open carry in city parks

[Mali]

So, if I read that correctly, NE statute 18-1703 makes Omaha's signs in their parks that state concealed carry prohibited to be illegal. Is that correct?

I hate reading legaleez.  It is just too hard to read and violates every rule I was ever punished for breaking with regard to commas.

[sparky]

So, if I read that correctly, NE statute 18-1703 makes Omaha's signs in their parks that state concealed carry prohibited to be illegal. Is that correct?

I hate reading legaleez.  It is just too hard to read and violates every rule I was ever punished for breaking with regard to commas.

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.

[DR4NRA]

This blanket city code no longer stands in regards to CC after the legislature passed the statute that Dan W is referring to.  So in reference to CC, your point is like a cow's opinion, it doesn't matter (moot).

Fly

Actually you are wrong again as I did not post in response to CCW. As the OP asked about OPEN carry. Which is the ordinance I posted.
Also I  asked Dan nicely to post the statute that repealed the ordinance as it applies to OPEN carry in Lincoln parks.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.

[depserv]

It is legal to carry in all parks, concealed or in the open.  The problem is, not all government entities obey the law, and it doesn't matter what the law says when those who have no respect for the law have the power to put you in jail.  But the law is clear: the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and so-called gun free zones in public parks do not meet any realistic standard of a reasonable restriction on a Constitutional right. 

[Dan W]

Also I  asked Dan nicely to post the statute that repealed the ordinance as it applies to OPEN carry in Lincoln parks.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.

If you can carry legally concealed, you can carry openly  and the preemption still applies if you have a valid CHP

[Dan W]

Actually you are wrong again as I did not post in response to CCW

The ordinance cited does not speak to open or concealed carry, but rather to possession

[OnTheFly]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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

[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]

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

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]

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

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

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

[AAllen]

Do you have a source for that info?  That's news to me, for sure.

City Ordinance Section 3 - 315 through 317 (http://mail.ci.blair.ne.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=69492&dbid=0, I believe you need to scroll down to the exact ordinance).

315 - deals generally with long arms and B B guns
316 - deals with handguns
316.01 - persons under 21 banned from possessing a handgun
317 - creates an exception for long arms in parades and other ceremonies and some other lawful purposes.

It has been relayed to me that the Blair PD says they will ticket anyone that open carries a firearm, even if they have a CCW.  My guess is they would also confiscate the firearm and it would be a fight to get it back.