Improvements in NE gun laws I'd like to see

[Mntnman]

Are we just supposed to deem them gone?

History did not start the day you showed up here, rather late in the process I will note, and we have been fighting every year to remove gun free zones, for consistent signage requirements, for state wide preemption and to remove the penalties of gun fee zones and gotten no where.

Do you have some magic that will make this happen? If you do, I expect you will be at all the Legislative hearings this next year and share your wisdom with us.

At the very least you can quit blaming NFOA members for the gun free zones

I did not take that the way you did. I believe he is stating that many who took the trouble to join here still think limits on our natural rights are acceptable if there is a perception of safety. Too many folks fear what might happen if we were to realize true liberty.

I think you (Dan) are referring to it taking increments to get where we should be.

[farmerbob]

I don't think Dan cares for me very much since I was so brazen to disagree with his best buddy Gunscribe, but I don,t care.

The more I learned about Gunscribe and his cause I  believe he was right and I was wrong.

[bullit]

Not blaming NFOA members for anything!!!

Maybe I misread his quote too Dan W....

One novel COST saving idea would be to copy Texas online RENEWAL.  NO LOGICAL reason exists for having to return to CID (or you local NSP) to reprint. 

[mott555]

I absolutely think gun-free zones should be abolished, but that would be very hard to do in today's political climate. It's better to start small and get some of the easy changes fixed first.

Face it, if we took this list (a very reasonable, and dare I say "common sense" list) and tried to push for all of these at once, the media would instantly label us a bunch of baby-killing lunatic fringe gun nuts and 60% of the population would take that at face value without any thought.

The gun rights battle is a game of chess. Plan ahead, wait for the enemy to make mistakes, and exploit their weaknesses, one piece at a time. Marching straight for the king is PR suicide until the media's tide swings right again.

[farmerbob]

To make it easier for you to understand bullit, if we had a poll, if private property should have right to post no gun signs, I would bet we be lucky to get 50% saying they should not. Our right to carry is a basic civil right, can you name any other civil rights private property owners aren't allowed to discriminate against bullit??? (I can think of several)

We need to look at no gun signs as discrimination and refuse to sit in the back of the bus!!!! (UNDERSTAND NOW)

[Dan W]

Have you ever thought about decaff Dan?

You call out NFOA members then are surprised when someone yells back?  Don't care how far away you are, you don't get to criticize the ones that are there doing all the work.

And, since when did private property rights come in second to RKBA?

[farmerbob]

That's one vote for gun free zones.

[Dan W]

That's one vote for gun free zones.

The rights are equal, are they not?   

[farmerbob]

You are wrong again dan, as monthly contributor, which is monies I work for, I do have a say!!!

[Dan W]

You are wrong again dan,

How so?

[farmerbob]

Last time I checked, this is N-Nebraska
                                               F-firearm
                                               O-owners
                                               A- association

Property owners probably have their own groups and I'm sure they don't rally around our cause.

[Dan W]

Last time I checked, this is N-Nebraska
                                               F-firearm
                                               O-owners
                                               A- association

Property owners probably have their own groups and I'm sure they don't rally around our cause.

Ever consider that most all of us are both?

[bullit]

It has always amazed me how many NFOA members pretend they are against gun free zones, yet they aren't willing to get rid of the law that enforces them.

farmerbob ... I am CLEAR on the property rights thing... got it.  I again, like DanW was referring to (and trying to) UNDERSTAND the above quote (the one I posted before).  Your inference that NFOA members "aren't willing" to get rid of the law is perplexing.  You sound like a knowledgeable person so I will give you the benefit of the doubt you know the Unicameral MAKES law, NOT the NFOA members.  WE (the NFOA members) are and have been aggressive since our inception in getting laws more favorable for CHP and gun owners in general ... and if you care to bother looking you will see we have made a POSITIVE impact.

[farmerbob]

I'm not criticizing the NFOA or it's members and never said they weren't willing, but I think dan made my argument for me when he acknowledge the rights of the people putting up the signs are equal to the individuals they discriminate against.

[Sandhillian]

It has always amazed me how many NFOA members pretend they are against gun free zones, yet they aren't willing to get rid of the law that enforces them.

