Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Petition to Un-ban Guns at Tivoli Village

Las Vegas area citizens have launched a petition to convince the owners of Tivoli Village, an upscale shopping center near Summerlin, to rescind their ban on firearms. Several citizens openly carrying handguns have been asked at varying times to leave by security. As it usually is, the backlash against Tivoli was especially quick and severe. Open carriers were the quickest to react, as many do not have the option of concealing their firearm and thus escaping the eagle eyes of security guards.

Responding publically, gun owners took to the Facebook review section to express their displeasure with Tivoli Village, actually causing the rating to drop over a two-day period. Management went so far as to take the very mature step of removing the ability to leave reviews on their Facebook page. Posts asking for an explanation went unanswered and were deleted. Emails were also not responded to. Tivoli’s MO appears to be ignore, deny, and delete any dissent to their anti-gun policy. Yelp has yet to remove the reviews, but they are fairly quick to delete anything that they deem to be of ‘political’ nature, regardless of whether or not the information would lead someone to patronize or avoid the business in question.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a cabal of business owners that do everything they can to quash exposure of public displeasure. One can only imagine how Yelp or Tivoli would respond if members of the vocal protected-class minority du jour began to complain if a business denied them their rights. In reaction, some members of the public have begun to contact Tivoli’s tenants and leave reviews on those businesses. If a landlord will not permit legally carried firearms in common areas, the tenants doing business there will be the ones who lose customers and must deal with the complaints, so the thinking goes.

Social media and public relations are managed by Michelle St. Angelo for the Langdon Flynn corporation on behalf of Tivoli’s owners. Interestingly, Tivoli Village is owned by Property & Building Corp, a division of IDB Group, an Israeli company. Surely Israelis would very much understand a need for adequate defense given the horrible attacks of Palestinian terrorists.

The idea of an upscale development such as Tivoli being an environment where crime is unlikely and thus self-defense firearms unnecessary is a lie. True, money tends to keep criminal elements away, but it can also draw them in, knowing their targets have something of value.

Open plaza type malls, such as Tivoli, filled with upper-middle class customers makes a perfect terrorist target. One can only imagine the destruction that even one murderer with an assault rifle could do in such a place, let alone a team of deranged jihadis working in concert as we saw in the Mumbai attacks. Many of these shopping centers have ill-trained, unarmed security guards that can barely function as a speed bump to shoplifters, let alone someone bent on murder. Nevadans deserve to protect themselves, rather rely on a minimum wage employee in an untailored uniform shirt who will simply call 911.

Open carry strikes a nerve with  some business, usually the large corporate type, as if it will frighten people away. Maybe it is an unpleasant reminder that crime does happen and management doesn’t want to offend the sensibilities of naïve anti-gunners who wish to pretend guns and crimes don’t happen in ‘their’ part of town. Perhaps Tivoli and businesses like it are scared that if they tolerate openly carried firearms, hordes of unwashed men and women in camouflage will abandon Walmart and flock to the faux Italian plazas.

Legally, private property owners can choose to exclude anyone or virtually any conduct they so choose. A few court cases have arisen where political speech on private property is protected as shopping centers, open to the public, have become the new ‘public square.’ Yet no cases prevent business owners from excluding legally armed patrons. Most gun owners would probably agree that forcing private property owners to allow a behavior they disagree with under the color of law is a misuse of legislative power, but the question of bearing civil liability is another one altogether.

In a general sense, businesses have no duty to provide for the safety of their patrons from crime. Crime is something that only the criminal has control of; in theory, it’s random and unpredictable. In the 1960s, the legal landscape began to shift toward support some liability when a business owner was negligent to take reasonable steps to prevent known or reasonably foreseeable criminal acts. There are two good articles that should be read for a greater understand of the issues of business and liability for crime upon their premises. 

McKown v. Simon Property discusses as mass shooting at a Tacoma Mall and a resulting court case, while Gray and Duffy Law discuss the topic in general. In short, business, just like the police, have no special duty to ensure your safety. They do have the responsibility to ensure a reasonably safe premises and take steps to mitigate known or foreseeable crimes, but they cannot be held liable simply because a crime takes place on their property that they in no way, even by negligence, contributed to. Perhaps in the future, case law will determine that disarming a patron under the threat of trespassing opens a business to liability because passive security measures and private security are more about appearances than actual safety.

It’s well known that ‘no guns’ signs don’t do anything. They don’t keep out the legally armed citizen who carries concealed anyway, the gangbanger who has gun in his pocket, or the robber who is looking for a quick score. In fact, many business owners would probably admit that it wasn’t there intention to exclude legally armed citizens. Rather, the notions stem from a rather asinine notion of liability that a ‘no guns’ sign will reduce liability or provide a defense in the event the business is sued.

Liability is the overriding concern—how much will a crime cost the business owner? This is where insurance gets involved and one hears “Oh, the insurance company made me put up that sign.” Business owners have a moral duty, if not a legal one, to protect their customers, not their bottom lines. Denying the right to be armed because of frivolous liability concerns is foolish. Signs and disclaimers don’t obviate a business from taking reasonable steps to provide a safe premises. A perpetually wet, slick tile floor from a leak pipe does not absolve the owner from all liability because a ‘Wet Floor’ sign was posted.

As for guns in businesses, there must be some sort of insurance underwriter’s or attorney’s strange fear that a legally armed citizen will suddenly go rogue or accidently fire their weapon. Negligent discharges are extremely rare—far less than parking lot car accidents by several orders of magnitude. We are unaware of any business being sued because a customer couldn’t be bothered with basic firearm safety. It’s hard to see how any business could in any way be liable for a customer intentionally or negligently using the customer’s own property in an improper manner. It would be like suing a restaurant because a poor driver trying to fit a large pickup into a compact space struck a parked car in the parking lot.

The legal remedy is to assign liability to any private business that prohibits legally carried firearms on their premises without taking adequate steps to ensure patron or employee safety when an injury results. This would not mandate private property owners to allow guns, but if they banned guns and citizen was unable to defend themselves against an armed robbery, rape, or assault because open carry was banned there, the citizen could file a lawsuit if the business owner did not provide armed security. Utah’s parking lot storage law is a good example. 

Such a law would not be popular with businesses, large corporations, or their lawyers.  Of course, in the absence of evidence that legally armed citizens are dangerous or detrimental to business and that a businesses have no liability for a legally armed citizen who suddenly behaves badly, any arguments to the contrary are baseless. All a business has to do is allow guns to be carried in accordance with state law; merely permitting on private property what the state allows on public property can’t reasonably be extended against businesses. A citizen who feels unsafe can choose to carry a gun, not simply patronize another business, as many anti-gun businesses would suggest (then paradoxically beg for your money).

A good example of businesses that take patron security seriously are casinos. They have armed security (to a degree) and regular, highly visible security patrols. Such a law would not affect casinos (Nevada’s most important industry) as they already take pretty strong steps to protect their business and by extension their customers. The same law could also provide additional statutory protections for private property owners by explicitly exempting them from liability should someone commit a crime or misuse a gun on their property.

Until the landscape of crime and terrorist takes an unfortunate shift in this country—we hope and pray it never does—large corporations generally will not take their patron’s safety seriously. Recently, several high profile rapes and murders have taken place at the Fashion Show Mall and casino parking garages on the Strip. Open carry might have served as a deterrent. Even it wouldn’t have deterred the specific crime, the public deserves the right to carry a self-defense weapon in the manner they choose. Businesses interfering because of unfounded liability concerns or worries about the aesthetics of armed customers is inappropriate. Shopping malls should be on notice that they are not immune from the ills of society at large and their blanket ‘no guns’ policies fool no one.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Assembly Candidate Sanson Supports Banning Private Gun Sales

Republican Assembly District 13 candidate Steve W. Sanson told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he supports banning private guns sales via Ballot Question 1, universalbackground checks. Sanson said: 
I believe that before anyone sales a weapon to a citizen there should be a background check on them... We need to enforce the existing laws we have in place. We don’t want weapons in the hands of criminal elements and people that are in the heat of passion. 
Immediately thereafter, Sanson began taking heat from the gun community. On his Facebook page, the candidate replied


Sanson failed to disclose that in 2010, he was arrested for brandishing and possessing a firearm while intoxicated himself. While these violations are not disqualifiers for possessing a firearm, they do point out potential hypocrisy and illustrate the fact that Sanson committed acts he accused his critics of. It is unknown how or if Sanson conducted is own background checks or if there is any veracity to his claims of criminal backgrounds of his critics.

Incumbent Paul Anderson and candidate Leonard Foster have stated they oppose Ballot Question 1 and banning private gun sales. Interestingly, as the below comic from his Facebook shows, Sanson fancies himself a kind of pro-Second Amendment superhero.


Sanson will be discussing the issue on the EMG Radio Show Monday, May 30 (Memorial Day) 91.5 KUNV. Nevadans do not deserve politicians who will compromise their support for a fundamental constitutional right. Sanson has failed to answer questions posed to him by the public, instead immaturely insulting his critics and replying by way of referring them to a radio program. While Mr. Sanson may redeem himself, we will reserve judgement until his “defends” his comments, but his behavior thus far does not indicate we should hold any great expectations.

Nevada's primary election is Tuesday, June 14th.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Get Your No On Ballot Question 1 Bumper Sticker

Nevada Carry has a webstore at Cafe Press! Get your 'No On Ballot Question 1' bumper sticker there. Prices are as low as Cafe Press will allow. Disclaimer: NevadaCarry is not a PAC nor non-profit (unless you mean it's operated at a loss).


Monday, May 23, 2016

Library Board of Trustees Take Up Open Carry (Probably)

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


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

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


Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Bloomberg Trolls Seeding Online News Comments

Those who follow Nevada's largest newspaper, The Las Vegas Review-Journal, online might have noticed something about the comments section on any topic that touches on the upcoming Ballot Question 1, universal background checks, which would ban private gun sales. That little something is the short-lived commentators who fearlessly shill in favor of the initiative using catch phrases like "common sense gun laws", etc.

A tactic that leftists, including the Bloomberg backed anti-gun groups is to use their practically unlimited money supply to inject their highly biased and factually inaccurate viewpoints into articles via the comment sections. The actual things said are really nothing more than the same regurgitated talking points and favorite myths, lies, and fallacies that are common to pretty much any organized anti-gun organization (be it Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign, or other fringe groups). The accounts are private and past Bloomberg trolls have seemed to disappear with their comments being scrubbed from existence.

Let's take a look at the latest local commentator, NVLisa (her DISQUS profile name), who we suspect to be the latest paid Bloomberg troll. NVLisa seems to be targeting only background check, gun, shooting, or domestic violence related posts. Of course her profile is private because it would be a shame if everyone could more easily connect the dots to her motivation and bias. Note that she joined on April 26, 2016, the day Clark County District Attorney (a Democrat) announced his support for banning private gun sales. What follows is a little taste of 'her' work.

Editor's note: We actively scrub the occasional anti-gun commentator who tries to spam the blog with their garbage. Differing viewpoints are welcome here, but vapid illogical and false statements are removed. 



Domestic disturbance cited by police in teen’s shooting Tuesday night













This commentator sums up the whole thing quite well (hats off to whoever you are Mr. or Ms. Knees:



Thursday, May 5, 2016

UPDATED: Michele Fiore: Okay to Point Guns at Police


Assemblywoman Michele Fiore stuck her foot in her mouth by saying that she would point at gun at a police officer and intimated she would shoot if an officer aimed a gun at her. 
“I would never ever point my firearm at anyone including an officer of the law unless they pointed their firearm at me. Once you point your firearm at me, I’m sorry, then it becomes self-defense. So whether you’re a stranger, a bad guy, or an officer and you’re gonna point your gun at me and shoot me and I have to decide whether it’s my life or your life, well, I choose my life.” 
Sometimes police have to aim a gun at someone. The law abiding are right to be concerned and worried at the thought of being drawn down on, but should not fear being shot by police. It is asinine for someone to suggest that police point guns at citizens with the same intentions and propensity to fire that criminals and gang members do. A cop with his gun out does not merit returning fire and trying, justified or otherwise, will probably get you killed.

I’m not talking about segments of society that are frequently getting in trouble with the police. The vast majority of people shot by the police had it coming by being armed, trying to kill the officer, charging the officer, or reaching for a gun, real or intimated. Sorry Black Lives Matter; you don’t get a vote here. If you comply with the officer’s orders and don’t do something stupid, like stick your hands in your jacket, you’re probably not going to be shot.


The concept of a modern police force requires that police officers acting in good faith be given the benefit of the doubt. An innocent party driving a car similar to a murder suspect should not bail out and open fire on police simply because of a felony traffic stop. Police are human and innocent mistakes are made. The deliberate abuses and acts of negligence should be punished in court, not left to be decided in the heat of the moment down the barrel of a gun.

I cannot support these statements and I cannot support the assemblywoman. It is one thing to articulate that using force to overcome an illegal arrest should be an affirmative defense, but it is not okay to essentially condone shooting law enforcement officers. Granted, Fiore probably meant a situation more like an FBI setup for her support of the Bundy Ranch and Oregon folks, but the context was lost. There are already too many incorrect assumptions about gun owners being enemies of police that this was not needed.

There is a real discussion to be had about the growing surveillance state, militarized police forces, and the Dept. of Justice’s ruthless pursuit to crush and punish the Bundy Ranch and Oregon Standoff participants. Fomenting insurrection to protest a competent, but unjust, court ruling is reckless. The growing distrust of government and disgust for various federal policies needs to be channelized in a productive way. Brash statements are no substitute for fixing the broken legislative and bureaucratic systems that brought us to where we are now.

I understand that some Nevadans are wary of especially federal law enforcement in the wake of the events at the Bundy Ranch and the highly disturbing shooting of Lavoy Finicum, yet that is no excuse for how/why Fiore said what she did. This does not engender anyone to her except those who already share her politics. If Fiore wished to express that she feels she has the right to resist an illegal arrest or illegal attempt on her life under the color of law, she should have found a better way to express it.

Fiore has an excellent record of voting rights on the Second Amendment, however that is not enough alone to gain an endorsement. She has made too many faux paus, misinterpreted or otherwise, that indicate she is letting her own personal animus get the best of her. Her hyperbolic comments give the wrong impression that gun owners and conservatives and libertarians are paranoid and anti-government/police. Rhetoric like this can get police officers killed. Statements like this are not welcome.

UPDATE 5/10/2016

Assemblywoman Fiore clarified to KNTV ABC 13 that she was speaking about “BLM rogue agents”, not Metro officers or other local police. She does not define what a rogue agent is. 
“If a rogue unofficial BLM agent who literally wants to be a cop, a wannbe police officer, points a gun at me there is going to be a problem.”
 “So if I have a rogue agent who literally has a history of death in his past and if that man ever pointed a gun at me I’d point right back because his intentions are evil.” 
Fiore disputes that the BLM Rangers are federal law enforcement officers—something that is based in her own personal vitriol rather than in fact. She is so upset with the BLM that she denies the very fact, that by legislation and oath, the Rangers are US Special Agents. Sorry, you don’t get to pick and choose who ‘real’ cops are. You can disagree all you like, but pretending that someone with a badge has no authority when they really do is asinine and a ridiculous denial of reality.

Metro officers are “real law enforcement” and that she would not point a firearm at local law enforcement. She clarified that an ordinary felony traffic stop, say if her car matched the description of a murder suspect, she would not shoot the officer. Unfortunately, that is not what she initially. What if Metro runs afoul of her?

Basically, what she is saying, it that is permissible for her to point guns at and potentially shoot cops whose mission she disagrees with. This is the same logic and attitude that the Black Lives Matter crowd uses to delegitimatize police in their quest against law and order. An incident of misbehavior or perceived injustice is used as a basis to level allegations of widespread oppression where none exists. Police making arrests in a crime ridden minority neighborhood are responding to a problem, not targeting a minority. A heavy federal law enforcement presence was needed after Bundy called for the militia to help him resist in the wake of losing his court battle.

Fiore is disrespectful to law enforcement by diminishing the actual authority that BLM rangers have. She may disagree with their mission and how they are employed by their agency, but using her own opinion and interpretation to remove their law enforcement status in her own mind, she is deluding herself. It’s a common tactic for someone who hates police—or a variation thereof—to dehumanize the officer’s mission and denigrate them. I saw it all the time writing tickets, but that didn’t make the ticket any less real.

In a humorous example of this kind of thing, a woman once told one of my partners (a motorcycle cop) that she did not need to pull over for the deputy “because it’s not like he’s an ambulance or something.” Just because you don’t want to believe someone has legitimate authority doesn’t mean they don’t have any.

Does Fiore have a point about how the BLM administration screwed up the round-up? She sure does. Is she right to be suspicious of federal law enforcement and the federal government? Yep. Is she justified in painting all federal agents or BLM Rangers as ‘wannbe cops’? No, that’s a rash insult.
Fiore has some good points as a conservative politicians. Not all solid conservatives share her utter hatred for federal law enforcement just as a lot of gun owners don’t like being lumped in with her ilk. As a representative of the people and a popularly proclaimed lead figure in the gun rights movement, Fiore needs to carefully choose her words, which she clearly seems incapable of doing.

I have taken lots of flak from friends and strangers alike these past few days. Apparently, it is a serious crime to criticize other Second Amendment supporters pet politician. I cannot and will not support someone who goes off on ludicrous, uneducated rants like these. These comments are an utter disgrace and drags down those who are rightfully concerned about tyranny, government abuse, and heavy-handed federal law enforcement tactics to the same level of the rioting leftists we despise. There are far more respected commentators out there in the ‘militia’ or ‘patriot’ movement who make their points far more adeptly than this, but if I’ve learned anything with this blog, strumpets garner more attention than an articulate person ever will.

Though armed resistance to tyranny is a bit beyond the scope of this blog, I am seeing a need for a serious discussion about the topic. Stay tuned to this space.

Why We Need Libraries


This is a bit off the usual topic of conversation, but as recent sentiments of the gun community and extreme libertarian community have come to light, it's time for me to argue in favor of public libraries.

Some tinfoil hat types have declared that libraries are outdated, that their contents should be digitized, and the buildings and librarians turned over to the free market. They are angry at the academic predisposition to socialist, leftist ideologies that have percolated into the local library. Many scoff at the idea of  using tax dollars to pay for anything that isn't related to an absolute necessity for basic civilization and order. Wanting to quash any government subsidies they disagree with, these types forget some core American principles.

Getting rid of libraries isn't going to do anyone any favors. Libraries serve as a community education institution and place of recreation. Libraries are for the mind what public pools, parks, and playgrounds are for the body. In past centuries, books were prohibitively expensive and treasured possessions. Even with the revolutions in printing technology, books were still very expensive for the poor. The concept of a public library was revolutionary; all of sudden, huge volumes of books were available to anyone. Money was not a barrier to reading. Literacy soared.

Likewise, parks and playgrounds were popularized as cities grew and there were no longer any open spaces for the public to enjoy. In the days when 'bad air', miasma, was thought to cause disease, parks were seen as a solution to crowded, and polluted slums. Playgrounds got kids to play somewhere other than busy streets, littered with garbage and sewage. During the Depression, community centers were hubs of activities and educational programs. Without all these public accommodations, the poor would have to do without.

