• 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.

Vegas Library Lawsuit Thread

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
As BB62 suggested and Grapeshot concurred, I'm starting a separate thread for the library thing. For those who don't know, the Las Vegas Clark County Library District had a mom arrested for trespassing (cited and release though) and she filed suit.

Posted it in two places: NevadaCarry.blogspot.com

and my flashier new project, FrontierCarry.org

No protests/rallies/phone blasts are planned at the moment. We're gonna wait and see how things go. Although Clark County residents might want to politely suggest that their government employees and appointed trustees do the right thing in this case.

All proper thanks should go to the person who stood up for her rights; all I do is keep the fire warm and tell the truth. I really want to say thanks to Anony-Mom out there because there was no way I could be the test case and report on it.
 

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
Question for lawyer types here.

After reading her lawsuit, it seems to me that it is solely targeting the library district. Why?
While the library district (through it's security guard and librarian employees) illegally detained her as she was leaving, the city police also detained her and then arrested her (handcuffs). Shouldn't the city be included in the lawsuit or could they (the city and police officers) be the unnamed Does referenced?

Side question, could she as lead plaintiff have included her 3 minor children as plaintiffs for 4x the Claim for Relief charges, or if not that, at least to include the children for their mental trama and suffering due to the illegal detainment and arrest?

I understand not including the friend in the lawsuit who got there and was recording the police. Adding the LEO who attempted to chill his 1A right to record in public to the lawsuit would require going Federal court, correct? Plus while it was an attempt to chill his 1A, the other police officer stopped it from completing (forcing him to leave / arresting him), so difficult to pursue legally.
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
Do you know if she gave notice and/or was she expecting/prepared for a legal fight beforehand?
She's stated that she was prepared for what might come, but the last time she had a run in, it was fairly minor and didn't escalate. After a couple of people carried without issue, I thought for a moment the district had come to their senses. Shame on me!
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
After reading her lawsuit, it seems to me that it is solely targeting the library district. Why?
I'm not the lawyer or an attorney (you can call me Lionel Hutz aka Miguel Sanchez aka Dr. Nguyen Van Thoc) but the complaint is just a preliminary shot across the bow. The actual case will be in a lot more detail. I would imagine as the attorney deems necessary, additional parties could be named. As for the cops, their misdeeds could be handled with a personnel complaint.

Now for the library folks and the cops as individuals, not as officials, they probably don't have liability themselves. Why? They were a just acting as agents of their government agency. Nothing they did was obviously illegal to the point where they would be knowingly violating her civil rights. For instance, a library official who doesn't know the difference between an automatic and a revolver probably wouldn't grasp the nuances I articulated in the article. Now if the security guard was told to shoot on sight and did, then that would clearly be illegal and a personal act on his part.

Being a kind, soft hearted librarian, I'm sure that she had no idea what she was doing would kick up an s-storm. All she has to go by is an email saying "call the police on scary open carrying moms with kids!!!!" with the memo of the totally illegitimate policy. Seeming reasonable, she does what she's told. One could argue, though all of us would disagree, that the district argument holds weight, at least superficially. Since she's not shooting or gassing people, the librarian could be excused for just doing her job.

Same goes for the cops enforcing the trespassing statute. I would have personally asked more questions, like "When/how was she informed that she needed to leave?" and when the legal stuff came up, I'd pay close attention and do research. Smart phones take away excuses for not looking up laws. The cop should have got had a sergeant respond, who should have called his LT/CPT to confirm or look up the laws. Gun rights + mom w/h kids + guy with camera = you should be really careful and really certain, especially after Metro's spectacular failure with Tim O'Farrell. Of course, they had to write the ticket because I'm sure the sergeant was worried that some progressive freak bureaucrat with the library district would bitch to his supervisor. Easier to just write the ticket.

Blame lies with the bureaucrats here. The library administrative staff should be fired for provoking this and counsel Mr. Welt replaced for not strenuously advising his client to comply with state law. If the county commissioners can do it, they out to toss the trustees out for allowing this to happen. Seriously, whatever group of liberal, anti-gun library district employees forced this to go this far need to be out of government employment. Perhaps we can put together a fund to pull some emails (DTOM was quoted $3300 or so). The librarian herself isn't really to blame because she didn't push the issue, she was just doing what she was ordered to do by her boss. She didn't know any better; the library administration did and they ought to be blamed and pay the price.

As for the cops, I myself have been in a crappy situation where I had to write a sketchy ticket or do something technically legal, but that left a bad taste in my mouth anyhow. It sucks, but it happens. Just like at your job where your idiot boss requires you to do something he's going to criticize you for later. I'd say the officers who backpedalled (she said they were actually pretty decent to her) mitigated the outcome of the situation somewhat. Of course, blame goes to the sergeant for not stopping the whole darn thing, but how else are you supposed to get a test case? Metro admin itself deserves the ignominious credit for failing to properly training its officers on the legality of open carry and the effects of SB 175/240.

So here's how I apportion blame:
1. The library administrators who are anti-gun and decided to illegally ban guns, then push the issue.
2. The board of trustees for not stepping in and stopping this non-sense (we freakin' warned them!).
3. Metro for not properly educating their officers.

Who should pay the piper?
The library district and hopefully we can eventually publicly shame the individuals responsible for this shameful act. Metro should retrain their officers ASAP and have a little conversation with getting in the face of citizen journalists.

That's my two cents x 250.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Heh heh. I love how they cited MOC v. CADL in that article. That case (and this one shouldn't be any different) boiled down to two facts: (a) pre emption (if properly written) covers all local units of government, and (b) public library districts, being funded by taxes and run by government appointed officials, constitute a local unit of government.

If I were a local citizen, I'd set up a meeting with Gen. Ence to see what could be worked out to bring the library in compliance with the law.
 

28kfps

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
1,533
Location
Pointy end and slightly to the left
Heh heh. I love how they cited MOC v. CADL in that article. That case (and this one shouldn't be any different) boiled down to two facts: (a) pre emption (if properly written) covers all local units of government, and (b) public library districts, being funded by taxes and run by government appointed officials, constitute a local unit of government.

If I were a local citizen, I'd set up a meeting with Gen. Ence to see what could be worked out to bring the library in compliance with the law.
Some months ago there was a meeting with the Library powers to be committee. Not sure what it is called. Several pro gun people were there. I do not remember the details however I believe the general response to the pro gun people was not changing their no gun stance and go ahead and sue us.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,415
Location
White Oak Plantation
The cops knew exactly what they were doing. If the term "unlawfully arrested" is accurate then the cops broke the law.

Given the information in the Frontier article that other libraries know and follow the law then the cops should have known the law as well.

Fire the librarian, then sue the library district.
 

Ahareht

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
42
Location
Kentucky
Was she arrested (charged and booked) or just detained and cited? Handcuffs alone do not equal arrest, they do equal detainment, but if she were released on scene then I don't see the wrongful arrest sticking.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
NRS 171.104 said:
Arrest defined; by whom made.  An arrest is the taking of a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person.
This is a state law issue, and your Kentucky laws may be different.

Being taken into custody does not require being taken to jail, nor does it require formal charges or booking, as citizens' arrests have neither.
 
Last edited:

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
The library gave someone a response. Post here, too lazy to do the HTML mark-up.

Of course, I get ignored. I think the library is out to get me. There has been a bookmobile parked across the street for three days now. This morning, I found a book in the bathroom!
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,967
Location
Waco, TX
The Library Board of Trustees are appointed by the legal governing body, in this case the Clark County Commission. The majority of the funds used to support the District are raised by Clark County property taxes. Why not a letter writing campaign to our Commissioners letting them know what is going on. Explaining the law to them, which they should already now know as they have gone through it at county level, and how the CC Library District is ignoring the law and placing the District in financial jeopardy? Along with METRO ignoring state law on the CCLD's behalf. We could ask that the Commission replace the Trustees.

The County Commission has not shown much support for our cause in the past, but they are aware of current law and certainly should be adverse to the cost of litigation and the ultimate financial outcome.

TBG
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
Along with METRO ignoring state law on the CCLD's behalf. We could ask that the Commission replace the Trustees.
Does their appointment authority extend to basically 'overwriting' their positions with new appointees? There isn't any removal powers under NRS 379 that I recall.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
There is conspiracy to deprive a citizen of rights, under color of the law. But good luck with that.
 

