SB 115, the library gun free zones/open carry revenge bill has died, along with SB387, the gun violence restraining order bill (gun confiscations). Neither bill left the Assembly Judiciary Committee before their deadlines. The legislative session ends officially June 6.
For those concerned with libraries respecting the law, the lawsuit appeal is pending. The legislature has spoken (favorably, for us, after a fashion) and the judiciary will as well. We need to be patient and let the legal process finish itself out. Rome wasn’t built in a day. To those who feel “something” needs to be done, your support in opposition of the bill sent the message that Nevadan’s don’t want more gun free zones, especially with such an egregious background as SB 115 had.
As for SB387, we will see it again in some form in the next session in 2019 or on the ballot like with Question 1. Right now, we need to spread the word that pre-crime confiscation of guns is not the way to go and it will do nothing to disarm those who are a danger. Rather, it is empowering people to defend themselves against attackers or help those who need mental health treatment to get it. Taking due process away to “do something” to save lives is anti-American and will not make anyone safer.
I want to thank everyone for their comments and opinions submitted to the legislators. I also want to thank the senators and the assemblymen and women who voted or otherwise opposed these bills, even across the aisle. Beyond that, I invite those who hold opposing viewpoints to speak with us candidly and see our point of view.
Remember, pro-gun candidates must take a majority in 2018 or Nevada will be lost. Let’s begin turning our energy to selecting and helping to elect pro-rights candidates for our state.
SB 115 would turn libraries into gun-free zones like schools, prohibiting guns even in the parking lots. The bill was created to “trump” challenges mounted by pro-gun activists against the Las Vegas Clark County Library District (LVCCLD), which has illegally enforced a gun ban. This came to a head when a mother, legally openly carrying her gun, was improperly arrested and filed a lawsuit based on state law that prohibits local gun rules or regulations. Despite what local media report and supporters claim, this bill exists because citizens stood up for their rights. Now, unscrupulous officials, elected and unelected, want to change the law because they don’t want to have to obey the law.
Letting SB 115 pass into law would:
Open carry in a library?
Yes, state law bans licensed concealed carry in public buildings (government buildings) where signs or metal detectors are posted at each public entrance. Open carry is not prohibited. If one wants to carry a firearm legally in a library, they must do so openly. State legal experts agree. Until the 1990s, concealed carry was generally demonized, whereas open carry was constitutionally protected.
Where this bill came from?
For nearly a decade, LVCCLD has illegally prevented open carry in its libraries. Many incidents have been recorded of legally armed citizens, minding their own business, being kicked out. The library bureaucrats made their illegal policy without a vote by the library trustees, thus breaking another law.
Citizens petitioned the district and trustees to remove the illegal ban, but the district continued to break the law. After enhanced state preemption of firearm laws was passed in 2015, allowing the option to sue for violations, LVCCLD was sued in 2016, but the case was lost in the pre-trial phase. Most preemption suits nationwide are won on appeal.
SB 115 would circumvent the preemption argument by prohibiting guns at libraries totally, just like at schools. This way, no lawsuit under preemption would work. LVCCLD officials are afraid that without SB 115, they will be sued again and lose.
What do the supporters claim is need for this bill?
Senator Denis asserted that he feels earlier legislation mistakenly left libraries out of the law. As the above context and quote (below) from the Assemblywoman show, Denis’ explanation is an excuse and probably a lie.
If Senator Denis meant the “no weapons in schools” law, libraries have never been considered like schools and no discussion was had before now. If Senator Denis meant that the state preemption law reform should have exempted libraries, why didn’t he propose a bill to amend the respective preemption laws? Denis voted “yes” on one version of the preemption laws, 2015’s SB 240, which did not exempt libraries. If there was a mistake then, why didn’t he try to correct it or vote against the bill?
There wasn’t an “error” in preemption. LVCCLD doesn’t want preemption to apply to them. Emily Dickinson wrote “Tell all the truth but tell it slant,” and in this sense, Denis lied via not telling the whole truth when he stated he felt schools were “left out,” if indeed he felt that way.
The bill’s co-sponsor and former LVCCLD trustee, Assemblywoman Shannon Bilbray-Axelrod, admitted to local media that pursuing a legislative fix to the gun ban protest problem would be a priority. So yes, by their own admission, SB 115 is directly because of the open carry challenge.