Public money going to libraries and public recreation facilities like them are vitally important. Imagine how many children would not be educated if public schools weren't available or if schooling wasn't mandatory. Set aside any bias for public schooling you might have; if it weren't for free, public education and that it is required, how many people would prefer their kids get jobs instead? Most of us have relatives in living memory who were under educated and wished they had more schooling. Dumb people are not a benefit to the world.

So let's say we get rid of libraries. Are we going to subsidize Kindles or tablets for the poor? Of course not. If we lose libraries, we loose a valuable part of our community. Free books are suddenly gone. People stop reading. History and culture is forgotten. Books are also more durable than digital media. Books will survive for centuries, where digital media will be outdated in a decade and subject to environmental factors like EMP or solar flares. If electricity disappears, we lose out on millennia of recorded human knowledge.

Books also have a great value too simply as books. In today's world of short attention spans and popular social media it's easier to post a meme on Facebook, bitch about whatever upsets you, and then go on with your life without doing anything to solve the problem you were complaining about. I'm absolutely shocked at how few gun owners do more than bitch. If they were willing to read or do research, they would find this blog and our website, and get the answers to their questions in astonishing detail. Nevada Carry weaves together years of collective knowledge into one place to make it accessible to anyone who can use Google. Yet even clicking a link to read a 1500 word article is too hard!

Sitting down and reading a book or an article allows one to take the time to mentally digest what they are reading. Without images, a reader has to think about what they're reading. Books give us new insight and perspective into issues that are often glossed over or not suitable for visual media. Read a darn book! Think!

Libraries also protect the right to free speech. Librarians are as hardcore about that as gun owners are about the Second Amendment. A public library means that the content inside isn't restricted by membership, money, or to a certain ideology. Just imagine if the only libraries were private ones and run the same way the mainstream media is run, or if they were funded by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg. Do you think that the Islamic Reading Room would have a wide diversity of viewpoints and authors? Access to a diversity of ideas is vital and only a public library, protected by the First Amendment, can maintain access to all.

If we get rid of libraries, we get rid of all that. No free DVDs, no free internet, no study spaces. If you want to save tax money by dumping public libraries, then you better dump public parks, pools, and rec centers. But I'm willing to bet that people who can't afford huge book collections, Netflix fees, the Internet, a house with a yard or a pool will want to keep subsidizing libraries. It's money well spent, even if the people who run the places might not agree with your particular view on something.

I have to admit my own bias.One of my chief complaints with libraries today is that they are not about books. I was shocked to see CDs and DVDs come into the library. I have to admit I feel derisive towards those who use libraries are simply a free version of Netflix. It seems that most people come to the library for an air conditioned space with free WiFi or computers. Heck, in my days as a library page I had to dodge children who spent the after school hours in free, unsupervised childcare at the library. Even if I don't like the 'dumbing down' of libraries, it's a public service that those people deserve.

Another one of the objections to libraries is..."Who needs them lie-berries when I got Google?" The Internet does not have always have the comprehensive answers that you need. Of course, even without Google, most people would rather post a question on Facebook rather than use Google to find a site like NevadaCarry.org that answers their questions in detail. But the kind of people who won't look beyond the surface for their answers probably don't give a crap about anything much more than their own narrow, self-centered world.

The world needs libraries. The world needs educated, well-informed individuals. The men who built America and penned the documents that enshrine your lights were literate men with extensive book collections. America and civilization was not built on memes and hashtags. Those of you who deride libraries and look for easy answers are not the kind of men that history is built on. You who do not read, who do not think, and who do not act are why America is in the trouble it is in today. This attitude that books, libraries, and reading are all outdated are all symptom of the same disease that makes those sheeple you love to joke about. You're one too; you just convince yourself you are a wolf in disguise.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Library Open Carry Ban: Other Examples Show District Wrong

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

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

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

Legislation
If there was a problem with openly carried firearms in public buildings, presumably the legislature would have corrected the error. As I explained previously, the consensus in many of our neighboring states to the north and east is that open carry, except for very limited cases, simply can’t be regulated. During the 2015 legislative session, dubbed ‘the year of the gun’, the Legislative Counsel Bureau gave an opinion that open carry in public buildings (save for campuses, daycares, and wherever the legislature is meeting) is legal. 
"This office is aware that some persons have argued that NRS 202.3673 prohibits the open carry of firearms in a public building. However, that argument is not legally sound because NRS 202.3673, by its plain language, regulates only the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person who has a permit to carry a concealed firearm. NRS 202.3673 simply does not apply to the open carry of firearms in a public building.

