| Author | Post |
|---|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17th, 2009 04:35 am |
|
| Thanks for any input or links - would like to know where this is going.
|
NightOwl
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 374 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 01:08 am |
|
| If it's the one I'm thinking of, indefinately postponed. http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=519 Unless there's been some update not listed on their site.
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 03:33 am |
|
It looks like LB430 which was moving well up until two weeks ago is stalled and LB503 looks like it never got out of the gate.
LB430 both reinforces the state preemption and would open the door for CFP reciprocity.
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 08:31 am |
|
In the last few days, the original sponsor, Senator Mark Christensen, has filed two new amendments to LB430. Both of them look like they are improvements and undo some of the damage made by previous amendments.
I find it interesting that someone from Utah is paying more attention to what is going on in the Nebraska legislature than anyone on the forum in Nebraska.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
rpyne wrote: I find it interesting that someone from Utah is paying more attention to what is going on in the Nebraska legislature than anyone on the forum in Nebraska.
My birth place is somewhat of an embarrassment - they appear to be asleep at the wheel. 
Yata hey
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 02:31 am |
|
Well, I sent Senator Christensen an email thanking him for his work on the bill. It looks like it is still progressing:
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=6960
I'm still reviewing the voting records in the journals to get a feel for where this may be headed and its chances for final passage.
One thing I have deduced from the journals is that if I were to choose a senator to target for replacement, it would be Senator Bill Avery (28). It was his amendment that expanded the definition of a school: "School means a public, private, denominational, or parochial elementary, vocational, or secondary school, a private postsecondary career school as defined in section 85-1603, a community college, a public or private college, a junior college, or a university;"
The Avery amendment was adopted with 29 ayes, 0 nays, 17 present and not
voting, and 3 excused and not voting.
It disturbs me that there were no opposing votes, in fact, I have not yet seen any recorded vote that had any nay votes recorded.
|
JesseT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | Lincoln, NE |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 07:38 pm |
|
Hello all.
Please do not take our lack of activity on this forum as lack of activity in our state.
LB430 has passed General and Select file and has moved to final Enrollment and Review, next step is final reading and vote, then governor must sign.
Follow the bill here:
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=6960
This bill, among other things, creates reciprocity with other states with similar or better training/education programs, creates state preemption on CCW law. There are 6-10 cities with laws still on the books. There is some speculation on whether this Bill will force omaha to remove their forced registration of handguns (city codes I believe) but some think it will. Time will tell on that.
As for the Avery amendment (AM993), It was literally a compromise, to integrate the no-guns-at-schools-edict that Avery tried to push as its own bill, LB145. We are assured that by including this amendment with LB430 that LB145 will not move forward. An amendment to this amendment (hah, AM1132) basically exempts CCW permit holders from this wording if they leave the gun in their vehicle. While we as gun owners do not want to have guns outlawed in our schools (they already are in our state under current federal law, illegal) LB145 and AM993 basically made it "more illegaler" to have a gun on school grounds. SO in some ways, 1132 is a real win for CCW holders, in that they are no longer breaking a law by driving through a school parking lot to pick up their kid, or leave their gun in their car during a childs football game, etc. Compromise? yes, but not a negative, in our eyes. There's always next year ;-)
Also keep an eye on LB503, known as the NE Shooting Range Protection Act. Not sure if this is being pushed near as hard as 430, but we are trying on multiple fronts to better the rights in our state.
I am a board member on the newly minted Nebraska Firearms Owners Association - All invited to check us out, even out of staters (as non-voting members). Membership cost nothing and the only point is to provide a more unified voice for Firearms owners in our state. http://www.nebraskafirearms.org
Also check out the NE CCW forums at http://ccwnebraska.yuku.com
These two web places have most of the gun owner activity that we are aware of, in Nebraska, and would be an excellent place to go for updates.
Just could not read this forum and leave you all thinking we are a bunch of do-nothing lame-duck gun owners out here in the "good life" state. We are not asleep at the wheel, we just don't hang out here. After all, Nebraska already HAS open carry ;-)
~Jesse T
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 07:48 pm |
|
JesseT wrote: After all, Nebraska already HAS open carry ;-)
Sort of. Too many exceptions and too many (illegal) local ordinances. It will be better after/if LB430 passes.
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
By the way, welcome to OpenCarry.org.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 11:36 pm |
|
Welcome to OCDO JesseT
Greatly appreciate the update on the state of the 2nd Amend in Ne.
Was born and raised in Omaha and attended CHS before moving east. Used to carry my rifle team rifle home on the bus - unfortunately I elected to not attend a class reunion because of the restrictive. no reciprocity environment.
I will check in on the sites you referenced and may post there from time to time.
Good to see that somebody is at the wheel. 
Yata hey
|
Darth AkSarBen
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 6th, 2009 03:43 am |
|
I was kind of wondering about Constitutional rights and illegal laws. I am now questioning whether you can even charge for issuing a Concealed pistol Permit since it has been found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Per this example.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.
In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
So where does that put permits and fees? It's a right to keep and bear arms, not a priveledge and it should not be licensed or charged. Has any gun law kept anyone from getting killed by a criminal? No. All the law did was create teeth by which to negotiate a plea bargins and sentence. There already is a law for criminals using firearms. Thou shalt not kill.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed May 6th, 2009 03:51 am |
|
Darth AkSarBen wrote: I was kind of wondering about Constitutional rights and illegal laws. I am now questioning whether you can even charge for issuing a Concealed pistol Permit since it has been found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Per this example.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.
