| Author | Post |
|---|
Bay Bob
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 7th, 2009 12:39 pm |
|
I read on another forum that an individual in Lincoln had all of his firearms confiscated when the polce learned that he had a couple year old misdemenaor conviction for possession of marijuana.
Have any of you heard of this ?
Is there more to the story ?
How does the new pre-emption law (congrats by the way !) effect these local laws like Lincolns ?
Thanks
BB
|
Bay Bob
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 01:52 am |
|
52 views and no replies - - - that is pretty scary - - -
Here is the text of the ordinance - - - two DUIs and you are out too - - -
9.36.100 Unlawful Possession of Firearms.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any firearm within the corporate limits or
on any property of the City of Lincoln outside the corporate limits when that person has been
convicted of any one of the following offenses within the last ten years: Stalking in violation of
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.03 or any other comparable or similar state statute from another state;
Violation of a protection order as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-924 or Violation of a foreign
protection order as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-931; False imprisonment in the second degree
in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-315; Sexual assault in the third degree in violation of Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 28-320; Impersonating a peace officer in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-610; or,
Impersonating police officer in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.08.060; Debauching a
Minor in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-805; Obstructing government operations in violation of
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-901; Resisting arrest in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-904; Resisting officer
in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.08.030; Obstructing a peace officer in violation of Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 28-906; Interfering with an officer making an arrest in violation of Lincoln Municipal
Code § 9.08.020; Carrying concealed weapon in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1202; Criminal
child enticement in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311; Implements for escape in violation of Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 28-913; Unlawful possession of explosives, second degree in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 28-1216; Use of explosives without a permit in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1218; Concealing
the death of another person in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1302; Minors not to be furnished
with firearms, ammunition, or weapons in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.36.020;
Discharge of firearms unlawful in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.36.010; Assault in the
third degree in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-310; Assault and battery, menacing threats in
violation of Lincoln Municipal Code §9.12.010; Unlawful intrusion in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 28-311.08; Violation of custody in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-316; Domestic assault in
violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-323; Criminal trespass in the first degree in violation of Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 28-520; Contributing to the delinquency of a child in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-709;
Public indecency in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-806; Public indecency or indecent exposure
in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.16.180; Operating a motor vehicle or vessel to avoid
arrest in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-905; Fleeing in a vehicle to avoid arrest in violation of
Lincoln Municipal Code § 10.14.280; any violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act as
set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-401 to 28-456.01; Toxic compounds, unlawful use in violation of
Lincoln Municipal Code §9.16.110; Criminal attempt in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-201 for
any of the state crimes set forth in this subsection (a).
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any firearm within the corporate limits or
on any property of the City of Lincoln outside the corporate limits when that person has been
convicted of two or more of the following offenses within the last ten years: Driving under the
influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,196; Driving under the
influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 10.16.030; Implied
consent to submit to chemical test, refusal in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6-197; Chemical test,
refusal in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code §10.16.040; or any conviction under a law of another
state or municipality if at the time of the conviction under said law the offence for which the person
was convicted would have been a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-6,196 or 60-6,197.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to (1) the issuance of firearms or the
possession by members of the Armed Forces of the United States, active or reserve, the National
Guard of this state, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, when on duty or training; or (2) a peace
officer as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-109(14). (Ord. 19060 §1; March 24, 2008: prior Ord.
18793 §1; August 21, 2006: Ord. 18158 §1; April 7, 2003).
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 02:11 am |
|
Bay Bob wrote: 52 views and no replies - - - that is pretty scary - - -
Here is the text of the ordinance - - - two DUIs and you are out too - - -
...
Sorry, if you wanted us to jump on it right away....
Wow. What a laundry list.
I could see many of thse as exclusions for a CHL or CWP.
But for firearm ownership a lot of these would seem to be flat out unconstitutional....
When did stinkin' Lincoln pass this mess?
|
gunscribe
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Nebraska USA |
| Posts: | 37 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 02:26 am |
|
Chief Casady promulgated this list a few years ago and got the entire city council and mayor to violate their oaths off office to make it law.
|
Bay Bob
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 03:17 am |
|
And the worst part is they are enforceing it, going back 8 years in one case for a misdemeanor pot possesion at a college party.
My guess is that Lincoln is a liberal controlled college town - - -
Good luck to you all in getting this turned around.
BB
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 02:12 am |
|
Here's an old article I found that furnishes a lot of background...
Council considers gun restrictions
DEENA WINTER / Lincoln Journal Star |
Posted: Monday, August 14, 2006
In Lincoln, it’s illegal to possess firearms if you’ve been convicted of certain crimes, such as stalking, resisting arrest and violating a protection order.
The City Council is considering tightening the law by adding additional crimes to that list, including assault, drug crimes, unlawful intrusion, domestic assault and public indecency. The ban would apply to people who have been convicted within the past 10 years.
Last month, the City Council rejected Mayor Coleen Seng’s proposal to ban concealed weapons in Lincoln. Instead, the council is looking at limiting who can possess guns within the city limits.
So when the state begins allowing people to get concealed weapons permits in January, people convicted of these crimes would not be able to legally possess the guns in Lincoln.
Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady said the proposed ordinance is designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and wouldn’t affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to get concealed weapons permits.
Casady said the earlier 2003 ordinance, which passed unanimously, has helped police take firearms out of the hands of convicted criminals, and the new ordinance will take them away from even more criminals.
A representative of the National Rifle Association, Jordan Austin, testified against the proposed ordinance, saying it would create a patchwork of gun laws.
Casady pointed out that the city has all kinds of ordinances that other cities don’t. For example, “you have to pick up your dog’s poop,” you can’t smoke indoors while working and “you can’t keep a rooster.”
“I don’t think this one is difficult to understand,” Casady said.
If a convicted criminal were found with a weapon, police would confiscate the weapon as evidence and the person would face a misdemeanor charge with a maximum penalty of $500 and up to six months in jail.
Casady said he’s concerned about 10 “serial flashers” who are continually window-peeping or masturbating in public, some of whom have guns.
To illustrate his point, he unfolded a long printout of the criminal history of “Peter,” who’s been arrested 106 times by police, including five times for indecent exposure, and has 11 pending charges. Then he unrolled another printout of “Robert,” who’s been arrested 121 times, 13 for indecent exposure.
“These are the kinds of people that I would like to keep guns from,” Casady said. “Peter has a gun. I would like to take it away from him, if we find him with one.”
Nothing would prevent people with those convictions on their record from buying a weapon, Casady said, but the minute they took possession of the gun they’d be violating Lincoln’s law.
Austin said it would be unreasonable to make people passing through Lincoln memorize its “obscure local ordinance.”
He said state law only allows the city to regulate the use, not possession, of firearms and asked the council to get the state attorney general’s opinion on the legality of the ordinance before proceeding.
City Attorney Dana Roper disagreed with the NRA’s interpretation of state statute and said Lincoln has the legal power, as a home rule city, to pass such an ordinance.
Councilman Jonathan Cook pressed Austin to answer whether he thought it was OK for people convicted of the proposed crimes to be allowed to possess firearms.
Austin said he doesn’t think any of the crimes should preclude people from possessing weapons. The offenses are misdemeanors, not felonies, he said, and people convicted of two DUIs, for example, aren’t necessarily a danger to society.
“Why this sudden urge to make the gun laws stricter than they are?” Austin asked.
Gary Muckel, a retired USDA scientist, called the proposed ordinance “nothing more than overreaction or sour grapes” by those who oppose the state conceal-carry legislation.
He also said 10 years was too long to ban people convicted of the crimes from having weapons.
He said the ordinance would unjustly punish a hypothetical 21-year-old who gets caught twice for driving under the influence of alcohol twice in one weekend.
But Casady said the ordinance was written to give a second chance to people who made mistakes like two DUIs.
“Maybe it’s a good idea not to have firearms until you’re 31,” he said of Muckel’s fictional character.
The council is expected to vote on the proposed ordinance at its next meeting, on Monday.
http://www.journalstar.com/news/article_3442fb15-6ebc-5b8f-89b5-2045aea5d774.html
|
Thos.Jefferson
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 10:03 am |
|
| If they an go back 10 years then that is an Ex post facto law, completely un-Constitutional.
|
Ryan45cal
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | Omaha, Nebraska USA |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
Good grief, that is quite the list there.
Too bad for them they are unable to legally enforce their bs ordinances against permit holders.
One more reason to get a permit.
Edit: Full text posted below.
Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 02:04 am by Ryan45cal
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1542 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 12:05 am |
|
Bay Bob wrote: I read on another forum that an individual in Lincoln had all of his firearms confiscated when the polce learned that he had a couple year old misdemenaor conviction for possession of marijuana.
Have any of you heard of this ?
Is there more to the story ?
How does the new pre-emption law (congrats by the way !) effect these local laws like Lincolns ?
Thanks
BB
Start by requesting original information on the supposed confiscation. If it is based upon a local Lincoln Statute, it would appear that the state preemption should be operable to make it invalid. WHEN did this supposedly happen?
Unless preemption is only for the CCW regulations......
EDIT: It appears that preemption applies to only CCW holders... Unless I misread it.
Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 12:22 am by wrightme
|
Ryan45cal
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | Omaha, Nebraska USA |
| Posts: | 7 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 02:02 am |
|
It only applies to permit holders. This is the full text:
"Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law. Any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the act, is declared to be null and void against any permit holder possessing a valid permit under the act."
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Final/LB430.pdf
While the pre-emption is specific to handguns, I suspect it would also make it difficult for them to enforce the ordinance against other firearms, as well. of course, IANAL.Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 02:10 am by Ryan45cal
|
AB
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27th, 2009 03:59 pm |
|
The problem is the same everywhere, failure to hold legislators accountable for unconstitutional law.
Nebraska Constitution states Article I, Section 1:
"All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".
Nebrakans have to wake up and realize the second amendment has nothing to do with guns, it's about the people - not the government, having the monopoly on power.
The Nature and Origin of Human Rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSHg3JV_V8
|
Current time is 09:11 pm | |
|
|
|
