Librarians Would Rather You Die Than Shoot Back

Eastern New Mexico News

Time and time again, we have said that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. When a disturbed young man decided to shoot up the library in Clovis, New Mexico, killing two and wounding four, he only stopped when police arrived. The murderer thankfully did not continue his spree or engage the responding police. Nor did he kill himself. Instead, he meekly surrendered. In fact, most high-profile spree killers either surrender or kill themselves on the arrival of police or application of force.

One wonders what would have happened if an armed citizen was there that day. If the killer knew that someone inside the library might well be armed, would he have gone there? The killer almost certainly targeted the library precisely because it is a location where police are not. It is perceived to be a place of safety, like schools, but instead of acknowledging the threat and planning accordingly, librarians prefer to bury their head in the sand.

Nevada library officials would have their employees and patrons cower and hope for the best, praying that the police can make it in time to limit the body count. I guess they never heard of the axiom that “hope is not a plan.” If a similar shooting is to happen in Nevada, the hands of every anti-gun library official and everyone involved with SB 115, the attempted library gun-free zone/open carry revenge bill will have blood on them. Nevada libraries, particularly the law-breaking, recalcitrant Las Vegas Clark County Library District, have practically screamed that they are soft targets.

Unsurprisingly, the public library community is filled with liberal, hoplophobes as the American Library Institution’s (ALA) website attests in its affirmation of everything connected to the Progressive agenda. The ALA gave its support to the Clovis-Carter Library. “Unfortunately, we must all be prepared for violence in public places. The ALA encourages its members to work closely with local law enforcement and officials to prepare and train for violence prevention and response. The ALA also provides resources to assist with this issue.” This training and advice is limited to mostly escalation and prevention techniques, rather than practical self-defense.

Rather than empower staff and library patrons to fight back and kill those who would kill them, the ALA is actively seeking to empower murderers to have a resistance-free killing zone. In January of 2017 they issued a resolution basically saying guns are bad, Leftist gun control solutions need to be implemented, and libraries need to be gun free zones.

In the aftermath of the Charleston, SC, church shooting in 2015, the ALA issued a resolution deploring American gun violence and blaming it on “the ready availability of guns (handguns, assault rifles, etc.) in the United States due to ineffective gun laws, the absence of sensible gun control laws, and the efforts of the gun lobby and the manufacturers of guns to resist these controls.” It was not the work of a deranged, racist young man, but rather the NRA and gun companies who were responsible. They reaffirmed their commitment into making libraries into gun free zones.

Apparently, besides their Leftist, anti-gun bent, their motivation for this statement seems to be in part the death of “colleague” Cynthia Hurd, was killed in Charleston. After the Orlando gay nightclub shooting, they called for libraries to make more inclusive communities, as if the radicalized Muslim terrorist would have changed his mind if only the local library had more books on Sharia. The ALA’s stance should disgust everyone, but it hardly surprising.

New Mexico’s tragic situation could have happened here in Nevada, as the Land of Enchantment has similar open carry laws. In both states, the open carry of handguns is legal in public buildings, but Nevada bans licensed concealed carry. New Mexico does have a constitutional amendment forbidding local regulation of firearms, which more elegantly and efficiently stops shenanigans like LVCCLD’s illegal open carry ban than our mere statute. Despite that, open carry is far less popular than open carry and many “no gun” signs are given far more weight than they legally have, often dissuading people who might otherwise protect themselves and others. It’s unknown if the Clovis-Carter Library was posted (likely it was not, given state law), but in any case, the idea of the library being a sacrosanct gun free zone does not lend itself to safety.

So the take-away is not that libraries need more tools to ban guns; rather it is that libraries need to encourage responsibly armed citizens to patronize them and for employees to carry firearms for their own protection. Violence can strike anywhere and encouraging the innocent to remain defenseless only emboldens and encourages psychopathic murderers. Nevada library officials need to understand this point and drop their illogical and emotional opposition to the legal carry of firearms.

Fun fact: Did you know the Las Vegas Clark County Library District Board of Trustees seems to have violated NRS 241.035 by not approving its minutes within 45 days? If not, why would they approve eight meetings worth of minutes in one session? And why do so many of the meetings have their approved minutes missing from the website?

Library, Guns, SB 115, and Open Carry Infographic

SB 115 Library Gun Free Zones Must Not Become Law

SB 115 would turn libraries into gun-free zones like schools, prohibiting guns even in the parking lots. The bill was created to “trump” challenges mounted by pro-gun activists against the Las Vegas Clark County Library District (LVCCLD), which has illegally enforced a gun ban. This came to a head when a mother, legally openly carrying her gun, was improperly arrested and filed a lawsuit based on state law that prohibits local gun rules or regulations. Despite what local media report and supporters claim, this bill exists because citizens stood up for their rights. Now, unscrupulous officials, elected and unelected, want to change the law because they don’t want to have to obey the law.

Letting SB 115 pass into law would: 

• Create a chilling effect on civil rights by rewarding officials who change a the law to avoid complying with it.
• Show the state has little interest in enforcing state firearm preemption laws.
• Provide no safety benefit and put law-abiding Nevadan library patrons at risk for violence.
• Encourage the Democrat-led erosion of Nevada’s right to bear arms.
• Allow the officials involved to escape responsibility for their illegal actions. 

Open carry in a library?

Yes, state law bans licensed concealed carry in public buildings (government buildings) where signs or metal detectors are posted at each public entrance. Open carry is not prohibited. If one wants to carry a firearm legally in a library, they must do so openly. State legal experts agree. Until the 1990s, concealed carry was generally demonized, whereas open carry was constitutionally protected.

Where this bill come from?

For nearly a decade, LVCCLD has illegally prevented open carry in its libraries. Many incidents have been recorded of legally armed citizens, minding their own business, being kicked out. The library bureaucrats made their illegal policy without a vote by the library trustees, thus breaking another law.

Citizens petitioned the district and trustees to remove the illegal ban, but the district continued to break the law. After enhanced state preemption of firearm laws was passed in 2015, allowing the option to sue for violations, LVCCLD was sued in 2016, but the case was lost in the pre-trial phase. Most preemption suits nationwide are won on appeal.

SB 115 would circumvent the preemption argument by prohibiting guns at libraries totally, just like at schools. This way, no lawsuit under preemption would work. LVCCLD officials are afraid that without SB 115, they will be sued again and lose.

What do the supporters claim is need for this bill?

Senator Denis asserted that he feels earlier legislation mistakenly left libraries out of the law. As the above context and quote (below) from the Assemblywoman show, Denis’ explanation is an excuse and probably a lie.

If Senator Denis meant the “no weapons in schools” law, libraries have never been considered like schools and no discussion was had before now. If Senator Denis meant that the state preemption law reform should have exempted libraries, why didn’t he propose a bill to amend the respective preemption laws? Denis voted “yes” on one version of the preemption laws, 2015’s SB 240, which did not exempt libraries. If there was a mistake then, why didn’t he try to correct it or vote against the bill?

There wasn’t an “error” in preemption. LVCCLD doesn’t want preemption to apply to them. Emily Dickinson wrote “Tell all the truth but tell it slant,” and in this sense, Denis lied via not telling the whole truth when he stated he felt schools were “left out,” if indeed he felt that way.

The bill’s co-sponsor and former LVCCLD trustee, Assemblywoman Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod, admitted to local media that pursuing a legislative fix to the gun ban protest problem would be a priority. So yes, by their own admission, SB 115 is directly because of the open carry challenge.

“I think it’s going to be something we’re going to have to take up in the Legislature to make that distinction. I think it was a complete oversight.” (source)

What is state preemption and how does it apply?

State preemption of firearm laws prohibits any political or government entity other than the legislature from making gun regulations, except for unsafe discharge. The law specifically applies to cities, counties, and towns, but also gives only the legislature authority to make gun regulations. This keeps all state laws uniform and avoids someone unintentionally violating a rule when traveling outside the area they are familiar with.

LVCCLD claims that since library districts aren’t explicitly included that they can make rules that prohibit guns. NRA lobbyist Dan Reed pointed out that if true, a special “gun ban” district could be made and make all sorts of anti-gun laws because the statute doesn’t specifically mention special districts like libraries.

Statements made by LVCCLD officials and the Senator himself indicate they are aware that state preemption does apply to them and they are afraid of losing another lawsuit. Their defense in court was that preemption does apply and got the lawsuit dismissed, partially on those grounds. So if preemption doesn’t apply to library districts, why the need for this bill?

Who needs a gun in the library?

One could ask this same question about a school with the response being a litany of school shootings that may have been prevented by someone shooting back. In fact, a few school shootings have been deterred or stopped by good guys with guns. If guns aren’t needed at the library, then why does LVCCLD hire armed security guards? Surely if citizens don’t need guns, security doesn’t either.

No one knows when or where violence will strike. It could be a disgruntled employee, a random attack, or ordinary criminal violence. It can also happen outside the library. Many open carriers cannot afford the training and fees for a concealed weapon permit, so they have no choice but to carry openly. Since they choose to protect themselves in public, why should they be forced to decide between going to the library unarmed or not going at all?

What makes a library such a special place that guns should be forbidden there? If mass shootings occur in churches and schools, there is nothing sacred or special about a library. Legally armed citizens do not manipulate their firearms in public or leave them in reach of children and neither has there ever been an recorded act of violence by a legally armed Nevadan in a library here.

Without evidence of legally armed citizens causing a problem, why is a ban needed? And with the context of all the illegal behavior of LVCCLD, should we really excuse everything they’ve done wrong by passing this law?

What about the parking lot exemptions?

The proposed parking lot exemption was proposed because opponents of the bill pointed out that those dropping off books or otherwise using library parking lots would be affected, as the law in question prohibits firearms any part of the property. This is a cop out, not a good thing.

The exemption is meant as a feel-good measure to overcome objections without actually doing anything. Schools will not create a pro-gun parking lot policy and one cannot trust libraries like LVCCLD to make fair policy in favor of gun owners. On the other hand, should the exemption become law, it would be a good start for parents and students to lobby for parking lot firearm exemption policies on campus.

SB 115 cannot be allowed to become law. A gun free zone is a killing zone and bureaucrats should never be rewarded for breaking the law.

Senator Denis Introduces Campus Carry Lite Amendment to SB 115

Remember SB 115, the library gun free zone/open carry revenge bill? Well, the Assembly Judiciary Committee held its hearing on the bill Tuesday, May 10th. Guess what came out of it? A Democrat who supports campus carry! Earlier, we predicted this as a possible outcome.

Senator Denis’ proposed an amendment which amounts to campus carry lite. Under his amendment, it would be legal at many schools, college/universities, libraries, etc. to openly carry or carry concealed in the parking lot or have a gun in your car. That’s right; Senator Denis approves of citizens having guns in plain sight on campus. Basically, what his amendment does far surpasses SB 102-the dead parking lot exemption bill from Republican Senator Settlemyer which only decriminalized guns in locked or occupied cars. Under Senator Denis' amendment, schools, colleges/universities, and libraries would have a blank check to be as pro-gun in the parking lots as they wanted.

One of the major objections to SB 115 was regarding books drop-offs or taxi and rideshare drivers inadvertently breaking the law by going into a library parking lot. The caveat is that such a policy would be discretionary and creates an illusion of a solution. Denis’ intended “checkmate” to overcome these objections back into basically the same problem he faced before. Libraries could easily ban such conduct if they wanted, and libraries making up the rules as they go is the whole problem here.

LINK: Guide to Articles About the Library Open Carry Issue

The first problem is that the policy to create the exemption is not mandatory, meaning that a library wouldn’t have to a parking lot exemption at all. Even if they did, it could be as narrow or broad as they liked. If libraries wouldn’t follow the law now, do you trust them to make an exemption to protect you now?

This is a cop-out from a mandatory parking lot exemption because Denis’ made a huge mistake in tying libraries to schools. He can’t make a mandatory exemption to library only parking lots because it would make him a hypocrite on his alleged reasoning of the “need” for SB 115. If he applies it equally, as he is claiming he is trying to do with his law, he creates de facto campus carry. As this bill stands, many pro-gun and rural schools, libraries, etc. could very easily make very liberal parking lot carry policies allowing even open carry.

If this passes as-is, it will lead to more and more schools and etc. adopting pro-gun policies, slowly bringing down the wall of resistance to true campus carry. Does Senator Denis really want to be known as the guy who got the campus carry ball rolling in Nevada? Even if he amends his amendment, he falls into one of the traps we’ve outlined before. It’s a no-win situation for Democrats.

Second, this amendment goes against the whole idea of state preemption of firearm laws, which has been in effect since the 1980s, that is a patchwork of policies are a bad idea. Optional policies, the terms of which can be broad or narrow and set individual, are a can of worms.

Without extensive prior research, there would be no telling if it is legal to cross that threshold from the street or not. These “policies” adopted could vary so widely that any supposed “advantages” may be meaningless.

The amendment raised questions as to how such a policy would be implemented. Will a library district exempt some branches and not others? Will certain schools or school districts be okay with guns in the parking lot? What if the Henderson libraries ban guns in parking lots, but LVCCLD does not? How many citizens could accurately tell you what district a library belongs in? And who will oversee the policies to see they are fairly implemented? The LVCCLD board of trustees totally ignored its administrators flagrant violation of the law.

If we cannot trust LVCCLD to obey state law in the first place—to the extent they try to re-write it altogether to justify their crimes—how can we trust them to implement a fair policy? All they had to do was acknowledge the fact that open carry is legal in a public building and leave it at that, but instead, at every opportunity, they chose to do the wrong thing. With this kind of track record, they have shown they are unworthy of discretion, not to mention there is no legitimate need for this bill.

Once again I remind the reader that SB 115 exists because citizens dared challenge LVCCLD’s illegal ban on legally openly carried firearms. SB 115 would set a horrible precedent that would encourage government officials to violate laws they disagree with, then pass laws to condone their behavior once citizens challenge the law. In a democratic and constitutional society, this amounts to tyranny. Any statesman or jurist of repute cannot allow this behavior. Today, it might be gun free zones in libraries. Tomorrow, it could be anything you can imagine.

At the very least, should the worst come to pass, those in rural counties or with right-minded principals and trustees might have Senator Denis to thank for campus carry lite.

The bill is up for a work session next Tuesday, March 16. Learn the history behind the SB 115 and the illegal activities of LVCCLD. You can use the email links below to email members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Jim.Wheeler@asm.state.nv.us

Jill.Tolles@asm.state.nv.us

Steve.Yeager@asm.state.nv.us

James.Ohrenschall@asm.state.nv.us

Elliot.Anderson@asm.state.nv.us

Lesley.Cohen@asm.state.nv.us

Ozzie.Fumo@asm.state.nv.us

Sandra.Jauregui@asm.state.nv.us

Brittney.Miller@asm.state.nv.us

Tyrone.Thompson@asm.state.nv.us

Justin.Watkins@asm.state.nv.us

Ira.Hansen@asm.state.nv.us

Lisa.Krasner@asm.state.nv.us

Keith.Pickard@asm.state.nv.us

How SB-115 Will Eventually Get us Campus Carry

Senator Mo Denis has painted himself into a corner over SB 115 by calling libraries “educational institutions” any tying them so closely to schools, by invoking children. He has adamantly claimed that it was an “oversight” that libraries were not included in NRS 202.265, the law which prohibits firearms at schools, colleges/universities, and child care facilities. Such a statement is false and would be seen right through by an appeals court or future legislature.

Libraries are not schools and far from it. There is no controlled access as in a school and poor supervision. Children are not mandated by law to be in a library daily. The adult-to-children ratio is nothing like the (probably) ten or twenty-to-one ratio in schools. Depending on the location, the library may have more adult patrons than children. Most kids are in school for the first half of the library’s business day. A library is no more like a school than a park is.

The facts are plain; there is no rational reason to prohibit legally armed adults from carrying self-defense handguns on campus. In particular, the work of Dr. John Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center proves this. The merits against campus carry are demonstrably false and every argument used to defeat them can be used to defeat SB 115.

If the bill were to hypothetically pass, while gun owners might have lost the battle, we will have won the war as Senator Denis has sown the seeds for us to win campus carry and further gun rights. Whether it we win in the halls of the Legislature or in court, every possible amendment has a path to victory for campus carry and even repealing SB 115. Let me be clear: every argument that applies for campus carry applies to libraries, given Sen. Denis’ assertion. If passed into law, SB 115 will be the foundation for how campus carry is passed in Nevada.

Amendments

There almost certainly will be an amendment that will “solve” some objections. Here are a few solutions that only “work” for them if they don’t mind becoming absurd, hypocritical liars or handing pro-gunners a win. Remember, you can’t amend future consequences.

1.      Exempt library parking lots from the prohibition.

This amendment would allow citizens to leave their firearms secured in the vehicles in the parking lot or simply extend the library prohibition to inside the actual building.

Logically, as libraries are the same as schools (according to the bill’s supporters), library and parking lots would both have to be exempted. This would have to be extended to cover schools, colleges/universities, and child care facilities, exactly what SB 102, the parking lot protection bill, was meant to do. SB 102 was quietly smothered because it’s “campus carry lite” nickname scared the legislators.

If only library parking lots/grounds were exempted, this would be political hay for campus carry supporters to humiliate the anti-gun legislators and hang their hypocrisy around their neck. And hypothetically, if SB 115 becomes law, after a few years of nothing bad happening because of guns safely in library parking lots, there will be plenty of ammo, excuse me, evidence, to use to pass a campus parking lot protection bill (“campus carry lite”). Imagine how stupid they would look claiming libraries are the same schools as schools, but “different” enough to allow guns stored in parked cars at the libraries, but not a school.

So for whoever reads this blog for Senator Denis, here’s the short version:

• Exempt library parking lots only, become hypocrites and have it used against you in future campaigns. Eventually, it will be used to get school parking lot protection passed.
• Make library gun free zones and exempt library and school parking lots, giving the pro-gunners a huge win and make you guys look stupid for killing SB 102.

Pass SB 115 and SB 102 (campus parking lot protection) together as-is and reconcile them later on.

Although we’d prefer to have SB 102 and see SB 115 languish and die, this outcome, in and of itself, would be a huge win for pro-gunners. While we lose libraries, we win school parking lots; that’s a huge win that starts to untie the campus carry (and library) knot, making campus carry all the more possible in the future. Just like anti-gunners want to incrementally chip away at gun rights, we can incrementally exploit their own hubris to rebuilt what was stolen from us.

The recent additions to NRS 202.265, child care facilities and (hypothetically) libraries would look really ugly at the inevitable state Supreme Court hearing. Particularly in that child care facilities were added because of a single, isolated incident almost arbitrarily and there is the whole ugly backstory of SB115’s origin. The truth about LVCCLD and it’s illegal behavior would unravel the whole “libraries are schools” lie.

Not to mention, there is a good shot of either open carry becoming legal, if historical precedent is upheld, and/or concealed carry if the United State Supreme Courts affirms that as a Second Amendment right. Check out the Ninth Circuit’s Peruta decision and the Nichols v. Brown California open carry case.

TL;DR (too long; didn’t read):

• Hand pro-gunners a huge victory and help get full campus carry passed in the future.

Ban firearms in all public buildings, or allow local authorities to do so discretionarily.

Doubtlessly, as was hinted at in the Feb. 28 Senate Judiciary Hearing, many other entities have tried to get this into the law. Senator Denis, to his credit, was smart enough to know that this option would never fly. He immediately disclaimed that was his goal and launched into a pack of lies about how this was about schools, educational institutions, the children, etc. So this amendment would make him look like a hypocrite. Had he gone this route, he would have had to bring up the incidents with open carriers, which would have led to the ugly truth coming out. It was easier to lie about an “oversight.”

There are far too many rural counties, with their own largely Republican senators, to obstruct a bill like this. Not to mention this would essentially be a partial dismantling of SB 175, preemption, and bring literally every politically active gun owner out of the woodwork to fight it. Signing such a bill would be a personal affront by Gov. Sandoval to SB 175’s author, Sen. Roberson, and make enemies within the Republican party.

Such an amendment would be a solution in search of a problem, the problem ironically being LVCCLD breaking the law. By and large, firearms are already effectively prohibited, one way or another, from places they arguably don’t need to be.

Using Utah as an example, this is basically courtrooms, jails, mental hospitals, etc. Arizona public buildings can discretionarily ban firearms, but, as must the above Utah locations, provide secure storage. Utah allows open and concealed carry, by permittees, in all schools, colleges, and universities and most public buildings, including libraries.

If all firearms were banned on the premises of public buildings, this would put huge swaths of the public in legal and physical danger. Many refuse to visit any public building in downtown Las Vegas without a firearm, even if they have to lock it in the car. Not to mention every public building’s parking lot and grounds would be off-limits to legal firearm carry, creating massive “gun free zones.”

Such an amendment would fly in the face of the Nevada Constitution, which protects the inalienable right of "defending life and liberty" and "the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense." Banning firearms, that were previously legally carried and caused no problems, inside, say the restroom of a public park or at the DMV, would fly in the face of the Constitution.

It would also violate the legal tradition of the frontier states, and in the case of open carry, many state Supreme Court rulings. Eventually, the courts would dispose of this amendment in a suit that revealed as many ugly facts as would be revealed as outlined in #2.

Of course, the rural local governments and their constituents would probably oppose this vociferously. Don’t forget, this could, and probably would, be extended to include the parking lots, grounds, and trail of even huge county parks. It would be very politically costly to try to get this passed and be as galvanizing as Question 1 was to gun owners. Want to get Nevada gun owners more politically active? Try this and see where you are come the 2019 Legislative Session.

Oh yeah and if a parking lot exemption were added, it would have to cover schools too, for the reasons above. You can exempt “some” buildings and not others for arbitrary reasons.

TL;DR:

Lose your “libraries are schools” moral authority. Endure angry phone calls/emails.
Get sued, lose eventually.
Very politically costly and probably impossible to pass.
Or pass get school parking lots exempted too, then see above.

Allow libraries/libraries districts to make their own blanket policies instead of individual exemptions.

Senator Denis kept misleading the committee during the Feb. 28 hearing by implying that the board of trustees could approve their own policies. Senator Becky Harris correctly pointed out that NRS 202.265 only allows individual exemptions, not a general written policy of yes/no/maybe. Disingenuously, Denis tried to imply otherwise.

Individual libraries or districts having different policies was something that state preemption, had anyone bothered to follow it in this case, was meant to deal with. Preemption ended patchwork polices and regulations that were impossible to know without extensive prior research. This is confusing and legally hazardous.

If libraries like LVCCLD didn’t care about the existing law and willfully and malicious broke it, what makes you think they will pass a far policy. You can bet that LVCCLD will never allow anyone except their armed security guards have guns, the same for most urban libraries. Like the school exemption, the discretionary policy exclusion will be a joke.

Campus carry in California used to be legal, but when the state was temporarily shall-issue, campus carry was banned, but special permission could still be granted. Now, California legislators want to remove the ability of school administration to grant special permission for staff to carry simply because some school districts are granting permission. With anti-gun legislators here proposing bills like SB 254, the bill that would allow someone you shot in justified self-defense sue you, how long until they dismantle special permission here?

But remember, if libraries are like schools, then if libraries can make blanket policies allowing guns, schools will have to be allowed to make blanket policies allowing guns too.

Just as the whole backstory of how LVCCLD broke the law and abused open carriers shows, anti-gunners will change the law anytime gun owners exercise their rights and use the law to support their cause. Policies will become ever more strict or disappear entirely as people exert their rights. You don’t trust a lion who says he’ll eat you tomorrow. Rights don’t need permission.

Equal Protection/14^th Amendment Lawsuit

Now for the legal stuff. Having a patchwork of arbitrary policies where some do and some don’t get approved is frowned upon by the court. The 14^th Amendment guarantees “equal protection under the law.” So if things follow the usual pattern, guns will be illegal at urban libraries and legal at rural ones. Some very special people will get permission, but most won’t. This sounds a lot like what happened in California, where some counties were no-issue, some counties were may-issue, and some counties were shall-issue for CCWs.

Can you imagine a library trying to explain why simply being in Las Vegas makes a legally armed citizen much more inclined to violence than someone living in Ely? Or how the ambiguous language of the statute creates disparate policies between districts/counties that are often unfairly applied and ultimately deny citizens the right to bear arms? Wouldn’t it be fun to tell the Supreme Court about how LVCCLD broke NRS 379.040 when making unauthorized policies or how they completely disregarded state preemption?

Especially if Peruta wins in court, this kind of  system won’t win in court. Combined with the above state constitutional arguments, a lawsuit has a great chance of success and irrevocably damaging gun control efforts in this state, perhaps nationally.

TL;DR:

• No one will believe that libraries can fairly administer the policy.
• 14th Amendment lawsuit. Lots of analogues based on different issues.
• State constitutionality questions and Supreme Court case (see #4).
• Library policy bans inevitably exposes them publicly as frauds.
• School districts can create blanket policies (or will in the future) 

5.      Let SB 115 die and tell LVCCLD (and any other library so inclined) to drop the issue.

Had LVCCLD just quietly respected the law from the beginning, or at least June 2015, this would never have been an issue. There never would have been a humiliating series of blog articles, the board of trustees being called out, no newspaper coverage, and no embarrassment for Senator Denis.

They could have just quietly chosen to allow open carry, informed staff and security of the law, and moved on with life. This live-and-let-live approach worked for Henderson. But no, ego and literal hatred for guns got in the way. Bureaucrats broke the law with the apparent blessing of the trustees.

My humble suggestion would be to let SB 115 die and re-train the staff. Leave open carriers alone. There will be no more lawsuits, no embarrassing hearings, no library secrets revealed in the press (and there are plenty coming), and no protests.

Conclusion

Ideally, we would love to see concealed carry in public buildings decriminalized totally, but America needs another decade before guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is fully destigmatized, no matter how much money Mr. Bloomberg spends. Remember, if any of this ever goes to the Supreme Court and we win, that’s a forever thing. Can’t beat that trump card! The best thing for Denis and Bilbray-Axelrod and the libraries is to simply let SB 115 die. If not, pro-gunners will win, even if it is only a moral victory. 

The Total Bullshit of SB115, the Library Gun Free Zone/Open Carry Revenge Bill

Well, Nevadans have spoken and called “bullshit” on SB 115, the library gun free zone/open carry revenge bill. At 621/Against to 89/For (as of Tuesday, 3/8 at 7 PM), Nevadans do not want libraries to become free fire zones for criminals.

I noticed an odd pattern: many of the comments to the Legislature mentioned open carry, which aside from this blog, I didn’t see mentioned anywhere in the media. Hmm… Where did they get that little tid-bit of information? Seems to me word has been spreading in the library community asking people to comment on the bill along with a “preview” of what the bill says.

The only logical place open carry came from to make it into these comments are people inside the libraries, particularly LVCCLD, with working knowledge of the issue. Funny how even these library folks know this is about the open carriers who stood against the multiple and continuous violations of the law and not some “oversight” like Senator Denis keeps trying to claim.

Most of the “for” comments are boilerplate crap I won’t bother with, but here are some gems I thought were worth sharing. Watch the video for commentary and be sure to stop by and read the comments in full yourself. Maybe even leave one!

“My husband and I offer support to SB115. My husband works for LVCCLD on Tropicana near Boulder Highway. As the Ast Branch Mgr and tallest guy in the place, he's often called to support security in trespassing patrons who violate library policy. His car has been vandalized twice (keyed all down the sides and tires slashed), both on days (or the day after) he has trespassed patrons with serious infractions. Being a librarian shouldn't be a job that carries risk of serious harm. As an employee of the district, and as a wife, we want libraries to be a safe, weapon-free zone.”

“I'm a librarian, and I can tell you that guns and dangerous weapons have no place in or near a public library (or any library for that matter). The public library is considered a safe zone for children and for adults. We cannot compromise the safety of our libraries by allowing firearms or dangerous weapons in or near our libraries. Absolutely not. If a guard has permission to carry, that is fine, but it must be confined to those people who obtain special permission. This is just COMMON SENSE, people!”

“There should be a gun free zone for all Libraries. We as Americans should be guaranteed areas that safe from fanatical people who feel they must pack weapons to defend themselves. We no longer live in the Wild Wild West and require a pair of 6 shooters strapped to each leg as Nevada Firearms Coalition would have you believe. We live in a polite society that one would hope could debate a problem or instance with words and not bullets. There are plenty of other places that the gun radicals can pack their guns openly and intimidate the mass populous--the library should not be one of them. ALL Public buildings should be off limits to weapons.”

“I don't like carrying of any weapons anywhere concealed or open. There is zero chance I would ever need a gun in a library: Zero. Or anywhere else. There are no boogeymen. They don't exist. There is no need for guns. I am for their restriction at every turn. People that have guns scare me. There is no such thing as a good guy with a gun just a-holes who want to shoot something someday.”

“I believe it was an oversight that public libraries were originally omitted from this law, so this correction is long overdue. There is no real need for a person to carry weapons in the library, and their presence is a danger to children, and to those whose mental issues alter perceptions. I don't believe this law infringes on anyone's right to own and bear weapons appropriately, but it will help keep the public library safe and welcoming to all.”

“Just as firearms are not allowed in schools because children are constantly present, there is absolutely no reason firearms should be allowed in libraries. The risk far outweighs any benefit, and citizens, especially children, are always safer when guns are not in their vicinity. Opponents of this bill use the possibility of terrorist activity as their reasoning for carrying guns in libraries, but accidental shootings and gun deaths are much more of a threat. In addition, a potential criminal could steal the gun away its owner, especially those owners with limited gun experience, which defeats the purpose of using the gun for protection. Not only is it unsafe, open carry is intimidating to other patrons and employees of the library. Libraries are and should remain a safe, open space that everyone in the public can access, but allowing guns in libraries diminishes this experience.”

Library Lawsuit, Round One: Judge Demonstrates Need for State Preemption

Judge Stephanie Miley denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District today in the lawsuit over the library district’s illegal open carry ban.

NBC News 3 has a good story on the proceedings.

Counsel for the district portrayed the incident as a disturbance rather than the true facts of library staff interfering with Mrs. Flores’ right to open carry in a public building. The district also insists that state preemption laws do not apply to it because it is a joint city-county library district, rather than a city library district.

Flores stated that she was never actually asked to leave the library by the staff. Library administrative staff have conspired for years to illegal prohibit openly carried firearms in their district. There is no basis under state law for the policy the district has in place.

It is unfortunate that Judge Miley chose to play a part in the corrupt Clark County system that has consistently infringed on Second Amendment rights. It is not surprising that this played out, but quite shocking that a judge would clearly ignore the obvious legal arguments showing that the library district is in violation of the law. This kind of behavior, dating since the 1950s, is why enhanced pre-emption was passed in the form of SB 175/240 in 2015.  

In similar cases, particular on essentially the same foundation as this case, Michigan Open Carry v. CADL, have been won on appeal. Instructor Mac pointed out that by the library district’s trustee Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod’s statement that the legislature should take up the issue, she is tacitly admitting the library district does not have the legal authority to ban openly carried firearms. In fact, among the Intermountain West states, open carry is legal in the vast majority of public buildings.

For a summary of the history and issues in this case, please see this post cataloging the topic.

Flores ibrary Open Carry Suit; Guide to Posts

Update: Dec. 2018. The Nevada Supreme Court unfortunately and erroneously found in favor of the library district, meaning libraries can prohibit open carry as per their rules. See Flores v. LVCCLD.

SB 115, the library gun free zone/open carry revenge bill, died in the Assembly.

Candid Facts on the Origin of SB 115 (a must read for the full background)

Lawsuit and Library Shenanigans Background

To save you some time from searching, here is a quick and dirty guide to relevant articles that detail the full story of the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District open carry scandal. (backdated)

The story that broke it all: Library Has Mom Illegally Arrested for Legal Openly Carried Gun; Suit Filed

An earlier incident: Las Vegas Library Violates Preemption Over Open Carry

The Editor and Henderson Libraries (they get it)

LVCCLD 'Official' Unofficial Open Carry Ban Policy

Libraries and the Law

A Brief History of the Library District's Open Carry Antics

Library Open Carry Ban: Other Examples Show District Wrong

The History of NRS 202.3673 and Open Carry in Public Buildings

Open Carry is Constitutionally Protected

A Guide to State Preemption Laws

Carrying in Public Buildings

Statement from someone who spoke with library counsel Gerald Welt

Actual Library Policy

Quick short link: http://bit.ly/1U9SfmQ

Library Board of Trustees Take Up Open Carry (Probably)

The Las Vegas Clark County Library District had a closed session at its last board of trustees meeting, Thursday the 19th. The agenda states that it was "regarding litigation and labor issues." Only one case could be found currently pending against the District. From the agenda:

It is almost certain that the board met with their counsel Gerald Welt (who admitted the district would sue anyway) to discuss the open carry lawsuit. Oh to have been a fly on the wall of that room...

There is no way to learn what was discussed in the meeting. The minutes won't be published for 30 days and closed sessions are subject to attorney-client privilege. Only by deeds will we know the outcome, but it is quite likely the case will end up moving through the court system. The next court date is June 21, 2016.

Library Open Carry Ban: Other Examples Show District Wrong

Is Nevada some stranger outlier when it comes to openly carried firearms in public buildings? To those new to the issue, the Las Vegas Clark County Library District’s illegal ban and the resulting fight to overturn it would appear curious.

Members of the Nevada gun community have for over five years repeatedly tried to politely engage the library district about their ban of openly carried firearms and attempt to get it overturned. Each time, they were turned away with the same, tired argument that has been trotted out to date. Unfortunately, until 2015, most appeals were made to the same bureaucrats promulgating their own policy. A completely illegal policy was written up and never approved by the board of trustees—the only authority under the cited NRS 379.040 which can make rules—at least back to 2004.

In context of other examples, both locally and in other states, it’s clear that it is the library district that is out of sync with establish standards. We know that in Nevada, there simply isn’t any authority for local gun regulations.

Legislation

If there was a problem with openly carried firearms in public buildings, presumably the legislature would have corrected the error. As I explained previously, the consensus in many of our neighboring states to the north and east is that open carry, except for very limited cases, simply can’t be regulated. During the 2015 legislative session, dubbed ‘the year of the gun’, the Legislative Counsel Bureau gave an opinion that open carry in public buildings (save for campuses, daycares, and wherever the legislature is meeting) is legal. 

"This office is aware that some persons have argued that NRS 202.3673 prohibits the open carry of firearms in a public building. However, that argument is not legally sound because NRS 202.3673, by its plain language, regulates only the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person who has a permit to carry a concealed firearm. NRS 202.3673 simply does not apply to the open carry of firearms in a public building.

"Because there is no general statutory prohibition against the open carry of firearms in a public building, it is the opinion of this office that the open carry of firearms is not prohibited in a public building, unless otherwise prohibited by a specific statute [...]."

The legislature neither passed nor proposed any bills limiting openly carried firearms in public buildings. For most of Nevada’s history, there was no law prohibiting firearms in public buildings, openly or concealed. Indeed, for a time, licensed concealed carry was legal in public buildings.

Other western states

Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming also prohibit local authorities from making their own firearm regulations. In Arizona and Montana, local public buildings banning weapons are at local discretion with Arizona requiring secure storage or lockboxes. Interestingly, Colorado law absolutely protects concealed carry in public buildings without security screening, which caused the Denver Science Museum to change its policy. Most states have strict preemption laws, so Nevada is not at all unusual in this regard.

Henderson Library District

The editor of this blog actually inadvertently changed how Henderson Library District treats open carriers. I was confronted by a volunteer who told me “Sir, this is a public building and we have signs prohibiting weapons in the building.” When I tried to inform him about the law, he held up his hand and walked off. He and a staff member whispered together while pointing at me. Later, I sent an open letter to the administrators who didn’t bother responding.

By sheer coincidence, while doing research months later, I found out that at a board of trustees meeting the following month that the issue was discussed and referred to their counsel, Brin Gibson, for his opinion. 

"Recently a gentleman came in with an open carry weapon. It appeared his purpose was to challenge someone to confront him. The admin team will meet with the district’s attorney, Brin Gibson, and go through the applicable laws to decide what the district’s stance should be. This may result in a policy update brought back to the Board. There haven’t been any real problems; this was just something a little out of the ordinary. Jim Frey asked how the situation was resolved. Angela Thornton said staff asked him to leave. He said he didn’t have to, but did leave soon after. He wanted to prove a point. Angela Thornton said in Oklahoma libraries are considered government buildings where weapons are not allowed. If the Board has any questions they should direct them to Angela Thornton. The meeting is scheduled for October 1st. (9/18/2014 minutes) 

"The admin team and branch managers met with the library district’s attorney Brin Gibson about the open carry issue. The law allows for a person to openly carry a firearm [holstered] in the library, but it is against the law to carry a concealed weapon [even with a permit] in the library. The library staff response will be to call the police to ask any person open carrying about their intentions to ensure they are someone who can carry legally, safely and responsibly in the library. If a person is carrying an unholstered weapon, staff will pull the fire alarm and call 911. Gayle Hornaday said the situation rarely occurs. On the rare occasion a person has open carried in the library, he did so to make a statement." (10/16/2015 minutes)

 See how simply that was resolved? Why is the county district so intransigent?

Clark County Parks

Clark County Parks long enforced a county ordinance prohibiting guns in local parks. A public-pressure challenge was mounted, resulting in an opinion by Democrat Attorney General Cortez-Masto. She justified the ban under incredibly tortured logic, essentially stating that since there was a grandfather clause in the original state preemption bill to allow Clark County’s handgun registration to continue, that the legislators really meant to grandfather all local ordinances. Despite several amendments to the original text over time, she still found it to be valid. 

The chief of police stated, prior to the law being preempted and repealed, that he had no intentions to recommend that the county commissioners repeal the ban. Again, government and police don’t want to give up power over citizens. It’s unknown how many arrests for this ordinance were made. Within days of preemption passing, Cdr. Michael acknowledged the law was no longer enforceable, which he deserves credit for.

The shootings that have occurred over the years in county parks made a joke out of this ban. No one is blaming state preemption (at least not yet) for the violence with guns that have occurred in parks since the repeal.

Public Utilities Commission

Interestingly, the PUC used very similar tactics to the library district’s vis-à-vis administrative shenanigans when faced with large crowds and intense public rancor for their solar rate decision, all because one or two people who were apparently only incidentally openly carrying in the crowd. They claimed attorney-client privileged for emails to their counsel on the topic.

This appears to have been an unexpected crisis and based in a real fear of the crowd. Though no actionable threats of violence were made, the PUC was apparently so terrified of a crowd calling for a proverbial tarring and feathering that they concocted an illegal policy. This shows that in a crisis, government will use any power, legal or not, to suppress behavior it fears.

Michigan

First, the too long; didn’t read version: Persons legally possessing firearms (both open and concealed carry is legal) were being hassled and prevented from doing so by the Capitol Area Library District in Lansing. Lansing police got tired of being called by the library staff and informed the library district that they will not respond unless there is a court order in place. Consequently, the district obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO). The restraining order enjoined non-specific members of Michigan Open Carry, resulting in the arrest of a member at a board meeting where he was also first served. The next day, all the directors of Michigan Open Carry were served. The group filed suit, which initially resulted in the library district winning the case, which was later overturned on appeal (with a stern rebuke for that judge).

From CADL v. Michigan Open Carry:

Although library districts were not specifically named in Michigan’s preemption statute, the court found: 

“Although district libraries are not expressly included within the definition of a local unit of government for purposes of MCL 123.1102, because we are dealing with regulation by a quasimunicipal governmental agency in an area that is regulated by the state, we are bound to apply Michigan’s doctrine of field preemption in determining whether a district library is free to regulate firearm possession.”

The suit found that while the Michigan library statute authorizing library regulations could pertain to firearms, it was overruled by the preemption statute. The preemption statute applied, even though the library did not meet the given definition of a local unit of government, because: 

“Although district libraries have the authority to adopt bylaws and regulations and do any other thing necessary for conducting the district-library service, as stated earlier, this Court has held that a district library is a quasi-municipal corporation, i.e., a governmental agency authorized by constitution or statute to operate for and about the business of the state.” 

Additionally, when the letter of the statute is not met, the following considerations must be taken in to consideration (People v. Llewellyn): 

“First, where the state law expressly provides that the state’s authority to regulate in a specified area of the law is to be exclusive, there is no doubt that municipal regulation is pre-empted. 

“Third, the pervasiveness of the state regulatory scheme may support a finding of pre-emption. While the pervasiveness of the state regulatory scheme is not generally sufficient by itself to infer pre-emption, it is a factor which should be considered as evidence of pre-emption.” 

The court here cites a similar preemption case, Michigan Coalition v. Ferndale, which found: 

“[...]the Legislature stripped local units of government of all authority to regulate firearms by ordinance or otherwise with respect to the areas enumerated in the statute, except as particularly provided in other provisions of the act and unless federal or state law provided otherwise. Unlike some other statutes, does not use language to the effect that the act 'occupies the whole field of regulation,' but rather expressly removes the power of local units of government to regulate in the field. The effect is to occupy the field to the exclusion of local units of government. In other words, although stated in the negative, rather than the affirmative, the statutory language of demonstrates that, in effect, state law completely occupies the field of regulation [...]” 

As to the question of whether a joint city-county library is district is affected under regulation the court found: 

“Excluding a district library from the field of regulation—simply because it is established by two local units of government instead of one—defies the purpose of the statute and would undoubtedly lead to patchwork regulation. 

“As established by MCL 123.1102 and Mich Coalition, all public libraries that are owned by cities, villages, and townships are currently preempted from regulating firearms. Thus, the issue is essentially whether legislative history supports a finding that the state intended to occupy the field of regulation to the exclusion of local units of government except for district libraries, which are established by two or more local units of government. [footnote] 

“Thus, while the express language of the statute fails to include a district library in its definition of local units of government, the legislative history supports a finding that the purpose of the statute would only be served by leaving it to the state to regulate firearm possession in all buildings established by local units of government, including district libraries. 

“If the state prevents all public libraries established by a city, village, township, or county from passing their own firearms regulations but does not similarly prevent district libraries from doing so, it would result in a ‘Balkanized patchwork of inconsistent local regulations’. 

Now, Nevada’s case is a little bit different. The CADL behaved in an intolerable fashion using a broad restraining order that bordered on a bill of attainder for basically anyone openly carrying a firearm. The LVCCLD has not stooped to the lows that CADL did. Also, Nevada’s preemption statutes are extraordinarily clear that only the legislature has the power to regulate firearms in addition to the section regulating the powers of counties, cities, and towns. Our laws give no question that LVCCLD has no powers to regulate firearms.

Seattle

The Seattle Public Library dropped its preempted ban of firearms in November of 2013. This was the result of a few emails from a concerned citizen, Dave Bowman. The city attorney told authorities that he doubted their ban could survive a legal challenge. The fight with the Seattle library had begun in 2007, but only came to a head years later, in light of Chan v. Seattle, which found that Seattle's ban on firearms in public parks was illegal.

A library employee, reacting to the issue, made the very argument why citizens should not be disarmed at libraries (source KUOW): 

“We MUST strive to keep guns out of our very trusted, and very public space. Because of our public nature, we are prime targets for random violence. No amount of ‘training’ will be able to keep staff and patrons safe, if anyone can come in with a hidden gun [sic].” 

