Vegas StrEATS Festival

[Vegassteve]

This thread is up on slidin thru's fb page now.

I seem to have been banned from commenting on the page. I had only posted one comment to slide thru saying we would no longer eat at the restaurant. Oh well plenty of other places welcome us.

 

[Sabotage70]

I seem to have been banned from commenting on the page. I had only posted one comment to slide thru saying we would no longer eat at the restaurant. Oh well plenty of other places welcome us.

Like the Heart Attack grill. That cheeseburger is really good.

 

[jpa]

I find it funny and disingenuous that Slidin' Thru is trying to distance themselves from the fallout and backlash by saying "hey it's Vegas Streats policy not ours!" then they start attacking OC.org and posted a link to this thread. They don't understand that this isn't a campaign to "test the limits" or push to get kicked out of businesses just for the sake of getting kicked out and making a scene. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone making a scene when they were asked to leave a business. The reason anyone here is pressing the issue is that you hold the event on public land, in a public right-of-way and even on private property that is completely open to public access.

For Slidin Thru if you're reading, this isn't about pro-gun vs anti-gun. This is about an event open to the public that has absolutely nothing to do with firearms, taking a stance on firearms ownership and possession. Some businesses have taken a similar stance and while it's their right to do so, it's our right to choose to patronize other events that do respect our right to carry instead. The ideal situation would be to follow the lead of Starbucks and take a neutral stance that you follow the laws of the state you operate within and you neither support nor prohibit firearms in your business. We know your business is selling burgers, not political activism. So if you want to sell more burgers, we'd love to patronize your business. Just let us know we're welcome as long as we follow the laws of the state.

 

[Merlin]

At this point, this is no longer a firearms issue. The security folks are asserting private property rights over sixth st, claiming that their special event permit grants them that, but it doesn't.

Next stop, special events permit office, then city council. Gonna get this corrected.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[wrightme]

How is the city attorney and lvmpd misrepresenting the statute as they are? Gunbuster signs posted on private property may be legal to post, but they are not binding upon those who read them.

More specifically, NRS 202.3673 has nothing whatsoever to do with signs posted on private property anyway.

 

[Merlin]

How is the city attorney and lvmpd misrepresenting the statute as they are? Gunbuster signs posted on private property may be legal to post, but they are not binding upon those who read them.

More specifically, NRS 202.3673 has nothing whatsoever to do with signs posted on private property anyway.

No, you are right 202.3673 doesn't apply to the private property. At this point we aren't trying to do anything with the private property part of the event. Just the part on 6th st, which is public property. They are using 202.700, trespassing, which is not relevant on the public part unless the trespassee has violated a law. They keep going back to calling 6th street private during the permit period, but none of the CLV ordinances support that.

Thus, at this point, getting that one issue resolved will be the thread that unravels the sweater here.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[wrightme]

No, you are right 202.3673 doesn't apply to the private property. At this point we aren't trying to do anything with the private property part of the event. Just the part on 6th st, which is public property. They are using 202.700, trespassing, which is not relevant on the public part unless the trespassee has violated a law. They keep going back to calling 6th street private during the permit period, but none of the CLV ordinances support that.

Thus, at this point, getting that one issue resolved will be the thread that unravels the sweater here.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

It still isn't relevant. It is public property, open for traffic, not a public building.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec3673

NRS 202.3673 Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building; exceptions; penalty.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, a permittee may carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of any public building.

2. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of a public building that is located on the property of a public airport.

3. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of:

(a) A public building that is located on the property of a public school or a child care facility or the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, unless the permittee has obtained written permission to carry a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subparagraph (3) of paragraph (a) of subsection 3 of NRS 202.265.

(b) A public building that has a metal detector at each public entrance or a sign posted at each public entrance indicating that no firearms are allowed in the building, unless the permittee is not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building pursuant to subsection 4.

4. The provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection 3 do not prohibit:

(a) A permittee who is a judge from carrying a concealed firearm in the courthouse or courtroom in which the judge presides or from authorizing a permittee to carry a concealed firearm while in the courtroom of the judge and while traveling to and from the courtroom of the judge.

(b) A permittee who is a prosecuting attorney of an agency or political subdivision of the United States or of this State from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of a public building.

(c) A permittee who is employed in the public building from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building.

(d) A permittee from carrying a concealed firearm while he or she is on the premises of the public building if the permittee has received written permission from the person in control of the public building to carry a concealed firearm while the permittee is on the premises of the public building.

5. A person who violates subsection 2 or 3 is guilty of a misdemeanor.

6. As used in this section:

(a) “Child care facility” has the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (a) of subsection 5 of NRS 202.265.

(b) “Public building” means any building or office space occupied by:

(1) Any component of the Nevada System of Higher Education and used for any purpose related to the System; or

(2) The Federal Government, the State of Nevada or any county, city, school district or other political subdivision of the State of Nevada and used for any public purpose.

Ê If only part of the building is occupied by an entity described in this subsection, the term means only that portion of the building which is so occupied.

(Added to NRS by 1995, 2725; A 1997, 63; 1999, 2767; 2007, 1914)

 

[Merlin]

I don't think you understood me. I think we are in agreement, 202.3673 doesn't apply at all, because it is not a building.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2