When the Washoe Area Hated Guns

Many Nevadans think Clark County is the capital of gun control in the Silver State, but historically, Washoe County and Reno in particular were the most hostile to the Second Amendment and had the most obtrusive gun regulations in the state. For much of the 20^th century, until 1999, loaded open carry was illegal in Reno. Few know just how perilously close Nevada to becoming a gun control state.

Traditionally, concealed carry was preferred to open carry, which was seen as a rural or outdoorsman’s practice. Urban open carry was largely unheard of and cause for spectacle, even in frontier towns. Despite open carry being legal, the overwhelming majority of Americans choose to carry concealed, even if breaking the law, or not carry at all, sometimes to their detriment. This right, long affirmed by state courts, was forgotten and the resurgence around the year 2000 took many by surprise. The lack of practiced open carry was a catalyst in the shall-issue wave of concealed weapon permit laws of the 1990s.

Like many places in the West, Nevada had state concealed weapon bans off-and-on throughout its early history. Despite this, men continued to carry. Lax attitudes towards violence created an atmosphere where society largely excused the killing of men left the world better off dead. Sick of the violence, concealed weapons were banned as an attempt at a solution.

Local ordinances that varied from one place to another banned concealed, or sometimes even all firearms. The laws were ineffective, leading to various state schemes that increased in severity until the 1920s. History is clear; the concealed weapons ban did not stem violence. What changed was that frontier society (where much violence was) began to strongly disapprove of  easy killing and fighting over petty matters.

It seems that the most effective laws were ones to provide for better resolution of disputes in civil court and criminal justice reform, including laws detailing what exactly self-defense and justifiable homicide was. Until laws were reformed, juries would find men not guilty if they cited even a bare, unsubstantiated fear, providing the dead man wasn’t too well liked.

Concealed weapons, versus openly carried weapons, were stigmatized for two reasons. First, concealed carry has always been more popular than open carry. Second, the fear of a man going for a hidden weapon—a furtive movement—was responsible for many preemptive killings. Guilty by association, concealed carry received a reputation as something only degenerates and criminals practiced. If a man felt the need to go armed, he should carry his revolver openly. Few did.

In 1903, Nevada passed a law prohibiting concealed weapons in cities, towns, villages and on trains or stages. Permits could be obtained by applying to the county commissioners and demonstrating need. A reporter from the Daily Nevada State Journal made multiple citizens' arrests of the Reno police chief and several officers for carrying concealed weapons as the statute mentioned "any person" and did not exempt law enforcement. The officers reluctantly admitted the reporter was right and the reporter's point was made.

In Washoe County, no concealed weapon permits were issued between 1917 and 1944, when two businessmen received temporary permits to carry pistols. The commission planned, in a draft ordinance to deny concealed weapon permits to all but those "who cannot avail themselves of police protection."

The county commissioner system was changed to the sheriff in 1959 in a bill proposed by Sen. Floyd Lamb (SB93). The concern was that the commissioners were "not in a position to know the background on all applicants" and that "the sheriff can exercise greater control." In 1993, a “shall issue” concealed carry bill failed for lack of support among law enforcement. Inertia had not quite built up nationally to catapult the law into effect in Nevada on the first try. Once again, preserving local laws were a paramount concern.

Barney Dehl, Chief Deputy of Washoe County Sheriff, said “A concealed weapons permit should be limited to persons who did not pose a threat to public safety.” He directly referenced Reno’s ordinances (then in force), complaining that the proposed bill would allow concealed firearm permits to override local ordinances. “He alleged as the bill currently stood, the cities and counties would not have the authority to limit any place in their jurisdiction where weapons could not be carried.” Time has proven these fears were unfounded.

Only in 1995, did Nevada get a “shall issue” concealed firearm permitting system, much to the opposition of law enforcement. As passed, the bill created NRS 202.3673, which for a few years banned concealed carry in public buildings of every type, but not public places as in Reno.

Two Incidents, Lasting Effects

 In November of 1965, at the behest of police chief Elmer Briscoe, the Reno city council took up an ordinance to ban the open carry of loaded weapons. Briscoe was a supporter of gun control, including the proposals making the rounds during the 1960s like handgun registration and three-day waiting periods on purchases. Other proposals like banning non-citizens (green card holders) from owning guns had been making the rounds over the years, but few managed to stick.

The ordinance had its roots in two incidents. These are the two lone examples of gun scares or open carry issues, at least that were reported, at the time. It seems more likely that the incidents were overblown by the police chief and pushed by powerful interests.

One incident was where a mental patient from California stepped off a bus in downtown Reno with two handguns on his hips. Another man walked into a casino restaurant, with a least a revolver on his hip and possibly carrying other weapons, “looking for” a security guard. Accounts vary, including that the man was a hunter carrying a revolver who simply went into the casino. Exaggeration of the details may not be out of the question, as will be seen shortly.

The “hunter” was charged under a city ordinance that made it illegal to 'wear, carry, or conceal' a dangerous weapon. At trial, the Washoe District Court Judge found that the city failed "to show the weapon was concealed." The assistant city attorney said that this invalidated the ordinance, as "its intent [as per the judge] is to ban the carrying of a weapon that is concealed." He asked the city council to either repeal or amend the ordinance, proposing that "it apply only to the open carrying of wearing of dangerous weapons" by removing "conceal" from the text.

It is strongly implied that the appeals judge deliberately did not apply the ordinance as the weapon was a carried openly. An editorial criticized "It's pretty difficult for a layman to understand that the phrase 'wear, carry or conceal' requires the prosecution to prove concealment...”

