Library District Trustee Wants You Defenseless

Editor’s Note: For more background on the issue, including the legal issues at hand and the past history, please see this post cataloging the relevant articles on the issue.

A Las Vegas-Clark County Library District trustee just stepped all herself, well, figuratively in the library open carry lawsuit case. Only Trustee Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod, also a Democratic candidate for the Assembly, spoke publically. She told the Las Vegas Review-Journal: 

“I think it’s going to be something we’re going to have to take up in the Legislature to make that distinction (regarding where libraries fall when it comes to open carry). [..] I think it was a complete oversight. [...] I worry about open carry in areas where I bring my children, [...] I’ve been going to the library with my daughter since she was 3 months old. It’s a place people would assume would be weapon-free.” 

Instructor Mac said Bilbray-Axelrod's admission that she would like to legislate to make it illegal to open carry in a library is a tacit acknowledgement that what they library district and LVMPD was illegal.

Challenging open carry in a public building by creating a new law, such as a library, with no history of threats or special security concerns, is unlikely to survive in court. Had this been a concern for Nevada legislatures, the matter would have been addressed in the past. In this case, Bilbray-Axelrod is playing partisan politics with citizen’s rights and lives; nothing unusual for a Democrat.

Secondly, Bilbray-Axelrod’s concerns about children are totally unfounded. If she is so concerned about firearms being around her children, she should not take them outside, much less to a store, park, or shopping mall where countless unseen concealed carriers and possibly even open carriers could be present; not to mention armed criminals.  

Libraries are not some sort of magical safe space where danger does not lurk. Time and time again we have seen murderers and terrorists exploit gun free zones to kill unarmed victims. Bilbray-Axelrod would have mothers and fathers defenseless in the face of a killer all because she doesn’t like guns or citizens who can fight back against evil.

So let me get this straight: there have been zero problems (except what LVCCLD did itself) and she thinks there is a problem with the law? The Henderson Library District made the correct decision to follow the law as written. No other library, even those with policies on paper, have made an issue out of open carry.

The law was written deliberately to exclude open carry. With very few exceptions, Nevada and many western states recognize that it is unconstitutional to regulate open carry. Idaho, Michigan, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, just to name a few states, allow the open carry of firearms in libraries. There have been no known incidents of unsafe discharges, abandoned firearms, or other bad behavior by legally armed citizens in any of these states.

Challenging open carry in a public building by creating a new law, such as a library, with no history of threats or special security concerns, is unlikely to survive in court.

It must be remembered that for years the library district has pursued this policy in direct contravention to state law, depriving citizens of the right to bear arms under both the state and federal constitutions. As the recent decision in Peruta v. Gore by the Ninth Circuit District Court of Appeals showed, many court cases have found that open carry is the constitutionally protected method of carry.

A multitude of communications have been sent to the library over the years, so any claim that this was unintentional is a lie. The library’s general counsel, Gerald Welt, stated in a private conversation, later recounted on Facebook, that the library district was aware of the law and would have to be sued. The district is being represented in this case by Bailey-Kennedy.

Bilbray-Axelrod was present when a group of citizens and Assemblywoman Shelton warned the library district it faced a suit if it kept up its illegal behavior. Now the taxpayers are on the hook for the intransigence of these unelected trustees and protected bureaucrats.

Clark County taxpayers out to be shocked and outraged at the willingness of the library district and its trustees to waste public money pursuing an obviously illegal policy and infringing on citizens’ right to effective self-defense.

Nevada Carry's original post breaking the story: Library Has Mom Illegally Arrested for Legal Openly Carried Gun; Suit Filed

Library Has Mom Illegally Arrested for Legal Openly Carried Gun; Suit Filed

A mother legally openly carrying her handgun was unlawfully arrested at the Rainbow branch of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District (LVCCLD) back on March 16. This is the latest incident in a string of Second Amendment abuses by the district which culminated in the defendant, Michelle Flores, being detained in front of her young children. She was also threatened with having her children removed by CPS. Ultimately, Flores’s handgun was seized and she was given a citation for trespassing before being released at the scene.

A lawsuit has been filed by Flores, who is represented by Ashcraft and Barr. A copy of the complaint is available here. Flores seeks damages pursuant to the provisions of SB 175/240 which allow for up to triple damages for any party adversely affected by an illegal firearm ordinance.