I think it’s going to be something we’re going to have to take up in the Legislature to make that distinction. I think it was a complete oversight. (source)
What is state preemption and how does it apply?
State preemption of firearm laws prohibits any political or government entity other than the legislature from making gun regulations, except for unsafe discharge. The law specifically applies to cities, counties, and towns, but also gives only the legislature authority to make gun regulations. This keeps all state laws uniform and avoids someone unintentionally violating a rule when traveling outside the area they are familiar with.
LVCCLD claims that since library districts aren’t explicitly included that they can make rules that prohibit guns. NRA lobbyist Dan Reed pointed out that if true, a special “gun ban” district could be made and make all sorts of anti-gun laws because the statute doesn’t specifically mention special districts like libraries.
Statements made by LVCCLD officials and the Senator himself indicate they are aware that state preemption does apply to them and they are afraid of losing another lawsuit. Their defense in court was that preemption does apply and got the lawsuit dismissed, partially on those grounds. So if preemption doesn’t apply to library districts, why the need for this bill?
Who needs a gun in the library?
One could ask this same question about a school with the response being a litany of school shootings that may have been prevented by someone shooting back. In fact, a few school shootings have been deterred or stopped by good guys with guns. If guns aren’t needed at the library, then why does LVCCLD hire armed security guards? Surely if citizens don’t need guns, security doesn’t either.
No one knows when or where violence will strike. It could be a disgruntled employee, a random attack, or ordinary criminal violence. It can also happen outside the library. Many open carriers cannot afford the training and fees for a concealed weapon permit, so they have no choice but to carry openly. Since they choose to protect themselves in public, why should they be forced to decide between going to the library unarmed or not going at all?
What makes a library such a special place that guns should be forbidden there? If mass shootings occur in churches and schools, there is nothing sacred or special about a library. Legally armed citizens do not manipulate their firearms in public or leave them in reach of children and neither has there ever been an recorded act of violence by a legally armed Nevadan in a library here.
Without evidence of legally armed citizens causing a problem, why is a ban needed? And with the context of all the illegal behavior of LVCCLD, should we really excuse everything they’ve done wrong by passing this law?
What about the parking lot exemptions?
The proposed parking lot exemption was proposed because opponents of the bill pointed out that those dropping off books or otherwise using library parking lots would be affected, as the law in question prohibits firearms any part of the property. This is a cop out, not a good thing.
The exemption is meant as a feel-good measure to overcome objections without actually doing anything. Schools will not create a pro-gun parking lot policy and one cannot trust libraries like LVCCLD to make fair policy in favor of gun owners. On the other hand, should the exemption become law, it would be a good start for parents and students to lobby for parking lot firearm exemption policies on campus.
SB 115 cannot be allowed to become law. A gun free zone is a killing zone and bureaucrats should never be rewarded for breaking the law.
Remember SB 115, the library gun free zone/open carry revenge bill? Well, the Assembly Judiciary Committee held its hearing on the bill Tuesday, May 10th. Guess what came out of it? A Democrat who supports campus carry! Earlier, we predicted this as a possible outcome.
Senator Denis’ proposed an amendment which amounts to campus carry lite. Under his amendment, it would be legal at many schools, college/universities, libraries, etc. to openly carry or carry concealed in the parking lot or have a gun in your car. That’s right; Senator Denis approves of citizens having guns in plain sight on campus. Basically, what his amendment does far surpasses SB 102-the dead parking lot exemption bill from Republican Senator Settlemyer which only decriminalized guns in locked or occupied cars. Under Senator Denis' amendment, schools, colleges/universities, and libraries would have a blank check to be as pro-gun in the parking lots as they wanted.
One of the major objections to SB 115 was regarding books drop-offs or taxi and rideshare drivers inadvertently breaking the law by going into a library parking lot. The caveat is that such a policy would be discretionary and creates an illusion of a solution. Denis’ intended “checkmate” to overcome these objections back into basically the same problem he faced before. Libraries could easily ban such conduct if they wanted, and libraries making up the rules as they go is the whole problem here.
LINK: Guide to Articles About the Library Open Carry Issue
The first problem is that the policy to create the exemption is not mandatory, meaning that a library wouldn’t have to a parking lot exemption at all. Even if they did, it could be as narrow or broad as they liked. If libraries wouldn’t follow the law now, do you trust them to make an exemption to protect you now?
