointing guns at you while you are spread eagle on the ground!

    Clark County passed a law several years ago called the "Public Nuisance Law" This law was passed specifically for OC of firearms. Since Nevada has preemption laws, which prevent cities/counties from regulating firearms the public nuisance law comes into effect.

    After you are disarmed and investigated for OC LEO will write you a $25.00 citation for this infraction. It is an infraction because to make it a misdemeanor would violate state premption laws.

    This was not lost on the authorities when law was passed. This way it cannot be challenged by NRA or other pro-firearm groups because it is a non-criminal offense.

    The $25.00 infraction is not the big deal. LEO will confiscate your firearm and you will have to go before a judge if you want it back and convince the judge that you have a VERY GOOD REASON for OC.

    Most likely you will not be able to convince judge of good reason and he/she will declare your firearm a "Public Nusiance" and it will be destroyed! Jumping on the 2A bandwagon will likely result in a contempt of court fine as judges do not like people (especially non-residents!) use of this lame excuse.

    OUCH! The loss of your firearm is the real cost of OC in Las Vegas! OC is well accepted in Reno/Carson area of state as it is more rural and less dependent on tourist dollars then is Las Vegas.

    The authorities do not like scared tourists for obvious reasons. Bottom line here is OC in Las Vegas and you will almost surely lose your firearm and Nevada ccw if you have one!

    One other point that was made by instructor is that since Las Vegas is high on terrorist target list they take no chances when it comes to people carrying guns as they do not want a Virginia Tech incident to occur there.

    The LEO's have no way of knowing your intentions while OCing. Instructor also added that if the incident occurs during summmer time you may find yourself spread eagle on sidewalk in 110 degree heat.

    OUCH AND DOUBLE OUCH! LEO will let you stay there awhile and if you get a burn from hot sidewalk that is their revenge as well!

    Much better to get your Nevada ccw I would think!


    I'm not that up on NV laws / case law. Any thoughts for a polite (yes I mean that) response to the poster?





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Ask him for a "cite" for the mentioned regulation.

    I read a few more posts by that person, and he seems to have quite a bit of misinformation to share over there.

    In fact, after reviewing that complete thread, I don't think he presented one accurate point of law concerning OC, CC, or trespass law as it pertains to Nevada.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    So many holes in this. Many people OC in Vegas all the time and don't get this reaction, including myself. The Strip is a bit different and I understand to a point but this is blown way out of proportion.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    This is all rather suspect.

    I do not live in Clark County, but I've triedvery hard to keep up with the situation. As a matter of fact, I'm probably responsible formuch of the debate since SB-92 was enacted in 2007.

    Who is the Clark County Deputy Sheriff that was your CCW instructor??

    What is the specific code concerning "public nuisance"?? And when, specifically, was it enacted??

    Has anyone been cited, prosecuted and been found guilty??

    You state:
    Clark County passed a law several years ago called the "Public Nuisance Law" This law was passed specifically for OC of firearms. Since Nevada has preemption laws, which prevent cities/counties from regulating firearms the public nuisance law comes into effect.
    But you make no mention of the FACT that Clark County does NOT recognize the "preemption" as enacted by SB-92 in 2007 that states the Nevada Legislature reserves for itself the right to regulate ALL firearms law in Nevada and is applicable to ALL laws/ordinances enacted on, before, or after 1989. Why would Clark County feel the need to pass a "public nuisance" ordinance specifically to suppress OC when they believe their existing laws are still in effect?? Perhaps because of the "June 1989" clause in the pre-2007 statute??

    There are those that OC in Las Vegas; albeit most probably avoid OC in the high traffic areas like the strip. And, of course, there is always the chance you might be "hassled" by law enforcement. That said, I attended an OC meet/eat/greet event at Chili's, far south on the strip, only a couple of months ago. There were a BUNCH of us OC'ing - with zero problems.

    I agree that concealed carry is probably the best way to go in many instances. However, I fully support the peoples right to open carry.

    And I sure would like more specifics concerning your post.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Thank you, leagueof1706 for removing that incorrect email address.

    I have edited this post to remove such references myself.

    Anyone who follows that link, please be aware that the trainer referred to in the excerpt above is NOT the trainer recommended by that poster in other posts in that thread, and in otherthreads.

    If you don't understand what's going on, just ignore this post. Thank you.

    John






  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post imported post

    I am amazed that someone would write that. I OC 80-90 % and have had contact with LEO`s, however my opinion is he is WAY off base.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    I had to log in and weigh in a few times. Jake doesn't know NV law at all.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    Hate to say it, but this guy's a special kind of 'tard. He tries to spew fact (false fact) as if he's the almighty Know-all Be-all, and in reality he's 100% wrong. When he's called on it, he doesn't apologize, but instead publishes a story that he was told this things by LEO and that LEO is never wrong. Never mind the fact that he could've misunderstood, or that the LEO might have been preaching with an agenda.

    Then he admits that some of the "laws" he's mentioned were just his opinion. I especially love how drinking a drop of alcohol while ccw STARTED AS A FELONY in his posts and ended up being just a bad idea "in his opinion." People who claim something is against the law just to order you to comply? Sounds like this guy is a closet fascist.


    I hadn't paused to think of this, but how dangerous can these sort of people be? I mean truly dangerous to our Rights. He believes we have fewer rights than we truthfully have, and just believing that we're that far lost makes it that much easier for the anti's to capture more laws against us.




    Maybe we should start our own thread spreading myths about California. For example, did you know it's flat out illegal to eat white bread? Well, not technically illegal, but if LEO sees you with a fatty piece of white bread you will be tazed and beaten, then processed without due cause and forced to drink ex-lax til you pass the foreign matter. At least, that's how I feel about white bread!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Ha! That was great, John!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    They are letting OJ out soon, would the judge except protection
    from a violent armed felon good enough reason? Still p*ssed he wasn't
    sent to prison in Jean.

    Besides look at it from the strips point....
    If you fire a warning shot into their overhead light show downtown you
    might break it. :P

    It is killing me I can't picture the street the new pawn wars show is on.
    Been gone just too long I guess. Still get cravings for craps, spend 32 hours
    at the castaways trying to win a table. These east coast indian tables are horrible. I couldn't get back for my 30th hs anniv., maybe christmas this year.
    That way the leo won't have anything else to do, I hate the new years crowds.
    And the cement is almost tolerable for laying on in dec. Wonder if they
    would let me be tackled on a spot I paved for old time sake?











  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    jfrey123 wrote:
    Hate to say it, but this guy's a special kind of 'tard. He tries to spew fact (false fact) as if he's the almighty Know-all Be-all, and in reality he's 100% wrong. When he's called on it, he doesn't apologize, but instead publishes a story that he was told this things by LEO and that LEO is never wrong. Never mind the fact that he could've misunderstood, or that the LEO might have been preaching with an agenda.

    Then he admits that some of the "laws" he's mentioned were just his opinion. I especially love how drinking a drop of alcohol while ccw STARTED AS A FELONY in his posts and ended up being just a bad idea "in his opinion." People who claim something is against the law just to order you to comply? Sounds like this guy is a closet fascist.


    I hadn't paused to think of this, but how dangerous can these sort of people be? I mean truly dangerous to our Rights. He believes we have fewer rights than we truthfully have, and just believing that we're that far lost makes it that much easier for the anti's to capture more laws against us.




    Maybe we should start our own thread spreading myths about California. For example, did you know it's flat out illegal to eat white bread? Well, not technically illegal, but if LEO sees you with a fatty piece of white bread you will be tazed and beaten, then processed without due cause and forced to drink ex-lax til you pass the foreign matter. At least, that's how I feel about white bread!
    This post appears to be completely accurate. What a hardhead over there.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Agreed!

    This "Big Jake" fellow is quite the "knowledeable" (sarcasm) guy. He went on to say:
    Drinking while ccw is definatley a no no and is actually a Felony in Nevada!
    DUH!!! Where do people like "Big Jake" get their info?? Darned sure NOT from reading the law or other reputable sources!!!

    Why did I post this? Only to reiterate the fact that NOT all info posted on LiberAl Gore's internet is factual.

    For anyone interested, here, fromhttp://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-2...l#NRS202Sec257, is the statute:

    NRS 484.383 to 484.3947, inclusive, except that submission to the evidentiary test is required of any person who is directed by a police officer to submit to the test. If a person to be tested fails to submit to a required test as directed by a police officer, the officer may direct that reasonable force be used to the extent necessary to obtain the samples of blood from the person to be tested, if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested was in violation of this section.

    3. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    4. A firearm is subject to forfeiture pursuant to NRS 179.1156 to 179.119, inclusive, only if, during the violation of subsection 1, the firearm is brandished, aimed or otherwise handled by the person in a manner which endangered others.

    5. As used in this section, the phrase “concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his blood or breath” means 0.10 gram or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of the blood of a person or per 210 liters of his breath.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Why does this seem to be a reoccuring problem. Why are these LEOs who teach CCW not informed/knowledgable of the laws. Not to hijack but just another blatant example of it here.

    I will link tothe RGJ article and then copy the paragraphs of the comments. http://www.rgj.com/article/20090809/NEWS/90809014

    Sierra Firearms Academy co-owner Dave Keller worked at the Washoe County Regional Shooting Range every work day for 16 years as the Reno Police Department firearms training officer.

    “The county has been shrinking and congested areas have been expanding, so there are fewer and fewer areas where you can recreate with a firearm,” Keller said. “It’s really the only legal, safe place that you can shoot.”

    Keller thinks the area has grown to where it could support a seven-day operation. Additionally, difficulty to getting access to the range is leading some concealed weapons permit instructors to set up illegal shooting ranges on federal land to teach classes, Keller said.

    While it MAY be safer in some circumstances it certainly isn't the ONLY legal place to shoot and to my knowledge there are only a few requirements for public land to be legal with respect to recreational shootin. This coming from the same person/persons/compant that used the county range as their personal range for 12 years to run their business with out compensation to the county. That's another story in itself but come on.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    This Dave guy is a real @#$% for trying to tell people shooting is illegal on Federal land... Sounds to me like he's trying to drum up business....

    "Don't go shoot all illegal, shoot with us so we can charge you for it!"


    I emailed this guy a minute ago... We'll see if he decides to respond.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    For Washoe County, see:

    http://www.washoecounty.us/clerks/fi...Chapter050.pdf

    See 50.092 through 50.150. Map of congested area (no shooting) here: http://www.washoesheriff.com/firearms-map.htm



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    I guess "Daves not here". Or he's no interested in responding to your email. Not surprising.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    SlackwareRobert wrote:
    Besides look at it from the strips point....
    If you fire a warning shot into their overhead light show downtown you
    might break it. :P
    Shouldn't be a problem any warning shots should be aimed directly at center of body mass of the warnee.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Maybe I should start a new topic, but as this one is dealing with correcting some misunderstandings we Californians may have picked up, I thought I'd ask it here.

    If one is open carrying (without a CCW), and then you get into a car, is it OK to leave the weapon on your hip? I've heard suggestions that the firearm should be removed from your hip and placed in the glove compartment, but I don't know if this is mandatory.





  19. #19
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Glock22Fan wrote:
    Maybe I should start a new topic, but as this one is dealing with correcting some misunderstandings we Californians may have picked up, I thought I'd ask it here.

    If one is open carrying (without a CCW), and then you get into a car, is it OK to leave the weapon on your hip? I've heard suggestions that the firearm should be removed from your hip and placed in the glove compartment, but I don't know if this is mandatory.



