General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Action Needed: State Wide Preemption - LB289
TroyR:
Agreed that his choice of words doesn't sound like a full support. I'm also skeptical of people's use of the phrase "responsible gun ownership". I know what my version of that means, but it can mean a lot of things depending on your bias.
depserv:
I sent an email to Kathy Campbell 5 days ago and haven't received a reply, so I sent the following today:
I sent the following email five days ago and haven't received a reply, so I'm assuming it didn't get through, and am sending it again. As I understand it, this bill will require local governments to obey the law written in our state Constitution, which says this:
"All persons... have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof." (emphasis mine)
We all know what the U.S. Constitution says about the matter, and that has been reinforced by two recent Supreme Court decisions. It is the law, whether or not those who hold political power like it.
This bill of course is consistent with the oath of office all members of our legislature are required to take, which includes the following:
"I, ......................, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Nebraska, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
Please let me know what your position is on LB289, the statewide preemption bill. If you have any questions about it I can get you all the information you want, or you can get get information from Senator Ebke's office. This is a very important bill that I hope you will support. But please let me know where you stand on it in either case. Thank you.
name, address, etc.
depserv:
My second letter got a pretty quick reply (though it's more of a non-reply). Here it is:
"LB 289 was placed on General File (first round of debate) on 3/31/15. It did not come up for debate, I believe because it did not have a priority either from a Senator or Committee. It remains on GF for next year. The bill was heard by the Judiciary Committee; I do not serve on that committee. I read and review all bills that come before the two committees I serve on and then as other bills come up for debate on General File. I have not studied LB 289 nor done additional research as I would on a bill that comes up for debate.
I quickly reviewed the bill and have questions before I would state my position. I will certainly retain your email in the bill's file and keep in mind your comments. Thanks for taking time to write, Kathy"
tstuart34:
Ken Harr is a NO. His reply from from his administrative assistant.
--- Quote ---Thank you for writing in and sharing your reasons for supporting LB289. Senator Haar is not in favor of this bill, and will vote against it. He feels that local control, in this case, is more important.
Thank you for expressing your opinion on this matter.
Sincerely,
Julie Diegel, AA
jdiegel@leg.ne.gov
--- End quote ---
Any pointers on how to respond if I even should? Writing to politicians is not my strong suit.
cftj:
I got the same form letter
Senator Haar, district 21
Thank you for sharing your position on LB289. Senator Haar is not in favor of this bill, as he feels local control is more important on this issue.
Your opinions are respected and appreciated.
Sincerely,
Julie Diegel, AA
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version