Reno's 1905 ordinance

The original ban from 1905 stated it was illegal to “wear, carry, or have concealed upon his person” a number of weapons. Likely, the judge made his decision on a syntaxial basis, imaging commas to create the grammatical effect of making “wear, carry, or have” apply to only weapons that were concealed. Apparently, the 1905 city council meant to ban concealed weapons and dangerous weapons worn, carried, or had on the person.

Since the 1905 ordinance was invalidated, the city council prepared a new ordinance, which would persist as 8.18.010 of the municipal code until 1999. The ordinance banned carrying concealed firearms without a permit (duplicating state law), prohibited carrying wearing loaded firearms in public places or on public streets and also any casino, bar, bank, cabaret, theater, park, school or playground without police permission, and permitted peace officers to inspect firearms on demand to determine if they were loaded.

The hysterical Chief Briscoe defended his support of the ban thusly:

“How is a police officer to determine if a guy carrying a gun in his belt is not intending to hold up some place? If hunters have small caliber pistols, I see no reason why they can't secure these guns the same as they do with rifles. Hunters don't walk into restaurants to have breakfast with loaded rifles in their hands. 

"I don't feel people should be allowed to walk around with guns at their sides just because there is nothing to prohibit them from doing so. I would hate to be standing in a bank lobby when four men walked in carrying guns. Oh, I would think, 'It is okay. They are just going hunting?' This would give a lot of bank officials gray hair. 

"...we should have some control over the indiscriminate carrying of firearms. There are undesirable people who could take advantage of the fact that we don't have any law against the open carrying of weapons. Every law we have penalizes a few people for the sake of a lot of people."

The appeal was questioned by Councilman Hunter who said that the obvious intent of the ordinance was specifically intended to prohibit both open and concealed carry. Councilman Chism said "Who would want to carry a loaded gun around in public? Anyone who wants to is up to no good. And he is the type we do not want carrying loaded guns around." Another councilman said "it is a fundamental teaching of sports groups not to carry loaded firearms around."

The ordinance immediately "came under heavy fire.” One editorial opined "some people even brought the U.S. Constitution into it." Chief Briscoe thought that liberty should suffer for public safety, a view not at all uncommon among late 20th century law enforcement leadership.  "Unfortunately, sometimes laws have to be passed to protect the people from themselves. This law would be for the protection of the community. I don't think it would penalize the community." He would have made a communist proud.

Chester Piazzo, president of Sportsman Inc. said in opposition "robbers are not the types to carry firearms openly." Another businessman, Charles Beaman, sad "I live in constant fear of robbery. It is not the robbery so much, but being mugged, stomped upon, or pistol whipped." Both Piazzo and Beamen carried pistols to and from work.

"Either pass a very restrictive law, or let the state law cover and forget it. If it's against the law to carry a gun into a casino, then it ought to be against the law to carry one into a grocery store, a department store—or what have you. And it probably won't be long until the operator of some such business requests his type of enterprise be added to the list. Then another—and another, until the confusion will make the ordinance meaningless. Which happens when you start to compromise to mollify both sides.”

Briscoe defended the ban by saying "...we should have some control over the indiscriminate carrying of firearms. There are undesirable people who could take advantage of the fact that we don't have any law against the open carrying of weapons. Every law we have penalizes a few people for the sake of a lot of people." A councilman suggested prohibiting only loaded pistols, to which Briscoe replied "An unloaded pistol is just as much a threat as a loaded one because you do not know if it is loaded." Briscoe’s suggestion was not heeded.

A little known joke is that during the second half of the last century, the Second Amendment only applied to hunting (except with a machine gun), at least in the minds of many, as it continues to persist in the opinions of many anti-gun individuals and politicians. Thankfully for the Washoe sportsman, Briscoe wanted to protect hunters. Chief Briscoe stated that hunters would be recognizable, as "they are appropriately dressed and on the streets at certain hours of the day," but that he would know a man carrying golf clubs and a .45 would not be a hunter.

Despite public outcry, the ordinance was passed, but exempted unloaded firearms, mirroring provisions of California’s later Mulford Act. According to Charles Beaman, a laundromat owner, the ordinance was passed "because of pressure from casino operators,” certainly nothing new in Nevada. Opposition by the public was apparently limited. The NRA would not transform into the heavily politically involved organization is today until the 1977 “Cincinnati Revolution.”

Today, a similar proposal would be met with a flood of negative publicity. Lawsuits would be legion. However, in the days before the Internet, only legal experts with access to a myriad of old court decisions could prove that across the country, open carry was the constitutionally preferred method of carry. In fact, for most Americans, it was not until the publication of the Ninth Circuit Court’s final decision in Peruta v. Gore that Second Amendment advocates became aware of the open carry cases.

Again, one must remember this was a different time in America where urbanites largely forgot about their right to self-defense. In the 1960s, the consensus among some that carrying guns for self-defense didn’t make people safe was nothing new. Even in the 1930s, relying on city police was considered the “right” thing to do.

“Since police protection is pretty effective in most cities, even for tourists who are guests of the cities, the simpler way might be to make the possession of guns a some what more difficult matter. Few citizens have ever bettered their position by the use of firearms.”

Las Vegas was a dusty, rural backwater by comparison then, while Reno was a well-known, almost cosmopolitan, city. The peaceful times that Reno residents experienced in their lives were far from the Wild West days where the local sheriff was far away. Only after the turbulent and bloody years from the mid-60’s on would public opinion change to support daily self-defense carry.

Attitudes

Ten years after banning open carry, Reno police warned its "jittery women" not to carry loaded guns in public without permission of the chief of police. A 1971 senate bill was proposed at the request of a citizen to allow women to carry mace, then considered a concealed weapon. Carson Sheriff Robert Humphrey opposed the bill, proud of his record of denying the right to bear arms.

