• 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 Nevada

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
So I went I to an Uber "store" accidentally carried my gun in. I knew their policy is against but hey I forgot to take it off. So the man at the counter tells me that guns are not allowed and continues to tell me that they don't even allow Metro inside with their gun. I had to ask him to repeat himself just to make sure I heard him right. Yup...I heard him right!!!😐
Wow. Wonder if the employees would ask an armed robber to put the gun in the (getaway) car before returning to rob them.:rolleyes:

Besides, didn't their CEO say that Über drivers were NOT über employees? How can they enforce a criminal-empowerment policy while also trying their best to avoid springing for employee benefits for drivers?:confused:

If you knew the deal why would you go on the first place?
Sometimes the thought of people being irrationally afraid of inanimate objects skips the mind. After all, you're simply going about your day, :)

I could always use the hussle money...but didn't expect the response about LEO's.
My GF and I considered it but reconsidered after factoring in the gas and wear on the vehicle.

Best of luck to you Nevada folks. :)
 

mp06011999

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
520
Location
Las Vegas
Haven't posted in awhile because it's been business as usual.

Have had a few encounters lately, but all pleasant. Had one at the community mailboxes where a guy asked me if I was a cop saying that he was a retired cop from Chicago. After I told him no and that I'm just a citizen exercising my right to defend myself he stared at me for a second and I thought I was about to be read the riot act. Nope.

He said he just went though all the hoops to secure his CCW for retired officers (whatever that is, idk) and then he asked me what the law was here about oc and that I'm the first one he's seen. After I briefly explained the "legal to own, legal to carry" he said, "I like that! If more people open carried we'd have a lot less of these a-holes going around doing whatever they want hurting people".

Amen brother!

He shook my hand, thanked me and exchanged numbers for some future business. Another great encounter! Too bad we are going the other direction in November with mandatory background checks most likely to pass.

At least two other encounters with youngsters (18-24) asking the law, shaking my hand saying thanks.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,338
Location
Nevada
...Too bad we are going the other direction in November with mandatory background checks most likely to pass...
Allow me a brief tangent, but this is part of the problem, and I'm not trying to single you out because it's widespread and, unfortunately, automatic.

Even we are referring to this bad Question as "mandatory background checks." With that label, we've already lost.

Calling it a "mandatory background checks" Question is like calling something the "Patriot Act." It's a winner before you even start to look at it.
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
20161104_202247.jpg
At Frontier Fun Center in Fernley. Don't think this applies here. I'm sure the person who put it up really thought they were doing something.
 

jfrey123

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
471
Location
Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
That's a new tactic. 202.3673 applies to concealed firearms inside government buildings. 207.200 pertains to notice of trespass.

By applying the second statute to their sign after saying no weapons, they're trying to preemptively trespass someone with a weapon (not just a firearm as mentioned in the first listed statute). Not sure a business open to the public has a right to preemptively trespass any member of the public arbitrarily, but I'm not an expert in that regard.
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
I think people cite 202.3673 because they are ignorant and don't know that "public building" means government building, and not simply a business open to the public.
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
Bingo!!

That was my thought exactly. So if they COULD preemptively give a trespass warning for carrying a concealed weapon, how would they ever know?

Although I'm pretty sure they thought they would be preemptively trespass warning you against carrying ANY firearm.

Sorry folks, it doesn't work that way. You just can't combine two laws that don't apply, to make a law that does....
 
Last edited:

mp06011999

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
520
Location
Las Vegas
Allow me a brief tangent, but this is part of the problem, and I'm not trying to single you out because it's widespread and, unfortunately, automatic.

Even we are referring to this bad Question as "mandatory background checks." With that label, we've already lost.

Calling it a "mandatory background checks" Question is like calling something the "Patriot Act." It's a winner before you even start to look at it.
What should I be calling it?

I don't agree with mandated background checks and thought that is exactly what they are voting on. No?

What's a more non-approving way to refer to mandated background checks? Thanx.
 

Bernymac

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
414
Location
Las Vegas
What should I be calling it?

I don't agree with mandated background checks and thought that is exactly what they are voting on. No?

What's a more non-approving way to refer to mandated background checks? Thanx.
I usually call it a "gun control initiative". Calling it a mandatory background check as it is in the ballot make it sound like there is absolutely no background check in place for legal gun owners. These types of word play is used very effectively by the gun control people. Notice that gun control people do not call it "gun control" they know its effect on people. They call themselves "Moms Demand Action" "Gun Safety", etc.

