The sport of the fast draw

[Josh Runkle]

NRS 202.257  Possession of firearm when under influence of alcohol, controlled substance or other intoxicating substance; administration of evidentiary test; penalty; forfeiture of firearm.
1.  It is unlawful for a person who:
(a) Has a concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his or her blood or breath; or
(b) Is under the influence of any controlled substance, or is under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance, or any person who inhales, ingests, applies or otherwise uses any chemical, poison or organic solvent, or any compound or combination of any of these, to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely exercising actual physical control of a firearm,
Ê to have in his or her actual physical possession any firearm. This prohibition does not apply to the actual physical possession of a firearm by a person who was within the person’s personal residence and had the firearm in his or her possession solely for self-defense.
2.  Any evidentiary test to determine whether a person has violated the provisions of subsection 1 must be administered in the same manner as an evidentiary test that is administered pursuant to NRS 484C.160 to 484C.250, inclusive, except that submission to the evidentiary test is required of any person who is directed by a police officer to submit to the test. If a person to be tested fails to submit to a required test as directed by a police officer, the officer may direct that reasonable force be used to the extent necessary to obtain the samples of blood from the person to be tested, if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested was in violation of this section.
3.  Any person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor.
4.  A firearm is subject to forfeiture pursuant to NRS 179.1156 to 179.119, inclusive, only if, during the violation of subsection 1, the firearm is brandished, aimed or otherwise handled by the person in a manner which endangered others.
5.  As used in this section, the phrase “concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his or her blood or breath” means 0.10 gram or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of the blood of a person or per 210 liters of his or her breath.
(Added to NRS by 1995, 2533; A 1999, 2470; 2003, 2565)

https://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec257

[Slavex]

Since there are now other options for ammo for sim guns I wouldn't expect that to be an issue. Same with uppers. As for the alcohol thing, US law, and Canadian law for that matter, are outside of my knowledge to comment on. But really, if handled properly, but sober individuals (as the refs and staff) I'm not sure where I see an issue. That is until the first dummy sneaks a 380 round into their gun, or they use revolvers and someone sneaks a live round in there...

[Alaskapopo]

Depends on the state law.

I know many states regulated carrying a gun under the influence, not so sure about states regulating shooting under the influence.

Up here if the firearm is under your control when your impaired by alcohol you go to jail. Class A misdemeanor. Misconduct Involving Weapons in the 4th Degree. I have found that alcohol does not seem to mix well with anything guns and vehicles especially.

[Dagga Boy]

I'm thinking the P-F.com sponsored sober team could be the Gracie's of this new fad...

[Maple Syrup Actual]

If we have to be sober I'm not playing...faux-shooting people while drunk is how I plan to embrace my inner Clint Eastwood character.

[1slow]

Can I play with a G18 Sims gun? If they make one. Full auto face shooting!

[TheTrevor]

Slavex and others raise a good point:

If a gun has been converted to only shoot sim ammo, is there an argument that it's no longer a firearm?

I know that in CA it probably would be, as anything that uses explosive combustion from primer and/or powder is legally a firearm. But is this also true in NV? Or have the bar owners and their attorneys established a reasonable argument for treating permanently-converted sim-ammo guns as something other than firearms?

[PPGMD]

If a gun has been converted to only shoot sim ammo, is there an argument that it's no longer a firearm?

I know that in CA it probably would be, as anything that uses explosive combustion from primer and/or powder is legally a firearm. But is this also true in NV? Or have the bar owners and their attorneys established a reasonable argument for treating permanently-converted sim-ammo guns as something other than firearms?

With most guns the frame is the gun. And with the Glock 17T you should be able to just use a normal slide and barrel to turn it into a lethal gun.

I have a couple of Simunition FX conversions kits, and with the Sig all that is required to convert it to shoot FX rounds is to put a small thing on the locking block and replace the barrel.

Glocks are a little more complex since they replace the slide.

[TheTrevor]

With most guns the frame is the gun. And with the Glock 17T you should be able to just use a normal slide and barrel to turn it into a lethal gun.

I have a couple of Simunition FX conversions kits, and with the Sig all that is required to convert it to shoot FX rounds is to put a small thing on the locking block and replace the barrel.

Glocks are a little more complex since they replace the slide.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree with your line of reasoning. I don't think it's useful to conflate the concept of the serialized component being legally considered the gun, with the point I made regarding what is or isn't a firearm.

Just for fun, let's say I made a Super Soaker upper which mates to a standard AR15 lower. Each trigger pull causes the SS upper to emit a single pulse of pressurized water -- don't want to bring potential NFA violations into the picture, after all. I then combine the SS upper with a serialized, FFL-transferred complete AR lower. Because the complete assembly includes a serialized lower receiver, it's legally a gun. However, I don't believe that it would legally be treated as a firearm in most jurisdictions. (All bets are off in DC, NJ, and NYC.) If the reader dislikes my Super Soaker example (which personally I think would be fun, especially with CO2 propellant) then substitute an AR15-compatible crossbow upper receiver instead.

Having established that it's possible to combine a serialized receiver with non-firearm upper parts which results in something which is legally an FFL-transferrable gun yet is obviously not a firearm, the question remains: is there an argument to be made under NV law (or really, of any state) that a Glock 17T incapable of firing anything other than sim ammo is legally not a firearm?

The ability to swap a different slide onto a 17T is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is considered a loaded firearm at the precise moment that someone with 0.18% BAC takes it in hand to repeatedly face-shoot another member of their bachelor[ette] party.

My prediction is that the NV state and local authorities will likely take a wait-and-see attitude. If safety standards are well-managed and no one is seriously injured or killed, then it'll be legal. If someone ends up in the hospital or the morgue, and there's a bunch of bad press, then the DA and/or the legislature will get involved. And we all know how that story goes.

[Slavex]

I do know that up here the frames are considered guns still, and must be transported as such, but since we are allowed to shoot each other with the Sim kits it is an interesting question to ponder at what point would it become a crime in a consensual situation.