"I don't think a woman is going to be able to get mace out of her purse and use it effectively. It might give a woman a false feeling of security and cause her to be hurt more than if she didn't have it. I've never issued a concealed weapon permit and never will and I feel the same way about mace. If a person has it, they're going to be looking for an excuse to use it."

Elsewhere

Stupid gun laws are not limited to just the urban counties. In 1984, Mineral County Sheriff John Madraso Jr. proposed to expand the town of Hawthorne's 1946 ban on concealed weapons to the entire county. The public was incensed and flooded the county commissioners' meeting. Allegedly, it would require registration of anything definable as a weapon, including any sharp object, and ban openly carried weapons.

Madraso claimed that the changes were needed because of 20 cases of persons calling about openly carried weapons, some of which were taken into schools. At the time, it was not illegal under state to carry a firearm into a school. Madraso blamed DA Larry Bettis for the uproar, who blamed the sheriff in return. The ordinance was not passed.

Hawthorne’s 1946 ordinance is still on the books of the Mineral County Code.

Preemption

In 1987, light appeared at the end of the tunnel. Florida was leading the nation with its efforts to create a shall-issue concealed weapon permit system. Self-defense carry and handgun ownership was beginning to re-emerge from its long stigma dating from the days of the Old West. All fronts of the Second Amendment were not in sunshine, however.

In 1981, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois, decided to ban ownership of handguns and the Supreme Court did not hear the appeal. Concerned for such abuses spreading, over thirty states passed laws to prevent local governments from making their own abusive gun control laws. Assemblyman Dini touted that the preemption bill would prevent panic legislation (as happened in Reno in 1965).

State preemption of firearm regulation was first proposed in 1987 as AB 288 by Assemblyman Thompson of Clark County. He vehemently denied dogged accusations that preemption was at the behest of the NRA, but drafted at a constituent’s request. "The point is, [preemption] is not part of some nefarious plot, or secret scheme,” he later said in response to those baseless allegations the “gun lobby” was trying to weaken law enforcement. Opposition, largely by LVMPD, was intense and caused the bill to die in the 1987 legislative session.

In 1989, Thompson proposed AB 147, which ultimately became law. In its original form, the various changes to preemption, including enhanced preemption of 2015, would have been unnecessary. Once again, the powerful forces of LVMPD doomed the provisions that would have put all localities on an even playing field. Reno police were in opposition as well as they would lose their open carry ban ordinance.

Clark County and Metro officials objected because their three-day waiting period and handgun registration (“blue cards”) ordinances would be invalidated. Undersheriff Cooper said that "Las Vegas was becoming a major city with major city problems, therefore, Las Vegas could not be compared to the remainder of the state." Metro fear-mongered that public safety would suffer and detectives would stumble blindly through criminal investigations.

Sheriff Moran said: "[...] I think Las Vegas is a very unique city and requires gun regulations that would be impractical in rural areas. [...] Las Vegas is unlike any other city in the world. [...] but there comes a time when even I have to interpret the Constitution as I see fit [emphasis added]."

Moran’s statement shows the shocking arrogance of law enforcement leaders of the time and why Metro in particular was so dead-set against preemption laws and for strictly restricting citizens' Second Amendment rights (until Sheriff Lombardo saw the writing on the wall).

Unable to overcome Metro’s opposition, Assemblyman Garner suggested grandfathering all local laws already in existence. The intent of the grandfather clause was specifically to preserve Clark County ordinances, which Metro practically begged to keep. As a side effect, Reno’s ordinances also remained in effect, which was not at all the aim of the bill.

AB 147 passed and state preemption of firearms laws became Nevada law. Only the legislature could regulate guns, except for unsafe discharge of firearms. Yet the bill failed in its original purpose; as a result of Garner’s amendment to grandfather in existing laws, only future regulations could be prevented. Clark County and Reno’s law remained on the books and enforceable. For Nevadans, nothing would change except to alleviate fears of ordinances getting worse. Preemption was dreadfully weak and had no teeth.

In 1999, John Riggs, a member of the now-defunct Nevada State Rifle and Pistol Association, successfully petitioned the Reno city council to repeal their ban. Ordinance 5035 made open carry legal in Reno once again. Details behind this action seem to be lost to history. It is unknown if the ban had been enforced in recent times.

One by one, prior to 2015, effectively all the local legal obstacles to open and concealed carry were repealed, except in Clark County. Even in the counties that didn’t repeal their ordinances, active enforcement stopped long before 2015. Notably, in regards to Clark County’s park gun ban ordinance, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto wrote an opinion justifying the enforceability of pre-1989 local ordinances and regulations. This directly led to the call for enhanced preemption.

Under Cortez Masto’s logic, as long as the ordinance or regulation had not been altered since 1989, it would continue in force. SB 92 of 2007 should have invalidated all local ordinances, as it did not contain the 1989 bills grandfather clause, but corruption prevailed and local laws stayed. Without the success of enhanced preemption being signed into law in 2015, Reno’s open carry ban would have stood for nearly fifty years, long into the era when openly carried guns were once again nothing to get excited about.

Conclusion

Today, anachronisms remain on the books in northern Nevada. While most local regulations go unenforced, they have no place under the law. Washoe and Mineral Counties are in violation of the law for failing to repeal its conflicting ordinances on the carry of weapons. Some of the local laws, such as sale or possession of weapons by minors, are now covered by state law. Whether discharge ordinances area “unsafe” discharge ordinances is up for debate. Those laws, while not bothering anyone, need to be removed as well.

