Concealed Carriers Admit to Breaking Gun Laws on TV

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-G. C

'No Guns' Signs on Private Property: Carry Anyway?

Nevada is blessed in that in our state, ‘no guns’ signs on private property do not have the force of law. Only concealed carry is prohibited in public buildings with ‘no guns’ signs and in places like schools. You can basically carry almost anywhere in our state, unlike Texas, where a 30.06 sign makes it illegal to carry a firearm on private property. In Nevada, the only violation for refusing to leave or disarm when asked would be trespassing. 

A lot of American gun owners consider themselves to be libertarian or conservative and give the right of private property a lot of respect. As the right to private property should be respected the same way as the right to bear arms is, the question is, should gun owners respect the wishes of the business owner and not carry where guns aren’t wanted?

Anti-Carry Businesses

Examples of such business in Nevada are: Buffalo Wild Wings, Ethel M Chocolates, Red Robin and Raising Canes (Clark County franchises), most large malls, and most casinos. Casinos in a state owned by them shouldn’t really surprise anyone, and as long as we don’t have to pay state income tax, I suppose not openly carrying on casino property is acceptable.

The reasons for banning guns are usually based on liability concerns, that without such a warning, if a crime or accident occurs with a gun, the business can always point out that they had a sign banning firearms. Ideological bans are fairly rare and lately, with the very loud crowd of Mommies protesting open carry, businesses like Target, Starbucks, and Panera ban guns because of political correctness.

Raising Canes is one of the ‘image’ perception banners. Chief Marketing Officer Justin Micatrotto, “a proud gun owner”, qualified his support for the Second Amendment thusly:

"For us, it is a matter of perception for mothers with their children and while there is a large portion of guests who feel more comfortable knowing weapons are allowed in a public place, there is also a larger portion who do not." (Really Justin? Can I see some stats on that?)

"If a gun is concealed then it shouldn’t be an issue. [...] The sign protects us in the event someone is discussing their concealed weapon out loud or draws attention to the fact they are carrying in a concealed fashion. We then would approach the table and ask them to remove it from the premises."

"We are not asking you to compromise your families safety in the slightest but have this in place to provide an atmosphere/perception for those who are uncomfortable with the thought of guns being around them in public."

Justin’s objection is that guns might bother moms, kids, and anti-gun weenies. His concern is not  safety, nor does he think that robbers and gang members will be thwarted by the sign. To him, the sign gives his managers the authority to kick a gun owner out if they learn the person is carrying (and could potentially frighten weenies), despite the fact a business doesn’t need a warning sign to kick people out.

It would be acceptable to Justin for someone who has a concealed firearm permit to carry concealed and not talk about the fact they were carrying. He doesn’t want any of Shannon Watts’ moms getting scared. While his logic is pretty stupid, it begs a question: is it okay to subvert anti-gun business by concealed carrying anyway, like many carry everywhere hashtaggers suggest?

The Moral Question

As much as knowledgeable gun owners might disagree, a business or homeowner has the right to prohibit firearms on the premises. Americans have to respect all rights regardless of their opinions on the subject.

“This may sound like a contradiction for many conservatives. After all, most conservatives and gun owners are very supportive of rights in general and the right of private property owners to do what they want on their own property is no less important than our Second Amendment rights.” (wizbangblog)

In Nevada, this is not a question of law, but one of ethics. Is it more moral to respect private property and go unarmed than it is to protect one’s life if the need were to arise?

The right to private property is not absolute. Most laws still apply even behind closed doors. Businesses cannot prohibit customers on the basis of race, disability, etc. What if the sign said something else? “No Italians, Jews, Blacks, or Irish allowed.” Would you obey it or respect the owner’s right to discriminate on their property?

Life obviously has more value than private property rights. Imagine if the ‘no guns’ sign said “Self-defense prohibited,” or “Easy murder zone.” Since 1950, all but one public mass shooting occurred in a gun free zone. But no rational business owner would imagine posting that, nor would they think of posting “No murder, robbery, or violence permitted,” because it would work the same as an old man yelling at the rain to stop. Countless business with ‘no guns’ signs are victimized each year, proving that their prophylactic has a hole in it.

When was a teenager, I worked at a fast food restaurant in California. At the time, there was basically no way any civilian could have a gun in our store. We even had a little crossed out gun decal on the doors. As these things tend to happen, one night I turned around to see a Browning High Power in my face. I didn’t stop to think “Hey, didn’t they see the sign?!” or wish our franchisee had a policy prohibiting robberies.

Far too many stores feel that no-gun signs are some sort of safeguard against crime. I like to think of it of someone who wraps a talisman around their neck to ward off evil. It just makes you feel good. Okay, a Bible once stopped a bullet, but it didn’t magically keep the gun from being fired the same way the ‘no guns’ decal at Taco Bell didn’t keep me from being robbed. If you told an anti-gun business owner they might as well post a ‘no crime’ sign on the door, they’d laugh at you. By some sort of liberal voodoo, people think a ‘no guns’ sign will keep criminals away. The lunacy of this logic never occurs to them.

What should the gun owner do?

While life obviously has more value, a gun owner can simply choose to “vote with their feet” and patronize another, pro-gun business. Me and my gun go just about everywhere, so, no gun=no me.

Not going in shows respect for private property. It is an American value to respect someone’s choice to prohibit firearms, though you may disagree. Some citizen carriers honor the anti-gun business’s wishes by not going in at all; sort-of walking away quietly without protest. Others print and distribute ‘no gun/no money’ cards to give out. On the extreme is abandoning a shopping cart full of good when the manger approaches and asks you to come back next time unarmed.

The problem with the “screw you” approach is that it doesn’t get us anywhere. Many employees are just enforcing a short-sighted corporate policy out of fear of discipline. A lot of us (the author included) had a eureka moment when they understood what the whole no-compromise gun rights thing was about. By explaining yourself politely, you might convert that employee or business owner to our side. You can’t be the reason someone’s outlook changes if you immediately launch into an angry tirade.

Yet in some cases, going elsewhere is entirely unavoidable, such as visiting a casino or maybe this one product you just gotta have is at Mom’s Anti-Gun Bakery. Is it acceptable to carry concealed there anyway?

Businesses don’t have the right to dictate how you can exercise your natural right to self-defense. There is no moral question that one has a right to defend themself as they see fit, especially given the fact that businesses have no obligation to keep a customer from being victimized. I argue that since life is more important, it cancels out the right to private property, as the right to life is absolute. So if a gun owner persists in going to an anti-gun business, it is still morally permissible to carry concealed there.

In some cases, it’s hard to avoid places like movie theaters and casinos that don’t have gun-friendly alternatives. I don’t trust my life to a private security guard who has his job, in addition to his life, to worry about, much less my own, so I carry concealed in those times I have no other option. I’m not going to give up seeing Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens because I’m afraid of getting shot by the next James Holmes and Regal Cinemas wants to keep my gun out.

Then there are places like Target, which caved into the Mommies demand that open carry in Target stores be stopped. Target, trying to walk the middle ground, made everyone unhappy by ‘requesting’ that gun owners leave their guns at home when they shop at Target. Personally, I’ll avoid Target, but since it’s ‘optional’, if I have to go there, I’ll go armed anyway.

Some gun owners would question why you’re giving money to an anti-gun business—that there is some absolute that you shouldn’t go there. Does going anyway make you a sell-out to anti-gunners or in some way invalidate your support of gun rights? No, not at all. Just like concealed vs. open carry, it’s a personal choice.

Laws You Might See on Signs 

NRS 202.3673 Concealed Carry Prohibited in Posted Public Buildings (not a crime on private property)

NRS 206.140 Nuisance in Building

NRS 207.200 Trespassing