Nevada Let Guards Carry Rifles and Shotguns With No Legal Basis. Here's What That Gap Could Mean for a Criminal Case

State lawmakers recently learned Nevada's licensing board has allowed armed security guards to carry long guns for years, even though the law only authorizes handguns. The gap raises real questions for guards, employers, and anyone whose case involves an armed guard.

A Licensing Gap Years in the Making

At a recent meeting of the Nevada Legislative Commission, lawmakers learned that the state agency responsible for licensing security guards has for years permitted armed guards to carry shotguns and rifles on the job, despite the fact that Nevada law contains no provision authorizing that practice. The board's own executive director acknowledged the agency had likely relied on incorrect legal advice when it first allowed the practice.

Legislative counsel reviewed the relevant statutes and confirmed that Nevada law provides training and certification standards only for handguns carried by licensed security officers. Anyone else using a rifle or shotgun in that role, aside from certified firearms instructors, has effectively been doing so without a legal basis the whole time.

What Nevada Law Actually Permits

Security guard licensing in Nevada is built around specific training and certification categories, and those categories were written with handguns in mind. A guard who completes the standard armed-guard course and certification is authorized to carry a handgun while performing security duties for a licensed employer.

Because the statutes never extended that same framework to long guns, a guard carrying a rifle or shotgun outside of an instructor role has no equivalent statutory cover. Lawmakers have said there is no permissive language in Nevada law allowing security companies to arm employees with those weapons.

Why This Matters If Your Case Involves an Armed Guard

This gap is not just a regulatory footnote. If a security guard used a rifle or shotgun during an incident, that fact can become relevant in a criminal case, whether the guard is the one facing charges for unlawful possession or use of a firearm, or whether someone else's case turns on whether the guard's use of force was lawfully authorized in the first place.

For anyone detained, searched, or otherwise confronted by an armed guard carrying a long gun, it is worth asking what that guard was actually licensed and trained to carry. That question can matter for self-defense arguments, for challenging the guard's authority to act, and for any related civil claims against the security company or the property it was protecting.

What Could Change Next

Lawmakers have pushed the licensing board to prioritize public safety over industry convenience and have raised the possibility of new training requirements specific to long guns, rather than simply continuing the practice informally. Any formal fix would likely require either new statutory authorization or a clear directive that the practice stop until the law catches up.

Until that happens, the legal status of a guard carrying a rifle or shotgun in the field remains murky, which is exactly the kind of ambiguity a defense attorney can use when it becomes relevant to a criminal or civil case.

What This Gap Means Depending on Your Role

Whether you're a guard, an employer, or someone who had an encounter with an armed guard, this licensing gap raises different questions for each.

1. Guards should confirm their actual certification: A handgun certification does not automatically extend to rifles or shotguns under current law.
2. Employers should review their arming policies now: Companies that issued long guns to non-instructor staff face potential liability questions that predate this disclosure.
3. Anyone detained by an armed guard should note the weapon used: What a guard was carrying, and whether they were authorized to carry it, can matter later.
4. Injuries involving a long gun deserve extra scrutiny: If a guard used a rifle or shotgun during an incident that led to injury or a criminal charge, the guard's authorization to carry that weapon becomes a real factual question.
5. Self-defense claims can turn on a guard's authority: Whether someone reasonably believed a guard was acting with lawful authority can shape a self-defense or resisting analysis.
6. Don't assume the gap means no consequences: A licensing gap at the state level doesn't automatically shield a guard or company from criminal or civil liability for how a weapon was actually used.

Frequently asked questions

Is it currently legal for security guards to carry rifles or shotguns in Nevada?

According to legislative counsel's review, state law only authorizes training and certification for handguns for standard armed guards, not rifles or shotguns, aside from certified instructors.

What happens if a security guard unlawfully carries or uses a rifle or shotgun?

Depending on the facts, that could expose the guard to weapons-related charges and expose the employer to civil liability, separate from any charges connected to the underlying incident.

Could this affect a criminal case where a guard used a long gun?

It can. Whether a guard was authorized to carry the weapon used may become relevant to self-defense claims, use-of-force questions, or challenges to the guard's authority to detain or search someone.

What should I do if I was involved in an incident with an armed guard?

Document what weapon was involved and speak with a defense attorney before giving a detailed statement, especially if you were detained, searched, or accused of something as a result.