General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Aurora City Ordinance Question

(1/2) > >>

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  LB 430 repealed section 69-2441 (along with many others) and modified others to prevent just this sort of thing.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?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page