That’s where I’m going to have to disagree. The definition of property includes everything on the assessed parcel of land.

It is therefore illegal to possess a firearm in the parking lot or common areas of a child care facility, K-12 school or university. If you expand upon this definition, the entire real estate the casino a prohibited area as you have to walk through the casino area to get to the child care facility just like you have to walk through the parking lot. There is no special case taken for accomodation facilities as defined under NRS 432A.0205.

]We all know that it is illegal for persons under 21 to be in the gaming area per NRS 463.350. The gaming or bar area defense would probably be a good defense in court for being in that specific area, but what about the other common areas of a hotel casino that are not restricted to persons 21 or over; mall, shops, arcade, movie theatre, food court, restaurants, buffet, parking garage, bowling alley, restrooms, etc.

While I do see your logic, NRS reads as:
NRS 432A.0205 “Accommodation facility” defined. “Accommodation facility” means a child care facility which is operated:
1. By a business that is licensed to conduct a business other than the provision of care to children; and
2. As an auxiliary service provided for the customers of the primary business.

A casino is not licensed to operate the child care facility, the license is held by KidsQuest which is a separate entity which leases a portion of the property. If the child care facility was owned and operated by the casino itself, i would tend to agree with you, but the fact that it is a lease of a specific area of property, by a separate entity would prevent this section of NRS from applying in this situation.

NRS 202.3673.6(b)(2) makes the distinction between the portion of a public building that is lease or occupied except for K-12 schools, universities and child care facilities.

You dealing with prosecutory and responding LEO descretion with this ambiguous statute. Under the letter of the law, yes the entire casino is prohibited. Would you get arrested or cited? If you’re concealing probably not because of the simple premise of it being out of sight and out of mind. Is there plenty of legal room for you to be a test case? Absolutely. Also keep in mind that the entire State of Nevada is in revenue generation mode. The State has an incentive for someone to be a test case.

The best thing to do is to make sure Assemblyperson Kirkpatrick is not reelected and have this prohibited area removed or revised so CCWs honored within the State of Nevada are exempt.

NRS 202.3673 Permittee authorized to carry concealed firearm while on premises of public building; exceptions; penalty.
3. A permittee shall not carry a concealed firearm while he is on the premises of:
(a) A public building that is located on the property of a public school or a child care facility

This is where it becomes a bit more confusing. You can not carry in a public building that is located on the property of a child care facility.

So, lets say the child care facility owns the property, and leases out a building on that property to a casino, this law would apply and you can not carry. However, in the situation we’re talking about, the property is owned is that of the casino, and the child care facility simply leases a small part of that property. Therefore the part about “public building located on property of a child care facility” would not apply.

Of course, as you mentioned a cop having a bad day could simply arrest you and let the lawyers and judges sort it out. But the intent of the law is pretty clear to me, and a case easily won if the DA would even waste the time to attempt to prosecute it.

I’m sure if you were in there to rob the casino, this could be one of those extra charges they slap you with just because they want to hit you with anything they can think of, however if the only charge was for peacefully carrying a legal weapon, I doubt any DA would dare prosecute, and most certainly would not win.

Illegal or not, the one thing we can both agree on is there are a couple members of our elected state goverment that need to be shown the door and put an end to these silly laws in the first place.