• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OC in Winco Reno, NV

wdr89523

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
15
Location
Reno, NV
Open Carried in Winco on Northtowne Lane today. No problems at all. Got a lot of looks from people. Also while in the store there was an unusual amount of calls for LP in areas I was traveling through. But with all the shootings going on here locally and the tragic events unfolding, I am proud and happy to say I can properly protect my family without worrying.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,712
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
I shop and OC at WinCo too, and have never had a problem there.

They've gotten a lot of money from my family, and the place I used to go to lost my family as customers as a result of not allowing open carry. (Scholaris [which owns Sak'N'Save] was where I used to go before they told me I couldn't open carry.)

The prices at WinCo are also generally lower too!
 
Last edited:

wdr89523

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
15
Location
Reno, NV
I shop and OC at WinCo too, and have never had a problem there.

They've gotten a lot of money from my family, and the place I used to go to lost my family as customers as a result of not allowing open carry. (Scholaris [which owns Sak'N'Save] was where I used to go before they told me I couldn't open carry.)

The prices at WinCo are also generally lower too!

Did the trespass you or just tell you that you couldn't carry? They can't tell you to not carry in their store unless they have a sign posted out front asking you not to do it. The only way they can do that is if their corporate office does this across the board to all their stores. Can't just do it with one store. So I would challenge them asking you to not carry and show them the Nevada Statute. By telling you that you can't carry in their store is a violation of your rights and you can sue them over that.
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
Did the trespass you or just tell you that you couldn't carry? They can't tell you to not carry in their store unless they have a sign posted out front asking you not to do it. The only way they can do that is if their corporate office does this across the board to all their stores. Can't just do it with one store. So I would challenge them asking you to not carry and show them the Nevada Statute. By telling you that you can't carry in their store is a violation of your rights and you can sue them over that.

They are a private enterprise and they can trespass you. A sign on the door means nothing. Anyone in authority can tell you to leave. It is not the same as a public building.

I see you are a new member, welcome to the group. May I suggest that you go through the threads and you will learn a bit more about public vs private property rights. I don't believe that a publicly traded corp should be considered the same as a Mom & Pop store, but unfortunately that is not the case at this time.

TBG
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,712
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
They simply told me I couldn't carry, and I'd prefer to spend my money where they want it anyway. I think I sent an e-mail to the corporate website and they said they don't allow open carry as a company policy, but I can't find the e-mail. That was a while ago so I don't know if anything has changed.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Did the trespass you or just tell you that you couldn't carry? They can't tell you to not carry in their store unless they have a sign posted out front asking you not to do it. The only way they can do that is if their corporate office does this across the board to all their stores. Can't just do it with one store. So I would challenge them asking you to not carry and show them the Nevada Statute. By telling you that you can't carry in their store is a violation of your rights and you can sue them over that.

Actually, they certainly can. If you do not comply, no statute defines that.

If you do not comply, they can tell you to leave; i.e., trespass you. At that point, statute supports them and you need to beat feet to the door.

Until the 2A is recognized as a civil Right, I see no avenue for lawsuit against a private business. As TBG points out, you should review the specifics a bit.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
Did the trespass you or just tell you that you couldn't carry? They can't tell you to not carry in their store unless they have a sign posted out front asking you not to do it.

A sign is merely a convenience and actually has no weight of law, nor is it required. Anyone from company president to boxboy can tell you not to carry in their store, and they have the weight of law behind them. You can be arrested for trespassing if you don't obey, sign or no sign. Or you can even be killed, which is why I turned my Costco membership card back in and now shop at Sam's Club.

