Sad to see no activity anymore.

[28kfps]

There was great strides to educated the sheeple what real carry laws are and encouraging training for law enforcement to stop enforcing and using intimidation of nonexistent or their modified versions of laws. Now seeing at least what appears to me changes slowly reversing the gains. Seeing metal detectors now setup on Fremont St. event. From its beginning many decades ago I thought was a public street.

 

[color of law]

Yes, police are still harassing open carriers. As far a metal detectors on Fremont St. are actually unconstitutional. "No guns" signs have no force of law. Nevada preempts all firearm laws in the state and local authorities can’t have Laws/Ordinances against open carry or conceal carry. NRS 244.364 allows you to sue if they violate your right to carry in the public.

 

[BB62]

There was great strides to educated the sheeple what real carry laws are and encouraging training for law enforcement to stop enforcing and using intimidation of nonexistent or their modified versions of laws. Now seeing at least what appears to me changes slowly reversing the gains. Seeing metal detectors now setup on Fremont St. event. From its beginning many decades ago I thought was a public street.

Ae you able to act in a way to offset the lack of activity you note?

How about posting some pictures of the offending signage or activities? What about doing some records requests?

Even if you're not able or willing to challenge things head-on, how about taking some steps to more fully expose just exactly *what* is going on?

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

One way to change that

Post more

 

[MSG Laigaie]

When I was active in Washington State, I spent a great deal of time here. Activism was prime and the People loved the 2A. Then the bickering, over minutia at times, started to drive folks off. Hell, even John does not travel here often any more.
Now I live in FA (Free America) where people do not ask, "Why are you wearing a gun?", they ask "Why aren't you wearing your gun?" Only a few transplants still complain, but they always leave after the first winter.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

Nevada preempts all firearm laws in the state and local authorities can’t have Laws/Ordinances against open carry or conceal carry. NRS 244.364 allows you to sue if they violate your right to carry in the public.

One thing though:
In FLORES vs LAS VEGAS-CLARK COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT, state preemption of firearms was essentially nullified by the Supreme Court of Nevada which argued that the library was neither city or county since it had joint funding.

So a county, city, or town ordinance may still be invalid, but be wary of these odd multifunded jurisdictions.

 

[color of law]

One thing though:
In FLORES vs LAS VEGAS-CLARK COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT, state preemption of firearms was essentially nullified by the Supreme Court of Nevada which argued that the library was neither city or county since it had joint funding.

So a county, city, or town ordinance may still be invalid, but be wary of these odd multifunded jurisdictions.

That case is virtually useless. She went to court and made a frivolous argument. That is what happens when you rely on an attorney who is going to through you to the wolves.

Her idiot attorney made this ridiculous argument.

Generally speaking, and as explained more fully below, Flores relied primarily on provisions stating that "[t]he regulation of ... possession ... of firearms ... in this State and the ability to define such terms is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature, and any other law, regulation, rule or ordinance to the contrary is null and void."

What does that have to do with open carry? Well lets look at footnote 1 and 3.

[1] This case does not implicate NRS 202.3673(3), which prohibits concealed firearm possession in public buildings such as the Rainbow Branch Library, or NRS 202.265(1), which prohibits all firearm possession in certain legislatively designated buildings (not including the Rainbow Branch Library).

[3] Flores summarily argued in district court that the DIP violates the Nevada Constitution, which provides that "[e]very citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes." Nev. Const. art. 1, § 11(1). At oral argument on appeal, she expressly stated that she was abandoning any constitutional arguments, and we therefore confine our analysis to whether SB 175 preempts the District's DIP.

So, can someone please tell me how this case effects open carry? It doesn't.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

That case is virtually useless. She went to court and made a frivolous argument. That is what happens when you rely on an attorney who is going to through you to the wolves.

Her idiot attorney made this ridiculous argument.

What does that have to do with open carry? Well lets look at footnote 1 and 3.


So, can someone please tell me how this case effects open carry? It doesn't.

She open carried in the library.

They cited her for trespassing for violating library gun ban policy.

The Nevada Supreme Court looked at whether the preemption law made the library gun ban invalid. They found that it didn't.

So, the case effects open carry, because the case indicates that the library was allowed to ban open carry despite the preemption laws.

 

[color of law]

She open carried in the library.

They cited her for trespassing for violating library gun ban policy.

The Nevada Supreme Court looked at whether the preemption law made the library gun ban invalid. They found that it didn't.

So, the case effects open carry, because the case indicates that the library was allowed to ban open carry despite the preemption laws.

Policy cannot trump Constitutional Rights, period. She waved that argument. See footnote 3. The preemption law is irrelevant, see footnote 1, conceal carry played no part in the decision. She screwed herself. She was in a public place open to the public. Read Bruen. The library is not a sensitive place. The state case is before the Bruen decision.

That case would not get to first base today.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

Right, well if the constitution trumps all, every gun law is invalid.

 

[color of law]

Right, well if the constitution trumps all, every gun law is invalid.

Someone has to get that issue before the court. Or actually, someone has to move a court to dismiss the case because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case by citing United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010).

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

We have made a lot of progress.

More to come.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Still OCing, still lurking.