Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Las Vegas Convention Center

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    I recently attended an event at the Las Vegas Convention Center. On each set of entrance doors it read,

    "Please Be Advised Nevada Law 202.673 Prohibits Concealed Firearms or Weapons of any kind on this property"

    Can anyone explain.

  2. #2
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    They are refering to NRS 202.3673 which states:

    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, unless the permittee is not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subsection 4.

    There has been discussion if the Statute includes "open carry". I think one would have a tough time beating it. If someone did I think that the ultimate result would be for new legiislation that would clear it up, and in my opinion for what it's worth, we would loose ground. Sometimes it's best to drop it and wait for the right moment. We have to gain our rights back the same way we lost them, incrementally.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    The Convention Center is owned and operated by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority which is established as a political sub-division of the State of Nevada. Accordingly, the convention center is a "Public Building" as defined and is subject to the provisions of NRS 202.673.

    Ken

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Since they are a government entity, preemption prohibits them from creating rules or regulations not specifically authorized by state statute. NRS 202.3673 authorizes them to ban CC weapons if metal detectors are in place at each public entrance, or there is a sign on every public entrance stating firearms are prohibited. However, this restriction is only for CC weapons, so OC would be perfectly legal there. As always, YMMV if you try to OC there, but be warned: CC there is illegal.

  5. #5
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    I think the argument that they would use is this when it comes to open carry. The statute though it is refering to CC primarilystates the following "a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building" one could infer from this, and I think most of our very liberal judges would agree, that they then do in fact have the authority to limit all firearms within those posted public buildings. It would be an expensive argument most likely requiring apeals. This is something that ultimately needs to be cleared up however I fear we would loose ground on it. If someone pushed it and won, then I fear our legislature woud get involved to our ultimate disatisfacton. We in fact have open carry because there is no law against it. The same could be said about the prohibition of firearms in public buildings. I know of no statute that addresses it. State preemption may not cover it as they are not making a local law, just that those in charge of specific buildings do not allow it. It would be a tough battle.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    202.3673 starts says a permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm in such a place. It does not limit open carry. I've carried openly at the DMV and after showing the staff the written word of the law they did not stop me. If 202.3673 confers an authority for banning open carry, what would they charge a violator with? There is no wording in the law and no penalties. Taking the law literally it says that they have to say "no firearms" to ban CC and that is the only effect the words have. If this was California I'd be more concerned since the law in California often seems to mean whatever a judge pretends it means (see Theusus' case for example), but usually in Nevada the law takes its literal meaning.

    Further, the preemption laws say that the state legislature reserves the right to itself for firearms regulation. When local government agencies create regulations banning firearms in buildings they are violating the preemption.

    Be careful though that the building so posted is not part of the system of higher education, where 202.265 makes firearms illegal.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    202.3673 starts says a permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm in such a place. It does not limit open carry. I've carried openly at the DMV and after showing the staff the written word of the law they did not stop me. If 202.3673 confers an authority for banning open carry, what would they charge a violator with? There is no wording in the law and no penalties. Taking the law literally it says that they have to say "no firearms" to ban CC and that is the only effect the words have. If this was California I'd be more concerned since the law in California often seems to mean whatever a judge pretends it means (see Theusus' case for example), but usually in Nevada the law takes its literal meaning.

    Further, the preemption laws say that the state legislature reserves the right to itself for firearms regulation. When local government agencies create regulations banning firearms in buildings they are violating the preemption.

    Be careful though that the building so posted is not part of the system of higher education, where 202.265 makes firearms illegal.
    Maybe so. But, as I see it, they can still invoke the trespass law and bar you for any, or no, reason if they like.

    Ken

  8. #8
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    If a government entity makes it a policy to trespass people from public buildings solely for having a firearm, is that not regulating the possession of firearms?

    A public institution does not have unlimited private property rights to control every aspect of the property because they are not private property. Government is limited to the authority it is given by law. (Unlike private organizations that can do anything not prohibited by law.)

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Good discussions.

    I'm going to add another dynamic. NRS 202.3673 specifically authorizes a permittee to carry a concealed weapon in a public building, with the noted exceptions.

    I think we all agree that NRS 202.3673 prohibits concealed carry in posted public buildings. "A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm...."

    There are still 2 questions in my mind:

    1.) Is a public building authorized to post such a sign?
    2.) Is the authorization limited to posting a sign limiting only concealed carry?

    I contend that this is no such authorization to post such a sign, but rather an exception granted if such a sign is otherwise permitted. Remember, preemption in 1989 grandfathered in pre-1989 ordinances/laws/rules/regulations. So any signs put up before 1989 would in fact have been allowed and carried the full effect of this law/exception. But when preemption eliminated all grandfathered ordinances/laws/rules/regulations in 2007 (except for Clark County registration & statewide discharge laws), such signs were automatically voided.

    But, for the sake of argument, let's assume this statute does allow a public building to post such a sign. If a sign stating "Pursuant to NRS 202.3673, firearms are prohibited in this building." is posted, remember NRS 202.3673 is only a limit upon concealed weapons holder, and only when such permit holder is in actual possession of a concealed weapon. NRS 202.3673 does NOT regulate the activity of non-permit holders, or permit holders who are not actively carrying concealed weapons.

    I argue that since the statute specifically says "...a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building...", it's no different than if the statute instead said "...a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no blue hats are allowed in the building...". Thus the statute does not authorize the prohibition of weapons, but rather enumerates the text that must be displayed on a sign that prohibits CCW holders from carrying concealed weapons.

    Just like in Seattle where state preemption invalidates the Mayor's prohibition of firearms in parks, trespassing cannot be used to remove those individual who legally ignore the Mayor's illegal ordinance. Otherwise, such a loophole would have allowed southern states to simply "trespass" any black people who attempted to ride the bus while seated.

    I may be wrong -- I'd like to hear from someone in the know just how "trespass" from public buildings works.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    95

    Post imported post

    So if all of the public entrances have metal detectors and signs, EXCEPT one, concealed carry is OK under that statute?

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Yes.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    Carondalet wrote:
    So if all of the public entrances have metal detectors and signs, EXCEPT one, concealed carry is OK under that statute?
    Every set of doors that I used was posted at eye level.

    Thanks to all for the reasoning. Here in Virginia you can not post public (state/local) buildings one way or the other. Some have tried and not lasted very long.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    If a government entity makes it a policy to trespass people from public buildings solely for having a firearm, is that not regulating the possession of firearms?

    A public institution does not have unlimited private property rights to control every aspect of the property because they are not private property. Government is limited to the authority it is given by law. (Unlike private organizations that can do anything not prohibited by law.)
    Given that the LVCVA has as its primary purpose the promotion of tourism, and the veiw of the courts here on this subject, I would not choose to be a test case on this issue.

    Ken

    p.s.: Tim, you may be right. Please let us know how the court finds when you test your hypothesis. Thanks.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post imported post

    This is a pickle for me, as I was in the south and central upstairs floors several times on saturday, and in the past. However the difference for meis, I drove my peterbilt right onto the floor as the shows were breeaking down, and there was no signs in site. other than this forum I would not have known. guess i leave my firearm in my truck.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Don't Tread, the law protects you on this I think:

    4. The provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 do not prohibit:
    (c) A permittee who is employed in the public building from carrying a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of the public building.

    Tim

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    CowboyKen wrote:
    p.s.: Tim, you may be right. Please let us know how the court finds when you test your hypothesis. Thanks.
    Ken --

    Heh, point taken. We can all speculate, but it will have to be ultimately decided in court (or clarified by the legislature).

    Tim

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    260

    Post imported post

    Being afraid to do something legal, because you think that they'll make it illegal after going to courtis such a backwards stance to take, and in my opinion very dangerous as a culture to accept.

    Now I can understand if anyone was talking about going out of their way to make a show of things, but if I want to use a public building, for something I need (DMV and getting like my license), I should change who I am because other people don't understand the law? If you stop going places that don't know the law, you'll very soon run out of places you CAN even go. Educating people on the law and normalizing the open carrying of guns is important to me.

    So the strip has tourists...that means I can't protect myself there? So the convention center wants to ban guns, where does it end?Any publicbuildingin a 10 mile distance from the strip? If and only if "a tourist" is present? All public buildings? Who gets to decide when it's ok to ban/tresspass a person and when it's not?

    I've always hated people who tell me not to rock the boat. Just give up your freedom...don't protect yourself, don't care about your safety while you're at the DMV, just hope that today isn't the day you needed your ideals and values.



    "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist
    Then they came for the gypsy and homosexual, and I did not speak out—because I was not a gypsy or homosexual
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."


    P.S. Not attacking anyone, just giving my input.


  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    True... I think we're just discussing that we can all go about our business as usual, but that doesn't mean the public buildings we enter will necessarily agree, and as such, caution is urged. I went to the DMV OC and had no issues. I went to the Southern NV Health District CC, saw the sign on the door, and uncovered to be legal. No issues.

    No business at the convention center as of yet, but I won't hesitate to OC there, as I do everywhere else, until/unless threatened with arrest when I enter.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348

    Post imported post

    Interesting if the Las Vegas Convention Center is gun free how do they have the shot show there I'm sure a lot of the people that visit the show are armed ?????
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    IIRC, the SHOT show is held at the Sands Expo Center, NOT the LV Convention Center.

Posting Permissions

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