In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
So where does that put permits and fees? It's a right to keep and bear arms, not a priveledge and it should not be licensed or charged. Has any gun law kept anyone from getting killed by a criminal? No. All the law did was create teeth by which to negotiate a plea bargins and sentence. There already is a law for criminals using firearms. Thou shalt not kill.
I really like the way you think.
Yata hey
|
JesseT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | Lincoln, NE |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 04:41 pm |
|
FYI Everyone:
LB 430 passed final reading today voted 45-3. So looks like Nebraska will get a little better now. People still seem unsure whether the registration requirement in omaha will go away for permit holders or not. Personally I do not go to omaha for any reason so I don't really care but I might consider visiting more if I didn't have to worry about getting my gun taken away because I didn't put it on somebody's "list"
Anyway. Bill should take effect Sept 4 if governor signs like he should.
Bill does:
-State Pre-emption of all local ordinances regarding CHP holders
-Church carry for approved security personel
-No more 180 day wait period for military personel stationed in NE
-Allow carry at any of the prohibited or posted places so long as gun does not leave vehicle (including schools!)
-Dictates CHP issuance in 45 days or less (after 1 Jan 2010)
-Enables Reciprocity with states TBD by NE Attorney General
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1347 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 05:27 pm |
|
JesseT wrote: FYI Everyone:
LB 430 passed final reading today voted 45-3. So looks like Nebraska will get a little better now. People still seem unsure whether the registration requirement in omaha will go away for permit holders or not. Personally I do not go to omaha for any reason so I don't really care but I might consider visiting more if I didn't have to worry about getting my gun taken away because I didn't put it on somebody's "list"
Anyway. Bill should take effect Sept 4 if governor signs like he should.
Bill does:
-State Pre-emption of all local ordinances regarding CHP holders
-Church carry for approved security personel
-No more 180 day wait period for military personel stationed in NE
-Allow carry at any of the prohibited or posted places so long as gun does not leave vehicle (including schools!)
-Dictates CHP issuance in 45 days or less (after 1 Jan 2010)
-Enables Reciprocity with states TBD by NE Attorney General
Cool! Maybe my home state of NE will recognize my NV permit! 
THEN, when I fly home, I could pack my gun, so I can "pack" my gun. 
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
wrightme wrote: JesseT wrote: FYI Everyone:
LB 430 passed final reading today voted 45-3. So looks like Nebraska will get a little better now. People still seem unsure whether the registration requirement in omaha will go away for permit holders or not. Personally I do not go to omaha for any reason so I don't really care but I might consider visiting more if I didn't have to worry about getting my gun taken away because I didn't put it on somebody's "list"
Anyway. Bill should take effect Sept 4 if governor signs like he should.
Bill does:
-State Pre-emption of all local ordinances regarding CHP holders
-Church carry for approved security personel
-No more 180 day wait period for military personel stationed in NE
-Allow carry at any of the prohibited or posted places so long as gun does not leave vehicle (including schools!)
-Dictates CHP issuance in 45 days or less (after 1 Jan 2010)
-Enables Reciprocity with states TBD by NE Attorney General
Cool! Maybe my home state of NE will recognize my NV permit!
THEN, when I fly home, I could pack my gun, so I can "pack" my gun.
Some of the dates are out there a bit - but anything will be an improvement.
Don't expect that Omaha will just roll over and get with the spirit of things much less comply without being forced to do so.
Keep the hammer ringing!
Yata hey
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 06:03 pm |
|
Congratulations on a step forward.
I fear, however, that unless your AG is very RKBA friendly, reciprocity will be almost non-existent. Reading the statutes, Nebraska has some permit requirements that I believe are very rare or non-existent in other states. the ones that stand out to me are the eye test and some of the training requirements, particularly:
69-2432 (1)
(b) Knowledge and safe handling of handgun ammunition;
(e) Knowledge of federal, state, and local laws pertaining to the purchase, ownership, transportation, and possession of handguns;
(g) Knowledge of ways to avoid a criminal attack and to defuse or control a violent confrontation; and
(h) Knowledge of proper storage practices for handguns and ammunition, including storage practices which would reduce the possibility of accidental injury to a child.
Edit: spelling
Last edited on Wed May 13th, 2009 06:10 pm by rpyne
|
Darth AkSarBen
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 07:03 pm |
|
Nebraska's Attorney General seems to be VERY "RTKBA". He is the one that put out the opinion that cities do not have the right to deny CPL holders if it is a state wide law. I believe that he will do the proper thing and look at each state as it's requirements, and regulations would relate to the issue of the Concealed Pistol Permit and make a determination accordingly.
|
Chief_of_Scouts
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun May 24th, 2009 05:57 am |
|
Congratulations Nebraska! I see your governor just signed LB430.
Now if you can get the AG to establish reciprocity with Colorado, my life, and many others would be much better for it.
|
Darth AkSarBen
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun May 24th, 2009 11:09 am |
|
Michigan should not have a problem. We here have to take an 8 hour course, and pass proficiency with a hand guns as well, before we are awarded a certificate of completion necessary for the CPL application.
|
rpyne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Provo, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 580 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 7th, 2009 03:37 pm |
|
Is there any update on what states permits will be recognized? I've been watching the other Nebraska forums and have seen nothing.
|
Current time is 09:49 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
