Bill would add public libraries to gun-free zones

Lawmakers in Carson City continue to exhibit rabid hoplophobia.

A bill has been introduced to further extend gun-free zones to public libraries and their parking lots. Senate Bill 115, introduced by state Sen. Mo Denis, would add public libraries to the current law, which prohibits guns and other weapons in the buildings and parking lots of universities, public and private schools and childcare facilities.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a hearing scheduled on the bill for 1:30 p.m. Tuesday. The Nevada Firearms Coalition is urging people to contact the committee members to oppose the bill and register their opposition at a legislative web page.

Now, we have no problem with the owners of land and buildings demanding that visitors come unarmed and the state is surely the owner or custodian of universities and public schools, but why should the state dictate to private schools and private childcare facilities? But most of all, why make it a crime to have a gun in your car in the parking lot?

In fact, in 2015 session Assemblyman John Hambrick introduced a bill that would have allowed guns in occupied or locked vehicles at the aforementioned locales. A hearing on the bill was packed with proponents and opponents.

Its digest stated:

Existing law generally makes it a gross misdemeanor to carry or possess certain weapons while on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or a child care facility, or while in a vehicle of a private or public school or a child care facility except in certain circumstances. (NRS 202.265) This bill adds an exception so that a person is not prohibited from possessing such weapons on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or a child care facility if the weapon remains out of public view and if the weapon is: (1) inside a motor vehicle that is occupied or, if the motor vehicle is unoccupied, the motor vehicle is locked; or (2) stored in a locked container that is affixed securely to the motor vehicle. 

Seems like a common sense approach, but it never got out of committee.

Having a gun in the parking lot is not as good as having one on your person if the need arises, but tell that to the vice principal of the Pearl, Miss., school who had to run a quarter mile to car to retrieve a gun to stop a shooter.

Vin Suprynowicz recounted in a newspaper column in 2012:

Law-abiding Americans with guns have an impressive record of cutting short the mayhem of would-be mass killers. In a shooting in Pearl, Miss., in October 1997, young Luke Woodham had slit his mother’s throat before carrying a .30-30 deer rifle to school.

Woodham fatally shot two students as Vice Principal Joel Myrick, responding quickly to the sound of shots, dashed to his truck — parked more than a quarter-mile away as required by the ‘gun-free school zone’ law — to recover and load his own Colt .45. He then raced back, captured and disarmed Woodham, holding a gun to his head for more than four minutes while waiting for police to arrive. This almost certainly saved lives, as Woodham had declared his intent to also shoot up another nearby school.

Pearl, Miss., school shooter.

Pearl, Miss., school shooter.


19 comments on “Bill would add public libraries to gun-free zones

  1. Bill says:

    As usual, the law, well intentioned as it might be, will probably do more harm than good. Those persons bent on gun violence will certainly not abide by the and not be terribly concerned about a misdemeanor citation when they are on their way to committing multiple murders.

    The net effect will be that the law abiding public will be inconvenienced and possibly face penalties for inadvertence.

    Those who will be caught and punished are the unwary law abiding citizens who routinely keep firearms in their vehicles or pursuant to a valid right to carry permit on their person and forget to leave their weapons at home when they visit the parking lot of a “no gun zone” building.

    And, what will the law accomplish? It will give the legislator some publicity and he can then brag that he is against gun violence. It will further restrict the rights of lawful gun owners. It will inconvenience the lawful and become a trap for inattentive gun owner. Finally, it might just result in a citizen not having a gun at at time when he/she needs one.

  2. Steve says:

    What?! Slippery slope??? NO way!
    OH no! Guns are all we are after, no way would we ever go after anything other than guns!

  3. Steve says:

    And from the BBC….(for those who would claim downtrend is being biased. They are, usually.)

  4. The current law also prohibits: “Any device used to mark any part of a person with paint or any other substance.” I think they were targeting paint guns, but isn’t this the definition of makeup?

  5. Steve says:

    Tattoos are done with “pointy instruments”

  6. Bill says:

    They just might have been referring to makeup. The trend these days is now against female glamour and a view that the world should be unisex.
    There is no longer a biological definition of male or female but new classifications based on self identity that presently govern our public school bathrooms. No science. Just personal identity. Self is the operative word today. A white woman recently said she was black and obtained a scholarship to Howard University and became the head of a local chapter of the NAACP. Elizabeth Warren, before she became a Senator held herself out as Cherokee Indian and obtained a professorship based on her “diversity”.

    In the world of yesteryear, when men and women had defined physical attributes based upon biology and defined roles within society things were a little easier.

    These days any reference to sex or sexuality brings a visit from HR and a compliment is viewed as a micro aggression. And, it would seem to follow that you are not what you are but only what you say you are.

    Sure messes up any notion of an orderly society doesn’t it?

  7. Rincon says:

    Trying to legislate discrimination away, although perhaps honorably intended, is full of pitfalls and may sometimes harm the group being “protected”. It appears that employment of disabled people fell after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Let’s see….pass a law that makes a group difficult to hire and fire and less of them get hired. Who woulda thunk?

  8. Steve says:

    Yeah! Turn in all your guns, you will be safer when only the police have guns!

    And lets not forget those “pointy knives” We need to outlaw kitchen knives too!

  9. Rincon says:

    Give the Brits their due though. For whatever reason, their intentional homicide rate is less than 1/4 of ours. Perhaps it is they that should criticize us.

  10. Steve says:

    You really cannot compare a country the size of the USA with one the size of the UK.

    However, from one of the UK’s own news sources, The Guardian, comes this interactive map. Comparisons based on populations in cities.

    I found it enlightening.

  11. Rincon says:

    “You really cannot compare a country the size of the USA with one the size of the UK.” Why not? The comparisons are murder RATES per 100,000 people.

    Your link does not address the fact that we murder each other at more than 4 times the rate of the British. You found a couple of dangerous cities. So What?

  12. Steve says:

    You don’t like the fact that there are only certain places in this country that create most of the stats you like to cite to make it appear as though everyone in the US who supports private ownership of guns is crazy.

  13. Rincon says:

    Of course there are high and low crime areas. That applies to just about every place on the planet. But who do you think has the highest murder rates? Try Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming, Montana and Alaska. All pro gun states.

  14. Steve says:

    Ahh, get rid of guns then you have no more murder…..Except for that “pointy” knife issue!!!


  15. Rincon says:

    There’s no good way to get rid of existing guns anyway. Most liberals and conservatives also agree that people should be allowed to purchase guns. Most conservatives and liberals agree than we shouldn’t sell guns to felons and crazy people. Discounting the radicals on both sides who believe in either a total ban or carte blanche, most think background checks are a reasonable requirement for gun sales. Any rule or requirement with giant loopholes cannot function. In the case of guns, I believe it is perfectly legal, if done properly, for a felon’s friend to buy a gun and then turn around and sell or give it to the felon. Giant loophole. Do you really think that’s acceptable?

  16. Rincon says:

    More important than the gun control stupidity is the question of why we murder one another at a rate far higher than so many other countries. Conservatives seem to have no theories at all. They prefer to ignore inconvenient facts.

  17. Steve says:

    It’s all those “pointy” knives fault!

  18. Rincon says:

    I stand corrected. That qualifies as a theory 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s