Does the last sentence of this section of the statute, "If only part of the building is occupied by an entity described in this subsection, the term means only that portion of the building which is so occupied" make a difference in your debate?
6. As used in this section:
(a) “Child care facility” has the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (a) of subsection 5 of NRS 202.265.
(b) “Public building” means any building or office space occupied by:
(1) Any component of the Nevada System of Higher Education and used for any purpose related to the System; or
(2) The Federal Government, the State of Nevada or any county, city, school district or other political subdivision of the State of Nevada and used for any public purpose.
Ê If only part of the building is occupied by an entity described in this subsection, the term means only that portion of the building which is so occupied.
(Added to NRS by 1995, 2725; A 1997, 63; 1999, 2767 ; 2007, 1914 )
Reply With Quote
gdcleanfun, I tend to agree with your view. The Exception, as it reads in NRS seems to cover the entire number 6. If you look at other NRS code definitions, that is the way it seems to read, and if you look at the indentation, it also lends to covering the entire lot above it. I try to avoid the Casinos anyway, and not many I have been in have an active daycare. I would not want to be the test case, but I can see how argument can ensue in either direction. We really need our legislature to fix it, but every time they touch a law, who knows what other language will appear.:fie: