Eagles club - kicked out

Went to an ABATE meeting tonight at the Fraternal Order of Eagles club on Washington and Bruce. ABATE folks were all cool, but the VP of the Eagles club comes up and tells me it's against the law for him to allow firearms in the building unless he hires armed security.

I was polite and said I wasn't looking to cause trouble, but that was not the case. He raised his voice over me, and said that he was in charge of their licensing, so he knew.

I wasn't going to go out in front of the club to stick my 1911 in a leather saddlebag for every dirtbag within sight of Washington and LV Blvd to steal. So, here I am at home.

If anyone was considering joining the Eagles, I'd suggest re-thinking that. Hopefully ABATE, a motorcycle rights group, can find a place to meet that is not anti-gun.

I would have had a lot more respect for the guy just saying he was anti-gun, than trying to hide behind "state law" which we all know is bogus - and likely, he does as well.

The Loyal Order of the Moose is the same way, its in their bylaws, you cannot have a firearm in the building.

hmmm maybe start an open carry group......just a though... Free Carriers, coined after the "Free Mason's" lol. kinda in one of those moods tonight.

I don't want to be anywhere that my firearm and I are not welcome.

I can say that doesn't apply to all Eagles clubs.

We have monthly meetings and the occasional dinner/raffle event at our local Eagles. MANY OC and many more CCW. No problem whatsoever.

Well, the OP is in East San Bernardino county, Many people here don't know they aren't in California anymore.

Nevada carrier said:

Well, the OP is in East San Bernardino county, Many people here don't know they aren't in California anymore.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is more true every day. When I first moved here, Nevada was like a Libertarian paradise coming from CA. Now, there are an awful lot of folks who moved here for cheap real estate instead of freedom. They brought their nanny-state ideals with them.

The list of places you can move to get away from the babysitters is growing smaller and smaller every day. Pretty soon, there will be none left.

bobernet said:

Unfortunately, this is more true every day. When I first moved here, Nevada was like a Libertarian paradise coming from CA. Now, there are an awful lot of folks who moved here for cheap real estate instead of freedom. They brought their nanny-state ideals with them.

The list of places you can move to get away from the babysitters is growing smaller and smaller every day. Pretty soon, there will be none left.

Click to expand...

Some of us adapt.

I have seen it change in the 16 years I've been here. Mom talked me into going down there for the 4th. Now I just got an invite for an old friends 40th. She and her husband came up for mine. I took him out shooting and because she won't allow him to have any, so he was loving it. I don't want to disappoint them by not showing. And my guess is he just might want me to take him shooting.

Don't Tread On Me was asked to leave after they rode down the strip when they did a helmet law protest. If I remember right, they didn't have a problem tell they arrived at the Eagles Club after starting up by The M Resort.

Inaccurate Story by a Sad Person Hiding Behind His Blog - Get the Facts Straight

To all who have received the sad and inaccurate email and blog string below about the policy at the Las Vegas Eagles, and not withstanding the hiding behind the electronic media rather than addressing the issue in a straightforward manner at the time (the same tactics that caused the loss of the helmet choice issue in the legislature), this issue is simple.
The facility is the home of an organization that existed before Las Vegas, an organization that has been in the forefront of many rights and benefits enjoyed across the country today.
Las Vegas Eagles, by themselves, are 4th in the entire nation per capita in charitable donations, including hosting food banks and clothing drives for many local school children.
It is a private, non-profit club that is not open to the general public, except for certain events and meetings.
The club is not “anti-gun”, but the no firearms policy has been posted by vote of the Board of Trustees, not an officer, and has been in effect for several months in response to license audits by the City of Las Vegas.
Addressing the statements made about Fallon or Reno, different facilities in different jurisdictions will have different licensing and compliance requirements.
This facility sits in Las Vegas, and the audits occurred because the club extended itself to more than one hundred groups and entities to host meetings and events, including the Confederation of Clubs, MC, 702, Round-Up and ABATE.
Those audits and the compliance continue to cost the club between $20,000 and $75,000 to upgrade the facility, obtain additional licensing and continued operation.
To continue to make the facility available for the use of everyone who requests it, and at little or no cost, the club must comply with the licensing requirements under which it operates.
Although some may view this as an inconvenience, if found in violation of licensing, there would be a much greater inconvenience caused because the facility would then be available to no one.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Are you saying that you are involuntarily being required to prohibit the exercise of a fundamental right by an agency of the government under threat of shutting you down?

