"Concealed Carry Training is BS"

Opinions on the Internet, oil, 1775

On our Facebook discussion group, one particularly inarticulate fellow opined that the standard, eight hour concealed firearm permit course is “bullshit.” He criticized “cheap” courses, being a student of one himself, and spurned the idea that the courses were not to his idea of practicality. He also doesn’t like “stupid people” (who does?) and poor people that don’t yet own their own gun. The poster displayed a total lack of understanding what the class is intended to be.

First, the content of the training is mandated by the state, specifically delegated to a consensus of the certifying authorities, the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, a private organization of all the sheriffs and police chiefs in Nevada. The syllabus is not bad. It is an excellent introductory class on owning, shooting, and carrying pistols and a good refresher to those who know guns, but not much about carrying them.

Concealed weapon permit classes are aimed at the lowest common denominator. The class itself is nothing more than an act of responsibility by the government to make sure that those “stupid people” have had a brush with knowledge. It’s a giant disclaimer so the powers that be can say: “We gave you an opportunity to know better than to shoot someone armed only with a bad attitude.” It is a final check upon unbridled ignorance and stupidity for some, for others a  certification of redundant knowledge, and for most the first taste and start of a hunger for more training.

Concealed weapon laws were originally intended to prevent the carrying of guns at all, ostensibly to reduce the amount of violence. Early permits were merely free passes for politically connected. The system was abused in both directions; so loose that the law might as well not exist, or so tight that no one, no matter how qualified, could legally carry. The right to armed self-defense was often ignored. Open carry was legal, yet carrying a gun had been so badly stigmatized that few took the trouble to carry openly.

When “shall issue” came into effect, states couldn’t imagine just letting people carry guns without some sort of training. In the popular imagination, safely carrying a gun was something that people had forgotten, and the “aftermarket” training community that exists today didn’t exist then. While many might seek out training on their own, many people wouldn’t and given the supposed unfamiliarity with handguns, having no training requirement seemed risky.

Nevada’s legislature in 1995 probably meant well; many truly derived benefit from the required training. However, without it being mandatory, far too many for Carson City’s taste would never have gotten any training. With handgun ownership and carry much less popular than it was today, the idea of relying on the people’s better judgment seemed anathema, so a very basic failsafe was added in the form of the training we all know today.

Many compare the CCW class to Drivers’ Ed, which is practically of the same basic, introductory quality. Like Drivers’ Ed the CCW course predicates itself on expecting that the shooter either has had firearms training/practice before or will continue to train or shoot more. Remember all those hours with Mom or Dad beside you stomping on an invisible brake pedal? It is practice, not theory, that makes a driver and shooter.

I argue that we take driving far less seriously than carrying a gun. Guns, for the vast majority of the population, including most criminals, are weapons of last resort. Perhaps that is why only a miniscule fraction of defensive gun uses result in a shot fired; most are a simply display of the gun. In that sense, training to “draw from a concealment garment and shoot” is overrated. Though the conservative estimate is 100,000 such defensive uses each year, we rarely hear about them.

Despite the idiocy of what we see on the roads during even a fifteen minute trip, we don’t hear about the massive numbers of traffic citations and accidents that happen every day. By comparison, gun accidents are so few that they are notable and are reported on, often leading to the impression that they are more common than they really are. Behind the wheel, we casually talk, text, and generally allow ourselves to be reckless and distracted. No sensible gun owner looks at their phone while sending lead downrange.

Even with the dangers of texting while driving or buzzed driving well understood, we still do it. Some are far worse violators than others, but we don’t require every sixteen year old to take a police academy driving course.

There is no amount of training that can teach someone not to be stupid. In light of three prominent cases of licensed concealed carriers making major mistakes this past year (a homicide, an assault, and an assault/suicide), the training didn’t matter a tinker’s damn. Both of those are extremes, but nothing is foolproof. No class can teach self-control and discipline.

Training like an operator is not required for the vast majority of citizens who don’t want to become a felon for putting a pistol in their pocket or purse. Many armed citizens who use their guns do just fine without super fancy training and it does not put them in the “I know it when I see it” subjective-objective category of “stupid” people. If we made it mandatory to get top tier training, the “stupid” people would simply carry like they did before shall-issue: illegally and dangerously.

Our crass critic opined that it should be “100 hours or more of life situations and drawing and firing from concealment and common sense classes.” He was “pissed off” that some people borrowed guns to go to the class. Wow! Guess the DMV should ban teenagers from showing up in Mom’s Volvo. Such an elitist and disdainful attitude is disgusting and is a major problem in the firearms community and many other hobbies. And you couldn’t forcibly shove common sense into some people if you had the latest alien implant technologies.

Most of the criticism on “free” courses or those who just take basic training is that the person is dangerously underqualified to carry. In that case, it’s more likely the person and not the training that’s to blame. Until the latter half of the 20^th Century, no training courses were required for pistol ownership or carry. Far too much negative judgment is made on those who cannot afford expensive, high-quality combat courses. Sorry, poor people have a right to protect themselves too.

There are those who have no choice but to seek out the cheapest or free class because they are poor. Hi-Points exist because even poor people have a right to armed self-defense. A woman who wants to defend herself safely and legally, but can barely afford the application fees right now, let alone a gun, might very well need to borrow/rent a gun, saving up during the 120 days until Metro approves her permit. Others might just be taking the class for the knowledge and don’t even own a gun. Rights should not be abrogated by arbitrary regulation or by excessive cost.

Many of us here would prefer it if every gun owner got adequate training, or even just the basics. In a perfect world, government could mandate such training without it becoming, either by accident or design, an obstacle to armed self-defense. Proponents of constitutional carry support no obstacles like permits and training, not because they don’t care about gun safety or education, but because they know governments will muck things up so badly many won’t even bother. California and New York are examples that requirements will be abused or so difficult to comply with that many give up without even trying.