Stores like Sam's Club and Walmart have corporate policies specifically AUTHORIZING carry there, and if you know the policy and someone tells you not to carry, you can advise them but they STILL have the legal right to tell you to take your gun somewhere else (and if they argue with you about it, get their name and go, contact management and deal with it later).
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
A sign is merely a convenience and actually has no weight of law, nor is it required. Anyone from company president to boxboy can tell you not to carry in their store, and they have the weight of law behind them. You can be arrested for trespassing if you don't obey, sign or no sign. Or you can even be killed, which is why I turned my Costco membership card back in and now shop at Sam's Club.
Are you sure? It isn't "weight of law" unless they tell you to leave the store. IMHO, telling you to not carry is NOT "tell you to leave." There IS a difference.
DVC said:
Stores like Sam's Club and Walmart have corporate policies specifically AUTHORIZING carry there, and if you know the policy and someone tells you not to carry, you can advise them but they STILL have the legal right to tell you to take your gun somewhere else (and if they argue with you about it, get their name and go, contact management and deal with it later).
That must be new. The most recent publicized policy of Walmart/Sam's, is to "follow state law." That does not mean "specifically authorizing carry." But, if you have reference to a current Wally policy that DOES "specifically authorize carry there," that would be fantastic.
 

wdr89523

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
15
Location
Reno, NV
Actually, they certainly can. If you do not comply, no statute defines that.

If you do not comply, they can tell you to leave; i.e., trespass you. At that point, statute supports them and you need to beat feet to the door.

Until the 2A is recognized as a civil Right, I see no avenue for lawsuit against a private business. As TBG points out, you should review the specifics a bit.

Actually, no they can not. I was an executive with Wal-Mart and went through this with an individual that was OCing my store. I called the police once he refused to do so. The police looked up the Nevada statute. The only thing it said was unless a store has "metal detectors" or a "sign posted" then the store cannot force a citizen exercising their right to carry. They can trespass from the store for disturbing the peace or what not. But to that extent, that is it.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Actually, no they can not. I was an executive with Wal-Mart and went through this with an individual that was OCing my store. I called the police once he refused to do so. The police looked up the Nevada statute. The only thing it said was unless a store has "metal detectors" or a "sign posted" then the store cannot force a citizen exercising their right to carry. They can trespass from the store for disturbing the peace or what not. But to that extent, that is it.

Yes, they can. And, as you agree, AND as I stated, it carries no legal weight. You agreed with me, yet you try to say I was incorrect?


What statute? "Metal detectors" or "sign posted" only refer to public buildings defined in statute, and have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with a business such as Walmart. The cops, AND you, are wrong.

As for the trespass, they can trespass the customer for looking confused if they really want to.


As example, if I OC in a Walmart, the greeter can tell me not to carry my gun in the store. I can freely pass the greeter.
BUT, if the greeter or other employee, as representative of the store, tells me to leave the store, I must go; otherwise, take a great chance of being arrested for trespass.


They can tell me not to carry. SO WHAT.
They can tell me to leave. I MUST LEAVE.
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
Actually, no they can not. I was an executive with Wal-Mart and went through this with an individual that was OCing my store. I called the police once he refused to do so. The police looked up the Nevada statute. The only thing it said was unless a store has "metal detectors" or a "sign posted" then the store cannot force a citizen exercising their right to carry. They can trespass from the store for disturbing the peace or what not. But to that extent, that is it.

And once again asking a cop produces a completely wrong answer. As Wrightme says the NRS only applies to Public owned buildings. Got to read the whole law not just cherry pick.
 
Last edited:

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
Actually, no they can not. I was an executive with Wal-Mart and went through this with an individual that was OCing my store. I called the police once he refused to do so. The police looked up the Nevada statute. The only thing it said was unless a store has "metal detectors" or a "sign posted" then the store cannot force a citizen exercising their right to carry. They can trespass from the store for disturbing the peace or what not. But to that extent, that is it.

Metal detectors and signs posted at all public entrances have only to do with government buildings, and applies only to conceal carry per NRS 202.3673. Not open carry. Again, private enterprises can trespass you for anything they want and you must comply. If told to leave a store because they don't like you open carrying, then call the police because you refuse to adhere to their demand, you can be arrested for trespass, but not a gun related charge.