Turbod'1

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
181
Location
Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
Despite the sign, I OC'd into the Henderson Library, right past their unarmed security guard (who was fiddling with his phone), without issue. The clerk noticed and slightly blanched but had no problem issuing my wife her card.

We spent over 30 minutes there and that was that.

This just reminds me of how Texas [where I live now] kinda stinks...
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
I'm not the lawyer or an attorney (you can call me Lionel Hutz aka Miguel Sanchez aka Dr. Nguyen Van Thoc) but the complaint is just a preliminary shot across the bow. The actual case will be in a lot more detail. I would imagine as the attorney deems necessary, additional parties could be named. As for the cops, their misdeeds could be handled with a personnel complaint.

Now for the library folks and the cops as individuals, not as officials, they probably don't have liability themselves. Why? They were a just acting as agents of their government agency. Nothing they did was obviously illegal to the point where they would be knowingly violating her civil rights. For instance, a library official who doesn't know the difference between an automatic and a revolver probably wouldn't grasp the nuances I articulated in the article. Now if the security guard was told to shoot on sight and did, then that would clearly be illegal and a personal act on his part.

Being a kind, soft hearted librarian, I'm sure that she had no idea what she was doing would kick up an s-storm. All she has to go by is an email saying "call the police on scary open carrying moms with kids!!!!" with the memo of the totally illegitimate policy. Seeming reasonable, she does what she's told. One could argue, though all of us would disagree, that the district argument holds weight, at least superficially. Since she's not shooting or gassing people, the librarian could be excused for just doing her job.

Same goes for the cops enforcing the trespassing statute. I would have personally asked more questions, like "When/how was she informed that she needed to leave?" and when the legal stuff came up, I'd pay close attention and do research. Smart phones take away excuses for not looking up laws. The cop should have got had a sergeant respond, who should have called his LT/CPT to confirm or look up the laws. Gun rights + mom w/h kids + guy with camera = you should be really careful and really certain, especially after Metro's spectacular failure with Tim O'Farrell. Of course, they had to write the ticket because I'm sure the sergeant was worried that some progressive freak bureaucrat with the library district would bitch to his supervisor. Easier to just write the ticket.

Blame lies with the bureaucrats here. The library administrative staff should be fired for provoking this and counsel Mr. Welt replaced for not strenuously advising his client to comply with state law. If the county commissioners can do it, they out to toss the trustees out for allowing this to happen. Seriously, whatever group of liberal, anti-gun library district employees forced this to go this far need to be out of government employment. Perhaps we can put together a fund to pull some emails (DTOM was quoted $3300 or so). The librarian herself isn't really to blame because she didn't push the issue, she was just doing what she was ordered to do by her boss. She didn't know any better; the library administration did and they ought to be blamed and pay the price.

As for the cops, I myself have been in a crappy situation where I had to write a sketchy ticket or do something technically legal, but that left a bad taste in my mouth anyhow. It sucks, but it happens. Just like at your job where your idiot boss requires you to do something he's going to criticize you for later. I'd say the officers who backpedalled (she said they were actually pretty decent to her) mitigated the outcome of the situation somewhat. Of course, blame goes to the sergeant for not stopping the whole darn thing, but how else are you supposed to get a test case? Metro admin itself deserves the ignominious credit for failing to properly training its officers on the legality of open carry and the effects of SB 175/240.

So here's how I apportion blame:
1. The library administrators who are anti-gun and decided to illegally ban guns, then push the issue.
2. The board of trustees for not stepping in and stopping this non-sense (we freakin' warned them!).
3. Metro for not properly educating their officers.

Who should pay the piper?
The library district and hopefully we can eventually publicly shame the individuals responsible for this shameful act. Metro should retrain their officers ASAP and have a little conversation with getting in the face of citizen journalists.

That's my two cents x 250.


Well heres the sad thing, officers are sworn in to support and defend the Constitution, both state and federal, including county workers
and they are taking our tax dollars, as wages.
That means breaking their oath is is commiting a fraud, and that just might be a felony.
These are the chains that bind them to our Constitution, to keep their oath, or suffer for not doing that
which is there sworn duty to we the people !
 
Top