Sheep have already accepted the term "background check", they look like bobble heads who agree at that term.. It seems, on the surface, a great idea, because criminals will never pass a "background check", ergo, "background check" is acceptable.

When you approach someone and explain to them that it will be a law on "Mandatory background check", they look at you (or us) and think, "why is this insane gun nut against a background check"???

I explain to people that it is a gun control initiative, and people start thinking deeper. I've convinced a few people to change their minds about this initiative when I told them it is a "gun control" initiative by some New York multi-billionaire.

Unfortunately, this gun control initiative passed.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
In the last week, I went to a few places. A breakfast restaurant, shopping (Winco), Taco Bell, Getting a smog check for the car, a hardware store, Raley's, Port of Subs... Nobody even noticed or said a word about it as far as I could tell, and that's pretty much the response I usually get. I mainly just go to the same places over and over again though.

In town the other day I even ran into some old friends from high school, and even they did not comment on it.

When I was 18 a lot more people seemed to make comments. I guess when I'm 21 people just don't notice as much. I used to get a lot of people asking if it was legal and if so what would one need to do to be able to carry. I rarely get those questions anymore, so maybe the media has educated substantially more people over the last three years.... When I do get a comment these days, it often seems to be somebody telling me they have a gun similar to mine that they like, or some other gun related comment.

A month or two ago, I went into a convenience store to pick something up around 10:30 PM or so, and one of the young guys who worked there asked, "Is that a .45?" And I said, "Nope, it's a 9mm" and he said, "Why not a .45? You know fifty cent was shot 9 times by a 9mm." So I told him, "my gun holds 19."
Good going Maximus :) From Robin47
 

28kfps

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
1,533
Location
Pointy end and slightly to the left
Open carried to Brass Pro the place was packed. No one said a word about my firearm or the Trump Supporter sticker I had on the holster. I did see another OCer entering as I was exiting. He was carrying a smaller 1911 I believe 9mm too far for me to see the make. After that went to the Dr who has no problem with my firearm. He was asking a few questions on OCing as he has a CCW.
Went to pet smart no issues. Back home at Smiths saw a young man carrying. Started taking to him and actual was acquainted with him when he was a youth. He does not look his age, at first sight one might think he is a young teenager carrying. He was dressed very nice I believe making a more accepting first impression on those that saw a young man carrying.
 

28kfps

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
1,533
Location
Pointy end and slightly to the left
This weekend OCed at the Mont Charleston lodge for dinner. Shook hands with the Metro I saw in the lodge told him to be safe. The next day OCed at two different Kohl’s, wife favorite bead store, Trader Joes, end of the day at the OC meet up dinner at Blueberry Hill restaurant.
We were the first ones at Blueberry Hill a young lady saw me waiting and as I told her I was waiting for more she said “o” you have a gun it scared me. She did have a smile on her face and did not run off to hide. I told her not to worry I am probably the only one in the place that has had several background checks and proven to not to be a criminal. She said I understand it just startled me a little when I first saw it. She ended up being our server to a table of 8 OCing. Very pleasant and did a great job.
 

mp06011999

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
520
Location
Las Vegas
Can I get a cliff notes explanation of this?
Sure. The gist is the law says we have to do background checks through the Feds directly. Feds said "no...". So, can't comply - lol. How do ya like that Bloomberg!?!

The new law cannot be followed as written and cannot be changed for 3 years.
 
Last edited:

jfrey123

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
471
Location
Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
Sure. The gist is the law says we have to do background checks through the Feds directly. Feds said "no...". So, can't comply - lol. How do ya like that Bloomberg!?!

The new law cannot be followed as written and cannot be changed for 3 years.
Beware though, doesn't stop all the freshmen liberal legislators in our state from proposing a revised version when they convene for the 90 day 2017 session in January. PUT PRESSURE ON YOUR STATE REP TO BLOCK NEW GUN CONTROL.
 

mp06011999

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
520
Location
Las Vegas
Soooooo, who's enforcing this law?
Great question because EVEN if the law were not blocked, who indeed would be enforcing it? Or rather I should say "who could". Short of setting someone up by posing as a buyer or seller, law enforcement is nowhere to be found when meeting in a parking lot to make a sale. So unless people self-enforce or there is a sting, the answer is no one. And as of right now, no one.

This is what happens when we let too many Californians with their anti-2A views in. We all knew it would happen eventually - we'd become a suburb of CA. :uhoh:
 
Top