Many states, including several around Nebraska, their laws do not support no gun signs, private property owners can post them but, it's up to them to ask Individual to leave, if individual refuses, law is called and a trespass warrant could be prosecuted, just like any other behavior a business doesn't agree with. (NO NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL LAW PROSECUTING INDIVIDUALS FOR EXERCISING A RIGHT)

First of all, I don't think it's helpful to any cause to call out NFOA members who support private property rights, and label them as being pro-Gun Free Zones.  That's just simply not the case.

I would venture a guess that most of the NFOA members are conservative or libertarian; both categories hold private property rights and the right to keep and bear arms in high regard.  Many believe those rights are equal in stature, and that one person's rights shouldn't trump another person's.  These rights have to co-exist, and that's the point of the "no guns, no money" position (i.e. you can have your private property rights, but if you don't respect my RKBA, then I'll do business elsewhere).

Secondly, you'll be hard-pressed to find an NFOA member that doesn't think the law should be changed regarding the enforcement of posted locations.  I'll bet there are very few, if any, NFOA members that believe those signs should have the force of law.  I'm guessing most agree with you that a business owner should have to ask someone to leave, and that person would have to refuse before getting law enforcement involved.  Then the situation would be handled as a trespass, as you mentioned in your post.  I don't know where the perception comes from that people here don't agree with your position.

Sorry, farmerbob, must have been writing at the same time you were.  Posted after your response.

[farmerbob]

Let me just add that there is a difference between private properties, some are open to the public others are not, I'm talking about the open to the public type only.

Never said I wasn't grateful for everything the NFOA and it's members do for gun rights. I would like to thank each and every one of you, not just the boots on the ground, but everyone that gives their hard earned money and time.( this organization should be of it's members for it's members)

This thread was to express our 2 cents worth, I've exhaust mine.

[DR4NRA]

Do I understand that Scheels (probably the biggest firearms retailer in Lincoln) is a no-carry store, despite no signs on the door, because the whole mall area is posted somewhere?


The food court and mall are no carry zones at southpointe Pavillion. Nebr open carry lists Scheels as open carry friendly, and even the NFOA bad guy list doesn't have Scheels on it. I carry in scheels all the time with no problems.

The rights are equal, are they not?   

Evidently Dan, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are only for the ones who believe in the 2nd Amendment. Everyone elses rights are inferior, and thus of no importance.

[farmerbob]

Well it depends DR4NRA, if your 2nd. Amendment rights and rights of self defense are basic fundamental civil rights as a citizen of this country, then we could argue that it would be discrimination. Not to long ago certain races were not allowed in certain businesses, I'm sure their was a lot of business owners crying about their rights as business owners not to allow them in and how this infringed on their constitutional rights.

Maybe right to carry, right to self defense and 2A are not a civil rights then I'm wrong and it's not discriminatory. After all a civil right is something you should never have to check at the door.

[ILoveCats]

Do I understand that Scheels (probably the biggest firearms retailer in Lincoln) is a no-carry store, despite no signs on the door, because the whole mall area is posted somewhere?


The food court and mall are no carry zones at southpointe Pavillion. Nebr open carry lists Scheels as open carry friendly, and even the NFOA bad guy list doesn't have Scheels on it. I carry in scheels all the time with no problems.

Ok, and somehow I missed this groovy thread from last February...
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,11164.msg79178.html#msg79178
...which makes it clear as mud that:
*  Scheels Lincoln welcomes concealed carry, however...
*  Some of the Southpointy (how I pronounce it when people put a stupid superflous "e" at the end of a word to sound cool) sidewalk signs prohibit OC or CC, however...
*  Some folks here reasonably surmise that such signage doesn't meets the definition of "conspicuous", however...
*  I really don't want to have to argue that before the judge.   

All of which does make me wish the laws were better in this state regarding the whole signage matter.  I understand both sides of the "RKBA versus Property Rights" conversation above, but having to rely on inconsistent signage seems silly and puts lawful carriers, property owners and LEOs in a confusing situation. 

[ILoveCats]

Maybe right to carry, right to self defense and 2A are not a civil rights then I'm wrong and it's not discriminatory. After all a civil right is something you should never have to check at the door.

This may be a useful analogy:   I read in another forum about a bearded-weirdo hippie type hanging out in a California gun store then confronting every ammo / bullet buyer about whether they were aware that lead is killing the California Condor.   If you were the gun store owner would you say Hippie Guy's first amendment rights trumped your rights to throw him off your private property?