The right to carry firearms and the right to vote without fear of intimidation “are concurrent rights that can operate simultaneously and in fact, do operate simultaneously here in our state,” Nevada Atty. Gen. Aaron Ford, a Democrat, said on a press call this month.
“The line that will be crossed is a line of intimidation. To the extent you violate the law relative to using your firearm to intimidate or coerce, or to unduly influence someone, that’s going to be considered voter intimidation,” Ford said. “The mere presence of a firearm at a public polling location, in and of itself, won’t rise to that level.”

In 2015, a former 7-Eleven clerk was sentenced to four to 12 years in prison for shooting a would-be beer thief as he ran from the store.
​
In February 2018, a Las Vegas smoke shop clerk was sentenced to probation for shooting and killing a 13-year-old boy who had rushed into the store wearing a mask and hoodie.

​Self-Defense Legal Protection

NRS 41.095  Presumption that person using deadly force against intruder in person’s residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle has reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; person who uses deadly force is immune from civil liability under certain circumstances; definitions.
      1.  For the purposes of NRS 41.085 and 41.130, any person who uses:
      (a) While lawfully in his or her residence, in transient lodging or in a motor vehicle that is not his or her residence, force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or herself or another person lawfully in the residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle if the force is used against a person who is committing burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon was being committed. An action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of the person who committed burglary, invasion of the home or grand larceny of the motor vehicle with the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon may not be maintained against the person who used such force unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
      (b) Force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury is immune from civil liability in an action to recover damages for personal injuries to or the wrongful death of a person against whom such force was used if the use of such force was justified under the applicable provisions of chapter 200 of NRS relating to the use of such force.
      2.  As used in this section:
      (a) “Deadly weapon” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 193.165.
      (b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.
      (c) “Residence” means any house, room, apartment, tenement or other building, vehicle, vehicle trailer, semitrailer, house trailer or boat designed or intended for occupancy as a residence.

​Self-Defense Legal Protection

This article defends the position that the right of armed self-defense remains important today, in particular in light of the civil unrest of the Summer of 2020. The article proceeds in three parts. The first part will summarize arguments from various prominent commentators that the right to self-defense with firearms is anachronistic in the contemporary United States. These critics argue that Americans can and should rely solely on their local professional police force to protect them.

The second part of the article will focus on how this argument has been undermined by recent events. This part documents in great detail the failures of law enforcement in reaction to looting, rioting, and other forms of illegal behavior that threatened the well-being of the public. First, many police departments received implicit or explicit orders from their political supervisors to “stand down.” Second, in many instances, the police themselves were unwilling or unable to combat lawless behavior. If police consistently fail to enforce law and order, the argument against the individual right to bear arms for self-defense purposes significantly weakens.

Finally, the last part of the article will discuss examples of individuals and groups of citizens using firearms in self-defense during the recent unrest in the absence of effective law enforcement. Some of these episodes are open to criticism, whether on the grounds that one believes that it’s never worth using or even threatening to use deadly force to defend property, or because the line between justified self-defense and unjustified vigilantism is not always a clear one. Nevertheless, if law enforcement is unwilling or unable to preserve basic law and order, it’s both inevitable that citizens will try to fill the breach, and desirable that law-abiding individuals should be given the means to do so.