Anything that limits the ability of an individual to protect themselves—to own and carry a gun—is dangerous. Waiting periods and concealed weapon permits are nothing more than obstacles to the law abiding. Concealed weapon permits do nothing to disarm the criminal, instead they provide a reason for arrest should a cop encounter an armed bad guy. For the rest of us, we will risk our safety to preserve our freedom; we will not carry where it is prohibited, even if that puts us at risk of becoming victims of criminal violence.

For the very reason of government abuse of authority, no training should be mandatory. That would also immediately eliminate one of the criticisms of the original poster who derided “cheap” and free courses. Without a mandatory requirement, many of the low-quality promotional classes would disappear when the cheap students stopped coming. No one would pay a crappy instructor for crappy training that they didn’t need. Capitalistic market forces would take over; quality trainers would attract quality students and training would rapidly shift away from a “check the box” mentality. Money wasted on perfunctory classes would be spent getting those advanced techniques.

Ideally, the basic gun safety courses would be a free service of the gun community or part of public education, obviating the need for a mandatory class. Now in our present reality, not everyone is like the “gun nut” who easts, sleeps, and breathes guns. Training is expensive; heck, I can’t afford to train as much as I’d like. But I am intelligent and can read/watch techniques to practice on my own and I get more training when I can. The value of training on the student’s end comes down to their own interest.

Many of the folks who just get the basic training do just fine; they have sense enough not to shoot stupidly or try to be a hero. Studies have shown that often gun owners really do search for training, if not required, or more training than is required. A lot of us find it interesting and fun. In the cases of poor folks, a sensible student overcomes their disability, that is a financial one, by looking for alternate sources of training. They go online and read websites like this or watch YouTube videos.

This is where a quality instructor comes in. An instructor who is good at his or her job and who is a good teacher will make those eight hours of basic drudgery into something fascinating and engaging. They will work in concepts, if not actual practice, of the reality of carrying daily. Good instructors don’t sell additional courses, they show and convince their classes the need for more and continuous training. Skeptics who may just be attending to get their permission slip have found themselves in the camp of wanting to know more. Good instructors are like that teacher in high school who made you care about X subject and made your life-long passion blossom.

Where the truth to the critic’s words lies are within the heart of the person that takes a cheap course just for the certification and takes nothing from it. A poor instructor who fails to engage that person then becomes complicit in teaching a bad class. We’ve heard the tales of this or that gun store’s class or saw the incompetent instructor on YouTube. Plenty of instructors will abbreviate classes, ignore dangerous shooters, or just forgo instruction altogether. Yet again, it takes a bad instructor and a bad student to make a bad class.

There are good cheap or free classes, but those are far and few in between. They are flukes. Many who take cheap or free classes are cheating themselves out of vital knowledge because in cutting financial corners, they don’t vet the instructor to see if the course itself is “cheap.” You can find great free courses (I did), but chances are, if you care more about saving a buck than what you will learn, even the best instruction would be wasted on you. So the critic should be complaining not about the courses per se, but the individual who doesn’t care what they learn.

Training has real value and quality training ever so much more. Forget about the cost; it’s the instructor’s reputation that matters. The student must also be willing to put in the intellectual effort to learn and learn effectively. Like insurance, get the best training you can find and get the most of it as you can afford. Continually seek self-improvement and the instructors that push knowledge, not a cheap, convenient, or gimmicky class.

And for heaven’s sake, stop judging the Great Unwashed who didn’t spend two full weeks with an ex-Navy SEAL learning how to stop the next mass shooting using only silver bullets from your Cabot custom 1911 made with real unicorn dust and grips made with wood from the True Cross. And if you are going to bitch about a cheap class, don’t admit to us that you took a cheap class yourself. Sheesh.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, Written by Idiots?

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (HR 38) is a terribly written law; like kindergartner with a crayon bad.

One can only reasonably assume that whoever drafted it was trying to end-run highly restrictive and no-issue states by sneaking in language that quite arguably could be understood to allow residents of a state like California to carry in California on a non-resident CCW. In one fell, Congressional stroke, the anti-2A state concealed carry bans fall down. While a Supreme Court in on the plan might wink, nod, and go along with the plain interpretation of the law, the Court we do have would probably interpret legislative intent to treat CCWs like driver licenses, if they upheld it at all.

There is language that is supposed to prevent non-residents from being harassed by local police, but instead of being reasonable, it could be construed to prohibit all but a few selective regulations. These objections are discussed in this post.

HR 38 is the wrong approach. Congress can do two things: 1, regulate how states treat the citizens of other states, and 2, enforce laws to prevent civil rights violations. The Constitution requires that every state treat residents and non-residents alike (insofar as its actually possible). Self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.

Congress cannot invalidate state laws by saying that under Federal law, it's okay, according to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which HR 38 is claiming is its ability to make this law.

The Commerce Clause is to regulate interstate commerce, basically to keep states from doing stupid things like banning out-of-state truckers so in-state trucking companies can have a monopoly. States would go to war with each other if California required a Texas truck driver to drop his trailer in Truckee or Primm so some guy from Bakersfield could haul it.

Take driver license reciprocity as an example. Imagine some states issue licenses, some don't, and some only issue them to billionaires' chauffeurs and only a handful of states consider your out-of-state license as valid—sorta like CCWs are.

You can take a road trip across the county, but only if you detour around New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and visit the Pacific Ocean in Oregon instead of California. Kinda hurts tourism if you do that, right? Especially if Montana won't recognize your Florida license because they don't have some sort of test question about driving in the snow.

Instead of Congress saying "Every state will recognize as valid any non-resident's driver license," Congress says "You can drive in any state as long as you have a driver license from any state." In the latter approach, it's still illegal to drive in The Pedestrian State, but Congress is saying you can.

What happens is that The Pedestrian State doesn't care, you get arrested, your car towed, and you have to fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Just like Mom saying "no," Dad saying "yes," and you getting spanked by Mom anyway because Grandma and Grandpa won't hear your appeal.

Sure, the Senate could pass the law, Trump could sign it, and it could work out, with or without a lot of lawsuits. In that case, it would be Congress simply saying "We have the power to do this and so we're going to do it." Power is a dangerous way to accomplish things and unconstitutional. It's a bully's tactic.

