When the Washoe Area Hated Guns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Incidents, Lasting Effects

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

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

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

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

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

Reno's 1905 ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attitudes

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

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

Elsewhere

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

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

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

Preemption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Related article: Washoe County Still Violates State Preemption

Sources

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

Open Carry Harassment at Clark County Fair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LVCCLD 'Official' Unofficial Open Carry Ban Policy

A recent Nevada Open Records Act (NORA) record dump revealed precious little information about the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District’s legal (and mental) gymnastics to try and justify their denial of legal open carry. This is the document that several patrons have been shown to justify the ban and the same language contained in earlier letters.

PDF Link

It looks like they tried to cook this up without running this buy their counsel, Gerald Welt. They really should study the legal issues first.

NRS 379.040 empowers the board of trustees, not administration or staff, to make regulations. This is a legislative function reserved to appointed members of the board, presumably to avoid arbitrary and capricious regulations based on the whims of someone in charge. Only after giving the public notice, listening to public comments, and reasoned debate can a regulation be adopted. Simply expounding on a vague rule that essentially says the library district’s policy is the state law prohibiting concealed weapons in posted buildings is not what NRS 379.040 authorizes.

Library staff would be well within their rights to eject someone mishandling a firearm or otherwise causing a disturbance.

We are still waiting for a source to provide us with emails and internal communications regarding this issue. Stay tuned.

Guns Hot Topic at Fernley City Council Meeting

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

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

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

Eilrich’s Proposal 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open Carriers Speak to Library Trustees

Weathered sign at the W. Charleston Library

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Openly carried firearms not illegal

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

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

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

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

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

Preemption

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

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

NRS 244.364 (in part)
(a) The purpose of this section is to establish state control over the regulation of and policies concerning firearms [...] to ensure that such regulation and policies are uniform throughout this State and to ensure the protection of the right to keep and bear arms, which is recognized by the United States Constitution and the Nevada Constitution.
(b) The regulation of the [...] possession, carrying [...] of firearms [...] in this State and the ability to define such terms is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature, and any other law, regulation, rule or ordinance to the contrary is null and void.
(c) This section must be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. 

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

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

Other Libraries

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

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

Speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuits?

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

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

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

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

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

The Benefits of Uniform Gun Laws Statewide

Nevada has a history of borrowing a lot of ideas from California, and not always good ones. In 1948, Clark County instituted the notorious ‘blue card’ system instituted in the hey-day of early Las Vegas was supposedly a measure to counter the influx of eastern gangsters. Know who has the guns, know who the crooks are, or so the thinking went. A quick visit to the Mob Museum in Downtown Las Vegas will quickly dispel that idea. The major cities of the county enacted their own handgun registration and concealed carry laws. North Las Vegas uniquely banned permit-less open carry and carrying a firearm in a vehicle, until finally forced to repeal those laws earlier this year.

June 2, 2015, Gov. Sandoval signed Senate Bills 175 and 240, which contained identical provisions regarding state preemption of firearm laws. While these laws already existed, this had the effect of immediately eliminating the ‘blue cards’ and forcing a few odd local laws to be repealed. News spread rapidly through Las Vegas and its suburbs that gun owners would finally have one less burden to gun ownership. Along with the ‘blue card’ ordinances, any local ordinance, rule, or regulation regarding firearms (except for the unsafe discharge) was declared null and void. The state legislature declared that only they had the power to make gun laws.

45 states have preemption laws on the books which generally prohibit local authorities—cities, towns, and counties—from making their own gun laws. Nevada’s is particularly tough, providing up to triple damages for local regulations out of compliance.

Preemption creates uniformity between counties, cities, and towns eliminating a confusing and hazardous—both legally and for personal safety safety—patchwork of laws. For instance, someone moving from Pahrump to Las Vegas might have unknowingly broken Clark County’s ordinance to register a handgun within 60 days of residency or within 72 hours of acquiring the gun. Along with various other laws or regulations, like Clark County Parks prohibition of guns in their parks and North Las Vegas’ law on the books that prohibited guns in cars, a law-abiding citizen might get caught up in a confusing web.

