General Categories > General Firearm Discussion

Omaha Permit Process... still?

<< < (4/7) > >>

FarmerRick:
I would tend to agree with you Dan, but I'm not sure that Omaha's law dept. would agree.
What if the handgun was not going to be used for concealed carry?  How would it be proven that the handgun would or would not be used in such a way?

It may be a good thing for our NE Attorney General to look at and make a ruling on in the future....how can we make that happen?

wwhuskerman:

--- Quote from: Chris Z on October 11, 2009, 10:43:32 AM ---Depending on the name of the Scheels salesman, he may very well know what he is talking about. I had a conversation with someone I know in the Omaha Scheels store to find out if the city has notified their store that CHP holders cannot be required to register their handguns... Because LB 430 says that cities now cannot regulate OWNERSHIP of concealed handguns.... Certainly this means requiring registration before a purchase is regulating OWNERSHIP????

That's where I'm going with this... you can purchase and therefore own the handgun (assuming you have a firearms purchase permit)... but CAN NOT take it out of the store until you do the downtown dance with OPD. In fact, the saleman suggested just that to these two gentlemen.... he said if there was a gun they wanted they should purchase it so no one else does, then go do the paperwork, come back, and get the gun. I would argue that once you purchase something... you own it. Scheels will indeed sell you the gun without the paperwork... but they won't let you leave the building with the gun that you just paid for and own, without OPD paperwork.

But does that apply only to CCW because that's what 430 addresses? And Mr. Conboy says I can open carry as long as I have a concealed carry permit? I mean, really... it's getting ridiculous. Can anyone straighten this out?

Anyone?... Bruening...? Anyone?




Here is the statute:
18-1703 Ownership, possession, and transportation of concealed handguns; power of cities and villages; existing ordinance, permit, or regulation; null and void. 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 as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act.
Source

   1. Laws 2009, LB430, ? 5.

Effective Date: August 30, 2009




This is an item that I am personally working on. I have had conversations with the city of Omaha Prosecutor and Senator Christensen's office trying to get this clarified. I am in the process of sending a letter to Omaha gun store owners, asking them to discuss this issue with their legal counsel, and asking them to help take the lead in getting this clarified and fixed! Especially since Omaha gun stores stand to benefit from this financially big time by not missing out on handgun sales.

--- End quote ---

475okh:
This law LB430 seems to be poorly written.  One part takes away the cities power while another gives back the power.

FarmerRick:
LB430 only took away cities ability to restrict or ban the act of concealed carry, as authorized by state statute.  It does not address the purchase of a handgun.

Chris Z:

--- Quote from: FarmerRick on October 13, 2009, 09:46:53 AM ---LB430 only took away cities ability to restrict or ban the act of concealed carry, as authorized by state statute.  It does not address the purchase of a handgun.

--- End quote ---

The law I posted above 18-703 (which was from LB 430) says the city cannot regulate ownership. If a CHP holder goes in to purchase a handgun, and the city is requiring the handgun be registered as a condition of ownership, wouldn't that be the city regulating ownership against what the state statute says?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version