Openly carrying a firearm in a public library is legal in Nevada. In fact, several library districts, including the Henderson district and the Washoe District, recognize this fact. State law prohibits government entities from banning firearms from their buildings under state firearm preemption laws. Only the legislature can regulate where and how firearms can be carried. Furthermore, the library’s own Rules of Conduct don’t even prohibit openly carried firearms, only concealed firearms pursuant to state law.

Outside of Nevada, the Seattle, Washington library changed its policies on open carry and the Capitol Area District Libraries (CADL), Michigan, lost a suit for violating state law by preventing the lawful open carry of firearms. Additionally, Texas libraries are not allowed to have firearm bans as well, which includes the state's recent decriminalization of open carry. On the concealed carry end, the Denver Science Museum dropped its concealed carry ban because it was unenforceable per state law. 

The Incident

Flores told us:

"I was inside for about an hour with no issues looking for books for my children. I passed by multiple staff members with no issues. I checked out a few books and was about to exit the library when the security guard began calling after me to tell me firearms are not allowed. I attempted to talk to the hired guard about the law and he summoned a library employee. She brings up an invalid rule the library has that they can prohibit firearms. She then summons the police. No one during this time ever asked me to leave the premises. After the officer’s arrived, I attempted to film the interaction and was instead placed in handcuffs with my phone and firearm taken from me. This all occurred in front of my young children (5, 3, 1). The officers never attempted to find out my side of events.  

"As they escorted me out of the building, one of the officers was asking if I had any family to pick up my children, since I did not they proceeded to call CPS to pick up my children with the threat of arresting me. Fortunately I had a friend on the way who arrived a while after I was outside in cuffs. During the time in handcuffs I was basically forced to take care of my children to ensure they would not enter the parking lot while other patrons were coming to and from the library. Once my friend arrived, he was able to take charge of my children and a 3rd officer arrived shortly after. This officer finally listened to my side of events. The officer that put me in cuffs then comes back to me and says they will release me, and give me a citation but impound my firearm. After numerous phone calls and conversations between the officers and library employees, he then came to tell me I would be trespassed for one year and receive a citation but would retain possession of my firearm."

Flores was released with a citation for trespassing (NRS 207.200). A librarian read her the trespassing statement and banned her from library property for a year. 

Flores's friend arrived to assist her and videotape the encounter. Nevada Carry has reviewed the video. Though her friend was observing the encounter and not interfering, he was ordered to leave the area or disarm. He chose to put his gun in his car. A confrontational officer approached him and said “That gun looks like it’s partially concealed. […] It looks like it’s black under there.” Flores’s friend informed the officer that he had already removed his handgun. The officer asked the friend to identify himself and what he was doing there.

“You’re not involved here, so leave,” the officer said. “Cause you’re not involved with what we’re doing at all, so go ahead and leave here. We’re talking care of business here. Now I’m advising you once. That’s your one warning. I’m going to give you one warning, so leave.” This behavior isn’t unusual. A videographer Mitchell Crooks was beaten in 2012 by an LVMPD officer who was upset with being filmed. An officer suggested that even though Flores’s friend’s holster was empty, he could be considered to be carrying concealed when the officer saw the holster.

The cooler officer called out that he and Flores’s friend already spoke. The aggressive officer then walked away. Flores was then uncuffed and signed the citation. The officers were apparently unaware of state firearm preemption laws. The librarian read the trespassing warning to Flores and prohibited from visiting any LVCCLD library for one year.

The actual illicit policy 

No trespass occurred

Flores was cited for trespassing, a violation of NRS 207.200, despite never actually violating any provisions of that section. The violation has two elements.

Subsection (a) Going into a building "with intent to vex or annoy the owner or occupant thereof, or to commit any unlawful act." First, Flores had no intent to vex or annoy the library staff or the patrons. Additionally, there was no alarm or panic, nor did she behave in a disruptive manner, which might constitute other criminal behavior.

Second, Flores did not enter with intent to vex or annoy. Her behavior would have been otherwise unremarkable, save for her handgun. There was no reports of disturbed or alarmed patrons or any other criminal behavior. Had Flores somehow been committing a disturbance, Metro probably wouldn't have taken nearly an hour to arrive.