    Concealed is concealed. The only reasons for removing your firearm would be comfort, or accessibility. Doesn't do you any good to have your gun in the glove box if you need it in a hurry.

    So the answer is NO. It is not mandatory to remover your weapon, and YES, it is OK to leave it on your hip.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Sorry, I'm not sure where "concealed" comes in. I'm talking open carry outside the car, and presuming that that means that unconcealed "on the hip" inside the car is OK as well. It sounds as if that is correct and there's no reason to put it in the glove compartment.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    There are two applicable definitions:

    NRS 202.253:

    3. “Firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” applies to and includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.

    NRS 202.350:

    8.(a) “Concealed weapon” means a weapon described in this section that is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

    Also NRS 202.3653 (very similar to 202.350):

    1. “Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles County, California, USA
    Posts
    33

    Post imported post


    timf343 wrote:
    There are two applicable definitions:

    NRS 202.253:

    3. “Firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” applies to and includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.

    NRS 202.350:

    8.(a) “Concealed weapon” means a weapon described in this section that is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

    Also NRS 202.3653 (very similar to 202.350):

    1. “Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.
    So, OK, that's the law. But how is it interpreted? I could argue that if a LEO is standing by the driver's window, on my left, and the gun is on my right hip, then it is not discernible by ordinary observation, as he'd have to walk around the car and look at me from the other side - and that might be hard too if there's a passenger.

    Do the LEOs, as a matter of normal routine, take that approach or are they more common sense about it?

    Sorry if I am being a bit pedantic, but I don't want to be the test case!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    TBJ wrote:
    So, OK, that's the law. But how is it interpreted? I could argue that if a LEO is standing by the driver's window, on my left, and the gun is on my right hip, then it is not discernible by ordinary observation, as he'd have to walk around the car and look at me from the other side - and that might be hard too if there's a passenger.

    Do the LEOs, as a matter of normal routine, take that approach or are they more common sense about it?

    Sorry if I am being a bit pedantic, but I don't want to be the test case!
    Methinks your worries are unfounded.

    Open carry is open carry and is easily discernable.

    This "what if" could go on and on. "What if I'm standing in line to buy a sandwich and an LEO approaches from my weak side?" Lets not get carried away!

    Just be "smart" and inform any stopping officer that you are lawfully openly carrying on the hip he cannot see at the moment.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    They're good questions. I'm not aware of any case law specifically.

    If I'm OCing in my home, is my weapon concealed from everyone because they can't see into my house?

    If I'm standing in line to pay for groceries, is my weapon concealed from the cashier because there's a cart full of groceries between his eye and my hip?

    I'm making no effort to hide or conceal my weapon by sitting in my car or attaching my seat belt.

    IANAL but I believe a reasonable understanding and application of this law is that if you can see my whole person, you should be able to see my gun. If you can't see my whole person, I'm not concealing my weapon, it is simply obscured by other things (which are also obscuring your view of my person). I think a generally held understanding is that it must be concealed by something you are WEARING (shirt, pants, etc) or CARRYING (such as a backpack or briefcase).

    Tim

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles County, California, USA
    Posts
    33

    Post imported post

    Methinks your worries are unfounded.

    Open carry is open carry and is easily discernable.

    This "what if" could go on and on. "What if I'm standing in line to buy a sandwich and an LEO approaches from my weak side?" Lets not get carried away!

    Just be "smart" and inform any stopping officer that you are lawfully openly carrying on the hip he cannot see at the moment.
    OK, so used to LEO's in California interpreting the laws in a negative way, I guess I'm over cautious. We can be, and are, accused of concealed carry if an article of clothing momentarily blows over just the tip of our weapon. Sounds as if they take a more common sense approach over there (not surprising).

    Thanks for the input. Watch out for a gold-colored Highlander coming your way in less than three weeks!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •