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)

Reno and Carson City's No-Guns Signs

 Boy! Northern Nevada sure does have a lot of broken “no guns” signs! Well, to be fair, so does Southern Nevada, but the ratio of plastered buildings at least felt a little higher in Reno than it does in the Las Vegas area. I visited the area recently and was in awe of the natural and historic beauty of the area. One of my eyes was on history, while the other was on the Second Amendment landscape.

Everywhere I went, large signs prohibiting all firearms, openly carried or concealed, were on public buildings. As you know, only concealed firearm are prohibited in public (government) buildings in Nevada. Openly carried firearms are permitted by state law in all non-school or college/university facilities. However, I believe that the city of Henderson is the only municipality which has the correct signage on its buildings.

Being misleading, these absolutist “no guns” signs deter those who would openly carry legally, even if just shuffling their pistol from open to concealed for their visit to the public building. Instead of making the buildings more safe, the signs make them less safe. If I were a non-gun owner, I wonder if there is a reason that guns are so boldly prohibited inside and feel all the less comforted by them. Surely, there must have been some horrible incident to require garish signage.

In reality, the truth behind the signs is government control; officials don’t want armed staff and citizens inside. The signs are nothing more than an illogical expression of fear and misunderstanding. Government officials rarely take action to correct the incorrect signs; a Reno official admitted to one armed citizen that the city knew open carry was allowed, but wasn’t going to be correcting the signs. My own experience with state officials illustrated this governmental contemptuousness perfectly.

The Nevada State Museum in Carson City has a small, but impressive, collection of antique, historic, and rare firearms, including a Gatling gun. It too is plastered with “no guns” signs. After clearing the entry desk without trouble, after a minute or two I was contacted by staff who informed me about the signs. In fact, that’s how most “you can’t have a gun here” conversations begin. “We have ‘no gun’ signs on the door.” Well that’s nice… one thinks.

I informed the security officer of state law. He seemed a bit puzzled, but was very polite and genuinely willing to listen. He asked if I might explain it to his supervisor. Being concerned about education and conciliation, I agreed. The guard came back a few minutes later and told me the supervisor had looked into it (probably phoned the capitol police) and agreed with my assessment of open carry, which is also the opinion of the Legislature’s own attorneys. That was it, I went on with my visit.

A far different version of events than with the Las Vegas Clark County Library District (LVCCLD), to be sure.

In my follow-up to the facilities director, I gave my thanks to the professionalism of the staff and the outstanding way the issue was resolved. What I didn’t say was that had the state bothered to properly inform its security personnel on state law, none of this would have ever happened and the nice guard wouldn’t have been embarrassed by the whole thing. It is an obscure and counter-intuitive point of law (even California allows licensed CCW in most public buildings).
I pointed out that it was rather unfortunate that Nevada had placed misguided suspicion on armed citizens—especially licensed concealed carriers with their training, background checks, and whatnot—and looked forward to the day when our legislators understood that legally armed citizens are an asset to public safety, and not a liability to be feared.

Washoe County Courthouse

I received a terse reply from the museum director, Myron Freedman, who said that “Posting is required.” I don’t get the feeling that Mr. Freedman is all that keen on understanding or citizens standing up against petty bureaucracy. Freedman, a native of Nevada, has had a career with museums in notoriously anti-gun climates such as California and Chicago. Posting is required, but that is a topic for a later post.

What armed citizens want is to be able to defend themselves wherever evil might strike, which can literally be anywhere at any time. Of course, there is a limit to this; none of us seriously want to be able to carry inside prisons, for example. Yet what makes the Nevada State Museum immune from violence? How will the unarmed guards stop a team of determined robbers from making off with the silver, guns, and artifacts? Will the signage leap down and tackle a deranged gunman who picked the building at random?

 There is nothing inherently safe about a museum or the majority of most public buildings. Even if the risk of violence is extraordinarily low inside, why should I be disarmed going to and from? A low risk of violence is often used to discredit the need for carry inside prohibited buildings, but that same low risk of violence is justification for the lack of any need to post the signs in the first place. “No guns” signs are not about safety, they are about the comfort of government officials.

 Among my open carry travels, this was the only negative incident. Hell, in Virginia City the only thing that stood out was a plastic holster and a Glock instead of leather and a revolver. Up and down the state, urban and rural, the responses were either positive or non-existent. During my photography session outside the Capitol complex, no one took exception to me at all. Not having business inside, I didn’t try to force the issue with the Capitol Police.

Ultimately, what divides the Nevada open carry “movement” from other open carry movements is that by and large, open carry is a lifestyle choice, not a political statement. We who openly carry generally don’t go out seeking confrontation. The Flores library open carry case came about simply because Mrs. Flores carries openly every day. This is our strength; since this is a part of our regular lives, when an incident occurs it has far more impact than it were a stunt. Stunts turn people off to open carry. If a test case is needed, we can do it simply by being ourselves.

Aspersions about our intentions dog open carriers the way that concealed carried was demonized as a prelude to murder a hundred years ago. Some would call us paranoid for carrying, but couldn’t a similar accusation be leveled at people with dashcams? I didn’t feel any less safe in downtown Reno than I do in downtown Las Vegas, but it sure was nice knowing I could handle anything serious, should it come up. And that’s what everyday carry is about: being prepared to shoot your way out of a mass shooting, robbery, etc. One never truly knows where violence will strike and there is no soft security measure that will keep people safe.

