Quick questions regarding Nevada pistol laws

imported post

gmijackso wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Case law and AG opinions solidify the idea that guns can be hidden in cars but not carried concealed in containers held in the hand.

A firearm is concealed if it is not discernible from ordinary observation. Access to ammunition, or locking the container is irrelevant under the language of the law and no case law that I am aware of make it relevant either.
...
Carrying openly and loaded is legal. Concealed, locked, and unloaded is a felony.

Click to expand...

I agree fully with the statement, and the language of the law, but pondered this on my way home this evening. I recently purchased a gun online. In order for me to get the gun, it was shipped UPS to the FFL. This means it was shipped in a box. Now, in order for the weapon to get from the truck to the FFL, it was carried by a person. Likewise, in order for me to get from the FFL to my truck and then to my home, it was carried by me. Now since it was in a box, and not discernible by ordinary observation, it was technically concealed all those times. BUT I had no ammo, and was obviously never a risk.

Click to expand...

You bring up an interesting point. Are there any laws of transporting firearms that this would fall under, or is this a case where you're screwed as you're forced to commit a felony?

imported post

According to an official opinion by the NV Attorney General in 1993:

http://ag.state.nv.us/publications/ago/archive/1993_ago.pdf (go to pages 46-48)

Again, technically, this makes everyone who buys a gun and carries it out inside a bag or original gun case in violation of this law.

imported post

The unfortunate part of law is that one can either interpret the law literally, or with the perceived intention of the legislature. I can not imagine in my wildest dreams that our law makers intended to include unloaded and locked in a container for the purpose of transport as being illegal. The last handgun I bought in a private sale I took to the Henderson Police Station to get the blue card. Since they supposedly get upset with the open carry of firearms on the premises, I wrapped it in a grocery bag and carried it in. The officer didn't seem to have any problem with that. In fact he put it back in the bag and handed it to me when he finished issuing the Blue Card. The officer who I guess could have arrested me using a literal interpretation of the law used common sense instead. Using the literal interpretation of the law means that the only way you can transport your handgun legally to the range, gun shop, where ever, is to either open carry, or conceal carry with permit. I don't think that was the intent.

imported post

I completely agree - I'd be very surprised to find out a SINGLE arrest was ever made in this manner. But in the interest of full disclosure wanted to point out that interesting gem from the AG's office.

imported post

I totally agree again. The only problem lies in that it IS possible to prosecute to the LETTER of the law, while it is nearly impossible to defend using the spirit of the law.

That said, as I said before, I feel that the likelihood of actually being prosecuted is low, and if did occur, there lies enough lack of enforcement to maybe give you a reasonable defense as to the spirit of the law, but reality is that it seems possible to be arrested for carrying your new weapon out of the store in any container.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Examples:

IWB holster with untucked shirt. Concealed.

OWB holster with tucked shirt. Not concealed.

In a purse. Concealed

In a briefcase. Concealed.

If you wear it, it can be concealed.

Click to expand...

Ok, where is the line between a "briefcase" and a "gun case" to be created? If I line a briefcase with padding and place my gun in it, does it not become a gun case? Likewise, if I buy a gun case and remove the padding and place files in it, is it not a briefcase? There are aluminum gun cases, and aluminum briefcases that are identical on the outside.

Once you consider that the LETTER of the law says that essentially anything being carried by a person that doesn't look like a gun, but IS a gun or HAS a gun contained within it, is concealment, you'll see the point I'm trying to make...

I don't believe it is enforced to that degree (carrying upon purchase in its box) but it could be. Likewise, we all KNOW it's illegal to buy a gun, shove it in your pocket and walk out, unless you have a CCW.

Edited additional thoughts:
To continue to blur the line. Consider that it IS considered legal to carry in a box. Is it legal to also carry in a bag you might get from the same gun store? How about a paper bag? What if the gun store is "earth friendly" and issues a canvas bag to their purchasers? A canvas bag is very near a purse? If a purse, why not your pocket? Women carry wallets in pursed, men in pockets... and so on.