This is a cop-out from a mandatory parking lot exemption because Denis’ made a huge mistake in tying libraries to schools. He can’t make a mandatory exemption to library only parking lots because it would make him a hypocrite on his alleged reasoning of the “need” for SB 115. If he applies it equally, as he is claiming he is trying to do with his law, he creates de facto campus carry. As this bill stands, many pro-gun and rural schools, libraries, etc. could very easily make very liberal parking lot carry policies allowing even open carry.
If this passes as-is, it will lead to more and more schools and etc. adopting pro-gun policies, slowly bringing down the wall of resistance to true campus carry. Does Senator Denis really want to be known as the guy who got the campus carry ball rolling in Nevada? Even if he amends his amendment, he falls into one of the traps I’ve outlined before. It’s a no-win situation for Democrats.
Second, this amendment goes against the whole idea of state preemption of firearm laws, which has been in effect since the 1980s, that is a patchwork of policies are a bad idea. Optional policies, the terms of which can be broad or narrow and set individual, are a can of worms.
Without extensive prior research, there would be no telling if it is legal to cross that threshold from the street or not. These “policies” adopted could vary so widely that any supposed “advantages” may be meaningless.
The amendment raised questions as to how such a policy would be implemented. Will a library district exempt some branches and not others? Will certain schools or school districts be okay with guns in the parking lot? What if the Henderson libraries ban guns in parking lots, but LVCCLD does not? How many citizens could accurately tell you what district a library belongs in? And who will oversee the policies to see they are fairly implemented? The LVCCLD board of trustees totally ignored its administrators flagrant violation of the law.
If we cannot trust LVCCLD to obey state law in the first place—to the extent they try to re-write it altogether to justify their crimes—how can we trust them to implement a fair policy? All they had to do was acknowledge the fact that open carry is legal in a public building and leave it at that, but instead, at every opportunity, they chose to do the wrong thing. With this kind of track record, they have shown they are unworthy of discretion, not to mention there is no legitimate need for this bill.
Once again I remind the reader that SB 115 exists because citizens dared challenge LVCCLD’s illegal ban on legally openly carried firearms. SB 115 would set a horrible precedent that would encourage government officials to violate laws they disagree with, then pass laws to condone their behavior once citizens challenge the law. In a democratic and constitutional society, this amounts to tyranny. Any statesman or jurist of repute cannot allow this behavior. Today, it might be gun free zones in libraries. Tomorrow, it could be anything you can imagine.
At the very least, should the worst come to pass, those in rural counties or with right-minded principals and trustees might have Senator Denis to thank for campus carry lite.
The bill is up for a work session next Tuesday, March 16. Learn the history behind the SB 115 and the illegal activities of LVCCLD. You can use the email links below to email members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
SB 378 would amend NRS 202.360, the state prohibited person guidelines, to remove medicinal marijuana permittees as state prohibited persons.
For the purposes of paragraph (d) of subsection 1, a person who holds a valid registry identification card issued to him or her pursuant to NRS 453A.220 or 453A.250 shall not be deemed to be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance solely because the person engages in the medical use of marijuana pursuant to chapter 453A of NRS.
The bill also amends NRS 202.3657 to change the definition of "habitual users of controlled substances" to not include medicinal marijuana permittees in regards to concealed firearm permits.
For the purposes of paragraph (d) of subsection 4, a person who holds a valid registry identification card issued to him or her pursuant to NRS 453A.220 or 453A.250 shall not be deemed to have habitually used a controlled substance to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired solely because the person engages in the medical use of marijuana pursuant to chapter 453A of NRS. As used in this subsection, 'medical use of marijuana' has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 453A.120.
Brass tacks on the firearm portion of this bill is that medicinal marijuana permittees would no longer be in violation of Nevada CCW or firearm laws. However, this does not affect federal prohibited persons laws. The jury is out on whether or not the ATF truly cares, but they have definitely stated that under federal law, medicinal marijuana use makes you a prohibited person. The Ninth Circuit court, which covers Nevada, has also confirmed this fact out of a Nevada case, Wilson v. Lynch. Short answer, don’t smoke pot if you want to own/carry a gun. Second short answer, don’t get an MMJ card if you want to own/carry a gun. If marijuana is so precious to you, write your congressman.
Now for the rest of us, would SB 378 make CCW holders Brady exemption to the background check void?