Now I don't have a problem with Congress telling the anti-gun states to pound sand, but they need to do it in a constitutional manner. Congress has the ability to correct civil rights violations like denial of the right to bear arms and it’s time that they treat the RKBA as a civil right.

Congress should use its power under the 14^th Amendment to stop states from infringing on the 2^nd Amendment. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the ability to pass legislation to enforce the provisions of the amendment, namely from Section 1: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Congress needs to recognize that self-defense is essential to protect “life, liberty, and property” and that denying non-residents from carrying legally, as well as practically no-issue policies disarming citizens in the state, that states like CA, HI, NJ, and NY need to be treated like ex-slave states in the late 1860s. Such an approach has a much better chance of withstanding judicial scrutiny.

So whoever wrote the text of the CCRA, you suck and you are stupid. A new bill needs written, which I will include, fresh from my brain, that makes the following changes: 

• Forces states to recognize non-resident CCWs like out-of-state drive licenses;
• Does not preempt local laws;
• Adds “our state, our rules” concealed carry language;
• Removes all carry prohibitions from federal recreation areas (like the Red Rock loaded gun ban); and
• Exempts open carry, where legal, from the Gun Free School Zones Act. 

The language I wrote refers to the 2^nd and 14^th Amendment which gives Congress all the authority it needs. For nervous Congress critters, I put in “handgun” instead of “firearm,” which conjures in the minds of morons someone hiding an AK under his trench coat. Likewise, I’ve struck out concealed where it can be dropped to refer to open or concealed carry, as it should be your choice how to carry.

Anyhow, here’s to the off-chance someone with pull in The Gun Lobby™ or Congress sees this.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Improved Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”.

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY

Whereas the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Many States deny the ability of non-residents to legally carry a handgun; and

Congress, having the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by this Constitution, provides a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

(a)        Every State, that has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, shall not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms by residents of other States by:

(1)   Considering as valid any license or permit issued by a State that permits by a person to carry a concealed handgun; or,
(2)   Not prohibiting any resident of a State having no statute under which residents may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun from carrying a concealed handgun.

(b)       Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a resident of a State to carry a handgun in the State in which he or she resides upon a license or permit issued by another State nor without a license or permit if such is required by the State in which he or she resides.

(c)        This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State regulate the place, time, or manner in which concealed handguns may be carried except every State, with respect to carrying of a concealed handgun, shall not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of other States and shall not deny to any person, who is not a resident of that State, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of any that regulates the carrying of a concealed handgun.

(1)   When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).
(2)   When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.
(3)   A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.
(4)   The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (3) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

(d)       Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 926A of title 18, United States Code, The Handguns Owners’ Protection Act.

(e)        A person carrying a handgun under the provisions of this section or openly in conformance with all State statutes or regulations shall be deemed to be in compliance with the exemption granted by Section 922(q)(B)(ii) of title 18, United States Code.

(f)        The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.
(1)   A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with this section shall:
A.    Carry a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person and issued by, or stating, the person’s State of residence; and,
B.     If a resident of a State that has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, carry a valid license or permit to carry a concealed handgun.
(2)   Presentation of a facially valid identification document containing a photograph and address of a person who is a resident of a State having no statute under which residents may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun is prima facie evidence that the individual shall be granted the privilege and immunity of subsection (a)(2) of this section.

(g)        A person possessing or carrying a loaded or unloaded handgun in a State may do so, if the possession of the handgun is in compliance with the law of the State, in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

(1)   A unit of the National Park System.
(2)   A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
(3)   Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
(4)   Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
(5)   Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
(6)   Land administered and managed by the Forest Service.

Are Guns Legal in Bags Attached to Bikes or Wheelchairs?

Just this week, I’ve seen questions come up about firearms in bags or containers on bikes and wheelchairs, so I thought I’d share my conclusions on the blog. Nevada law defines a concealed firearm as “a loaded or unloaded handgun which is carried in such a manner not to be discernible by ordinary observation,” NRS 202.3653. It is a felony to carry concealed upon your person a firearm, NRS 202.350(1)(d)(3).

Typically, this is understood to mean that you cannot hide a firearm beneath your clothing, unless it is partially exposed far enough to be able to easily identify it as a gun, or to carry a bag such as a purse with a gun in it. Backpacks over the shoulder or a carried container are included as well.

Carry is defined in the dictionary as “to move while supporting,” “to wear or have one’s person,”  or “to bear upon.” “The person” is defined to include the body and clothing. These all seem to imply that a gun attached to or held by a person is considered being carried. A purse is moved from place to place while suspended (supported) by a hand, while a backpack is supported by the straps around the shoulder. Wearing, bearing, or having on one’s person all imply holsters, belting a gun in, pocketing a gun, or somehow having it moved about by the stuff on your body.

The opinion of the attorney general states that: “It is our opinion that the language of NRS 202.350 would be narrowly construed to include only those concealed weapons which are actually on the person or in a container carried by the person.” A bike or wheelchair would be doing the “supporting”; both mechanical items incapable of wearing or bearing guns, (vicarious) contact with the body being required. 

"...the phrases 'concealed upon person,' 'upon his person,' and 'upon the person' have been interpreted to include weapons that are in contact with the individual or are being carried within a container by an individual." 

Let’s not get too technical, so let’s just say that the only way for the gun to move is by going where your body goes, because it’s somehow attached to you, be it by accessory, clothing, strap, or just fingers around a handle. So, if the item is not attached to your body, hanging from it, or being carried, it’s not illegally concealed. Thus, a gun in a pannier or saddlebag on your bike, horse, or motorcycle is not on your body and is not illegal.

The difference is rather specific to Nevada. Nevada law only requires the firearm to be upon your person to make it criminal. The opinion above comes from a question from the Clark County District Attorney about whether or not a concealed weapon is still illegally concealed if it is merely near a person, such as within arm’s reach. The question was: 

“A weapon carried on the person is obvious. The question gets more complicated with a weapon in a purse, briefcase, carry-on luggage and such when it is in fact carried by an individual. Place those containers on the floor next to the person. Put the same container in the passenger portion of a vehicle, the weapon in the glove box, console, under the seat?” 

