The long-standing dispute with the Las Vegas Clark County Library District (LVCCLD) has been settled Flores v. LVCCLD. I’m not going to dissect the opinion piece by piece. I might later, but to do so is moot at this point.
The short version is that for years, LVCCLD has ignored state law that only prohibits concealed carry in public buildings, when posted. Open carry is legal in public buildings per NRS 202.3673, except local districts—like library districts—that have rules against it (according to the Flores decision).
What the court decided, was that because local districts are not specifically mentioned in each of the sections pertaining to counties, cities, and towns, that the legislature really didn’t intend to limit the ability of the odd local district, like library districts, to ban legal open carry. The court found the right hoops to jump through to make shit stick to the wall, but hey, no one ever said that lawyers were honest or decent human beings.
Obviously, this is wrong and the dissent points this out. The other wording of the bill (and the resulting NRS section) clearly indicates that firearm regulation is reserved only to the legislature, not a board of unelected, hand-picked cronies. Justice Cherry calls out the other “justices” for basically ignoring clear legislative intent. The dissent also notes the plethora of case law from other states affirming preemption and that the odd government entity does not have special powers.
Unfortunately, the legislature did not listen to advice to include such districts or more expansive language to avoid this kind of situation. In a sage world, where “justices” dispensed justice and followed the example of case law elsewhere, the prefatory sections reserving power to the legislature and the clear legislative intent would have made all this moot.
Yet much of the Nevada government is corrupt and likes to play an insider’s game. I charge that the Nevada Supreme Court made a biased decision, deliberately ignoring the facts, in order to execute a political objective—the exact thing an independent judiciary is supposed to avoid. I’d bet, with no proof whatsoever, that anti-gun elements got to the justices and convinced them to vote against the law and logic.
Furthermore, the justices have been aware since the 1990s that open carry is perfectly legal in their courthouse. That’s right; only by fiat did the Supreme Court ban open carry in its building. However, if the issue was forced, they’d apply their flawed Flores logic and say they could.
Going forward from here, no realistic path exists at the state level. The governorship and the legislature has gone blue and it’s not likely to switch back. There will be no correction to preemption when we have legislators and Gov. Sleestak (Sisolak) looking to abolish preemption altogether. Sleestak wanted ban bump-fire stocks in Las Vegas to virtue signal after the Mandalay Bay-Route 91 Harvest-October 1 mass shooting.
Sleestak is the same man who was actually reasonable on firearms until the Democratic Party dragged everyone who wanted to stay in the party to their hoplopathic narrative. That’s right, Governor-elect Sleestak was perfectly fine with preemption in the 1990s. What changed? Party funding; be anti-gun and become anti-American or the Democratic Party won’t pay your election bills anymore.
Federally, we are still in the Ninth Circus, so expecting those justices to save us is unlikely. As for the Supreme Court, their extreme reluctance to take pro-gun cases (likely fearing a devastating swing vote) limits options federally. Justice Scalia’s “sensitive areas” language in the opinion of Heller also problematic. “Sensitive places” today are based on the flawed logic of disarming the law abiding actually protects people.
The only places where people should be disarmed are places where there is a real threat that a concealed carrier (etc.) might abuse the privilege to deceive in order to commit violence. An example of this would be a courthouse, where a defendant or spouse at a hearing uses the law to carry past security and kill the judge, witnesses, etc. Of course, courthouses generally have decent security, including screening, and armed officers to respond to threats. Utah sets a good example where lockboxes are required at the entrances.
We put up a good fight against a contemptible foe. Mrs. Flores bravely stood up against bureaucrats and assholes, I mean trustees, and fought the good fight; something she should be well congratulated for. Getting a favorable opinion by “cheating” is not victory and cheating is something that LVCCLD has done at every turn. Leftists love to cheat and tell you what’s best for you. We’re going to see more of that at the state and national level from here on out. But we know a storm is coming and those that abuse the rights of men, dishonor the law, and behave like tyrants will reap the whirlwind.
And please, no one do anything stupid or inflammatory until after the legislature adjourns in June.
Support Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research (old articles, clippings, photos), links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc.