General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Action Needed: State Wide Preemption - LB289
gsd:
So, I got this email from Mr. Hansen, who is supposed to be my Senator (District 26):
--- Quote ---Dear gsd,
Thank you for sharing your support for LB289.
I understand the desire for clarity and uniformity across the state. I was hopeful the body would adopt Senator Morfeld’s amendment that models the federal law addressing these concerns in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the proposed amendment here in Nebraska, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it.
I voted against cloture on LB289 because that compromise was rejected by the bill’s introducer. I further believe that cities and villages should have local control to address specific issues of concern in their community. For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters. The Omaha Police Department felt similarly about provisions that address gang violence in Omaha. I believe this is good policy, and voted to support it.
The views of constituents are very important to our office, so we will keep your information on file.
If you have further questions or concerns, please contact our office at (402) 471-2610.
--- End quote ---
And my response:
Mr. Hansen,
I feel you have failed to understand the underlying components of LB289. The entities you made mention of in your response, specifically the "domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters" still retain the ability to ban firearms on their premises. Regarding your statement that the compromise was rejected by Senator Ebke, allow me to explain something. By exempting the cities of Lincoln and Omaha from LB289, Mr. Morfeld's amendment would have effectively rendered LB289 pointless. The point of "One state, One statute" is to apply the Laws of the State, across the State. This bill had nothing to do with gang violence. This bill would have protected law abiding citizens from imprisonment or confiscation on the grounds that they chose to protect themselves while visiting a city that had an obscure registration requirement, or they had a pocket knife that was 1/8 inch longer than allowed by another city's self-imposed length regulations.
Allow me to close this email with one additional point: LB289 would have had no effect on criminals, who by definition, do not obey the laws of this State. Law abiding citizens by definition will acquiesce to the requests of those businesses and installations who request firearms not be present on their property. I am disappointed in your vote against LB289.
A Voting Constituent,
bennysdad:
--- Quote from: gsd on January 28, 2016, 08:52:11 AM ---So, I got this email from Mr. Hansen, who is supposed to be my Senator (District 26):
Dear gsd,
Thank you for sharing your support for LB289.
I understand the desire for clarity and uniformity across the state. I was hopeful the body would adopt Senator Morfeld’s amendment that models the federal law addressing these concerns in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the proposed amendment here in Nebraska, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it.
I voted against cloture on LB289 because that compromise was rejected by the bill’s introducer. I further believe that cities and villages should have local control to address specific issues of concern in their community. For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters. The Omaha Police Department felt similarly about provisions that address gang violence in Omaha. I believe this is good policy, and voted to support it.
The views of constituents are very important to our office, so we will keep your information on file.
If you have further questions or concerns, please contact our office at (402) 471-2610.
And my response:
Mr. Hansen,
I feel you have failed to understand the underlying components of LB289. The entities you made mention of in your response, specifically the "domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters" still retain the ability to ban firearms on their premises. Regarding your statement that the compromise was rejected by Senator Ebke, allow me to explain something. By exempting the cities of Lincoln and Omaha from LB289, Mr. Morfeld's amendment would have effectively rendered LB289 pointless. The point of "One state, One statute" is to apply the Laws of the State, across the State. This bill had nothing to do with gang violence. This bill would have protected law abiding citizens from imprisonment or confiscation on the grounds that they chose to protect themselves while visiting a city that had an obscure registration requirement, or they had a pocket knife that was 1/8 inch longer than allowed by another city's self-imposed length regulations.
Allow me to close this email with one additional point: LB289 would have had no effect on criminals, who by definition, do not obey the laws of this State. Law abiding citizens by definition will acquiesce to the requests of those businesses and installations who request firearms not be present on their property. I am disappointed in your vote against LB289.
A Voting Constituent,
--- End quote ---
I like it, good job.
mikkojay:
Hey Rod, great interview on KFAB! Just caught it. I agree on all points you made.
The thing that gets me is how easy it is for bad laws and regulations to be implemented, VS the incredible amount of time, money, and effort it takes to repeal them.
f1fanatic:
The official response from Kate Bolz AFTER the bill was killed.
I support the Second Amendment and I believe that we need to protect the ability of law abiding
citizens in Nebraska exercise their second amendment rights statewide. That is the intent of
this bill and I support and respect the goal of creating a clearer and more uniform approach for
law abiding citizens statewide.
I have worked to listen carefully to my constituents on this issue. Among the details of this bill is
one that concerns me greatly: the protection of individuals who are survivors and victims of
domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault. The bill as written would remove existing local
protections for domestic violence shelters and drug rehabilitation centers and would remove
current provisions that prohibit individuals convicted of stalking and sexual assault from
possessing weapons.
I have expressed these concerns to my constituents and to stakeholders on both sides of this
issue. Today, I intend to support LB 289 to create a fairer system for law abiding gun owners.
At the same time, I remain committed to protecting individuals and families targeted by
criminals.
I am committed to working with my constituents, my colleagues, and other stakeholders to find a
pathway forward to both protect the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and to
protect individuals and families vulnerable to domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. If
these legitimate concerns are not adequately addressed, I cannot commit to LB 289 as the
vehicle to achieve our Second Amendment goals moving forward.
I ask my fellow lawmakers to work to achieve policy that works.
gsd:
So basically, I support it, but I don't. Typical politician.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version