Right now, Nevada residents with a valid concealed firearm permit are exempt from the background check portion of buying a gun from a dealer (but not the Form 4473). This saves us $25 on each gun purchase and valuable time waiting for the gun store clerk to get through to Carson City. Nevada’s requirements satisfies the Brady Act exemption language that requires:
the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a handgun by the transferee would be in violation of the law;
There was some issue with this several years back because some sheriffs were not going through the entire CCW background process at renewal, which caused us to lose our exemption for a while. At this time, all valid concealed firearm permits qualify for the exemption.
This could go a few ways:
If the ATF does something, it’s most likely going to be Number 3. Even with the debate at the federal level over states and decriminalized marijuana, the exact reaction is unknown. That being said, if the ATF canceled the exemption in the past because sheriff’s were only running CCW holders through the computer and not doing fingerprints, it’s likely the ATF would find the MMJ exemption to be problematic.
The DPS Point-of-Contact section (the background check people) would be hit hardest by losing the Brady exemption. The exemption dramatically reduced their work load, which meant less time for your dealer on the phone while you stood around waiting for government permission to take your purchase home. If DPS couldn’t handle the extra workload Question 1 would have caused, they certainly won’t be able to handle the background check volumes an exemption disqualification would cause.
Metro testified that they will have to side with the ATF and will not be issuing CCWs to MMJ users. If all sheriffs in the state did this, then there probably wouldn’t be an issue with us possibly losing our exemption, but Joe Lombardo doesn’t control all 16 other sheriffs (thank God).
This is a feel-good bill by the liberal marijuana caucus. It only affects the state level and does not address the very real federal concerns and potential reactions. Federal law trumps state law and if the Feds earnestly wanted to keep marijuana users from buying and owning guns, they certainly could do so. Marijuana and guns is a debate that needs to happen at the federal level before potentially harmful decisions are made in the statehouse. Senator Segerblom, a proponent of legal pot, should see to it that this bill is amended to read something like “Should the Congress or ATF determine medicinal marijuana no longer disqualifies a person from possessing a firearm…” That way, the rights of everyone else who doesn’t smoke pot wouldn’t be affected by a rather selfish exemption.
Let's take a look at the email document dump from the two largest library districts in the state, Las Vegas Clark County Library District (LVCCLD) and the Washoe County County Library System, obtained via an Open Records Act request.
Washoe County Libraries informed emailed its entire library leadership and management about SB 115. By informing the staff, it implies support. If they didn't want it, they wouldn't have emailed everyone.
The Las Vegas Clark County Library District (LVCCLD) sent its email to various interested parties, other library districts/board, and external mailing lists.
LVCCLD Chairman trustee Ronald Heezen wrote, "We would like to encourage them [friends, family, and colleagues] to SUPPORT SB115 which would prohibit carrying or possessing certain weapons in a public library IF THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LIBRARY WANTS TO HAPPEN. All control remains with your board or governing body." (2/27/2017, p. 33)
Heezen is less likely mistaken as he is to be lying. SB 115, in its current form, does not allow for individual libraries to set their policies. What the law, NRS 202.265 does, allows is for schools, colleges, universities, and hypothetically libraries to individually decide who will get permission to carry. One has to apply for written permission individually on a case-by-case basis. LVCCLD, if it went to far to break the law and try to re-write the law, will certainly deny permission. Knowledge of this distinction is hinted at in an email from Betsy Ward, dated 2/21/2017 (p. 4).
LVCCLD's emails and arguments basically center around "children use the library." Adults use the library too. Parents bring their children to the library. Shame on us gun owners for thinking that parents and other patrons ought to be able to protect themselves, their kids, and their fellow citizens from murderers.
LVCCLD says that it wants to provide a place that has similar "protection" against "dangerous" weapons. If the LVCCLD and others in the library/education world were truly as open minded as they claim to be, they would know that disarming law abiding citizens is not protection and no weapon is as dangerous as a homicidal human being.
Take a look for yourself.
Imagine two men breaking in to your home, duct taping up you and your spouse. Imagine those first few moments of fear, worry, and rage. But instead of sitting still and engaging in unproductive self-loathing for letting the bad guys get the drop on you, you break your bonds and manage to get to your gun. Minutes later, one assailant is wounded and the other dead. Your wife is injured, you’re stunned and deafened by the gunfire, and the police find you with duct tape still on your body.
