Aurora City Ordinance Question

[jlficken]

According to Section 5 of the revised LB 430 does the following City Ordinance fall under the "null and void" clause so that it is invalid when the new Statute takes effect?

Edit: I just got this printed off this morning so it is the most current version and they plan on continuing to enforce it.



Sec. 5. Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession,
1 or transportation of a
2 concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation
3 is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as
4 expressly provided by state law. Any existing city or village
5 ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership,
6 possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such
7 ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the
8 act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder
9 possessing a valid permit under the act.


Thanks

[Rich B]

Follow-up question:

Assuming the city ordinance will be void, can the city still post enforceable "no guns" signs on city property? 

[armed and humorous]

My interpretation would be that the Aurora ordinance would be null and void.  The city of Aurora (or any municipality) could still post land/property against carrying concealed handguns, but only then would you be in violation for doing so on city property.  Even so, you could still carry in your vehicle as long as you leave it there, and locked, when you exit the vehicle.  LB 430 repealed section 69-2441 (along with many others) and modified others to prevent just this sort of thing.  On the other hand, it appears some of the prohibited places listed are already off limits to CHP holders per state law (courthouses, schools, etc.).  It seems to me, that unless they post all the city property (or in the absence of that, a duly authorized person, probably a police officer, informs you that you are on property that does not allow CHP and requests that you take the handgun off of that property), you would be safe to carry concealed anywhere state law permits you to do so.  This is a question that is yet unresolved concerning city parks in Lincoln as well.  The city prohibits guns, in any form or manner, in the parks.  It seems certain that this would be null and void regarding permit holders, unless they post all the parks against CHPs.  I don't know what they will do, but I doubt if they will post given the cost and probable difficulty in enforcing it.

[Rich B]

A&H brings up a good point about parks.  What constitutes "conspicuous" signage for a park?  DO you fence off the entire park and post signs at the few entrances?  Do you post them every 8 feet?

When Aurora's ordinance went into effect two years, our city councilmen told us to open carry in the parks.  Because, you know, that wouldn't cause a problem. 

[armed and humorous]

The "conspicuous" definition is another of those vague points in the legislation that will probably only be clarified if it becomes an issue in a trial.  Even then, it will only set a precedent that may, or may not, be followed subsequently.  I would think that if one were to enter a park at a point where no sign was visible (or readable without visual aids), they would not be found guilty of carrying concealed on posted property, unless it could be proven that the individual was already aware of the posting.  This, however, means that if charged, one would have to be willing to fight it in court.

I've never understood why anti-gunners are so concerned about concealed carry in places where open carry would be legal.  If I was afraid of guns, and I wanted to take my family on a picnic in the park, I'd much prefer that, if anyone around us was carrying, they would keep it hidden so as not to give me reason to be afraid.  As far as anyone carrying with the intent to commit a crime, do they think a law against it will force them to carry openly as they walk in to rob the bank?

[jlficken]

I talked to the City Attorney and they have no plans on repealing it or changing it in any way. I then called the State Attorneys office and got a call back from someone that is the legal advisor for the State Patrol on CCW laws and he said that some of it can stand but some wouldn't be able to. He was really vague on what would still be enforceable and what wouldn't be. I dunno it is just a pain. I read the law one way and someone else reads it another and then I get told the intent of the new law was to make all signs and ordinances go away from someone at the State Attorney Generals office. I am not sure if I want to be the first one to challenge it though. I have enough stress in my life as is.  Maybe I should contact Sen. Christiensen and ask him what his original intent was on this subject?

[armed and humorous]

It probably doesn't matter what Christensen's original intent was; look at the mess they've made of 2A!  Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about CC in Aurora based on their ordinance any longer.  However, you still need to make sure you don't violate state law on the subject.  That means, nowhere already banned by the state, which includes posted property whether it be private or public.  So, unless they post things like their parks, library, and trails, you should be good to go once 430 kicks in (which I'm still not sure of as far as a date goes, but sometime soon, if not already).

Unless you have some  cops out there who stop you for no reason and frisk you (or make some kind of official contact where you'd be required to tell them), or you are doing something illegal or suspicious other than carrying concealed, who would ever know you were packing anyway?

[armed and humorous]

P.S.  Your representitive to Congress is having a town hall meeting in Aurora on the 14th (see Rich B's post under general categories).  Maybe you could get him to clear it up once and for all.

[jlficken]

Cool, thanks for the information.  They do have things signed even the parks very sparsly.  I hadn't seen Rich's post yet.