Reply to lock man

That is not a correct characterization. The facility has a private bar license, belongs to the members, and is only open to the public during host meetings and events. To allow firearms would require that armed security be hired during each meeting and event that would also have to comply with certain regulations. The choices are between the least expensive option of (1) hiring security for each meeting and charging for the expense,
(2) require each group to provide, licensed and trained security, or (3) allow no firearms and use the funds to make the facility more accessible to more people. This is the same policy as the Moose and the American Legion when faced with similar obstacles. You also have to remember that a private non-profit can make its own decision which option to take within reason. For example, if you have a rule in your house that says you do not want someone smoking cigars, although it may be their right to smoke elsewhere - it is your choice to say no, spend money each time to make your house smell better, or require the person to bring their own cleaner.

No one, including me, the original poster, has stated or implied that you do not have the right to regulate your private club as you see fit.

If you believe (or have been told) that maintaining your liquor license requires you to ban firearms or hire armed security, we would all be happy to help you fight such false claims. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of restaurants and bars in Nevada that hold valid liquor licenses, and are not required to ban firearms or hire armed security.

As the original poster, nothing that I said in my message was false. It was a 100% truthful account of the events that occurred. You're free to talk to Bones with ABATE or your own VP to get the facts.

I was told that I had to remove my firearm or leave the premises. I was told that this was required by state law because your club holds a liquor license. I was told by your VP that he is in charge of licensing for the club and knows for a fact that the law requires the club to ban firearms or hire armed security.

Before you come in and accuse people of lying, I would suggest you verify the facts.

FOE LAS VEGAS said:

That is not a correct characterization. The facility has a private bar license, belongs to the members, and is only open to the public during host meetings and events. To allow firearms would require that armed security be hired during each meeting and event that would also have to comply with certain regulations. The choices are between the least expensive option of (1) hiring security for each meeting and charging for the expense,
(2) require each group to provide, licensed and trained security, or (3) allow no firearms and use the funds to make the facility more accessible to more people. This is the same policy as the Moose and the American Legion when faced with similar obstacles. You also have to remember that a private non-profit can make its own decision which option to take within reason. For example, if you have a rule in your house that says you do not want someone smoking cigars, although it may be their right to smoke elsewhere - it is your choice to say no, spend money each time to make your house smell better, or require the person to bring their own cleaner.

Click to expand...

I would like to see the cite on any State/County/City law with regard to having to have Security for a private bar license or not allow firearms. Despite what you have been told I doubt that exits. If it does, something needs to be done about it. No one on this board is saying a private organization does not have a right to ban anything they want. We just find it hard to believe there is a legal regulation against it.

TBG

Response to bobernet

UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS PRESENT AND YOU ARE A LIER. You were politely approached while talking with Stormy. Also present at the time were Bones, George, Jeannie, Karen, a member from a Christian MC and a facility Trustee. You attempted to ignore the issue, and Stormy then told you to take care of it. In the reception area, where there is a security camera on the door, you were politely offered the opportunity to store your weapon on your bike, and you instead chose to leave. No one raised a voice at you. The sign was clearly posted at the entrance. The ABATE meeting continued, recorded by both Bones and Stillwell, as well as at least two others, and no one cared that you were not there or raised any issue or belief that you had been treated unfairly. When leaving, you did not ask to clarify the situation why firearms were not allowed. Aside from the fact that you have no such rights as a permissive non-member guest inside a private non-profit facility, had you chosen to ask intelligent questions, you would have received good information on the licensing and regulatory issues the affect this facility and require the no firearms policy the same as the Moose Lodge and American Legion facility. Instead, you make up a hurt feelings story on a blog rather than deal with the issue like a grown man with a face to face conversation. As an advocate of the Second Amendment, I find that people like you who cannot handle their business without strapping on, and then get their feelings hurt so easily and jump on the keyboard as a form of Freudian trigger pull are the same people I would hestiate to give a gun to. Next time, before you waste everyone's time, I suggest that you grow up, ask intelligent questions and deal with the situation as it occurs rather than hiding in a war of internet words and justifications which a private facility is not required to give but offered in an attempt to educate. Maybe then you will learn something. Until next time, this battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is closed, and hopefully you will make it through the week without accidentally shooting yourself in the foot and having to make up another story.