Many other states prohibit such behavior that the DA asked about, reasoning that the weapon is still under the immediate control of the person and can be quickly accessed. They do this by specifying “on or about the person” or add similar qualifications. So, in Nevada a firearm in a purse on the seat next to a drive is not illegally concealed, while in Idaho it would be. In these “about” states, it is safe to assume that a saddlebag or backpack hanging from the rear of a wheelchair is “about the person” and is illegal. 

“…language such as 'concealed on or about person' or 'concealed on or about his person' has been interpreted to extend the proximity of the weapon necessary to constitute a violation of the statute... To violate a statute prohibiting carrying firearms 'concealed on or about the person,' the weapon must be actually concealed on the person or in such close proximity that it can be readily used as though on the person, without appreciable change in his position.” 

So, due to the unique wording of Nevada law, it is not illegal to have a gun in a bag or container on your wheelchair or bike (or motorcycle or Segway, for that matter). It’s not an oversight, it just makes life a little simpler for citizens who want to be able to defend themselves without paying for the privilege to exercise their right to put a handgun case on the floor of their car or tuck their revolver into their glovebox. Gangbangers on bikes don’t use panniers and people in wheelchairs typically don’t go around committing murders and robberies, so I think we’re just fine with the way our law is.

Caution: Police are not experts on the law and often do not have the same, detailed grasp of minutia that the average armed citizen does. They may not understand the difference, but it is highly likely any prosecuting attorney or judge would, so you’re probably on safe legal ground. However, I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, rather informed opinion. Don’t start screaming “The dude from Nevada Carry said it was okay!” if you meet one of Nevada’s crummiest.

It’s always best to politely explain the law and tell the officer where he can quickly find an answer (the other half of the reason for Nevada Carry’s raison d'être). Remember, the goal is to beat the ride and beat the rap. Getting a CCW is worth it for any eventualities and to avoid the $25 background check fee.

-GC

Concealed Carriers Admit to Breaking Gun Laws on TV

 

Two Reno-area concealed carriers, Justin and Domonique Bailey, recently admitted to My News 4 that they violated state law by illegally carrying concealed in a public building. Both claimed not to know it was illegal because they were not properly searched by security guards and only saw the "no guns" signs after they left the basketball game they were attending at the Reno Events Center, operated by the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority, a government entity. Banning concealed carry in public buildings is discretionary in Nevada.

The Baileys claim that they did not see the signs is not an excuse for their willful violation of state law. They either knew or should have known that concealed carry beyond the metal detector was illegal. Signs are a nice reminder in this case, but not required because the security screening and metal detectors are warning enough. Simple ignorance of the law (they never read the relevant section), or negligence to properly understand the law (didn't pay attention in CCW class), is irresponsible and inexcusable.

As self-admitted concealed firearm permittees, the Baileys were required to take an eight hour course which explained NRS 202.3673, which prohibits concealed carry where there is "a metal detector at each public entrance" or "no gun" signs. The fact that metal detectors are used for weapons scanning is meant to be a commonsense understanding that weapons are prohibited. Security isn't checking for contraband popcorn and candy.

As concealed firearm permittees, the Baileys have an obligation to know and follow the law. Just as gun rights activists and citizen carriers require that the government respect our rights, particularly that of open carry, every concealed carrier has duty to obey the law as well. My speculation is that they didn't fully understand the law and didn't make any effort to fully understand it. I get emails all the time asking simple questions that indicate either a failure to read the website or an absence of reading comprehension skills. Stupidity is not an excuse.

This incident occurred back in February, but a news interview by the head of ESI Security prompted the Baileys to come forward, as they told My News 4. Perhaps they were truly concerned about the lax security and unprofessional guards. Whatever the reason, the Baileys made two very stupid mistakes. Certainly, if they were able to lookup the CEO of the security company and contact him, the Baileys were competent enough to do their due diligence to double check the law to realize that they had indeed broken it before admitting to it on television.

Confessing to their violation of the law, a misdemeanor, within the statute of limitations is a very foolish idea. The Baileys exposed nothing but their own ignorance. If they took umbrage with the quality of ESI Security, there are other methods to raise their concerns. One wonders what would have happened had ESI discovered the firearms; perhaps Washoe County District Attorney Hicks or City Attorney  Hall would have secured a plea bargain by now.
  
As for NRS 202.3673 is concerned, the law is absurd. It seeks to disarm those who have been trained and vetted for the carry of firearms. Ironically, concealed carry in a prohibited public building by a non-licensee (someone carrying concealed illegally) is not a violation of this section. As a whole, concealed carriers are typically more law abiding and less violent than even police officers. Security screening is often just security theater, meant to deter the undetermined and provide an comforting illusion of security.

Banning licensed concealed carry in public buildings does not enhance safety. Criminals and terrorists remain undeterred, especially when coupled with ineffective security measures. Disarmed citizens then become easy prey for killers. Even if security is beefed up to make carry within the venue unnecessary, criminals can target persons on the surrounding streets and parking lots while terrorists can attack the security lines or congested areas outside, as we have seen recently in Manchester and in the Brussels airport attack.

NRS 202.3673 needs to be replaced by explicitly allowing open and concealed carry in public buildings, excepting places like courthouses and detention facilities with mandated lock-boxes at the entrances. No convention center, school, library, city hall, etc. is safe because law-abiding, trained, and vetted gun owners are disarmed inside.

As far as the Baileys, if they are so ignorant of the law that they are required to know, and dumb enough to admit to it on TV, do they deserve to have CCWs if they can't follow the terms? As much as I disdain the idea of a permit to exercise a constitutional right, perhaps a permit revocation and fine would make an example of the Baileys pour encourager les autres to know and follow the law. Again, if the gun community demands the government follow the law to the letter, than so must we, consequences included.