However, our focus need to be first aimed at expunging the offensive legacy of gun control in northern Nevada, particularly the remaining laws in Washoe and Mineral Counties. One by one, the small issues can be corrected, but first and foremost, the ugly scars remaining among the ordinances of those counties must be erased.

Related article: Washoe County Still Violates State Preemption

Sources

1. Sec. 6568, Crimes and Punishments, Statutes of Nevada (1903)
2. "Is this law defective?" Daily Nevada State Journal. July 18, 1903. p. 1
3. "Concealed Weapon Ordinance Planned." Nevada State Journal. Feb. 6, 1953. p. 1
4. "Concealed Weapon Control Tightened." Nevada State Journal. Jan. 30, 1959. p. 10
5. Minutes of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. March 10, 1993.
6. "Council Mulls Gun Law-And Then Compromises." Nevada State Journal. p.. 17 Nob. 24, 1965.
7. Ordinance 45, Section 7. Aug. 29, 1905. (Reno Municipal Code), repealed  
   
   
   It shall be unlawful for any person within the limits of the city of Reno, to wear, carry, or have concealed upon his person any dirk knife, pistol, sword in case, slung shot, brass knuckles, razor or other dangerous weapon without first obtaining permission from the City Council. The City Council may, upon application made in writing showing the reason of the person or the purpose for which any concealed weapon is to be carried, grant permission under the seal of the city and attested by its clerk to the person making such application authorizing such person to carry the concealed weapon described in such permission. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be fined not less than twenty ($20.00) dollars nor more than five hundred ($500.00) dollars, or imprisoned in the city jail for not less than thirty (30) days, nor more than six (6) months. This section shall not apply to peace officers in the discharge of their duties, nor to persons acting or engaged in the business of common carriers within this state, nor to person traveling through the state. 
   
   
8. Section 8.18.010 Concealed and dangerous weapons (Reno Municipal Code), repealed  
   
   
   a. It is unlawful for any person within the city limits to carry or wear a firearm in any casino, bar, bank, cabaret, theater, park, school or playground without first obtaining permission from the chief of police.
   b. It is unlawful for any person, except as provided in subsection (c) to carry or wear a loaded firearm upon the public streets or in a public place within the city without first obtaining permission from the chief of police.
   c. The prohibition of subsection (b) does not apply to a person carrying a concealed weapon pursuant to a permit issued by a sheriff pursuant to subsection 4 of section 202.350 of Nevada Revised Statutes.
   d. Further, it is unlawful for any person to refuse any police officer to examine any firearm worn or carried for the purpose of ascertaining if the firearm is loaded or not.
   e. This section does not apply to a peace officer in the discharge of his duties.
   f. As used in this section the term "firearm" includes any weapon immediately capable of propelling an object with destruction force as the result of the combustion of gases or the generation thereof through another device including the expulsion of air from a weapon. The term incudes, but it not limited to: Rifles, shotguns, pistols, airguns, pellet guns and blow guns or dart guns capable of ejecting metal darts of any nature.
   
   
9. “Council Mulls Gun Law-And Then Compromises." Nevada State Journal. p.. 17 Nob. 24, 1965.”
10. "Chief Backs Gun-Toter Crackdown." Nevada State Journal. Nov. 11, 1965.
11. Kauth, Robert. "Gun Crackdown Comes Under Fire." Nevada State Journal. Nov. 16, 1965.
12. Kauth, Robert. "Gun Crackdown Comes Under Fire." Nevada State Journal. Nov. 16, 1965.
13. "Council Revamps Reno Gun Law by 4-3 Vote." Nevada State Journal. Nov. 23, 1965.
14.  “Council Mulls Gun Law-And Then Compromises." Nevada State Journal. p.. 17 Nob. 24, 1965.”
15. "Chief Backs Gun-Toter Crackdown." Nevada State Journal. Nov. 11, 1965.
16. Kauth, Robert. "Gun Crackdown Comes Under Fire." Nevada State Journal. Nov. 16, 1965.
17. "Council Mulls Gun Law-And Then Compromises." Nevada State Journal. p.. 17 Nob. 24, 1965.
18. Kauth, Robert. "Gun Crackdown Comes Under Fire." Nevada State Journal. Nov. 16, 1965.
19. "Chief Backs Gun-Toter Crackdown." Nevada State Journal. Nov. 11, 1965.
20. "Reno Ok's Loaded Gun Ban." Reno Evening Gazette. Nov. 22, 1965. p. 1
21. Defending His 'Castle'. Reno Evening Gazette. Sept. 12, 1930.
22. "Reno women reminded of law." Reno Gazette-Journal. March 10, 1976.
23. "Women barred from carrying mace in purse." Reno Evening Gazette. Feb. 4, 1971. p. 2
24. McMillan, Doug. "Firearms ordinance creates furor in Mineral County." Reno Gazette-Journal. Nov. 24, 1984. p. 23
25. 9.76.10 and 9.76.020 Mineral County Code
26. Compiled Legislative History, AB 147 (1989)

Washoe County Still Violates State Preemption

As every Nevadan knows, Las Vegas and Clark County often steal the show in our state. As a result, sometimes things fall through the cracks, such as Washoe County firearm ordinances preempted by state law. Several ordinances that were required to be repealed in 2015 still remain.

As you are aware, NRS 244.364 prohibits counties from creating firearm regulations, except regulating unsafe discharge of firearms, and requires the repeal of any prohibited ordinances or regulations. Enhanced preemption passed in 2015 mainly to eradicate the anachronistic Clark County blue card handgun registration system and to invalidate local ordinances that conflicted with state law. Overwhelmingly, Clark County municipalities and agencies compiled by repealing the illegal ordinances and regulations, with the notable exception of the incorrigible Las Vegas Clark County Library District.

