General Categories > Carry Issues
open carry in city parks
Husker_Fan:
We are not quite in the same page. The preemption applies to regulating possession. While an ordinance clearly does that, my position would be that posting parks like private property would regulate possession as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OnTheFly:
--- Quote from: Husker_Fan on June 19, 2015, 10:07:34 AM ---We are not quite in the same page. The preemption applies to regulating possession. While an ordinance clearly does that, my position would be that posting parks like private property would regulate possession as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
--- End quote ---
Ok...then I'm not understanding. I aint no genesis, so humor my questions. When you speak of "Preemption", are you referencing the same law that Dan W posted, or another law? Or are you using the correct interpretation of the 2A?
Fly
Husker_Fan:
The statute. The concealed carry act allows those in control of a place to post it as not allowing carry. However, the law Dan posted was passed after that and, imho, restricts a city's ability to regulate possession by posting city property.
It's not clearly spelled out and some city may argue they can post city property.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OnTheFly:
--- Quote from: Husker_Fan on June 19, 2015, 10:21:02 AM ---The statute. The concealed carry act allows those in control of a place to post it as not allowing carry. However, the law Dan posted was passed after that and, imho, restricts a city's ability to regulate possession by posting city property.
It's not clearly spelled out and some city may argue they can post city property.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---statute is 18-1703
Quote (selected)
Nebraska Revised Statute 18-1703
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, and shall not have the power to require registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act. 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, except as expressly provided under state law, and any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation requiring the registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act.
Source
Laws 2009, LB430, § 5;
Laws 2010, LB817, § 2.
Cross References
Concealed Handgun Permit Act, see section 69-2427
--- End quote ---
I understand where you are coming from. However, my inclination is that the city will use the "except as expressly provided under state law" clause. You might be able to win that battle arguing your stance, but it would be an expensive and risky battle. I like your interpretation better than mine, but if I were a gambling man, I would have to bet against it being interpreted in favor of your position.
Fly
Husker_Fan:
I agree it would be a risky fight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version