Rumors were another effect of Clark County’s laws. People repeated laws that weren’t enforced for years, yet things were so confusing, someone who didn’t take the time to understand the subject didn’t know what to think. Many were dissuaded from carrying at all. North Las Vegas has for years been the subject of many persistent and widespread rumors that open carry is illegal.

To make it worse, despite the presence of obsolete laws on the books, police enforced some laws anyway, despite existing preemption laws. Sadly, in North Las Vegas, this behavior continues sporadically even after enhanced preemption was enacted and the local laws repealed.

These laws gave huge latitude to unscrupulous officers over the years to harass citizens, justify profiling minorities, and confiscate legally owned guns under the pretense they were not registered.

History

Why was such a step necessary? It’s important we look at history. Over the years,

The exact way Clark County managed to get an exemption that preserved its handgun registration scheme, and at the time, most of its local carry laws, is shrouded in the research darkness of pre-internet days. An archived document of legislative evidence from the original 1989 preemption laws provides the best insight into those times, but phone calls and backroom conversations weren’t recorded to tell the whole tale.

In 1989, Undersheriff Cooper said that "Las Vegas was becoming a major city with major city problems, therefore, Las Vegas could not be compared to the remainder of the state." Sheriff Moran said: "[...] I think Las Vegas is a very unique city and requires gun regulations that would be impractical in rural areas. [...] Las Vegas is unlike any other city in the world. [...] but there comes a time when even I have to interpret the Constitution as I see fit [...]." Moran’s statement shows the shocking arrogance of law enforcement in Clark County and why LV Metro PD in particular was so dead-set against preemption laws (until Sheriff Lombardo saw the writing on the wall) and for strictly restricting citizens' Second Amendment rights.

Men like Moran and Cooper believed that Las Vegans deserved fewer rights than all other Nevadans, based on their opposition to preemption. While the original text of the 1989 law would have ended all local regulations in any form, just as 2015 change finally did (only 26 years late), an amendment was proposed by Chairman Danny L. Thompson, coming on the heels of a hard letter from Sheriff Moran. By hammering on the fact that Las Vegas was a "major city and faced major city problems," they used their influence to allow Clark County to keep its existing gun-control laws, primarily handgun registration and the waiting period.

The three-day wait adopted in 1965 was touted as a "cooling off" period. Unfortunately, evidence shows that cooling-off periods don't work as intended.

In his 2014 election campaign, Sheriff Lombardo supported eliminating the handgun registration program. His department did not testify against the bills which ultimately eliminated it. The program was estimated to cost up to $2 million a year with negligible benefits.

Local Problems

Local laws also created problems for local governments. Interestingly enough, because of Las Vegas’ large convention business and the opening of the Clark County Shooting Complex required changes in registration laws. First, a visitor bringing a firearm, for protection or for competition, was required to register their handgun with 72 hours of arriving in Clark County. This had to be changed to allow for 60 days of residency so competition shooters wouldn’t unintentionally break the law.

Second, since it was illegal to carry a firearm in Clark County parks, the name of the Clark County Shooting Park had to be changed to Complex. Clark County was given a very narrow exemption in 1989 when the original preemption law was passed to allow for the ‘blue card’ system. Attorney General Cortez-Masto interpreted the legislative intent to allow for Clark County’s park ban on guns, but the ordinance could not be modified in anyway, as only unmodified laws in effect prior to 1989 would still be permitted. So instead of amending the no-guns-in-parks ordinance, the shooting park became a shooting complex as a name change was simpler.

SB 175/240

Senate Bills 175/240 amended the existing preemption laws to eliminate the ‘blue card’ system and erase any vestige of exempted local laws. The wording in each bill was identical. In short: 

“The regulation of the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, carrying, ownership, transportation, storage, registration and licensing of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition in this State and the ability to define such terms is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature, and any other law, regulation, rule or ordinance to the contrary is null and void.” 

Under NRS 244.364 (counties), NRS 268.418 (cities), and NRS 269.222 (towns), no local authority can regulate firearm in any matter, except prohibiting the unsafe discharge. That means unless state law makes it illegal, any local law or rule regarding firearms is powerless. The bills went further, requiring that by October 1^st of 2015, local laws must be repealed, or enhanced civil penalties could be awarded to anyone who was “adversely affected” by the now-illegal local regulations.

As a result, there is no prohibition for visiting a public building openly carrying a firearm in violation of a local rule, no law prohibiting anyone from fishing at Sunset Park with a concealed handgun, and no more standing in line at Metro to register a hand gun.

Why is this important?

This week, the Los Angeles city council required all handguns to be unloaded and locked away, in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s finding in DC vs. Heller, and in July, banned all existing magazines over 10 rounds capacity, despite under state law, grandfathered magazines are still legal. Of the new storage law, city councilman Paul Krekorian said that he expected the city to be sued, expressed the opinion that those defending the Second Amendment and challenging the defiance of existing case law were spoil-sports.

While in Nevada no case has as yet been as extreme as California, the hits keep on coming. In 2013, Gov. Sandoval had to veto SB 221 which sought to ban private gun sales (repackaged as the misnamed universal background check initiative in 2016) passed by a Democrat controlled legislature. In the borderline predominately blue Clark County, with its history of gun control, measures similar to Los Angeles would not be unlikely except for state preemption.

As readers of this blog are aware, the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District has repeatedly and with no legal basis removed patrons legally openly carrying firearms. First, their own policies give them no such authority and secondly, they are prohibited under state law from making any rule to prohibit the legal carry of firearms. In a galling statement made privately, the district’s own council said that the district would not be changing its practices any time soon and he expected them to be sued over it. The taxpayer will have to bear this expense.

It’s not about where guns can be carried or who gets to; it’s about equal application of the law. The Second Amendment is extraordinarily clear “[…] shall not be infringed.” The legislature echoed that sentiment in its enhanced preemption laws. It’s time that all Nevada government entities abide by the law and not force the public, by administrators’ recalcitrance, to pay the legal bills.

Libraries and the Law

Clark County gun owners’ dispute is not about guns in the libraries, but about uniform application of state law. The Las Vegas-Clark County Library District’s ban on openly carried firearms is arbitrary and capricious with no sound basis in law. In their email, detailed in this post, state that: “NRS 379.040 (quoted below) requires the Trustees of the Library District to guarantee that libraries are free and accessible to the public.” The denial of those legally openly carrying firearms is being based upon an especially broad interpretation of NRS 379.040, which permits “[…] reasonable regulations as the trustees of the library may adopt.” This statute is not carte blanche for libraries to adopt rules that suit their whims.

Unauthorized Policies

The library trustees adopted Rule of Conduct #3, which states: “3. Firearms are prohibited as outlined in NRS 202.3673.” I call attention to the words “as the trustees of the library may adopt.”

NRS 202.3673 (in part)
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a permittee may carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of any public building.
[...]
(b) A public building that has a metal detector at each public entrance or a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building, unless the permittee is not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subsection 4. 

As the library rule itself refers to a section of state law that prohibits only concealed firearms, the library rule, by its own wording, cannot be referring to openly carried firearms.

In the letter linked at the top of the post, the district administrator stated that: “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.” Actual district policy makes no such mention of,  and does not ban, bringing or possessing ammunition or material for a weapon. An administrator cannot make such a policy on their own authority. This assertion is either a gross misunderstanding by the administrator or a total fabrication and demonstrates the district administration is acting without any regard to the law.