Washoe County still has several firearm regulation ordinances not pertaining to the unsafe discharge of firearms on the books, including a ban on possessing firearms in parks and a concealed weapon ordinance that was superseded by state law in 1995. An area resident brought the park ordinance to our attention and an investigation turned up the following ordinances inconsistent with state law.

• Ordinance 95.220 prohibits possession of firearms in parks.
• Ordinances 50.075 to 50.083 inclusive, regarding concealed weapons permits, has been superseded by state law since 1995.
• Ordinances 50.160, 50.162, and 50.164, regarding spotlight hunting, are not given an exemption and duplicate a provision of NRS 503.150 (hunting regulations).

The parks superintendent, Colleen Wallace Barnum, replied to the citizen that the District Attorney’s office informed her that such ordinances were grandfathered in, as they were enacted in 1979. This is not the case. Either someone is stupid or thinks the public is. Enhanced preemption invalidated all conflicting ordinances. Grandfathered ordinances were specifically eliminated by 2015’s SB 175/240. The Attorney General’s opinion in regards to the Clark County park ordinance has been invalidated by the legislature. For more information on preemption and the parks issues down south, please visit the Local Laws page on the main site.

The Washoe citizen who notified us has asked the county commissioners for repeal of the ordinances. We have also sent an email informing them of the issue. Residents of Washoe County would be well-advised to contact their commissioners on their own to request repeal.

Commissioners’ contact info can be found on their profile pages.

Though enforcement does not seem to be an issue, the repeal is required by state law and laws inconsistent with preeminent state laws have no place on the books.

Additionally, the Washoe County Shooting Range, a park facility, prohibits holstered firearms (carry as well as holster draws) except for law enforcement. Many ranges ban drawing and firing from holsters or require the rangemaster or safety officer to certify someone first. In and of itself, it is not an altogether bad regulation. What is inappropriate is extending distrust so far as to prohibit non-firing holstered handguns, effectively banning open carry.

Such a ban is dubiously legal as there is an exemption for shooting range regulations, but it should not extend any further than drawing and firing from the holster. Target practice can be separated from arriving and leaving the range. The concern is an inexperienced or careless shooter touching the trigger during the draw, but two permitted interactions (drawing at the beginning of the session and replacing at the end) is not statistically likely to result in a negligent discharge. Banning a holstered weapon entirely, especially one that never leaves the holster, is asinine and insulting to the firearm community.

Reno and Carson City are plastered with as many bad “no gun” signs as Clark County. Just because the issues are not as high-profile in your community as they are elsewhere in the state, the issues are there. We cannot stop telling government that it is wrong and seeking redress. In a nation under the rule of law, our laws must be fair and consistent.

If you have not yet done so, join our Facebook discussion group and stay abreast of the issues.

Trump's Henderson Visit and Presidential Gun Free Zones

Presidential candidate Donald Trump is visiting the Henderson Pavilion on Wednesday, October 5 at 11:30 AM (be aware traffic will be nasty if you are near there then). In an open carry friendly state with strict state preemption of local gun laws, this begs the questions; how can guns be kept out.

Honestly, I don't know if the Henderson Pavilion is posted to prohibit concealed carry under NRS 202.3673. Open carry is legal there, regardless, as Henderson does not (and cannot) prohibit it due to state preemption. So how does the Secret Service and police keep some liberal whackjob, mental case, or a terrorist from exploiting our gun laws to assassinate the candidate or other official?

The answer is 18 USC 1752, which is rather broad, but provides admittedly discretionary authority to the Secret Service to protect the event. It  is basically a catch-all section, but surely it's what would be cited should someone insist on carrying anyway and inevitably causing a scene.

Should gun owners try and test the waters? We think not. No need to get on the Secret Service's radar or get proned out to make a point. Just not worth the trouble and you aren't accomplishing anything. Rather, a gentleman's agreement by both sides not to carry and not to go out of the way to harass either side is far. Inside a secure zone, you're about as safe as you're going to get in America, especially with the actual president, not just a candidate, around. Be cool, just don't do it and we can look the other way for maybe this, and only this, kind of thing. Citizens can be a lot more magnanimous towards our government than government can be towards us.

Of course, what kind of activists would we be if we didn't point out the obvious disparity between the protections received by politicians and candidates and the hoi pilloi? On an absolutest platform should you be able to carry around the president? Yes, but it's not worth the trouble to fight it when actually presidential security is probably the one arena where history tells us that such precautions might actually be warranted. We don't have to like it, but then again we certainly don't like people killing our leaders, whether they're popular or not.

Don't carry, don't stage an open carry protest. Just think of November and the Supreme Court, and if you're outside, watch out for the liberals who might try to attack you. Be more worried about places that try to illegally disarm you when there isn't even a single cop around.

Open Carry Harassment at Clark County Fair

A Las Vegas woman was illegally removed from the Clark County Fair and Rodeo for openly carrying her handgun peacefully. A security guard first approached her and told her that the fairgrounds were “private property.” She reported that she was approached by two LVMPD officers who escorted her to vehicle. The officers told her the fair was a “private event” and that she could not have a firearm there. When she attempted to explain the state preemption ordinances which protected her right to bear arms, she said “I got was the ‘deer in headlights’ look.”

