General Categories > Carry Issues
open carry in city parks
Dan W:
--- Quote from: DR4NRA on June 18, 2015, 11:19:46 AM ---Actually you are wrong again as I did not post in response to CCW
--- End quote ---
The ordinance cited does not speak to open or concealed carry, but rather to possession
OnTheFly:
--- Quote from: sparky on June 18, 2015, 09:15:12 AM ---I believe that is Incorrect, it means that if posted at every entrance that a person can possibly enter the park then they have by law made it illegal to carry in that park. But if they have not posted the park and are trying to use a city ordinance or blanket law against conceal carry then we are covered under Dan's post to carry legally in that park.
--- End quote ---
sparky is spot on. They would have to post at EVERY possible entrance to the park which would be nearly impossible unless there was a fence around the entire perimeter restricting how one could enter the park.
Fly
OnTheFly:
--- Quote from: DR4NRA on June 18, 2015, 11:19:46 AM ---Also I asked Dan nicely to post the statute that repealed the ordinance as it applies to OPEN carry in Lincoln parks. Quit being a jerk for once.
--- End quote ---
My "cow's opinion" phrase was meant as humor using a Seinfeld reference. I am not aware that I have been "a jerk" on the forum to anyone, let alone you. In fact, I don't know that you and I have had much of any kind of exchange in the past. I have however read several posts where you get your feathers ruffled when someone doesn't agree with your opinion or interpretation. This seems to result in you firing back with a vitriol post instead of an argument implementing reason.
When you submitted your post regarding the Lincoln ordinance, the conversation had shifted to CHP and signage. By your statement "AND NO SIGNS. But if you want to be the test case have at it.", it is apparent that you were also referring to CC.
Fly
Husker_Fan:
I don't often disagree with Sparky or OnTheFly, but I think posting city parks is "regulation" of possession. The preemption for CHP holders would therefore apply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OnTheFly:
--- Quote from: Husker_Fan on June 19, 2015, 09:27:28 AM ---I don't often disagree with Sparky or OnTheFly, but I think posting city parks is "regulation" of possession. The preemption for CHP holders would therefore apply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
--- End quote ---
I think we are all in agreement. For CHP holders. the preemptive law that Dan W referenced disallows any city, town, etc. from establishing laws more restrictive on CHP holders than what is already in the state law. For example, it is already illegal for CHP holders to carry in an establishment that derives more than 50% of its revenue from alcohol sales (I know...a WHOLE other subject), so a city could not establish a more restrictive ordinance that says CHP holders can not carry in an establishment that sells ANY alcohol.
Using Lincoln's ban on firearms (possession, discharge, etc.) in city parks as an example. As a holder of a CHP, we can ignore this ordinance UNLESS the city could effectively post signs at controlled entrances to the park. This is the only way that the city can restrict CC at locations other than those which are already prohibited by state law.
So as you said Husker_Fan, the preemptive law supersedes a city ordinance, BUT the city/towns work around is to post "No CCW" signs, if that is possible given the property being posted. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Fly
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version