The policy of Wally World appears to follow local law now. You can search through the threads and can read about contacts with upper management at WM and the results. It does not seem that anyone has problems there now.

TBG
 

wdr89523

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
15
Location
Reno, NV
As a representative for WM and an executive director for their Asset Protection department, I can tell you that WM doesn't prohibit firearms being carried within the stores. We reserve the right to refuse service from someone that is acting irresponsibly while carrying, but we will not prohibit it. We do follow all state and local regs as closely as possible. But we also rely on the local law enforcement to assist us with knowing and understanding them. There are certain incidents where managers are not familiar with laws or "rights" so to speak and act on their own accord to address people wearing firearms within their stores. I feel this is also their right to approach and question anyone that comes into their stores, especially when other customers and associates feel their safety are in jeopardy. They do have the right to ask questions, just like any person does. It is up to them to determine if there is a risk in safety. Sometimes it is not the right choice and tempers flare. But they still have to make a choice. As a corporation we do not place signs up in just one store. It is a decision that funnels down through the 4000 other stores we have and act as one unit. No one store is special and needs to place a sign up.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
Are you sure? It isn't "weight of law" unless they tell you to leave the store. IMHO, telling you to not carry is NOT "tell you to leave." There IS a difference.

I would not want my defense in court to be that when they told you that guns weren't allowed on their property, that didn't have the weight of law. While you could -- accurately -- argue that "you can't have guns here" is not the same as "please leave," the Reasonable and Prudent Person would understand that the gun isn't going to leave unless someone TAKES it, and that being told that it's not permitted there is a polite way of telling you that it has to be taken out of the store. When you add the factor that you are armed and they are not, there is an intimidation issue there, where they will want to weasel-word to avoid the possibility of "setting you off."

In other words, if contacted by a person who is part of the business and advised in any way that your gun isn't permitted, I'm pretty sure that the court will see that as satisfying any legal requirement of a request to leave.

The Costco backshooters certainly saw it that way, and they were vindicated by the coroner's inquiry.

That must be new. The most recent publicized policy of Walmart/Sam's, is to "follow state law." That does not mean "specifically authorizing carry." But, if you have reference to a current Wally policy that DOES "specifically authorize carry there," that would be fantastic.

Last year, as part of my response to the Costco shooting, I wrote the corporate offices in Arkansas to get confirmation of their policy, noting that I had been approached by one of their managers while OC. The letter they sent back offered an apology, and says that "Our store managers in states such as Nevada have been sent memos which advise that our policy is that carry of firearms is authorized in our stores, in accordance with state law."

That last phrase is key. "In accordance with state law" means that if you are acting within the law, you are fine. If you are NOT actiing within the law -- for instance, shoplifting -- your gun is NOT authorized, so you are subject to whatever enhanced penalties there might be for being armed, without having the defense that "Walmart said it was okay."
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
And once again asking a cop produces a completely wrong answer.

Well, a MOSTLY wrong answer, in that it was the right answer for some places and the wrong answer there.

Remember that cops are NOT lawyers. They generally follow the Rude Rule, that being that if it looks wrong, it is probably against the law. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will arrest you, even if it means they get chewed out by their superiors (rarely are they wrong enough that their job is at risk).

When asked to interpret the law, they will either look for a reason to enforce it or a reason NOT to. An anti-gun cop (or a busy one) will read the law one way (and not notice that the law doesn't actually apply), a pro-civil-rights cop will look for the things that make him not have to enforce it and find that it doesn't apply. In each case, they THINK that they are right, but only one is.

This is why WE have to know the law better, and also why we have to not "run right up to the edge" unless absolutely necessary.

A sign tells you nothing more than the opinion of whoever had it posted. That could be way out of date. A person telling you something is immediate and current (even if mistaken).
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
BTW, I OCed at the Walmart on Kietzke Lane the other day. This is the Reno Walmart where an employee shot several people last October.