Most importantly, no unlawful act was committed. The library district has repeatedly cited NRS 379.040 as its authority to illegal ban firearms. That section gives only the board of trustees the authority to make reasonable regulations. The library Code of Conduct, which was last approved by the board of trustees in an unrelated update in Jan. 2011, only prohibits concealed firearms in conformance with state law. The district cites a policy that they have circulated to staff which was never approved by the board of trustees (at least since 2004).

The policy is merely an administrative response when citizens' objections forced them to manufacture something. Since the ‘policy’ was never approved the board of trustees, it is not an enforceable regulation per NRS 379.040. District bureaucrats made up the ban.

The library district's own administrative policy, even if somehow considered enforceable, is specifically prohibited by state preemption of firearm regulation. Such a policy is null and void as the district has no authority to regulate the carry of firearms.

The officers made an arrest on false pretenses at the behest of the library staff. LVCCLD is so bent on illegally prohibiting firearms that it is willing to see mothers with children arrested and to invite a lawsuit, at taxpayer's expense. Unfortunately, Metro police administration placed its officers in this position by failing to properly educate their employees on the legality of open carry and changes in state law. This isn’t the first time Metro illegally interfered with an open carrier because of officers’ ignorance. LVMPD officers also recently ejected a legal open carrier from the Clark County Fair.

The Las Vegas-Clark County Library District knowingly and willfully violated the provisions of firearm preemption. In November, a group of citizens warned the board of trustees that their administrators’ actions were flying in the face of state law. Despite repeated public protest and outcry, the district has continued its abuses and usurpations. 

Library counsel, attorney Gerald Welt, stated in a private conversation, which was recounted on Facebook (see image) that he was aware of the 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 officials’ malfeasance.

Shouldn't That Be Illegal?

Nevada hasn't overlooked open carry in public buildings as some sort of bygone tradition that legislators have forgotten about. A look at other states, as we have done with Frontier Carry, will show that in the Intermountain West, the ban on openly carried firearms in public buildings is an exception to the rule. Only Colorado expressly allows a blanket ban of openly carried firearms, while exempting concealed carry in those public buildings without security screening. Texas, which recently decriminalized open carry for licensed individuals, enacted open carry of firearms dating from the 19^th Century to prevent blacks from carrying arms.

In fact, an analysis of these states, plus the Idaho Supreme Court case of Re: Brickey reveals that open carry is recognized as the constitutionally protected form of carry. Nevada has prohibited unlicensed concealed carry in one form or another since the early 1900s as have most of our neighboring states. The concealed carry of firearms one hundred years ago was only then just beginning to lose its reputation as something only a thief, bandit, or burglar did. Hiding a gun implied that the person carrying was also trying to conceal criminal intentions. Only with the vilification of guns starting in the 1910s through the 1930s did self-conscious citizens desire to transition to concealed carry.

Yet only rarely are openly carried weapons regulated and almost always in blanket 'all weapons' bans, such as at schools. It is tacitly understood that open carry in all but the most specific of circumstances, is none of the government's business. So no, allowing openly carried weapons in public buildings isn't a legislative oversight, rather it is recognition that government has no power to regulate the open carrying of arms. Nevada's gun laws aren't some error or accident of history.

Members of the public can contact the library district to express their opinion at administration@lvccld.org or 702-507-4400. Operations Director Jennifer Schember can be emailed at Schemberj@lvccld.org.

Oh by the way, learn the truth about:

Vote 'No' on Ballot Question #1 in November

Library District Can Learn From Denver Science Museum on Open Carry

As the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District Board of Trustees meets later this week, they will not be discussing the hot topic of open carry in the library. At the board’s November meeting, citizens expressed their concerns over self-defense, the equal application of the law, and the library district intentionally exposing itself to a costly lawsuit. Despite a half-dozen citizens, including Assemblywoman Shelton, speaking out against the district’s illegal actions, no trustee decided to step up and tackle the issue.

Of interest in this matter is a recent action of the Denver (Colorado) Science Museum. They have chosen to remove their policy and signage asking concealed carried weapons stay out of the building. Doing so anyway was not illegal, as Colorado state law (CRS 18-12-214), only prohibits carrying concealed firearms into buildings that have security and weapons screening devices permanently in place at each entrance. The city of Denver is allowed under state law to prohibit openly carried firearms.

The Museum's previous policy was as follows: 

"It is the policy of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science to restrict the presence of weapons within this facility or controlled parking areas. This policy applies to all employees and volunteers of the Museum, visitors, vendors or those who are not specifically authorized to carry such weapons."

The museum’s new policy brought it into alignment with the Denver Zoo and Art Museum, both of which also allow carrying concealed firearms. All three facilities are part of the city’s Scientific and Cultural Facilities District.

The change in policy was based upon recent terrorist attacks and a concern for employees and visitor safety. Vice Present of Finance and Business Operations Ed Scholz told the Denver Business Journal 

"'Paris and San Bernardino got people thinking 'are we doing best practices?' This is a change we decided to make,' Scholz said. 'The safety of our guests and staff is the No. 1 priority of the museum ... it always has been, and we believe we're doing everything we can to keep people safe.'"

"'I think the quick insinuation is that, 'oh the museum is allowing guns,'' he said. 'That's not what's happening. You have to have a permit, the permit allows you to carry it. There's nothing I can do about that, I don't write the law.'" 

Despite the usual rhetoric from the anti-gun crowd, the change was pretty much a non-event. The Denver Zoo and Art Museum has not seen any incidents involving a concealed carrier behaving badly, nor an increase in crime because concealed firearms are allowed in.

The Las Vegas-Clark County Library District could easily take the same approach. The library administration can inform staff of the legality of openly carried firearms in the library. Ideally, the trustees should repeal Rule of Conduct #3 and affirm the legality of open carry under state law. It is the district’s employees and counsel which seem to have forced this matter to become an issue. Rather than simply respect state law, they chose to defy it. Though Nevada’s laws differ from Colorado’s,  the decision and the reasoning behind it are based on principles that would apply hear. The LVCCLD should take a lesson from Denver.

Thankfully, there have been no further reported incidents of a citizen lawfully carrying a handgun openly being harassed at the libraries, yet this does not mean the district is quietly acknowledging the law. Only time will if the district is continuing to enforce its quite illegal policy as citizens continue their business of patronizing their public libraries.

Board of Trustees meet Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:00 PM at the West Charleston Library, 6301 West Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89146.

Library District to Open Carriers: Pound Sand

For those following the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District’s refusal to allow legally openly carried firearms, it’s now  absolutely clear that the district has told citizens to essentially “pound sand” and that they do not care about the right to bear arms. Nor do they seem to care about violating state preemption of local firearm regulations or having to face a lawsuit. They would prefer to illegally violate state law, under a stretch of imagination, rather than simply acknowledge the fact they must abide by the same rules as every other local government entity.

District counsel (the district’s attorney) stated privately to a citizen that “he will not allow open carry in the library [sic] and fully expects to be sued.” Of course, he doesn’t have the authority to decide the issue, but his opinion certainly sways district policy. On the other hand, he’s paid to tell the district what they want to hear. So if administration or the board wants to deny the right to bear arms, he’ll spin things his way.

Here is their form letter in response to citizens’ writing in to protest their illegal ban: 

Thank you for contacting us with your concern. The Library District bans bringing or possessing on Library District owned premises any deadly or dangerous weapon, loaded or unloaded, or ammunition or material for a weapon. A “no firearms” sign is posted at all public entrances to libraries. NRS 379.040 (quoted below) requires the Trustees of the Library District to guarantee that libraries are free and accessible to the public. The “no firearms” policy protects the health and safety of the Library District’s patrons, which include young children. The Library District will rationally enforce its “no firearms” policy by asserting trespass claims against violators.

Patrons wishing to use Library District services while in possession of a deadly or dangerous weapon or ammunition or material for a weapon may consult with Library District Administration at 702.507.4400 and/or administration@lvccld.org about alternative sources of library services provided within Clark County by the Library District or others.

NRS 379.040 Library to be free and accessible to public; regulations of trustees. The library and reading room of any consolidated, county, district or town library must forever be and remain free and accessible to the public, subject to such reasonable regulations as the trustees of the library may adopt.
[4:187:1925; NCL § 5598]—(NRS A 1967, 1061; 1985, 10)

Please let us know if you require any further assistance.
Best Regards,
Administration
Las Vegas-Clark County Library District 

Their ban being based upon ‘feelings’ and ‘for the children’ is nothing new and adds no weight to their argument. It’s a pretty weak basis for violating a constitutional right and violating pretty clear state law.