I always try to look for the loophole that could and may be used to "wrongfully" convict, and this just may be one of them. It IS possible to prosecute to the LETTER of the law.

imported post

gmijackso wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Examples:

IWB holster with untucked shirt. Concealed.

OWB holster with tucked shirt. Not concealed.

In a purse. Concealed

In a briefcase. Concealed.

If you wear it, it can be concealed.

Click to expand...

Ok, where is the line between a "briefcase" and a "gun case" to be created? If I line a briefcase with padding and place my gun in it, does it not become a gun case? Likewise, if I buy a gun case and remove the padding and place files in it, is it not a briefcase? There are aluminum gun cases, and aluminum briefcases that are identical on the outside.

Once you consider that the LETTER of the law says that essentially anything being carried by a person that doesn't look like a gun, but IS a gun or HAS a gun contained within it, is concealment, you'll see the point I'm trying to make...

I don't believe it is enforced to that degree (carrying upon purchase in its box) but it could be. Likewise, we all KNOW it's illegal to buy a gun, shove it in your pocket and walk out, unless you have a CCW.

Edited additional thoughts:
To continue to blur the line. Consider that it IS considered legal to carry in a box. Is it legal to also carry in a bag you might get from the same gun store? How about a paper bag? What if the gun store is "earth friendly" and issues a canvas bag to their purchasers? A canvas bag is very near a purse? If a purse, why not your pocket? Women carry wallets in pursed, men in pockets... and so on.

I always try to look for the loophole that could and may be used to "wrongfully" convict, and this just may be one of them. It IS possible to prosecute to the LETTER of the law.

Click to expand...

That is not the law as written.
And, while it IS possible to prosecute to the LETTER of the law, where the law has ambiguity, (such as appears to be the case here), legislative intent operates.

If I own a briefcase, and use it to carry a firearm in the course of daily business, I have concealed.

I know of no reason to use a guncase as a briefcase, nor to use a briefcase as a guncase.
And, IMHO, carrying a gun in a box from a gun store to a vehicle does not fit "legislative intent" nor "letter of law" in concealment. Like I said before, it does not make sense whatsoever to remove a pistol from its box to transport it openly to a vehicle.

If I were to turn a briefcase into a pistol case, and use it to transport a firearm to and from a shooting range, I can not see any case for "concealment" wrt the letter of the law, or within legislative intent.

If I were to turn a briefcase into a pistol case, and use it to carry on a daily basis instead of using a holster, I have concealed.

I think you are becoming to hung up on broadening "upon the person." A rational explanation of 'upon the person' includes the typical daily wear items. For instance, a purse, briefcase, shoulder bag, messenger bag, coat, and fanny pack are all good examples that would make a case for "concealed" if a pistol was in one. If I am carrying a box from my car to my house, and there is a pistol in it, I do not see any rational explanation that fits "upon the person."

imported post

wrightme wrote:

That is not the law as written.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The definition of a concealed weapon is "(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."
By that definition, it is obvious that a box does not look like a gun, and is therefore if a gun is in the box, it is concealed. Hopefully we can agree on that part.

And, IMHO, carrying a gun in a box from a gun store to a vehicle does not fit "legislative intent" nor "letter of law" in concealment. Like I said before, it does not make sense whatsoever to remove a pistol from its box to transport it openly to a vehicle.

Click to expand...

Can you explain this? How does carrying a gun in a box not fit the letter of the law? I agree that it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make sense to require a CCW permit when you were given the right to bear arms, but it is still required.

I think you are becoming to hung up on broadening "upon the person." A rational explanation of 'upon the person' includes the typical daily wear items. For instance, a purse, briefcase, shoulder bag, messenger bag, coat, and fanny pack are all good examples that would make a case for "concealed" if a pistol was in one. If I am carrying a box from my car to my house, and there is a pistol in it, I do not see any rational explanation that fits "upon the person."

Click to expand...

This may be true. However, if I were to use your definition of "upon the person" to be "daily wear items" then the question is raised as to what a daily wear item consists of. I don't NORMALLY wear a backpack, and if the only time I wore a backpack was with a pistol in it, does that then mean I'm not concealing?

To me, "upon a person" means anything the person is physically attached to that would move with the person any time the person moves, including things that person is carrying.

If your position is that carrying the weapon out of a gun store in a pistol box, or the box it was purchased in, unloaded, is not concealed, then what if it were loaded? Is it concealed then? What if I then left the store and stopped by the bank on my way home and carried it into the bank in the same box or case?

imported post

gmijackso wrote:

wrightme wrote:

That is not the law as written.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The definition of a concealed weapon is "(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."
By that definition, it is obvious that a box does not look like a gun, and is therefore if a gun is in the box, it is concealed. Hopefully we can agree on that part.

No, we cannot agree on that part. I explained my opinion clearly, with examples outlining the difference, and the common-sense rational reasoning for my opinion. You can differ with me if you desire, but I do not agree with your claim.

And, IMHO, carrying a gun in a box from a gun store to a vehicle does not fit "legislative intent" nor "letter of law" in concealment. Like I said before, it does not make sense whatsoever to remove a pistol from its box to transport it openly to a vehicle.

Click to expand...

Can you explain this? How does carrying a gun in a box not fit the letter of the law? I agree that it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't make sense to require a CCW permit when you were given the right to bear arms, but it is still required.

As I outlined several times "upon the person."
I agree that it doesn't make sense to require a CCW permit to to exercise a Right, but that is not what we are discussing here.

I think you are becoming to hung up on broadening "upon the person." A rational explanation of 'upon the person' includes the typical daily wear items. For instance, a purse, briefcase, shoulder bag, messenger bag, coat, and fanny pack are all good examples that would make a case for "concealed" if a pistol was in one. If I am carrying a box from my car to my house, and there is a pistol in it, I do not see any rational explanation that fits "upon the person."

Click to expand...

This may be true. However, if I were to use your definition of "upon the person" to be "daily wear items" then the question is raised as to what a daily wear item consists of. I don't NORMALLY wear a backpack, and if the only time I wore a backpack was with a pistol in it, does that then mean I'm not concealing?

A backpack is "upon the person." It fits in with the other examples I provided. It isn't what you normally wear that matters. It is what fits the common-sense 'read' of statute.

To me, "upon a person" means anything the person is physically attached to that would move with the person any time the person moves, including things that person is carrying.
But to agree to that, we would need to provide either legislative intent, or case law showing such to be the case.

If your position is that carrying the weapon out of a gun store in a pistol box, or the box it was purchased in, unloaded, is not concealed, then what if it were loaded? Is it concealed then? What if I then left the store and stopped by the bank on my way home and carried it into the bank in the same box or case?

Click to expand...

That last one is simply silly. Why on earth would you choose to do that? It seems you are just arguing, and not trying to understand Nevada law.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

That last one is simply silly. Why on earth would you choose to do that? It seems you are just arguing, and not trying to understand Nevada law.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not "just trying to argue", nor am I "trying to understand Nevada law" in this matter. I believe that in THIS matter the Nevada law is ambiguous and open to interpretation. I also believe that, sadly, the letter of the law would suggest that carrying a firearm in a box, regardless of where you're going to/from with it (as there is NO provision in the law for destinations) that you are in fact concealing the weapon, as a box most certainly doe NOT look like a gun.

In this matter, I've simply been trying to understand how YOU believe that carrying a weapon in a box is not concealing the weapon. I enjoy getting other peoples views, and enjoy expressing my views. I'm open to the changing of my views if significant evidence supports it, and would hope that most people feel the same way. I'm merely trying to lend evidence to my view, while digging for further evidence from you towards your views.

The "silly" examples I've given, would not have a bearing as to how silly they are if in fact carrying the weapon in a box was not concealing. It's not "silly" to walk to the bank with a holstered weapon that is obviously not concealed, so why would it be silly to walk to the bank with a weapon in a box, if as you say, the boxed weapon is not concealed?

My statements about CCW were not in effort to change the subject, just a coloring as to how "not making sense" is not a defense as to a reason why you wouldn't be expected to unbox the weapon before leaving. Sure, unboxing would not make sense, but there are many laws that don't make sense, the CCW was an example, that is all.

