The proposed law, which would give weight to No Firearms Signs, was originally a part of AB286 which was amended and then completely removed from that bill. AB286 intended to make it an instant crime to carry a firearm by any matter in most circumstances on certain types of premises.
Originally it included shopping malls, movie theaters, hotels, casinos, etc. It was then amended to only include those real property owners who hold unrestricted gaming licenses (if they so choose to post 'No Firearms' signs). Before the bill went to vote in the house the section was completely removed.
The problem with bill, outside of infringing on the 2nd Amendment, was the wording in the amended Section 2 of AB286 that said a covered premises is "ANY REAL PROPERTY owned by a person/company that holds an unrestricted gaming license." This basically left a loophole that basically left it open to any property owned by that person/company and did not limit it to just the property for which the unrestricted gaming license was issued for.
So in essence, the question is/was if the holder of an unrestricted gaming license also owned a variety of strip malls or other non-gaming related businesses throughout the state would the law apply to them as well? If so how is a private citizen supposed to know that the owner of that non-gaming related business also owns a business that has an unrestricted gaming license?
The Emergency Measure SB452 still retains this loophole ridden wording in Subsection 10 that can be used to criminalize unsuspecting law-abiding gun carrying citizens.
Where SB452 differs from what was in Section 2 of AB286 is that it gives law-abiding citizens who have their valid CCW permit a small reprieve from being an instant criminal but it does not offer the same to those law-abiding citizens who open carry.
Section 1, Subsection 4 basically states that those who open carry on covered premises with No Firearms Allowed Signs are not entitled to a verbal warning from an authorized agent of the covered premises whereas Subsection 5 says that a person who engages in the concealed carry of a firearm in violation of the law MUST be provided a verbal warning by an authorized agent of the covered premises.
Those who ccw and refuse to voluntarily "surrender" their firearm or leave the premises, and those who open carry in defiance of any posted signage, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (first offense), gross misdemeanor (2nd offense), or category E felony (3rd and subsequent offenses).
It should be noted that the bill states that nothing in the bills shall: Require an owner or operator of a covered premises to adopt a rule, policy or practice concerning or prohibiting the presence of firearms within the bounds of the covered premises. So basically it is at the discretion of the covered premises to decided on whether or not they want to restrict firearms within the bounds of their covered premises.
Read the Bill Here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/Bill/8210/Text
THIS BILL IS EXPECTED TO MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH THE SENATE, YOU MUST ACT NOW AND WRITE YOUR SENATORS TO OPPOSE THIS BILL!
Note When Writing to Oppose this bill PLEASE do more than say it is unconstitutional and/or that it infringes upon our 2nd Amendment Right! That will not stop them from pushing their agenda! Provide them with a good solid reason why this bill should not be passed like the wording in Subsection 10 as mentioned above and the fact that it does not afford the same entitlement of a verbal warning first to those who open carry as it does to those who CCW!
Find and Your Your Senator Now: https://nvlcb.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9c2cd4575624417fa56fd084a7ee4dd9
Write Your Opinion on the Bill Here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/81st2021/ and select SB 452 from the dropdown menu and the select Oppose and Leave a Comment.