Either you are in California or in Nevada. Simple as that. If you don’t exactly know, then be conservative….if you’re not SURE you’re in NV, then don’t carry. An officer potentially trying to figure this out would have to be trusted to be reasonable…some will be, others will not be. When in doubt, be conservative. Or carry a GPS receiver if you are worried about lines and inches….perhaps some would be uncomfortable with that even, given accuracy can be as “poor” as three feet.

One can miss the forest for the trees, sometimes….or, in fact, much of the time.

Once you leave “that portion thereof” that resides within Nevada, you have to then follow California law when you’re in that part.

Public Comments Processing
Attn: 1024-AD70
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203

30 April 2008

I support proposed rule (RIN 1024-AD70) on the grounds of both law and policy.

Regarding the law, states have long reserved the power to regulate their affairs, so long as they do not infringe basic constitutional rights of the people. State-issued concealed weapon laws are prevalent (48 states with some form of this law) and successful (no state has repealed such law). The Second Amendment to the US constitution guarantees that the right to keep, and to bear, arms shall not be infringed. Yet because the amendment has not yet been incorporated against state or local governments, it has generally been the prerogative of the states to regulate firearms and their use. The proposed rule is consistent with this history, and frees states to govern firearm use on federal land within the borders of that state. In other words, good law is consistent law, and the proposed rule, if adopted, would increase intra-state consistency regarding carry regulations.

Regarding policy, state concealed carry laws have been heavily scrutinized. In the majority of states for which data is available, concealed carry has been credited with reducing crime, particularly violent crime rates. In the remaining states, it has been found to have had no statistically significant effect. Within no state have these laws been shown to increase crime. Thus, and generally, concealed carry is good policy that promotes the public safety and well-being.

Perhaps the most vocal opponents of this proposed rule express concern that the crime of wildlife poaching might be increased, should it become lawful for licensed, trained, and permitted adults to carry concealed firearms. I feel this argument has little merit (if any). Nationwide, approximately 3% of the adult population undergoes the criminal background checks, the training, the licensing, and the fee payment, etc., just to exercise their right to bear arms and to defend themselves and their loved ones from harm. The citizens receiving these licenses are the most law-abiding among us – the rate of license revocation among these people is measured in the hundredths of a single percentage point. Moreover, poachers don’t kill wildlife with short-barreled concealed handguns, and it’s exactly concealable handguns that are targeted by the proposed rule. The very people that are the most law-abiding in our society – the concealed carry license holders – have demonstrated that they abide the law. They certainly won’t be violating wildlife laws.

On the basis of law and sound public policy, I support the adoption of rule RIN 1024-AD70.

Sincerely,

CC:
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Barack Obama
Representative X