That part is truth; thankfully, no one died. It happened Monday night in northwest Las Vegas. At least two men broke into a home and restrained the couple inside. The second man, shot in his butt, drove himself to the hospital where he was contacted by police. Another man lay dead in the backyard. The circumstances may reveal more nuance than a random attack, but the fact remains that if Nevada Democrats have their way, the wounded robber and the family of the dead criminal could sue the homeowner. That’s right: save your life and get sued.
SB 254, introduced just last week, would repeal entirely the civil immunity protection from lawsuit when you legally and justifiably injure or kill someone in self-defense. Just imagine the outcome Monday night if the gun owner hadn't been willing to risk his home and whatever money he had to fight a lawsuit and decided not to pull the trigger.
Imagine a lawyer concocting some story to get a sympathetic jury to place fault on a gun owner who was just trying to protect his family or stay alive. We have seen far too many examples lately where politically motivated prosecutions targeted armed citizens and police officers for shooting in self-defense. We have seen judges and juries both tainted by their own biases and fail to do the right thing. Civil immunity when no law was broken exists to spare someone who did no wrong from vindictive criminals who want to gamble that their lawyer can tell a better story.
Democrats do not like gun owners who defend themselves, period. Anything they can do erode the rights of gun owners and dial back the protections of Nevada law furthers their goal of eventual gun disarmament. They would rather have citizens too afraid of being sued to defend themselves. Death of the innocent is preferable to self-defense. All this bill would do is encourage frivolous lawsuits and make Nevada a more dangerous place.
They did not create a discretionary exemption, where cases that were clearly ambiguous could be reviewed by a judge for a lawsuit. Instead, they threw the whole thing out. This is a clear shot at Republican Senator Roberson, who sponsored 2015’s SB 175 which added the very protection Democrats are seeking to repeal. It’s personal with them, just with the SB 115 library open carry bill.
Share your comments with the legislators here. (SB254, “against”)
Senator Mo Denis has painted himself into a corner over SB 115 by calling libraries “educational institutions” any tying them so closely to schools, by invoking children. He has adamantly claimed that it was an “oversight” that libraries were not included in NRS 202.265, the law which prohibits firearms at schools, colleges/universities, and child care facilities. Such a statement is false and would be seen right through by an appeals court or future legislature.
Libraries are not schools and far from it. There is no controlled access as in a school and poor supervision. Children are not mandated by law to be in a library daily. The adult-to-children ratio is nothing like the (probably) ten or twenty-to-one ratio in schools. Depending on the location, the library may have more adult patrons than children. Most kids are in school for the first half of the library’s business day. A library is no more like a school than a park is.
The facts are plain; there is no rational reason to prohibit legally armed adults from carrying self-defense handguns on campus. In particular, the work of Dr. John Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center proves this. The merits against campus carry are demonstrably false and every argument used to defeat them can be used to defeat SB 115.
If the bill were to hypothetically pass, while gun owners might have lost the battle, we will have won the war as Senator Denis has sown the seeds for us to win campus carry and further gun rights. Whether it we win in the halls of the Legislature or in court, every possible amendment has a path to victory for campus carry and even repealing SB 115. Let me be clear: every argument that applies for campus carry applies to libraries, given Sen. Denis’ assertion. If passed into law, SB 115 will be the foundation for how campus carry is passed in Nevada.
There almost certainly will be an amendment that will “solve” some objections. Here are a few solutions that only “work” for them if they don’t mind becoming absurd, hypocritical liars or handing pro-gunners a win. Remember, you can’t amend future consequences.
1. Exempt library parking lots from the prohibition.
This amendment would allow citizens to leave their firearms secured in the vehicles in the parking lot or simply extend the library prohibition to inside the actual building.
Logically, as libraries are the same as schools (according to the bill’s supporters), library and parking lots would both have to be exempted. This would have to be extended to cover schools, colleges/universities, and child care facilities, exactly what SB 102, the parking lot protection bill, was meant to do. SB 102 was quietly smothered because it’s “campus carry lite” nickname scared the legislators.
If only library parking lots/grounds were exempted, this would be political hay for campus carry supporters to humiliate the anti-gun legislators and hang their hypocrisy around their neck. And hypothetically, if SB 115 becomes law, after a few years of nothing bad happening because of guns safely in library parking lots, there will be plenty of ammo, excuse me, evidence, to use to pass a campus parking lot protection bill (“campus carry lite”). Imagine how stupid they would look claiming libraries are the same schools as schools, but “different” enough to allow guns stored in parked cars at the libraries, but not a school.