I'm sorry if my posts have seemed confrontational in any way, it is sincerely not my goal. As I said, just trying to express my view, and dig towards yours and others. Only with an abundance of evidence and opinion can we truly make an informed decision.

Edit:
As an aside, probably supporting both our positions somewhat, Websters defines the word wear as:
wear - 1. To carry or bear upon the person; to bear upon one's self, as an article of clothing, decoration, warfare, bondage, etc.; to have appendant to one's body; to have on; as, to wear a coat; to wear a shackle. [1913 Webster]

So it would seam that "upon the person" would be akin to wearing, but is also akin to having "appendant to one's body"

If a person were to ride a horse, that person is carried as cargo upon that horse. Likewise I believe that if an inanimate object were to be moved, it is carried as cargo upon whatever vehicle moved it, even if that vehicle happens to be a person.

imported post

gmijackso wrote:

wrightme wrote:

That last one is simply silly. Why on earth would you choose to do that? It seems you are just arguing, and not trying to understand Nevada law.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not "just trying to argue", nor am I "trying to understand Nevada law" in this matter. I believe that in THIS matter the Nevada law is ambiguous and open to interpretation. I also believe that, sadly, the letter of the law would suggest that carrying a firearm in a box, regardless of where you're going to/from with it (as there is NO provision in the law for destinations) that you are in fact concealing the weapon, as a box most certainly doe NOT look like a gun.

Click to expand...

And, as I already mentioned, in cases were the law is ambiguous in wording or intent, legislative intent can take precedence.
As has been previously pointed out, find ONE case where such as you describe has been prosecuted.

imported post

gmijackso wrote:

In this matter, I've simply been trying to understand how YOU believe that carrying a weapon in a box is not concealing the weapon. I enjoy getting other peoples views, and enjoy expressing my views. I'm open to the changing of my views if significant evidence supports it, and would hope that most people feel the same way. I'm merely trying to lend evidence to my view, while digging for further evidence from you towards your views.

Click to expand...

Then you could have ceased questions and odd examples with briefcases once I responded with the examples I provided. I DID provide you my views on what I believe, but you could not seem to accept it.

How significant is it that so far, not ONE instance of "man with gun in box arrested on the way to the shooting range" has been reported?

"Digging for further evidence?" Are you a cop conducting an investigation?

Nevada law is mostly silent upon transportation of firearms, except for limitations for long guns to not have a round chambered in a vehicle. This has already been mentioned.
Cars do not "conceal" a firearm, so in a box, in a car, is not "concealed." The rest of "moving things in boxes" has to be allowable, and since it is not denied by law, there you go.

As for the AG opinion, I am of the personal view that it is being misconstrued in this case.

imported post

gmijackso wrote:

The "silly" examples I've given, would not have a bearing as to how silly they are if in fact carrying the weapon in a box was not concealing. It's not "silly" to walk to the bank with a holstered weapon that is obviously not concealed, so why would it be silly to walk to the bank with a weapon in a box, if as you say, the boxed weapon is not concealed?
It is not "common sense" to conflate carrying a pistol in a box into a bank. It IS "silly."

My statements about CCW were not in effort to change the subject, just a coloring as to how "not making sense" is not a defense as to a reason why you wouldn't be expected to unbox the weapon before leaving. Sure, unboxing would not make sense, but there are many laws that don't make sense, the CCW was an example, that is all.
CCW laws to me do not make sense, but that is not the context of "not making sense." Given that CCW laws have been passed, failure to follow the law would "not make sense." Nor would disobedience of the law be "common sense." But, wearing a holstered firearm makes sense, as it is lawful. But, placing a pistol in a box to carry it into a bank is "silly."

I'm sorry if my posts have seemed confrontational in any way, it is sincerely not my goal. As I said, just trying to express my view, and dig towards yours and others. Only with an abundance of evidence and opinion can we truly make an informed decision.