I was in the store for an hour. Nobody said a word to me about it, there or in the Sam's Club next door.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I would not want my defense in court to be that when they told you that guns weren't allowed on their property, that didn't have the weight of law. While you could -- accurately -- argue that "you can't have guns here" is not the same as "please leave," the Reasonable and Prudent Person would understand that the gun isn't going to leave unless someone TAKES it, and that being told that it's not permitted there is a polite way of telling you that it has to be taken out of the store. When you add the factor that you are armed and they are not, there is an intimidation issue there, where they will want to weasel-word to avoid the possibility of "setting you off."
So, is it your contention that trespass law does not require specific notice? Odd.

DVC said:
In other words, if contacted by a person who is part of the business and advised in any way that your gun isn't permitted, I'm pretty sure that the court will see that as satisfying any legal requirement of a request to leave.
Feel free to present case law that supports that claim.

DVC said:
The Costco backshooters certainly saw it that way, and they were vindicated by the coroner's inquiry.
Not a relevant case. He wasn't asked to leave. AND, he wasn't OC.

DVC said:
Last year, as part of my response to the Costco shooting, I wrote the corporate offices in Arkansas to get confirmation of their policy, noting that I had been approached by one of their managers while OC. The letter they sent back offered an apology, and says that "Our store managers in states such as Nevada have been sent memos which advise that our policy is that carry of firearms is authorized in our stores, in accordance with state law."

That last phrase is key. "In accordance with state law" means that if you are acting within the law, you are fine. If you are NOT actiing within the law -- for instance, shoplifting -- your gun is NOT authorized, so you are subject to whatever enhanced penalties there might be for being armed, without having the defense that "Walmart said it was okay."
No kidding. And?
That doesn't mean that merely carrying a firearm is disallowed. Nor does it mean that carrying the firearm with intent to commit a crime becomes trespass because there is a firearm.
Having a firearm in a business in violation of corporate policy, whether posted or not, whether told or not, is NOT a crime. Remaining after being told to leave the premises IS a crime.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Well, a MOSTLY wrong answer, in that it was the right answer for some places and the wrong answer there.

Remember that cops are NOT lawyers. They generally follow the Rude Rule, that being that if it looks wrong, it is probably against the law. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will arrest you, even if it means they get chewed out by their superiors (rarely are they wrong enough that their job is at risk).
Then cops that do such are WRONG, and open up their department for lawsuit. I expect those who do what you claim will be in the minority....unless that is the view of the department.
DVC said:
When asked to interpret the law, they will either look for a reason to enforce it or a reason NOT to. An anti-gun cop (or a busy one) will read the law one way (and not notice that the law doesn't actually apply), a pro-civil-rights cop will look for the things that make him not have to enforce it and find that it doesn't apply. In each case, they THINK that they are right, but only one is.
WHich is a good reason to NEVER ask cops what the law is. Just let them enforce laws. If they cannot cite a rule, they simply should NOT enforce their opinion.
DVC said:
This is why WE have to know the law better, and also why we have to not "run right up to the edge" unless absolutely necessary.

A sign tells you nothing more than the opinion of whoever had it posted. That could be way out of date. A person telling you something is immediate and current (even if mistaken).

Yet a person telling you has no more weight of law than the sign. Unless that person tells you to leave.

Or, you could cite statute or case law that supports your claim that "guns are not allowed" verbally told to a customer is "notice of trespass" under the trespass statute.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,712
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
I'm all for forcing government buildings to obey the law and recognize our right to carry and for stubborn disobedience to unlawful commands given by government authority figures, but when it comes to private property rights, resisting the owner is a losing strategy with nothing to gain.