"Because there is no general statutory prohibition against the open carry of firearms in a public building, it is the opinion of this office that the open carry of firearms is not prohibited in a public building, unless otherwise prohibited by a specific statute [...]."
The legislature neither passed nor proposed any bills limiting openly carried firearms in public buildings. For most of Nevada’s history, there was no law prohibiting firearms in public buildings, openly or concealed. Indeed, for a time, licensed concealed carry was legal in public buildings.

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

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

By sheer coincidence, while doing research months later, I found out that at a board of trustees meeting the following month that the issue was discussed and referred to their counsel, Brin Gibson, for his opinion. 
"Recently a gentleman came in with an open carry weapon. It appeared his purpose was to challenge someone to confront him. The admin team will meet with the district’s attorney, Brin Gibson, and go through the applicable laws to decide what the district’s stance should be. This may result in a policy update brought back to the Board. There haven’t been any real problems; this was just something a little out of the ordinary. Jim Frey asked how the situation was resolved. Angela Thornton said staff asked him to leave. He said he didn’t have to, but did leave soon after. He wanted to prove a point. Angela Thornton said in Oklahoma libraries are considered government buildings where weapons are not allowed. If the Board has any questions they should direct them to Angela Thornton. The meeting is scheduled for October 1st. (9/18/2014 minutes
"The admin team and branch managers met with the library district’s attorney Brin Gibson about the open carry issue. The law allows for a person to openly carry a firearm [holstered] in the library, but it is against the law to carry a concealed weapon [even with a permit] in the library. The library staff response will be to call the police to ask any person open carrying about their intentions to ensure they are someone who can carry legally, safely and responsibly in the library. If a person is carrying an unholstered weapon, staff will pull the fire alarm and call 911. Gayle Hornaday said the situation rarely occurs. On the rare occasion a person has open carried in the library, he did so to make a statement." (10/16/2015 minutes)
 See how simply that was resolved? Why is the county district so intransigent?

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

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

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

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

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

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


Although library districts were not specifically named in Michigan’s preemption statute, the court found: 
“Although district libraries are not expressly included within the definition of a local unit of government for purposes of MCL 123.1102, because we are dealing with regulation by a quasimunicipal governmental agency in an area that is regulated by the state, we are bound to apply Michigan’s doctrine of field preemption in determining whether a district library is free to regulate firearm possession.”
The suit found that while the Michigan library statute authorizing library regulations could pertain to firearms, it was overruled by the preemption statute. The preemption statute applied, even though the library did not meet the given definition of a local unit of government, because: 
“Although district libraries have the authority to adopt bylaws and regulations and do any other thing necessary for conducting the district-library service, as stated earlier, this Court has held that a district library is a quasi-municipal corporation, i.e., a governmental agency authorized by constitution or statute to operate for and about the business of the state.” 
Additionally, when the letter of the statute is not met, the following considerations must be taken in to consideration (People v. Llewellyn): 
“First, where the state law expressly provides that the state’s authority to regulate in a specified area of the law is to be exclusive, there is no doubt that municipal regulation is pre-empted. 
“Third, the pervasiveness of the state regulatory scheme may support a finding of pre-emption. While the pervasiveness of the state regulatory scheme is not generally sufficient by itself to infer pre-emption, it is a factor which should be considered as evidence of pre-emption.” 
The court here cites a similar preemption case, Michigan Coalition v. Ferndale, which found: 
“[...]the Legislature stripped local units of government of all authority to regulate firearms by ordinance or otherwise with respect to the areas enumerated in the statute, except as particularly provided in other provisions of the act and unless federal or state law provided otherwise. Unlike some other statutes, does not use language to the effect that the act 'occupies the whole field of regulation,' but rather expressly removes the power of local units of government to regulate in the field. The effect is to occupy the field to the exclusion of local units of government. In other words, although stated in the negative, rather than the affirmative, the statutory language of demonstrates that, in effect, state law completely occupies the field of regulation [...]” 
As to the question of whether a joint city-county library is district is affected under regulation the court found: 
“Excluding a district library from the field of regulation—simply because it is established by two local units of government instead of one—defies the purpose of the statute and would undoubtedly lead to patchwork regulation. 
“As established by MCL 123.1102 and Mich Coalition, all public libraries that are owned by cities, villages, and townships are currently preempted from regulating firearms. Thus, the issue is essentially whether legislative history supports a finding that the state intended to occupy the field of regulation to the exclusion of local units of government except for district libraries, which are established by two or more local units of government. [footnote] 
“Thus, while the express language of the statute fails to include a district library in its definition of local units of government, the legislative history supports a finding that the purpose of the statute would only be served by leaving it to the state to regulate firearm possession in all buildings established by local units of government, including district libraries. 
“If the state prevents all public libraries established by a city, village, township, or county from passing their own firearms regulations but does not similarly prevent district libraries from doing so, it would result in a ‘Balkanized patchwork of inconsistent local regulations’. 
Now, Nevada’s case is a little bit different. The CADL behaved in an intolerable fashion using a broad restraining order that bordered on a bill of attainder for basically anyone openly carrying a firearm. The LVCCLD has not stooped to the lows that CADL did. Also, Nevada’s preemption statutes are extraordinarily clear that only the legislature has the power to regulate firearms in addition to the section regulating the powers of counties, cities, and towns. Our laws give no question that LVCCLD has no powers to regulate firearms.

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

A library employee, reacting to the issue, made the very argument why citizens should not be disarmed at libraries (source KUOW): 
“We MUST strive to keep guns out of our very trusted, and very public space. Because of our public nature, we are prime targets for random violence. No amount of ‘training’ will be able to keep staff and patrons safe, if anyone can come in with a hidden gun [sic].” 
An anti-gun activist, Ralph Fascitelli, said: 
"'Can I fault the library for not fighting back? Absolutely not,' Fascitelli said. 'It’s black and white. We would have been all over that if there had been wiggle room, but they have no choice. Why fight a battle you know you’re going to lose?'” 
Florida
Florida has the toughest preemption law of all the states. If Nevada’s law had the punch Florida’s law does, I seriously doubt the library district would be pursuing their current course of action. Let’s take a look.

(1)(b) It is further the intent of this section to deter and prevent the violation of this section and the violation of rights protected under the constitution and laws of this state related to firearms, ammunition, or components thereof, by the abuse of official authority that occurs when enactments are passed in violation of state law or under color of local or state authority.
(3)(a) Any person, county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity that violates the Legislature’s occupation of the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, as declared in subsection (1), by enacting or causing to be enforced any local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation impinging upon such exclusive occupation of the field shall be liable as set forth herein.
(b)  If any county, city, town, or other local government violates this section, the court shall declare the improper ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel.
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d)  Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.
(e) A knowing and willful violation of any provision of this section by a person acting in an official capacity for any entity enacting or causing to be enforced a local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation prohibited under paragraph (a) or otherwise under color of law shall be cause for termination of employment or contract or removal from office by the Governor.
(f) A person or an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance, regulation, measure, directive, rule, enactment, order, or policy promulgated or caused to be enforced in violation of this section may file suit against any county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity in any court of this state having jurisdiction over any defendant to the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages, as limited herein, caused by the violation. A court shall award the prevailing plaintiff in any such suit:
1. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the laws of this state, including a contingency fee multiplier, as authorized by law; and
2. The actual damages incurred, but not more than $100,000.

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

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