Merlin
Regular Member
Ok, get ready for what I'm sure will be a wall of text.
So tonight was the first night of my 6-week CERT course (nvcert.org). I put some careful consideration into it, and I decided to open carry to the class. I also got pre-authorization to bring my 9yr old son. The instructor (via email) said that he could attend, but wouldn't get the goodie bag at the end. She DID say that he would get a certificate of completion though. I suspect names=funding, soo....
Anyway, I had decided to open carry to the class based on the following considerations: (fully expecting to meet resistance)
1. The class is held at 4040 N Losee Rd, North Las Vegas. This is the Fire Department Administration Building. Sounds like a public building.
2. A search of the county registrar records (http://mapsrv.co.clark.nv.us) shows this as being owned by "City of North Las Vegas". A public building. Check.
3. I have pre-registered for the class, and received written confirmation. I think this is relevant because the building is otherwise closed at the hour that I will be there, but because I am registered (invited), I am not trespassing. (goes towards 'Lawful Purpose')
4. The program is sponsored by a grant from FEMA, but is still held in a public building, so I don't think any stupid federal stuff should apply.
5. There is no cost for the program, and no requirements other than pre-registration, as far as I can tell.
6. Based on these facts, I don't think they could un-invite me (trespass me) after the fact without it being discrimination.
7. There was no posted signage. Bummer.
8. I was wearing my favorite shirt, which says "Not Legal In California" on the front.
So, with all of these facts stated, here's how it went down.
I arrived a few minutes before the start of the course. When I arrived, there were already 10 or so people there. I had my Glock 36 on my hip in a Serpa holster. Upon walking in, I was directed to pick up the various documents and booklets from the table. I started to do so, and the woman that was leading the class interupted and said "but first, you need to go leave something in your vehicle". I was prepared for this, and had a happy, polite response.
"It's ok, we're in Nevada!" (gesture, Vanna-style, to my aforementioned shirt)
With that, she frowned a bit, but was still very polite. She started to say "This is a Fire Department building..."
Inspired by the recent NHP video, I politely injected "Public Building".
She repeated "Fire Department building".
Someone from the group already present chimed in, synchronized with me, and said "Public Building".
At this point, the other person in charge of the class, apparently a cop, chimed in and said "You can't have that in here". I politely asked who the person of authority in the room was, and he acknowledged that it was him.
I stated that while I would comply for the sake of not delaying the class, would he please provide me with his card, because I would like to have this matter cleared up before next week's class session. With that, I went ahead outside and unloaded and locked up my gun, put the mag in my back pocket, and went back in. (On occasions where I have to leave my gun in my vehicle ::begrudgingly::, I never leave ammo there)
I came back in, and he had placed his card on the table where I was to be seated.
Daniel F. Lake, Ph.D. <LakeD@cityofnorthlasvegas.com>
Sergeant - North Las Vegas Police Dept
Homeland Security
Emergency Manager Liaison
I proceeded to enjoy the class, participated, and had a great attitude the whole time. I genuinely enjoyed the class, and nothing more was said about the issue, until I brought it up afterwards.
Afterwards, I approached Sgt. Lake, and asked him to cite me the laws under which he was advising me that I could not carry in that building or the class. He took the standard 30yr vet approach, and tried to convince me without any specifics. I asked him to please be specific, so I could address it specifically. I stated that I was quite familiar with the laws regarding this matter, as they were very important to me. I also stated (inspired by the NHP video) that I was aware that if I am abiding by the law, I am not to be told to do otherwise, as covered under 207.190 referred to as 'coersion'. (thanks guys & gals, you are the wind beneath my wings)
He first stated that there was NRS that covered it. I asked him if he was referring to 202.3673, the oft-cited law that addresses concealed, but not open carry. He wouldn't elaborate. He then said that North Las Vegas also covered it, to which I replied "Do you mean the law that, while not yet removed from the books, is nullified by SB92, which went into effect nearly 4.5 years ago? Again, he avoids the question. Then he starts down a different path, stating that it is his class, and he has the final decision on who can carry there.
I stated "I understand that you may feel that way, but that doesn't mean it's supported by the Law. I can respect that you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that you have the authority to overide State Law."
WIth that, he grumbled a bit, and it was clear that he wasn't interested in discussing it any further. I thanked him for taking the time to discuss it with me, and advised him that I would be contacting him by email regarding this, so that he may provide me with which statute he believes covers his position. I stated that It was not my intention to put him in a bind, or to be difficult, but that "if I don't exercise my rights, that's the best way to lose them". I also stated that "the best way to exercise ones rights is to do so in uncomfortable situations". This seemed to actually enrage him a bit, I don't think he heard anything after the word 'bind', as he promptly replied with:
"I have been on the force for 30yrs, you couldn't put me in a bind if you wanted to".
I stated "Well, ok, but I wanted to convey that that was not my intent".
He then went on to say that he wouldn't be providing anything written, and wouldn't go on record with anything.
