Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 202.290 (2026)

Aiming firearm at human being; discharging weapon where person might be endangered; penalty

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 202.290 Aiming firearm at human being; discharging weapon where person might be endangered; penalty. Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person who willfully:

1. Aims any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being; or

2. Discharges any firearm, air gun or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby, although an injury does not result,

Ê is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[1911 C&P § 344; RL § 6609; NCL § 10292]—(NRS A 1989, 820, 1240, 1243)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1966–2019 · leading case: Holland v. State, 414 P.2d 590 (Nev. 1966).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Holland v. State, 414 P.2d 590 (Nev. 1966). · cites it 11× “Holland was tried before a jury and found guilty of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury. He was sentenced to not less than one nor more than two years in the Nevada State Prison.”

Schutts v. Bently Nevada Corp., 966 F. Supp. 1549 (D. Nev. 1997). · cites it 2× “350 and Nev.Rev.Stat. § 202.290, respectively. On October 2, 1995, Mr.”

Foster v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 604 P.2d 359 (Nev. 1980). “290 provides: “Every person who shall aim any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being, or who shall willfully discharge any firearm, air gun or other weapon, or throw any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where…”

Barrington (Rebecca) v. State (Nev. 2016). · cites it 4× “Further, Barrington asserts eight additional assignments of error: (1) the State failed to properly charge her with a facially valid information, which infected the entire case; (2) NRS 202.290 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad;' (3) the State's failure to collect…”

Melendez v. Neven (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “Ayers,113 counsel told the jury in closing argument that “there could be 5 findings .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.