Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NV, is it a "stand your ground" state?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Black Rock City/Nevada
    Posts
    328

    NV, is it a "stand your ground" state?

    I always thought it was a "duty to retreat" state

    Merry Christmas btw!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,256
    If I'm not mistaken, Nevada is a hybrid. That is, you may stand your ground in your home or vehicle, but you still must apply the reasonable person standard. What I mean by that is you may use deadly force if a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger or they face serious bodily injury.

    Every situation is different. For example, you can be in your home, a person can walk in through an unlocked door and begin taking your property. If that person did not show any intent to do bodily harm, lethal force would not be justifiable. This is different than the oft' talked about "castle doctrine" where lethal force is applicable regardless of the threat level posed by an intruder in your home.

    Now, if you are on the street, and a thug pulled a gun on you, you can argue that running posed more of a danger than standing your ground. You can't run faster than a bullet.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 12-23-2010 at 02:55 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,529
    From what I have read, Nevada is a "no duty to retreat" state.

    This is supported in the text of the 2009 "legislative digest" portion of the attempt at true Castle Doctrine legislation.

    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/AB/AB288.pdf
    Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
    1 Under existing case law, there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if
    2 the person using deadly force is not the aggressor and reasonably believes that he is
    3 about to be killed or seriously injured. (Culverson v. State, 106 Nev. 484 (1990))

    Culverson v. State

    The underlying case that was referenced in Culverson is State v. Grimmett, 33 Nev. 531 (1910). The few snippets of text I was able to locate from that case use the phrase "stand your ground" concerning NV law.
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-23-2010 at 03:25 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    896
    Excellent post, wrightme.

    On this subject, it has been said that NV law is not "horrible" BUT it needs to be made much better.

    We all need to support Asm Hambrick's AB-8 in 2011.

    www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB8.pdf

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,411
    Varminter-

    Thanks for the link to that bill. I know you and wrightme are very active with the legislature and I would like to know how to help out.

    I'd also like to try to figure out how to make sure at least someone introduces another preemption bill. I think the official AG opinion ought to incite at least a few in the assembly or senate to see to it that preemption has teeth this time, and doesn't allow any loopholes which can be perverted into the patchwork of laws we still see today. The Conclusion from the AG's letter dated August 13, 2010:

    "The Legislature has preempted the field of firearm regulation, with the exception of unlawful discharge ordinances and regulations which the Legislature has explicitly authorized county government to regulate. Therefore, county government is prohibited from adopting and enacting new legislation relating to the possession of firearms. However, through the legislative process, certain ordinances and regulations concerning firearm regulation were grandfather by A.B. 147 including Clark County Code 19.060.04 and the regulations adopted pursuant to its authority. Although Clark County does not have the authority to enact new local ordinances or regulations that are preempted by NRS 244.364(1), the ordinances or regulations grandfathered by A.B. 147 still remain in effect today."

    No mention of S.B. 92. As if SB92 never happened and it's effect was impotent. We need to make sure the legislature knows just what the AG thinks of their hard work, and install preemption laws with clear and strong language that no local law is grandfathered in and is explicitly voided. Hopefully we can use the opportunity to get the legislature angry enough that NO LAW is grandfathered in, including Clark County's registration scheme.

    Tim

  6. #6
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by timf343 View Post
    Varminter-

    Thanks for the link to that bill. I know you and wrightme are very active with the legislature and I would like to know how to help out.

    I'd also like to try to figure out how to make sure at least someone introduces another preemption bill. I think the official AG opinion ought to incite at least a few in the assembly or senate to see to it that preemption has teeth this time, and doesn't allow any loopholes which can be perverted into the patchwork of laws we still see today. The Conclusion from the AG's letter dated August 13, 2010:

    "The Legislature has preempted the field of firearm regulation, with the exception of unlawful discharge ordinances and regulations which the Legislature has explicitly authorized county government to regulate. Therefore, county government is prohibited from adopting and enacting new legislation relating to the possession of firearms. However, through the legislative process, certain ordinances and regulations concerning firearm regulation were grandfather by A.B. 147 including Clark County Code 19.060.04 and the regulations adopted pursuant to its authority. Although Clark County does not have the authority to enact new local ordinances or regulations that are preempted by NRS 244.364(1), the ordinances or regulations grandfathered by A.B. 147 still remain in effect today."

    No mention of S.B. 92. As if SB92 never happened and it's effect was impotent. We need to make sure the legislature knows just what the AG thinks of their hard work, and install preemption laws with clear and strong language that no local law is grandfathered in and is explicitly voided. Hopefully we can use the opportunity to get the legislature angry enough that NO LAW is grandfathered in, including Clark County's registration scheme.

    Tim
    If need be, I will go to Carson City to lobby for this, I think we need to also lobby for carry on college campuses as well!
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 12-24-2010 at 08:31 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    896
    Thanks.

    Not all BDRs have been typed up into actual Bill form yet. I think we'll have several good bills to support.

    We all will need to be active. Call, write, email, fax legislators. And if possible, show up in Carson City (in person) or Las Vegas (via video teleconference) to testify in support of (or opposition to) the good/bad bills.

    The official state legislature website www.leg.state.nv.us/ contains a WEALTH of information.

    I don't see it there yet for the 2011 session, but in the past there was a section of the above website where everyone could "vote" for/against a bill and type in optional comments. MANY legislators actually read it.

    All of this stuff is important. MANY NV legislators actually read their email and respond - (unlike the form letters you receive from Sen Harry Reid - but don't stop writing/emailing him!)

    In the last session, the majority party wouldn't even allow pro-firearms/rights bills to be heard. They still have the majority, BUT not nearly as big as in 2009 and we have many newly elected legislators - and of course anti-gun Assemblyman and Chair of Judiciary Cmte Bernie Anderson is gone (term limited out.)

    I'm quite hopeful. But much remains to be seen.

    P. S. I like to relate this true story about the importance of emailing/contacting legislators. In the 2007 session there was a hotly contested pro-gun bill (sorry, can't remember which one right now). The bill did pass out of committee and went to the Assembly floor. In the floor discussion, Assemblyman Carpenter (R-Elko) spoke vigorously in support of the bill and ended his remarks with (quasi quote): "Lets pass this bill so the email will stop coming!" I firmly believe our citizenry's supportive email made a difference.

    Assemblyman Goicoechea (now Assembly Minority Leader) also stated the importance of contacting via email when he spoke at our SFA dinner/firearms raffle event.

  8. #8
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    342
    I know this is an old thread, but it gives me a chance to voice my displeasure with this admin of this board. I have repeatedly emailed requesting a map for stand your ground laws. This is an OC board, and is mostly about self defense. We have a map about owning machine guns, but no stand your ground map? We also need a "must notify" officer map IMHO.....

  9. #9
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ,
    Posts
    396
    2A
    Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 07:12 PM. Reason: spelling - of course

Posting Permissions

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