What a load of crap. If indeed some government agency is telling you that no firearms are allowed then said agency is breaking the law. There is no NRS that pertains to bars and guns. Public or private especially private. If that is not the case then this is just a load of crap from the eagles.

End of story.

I too will respect the request of a property owner boldly saying we do not allow firearms in our facility. I would make it a mission not to ever support or return to that property and make their policy well known. However I will push back if the reason giving is some bogus, trumped up, incorrect or twisted law or incorrect statement to bolster ones anti gun opinion.
I also would like to see the license regulation that says if legal carried firearms are allowed armed security is required. It would appear to me such requirement would be impossible to defend do to the fact no other liquor serving establishment is required to have armed guards.

FOE LAS VEGAS said:

That is not a correct characterization. The facility has a private bar license, belongs to the members, and is only open to the public during host meetings and events. To allow firearms would require that armed security be hired during each meeting and event that would also have to comply with certain regulations. The choices are between the least expensive option of (1) hiring security for each meeting and charging for the expense,
(2) require each group to provide, licensed and trained security, or (3) allow no firearms and use the funds to make the facility more accessible to more people. This is the same policy as the Moose and the American Legion when faced with similar obstacles. You also have to remember that a private non-profit can make its own decision which option to take within reason. For example, if you have a rule in your house that says you do not want someone smoking cigars, although it may be their right to smoke elsewhere - it is your choice to say no, spend money each time to make your house smell better, or require the person to bring their own cleaner.

Click to expand...

I think we all understand that it is private property and that you can choose to do what you wish. I think the part that people are having issue with is the following:

FOE LAS VEGAS said:

To allow firearms would require that armed security be hired during each meeting and event that would also have to comply with certain regulations. The choices are between the least expensive option of (1) hiring security for each meeting and charging for the expense,
(2) require each group to provide, licensed and trained security, or (3) allow no firearms and use the funds to make the facility more accessible to more people.

Click to expand...

You seem to imply that the licencing board is forcing the establishment to choose between allowing citizens with lawfully carried firearms "requiring" you to have security on hand, or denying firearm possession and saving cost by not "requiring" security. Is this what you are suggesting?

If in fact that is what you're suggesting, I think we would all be interested in further information regarding these "regulations" and choices. Please pass along some documentation, or a contact so that we can clarify the situation with the licencing board.

If in fact the licencing board, or a member of, has placed such an imposition on you and/or other establishments, it is in fact a violation of state law for them to do so and needs to be corrected. We have a great group of guys on this forum and when provided with appropriate information and facts about a situation, they will go a long way to correct it.

I look forward to getting any further information regarding the limitation placed on the FOE by whichever agency it is.
Thank You!

@ FOE LAS VEGAS

Before continuing further on this topic, I would kindly ask that you support your claim that any professional licenses you hold are in jeopardy or that as a condition of their issue, you must either ban firearms on your premises or hire armed security.

I am not asking you this because I want to be confrontational, but if what you are saying is true, and some agency who issues professional licenses is threatening business owners with revocation of their licenses, we need to know about it so we can fight FOR YOU and every other business who might be led to believe they too must bar firearms in their establishments.

This is called back door gun control, and it has peaked our interest because we know if we are not vigilant, it will creep into our society and threaten our rights. So, if this is really a matter of a private organization who just feels that they are better served to prohibit firearms on their property, I take no issue with that one bit, you have rights, just as we do. But what bothers me is the next two possibilities; either (a), you have made a decision to prohibit firearms, but are afraid to own that decision, or do not know the real reason for it, and have made up some BS to placate anyone it may upset, or (b), some agency is making you believe that they can regulate firearms in licensed establishments.

If (a) is true, I would encourage you to own up; If (b) is true, please give us documentary evidence or tell us where it can be found so we can correct it.

RabbiVJ said:

The Loyal Order of the Moose is the same way, its in their bylaws, you cannot have a firearm in the building.

Click to expand...

Not even if it's moose SEASON, and you have TAGS . . ?

FOE LAS VEGAS said:

UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS PRESENT AND YOU ARE A LIER.

Click to expand...

Well, I think we now know who came up with the absurd idea that there's a law against carrying at the Eagles Club.