If a person tells you your gun is not allowed, and he is the owner of private property, I think it is best to conform to the requests of the owner. If you want to win over the hearts and minds of the public, upsetting the owner by refusing his demands I think will not be helpful. If they want you off the property and they have to, they will ask you to leave, and ban you from the premises forever, and if it ever comes time for them to reconsider their firearm policy they will remember that that guy with a gun who refused to follow their rules. Further, if they are hostile to your gun rights, why would you want to support them with your money? Why try to pull some sort of civil disobedience on them, when there are plenty of places offering similar services that are more than happy to accept you as a customer and might even appreciate you carrying in their establishment, potentially scaring off miscreants.

I think it is best to comply with the demands of the owner, and send them a letter using logic to persuade them that their position is wrong. Although this tactic rarely prevails in changing the mind of an anti-gun business owner, it is probably the only thing that really has any chance.


Having a firearm in a business in violation of corporate policy, whether posted or not, whether told or not, is NOT a crime. Remaining after being told to leave the premises IS a crime.
That is correct, but I think there is some risk here, especially when actually confronted by a person and given a verbal command. I'm unaware of what case law may have to say about how implicit or explicit a command from a property owner to leave must be, but in my ignorance of the case law, I would fear that an implicit command might be sufficient to stand as an oral demand to vacate the land or building. When a property owner tells someone, "You must do X," might one argue that the command is implicitly of the form, "do this, or get out," even if they don't explicitly say the "or get out" part? I could imagine circumstances where a prosecution might take place for trespassing, if the establishment owner is convinced that he gave one a notice to leave upon failure to abide his rules implicitly, or if he fails to remember what he told the OC'er, or intentionally distorts the facts to say that there was an explicit command to leave.

Now if they just confront someone and say something like, "Just so you know, guns aren't allowed here, so don't bring your gun in the future," I agree that there is no way that could be construed as a notice to leave, because it does not have any implicit element of a request to leave.


Here is the trespass law itself, for anyone who wishes to read it:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-207.html#NRS207Sec200
NRS 207.200 Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing.
1. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary:
(a) Goes upon the land or into any building of another with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act; or
(b) Willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass,
Ê is guilty of a misdemeanor. The meaning of this subsection is not limited by subsections 2 and 4.
2. A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods:
(a) If the land is used for agricultural purposes or for herding or grazing livestock, by painting with fluorescent orange paint:
(1) Not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
(I) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 1,000 feet; and
(II) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary; and
(2) Each side of all gates, cattle guards and openings that are designed to allow human ingress to the area;
(b) If the land is not used in the manner specified in paragraph (a), by painting with fluorescent orange paint not less than 50 square inches of the exterior portion of a structure or natural object or the top 12 inches of the exterior portion of a post, whether made of wood, metal or other material, at:
(1) Intervals of such a distance as is necessary to ensure that at least one such structure, natural object or post would be within the direct line of sight of a person standing next to another such structure, natural object or post, but at intervals of not more than 200 feet; and
(2) Each corner of the land, upon or near the boundary;
(c) Fencing the area; or
(d) By the owner or occupant of the land or building making an oral or written demand to any guest to vacate the land or building.
3. It is prima facie evidence of trespass for any person to be found on private or public property which is posted or fenced as provided in subsection 2 without lawful business with the owner or occupant of the property.
4. An entryman on land under the laws of the United States is an owner within the meaning of this section.
5. As used in this section:
(a) “Fence” means a barrier sufficient to indicate an intent to restrict the area to human ingress, including, but not limited to, a wall, hedge or chain link or wire mesh fence. The term does not include a barrier made of barbed wire.
(b) “Guest” means any person entertained or to whom hospitality is extended, including, but not limited to, any person who stays overnight. The term does not include a tenant as defined in NRS 118A.170.
[1911 C&P § 500; RL § 6765; NCL § 10447]—(NRS A 1969, 96; 1975, 1169; 1987, 2086; 1989, 997; 2005, 930; 2007, 981; 2009, 141)
 
Last edited:
Top