The editor didn’t actually get his own response. The ‘nevadacarry’ in my email address probably ticked someone off so they ignored it, which isn’t very mature and not an appropriate behavior for a government official. My response: 

Hello, I still have not received a reply to my previous emails on the banning of legally openly carried firearms in the library. I have seen the ‘form letter’ replies sent to other citizens though, and I will formulate my own response based off of those replies.

It has become manifestly evident that the library district has absolutely no intention at this time to stop preventing the legal open carry of firearms in its libraries. Furthermore, the logic used to justify this ban is specious and legally dubious. One must question the quality of your counsel’s advise and whether he is acting in the best interests of this public entity. It is also sad that the district’s counsel himself stated that he would rather see the district be sued by citizens for redress of their grievances rather than counsel the district to comply with state firearm preemption laws.

I seriously doubt that the legislature intended NRS 379.040 to be a carte blanche for libraries to make any rule which suits their whim. I find it interesting that the district’s Rules of Conduct require patrons to obey all applicable laws, while the district does not feel the same applies to itself.

A few things in your form letter are at odds with reality and conflict with previous statements. A "no firearms" sign holds no weight of law in this case. NRS 202.3673 which has been used by the district to argue their right to prohibit all firearms previously. That section only refers to concealed firearms, not ones openly carried so as to be plainly visible and discernible as a firearm.

Also, the library district does not ban bringing or possessing ammunition or material for a weapon, unless your form letter suddenly constitutes official policy (without consent of the library board, I might add). This assertion was either a gross misunderstanding or a total fabrication.

I posit the following questions:

• Does the library district have any verifiable proof that that the lawful carry of a firearm has hindered others from using the library or prevented it from being “free and accessible”?

• Does denying legally armed citizens qualify as keeping the library “free and accessible” to the legally armed portion of the public?

• Can your counsel explain how trespassing works when the offence causing the alleged trespass is one explicitly permitted by state law?

• Can you explain how the vague wording of NRS 379.040 somehow renders the explicitly clear intent of Senate Bills 175/240, NRS 244.364, and NRS 268.418?

• Are you really trying to get sued? Will your administration and your counsel explain to the board and the public why taxpayer dollars are being wasted to defend the violation of law and citizens’ rights?

• Does the district care nothing for the “health and safety” of patrons who wish to defend themselves against violence if the need arises and do not wish to depend upon an armed security guard who may or may not be present?

• Is the district aware that all but one public shooting where three or more individuals were shot occurred in a ‘gun-free zone’? 

I respectfully demand a substantive, individual answer to the questions I have posed. Or, if the district would like to consult with me how to amicably resolve this matter, please let me know. I respectfully ask that the district abide by state law and stop its childish insistence on banning legal firearms.

Also, I need a library card. Do I need to apply in person, can I apply online, or can I use my card from the Henderson district?

Thank you, 

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if government entities like this were a corporeal thing, like a giant monster? Then we could ride out in battle, mounted on white steeds in our shining armor, bearing lances and swords, to bring it down. Sounds a little bit like Don Quixote, which I suggest everyone check out because a good translation makes a hilarious read for something 300+ years old or so.

Of course, such an idea is only fantasy (it might make a great book plot for those who are fans of magical realism). Government entities are controlled by people. In this case, we have an academic establishment that is institutionally biased against firearms. Perhaps only a few people at the top are steering this ship, against the wish of its passengers. We don’t know. Sadly, a few bad apples are spoiling the whole bunch and are making the library district (and taxpayers) legally liable.

We don’t want to sue. We don’t want to have to protest. We simply want to be let alone. Are we really asking too much for the district to abide by state law?

At this time, I recommend that every resident of Clark County send a respectful email to the library district (administration@lvccld.org) asking them to abide by their own policy (which does not actually prohibit openly carried firearms) and also respect state law that prohibits them from making their own rules regarding firearms.

Lastly, I encourage you to visit the library as normal. Reading and free exchange of ideas is one of the core foundations of America and as important to our liberty as the Second Amendment is. Support your library! However, if you do openly carry in the library, please be aware you may meet resistance from staff. Video or audio record the encounter. Be polite, be respectful. Ask for the exact rule or law that they are using to justify their ban. Ask for a copy of any written document you are shown. Once you have finished your business, leave and please contact me at nevadacarry@gmail.com. This is not legal advice and should not be taken as such.

-G. C.