CC laws regulate OC???

2A

OC-moto450r said:

So my question is...
If you have a CCW but are OCing, are they going to enforce their version of the spirit of NRS 202.3667 and require you to show ID? Seems to be the same to me. Both laws are 100% regulating CC not OC.

Click to expand...

"...asserting our right to maintain a safe work environment for both our employees and visitors," evidently trumps everything. So it matters NOT what any statute says or behavior it is intended to regulate, they will assert their "right?" to maintain bla bla bla. So, in my view, yes, they are going to enforce THEIR version of the "spirit" of whatever law... why? Because they can, plain and simple... and without a lot of money and effort by those who oppose this "spiritual" enforcement, they will continue with it pretty much without true opposition. Who among us has the time (jail time) and talent ($$$$) to put up a fight? That IS what it is going to take.

2A

OC-moto450r said:

If only it were this easy here in the Battle Born State.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing the sheriff(s) there in Virginia don't perceive the same need to assert (their) right to maintain a safe work environment for both our employees and visitors, as do our fine sheriff(s) here in Nevada... two different "worlds" obviously. My only question is (and it's not a new or unique one by any means): what sign has ever kept a criminal from committing a criminal act?... and how is restricting the lawful open carrying of weapons somehow "maintain(ing) a safe work environment for both (their) employees and visitors?" I think we all agree, somebody is really, really full of sh*t here.

2A

Next move to create a "safe work environment" will be to require all Clark County residents to spread-eagle face down on the ground when approached by any cop.

They also need to take all non-police vehicles off the road, since the primary cause of work-related injury for cops is involvement in traffic accidents.

What you guys in the Sharp End need to do is start firing the cops who have this worry -- it's the only way that they can be SAFE.

If they want a "safe work environment" they should find a safer job.
Law enforcement, as well as working with the public in any capacity, has its risks.
Bear in mind that LE rarely makes the 10 most dangerous jobs list in any year.
How many of those more dangerous jobs restrict civil rights?

Controlling law-abiding citizens does nothing to improve their safety.
Posting signs does nothing to control criminals.
Why is that so hard to understand?

MKEgal said:

If they want a "safe work environment" they should find a safer job.
Law enforcement, as well as working with the public in any capacity, has its risks.
Bear in mind that LE rarely makes the 10 most dangerous jobs list in any year.
How many of those more dangerous jobs restrict civil rights?

Controlling law-abiding citizens does nothing to improve their safety.
Posting signs does nothing to control criminals.
Why is that so hard to understand?

Click to expand...

Kinda puts the exclamation mark on the definition of "cop mentality" here in Nevada, huh?

MKEgal said:

If they want a "safe work environment" they should find a safer job.
Law enforcement, as well as working with the public in any capacity, has its risks.
Bear in mind that LE rarely makes the 10 most dangerous jobs list in any year.
How many of those more dangerous jobs restrict civil rights?

Controlling law-abiding citizens does nothing to improve their safety.
Posting signs does nothing to control criminals.
Why is that so hard to understand?

Click to expand...

The sight of someone other than an employee open carrying a gun disturbs them, when the majority of employees walking around inside their work environment are open carrying guns? So, it is not the open carrying per se that bothers them; it is the status of the person carrying the weapon. It is an us vs. them mentality that sends our public servants into paroxysmal fits of fear at seeing a mere Mundane (Will Grigg term) going cheerfully and peacefully about his business with a weapon on his hip, though the Mundane exhibits no aggressiveness or threatening behavior.

They feel insecure around the "law-abiding citizens" with weapons, who most likely have never drawn or pointed their weapons at another human being, while they feel perfectly safe in the presence of their fellow employees who often display aggressive natures and who most likely have drawn, pointed their weapons at, and threatened to kill other human beings with those weapons?

For some reason, I'm not buying their "safe work environment" argument as a justification for their lawlessness.

ed2276 said:

The sight of someone other than an employee open carrying a gun disturbs them, when the majority of employees walking around inside their work environment are open carrying guns? So, it is not the open carrying per se that bothers them; it is the status of the person carrying the weapon. It is an us vs. them mentality that sends our public servants into paroxysmal fits of fear at seeing a mere Mundane (Will Grigg term) going cheerfully and peacefully about his business with a weapon on his hip, though the Mundane exhibits no aggressiveness or threatening behavior.

They feel insecure around the "law-abiding citizens" with weapons, who most likely have never drawn or pointed their weapons at another human being, while they feel perfectly safe in the presence of their fellow employees who often display aggressive natures and who most likely have drawn, pointed their weapons at, and threatened to kill other human beings with those weapons?

For some reason, I'm not buying their "safe work environment" argument as a justification for their lawlessness.

Click to expand...

