imported post
Good discussions.
I'm going to add another dynamic. NRS 202.3673 specifically authorizes a permittee to carry a concealed weapon in a public building, with the noted exceptions.
I think we all agree that NRS 202.3673 prohibits concealed carry in posted public buildings. "A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm...."
There are still 2 questions in my mind:
1.) Is a public building authorized to post such a sign?
2.) Is the authorization limited to posting a sign limiting only concealed carry?
I contend that this is no such authorization to post such a sign, but rather an exception granted if such a sign is otherwise permitted. Remember, preemption in 1989 grandfathered in pre-1989 ordinances/laws/rules/regulations. So any signs put up before 1989 would in fact have been allowed and carried the full effect of this law/exception. But when preemption eliminated all grandfathered ordinances/laws/rules/regulations in 2007 (except for Clark County registration & statewide discharge laws), such signs were automatically voided.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume this statute does allow a public building to post such a sign. If a sign stating "Pursuant to NRS 202.3673, firearms are prohibited in this building." is posted, remember NRS 202.3673 is only a limit upon concealed weapons holder, and only when such permit holder is in actual possession of a concealed weapon. NRS 202.3673 does NOT regulate the activity of non-permit holders, or permit holders who are not actively carrying concealed weapons.
I argue that since the statute specifically says "...a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building...", it's no different than if the statute instead said "...a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no blue hats are allowed in the building...". Thus the statute does not authorize the prohibition of weapons, but rather enumerates the text that must be displayed on a sign that prohibits CCW holders from carrying concealed weapons.
Just like in Seattle where state preemption invalidates the Mayor's prohibition of firearms in parks, trespassing cannot be used to remove those individual who legally ignore the Mayor's illegal ordinance. Otherwise, such a loophole would have allowed southern states to simply "trespass" any black people who attempted to ride the bus while seated.
I may be wrong -- I'd like to hear from someone in the know just how "trespass" from public buildings works.