Restrictions on places where carrying is permitted

[FinancialguyFL]

I'm a Florida permit holder quite pleased that Nevada has decided to recognize my carry permit, since I have a trip planned soon.

I've read the Nevada statutes, which seem to indicate that I can carry anyplace EXCEPT:

- The Airport
- School, College or Child Care facility
- A public (gov't) building where weapons are prohibited.

Since I'm quite versed in Florida law, which has many more restrictions than this, I just wanted to ask those who carry in Nevada whether my understanding is essentially correct, or are there more places where a concealed weapon is not permitted that I haven't identified.

Thanks!

Tom

[fiddlin1]

Hello-
I believe you are close-
But-
school buildings-
delete the child care facility- and delete school property-
of course "posted" places are out for concealed carry-

[FinancialguyFL]

I appreciate your reply, but I picked up the child care facility restriction from this:

NRS 202.265 Possession of dangerous weapon on property or in vehicle of school or child care facility; penalty; exceptions.

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not carry or possess while on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or child care facility, or while in a vehicle of a private or public school or child care facility:


(e) A pistol, revolver or other firearm;

3. This section does not prohibit the possession of a weapon listed in subsection 1 on the property of:

(a) A private or public school or child care facility by a:

(1) Peace officer;

(2) School security guard; or

(3) Person having written permission from the president of a branch or facility of the Nevada System of Higher Education or the principal of the school or the person designated by a child care facility to give permission to carry or possess the weapon.

(b) A child care facility which is located at or in the home of a natural person by the person who owns or operates the facility so long as the person resides in the home and the person complies with any laws governing the possession of such a weapon.

4. The provisions of this section apply to a child care facility located at or in the home of a natural person only during the normal hours of business of the facility.

5. For the purposes of this section:

(a) “Child care facility” means any child care facility that is licensed pursuant to chapter 432A of NRS or licensed by a city or county.



Anyway, that's how I read the statute (subject to the child care in homes exception) that child care facilities are a no no. And "on property" of schools and colleges.

Anything else you think I need to know?

[varminter22]

Yep. Good catch.

That law was passed in the 2007 legislative session. We fought it, but were not able to keep the "private child care facilities" out of it.

Obviously this is BAD law. While one might argue that the state can reasonably regulate firearms on government property, it is WRONG for them to regulate firearms on PRIVATE property.

The original bill would have made it a felony to have a firearm. At least we were able to amend that out of the bill (to be a misdemeanor.)

[Bill of Rights]

While one might argue that the state can reasonably regulate firearms on government property

On what grounds? Government is given no power to own property and since government has no rights at all, only powers granted by consent of the governed (us), one can as easily argue that the state can "reasonably regulate" any of our rights.

The difference is that the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law....(re: religion, free speech, free press, the right of peaceable assembly, or the right to petition for redress of grievance)", but the Second Amendment has no such restriction upon who may regulate; it clearly states "the right...shall not be infringed."

The Ninth Amendment clarifies that the rights delineated are not all inclusive; that other rights exist that are not named, but that those rights are of men.

The Tenth Amendment further stipulates that the fedgov has only those powers specifically listed, and that any others not listed as denied to the states are reserved to the states or to the people.

I submit that since the 2A is very clear that the right shall not be infringed (subtext: by anyone at all), the power to infringe upon the RKBA is denied specifically to the fedgov AND to the states. That power is further denied by extension to the people as well: "...the right...shall not be infringed."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
--Chief Justice John Jay, Marbury v. Madison

By this reasoning, any and all laws restricting purchase, ownership, possession, keeping, or bearing of arms of any type are expressly forbidden and thus, unConstitutional.

Please see also the much more recent quote in my signature line below.

Blessings,
B

[varminter22]

You get no arguement out of me! I agree!

[Sandhiller]

I'm against any restriction of carry rights, except perhaps for courtrooms.

The assumption seems to be that I am a sane and responsible (and 'licensed' don't foget!) when I am in WalMart, the grocery store, or buying tires at the garage. But when in a bank or a school I am likely to suddenly become a homicidal maniac.

I am absolutely opposed to government-sanctioned killing zones, and with their track record you would have to be a statist moron to believe in them. (I think of the poor bureaucratic simp at VaTech who was crowing about how great it was that they had outlawed guns on their safe and sane campus. Yeah. Right.)

[Bill of Rights]

I'm against any restriction of carry rights, except perhaps for courtrooms.

The assumption seems to be that I am a sane and responsible (and 'licensed' don't foget!) when I am in WalMart, the grocery store, or buying tires at the garage. But when in a bank or a school I am likely to suddenly become a homicidal maniac.

I am absolutely opposed to government-sanctioned killing zones, and with their track record you would have to be a statist moron to believe in them. (I think of the poor bureaucratic simp at VaTech who was crowing about how great it was that they had outlawed guns on their safe and sane campus. Yeah. Right.)

I'd accept carry restrictions in penal facilities and in hospitals for the criminally insane, but I'm curious why you would support courtroom restrictions. Would not the same reasoning apply to WalMart, the grocery, a bank or a school as would apply to a courtroom?

Not trying to be argumentative; rather, I'm curious as to your thinking.

Blessings,
B

[Sandhiller]

BoR,

In my opinion courtrooms are where frequently highly emotional, wrenching events take place. I think that in that environment it is best to simply make it a "check your guns at the door" kinda place for all.

If we were each to list our own idea of "ideal gun free zones" we would probably all come up with different places. I see your point about WalMart and the grocery store, but these are not generally places where you are told you no longer have visitation rights to your four-year-old son, or that your philandering wife is entitled to x-amount of your property plus $2000 a month alimony, or... Well, you get the idea. I am not speaking of personal experience in these examples. Merely using them as illustrative specimens of intense, life-altering events.

Hope I've maybe been a little clearer, even if you still disagree!

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks for your reply. I do see your reasoning. I can't fully agree with it because all the people who are not involved in the trials don't have those events happening, yet they are still disarmed, and further, if I go to my local courthouse, even to go to a local gov't office in that building, I am disarmed both on the way to the building and en route back to my car from there. In penal facilities, theoretically, there would be lockers in which I could secure my weapon if I needed to enter there, and to have the same in courthouses would still not be the ideal solution, but less unacceptable to my way of thinking. Thanks again for your feedback.

Blessings,
B

[Sandhiller]

You're right about spectators, visitors at trails, etc. But how do we plumb the depths of their commitment or involvement in what is going on in that courtroom? It's a tricky question.

I used to live in a county that, at the courthouse, would take your sidearm and put it in a locker, but made you return your cell phone to your vehicle. Huh? No one ws ever able to tell me the origin of or rationale behind that brilliant ruling.

Maybe instead of listing "places" it would be more useful to enumerate the conditions that must exist before the "authorities" make law-abiding citizens disarm. I think there will be very, very few.

[Bill of Rights]

Was it not Jefferson who commented on preferring the perils attending to too much liberty to those attending too little? Disarming those who have done nothing wrong clearly makes no sense, and I think you may very well be onto something here in your suggestion that perhaps laws dictating under what conditions a person may be disarmed. I would think that the best way to approach this would be to increase the penalties of whatever violent crime is committed by two orders: If a robbery is committed and this would be a class D felony, the commission of that crime with a weapon of any type other than bare hands would escalate it to a class B felony. Murder would automatically become a capital crime if a weapon was employed.

Anyone else? :)

Blessings,
B

[VegasGeorge]

I have a concern about these laws that prohibit carrying our weapons into various buildings. Surely, those lawmakers know that we law abiding citizens will then leave our weapons in our cars. And, just as surely, those law makers must realize the astounding number of car burglaries and car thefts taking place in our cities. So, doesn't it ever occur to these folks that leaving the guns in the cars is a bad idea? Every stolen gun is, ipso facto, in the hands of a criminal. Is that what they want? It seems like it.

[junglebob]

I'm against any restriction of carry rights, except perhaps for courtrooms.

The assumption seems to be that I am a sane and responsible (and 'licensed' don't foget!) when I am in WalMart, the grocery store, or buying tires at the garage. But when in a bank or a school I am likely to suddenly become a homicidal maniac.

I am absolutely opposed to government-sanctioned killing zones, and with their track record you would have to be a statist moron to believe in them. (I think of the poor bureaucratic simp at VaTech who was crowing about how great it was that they had outlawed guns on their safe and sane campus. Yeah. Right.)
Sandhiller, You can't carry your gun in a bank? What state do you live in? Here in Illinois you can "fanny pack transport" in a bank. I know one fellow who asked his banker if it was OK and was told yes. There was an interesting incident in Champaign County Illinois, a woman came to the court house for jury duty and forgot that she had a loaded handgun in her purse. Believe it on not here in "right denied" Illinois the states attorney put her in an adult diversion program doing community service in lieu of prosecuting her under felonly unlawful use of weapons charges. BTW our local court house allows cell phones if you turn them off.

[FinancialguyFL]

We all have our own various takes on how much/how little control states and localities can have over where we can be armed, but that's the beauty of the 10th amendment.

Meanwhile, my interest in Nevada law (the start of this thread) piqued my curiosity, mainly because here in Florida bars are a no-no, and I know whenever I'm in Nevada, I'm usually spending some time at, in or passing through bars. It will seem odd to me carrying in those places since it's forbidden here.

I understand Florida's prohibition, we have enough bar fights where people go outside and *get* their gun because they're drunk and stupid, so I'm sure I'd rather not see the shootout start *in* the bar. It kinda spoils the enjoyment of a Guiness. :-)



Tom

[Bill of Rights]

We all have our own various takes on how much/how little control states and localities can have over where we can be armed, but that's the beauty of the 10th amendment.

That powers not granted by the Constitution to the fedgov nor restricted from the states are reserved to the states or to the people? How does that figure in? "...the right...shall not be infringed." clearly does not grant a power to the fedgov and just as clearly restricts it from the states


I understand Florida's prohibition, we have enough bar fights where people go outside and *get* their gun because they're drunk and stupid, so I'm sure I'd rather not see the shootout start *in* the bar. It kinda spoils the enjoyment of a Guiness. :-)

How many would pull a gun, knowing that in a bar with 100 people, six of them, somewhere in the room, are likely to be armed and willing to stop the drunken moron?

People who obey the law don't get into drunken bar fights and certainly not drunken gunfights.

Blessings,
B

[fiddlin1]

You are right-
I just checked-
NRS- 202.3673 a building of a child care facility-
cant carry-
sorry
Mark