In time, things will change. A favorable ruling in the Flores case over preemption will go along way at smoothing out wrinkles with local agencies. We must be patient, but if the many examples of similar cases from across the country tell us anything, we will be victorious. The larger battle is changing minds within government. Legislators do not need pushed into creating bad legislation, like the malleable Sen. Denis who tried to change the law because LVCCLD didn’t like it. What we as the armed public must do is help change the minds of government employees.

Employees of public buildings are vulnerable to violence. No one deserves to be disarmed at their workplace unless it is absolutely necessary for other safety considerations. Neither should they be afraid of legally armed citizens patronizing government facilities, which exist solely to serve citizens. We must win the employees to our side and deny legislators and anti-gun administrators that constituency at the same time we convince administrators, who might be on the fence, that there is no danger from the legally armed.

Hostility will not win us anything. If we create enemies instead of allies, we face an uphill battle. Let us investigate and educate, winning supporters and changing the decades old fearful mindset that discriminates against law-abiding, legally armed citizens.

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

Washoe County Banning Tannerite?

Washoe County is seeking to ban Tannerite-type binary agent explosive targets except on licensed ranges with advance permission from the fire department. The change would be made by adding a section to the fire code. County officials have been talking about banning exploding targets since at least 2013. Any provisions prohibiting possession have been struck from the discussion, due to fierce opposition in earlier hearings. In Colorado, the US Forest Service has banned their use.

What is Tannerite (exploding target)?

Tannerite is the most popular brand of explosive target, consisting of ammonium nitrate (an oxidizer) which when mixed, allows the aluminum powder fuel to burn, generally producing an explosion. Generic explosive targets are also available. It is used  The combination is stable, requiring a high velocity impact to detonate the compound, generally a rifle shot.

The two components do not constitute an explosive until mixed and can be transported in their individual states. Transporting the mixed compound is illegal. 

Will Tannerite® Brand Binary Rifle Targets Cause a Fire? No. Tannerite® binary rifle targets, when mixed and used correctly per instructions, will not cause a fire. The original Tannerite®brand binary exploding target was specifically designed from conception to be non-incendiary. This means the product was created using materials of the highest quality and properly formulated to ensure that it will not cause a fire.
 When a bullet hits Tannerite® with a high velocity (2000 ft./sec. minimum), it causes a chemical reaction which results in a large water vapor cloud along with a loud report which is used as a shot indicator. Please note, however, that there are many knock-off products that can start fires due to an improper formulation and low quality raw materials. Even though Tannerite® brand targets will not start fires, all brands of exploding targets are banned during special fire orders. Please obey these restrictions. 

In earlier hearings, fire department officials made vague statements, similar to those of anti-gunners, that Tannerite and binary explosives didn't belong in the hands of the average citizen. Fire department officials did not make themselves available for comment, and when cornered, could not give specifics on cases of 'misuse'.

The Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District has not produced any documentation of 'misuse' or any conclusive evidence that such exploding targets are unusually dangerous.

Like virtually any material, object, or substance, Tannerite has been misused. One man used it as a bomb when he packed a stove with it and killed eight. Others have been killed or seriously injured shooting explosive targets. Of course, firearms have been used in murders, accidents, and ignoring safety protocol has lead to many deaths and injuries by the weapons themselves. The same goes for cars, knives, electricity, matches, lighters, propane—you name it.

The deaths and injuries associated with exploding targets and firearms are a result of deliberate criminal acts or total ignorance of common sense when it comes to safety. Common sense and morality cannot be legislated. Personal responsibility is still the number one factor when it comes to shooting.

Tannerite has been used as an explosive to demolish barns, blow up cars, and kill feral hogs. From watching the videos, one who is not familiar with this substance or shooting sports could come to the conclusion that it is dangerous. While explosive targets are dangerous, as pointed out above, they are not especially more dangerous than other dangerous items. With care and responsibility, exploding targets can be used to great effect and fun.

Legal

This presents an interesting legal question. Does Washoe County have the authority to ban exploding firearm targets?

State preemption laws, strengthened by SB 175 and SB 240, give only the state legislature the authority to regulate “the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, carrying, ownership, transportation, storage, registration and licensing of firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition” and “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.” However, local authorities do have the authority to regulate “the unsafe discharge of firearms.” (Emphasis mine).

Naturally, there is a conflict here. The first question breaks down into two more. 1. Are firearm targets considered firearm accessories? 2. Does evidence support that shooting exploding targets constitutes unsafe discharge of a firearm? For question number two, we would hope that the fire department could cite examples in Washoe County, or at least Nevada, where exploding targets resulted in death, serious injury, fire, or damage to private property.

Shooting things in the desert and leaving the mess behind gives all of us a bad name. Posting videos to YouTube showing stuff exploding also doesn’t help, but the negativity of those videos lays in the flawed interpretation of the viewer who is uneducated regarding firearms. Responsibility is the key. Clean up your mess and be safe. Lastly, contact your public officials and elected representatives and tell them what you think. If you live in Washoe County, it’s time to speak up and protect your rights. As some have pointed out, today they come for exploding targets, tomorrow they come for shooting on public land.