Irony of ironies, this all happened during the live cowboy re-enactment featuring blank pistol and shotgun shots. A security guard also attempted to stand in front of another citizen videotaping the encounter, apparently colluding with the illegal acts. One guard jokingly commented that the footage could be sold on Fox News. She was told by the guards: "this 'private company' [presumably CC Fair Inc.] had a no open carry law and then quickly corrected himself and said policy. Them he said that this 'private company' leased the land from the county which somehow automatically made the fair a 'private property." 

As readers are aware, state law prohibits local authorities from regulating firearms, except for unsafe discharge. Additionally, state law only prohibits concealed firearms in public buildings where posted or metal detectors are present at each public entrance (NRS 202.3673). The Clark County Fairgrounds are owned and operated by Clark County Parks and Recreation. The Fair itself is operated by a non-profit corporation, Clark County Fair Inc.

Additionally, a non-profit corporation created to operate a county fair on public fairgrounds only barely meets the definition of a private event. Non-profit corporations are usually used for events of this type as a way to insulate the county from any liability or responsibility from actually operating the event. Clark County Fair Inc. was founded by volunteers. The most solid date for establishment is in 2011. Before that, we have been unable to conclusively determine who operated the fair. CC Fair Inc. it was reported in 2009 that it receives approximately $25,00 t0 $75,000 in grants from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (a local government entity). It appears that CC Fair Inc. operates the fair on an unofficial basis for the county.

It would not be inappropriate for a private event operator to choose to exclude persons from their event. However, it is illegal for local authorities, as a condition of using public facilities, to prohibit firearms at an event. It would also be illegal for police officers, on only their own initiative, to prohibit and eject lawfully armed citizens. Based on the county approved rules and state law, it is hard to see how a citizen could be legally prevented from openly carrying a firearm.

The fair rules and regulations do not prohibit firearms and there is no mention in the agreement with the county, or the vendor handbook, as approved by the board of commissioners, to allow exclusion of fair patrons for bearing arms. It is interesting how government officials find it permissible to take punitive actions against citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights, but they would never consider interfering with anyone peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

It is curious why LVMPD officers are not aware of the changes to state law that protected this armed citizen’s behavior. Park police even specifically acknowledged the applicability of state preemption laws to parks. This event is just one of several in recent months where LVMPD acted illegally because of the officers ignorance of state law. Thankfully, this even did not result in an illegal arrest.

Guns Hot Topic at Fernley City Council Meeting

At a standing-room only meeting, the Nov. 18th Fernley City Council tackled both gun-free zones and proposed changes to the unsafe discharge of firearms ordinance. Proposals ranged to a public shooting range to help recreation shooters to a council recommendation to prohibit any emergency measures to confiscate firearms. Sheriff’s Commander Rob Hall spoke explaining the proposed changes to the unsafe discharge ordinances. The issues with the ordinance are best discussed in this Reno Gazette-Journal article.

A furor erupted online, fueled by rumors, that Nevada Carry helped quash by reaching out to Councilman Cal Eilrich. Citizens were concerned with the brief description of the Councilman’s agenda item, wishing that more information was included, apparently afraid of the city moving to ban guns. “The very first thing that agitated people was ‘gun-free’,” one speaker said. Eilrich brought up the item in light of the Islamic terror attacks in Paris. 

It is important to note that citizens can legally open carry in posted 'no guns' public buildings.

Eilrich’s Proposal 

I believe that any entity that is going to declare a Gun-Free Zone, should also take the responsibility of providing adequate security for those who they are forcing to disarm, which in affect [sic] causes them to surrender their own personal means of self-defense.
 Type One Facility: A governmental or private publicly accessible facility where members of the public have no alternative but to enter for critical services, such as but not limited to governmental services, health and welfare services, emergency medical, or participation in governmental meetings, like this meeting, of which all citizens are entitled to attend.
 Type Two Facility: A private facility wherein, customers do have a viable alternative to receive similar services.
 There are two types of public facilities:Proposal: A city of Fernley Ordinance that would require the following:
Type One Facility: For a Type One Facility to post “Gun Free Zone” or “Weapons Prohibited” signs, the management of that facility must have in place, a written and implemented security plan complete with trained-armed security officers, either uniformed or preferably undercover. There shall be a minimum of one such security officer for the first 1 to 100 occupants of the facility, plus a minimum of one such security officer for each 100 occupants after the first 100. Special events or meetings are not required to provide additional temporary security officers, if Occupant numbers exceed normal operations.
 Type Two Facilities: For a Type Two Facility to post “Gun Free Zones” or “Weapons Prohibited” signs, the management of that facility must have in place, a written and implemented security plan complete with trained-armed security officers, either uniformed or preferably under cover. There shall be a minimum of one such security officer for the first 1 to 100 occupants of the facility, plus a minimum of one such security officer for each 100 occupants after the first 100. Special events or meetings are not required to provide additional temporary security officers, if Occupant numbers exceed normal operations.
 If such security measures are not planned and provided for, then the private facility must also post a notice directly beneath, and the same size, a sign that states “No Armed Security On-Site. 

Such a proposal regarding private businesses would likely be technically afoul of NRS 268.418, which prohibits any local regulations except for unsafe discharge ordinances. Eilrich’s ideas may set the stage for internal city policy. It is interesting to note that no state statute authorizes local authorities to post ‘no guns’ signs, however, they can authorize internal policies. Section 8(c) states: 

“This section must not be construed to prevent: A public employer from regulating or prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition during or in the course of an employee’s official duties.” 

The city could hire armed security guards or authorize staff members to act in that capacity. Even so, citizens should be permitted to protect themselves, with firearms, virtually everywhere, security guards present or not. State law should be amended to allow for concealed carry and open carry in public buildings. No place is inherently safe from violence.