So for whoever reads this blog for Senator Denis, here’s the short version:
2. Pass SB 115 and SB 102 (campus parking lot protection) together as-is and reconcile them later on.
Although we’d prefer to have SB 102 and see SB 115 languish and die, this outcome, in and of itself, would be a huge win for pro-gunners. While we lose libraries, we win school parking lots; that’s a huge win that starts to untie the campus carry (and library) knot, making campus carry all the more possible in the future. Just like anti-gunners want to incrementally chip away at gun rights, we can incrementally exploit their own hubris to rebuilt what was stolen from us.
The recent additions to NRS 202.265, child care facilities and (hypothetically) libraries would look really ugly at the inevitable state Supreme Court hearing. Particularly in that child care facilities were added because of a single, isolated incident almost arbitrarily and there is the whole ugly backstory of SB115’s origin. The truth about LVCCLD and it’s illegal behavior would unravel the whole “libraries are schools” lie.
Not to mention, there is a good shot of either open carry becoming legal, if historical precedent is upheld, and/or concealed carry if the United State Supreme Courts affirms that as a Second Amendment right. Check out the Ninth Circuit’s Peruta decision and the Nichols v. Brown California open carry case.
TL;DR (too long; didn’t read):
3. Ban firearms in all public buildings, or allow local authorities to do so discretionarily.
Doubtlessly, as was hinted at in the Feb. 28 Senate Judiciary Hearing, many other entities have tried to get this into the law. Senator Denis, to his credit, was smart enough to know that this option would never fly. He immediately disclaimed that was his goal and launched into a pack of lies about how this was about schools, educational institutions, the children, etc.
So this amendment would make him look like a hypocrite. Had he gone this route, he would have had to bring up the incidents with open carriers, which would have led to the ugly truth coming out. It was easier to lie about an “oversight.” Everyone would ask: "Wait, I thought this was because libraries were like schools?" Nope, it was about LVCCLD breaking the law and trying to change the law.
There are far too many rural counties, with their own largely Republican senators, to obstruct a bill like this. Not to mention this would essentially be a partial dismantling of SB 175, preemption, and bring literally every politically active gun owner out of the woodwork to fight it. Signing such a bill would be a personal affront by Gov. Sandoval to SB 175’s author, Sen. Roberson, and make enemies within the Republican party.
Such an amendment would be a solution in search of a problem, the problem ironically being LVCCLD breaking the law. By and large, firearms are already effectively prohibited, one way or another, from places they arguably don’t need to be.
Using Utah as an example, this is basically courtrooms, jails, mental hospitals, etc. Arizona public buildings can discretionarily ban firearms, but, as must the above Utah locations, provide secure storage. Utah allows open and concealed carry, by permittees, in all schools, colleges, and universities and most public buildings, including libraries.
If all firearms were banned on the premises of public buildings, this would put huge swaths of the public in legal and physical danger. Many refuse to visit any public building in downtown Las Vegas without a firearm, even if they have to lock it in the car. Not to mention every public building’s parking lot and grounds would be off-limits to legal firearm carry, creating massive “gun free zones.”
Such an amendment would fly in the face of the Nevada Constitution, which protects the inalienable right of "defending life and liberty" and "the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense." Banning firearms, that were previously legally carried and caused no problems, inside, say the restroom of a public park or at the DMV, would fly in the face of the Constitution.
It would also violate the legal tradition of the frontier states, and in the case of open carry, many state Supreme Court rulings. Eventually, the courts would dispose of this amendment in a suit that revealed as many ugly facts as would be revealed as outlined in #2.
Of course, the rural local governments and their constituents would probably oppose this vociferously. Don’t forget, this could, and probably would, be extended to include the parking lots, grounds, and trail of even huge county parks. It would be very politically costly to try to get this passed and be as galvanizing as Question 1 was to gun owners. Want to get Nevada gun owners more politically active? Try this and see where you are come the 2019 Legislative Session.
Oh yeah and if a parking lot exemption were added, it would have to cover schools too, for the reasons above. You can exempt “some” buildings and not others for arbitrary reasons.
4. Allow libraries/libraries districts to make their own blanket policies instead of individual exemptions.
Senator Denis kept misleading the committee during the Feb. 28 hearing by implying that the board of trustees could approve their own policies. Senator Becky Harris correctly pointed out that NRS 202.265 only allows individual exemptions, not a general written policy of yes/no/maybe. Disingenuously, Denis tried to imply otherwise.
Individual libraries or districts having different policies was something that state preemption, had anyone bothered to follow it in this case, was meant to deal with. Preemption ended patchwork polices and regulations that were impossible to know without extensive prior research. This is confusing and legally hazardous.
If libraries like LVCCLD didn’t care about the existing law and willfully and malicious broke it, what makes you think they will pass a far policy. You can bet that LVCCLD will never allow anyone except their armed security guards have guns, the same for most urban libraries. Like the school exemption, the discretionary policy exclusion will be a joke.
Campus carry in California used to be legal, but when the state was temporarily shall-issue, campus carry was banned, but special permission could still be granted. Now, California legislators want to remove the ability of school administration to grant special permission for staff to carry simply because some school districts are granting permission. With anti-gun legislators here proposing bills like SB 254, the bill that would allow someone you shot in justified self-defense sue you, how long until they dismantle special permission here?
Just as the whole backstory of how LVCCLD broke the law and abused open carriers shows, anti-gunners will change the law anytime gun owners exercise their rights and use the law to support their cause. Policies will become ever more strict or disappear entirely as people exert their rights. You don’t trust a lion who says he’ll eat you tomorrow. Rights don’t need permission.
But remember, if libraries are like schools, then if libraries can make blanket policies allowing guns, schools will have to be allowed to make blanket policies allowing guns too.
Equal Protection/14th Amendment Lawsuit
Now for the legal stuff. Having a patchwork of arbitrary policies where some do and some don’t get approved is frowned upon by the court. The 14th Amendment guarantees “equal protection under the law.” So if things follow the usual pattern, guns will be illegal at urban libraries and legal at rural ones. Some very special people will get permission, but most won’t. This sounds a lot like what happened in California, where some counties were no-issue, some counties were may-issue, and some counties were shall-issue for CCWs.
Can you imagine a library trying to explain why simply being in Las Vegas makes a legally armed citizen much more inclined to violence than someone living in Ely? Or how the ambiguous language of the statute creates disparate policies between districts/counties that are often unfairly applied and ultimately deny citizens the right to bear arms? Wouldn’t it be fun to tell the Supreme Court about how LVCCLD broke NRS 379.040 when making unauthorized policies or how they completely disregarded state preemption?
Especially if Peruta wins in court, this kind of system won’t win in court. Combined with the above state constitutional arguments, a lawsuit has a great chance of success and irrevocably damaging gun control efforts in this state, perhaps nationally.
5. Let SB 115 die and tell LVCCLD (and any other library so inclined) to drop the issue.
Had LVCCLD just quietly respected the law from the beginning, or at least June 2015, this would never have been an issue. There never would have been a humiliating series of blog articles, the board of trustees being called out, no newspaper coverage, and no embarrassment for Senator Denis.
They could have just quietly chosen to allow open carry, informed staff and security of the law, and moved on with life. This live-and-let-live approach worked for Henderson. But no, ego and literal hatred for guns got in the way. Bureaucrats broke the law with the apparent blessing of the trustees.
My humble suggestion would be to let SB 115 die and re-train the staff. Leave open carriers alone. There will be no more lawsuits, no embarrassing hearings, no library secrets revealed in the press (and there are plenty coming), and no protests.
Ideally, we would love to see concealed carry in public buildings decriminalized totally, but America needs another decade before guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is fully destigmatized, no matter how much money Mr. Bloomberg spends. Remember, if any of this ever goes to the Supreme Court and we win, that’s a forever thing. Can’t beat that trump card! The best thing for Denis and Bilbray-Axelrod and the libraries is to simply let SB 115 die. If not, pro-gunners will win, even if it is only a moral victory.
A whole host of anti-gun legislators want to deprive you of your civil immunity in justified, legal uses of deadly force (self-defense shooting) and subjected you to a hellish ordeal so a criminal or his family can score some cash from your misfortune. Under current law, if you legally shoot someone in self-defense, your attacker or his surviving family cannot sue you. Democrats hate that fact. Having a majority, every last stop of honor and decency has been removed from the Democrat’s agenda.