I thought for a moment, because I was expecting this result. So, time for a pause in the festivities. I do not have any leet spyware. All I have is my Windows Phone 7 based phone, which as far as I am aware doesn't have any decent offsite recording apps. I can record audio, but Microsoft saw fit to make it so that if the screen is off, you can't record, and the screen times out after a short period. Without any decent recording gear, I was not able to record any of this. I also wasn't entirely sure about the whole all-party aspect of Nevadas recording laws.
The post that just went up a bit ago by DVC that pointed to the 7 Rules of recording police would have been a big help a few hours earlier.
So, with that said, I have no recording of it. Back to the story...
So, after he advised me that he would not reply to anything in writing, and after careful consideration, I decided to state that the written method was the more polite alternative to Video. Without a written option, I would have to fallback to video.
This went over about as well as can be expected. He stated that he would never appear on any camera. I stated that he was a Public Servant, carrying out the Public's business, and that while on duty, that was not his choice to make.
"You can certainly refuse to discuss the matter with me any more, but I was hoping to be able to settle this matter here without needing to involve anyone else higher up the chain."
He stated that I was free to contact his boss.
"Ok, that works for me, who is that?"
"The Chief of Police."
"Ok, well, I guess that is one avenue, but I don't suspect that would bear any fruit. I think my next stop would be the City Attorney, but this sure would be simpler if you could at least tell me which statute you are standing on.."
At this point, the woman (Page Spencer <pspencer@LasVEgasNevada.gov>), who had been fairly quiet during this whole thing, finally chimed in with her perspective on it.
"Some of the activities you will be participating in are just not a good idea with a gun. It would be a safety issue. We are gonna be rolling around on the floor, tied up, doing search and rescue drills in dark places, that sort of thing"
"I can understand that, and that is a very different situation that telling me that it is against the law, which I know it is not. With that said, if I am within the bounds of the law, isn't that my decision to make, at my own discretion?"
That pretty much ended that train of thought, and she went back to packing up the class materials.
That was pretty much the end of the conversation over all. I again thanked the two of them for the class, and their public service, and that I looked forward to seeing them next week.
I should say that, while this took a long time to type up, the conversation was brief, 3 minutes at most. So I wasn't beating a dead horse, just hitting the high points that were on my mental checklist. I was super-polite the whole time, and enthusiastic to be there.
So, with all of that, I am interested in not only feedback on what I could have done better, but how I should proceed from here. I figured I would still make the effort to send him a super-polite email requesting, as I said I would, the statute that he was using as his basis for his statements. I don't expect him to reply, but I figure I should still follow through.
Clearly, what is needed is for an OCDO group signup for the next session of this class. Pack the class with all open carriers. Yeah...
Ok, fire away brothers and sisters.
So tonight was the first night of my 6-week CERT course (nvcert.org). I put some careful consideration into it, and I decided to open carry to the class. I also got pre-authorization to bring my 9yr old son. The instructor (via email) said that he could attend, but wouldn't get the goodie bag at the end. She DID say that he would get a certificate of completion though. I suspect names=funding, soo....
Anyway, I had decided to open carry to the class based on the following considerations: (fully expecting to meet resistance)
1. The class is held at 4040 N Losee Rd, North Las Vegas. This is the Fire Department Administration Building. Sounds like a public building.
2. A search of the county registrar records (http://mapsrv.co.clark.nv.us) shows this as being owned by "City of North Las Vegas". A public building. Check.
3. I have pre-registered for the class, and received written confirmation. I think this is relevant because the building is otherwise closed at the hour that I will be there, but because I am registered (invited), I am not trespassing. (goes towards 'Lawful Purpose')
4. The program is sponsored by a grant from FEMA, but is still held in a public building, so I don't think any stupid federal stuff should apply.
5. There is no cost for the program, and no requirements other than pre-registration, as far as I can tell.
6. Based on these facts, I don't think they could un-invite me (trespass me) after the fact without it being discrimination.
7. There was no posted signage. Bummer.
8. I was wearing my favorite shirt, which says "Not Legal In California" on the front.
So, with all of these facts stated, here's how it went down.
I arrived a few minutes before the start of the course. When I arrived, there were already 10 or so people there. I had my Glock 36 on my hip in a Serpa holster. Upon walking in, I was directed to pick up the various documents and booklets from the table. I started to do so, and the woman that was leading the class interupted and said "but first, you need to go leave something in your vehicle". I was prepared for this, and had a happy, polite response.
"It's ok, we're in Nevada!" (gesture, Vanna-style, to my aforementioned shirt)
With that, she frowned a bit, but was still very polite. She started to say "This is a Fire Department building..."
Inspired by the recent NHP video, I politely injected "Public Building".
She repeated "Fire Department building".
Someone from the group already present chimed in, synchronized with me, and said "Public Building".
At this point, the other person in charge of the class, apparently a cop, chimed in and said "You can't have that in here". I politely asked who the person of authority in the room was, and he acknowledged that it was him.
I stated that while I would comply for the sake of not delaying the class, would he please provide me with his card, because I would like to have this matter cleared up before next week's class session. With that, I went ahead outside and unloaded and locked up my gun, put the mag in my back pocket, and went back in. (On occasions where I have to leave my gun in my vehicle ::begrudgingly::, I never leave ammo there)
I came back in, and he had placed his card on the table where I was to be seated.