Know before you go. With instructors and a resource like NevadaCarry.org, there is absolutely no excuse for gun owners to be ignorant of the law. Unfortunately, far too many armed citizens exhibit a dearth of knowledge of our gun laws and an equal lack of interest in educating themselves and others. I have spent considerable time, effort, and money to educate Nevadans and I find it a shame that people take such a responsibility as carrying a gun so cavalierly. And for heaven's sake folks; at least email me before going to the local news and cramming your foot in your mouth.

Comments from the city and district attorney offices have been requested.

-G. C

Would the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Allow Californians to Carry In-State on an Out-of-State Permit?

Updated: Dec. 7, 2017

Representative Richard Hudson, R-North Carolina, introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which is a slight change from his 2016 act, adding recognition for permit less "constitutional carry" states.

Hudson characterized his bill as similar to one's driver license being valid in every state, which is an excellent analogy. Current recognition/reciprocity operates as basically a treaty system between states; Nevada chooses what states' permits to recognize or, as some other states do, enter into a formal agreement to recognize each other's permits. This bill would mandate recognition of any CCW permit.

Though Hudson is opaque on the subject (rightly so, as it might torpedo his bill), if one cannot get a CCW permit in his home state, then that person can carry in their home state with a non-resident permit from any state. Liberals are livid about that potential. The press release says the bill "...would allow people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the permit holder follows the laws of that state."

Does this mean people who live in California and have an out-of-state CCW can carry legally in California now? On the surface, yes, if you life in California and hold an Arizona, Nevada, Texas (etc.) permit, you, as a California resident, would be allowed to carry without a California-issue CCW. Here's what the Q&A says:

"Q: Will states lose their rights with concealed carry reciprocity?
A: States will still retain their authority to determine regulations for carrying within their borders and may decide where people are and are not allowed to carry concealed in their state."

This statement is pretty ambiguous and seems to be talking about local gun laws, like banning guns from government buildings. The wording of the law doesn't explicitly define what "regulations" apply. The language is difficult, but carefully parsed, seems to indicate that Rep. Hudson intended to allow out-of-state permits, held by residents. Interestingly, LEOSA has similar language (probably a source for this bill) and recent previous versions of this bill all read pretty much the same.

Section (a)

You must first not be prohibited from possessing a firearm and be carrying photo ID (a driver license). Second, you must have a CCW issued by any state, either resident or non-resident, or live in a constitutional carry state and thus doesn't have a permit, may carry a concealed handgun. It creates two classes of carriers:

Category 1-CCWs
"who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State"

Category 2-constitutional carry
"or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides"

Let's break down the language. "[1.] and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm [2.] or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm [3.] in the State in which the person resides."

1. Clearly requires a CCW issued by "a State", not the person's state of residence. "a State" means just that; a state, not a specific one (the person's state of residence).

2. "or" separates the requirement and adds the alternative requirement of "entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State which the person resides." This is referring to constitutional carry states.

"Entitled" is a loaded word. Purists contend that no law or constitution entitles anyone to any rights, but rather restrains the government in respect to an existing right. Second, does "entitlement" require some sort of official recognition of entitlement, like a law stating "Thou shalt have the right to carry concealed"?

CCW "permits" and "licenses" are self-explanatory that they are authorizing the privilege to conceal one's handgun. To "entitle" someone is to give the legal right to do something, i.e. conceal a pistol, which Second Amendment does and constitutional carry states recognize. Entitlement is not permission; it's an acknowledgement that something exists. This distinction is important; by referring to privilege and to entitlement separately, the author is talking about two different subjects.

If the author meant that the person with the permit or license had to be "entitled" to carry the firearm in their state of residence, "entitle" to refer to a privilege would be the wrong word. Also, "or" would have to be subsisted with "and." The entitlement, a recognition of a right by the law, to carry a concealed handgun is the authorization to carry, not a permit or license.

3. "in the State in which the person resides" is seen only here, not in 1. meaning that the entitlement, not the permit or license, is granted by the state of residence.

Subsections (1) requires that the state in which one carries does have laws allowing residents to apply for CCW permits or license and allow concealed carry for lawful purposes; this is every state in the Union save Vermont. Subsection (2) primarily applies to Vermont, which having never banned concealed carry to begin with, never saw any reason to issue CCWs and still doesn't. Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, and West Virginia all grant full constitutional carry to only state residents.

On the other hand, one could say that constitutionally, while the 14th Amendment (see below) requires the recognition of things like licences/permits from state-to-state, Congress still can't force a state to allow residents to carry in their home state on an out-of-state permit. That's above my pay grade, but there may be an argument there on states' rights grounds, not that such things matter much anymore.

What It Doesn't Allow

Subsection (b) doesn't override state or local laws on where you can carry (public and private property restrictions). If school or college campuses are off-limits, sorry, they're off limits. Federal law is basically saying that your CCW or your residence in a constitutional carry state only allows you to carry concealed, as if you had a valid permit, in whatever state you are visiting. You still have to abide by the the local laws.

While there is some ambiguity, Hudson's statements indicates that local laws aren't complete invalidated. Again, the Q&A says:

"Q: Will states lose their rights with concealed carry reciprocity?
A: States will still retain their authority to determine regulations for carrying within their borders and may decide where people are and are not allowed to carry concealed in their state."

Do I Have to Follow Local CCW Restrictions? (Subsection (c))

Remember the exemption under section (a) is from a state's concealed carry without a permit laws; it's essentially an equivalent of having a state-issued permit.

You "may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation...related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms" of the state you are carrying in unless you do so in violation of the bill (as in no CCW and you're not from a constitutional carry state).

The bill exempts concealed carriers from the requirement to have an in-state CCW (the "manner...provided for by this section"). By definition, one would be exempt from local CCW restrictions, such as a sheriff's condition that one could only carry to/from the bank, during certain hours, or prohibit one from carrying while in a bar. Those regulations are a condition on issuance, meaning it's an agreement between you and the state that if you don't break their rules, they'll let you carry. Sorta like mom and dad saying you can borrow the car, as long as you don't drive with friends and are home by 12; your driver license doesn't turn into a pumpkin at midnight.

