First time OC

[blue996tt]

Went to dinner last night with my daughter and girlfriend and I decided to open carry for the first time, test the water so to speak. We were at Giuseppe's Bar & Grille over on S. Durango, around 6:30pm and the place was packed. Had my Glock 27, no one said anything. Not even sure the hostess or servers even noticed. Table next to us had 3 couples seated at it and maybe one of the guys caught it, just couldn't tell.

Have to say it was a good feeling open carrying. While I'm all for CCW, I don't feel like I should have to hide the fact I carry.


Your opinion may vary !!

[b0neZ]

Welcome to Nevada Shooters and congrats on your first time OC'ing. It gets easier with time. One suggestion, though. Get a digital recorder (preferably with a usb plug so you can upload to your computer) to carry with you when you OC. People have been known to be harassed by LEO and other civilians during their day-to-day activities, and it's good to get that on audio.
I'm not saying that will ever happen to you personally, but it's good to be prepared.
If you'd like more info on OC, you can try opencarry.org. There's a sub-forum just for the different states.

[blue996tt]

Thanks for the advice. Guess a separate recorder is necessary since cell phones will surely be confiscated.

[b0neZ]

Well, if you can set up a recording app on your phone that might be cool, but you want something that you can casually reach into your pocket and get running without a lot of fumbling around. Add to that that a digital recorder mic tends to be a bit more sensitive than a phone mic depending on what phone you have, placement, etc.
Also try wearing it in different pockets, or maybe on a lanyard under your shirt. Experiment and see where it's most comfortable for you.
Some recorders come with clip mics that may be to your advantage, as long as where you have it is discreet.
One caution: LEO have no expectation of privacy when on duty and doing their job, but I'm not sure on the legality of recording a regular citizen without their knowledge and permission in this state.
You might want to ask a gun-friendly lawyer about that, or maybe someone on here has the answer?

[rpd83lv]

Not a lawyer, but as far as I know, Nevada only requires that one party be aware of the recording taking place.

[squatchie666]

Originally Posted by rpd83lv

Not a lawyer, but as far as I know, Nevada only requires that one party be aware of the recording taking place.

That is incorrect, Nevada requires BOTH parties be aware if they have an expectation of privacy. I've not looked up the caselaw on this, so I don't know if private citizens have an expectation of privacy in public or not.

As for recording, I have one of these http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/b550/

[steve]

Originally Posted by blue996tt

Went to dinner last night with my daughter and girlfriend and I decided to open carry for the first time, test the water so to speak. We were at Giuseppe's Bar & Grille over on S. Durango, around 6:30pm and the place was packed. Had my Glock 27, no one said anything. Not even sure the hostess or servers even noticed. Table next to us had 3 couples seated at it and maybe one of the guys caught it, just couldn't tell.

Have to say it was a good feeling open carrying. While I'm all for CCW, I don't feel like I should have to hide the fact I carry.


Your opinion may vary !!

Hey come on over to the opencary.org nevada forum. We just had a OC lunch at Black Bear Diner with a few of us.

[Kinoons]

Originally Posted by squatchie666

That is incorrect, Nevada requires BOTH parties be aware if they have an expectation of privacy. I've not looked up the caselaw on this, so I don't know if private citizens have an expectation of privacy in public or not.

As for recording, I have one of these http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/b550/

Actually it is correct. For wiretapping both parties must consent. However, to record an oral communication only one party need consent.

NRS 200.650 Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.


Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

[squatchie666]

Originally Posted by Kinoons

Actually it is correct. For wiretapping both parties must consent. However, to record an oral communication only one party need consent.

NRS 200.650 Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.


Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

The law as written is rather ambiguous, however most legal scholars interpret it to mean that Nevada is a 2-party consent state.
I have just read the case itself listed below and although it only applies to telephone communications, it appears that most legal scholars and other NV courts have interpretted it and the law to apply to any recording.
Note that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I wouldn't record any conversation that MIGHT be considered private unless it was an emergency.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-conversations
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...ance-laws.aspx
http://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-...amera-statutes

Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998) (holding that Nevada wiretap statute requires all-party consent)

[Luxom]

You could just get a shirt that says "You're being recorded right now", and stamp a Che Guevera face on it. Most people would just think it's a political statement.
I wonder how well that would hold up in court?