SB-254 is a bald-faced attempt at turning you into a helpless victim, not only to the legal system, but your assailant as well. The anti-gunners want you too terrified by the consequences of being drug into court by an unscrupulous attorney to carry or use a gun, should your life depend on it. They would rather have you dead, beaten, or raped than, heaven forbid, one of their potential voters from not to show up at the polls.
While castle doctrine and no duty to retreat isn't yet under attack, this is the first step in dismantling your right to armed self-defense. Remember the lesson of If You Give a Mouse a Cookie…
Tell them NO! We cannot let them get away with their unceasing bullshit. Comment on the bill now! And in 2018, make the Democrats pay for their relentless anti-gun, anti-American agenda and send them packing their office.
Comment anonymously and vote here (select SB254 and “Against”)
Well, Nevadans have spoken and called “bullshit” on SB 115, the library gun free zone/open carry revenge bill. At 621/Against to 89/For (as of Tuesday, 3/8 at 7 PM), Nevadans do not want libraries to become free fire zones for criminals.
I noticed an odd pattern: many of the comments to the Legislature mentioned open carry, which aside from this blog, I didn’t see mentioned anywhere in the media. Hmm… Where did they get that little tid-bit of information? Seems to me word has been spreading in the library community asking people to comment on the bill along with a “preview” of what the bill says.
The only logical place open carry came from to make it into these comments are people inside the libraries, particularly LVCCLD, with working knowledge of the issue. Funny how even these library folks know this is about the open carriers who stood against the multiple and continuous violations of the law and not some “oversight” like Senator Denis keeps trying to claim.
Most of the “for” comments are boilerplate crap I won’t bother with, but here are some gems I thought were worth sharing. Watch the video for commentary and be sure to stop by and read the comments in full yourself. Maybe even leave one!
My husband and I offer support to SB115. My husband works for LVCCLD on Tropicana near Boulder Highway. As the Ast Branch Mgr and tallest guy in the place, he's often called to support security in trespassing patrons who violate library policy. His car has been vandalized twice (keyed all down the sides and tires slashed), both on days (or the day after) he has trespassed patrons with serious infractions. Being a librarian shouldn't be a job that carries risk of serious harm. As an employee of the district, and as a wife, we want libraries to be a safe, weapon-free zone.
I'm a librarian, and I can tell you that guns and dangerous weapons have no place in or near a public library (or any library for that matter). The public library is considered a safe zone for children and for adults. We cannot compromise the safety of our libraries by allowing firearms or dangerous weapons in or near our libraries. Absolutely not. If a guard has permission to carry, that is fine, but it must be confined to those people who obtain special permission. This is just COMMON SENSE, people!
There should be a gun free zone for all Libraries. We as Americans should be guaranteed areas that safe from fanatical people who feel they must pack weapons to defend themselves. We no longer live in the Wild Wild West and require a pair of 6 shooters strapped to each leg as Nevada Firearms Coalition would have you believe. We live in a polite society that one would hope could debate a problem or instance with words and not bullets. There are plenty of other places that the gun radicals can pack their guns openly and intimidate the mass populous--the library should not be one of them. ALL Public buildings should be off limits to weapons.
I don't like carrying of any weapons anywhere concealed or open. There is zero chance I would ever need a gun in a library: Zero. Or anywhere else. There are no boogeymen. They don't exist. There is no need for guns. I am for their restriction at every turn. People that have guns scare me. There is no such thing as a good guy with a gun just a-holes who want to shoot something someday.
I believe it was an oversight that public libraries were originally omitted from this law, so this correction is long overdue. There is no real need for a person to carry weapons in the library, and their presence is a danger to children, and to those whose mental issues alter perceptions. I don't believe this law infringes on anyone's right to own and bear weapons appropriately, but it will help keep the public library safe and welcoming to all.
Just as firearms are not allowed in schools because children are constantly present, there is absolutely no reason firearms should be allowed in libraries. The risk far outweighs any benefit, and citizens, especially children, are always safer when guns are not in their vicinity. Opponents of this bill use the possibility of terrorist activity as their reasoning for carrying guns in libraries, but accidental shootings and gun deaths are much more of a threat. In addition, a potential criminal could steal the gun away its owner, especially those owners with limited gun experience, which defeats the purpose of using the gun for protection. Not only is it unsafe, open carry is intimidating to other patrons and employees of the library. Libraries are and should remain a safe, open space that everyone in the public can access, but allowing guns in libraries diminishes this experience.