Why is this issue so uncomplicated and straight forward for "us" and such a conundrum for "them?" I really do believe it is just another method of CONTROL... and that's the business they are in... CONTROL at all costs, no matter the senselessness of it. It's a symptom of the disease I like to call POLICE STATE in progress.

usmcmustang said:

what sign has ever kept a criminal from committing a criminal act?... and how is restricting the lawful open carrying of weapons somehow "maintain(ing) a safe work environment for both (their) employees and visitors?" I think we all agree, somebody is really, really full of sh*t here.

Click to expand...

Yep, if signs worked, a business would only need to put up one. Saying, by entering our facility, you have agreed not to commit a crime.

OC-moto450r said:

If only it were this easy here in the Battle Born State.

Click to expand...

It was that easy because 1) we have some (not a lot, thankfully) case law, 2) a recently added section in our preemption law that makes the losing locality responsible for paying our legal costs, and 3) probably most importantly a solid grass-roots organization www.vcdl.org with a public perception of being darned near invincible (See, the whining of the antis can sometimes be good.).

While VCDL may not be able to mobilize thousands and bus them in from all across the state, we can certainly get tens to show up for public comments or just to demonstrate solidarity. And in case you missed it: " we". The membership views the work of the organization as being theirs, not just the work of the officers. While Ed is an officer, most of the most prolific acrivists across the state are not officers. Some openly say they do not want to be officers.

Don't interpret my bragging about VCDL as putting down anything Nevada may be doing. You folks are dealing with a different set of circumstances.

stay safe.

2A

2A

OC-moto450r said:

I found this interesting.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
It has been suggested (stated?) by Dan Hawes, I believe, that they title of a code does not play into the meaning/interpretation of the law. All such is contained within the body of the statute.

Since my OP cited the "title" of the NRS, I thought I'd relay the above info as food-for-thought. FYI Dan Hawes goes by the OCDO handle "user"

quote above from this thread, post #23

Click to expand...

So… let’s have a statute/code/ordinance/whatever specifically titled “Disposition of Stray Cats,” and in the third sub-paragraph of that “law,” we’ll talk about the disposition of stray DOGS… that makes perfect sense, huh? Actually, it makes just as much sense as does a great many things we’re finding out here, huh?

2A

I support the cause, and I'm all for firearm possession by all (as most who know me on here are aware), but may I play devil's advocate for a moment? With more members making larger and larger issues about open carry in police stations, the DMV, etc, areas where I can see the "spirit" of the law was to keep the guns out, does anyone think or fear we'll see a large push for "open carry" laws passed in our next legislative session?


Again, I support the cause, but look at California. Harder they pushed, the harder the government pushed back. We might win a short term victory on forcing them to honor the "concealed" part of the public building law, but in their mind their intent is clear. We push hard enough and they might convince the legislators in the next session that we need to put a set of "open carry" laws on the book, and there's no guarantee they'll stop at prohibiting publicly owned buildings.


I hate to say the "live and let live" approach might be more appropriate, but I see potential of poking the authorities with a proverbial stick backfiring on us. They haven't added locations to the "restricted" areas in decades, but if they propose any next year I think it'll be safe to say we know where it came from. Am I alone in this thought? Don't worry, I put my big boy pants on before hitting submit so I'll take what I might have coming.

jfrey123 said:

...areas where I can see the "spirit" of the law was to keep the guns out...

Click to expand...

In no way.

The law was written to ban carrying concealed firearms without a permit. Concealed firearms are the tools of armed criminals, whereas open carry has always been the method of the common armed citizen. The laws were written to reflect that; nothing more.

Cops should not be allowed to carry firearms anyplace where a citizen is not allowed to carry his firearm.

OC-moto450r said:

Yeah its kind of like the "overnight" success story that takes 15 years. It is nice that (now) a single letter can make a meaningful change for the better.

Brag away. What you have gained has taken nothing away from the rest of us. Maybe the newly formed NVFAC www.nvfac.org will learn what worked for y'all.

Click to expand...

How true that is. It is good to remind folks of the struggles that were needed to get where we are today - if only to make the afraid of having to do it all over again.

While not an official of VCDL it has always been my understanding that the organization is willing to share "lessons learned". Contact info is at the web site www.vcdl.org . I'll close with "Best Wishes" for NVFAC.

stay safe.

Recently I had to pay a visit to the local police station. While there, I was invited back into the secured part of the building. Unless my memory is faltering, it is or was illegal to carry in this area. But then it could have just been that if the area was secured with metal detectors and the like. I can't remember. Either way, they had no problem whatsoever with me carrying. Only issue was that I was pretty nervous, was the first time I had to inform an officer and they could tell. For that reason, the detective asked to see my CHL, but didn't bother running it, my ID or my gun's SN. Nor did she disarm me. She was actually really cool with it. Totally unexpected. I've had a lot of bad experiences with police officers, must of which with this city.

Nice change of pace.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2