At no time have the trustees adopted a ban of the open carry of firearms. Only the trustees have the power to enact regulations under NRS 379.040; not administration employees. Individual staff members are not authorized by law to independently interpret library policy or create any unofficial practices regarding patron conduct. Since library rules do not prohibit openly carried firearms, staff members removing patrons engaged in such lawful activity are doing so without justification under NRS 379.040. 

Reasonable?

NRS 379.040 also requires that a “library must forever be and remain free and accessible to the public […].” Denying access to a library based solely upon the fact a patron is legally openly carrying a firearm violates the law. Perversely, the district has quoted the second clause, “reasonable regulations [etc.],” to justify their ban. They can’t choose which part of the public gets free access to the library. It is a grotesque misapplication of the law to quote one half of a statute to justify violating its other half.

A library would be perfectly justified under its own policy and under law to remove someone engaged in inappropriate handling of their firearm or creating some other kind of disruptive or rude behavior. Yet in none of the incidents where a person openly carrying a firearm was asked to leave was disorderly conduct cited.

Preemption Applies

It is hard to reconcile exactly how a rule in direct violation of state law (and violating state and federal constitutional rights) can be considered ‘reasonable.’ The library district has repeatedly stated that they defend their ban based on NRS 379.040 and have made no denial that the provisions of state firearm preemption statutes do not apply to them. Preemption certainly does apply to the library district in case they suddenly choose to question that fact.

State preemption of local firearm laws explicitly prohibits the district’s behavior. In fact, the legislature made its intent explicitly clear, while NRS 379.040 is vague. The fact that NRS 244.364 and 268.418 are coded respectively within the NRS titles for counties and cities does not abrogate the language of subsections (a) through (c) which are identical to each. The legislature made its intent to invalidate any local regulation of firearms, except unsafe discharge of firearms, and reserve all right of firearm regulation to itself. I’m sure the library would love to imagine itself exempt, which it can’t reasonably do.

The library distrust asserts in its budget publication that “the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District is neither a part of the city of Las Vegas nor of Clark County.” Perhaps they meant subordinate to? NRS 379.0221 states that the method of consolidation was to merge the city into the county library district; the county library district just got bigger. 

NRS 379.0221 The trustees of a county library district in any county whose population is 700,000 or more and the governing body of any city within that county may, to establish and maintain a public library, consolidate the city into the county library district. 

The county library district was never abolished by law, but rather incorporated the existing other districts into itself, thus becoming ‘consolidated.’ This wasn’t a marriage, but an adoption.

I also argue that as a consolidated county-city library district, NRS 244.364 and 268.418 both apply to the district because the district is the library district for Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, and the city of North Las Vegas, and the district trustees are appointed and may be removed by the county board of commissioners.

Furthermore, any denial that a city-county consolidated library district is exempt from state preemption of firearm regulation because the statutes themselves do not specifically enumerate their application to “consolidated library districts” is ludicrous. If that were the case, any sub-municipal district could violate any section of the NRS that it chose, so long as the particular statute didn’t directly apply to the given type of district. It would be impractical for the legislature to name every type district in the state. If it were not the case, it would be justifiable to create a ‘consolidated gun control district’ and ban the carry of firearms anytime, anywhere in the county.

The Supreme Court of Nevada held that: statutes “should be interpreted so as to effect the intent of the legislature in enacting them; the interpretation should be reasonable and avoid absurd results.” Las Vegas Sun v. District Court. Randomly deciding that preemption doesn’t apply to sub-municipal districts would be unreasonable, absurd, and ignorant of the legislature’s intent.

In light of this, one must note that subsection (c) of NRS 244.364 and 268.418 identically states: “This section must be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose.” What was the legislature’s purpose again?

"[T]o establish state control over the regulation of and policies concerning firearms, [...] to ensure that such regulation and policies are uniform throughout this State and to ensure the protection of the right to keep and bear arms [...]" and "the Legislature reserves for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the [...] possession, carrying [..] of firearms."

In light of the above, the library district cannot continue to justify the validity of its behavior in direct contravention to state law.