The only public buildings with levels of security high enough to appropriately counter violence and special security considerations regarding firearms are courthouses, mental institutions, and jails/prisons. Of course, citizens have every right to openly carry a firearm in a courthouse, but security there would likely have a conniption fit if someone tried (and they have). The solution is to lock it in the car.

Even then, the concern still exists about safety getting to and from the facility. Take the Regional Justice Center. Prospective jurors are instructed to park several blocks away at the Fremont Street public garage. Should citizens be forced to walk disarmed in downtown Las Vegas simply because they are performing a public duty like jury duty or attending other judicial matters? Of course not. In Utah, secure storage at courthouses for the use of armed citizens is mandatory.

Councilman Eilrich should be commended for his commitment to steps that would actually keep people safe instead of security theatrics that only creates unarmed victims. Other Nevada public entities should be so responsive. Ideally, the city of Fernley should simply remove its 'no guns' signs and allow open or concealed carry in public buildings, like the rest of the state. 

Open Carriers Speak to Library Trustees

Weathered sign at the W. Charleston Library

About a dozen supports of open carry showed up to the Las Vegas- Clark County Library District board of trustees meeting on Thursday night. The library district has repeatedly and with no legal basis removed patrons legally openly carrying firearms. Six speakers, including Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton, spoke out against the district’s violation of state law protecting  the legal open carry of firearms in the library.

Early arrivals reported seeing four LVMPD officers in the lobby who departed before the meeting began. A large number of library staff, including an unarmed security guard, were greeting attendees, pointedly asking at least one citizen if he was at the meeting “for open carry.” No one was armed at the meeting, which took place at the West Charleston Library.

At first glance, a firearm in a library would seem to be out of place. Among the tall, quiet stacks, violence seldom lurks. Most Americans picture a library as a sacred place of thought and firearms as having a place only on a shooting range. Many citizens choose not to disarm simply because they are entering a library, seeing nothing inherently safe in the usually serene setting. A library may be a statistically safe place, but the streets on the way to the library can be quite violent, which is why most who openly carry in the library carry to begin with.  

‘Gun free’ zones are not havens from violence, as countless school shootings have shown. Disarming citizens who might otherwise protect themselves is not an answer to deranged mass murderers. Nearly every public, mass shooting since 1950 has occurred in a ‘gun free’ zone.

Openly carried firearms, once the mainstay of citizens armed for self-defense, have been making a comeback recently, growing in popularity almost as much as shall-issue concealed firearm permits. Citizens who carry firearms for self-defense do not wantonly unholster their firearms nor leave them lying around in public. There have been no reported accidental discharges of firearms in a library.

In fact, the only ‘incident’ of a firearm causing disruption in a local library was in April, when a man was falsely reported by a juvenile to have a gun at a polling place at the Green Valley Library. Details are sparse, but the man was found to be unarmed and there was no report of any suspicious or dangerous activity. It is believed to have been a hoax 911 call.

The district has shown itself recently to be no friend of the Second Amendment in the on-going saga to get them to stop harassing legally armed citizens in their libraries. What most don't know is that the library district has been actively banning open carry for the better part of this decade. Numerous incidents have occurred, many involving the threat of a trespassing arrest, over the years. Library staff have continually stonewalled requests to comply with state law.

Openly carried firearms not illegal

Openly carried firearms (generally in belt holsters) are not prohibited by law in public buildings. State law (NRS 202.3673) specifically prohibits only concealed firearms in public buildings. An opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau in this year’s legislative session confirmed this fact. Legislators took no action to ban openly carried firearms in public buildings.

Interestingly, the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District prohibits only concealed firearms in all its facilities without distinction, as per its Rules of Conduct: “Firearms are prohibited as outlined in NRS 202.3673.” That section specifically prohibits only concealed firearms when signs or metal detectors are present at each public entrance.

Librarians are known for being dedicated to freedom of speech who want to protect the free exchange of ideals. Their concern is that some patrons may feel a firearm to be intimidating and thus cause some to avoid the library. The library district has cited their duty to keep the library “free and accessible” to the public as the reason they choose to ban legally carried firearms, despite any reports of anyone being intimidated by an open carrier.

Library administration has cited NRS 379.040, stating that the library has the authority to make reasonable regulations. It also requires that a “library must forever be and remain free and accessible to the public […].” Denying access to a library based solely upon the fact a patron is legally openly carrying a firearm violates the law. Perversely, the district has quoted the second clause, “reasonable regulations [etc.],” to justify their ban and to deny free access to the library to those legally carrying firearms.

Also, the administration seems to be making its own rules, claiming NRS 379.040 gives them the power to make such a prohibition. The power to make regulations belongs solely to the board of trustees and not an employee. Again, there is no such district rule prohibiting openly carried firearms, though the unlawful practices would be in violation of state preemption.

Preemption

State preemption of local firearm laws explicitly prohibits the district’s behavior. Vernon Brooks, a speaker at the meeting, said: “I don’t think the legislature could be more clear.” Having uniform gun laws statewide avoids a confusing patchwork that could potentially trap an otherwise law abiding citizen unintentionally. In fact, state law had to be amended to avoid such a trap Clark County had made.

The legislature made its intent to invalidate any local regulation of firearms, except unsafe discharge of firearms, and reserve all right of firearm regulation to itself. In no way can any local government body make any rule or ordinance prohibiting carry of firearms. All such laws, rules, and regulations were declared to be null and void. 

NRS 244.364 (in part)
(a) The purpose of this section is to establish state control over the regulation of and policies concerning firearms [...] to ensure that such regulation and policies are uniform throughout this State and to ensure the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, which is recognized by the United States Constitution and the Nevada Constitution.
(b) The regulation of the [...] possession, carrying [...] 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.
(c) This section must be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. 

In June, Gov. Sandoval signed SB 175 and SB 240, which created the above section. This was also the law that struck down Clark County handgun registration ‘blue cards’. All local municipalities were required to repeal all local firearm laws (except unsafe discharge ordinances) and all have done so, except Clark County, whose commissioners belatedly repeated it after the October 1^st deadline on October 20^th.

Penalties in the twin senate bills created stiff civil penalties for violation and allow for up to treble damages for violation of state preemption laws.

Other Libraries

The only known Nevada library that actively enforces this policy is the Las Vegas-Clark County district. In 2014, the Henderson Library District board of trustees addressed the same matter. This was brought about because of an incident the editor of Nevada Carry was personally involved in. 

“The admin team and branch managers met with the library district’s attorney Brin Gibson about the open carry issue. The law allows for a person to openly carry a firearm [holstered] in the library, but it is against the law to carry a concealed weapon [even with a permit] in the library. (source) 

Speakers

The open carry supporters in attendance were very diverse, including mothers, fathers, and members of diverse ethnic communities. While under Nevada’s open meeting law prohibits the board from discussing topics presented in the open public comments period, six speakers addressed the board in support, none in dissent.

When speaker Vernon Brooks started off the public statements, many of the board members appeared annoyed at the mention of firearms. Many trustees adopted defensive postures and their demeanors varied from annoyed to openly hostile. Trustee Keiba Crear looked bored while Trustee Moulton appeared sour, as if her patience was being tested.

Trustee Sheila Moulton, when a trustee of the Clark County School District, supported gun-free zones and was against arming and training teachers to protect students.

"I’m not for putting guns in the classroom even when teachers are trained on how to use them,” she said in 2012.

Tony Shelton, husband and policy director of Assemblywoman Shelton, said that the West Charleston library was special to him because the particular library branch was one where he brought his daughter since she was a toddler. 

“I can understand how those who are not used to seeing private citizens armed for the protection of their own families and other can be initially uncomfortable with that idea. The answer to that is education.; which is what libraries are all about. The fact is that we have over 300 million people in this country with all the senseless and premeditated murders over the decades not a single one can be attributed to a law-abiding open carrier.

 “The fear is unfounded, and to give you an idea of the way it is unfounded, the way it looked out here with the extra police officers here, you guys expected Rambo to come in. The fact is some of these people here tonight are former military, former law enforcement, former police, former security, or even just responsible mothers and fathers. Many of them have openly carried firearms for years, from sunrise to sunset, without incident or interruption.

 “American’s have the God-given right to carry firearms for their safety and others around them. They should be admired qualities rather than be demonized. Second, fear cannot override the law. […] We are all bound by the same laws.”

Following up was Assemblywoman Shelton herself, a co-sponsor of the state firearm preemption bills (SB 172 and SB 240). 

“I have been receiving emails and phone calls from the very situations they have been talking about there have been people who have been open carrying in the libraries and they have been asked to leave. And when they try to educate the employees that they have the right to open carry in the library they’re threatened with arrest […]"

She asked the board to put the issue on their agenda. “But it doesn’t take that, it just takes you guys sending out a memo.”

Debra, a homeschooling mother, said it was important for homeschooling to come to the library. “Teaching our kids to protect themselves and having open carry is really, really important to us. I just want you to do what is right by us so that we can continue coming to the libraries to teach children.”

Final supporting speaker Jessica felt that parents should not be forced between reading with their children or protecting them. 

“I came for support, especially for the women that open carry. A lot of us are mothers that have children who come to the library for the resources here. A lot of us want to be able to protect our families. We never know where crime is going to happen. We just want the opportunity to protect ourselves and our children.” 

The seventh speaker of the night, Adelaide Chen, Data Editor from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, spoke on a completely different topic that incidentally touched on the same problem an open carry activist had when requesting public records.

Chen was advising the trustees of the district’s non-compliance with the Nevada Open Records Act, as the district refused to release which location branch employees worked at as part of research into public salaries. District spokeswoman Karen Bramwell-Thomas cited the information could not be released due to “safety concerns” despite the Clark County School District releasing the work location of its employees. State law does not protect the work location of employees from public record requests.

Chen said she has never had this kind of problem before. Bramwell-Thomas has created difficulty for open carry supporters attempting to request public records.

Lawsuits?

Many open carry supporters have stated that if the library continues to attempt to illegally eject them or has them arrested and trespassed, they will file suit. Unfortunately, the library district seems eager to be a willing defendant.

In a private conversation recounted on Facebook, a citizen reported a conversation with district counsel, Gerald Welt, wherein Mr. Welt stated he was aware of the state preemption law, but open carriers would still be kicked out and he expected the district to be sued. If these allegations are true, they are totally irresponsible. Taxpayers should not be forced to bear the burden of government officials’ malfeasance.

Mr. Shelton said: “I was in her office [Assemblywoman Shelton] when your representative came in [to the assemblywoman’s office] to ask for more funding for the library. I don’t remember excess of funds being available to deal with lawsuits that could potentially come […].”

The District, at this board’s direction, could easily remedy this situation by ordering staff to abide by state law. Staff could be properly educated with little more than a memo, thus avoiding frivolous expenditure of taxpayer dollars. In Michigan, which has firearm preemption laws similar to Nevada, an appeals court found in favor of open carriers after a local library district improperly tried to exclude citizens legally openly carrying firearms.

Note: The editor was a speaker at the board of trustees meeting. Editor can be reached for comment at nevadacarry@gmail.com