An anti-gun activist, Ralph Fascitelli, said: 

"'Can I fault the library for not fighting back? Absolutely not,' Fascitelli said. 'It’s black and white. We would have been all over that if there had been wiggle room, but they have no choice. Why fight a battle you know you’re going to lose?'” 

Florida

Florida has the toughest preemption law of all the states. If Nevada’s law had the punch Florida’s law does, I seriously doubt the library district would be pursuing their current course of action. Let’s take a look.

790.33 FS

(1)(b) It is further the intent of this section to deter and prevent the violation of this section and the violation of rights protected under the constitution and laws of this state related to firearms, ammunition, or components thereof, by the abuse of official authority that occurs when enactments are passed in violation of state law or under color of local or state authority.

(3)(a) Any person, county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity that violates the Legislature’s occupation of the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, as declared in subsection (1), by enacting or causing to be enforced any local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation impinging upon such exclusive occupation of the field shall be liable as set forth herein.

(b)  If any county, city, town, or other local government violates this section, the court shall declare the improper ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel.

(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.

(d)  Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.

(e) A knowing and willful violation of any provision of this section by a person acting in an official capacity for any entity enacting or causing to be enforced a local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation prohibited under paragraph (a) or otherwise under color of law shall be cause for termination of employment or contract or removal from office by the Governor.

(f) A person or an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance, regulation, measure, directive, rule, enactment, order, or policy promulgated or caused to be enforced in violation of this section may file suit against any county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity in any court of this state having jurisdiction over any defendant to the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages, as limited herein, caused by the violation. A court shall award the prevailing plaintiff in any such suit:

1. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the laws of this state, including a contingency fee multiplier, as authorized by law; and

2. The actual damages incurred, but not more than $100,000.

It’s pretty clear that the library district is fully aware it will lose in court, however, they don’t care. Our preemption law only risks taxpayer dollars, which has never been a concern of any government official. Now if the administrators were facing losing their job and a substantial chunk of change, you can bet the policy would have been changed in a heartbeat. Instead, they will abuse the legal system to have citizens illegally arrested and waste tax money defending their blatantly illegal policy. Florida got this one right.

Conclusion

The library district is waging a futile battle. State law and case precedence are against them. Government doesn’t want to relinquish power. As my own experience and Mrs. Flores’s experience has shown that libraries don’t want a discourse. Because of their anti-gun ideology, the district’s members are so hostile to beliefs that conflict with their own that they cannot respect the law. It is truly baffling to see that they would take this issue so far, admitting all the while that they will lose. This incident was of their making. It was the administrator’s and the trustee’s decision to escalate this issue and to continually trample upon a civil right they didn’t agree with.

Library District Response On Open Carry: "The Children!"

One of our readers received this recent reply from the library district in regard to his complaint over the district’s illegal open carry ban. As has been their consistent practice for many years, they are continuing with their ‘go pound sand’ response.

“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.”

The interesting thing is that they are continuing to argue: “NRS 379.040 (quoted below) requires the Trustees of the Library District to guarantee that libraries are free and accessible to the public." 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 that 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. Of course, thanks to state preemption laws, the board of trustees are powerless to ban open carry as well. District bureaucrats made up the ban.

Besides, denying access to the library to patrons not breaking the law or the Code of Conduct violates NRS 379.040 on its face. You'd think their counsel would have advised them to simply stop commenting on the issue altogether “due to pending litigation” rather they keep on digging their hole. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." 

Can the district explain just what is so hazardous about a holstered handgun to health and safety? If the mere presence of a legal firearm is dangerous, what makes the handgun of the district's armed security guards a special exception? The district is insinuating that a legally armed citizen suddenly becomes prone to violence inside the library, sort of like a Mr. Hyde triggered by too many books. By that same logic, they should ban lighters and matches from patrons’ pockets because they may spontaneously burst into flame.

It's asinine logic. Well, not really. It's an obvious, bald-faced lie because they simply can't admit that their political leanings clash with the Second Amendment. It’s probably a safe bet that only a minority of library staff believe in gun rights.

There is also this gem: "The Library District will rationally enforce its 'no firearms' policy by asserting trespass claims against violators." What's rational about making illegal arrests (except now they'll probably remember to say "you need to leave") and forcing the issue until a lawsuit is filed? Oops, sorry for the rhetorical question. We’re dealing with a local government agency here. Doubling down on their illegal ban by continuing (in theory) to press trespassing charges can’t be a good idea. Do they not understand the concept of a class action lawsuit? “We’re going to continue our illegal practices in clear contravention of law facing the potential of triple damages until a court makes us stop.”  

"Won't someone please think of the children?"

“The 'no firearms' policy protects the health and safety of the Library District’s patrons, which include young children.” Helen Lovejoy anyone?

​A 2011 letter from Jeanne Goodrich, the then director also says it's about children:

"The District instituted such a policy out of concern for the safety of all its patrons, including children.

"As you pointed out, pursuant to NRS 202.3673, carriers of concealed weapons can be prohibited from entering libraries. From the District’s perspective, the same fears and concerns carrying concealed weapons are heightened for individuals who do not have concealed weapons permits and are carrying unconcealed weapons into libraries.

"In enacting NRS 370.040 [sic], the State granted the District authority to implement those regulations it deems reasonable and weighing the District’s concerns of public safety versus and individual’s right to bring a firearm into a library, the District implemented this reasonable restriction. The law permits the District to trespass any individual in violation of this policy and the District intends on doing so pursuant to its 'no firearms' policy."

Goodrich’s statement centers entirely on feelings and perceptions, not facts or legalities. Basically, it's just "Guns are bad, m'kay." For years, the district has repeatedly asserted that NRS 379.040 confers powers upon unelected bureaucrats that the statute clearly does not give.

If the district administration, their counsel, and the board of trustees on their own will not see the light, the public must bring pressure against them. Unfortunately, trustees cannot be voted out of office, but they can still have to deal with the inconvenience of citizens expressing their outrage at not just a Second Amendment violation, but willingly risking taxpayer dollars defending a wholly illegal policy. Even if you don’t like guns or the ideas in a library, clearly you can dislike the idea of recklessly throwing away public money.

Editor's note: Apparently my honest and persistent reporting of this issue has antagonized the library staff and my own requests for comment do not merit even a boilerplate response. We're always open for a frank and open conversation with the library staff on this issue.