The operative phrase here is
““No Weapons” signs are not enforced in Nevada.”
The yes or no explanation is just explaining what a Yes answer means vs what a No answer means. Nevada is No. So, what applies is “If no, violating the sign would not be considered a criminal offense”
It all depends on the state. Here in Wisconsin, it’s explicitly stated in our CCW statute. If a property owner doesn’t permit carry in an establishment, they become civilly liable for the safety of everyone who enters. If they do allow carry, then the person carrying assumes all liability for doing so.
It took a long time for us to get a carry permit system (we were the next to last, 49th state) and it took a Republican majority in the Assembly, Senate, and Governor’s seat to get it passed. It passed the Assembly and Senate many times before, but was vetoed by the Governor every time.
With a majority to pass whatever kind of permit system we wanted, the law was very well written with the civil liability part above and protections for employees who carry in a vehicle. It also basically repealed the ban on tasers and stun guns. Before our CCW law was passed, even the possession of an electric weapon was a felony (while carrying a firearm was and still is a misdemeanor…go figure.) There was an exception made for CCW permit holders. Even now, carrying a taser without a carry permit is a felony here.
It’s a felony to carry in a USPS facility (even parking lots, I think). Can we sue the government if a bad guy shoots us there? What about on a State owned highway in a state that doesn’t allow guns (thinking New Jeresey)?
I don’t think it’s a felony. It is probably illegal.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know a ton about the law, but you raised an interesting question. I’m starting to think that the schools DO now have a duty to take active measures of protection against mass shooters. I would guess that it all comes down to the usual “reasonable” argument. A reasonable person knows that a babysitter has a duty to protect the kids from going in the street because it’s reasonable to expect cars in the road. Should a babysitter neglect to keep kids under his/her care out of the street and something bad happened, I think most juries in the country would hold him/her accountable. I think we’re at a point where a reasonable person knows schools are vulnerable to mass shooters, and maybe we should hold them accountable to protect our kids, by any reasonable means available. If they’re going to put up GFZ signs, they better have a really good way to enforce it for EVERYONE on the property. Administrators who fail to protect the kids by every reasonable means should be held to account.
I’m reading this but too much alcohol to understand will chaeck back tomorrow mor the next day
So, I don’t think this is on “the schools”. It’s not like that school, or that school board, or that county, whatever, puts up the signs and thus it is illegal to carry there. Well, maybe in some states, but my and many if not most states, it’s just flat illegal. And that decision isn’t made by the school. It’s made by the elected state representatives. And good luck suing the government because a criminal attacked.
Now, there are a lot of things schools could do other than firearms, that they do not. Those may be more fertile grounds. The USCCA counter the mass shooter threat curriculum (book, also level 3 of the protector academy as an elite member, and I think also purchaseable as an elearning) goes into detail on a lot of very useful non-firearm measures that are perhaps what should be done by those who truly feel schools need to be made safer from a bad guy with violent intent, no matter those people’s stance on firearms
I think the reality that children are not safe is too much to bare and it is too hard to deal with. Any hint of reality sets off a panic attack.
But the reality is that children are not at significant risk from a mass school shooting. They are rare. Control minded people are pushing that false narrative in order to panic people because it supports their agenda of control and restrictions.
The control and restrictions should be put on the psychos considering shooting up schools.
Well yeah if we had effective and Constitutionally thought police that might be possible but preemptively controlling people has proven difficult
Yes, we can control ourselves. Speaking for myself I accept the responsibility. In Nv we can carry in schools if we have permission. We can’t control, we can encourage. For what good it will do.
I once brought if there should be mental evaluations before you could purchase a firearm. I was quickly and correctly scolded as to the repercussions of such an idea. Who would do the evals? Who would set the standards? Who would enforce it? Who would get the exemptions? Would they be politically motivated or use the good old boy method to decide exemptions? Humans are flawed/imperfect creatures. I have come to believe that everyone that wants a firearm should have one. No gun free zones, no guns for me none for thee BS. Let ppl justly defend themselves. If somebody decides his life is only worth a bag of chips……oh well.
Edit: I’ll more than likely get scolded again for that last sentence. Hey, don’t come knocking at my door at 3am, you just might get shot.
Welcome Scott 404 it’s a big family I am Bobby Jean I know a little an some here knows a very lot here are all your answers and questions answered GOD BLESS 
