Attorney General’s office and the Department of Administration, Risk Management Division
NAC 284.646, 284.650
AG Division of Risk Management, Workplace Violence Prevention Policy
Special risk considerations
“Workplace violence issues generally arise from clients or customers, random acts from outside individuals or groups that are generally directed against the agency with or without apparent reason, from current or former employees, or from personal relationships such as a former spouse or partner, a relative or a friend.”
“Job positions that involve any of the following should be given special attention in regard to prevention and response plans:
Section VI: Definition of Incidents
1. Assault: The intentional use or threatened use of physical injury (impairment of physical condition or substantial pain) to another person, with or without a weapon or dangerous instrument.
2. Criminal Mischief: Intentional or reckless damaging of the property of another person without permission.
3. Disorderly Conduct: Intentionally causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof by fighting (without injury) or violent numinous or threatening behavior or making unreasonable noise, shouting abuse, misbehaving, disturbing an assembly or meeting or persons or creating hazardous conditions by an act which serves no legitimate purpose.
4. Harassment: Intentionally striking, shoving or kicking another or subjecting another person to physical contact, or threatening to do the same (without physical injury). Harassment may also consist of threats to cause damage to the property of another person, or any act intended to substantially harm the person threatened in his or her physical or mental health or safety. It may involve using abusive or obscene language or following a person in about a public place, or engaging in a course of conduct which alarms or seriously annoys another person.
5. Larceny: Wrongful taking, depriving or withholding property from another (no force involved). Victim may or may not be present.
6. Menacing: Intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
7. Reckless Endangerment: Subjecting individuals to danger by recklessly engaging in conduct which creates substantial risk of serious physical injury.
8. Robbery: Forcible stealing of another’s property by use of threat of immediate physical force. Victim is present and aware of theft.
9. Sex Offense:
a. Rape: Sexual intercourse without consent.
b. Public Lewdness: Exposure of sexual organs to others.
c. Sodomy: A deviant sexual act committed as in rape.
Sexual Abuse: Subjecting another to sexual contact without consent.”
“...does not authorize,” but “strongly discourages” carrying concealed weapons. “The duties and responsibilities of positions within the Department do not create the need to possess or use a firearm.”
“The Department of Administration does not grant permission to its employees to carry concealed weapons while on the premises of the public building in which they are employed except as permitted by NRS 202.3673(4)(c). As a result, an employee who possesses a valid concealed weapons permit, and who chooses to carry a concealed weapon on the premises of the building in which they are employed does so outside the course and scope of their employment with the Department of Administration, and does so in their personal capacity only.”
This is the policy Mr. Freedman was referring to.
“All Department facilities shall be marked with signs prohibiting firearms on the premises. The signs shall be posted at each public entrance, and shall state: PURSUANT TO NRS 202.3673, NO FIREARMS ARE ALLOWED IN THIS PUBLIC BUILDING.”
Notice how the entire policy refers only to state employees carrying concealed firearms,
A person who “elects to carry the concealed firearm” “does so at his or her own peril and without authorization of the Department. The Department is also not responsible for the firearm or any consequences arising from the presence of the firearm in the workplace.”
Discipline can result from “exposing, drawing, or firing a firearm,” failure to maintain control of the firearm, and breaking a law involving a firearm.
It is not illegal for public employees to carry concealed firearms at work, unless another law, such as NRS 202.265 which applies to schools applies.
A licensed concealed carrier may not carry a concealed weapon into a public building if it has metal detectors or “no firearms” signs at each public entrance. Public employees are not prohibited from carrying concealed firearms if they are employed at the public building in question (not all public buildings). Average citizens must receive specific written permission to obtain the exemption.
The various preemption statutes each give public (government) employers the ability to regulate or prohibit the carrying or possession of firearms at work. The State has chosen the correct approach, in leaving the choice to the individual employee, while maintaining that the State does not endorse or condone concealed carry and has no liability over the individual employee’s own actions. This policy is far more sensible than most private employers who reflexively ban concealed carry and even firearms in private vehicles.
Dept of Admin, Risk Mgmt
Workplace violence incident reports
1999, AB 166, 3673 re-write
Schools removed due to Columbine? See RGJ 5-6-1999
10-10-1999 Supreme Court gun signs
"O'Driscoll, Bill. "Nevada Lawmakers Shy Away From Gun Laws." Reno Gazette-Journal. June 5, 1999. p. 3
Did Columbine prompt the Legislature to introduce more gun control bills or affect its stance on pending gun bills? "We've hardly discussed it," said Senator Dean Rhoads of Tuscarora. Assemblyman Richard Perkins of Henderson said "Here, most folks believe the concealed-weapons issue has no relevance...But we want to deal with [school violence] in other ways." More gun control laws were not considered "politically palatable," showing that times were indeed changing in Nevada, bringing us closer to the gun-friendly state we are today.
Editorial. “A Bit of Hypocrisy from Legislators.” Reno Gazette-Journal. Jan 1, 2000. p. 29
Is it hypocrisy or stupidity or both? Take your pick. But in another of its famous "We are better (more important, more vital) than other people" productions, Nevada legislators (a) passed a law permitting people to carry concealed weapons into public buildings, and then (b) banned them from their own offices and buildings.
The Legislative Commission defended the ban by saying that because the Legislature has its own police force, citizens carrying concealed weapons could only make matters worse if an incident were to occur. It is easy to suspect, however. that legislators also worry about being sitting ducks for unhappy citizens. So let's add sophistry to the hypocrisy and stupidity.
Still not explained is why Nevada needed a law permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons into public buildings. Do citizens need protection there? And from whom? Are government officials apt to take a potshot at them? Or are unhappy citizens apt to take a potshot at public officials?
You may be sure that most public officials do not feel safer because of this law, even though prospective gun-toters have to undergo a background check before getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Supreme Court justices did not feel safer. As permitted under this zany law, they posted signs banning firearms.
Officials at the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation did not feel safer. They posted similar signs.
Ditto at the state Department of Human Resources.
You can expect this list to grow. because more than 13.000 Nevadans legally carry concealed weapons. Of course. it has not been explained either why that many people need special protection from the rest of the population.
But let that pass. These are nervous times. The Legislature has not made them any less nervous — except for itself, of course.
AP. "Signs Posted Forbidding Guns at High Court Building." Reno Gazette-Journal. Oct. 10, 1999. p. 5C
"We consulted with our security police before we decided to post the signs. We didn't think it would be good to allow weapons in the building," said Karen Kavanau, administrator.
On the contrary, "We have the inherent power to do so, but it probably would have created a big issue if I had pushed it," Judge Jack Ames of Elko said.
Bill sponsor Assemblyman Hettrick said his bill was about self-protection, that licensed concealed carriers wouldn't shoot people, but criminals would carry past the signs anyway.
The Legislative Building originally wasn't going to be posted, as their administrator admitted concealed carriers weren't people to be worried about. Police decided against posting "no guns" signs.
Gov. Guinn directed state agency heads to decide signage policies for themselves.
Originally, concealed guns were prohibited in virtually all public buildings in the state, signs notwithstanding. As of October 10, 1999, many state buildings had no signs whatsoever.
Comments are closed.
Clayton E. Cramer
Gun Free Zone
The War on Guns
The View From Out West