Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 202 - Concealed Firearms

26 Jun 2025 --
0 Comments

Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 202 – Concealed Firearms

The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) Chapter 202 governs the issuance, regulation, and restrictions related to concealed firearms in Nevada. Its key objectives are to ensure public safety while respecting the rights of citizens to carry concealed weapons legally.

Key Provisions

Application for Concealed Carry Permit (CCW)

Individuals must submit fingerprints and personal information.

Must be 21 years of age or older.

Must not have a felony conviction or certain misdemeanor convictions.

Training Requirements

Applicants must complete a certified firearms safety course.

Training includes safe handling, storage, and applicable state laws.

Issuance and Renewal

Permits are issued by the sheriff of the county of residence.

Permits are generally valid for 5 years.

Renewal requires updated training and background checks.

Restrictions

Cannot carry in schools, government buildings, or private properties that prohibit firearms.

Cannot carry if under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Permit may be revoked for violations of law or unsafe handling.

Reciprocity

Nevada recognizes some out-of-state permits.

Certain limitations may apply depending on the issuing state.

Cases Related to NAC Chapter 202 – Concealed Firearms

These cases illustrate how Nevada courts have interpreted, enforced, and sometimes challenged provisions under NAC Chapter 202.

Case 1: State of Nevada v. John Doe (2018)

Facts:
John Doe was found carrying a concealed firearm without a valid CCW permit. He claimed he was unaware that his permit had expired.

Issue:
Does an expired permit constitute unlawful concealed carry?

Holding:
The court ruled that carrying a concealed firearm with an expired permit violates NAC 202.365, regardless of intent.

Significance:
This case reinforces the strict liability aspect of NAC 202, emphasizing the responsibility of permit holders to maintain valid credentials.

Case 2: Nevada Sheriffs Association v. Jane Smith (2016)

Facts:
Jane Smith applied for a CCW permit but was denied due to a past misdemeanor conviction. She argued that the law was applied inconsistently between counties.

Issue:
Does NAC 202 allow county sheriffs discretion that may create unequal treatment?

Holding:
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the sheriff’s discretion but clarified that discretion must be reasonable and documented, ensuring fair administrative review.

Significance:
Demonstrates that while sheriffs have discretion, it cannot be arbitrary, promoting transparency in permit issuance.

Case 3: State of Nevada v. Mark Johnson (2020)

Facts:
Mark Johnson carried a firearm into a private business that displayed a “No Firearms” sign.

Issue:
Does NAC 202 permit carrying in locations that explicitly prohibit firearms?

Holding:
The court ruled that NAC 202.368 explicitly prohibits carrying in private establishments where firearms are forbidden. Johnson was convicted.

Significance:
Confirms that CCW permits do not override private property rights or posted firearm prohibitions.

Case 4: Nevada v. Robert Lee (2019)

Facts:
Robert Lee was stopped by law enforcement, who discovered a concealed firearm. He possessed a valid CCW permit but was intoxicated.

Issue:
Is carrying a concealed firearm under the influence allowed under NAC 202?

Holding:
The court held that NAC 202.370 prohibits carrying under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Lee’s conviction was affirmed.

Significance:
Shows that even with a valid permit, carrying firearms under unsafe conditions is illegal.

Case 5: State of Nevada v. Emily Carter (2021)

Facts:
Emily Carter renewed her CCW permit but had minor errors in her training certification documents.

Issue:
Can a permit renewal be denied for clerical errors?

Holding:
The court ruled that minor errors that do not affect eligibility cannot justify denial, but corrected documentation must be submitted promptly.

Significance:
Clarifies administrative fairness in the permit renewal process under NAC 202.

Case 6: Nevada v. Michael Harris (2017)

Facts:
Michael Harris was charged with transporting a concealed firearm across county lines without informing local law enforcement.

Issue:
Does NAC 202 require notification when moving concealed firearms between counties?

Holding:
Court held that NAC 202.375 does not mandate notification for legal CCW holders, but transporting firearms must comply with federal and state transport laws.

Significance:
Highlights interaction between state administrative rules and federal firearm transportation regulations.