The bill specifically does not exempt one from observing laws on where you can carry (subsection (b)). This would include laws that prohibit concealed carry in bars or churches (private property). Texas 30-06 signs would apply to someone from Arizona. New Mexico can't apply the terms and conditions of their license (NMAC 10.8.2.16) to your Nevada license, in that you must carry the handgun listed on your license.

So state law, yes, you must abide by it, but no, you don't have to follow local conditions of issuance that state-residents have to follow.

Unintended Consequences

A potential problem is a literal interpretation of "may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation...related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms." It sounds a lot like federal preemption of local gun laws. Taken literally, as long as you lived in a constitutional carry state or had a CCW from somewhere, you cannot be arrested or detained for anything related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms, excepting prohibited places (schools, parks, etc.). If it isn't spelled out in the bill, the local cops can't touch you for it.

This could mean that someone carrying in compliance with this section would be exempt from laws such as carrying while intoxicated. In Nevada, it's legal to carry in a bar, but if you're going to soused, you can't carry when you're drunk. It is a crime to possess a firearm while intoxicated; it's not a crime for bars to ban guns under the penalty of trespassing, etc. Heck, even 51% like those of Texas, stupid as they are, would be invalidated because the bill exempts the business's private rules, not Texas state alcoholic beverage regulations.

That's an unintended consequence and probably not the author's intention, as is implied in the Q&A document. Hudson's intent was to make it illegal for police to arrest or detain someone under state law for carrying concealed without an in-state permit. Even so, the language as-is could be interpreted to get rid of a lot of laws that keep the local drunk from fingering his Glock in the bar, etc.

Hurdles

There doesn't seem to be an official legal opinion on whether or not this bill allows one who cannot obtain a permit in his home state (CA) from carrying on a non-resident permit from another state in their home state. A good defense attorney (and there will be test cases) would challenge state statutes based on the federal law where a court would either closely read the text or divine legislative intent. A careful textual analysis would lead to the conclusion that any permit would be valid in any state, resident or not.

That would be an end-run of state license/permit laws. The federal government would be in the concealed carry business and the states would just be the folks writing the permits. Some have argued that forcing states to allow residents to carry in their home state on a permit from other state would be an unconstitutional usurpation of authority and set bad precedence. While we all love the Second Amendment and can agree that states like California need their gun control schemes to be put down hard, federal legislation (this way) isn't the way to do it.

The worry is that if the federal government essentially mandate a state must allow it's residents to carry on any state's permit, the federal government could, in the future, do the opposite and mandate no state allow guns to be carried. Once Congress assumes a power, it can quickly go the other way. There is a congressional remedy though.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the ability to pass legislation to enforce the provisions of the amendment, namely from Section 1: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." One interpretation is that this means that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, and by extension, Congress can go after states that infringe on constitutional rights. Of course, it's an abstruse area of constitutional law and would probably go to the Supreme Court, but a law compelling all the notorious anti-gun states to fall in line would solve a lot of problems.

Illegal Conceal Carrier Shoots at Car

The suspect's booking photo from LVMPD

Thursday night, Stephen Howard, 44, tried to apprehend a shoplifter and shot at the suspect's car. The Las Vegas Sun has the story. He was arrested on carrying a concealed firearm without a permit (NRS 202.350, a felony), unsafe discharge of a firearm (NRS 202.285), and traffic warrants. Bail is a combined $14,930.

There are several lapses in judgement here that are not surprising. Someone who would choose to carry illegal and commit a felony, rather openly carry, which is legal, clearly shouldn't be carrying a gun at all. This was highlighted by the fact that he compounded his mistake by shooting a car.

No circumstances have articulated why it was necessary for a private citizen to intervene with Target security to try to arrest a shoplifter. There was no apparent threat to life. This was not Mr. Howard's store. Unless you or a loved one were a victim, you probably shouldn't attempt to apprehend anyone who isn't an immediately threat to life or limb. Too much risk and liability.

Shooting at a car is a bad idea because it is too difficult to hit the target and if the suspect dies or looses control, a car without a driver is a very dangerous thing. Police are generally discouraged from shooting at suspects in moving cars. It's also illegal for citizens to shoot at a fleeing felon. Read the self-defense laws, please. You are not a cop just because you have a gun and you have no duty to get involve. You can't shoot a fleeing suspect and definitely shouldn't be in a position where they might run you over if you can help it.

This is why training and judgement is extremely important.

How to Get a CCW Permit in Nevada

“Concealed firearm” is a loaded or unloaded handgun which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation (NRS 202.3653), this includes in a carried bag/purse. Concealing a firearm without a permit is a felony. Nevada is not a constitutional carry state.

How to Obtain a Concealed Firearm Permit, NRS 202.3657

Part 1

Take an eight hour concealed firearm permit course approved by the sheriff. Out-of-state or military training does not qualify.

Residents: Apply to the sheriff of your county.

Non-residents: Apply to the sheriff of any county (for example, Clark County routinely takes 90-100 days to approve a concealed firearm permit). Visiting America/Nevada? You can open carry! Illegal immigrants cannot possess firearms and non-citizens generally have their permit applications denied.

Part 2

Only one application is needed for every firearm you own and you do not have to list each firearm individually; the 'revolver/semi-automatic' distinction has been abolished as of 2011. The issued permit will cover every handgun you own or acquire.

Part 3

The sheriff shall issue a permit to any applicant who is qualified to possess a handgun under state and federal law and must do so within 120 days or deny the permit for lawful reasons (NRS 202.366). In rare cases, temporary permits may be issued for delayed applications.

Qualifications:

​1. Be 21 or older

2. Not a felon, a fugitive, a drug addict, have never been adjudicated mentally ill or committed, not an illegal alien, nor have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (NRS 202.360).

You must also: Demonstrate competence with a handgun by successfully completing a course in firearm safety approved by a sheriff in this State; or successfully complete a course in firearm safety offered by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, community college, university or national organization that certifies instructors in firearm safety. The course must include instruction in the use of handguns and in the laws of this State relating to the use of a firearm and must meet the standards of the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association. Out-of-state permits or military training/discharge does not qualify as in other states.

Note: Make sure the sheriff you are applying to approves your specific handgun course.

Part 4

Your permit shall be denied if you fail to meet the above requirements or at least one of the following is true:

1. You have an outstanding arrest warrant.

2. You have been declared incompetent or insane or have been have been admitted to a mental health facility within the last 5 years.

3. You have been convicted of DUI within the last 5 years or committed to rehab for drugs or alcohol within the last 5 years.

4. You have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor within the last 3 years or are a felon.

5. You have been convicted of a domestic violence crime or have a restraining order against you due to domestic violence.

6. You are on parole or probation or you have a suspended felony against you within the last 5 years.

7. You made a false statement on your application.

Your permit will be suspended or revoked if the sheriff finds out about you being disqualified by anything in Part 4.

See also: NRS 202.3665

Important

Do not sign your application until you are directed to so by a sheriff's employee, unless you have the form notarized.

Be sure to provide a passport style color photo of you from the front. One may be taken of you by the sheriff. You will also pay fees of not more that $60 to the sheriff (FBI fees will be extra).

The sheriff will fingerprint you. You will be 'run' through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, and through the FBI database (NRS 202.366).

Be sure to carefully review and follow all the instructions on the application form. Refer to the sheriff's instructions for how each office handles the actual application and fingerprinting process, which may vary slightly from above.

If your application is denied, you may appeal in district court for the county in which you applied (NRS 202.3663).

The process can take up to 120 days, especially in Clark County. Be prepared to wait and open carry in the mean time.

Renewal

Unless suspended or revoked, a permit is valid five (5) years from the issue date. Plan the renewal in advance, as in Clark County, renewal application processing can take between 90-120 days.

Complete the process as above for applying for a permit, except the fees are $25 and the class is four (4) hours (NRS 202.3677).

When You Get Your Concealed Firearms Permit

Check the information on your card! If it is incorrect, call the sheriff's office immediately.

You must carry your permit and proper ID (such as a driver license) when carrying a concealed firearm. Both the permit and proper identification must be presented if asked by a peace officer (no duty to first inform). A violation is an infraction punishable by a $25 fine (NRS 202.3667). Note that this does not require you to carry your concealed firearm permit when carrying openly. Nevada does not require you to notify a peace officer that you are carrying a firearm, but out of courtesy and for your own safety, if you are being detained, you may choose to inform the officer you are lawfully carrying a concealed firearm.

Changes and lost permits

If your permanent address changes (i.e. you move), you must notify the sheriff in writing within 30 days. If your permit is lost, stolen, or destroyed, you must within 30 days, submit a written statement to the sheriff that your permit was lost, stolen, or destroyed and pay a replacement $15 fee. Should you recover your original permit, you must return the duplicate permit and notify the sheriff in writing within 10 days (NRS 202.367).

Guns Carried

For permits issued on or after July 1, 2011, any owned handgun, semi-automatic pistol or revolver, can be carried concealed by a permittee. If the permit was issued before July 1, 2011, the permit will list the specific authorized handguns that can be legally carried. There is no legal opinion whether that requirement for pre 7/1/2011 permittees would still have legal force or is actively being enforced. All 'listed weapons' permits will expire on July 1, 2016 and licensee's renewals will cover any handgun the permittee owns.

As a licensed concealed carrier, is my personal information public record?

No. Bare statistics, such as how many permits have been issued are permissible public records, but personally identifying information is only available to law enforcement officers/agencies in their official duties (NRS 202.3662).

Can I get a temporary concealed firearm permit?

In theory, yes. Practically, they are issued very rarely to those who have taken the course of instruction and applied for a permanent permit, usually when a clerical error delays the issuing (or denial) of the permanent permit beyond the 120-day deadline. Issuing temporary permits is solely at the discretion of the sheriff and the expiration date is set by the sheriff.

Background Check Exemption

Most Nevada permittees qualify for an exemption from the requirement to undergo the background check (as they've already been vetted) when buying a firearm from a dealer and paying the $25 fee. The Form 4473 is still completed and a copy of the permit is needed for the dealer's records.

For permits issued on or after July 1, 2011, the permittee would be exempt from the Brady Bill background check when buying from a licensed dealer. Permits issued before this would be invalid because the ATF decertified the state after it was revealed some sheriffs were not complying with certain renewal requirements required to qualify for the exemption. This would not qualify to avoid the duty to obtain a private-sale background check if the universal background check initiative (Ballot Question 1) passes in 2016 or if those background checks would still be free.

Non-residents and non-resident permits (reciprocity)

Recognized states are set by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association pursuant to state law. If you hold a recognized permit on the reciprocity list, and you do not reside in Nevada, you may legally carry a concealed firearm in Nevada.

Nevada residents must hold a Nevada-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm. Non-resident or out-of-state permits are not recognized for Nevada residents. There is no specific exemption for military members or their spouses.

If you have recently become a resident of Nevada and hold a non-resident or out-of-state permit, there is a 60 day grace period if the sheriff of your county has not issued you a Nevada permit. For example, if you hold a concealed firearm permit from Arizona, but you live in Laughlin, it would be illegal to carry a concealed firearm in Nevada using an out-of-state permit.

Please note, that the requirements for recognition of non-resident permits have recently changed and some states may have been added or dropped.

Our state, our rules.

Holders of a non-resident concealed firearm permit must abide by the same restrictions in carrying a concealed firearm as they would as if they held Nevada concealed firearm permit (NRS 202.3688). On the plus side, Nevada's concealed carry laws are among the most relaxed among the states that require a permit. You can carry in bars and drink alcohol (don't get intoxicated), in cars, and signage doesn't have the force of law.

Where is concealed carry illegal?

Federally prohibited places 

• Firearms, loaded or unloaded, concealed or openly carried, are prohibited in the following places:
• Inside federal facilities (including courthouses and offices like a Social Security office);
• On military bases (military personnel should refer to DoD policy and post orders);
• ​Post Office property (includes the parking lot), but not post-office windows in stores (contract stations), 39 CFR 232.1(l);
• VA hospitals/facilities including federal veterans' cemeteries (carrying).

Firearms are banned in "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties" and includes essentially all parts of federal court facilities (18 USC § 930). 'No weapons' signs must be posted at federal facilities in order for someone to be convicted (but you may be arrested).

On National Park Service lands (National Parks, Monuments, etc.), the only restrictions on firearm carry are state and local laws (54 USC § 104906). If you can carry legally outside the park, you can carry legally inside the park. The park buildings (visitor centers, offices, etc.) are still federal facilities and off-limits to firearms.

Red Rock National Conservation Area is 'special' and does not allow loaded firearms (no magazine/clip inserted, no rounds attached to the weapon or in the chamber). It is not a part of the National Park System and is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. More in this article and sign the petition here. National Forest lands in Nevada have no ban on the carry of firearms.

State prohibited places

All firearms are prohibited in the following places:

• On the premises of a public school, on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, or a child care facility without written permission of the college president, school principal, or head of a public child care facility, including in the parking lot (NRS 202.265).
• A private in-home child care facility, except by the homeowner(s) or residents. [Ibid.]
• The legislative building or wherever the legislature is conducting business (NRS 218A.905).

NRS 202.3673 ​(concealed carry only) prohibited areas:

• The secure area of an airport (for instance, employee-only areas or past the TSA checkpoints).
• Inside a building of a public airport (open carry is legal outside of the secure area).
• Inside a public building (government building) with either 'no guns' signs or metal detectors at each public entrance (open carry may be legal). See below for more details.​

The Legislative Counsel (the state legislature's attorney) found in this opinion that open carry is legal in public areas of public buildings. Concealed carry is legally restricted in more locations than open carry is.

Two Important Exceptions to Public Buildings

Per NRS 202.3673(4)(c) Permittees who are employees of a public building may carry a concealed firearm in that posted building, however, the state preemption laws, allow local authorities to make their own policies regarding firearms. So while a permittee may carry legally inside the building, they can be disciplined or fired if they carry in violation of their employer's ban on carrying firearms.

If the permittee has received written permission from the person in control of the public building to carry a concealed firearm, they may do so, but permission is rarely granted. Employees in a public building (except a school) can carry concealed, but are not exempted from their employer's policies which may ban firearms.

Do I have to obey ‘no guns’ signs on private property?

No, signs do not have the force of law in Nevada on private property. If the owner or management wants you to leave or disarm, you must comply or you can be arrested for trespassing. Making sure that the owner or corporate management knows they lost your business for denying you the right to lawfully carry is a good course of action. The majority of Nevada businesses are firearm friendly.

​Can I carry concealed on private property or in my home?

No. Concealed carry without a permit is illegal everywhere in the state. While it is unlikely you will be arrested for carrying a concealed firearm without a permit on your own private property, it is not legal. See NRS 202.350 1.(d)

Can I carry concealed at the mall? Can I carry concealed at a casino?

Yes, legally you can carry on private property (except private schools and daycares) even if there is a 'no guns' sign. However, most indoor malls and casinos will ask you to disarm or leave the property if you are discovered. All they can do is ask you to disarm or tell you to leave. Failure to do so would be a trespassing violation.

Can I carry concealed in a bar? Can I drink while carrying?

There is no law against carrying openly or concealed in bar or while drinking, however, it is a crime to be in possession of firearm when one’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is .10 or greater. NRS 202.257

Do I need to carry my blue card with me when I carry my gun?

No. The 'blue card' system has recently been abolished. A blue card was never a license to carry a firearm, simply a receipt of registration. Concealed carry requires a concealed firearms permit.

Does Nevada recognize my state’s permit?

Check the maps.

I have a non-resident permit from another state, but I live in Nevada. Can I carry concealed?

No. You must have a Nevada permit to carry a concealed firearm if you have reside in the state, but new residents have 60 day grace period until they must have a Nevada permit to carry concealed legally in Nevada.

I'm from Arizona or another constitutional carry state and don't have a permit. Can I carry concealed in Nevada? No, you must have a concealed firearm permit in your home state or a non-resident state that Nevada recognizes, or one from Nevada. Open carry does not require a permit.

Concealed carry is better than open carry because surprise will work to my advantage.

The idea behind this is that an openly carried weapon may make the carrier a primary target of the criminal/terrorist. The concealed carrier would blend in with the crowd, and then draw at when it was to their advantage.

This assumption is generally false in the absence of evidence that an openly carried weapon leads to victimization. Abundant evidence is available that open carry is indeed a deterrent to crime. Concealed carry lacks that deterrent factor. The 'gray man' element, appearing unremarkable and blending in with the crowd, only has application when one may be specifically sought out; such as in the case of a police officer. The desire not to be spotted carrying a firearm or otherwise identified typically comes from the police influence in the concealed carry training world.

The advantage of concealed carry lies in the fact that it may be possible to carry in places where open carriers would be shunned or asked to leave, such as casinos. Legally speaking, the advantage is with open carry, yet due to modern sensitivities, the discreet option of undetected concealed carry would prevent any debates with anti-gunners or objections to having the weapon on private property where the owner/management might prohibit it. Also, given one’s choice of dress or activities, concealed carry may be more appropriate.

The debate is largely a matter of taste and environment. A citizen carrier with anti-gun customers or friends may want to protect themselves without alienating others. Some may feel uncomfortable carrying openly. Whatever the choice, it is a personal one and not to be judged or criticized.

Open carry and concealed carry each have their own unique advantages and disadvantages; neither is inherently superior to the other. Both methods complement each other and allow for flexibility in self-defense.

Get more details at the Concealed Carry page of NevadaCarry.org

Las Vegas Metro PD CCW page (Clark County)

Washoe County Sheriff CCW page (Reno)

Carson City Sheriff CCW page

Nye County Sheriff CCW page (Pahrump)

Douglas County Sheriff CCW application

Training? Contact your local gun store or range for recommendations or ask your sheriff’s office for a list of certified instructors that they recognize (but not endorse).