Daniel F. Lake, Ph.D. <LakeD@cityofnorthlasvegas.com>
Sergeant - North Las Vegas Police Dept
Homeland Security
Emergency Manager Liaison
I proceeded to enjoy the class, participated, and had a great attitude the whole time. I genuinely enjoyed the class, and nothing more was said about the issue, until I brought it up afterwards.
Afterwards, I approached Sgt. Lake, and asked him to cite me the laws under which he was advising me that I could not carry in that building or the class. He took the standard 30yr vet approach, and tried to convince me without any specifics. I asked him to please be specific, so I could address it specifically. I stated that I was quite familiar with the laws regarding this matter, as they were very important to me. I also stated (inspired by the NHP video) that I was aware that if I am abiding by the law, I am not to be told to do otherwise, as covered under 207.190 referred to as 'coersion'. (thanks guys & gals, you are the wind beneath my wings)
He first stated that there was NRS that covered it. I asked him if he was referring to 202.3673, the oft-cited law that addresses concealed, but not open carry. He wouldn't elaborate. He then said that North Las Vegas also covered it, to which I replied "Do you mean the law that, while not yet removed from the books, is nullified by SB92, which went into effect nearly 4.5 years ago? Again, he avoids the question. Then he starts down a different path, stating that it is his class, and he has the final decision on who can carry there.
I stated "I understand that you may feel that way, but that doesn't mean it's supported by the Law. I can respect that you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that you have the authority to overide State Law."
WIth that, he grumbled a bit, and it was clear that he wasn't interested in discussing it any further. I thanked him for taking the time to discuss it with me, and advised him that I would be contacting him by email regarding this, so that he may provide me with which statute he believes covers his position. I stated that It was not my intention to put him in a bind, or to be difficult, but that "if I don't exercise my rights, that's the best way to lose them". I also stated that "the best way to exercise ones rights is to do so in uncomfortable situations". This seemed to actually enrage him a bit, I don't think he heard anything after the word 'bind', as he promptly replied with:
"I have been on the force for 30yrs, you couldn't put me in a bind if you wanted to".
I stated "Well, ok, but I wanted to convey that that was not my intent".
He then went on to say that he wouldn't be providing anything written, and wouldn't go on record with anything.
I thought for a moment, because I was expecting this result. So, time for a pause in the festivities. I do not have any leet spyware. All I have is my Windows Phone 7 based phone, which as far as I am aware doesn't have any decent offsite recording apps. I can record audio, but Microsoft saw fit to make it so that if the screen is off, you can't record, and the screen times out after a short period. Without any decent recording gear, I was not able to record any of this. I also wasn't entirely sure about the whole all-party aspect of Nevadas recording laws.
The post that just went up a bit ago by DVC that pointed to the 7 Rules of recording police would have been a big help a few hours earlier.
So, with that said, I have no recording of it. Back to the story...
So, after he advised me that he would not reply to anything in writing, and after careful consideration, I decided to state that the written method was the more polite alternative to Video. Without a written option, I would have to fallback to video.
This went over about as well as can be expected. He stated that he would never appear on any camera. I stated that he was a Public Servant, carrying out the Public's business, and that while on duty, that was not his choice to make.
"You can certainly refuse to discuss the matter with me any more, but I was hoping to be able to settle this matter here without needing to involve anyone else higher up the chain."
He stated that I was free to contact his boss.
"Ok, that works for me, who is that?"
"The Chief of Police."
"Ok, well, I guess that is one avenue, but I don't suspect that would bear any fruit. I think my next stop would be the City Attorney, but this sure would be simpler if you could at least tell me which statute you are standing on.."
At this point, the woman (Page Spencer <pspencer@LasVEgasNevada.gov>), who had been fairly quiet during this whole thing, finally chimed in with her perspective on it.
"Some of the activities you will be participating in are just not a good idea with a gun. It would be a safety issue. We are gonna be rolling around on the floor, tied up, doing search and rescue drills in dark places, that sort of thing"
"I can understand that, and that is a very different situation that telling me that it is against the law, which I know it is not. With that said, if I am within the bounds of the law, isn't that my decision to make, at my own discretion?"
That pretty much ended that train of thought, and she went back to packing up the class materials.
That was pretty much the end of the conversation over all. I again thanked the two of them for the class, and their public service, and that I looked forward to seeing them next week.
I should say that, while this took a long time to type up, the conversation was brief, 3 minutes at most. So I wasn't beating a dead horse, just hitting the high points that were on my mental checklist. I was super-polite the whole time, and enthusiastic to be there.
So, with all of that, I am interested in not only feedback on what I could have done better, but how I should proceed from here. I figured I would still make the effort to send him a super-polite email requesting, as I said I would, the statute that he was using as his basis for his statements. I don't expect him to reply, but I figure I should still follow through.
Clearly, what is needed is for an OCDO group signup for the next session of this class. Pack the class with all open carriers. Yeah...
Ok, fire away brothers and sisters.