Edit:
As an aside, probably supporting both our positions somewhat, Websters defines the word wear as:
wear - 1. To carry or bear upon the person; to bear upon one's self, as an article of clothing, decoration, warfare, bondage, etc.; to have appendant to one's body; to have on; as, to wear a coat; to wear a shackle. [1913 Webster]

So it would seam that "upon the person" would be akin to wearing, but is also akin to having "appendant to one's body"

If a person were to ride a horse, that person is carried as cargo upon that horse. Likewise I believe that if an inanimate object were to be moved, it is carried as cargo upon whatever vehicle moved it, even if that vehicle happens to be a person.

Click to expand...

Like I stated already. Converting a briefcase to use to conceal a pistol for daily carry is "concealed." I do not agree that using a briefcase as a guncase to carry a pistol from a vehicle to the shooting range is transport, just as if you used the box the gun came in, or a case designed for a firearm. But, that is probably not wise to do, as it could fit the "concealed" definition. Especially if you also use it separately to carry a firearm.

I clearly pointed out that I am of the opinion that transporting to-from lawful fiream-related activities does not fit the intent of CCW law. If it did, we would have daily arrests for it at shooting ranges throughout Nevada. It doesn't happen, to the best of my knowledge. The same with purchasing a pistol at a gun shop. Have you EVER heard of a person leaving a gun shop with a pistol in a box getting arrested for having a concealed firearm?
If such were the case, every gun shop in Nevada would be a "target-rich" environment for Law Enforcement.

imported post

wrightme wrote

"Digging for further evidence?" Are you a cop conducting an investigation?"

Click to expand...

We obviously have differing opinions, but I would appreciate you not quoting me out of context. The actual quote is "while digging for further evidence from you towards your views". Perhaps it would have been better put to say "digging for further supporting evidence from you towards your views. But I believe the intent of my statement was obvious. It's too bad you felt the need to berate me over the letter of my statement, but I do believe it helps to color my point. The letter often prevails over the obvious intent.

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

I know, that personally, I'll choose to holster any weapon being carried to/from anywhere to be safe. Why take an unnecessary risk? It only takes one rookie officer from an area less gun friendly than Nevada to ruin your day.

imported post

gmijackso wrote:

wrightme wrote

"Digging for further evidence?" Are you a cop conducting an investigation?"

Click to expand...

We obviously have differing opinions, but I would appreciate you not quoting me out of context. The actual quote is "while digging for further evidence from you towards your views". Perhaps it would have been better put to say "digging for further supporting evidence from you towards your views. But I believe the intent of my statement was obvious. It's too bad you felt the need to berate me over the letter of my statement, but I do believe it helps to color my point. The letter often prevails over the obvious intent.

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

I know, that personally, I'll choose to holster any weapon being carried to/from anywhere to be safe. Why take an unnecessary risk? It only takes one rookie officer from an area less gun friendly than Nevada to ruin your day.

Click to expand...

That simply sounds like an odd way to handle it. As example, do you own more than one pistol? If you go to a shooting range, are you going to make multiple trips to holster each firearm in turn, or are you going to have holsters all the way around?

Gun cases are the way to go to transport other than for defensive carry.
Boxes are the likely method to transport firearms at the point of purchase, though with pistols, many do come with a case already.

I don't even know why someone would modify a briefcase to transport firearms.

At least for the open carry, LV appears to be coming around a bit, but if you are worried about contact with LE while transporting firearms, CC will reduce such contact so far, and cases are a tried and true method for transport for sporting uses. I simply do not know what other purposes would concern you, as in "boxes and cases will be called 'concealed.'"

In other words, I am baffled as to why you place so much effort into attempting to clarify something that is NOT a known legality issue. :?

imported post

timf343 wrote:

Again, technically, this makes everyone who buys a gun and carries it out inside a bag or original gun case in violation of this law.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, the strangest thought to me, wasn't the person buying the gun. It was the UPS guy. By the same technicality, he is unknowingly carrying a concealed weapon to/from his truck on delivery.

ALSO, what if the UPS guy happens to be a convicted felon? He's in possession of a firearm the whole time he's in his truck with it, since commonly the items within a vehicle are the responsibility of the driver.

Obviously ridiculous to consider, but technically...

imported post

gmijackso wrote:

timf343 wrote:

Again, technically, this makes everyone who buys a gun and carries it out inside a bag or original gun case in violation of this law.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, the strangest thought to me, wasn't the person buying the gun. It was the UPS guy. By the same technicality, he is unknowingly carrying a concealed weapon to/from his truck on delivery.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that UPS is one of the ONLY legal methods to ship firearms across the country? And there are solid guidelines for such.
As such, it should lead one to the inescapable conclusion that such transport does not fit the defining NRS terms of "concealed upon the person."

imported post

wrightme wrote:

If you go to a shooting range, are you going to make multiple trips to holster each firearm in turn, or are you going to have holsters all the way around?

Click to expand...

To me the solution to this is to carry them in a method that allows them to be easily discernible as a gun. This doesn't mean they need to be worn, only that it must be plain that it is a gun. Other than carrying them individually, or in some strange contraption I'm not positive how to go about this, but perhaps clear gun cases are in order?

I don't even know why someone would modify a briefcase to transport firearms.

Click to expand...

I don't either. The point I was trying to make, albeit probably poorly, is that many gun cases look nearly identical to briefcases.

and
and that was a quick search, more thorough searching will yield closer matches. Point being, how does one tell the difference from afar? Such as "discerning from ordinary observation".

In other words, I am baffled as to why you place so much effort into attempting to clarify something that is NOT a known legality issue. :?

Click to expand...

Twofold.

First, I just find it interesting how the technicalities of law could affect actuality if chosen to enforce. For instance, in MI there is a vehicle lighting code that only allows for the obvious colors to be visible from different directions of the vehicle (white & amber front, amber red & white rear, amber sides etc.). LEO has chosen to use this code to enforce neon lights and such on vehicles. But technically the red or blue instrument lights necessary to see your dash, are illegal since they are visible from the rear and sides of the vehicle through the windows. Selective enforcement, and I would argue that even enforcing against neon lighting isn't in the spirit of the law as it was intended for minimum safety standards.

Second, I have dealt with many an unjust person in the world, including LEO. Just because something is the "right thing to do" doesn't mean it's what somebody will do. I like to think of all of the possible outcomes to a situation, hopefully before embarking on such situation. Additionally occasionally LEO will use whatever charge they can to prosecute. Al Capone was arrested for tax evasion when no other charge would stick. You just never know what tomorrow will bring, thinking through a problem before it exists is the best way to prevent it ever existing.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

gmijackso wrote:

timf343 wrote:

Again, technically, this makes everyone who buys a gun and carries it out inside a bag or original gun case in violation of this law.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, the strangest thought to me, wasn't the person buying the gun. It was the UPS guy. By the same technicality, he is unknowingly carrying a concealed weapon to/from his truck on delivery.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that UPS is one of the ONLY legal methods to ship firearms across the country? And there are solid guidelines for such.
As such, it should lead one to the inescapable conclusion that such transport does not fit the defining NRS terms of "concealed upon the person."

Click to expand...

I am aware, but only makes me ponder more. What if I were to carry a loaded weapon in a paper bag (a common way to receive a purchase) all around town, is that concealed? What strange things can you do with the box before it is concealed? What if a bike messenger were to put the box in a backpack? Does concealing the box make it concealed? What if the box is placed in a plastic bag to prevent water damage?

All just random strange thinking, but viable questions to somebody, probably the UPS guy if nobody else. Perhaps the UPS guy is exempt, seeing as how the property is never really that of UPS? I dunno.

imported post

Oh good grief!

I've tried to stay out of this topic. But I'll opine briefly now.

Wrightme and the Big Guy (and others) make great points.

The bottom line:

Yes, Nevada law on this subject is "goofy."

No, there are no known cases of abuse (that we know of.)

As is oftentimes the case, laws are written in favor of LE, giving them the option to take, or not take action. I'll agree wholeheartedly this is NOT always a good thing.

Perhaps you should contact your Nevada Senator or Assemblyman and urge legislation to repeal or amend the law!

Frankly, I think we have more important issues to deal with. I have many items of law that I would love to see fixed by legislative action. The fact is, we usually must concentrate on onlytwo or three important issues.