Author Topic: Action Needed: State Wide Preemption - LB289 (Read 16921 times)

RLMoeller · « **Reply #60 on:** November 07, 2015, 11:13:36 AM »

Quote from: depserv on November 07, 2015, 08:04:07 AM

My second email quoted the part of the state Constitution that says neither the state government nor any subdivision of it can infringe on the right to bear arms, along with the oath they all swore to uphold the law, both of which I think our state senators need to be reminded of from time to time.

Yes, they do. Thanks for contacting your senator.

Keep in mind too that while they are out of session some senators are around more than others. Many will spend one day a week in the office at the Capitol. Some more than that and others less. One week without a response isn't unheard of this time of year. But after a week I would recommend writing again and then follow up with a phone call. You'll speak with an aide usually, but they do relay what they hear from phone calls.

dmm330 · « **Reply #61 on:** November 19, 2015, 08:53:02 AM »

I see she has the same response to another constituent on this topic too...

Senator Sue Crawford
District 45

Thank you for sharing these concerns with me. As you may already know, LB 289 was voted out of the Judiciary Committee late last session. I have been talking with law enforcement and city officials about this issue in order to understand the implications for Bellevue and other cities. As a constituent, your input is especially helpful as I learn more about this issue.

All the Best,
Sue

Greybeard · « **Reply #62 on:** November 20, 2015, 11:54:29 AM »

Got this response from Senator Brett Lindstrom this morning:

I am in support of Ebke's Preemption bill, as I believe it will secure our 2nd amendment rights in the state. While I respect the lawmaking authority of municipalities, it is the state's responsibility to secure our natural rights, and the right to self defense is certainly one of them. The protection of this right is expressly written not only in the U.S. Constitution, but Nebraska's Constitution that, "...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."

RLMoeller · « **Reply #63 on:** November 20, 2015, 12:19:56 PM »

It's good to hear the Sen Lindstrom gets it! Thanks for sharing Greybeard.

RLMoeller · « **Reply #64 on:** December 29, 2015, 02:56:16 PM »

There is an important aspect of LB289 that may be overlooked by those viewing this as a gun bill. This is not just a "gun bill". It is important to realize who has the power to make law, and where cities get their powers from. This bill is a way to tell cities they have overstepped their authority. The state is governed by the constitution. The state authorizes cities with certain powers. Cities are provided authority to form their own charters. Ordinances that some cities have passed to restrict ownership or possession of firearms exceeds the authority granted to them by the state. Those ordinances are a violation and only exist because they have not been challenged in court.

An important point to make with any senator claiming they support local control is that this bill is only reaffirming the authorities granted to cities by the state. Ask them where cities have ever been given the power exceed the states restrictions on firearms. If a senator claims it is alright for a city to exceed the authority they have been granted, what does that say about how they view their own job in the legislature? Or is it a lack of understanding of the legislative body they are a part of?

RLMoeller · « **Reply #65 on:** January 06, 2016, 11:31:58 AM »

I'm told that Senator Schnoor will be making LB289 his priority bill this session. This was confirmed by his office.

This is a big help to insure this bill get brought up on the floor for discussion.

RobertH · « **Reply #66 on:** January 06, 2016, 05:14:55 PM »

Thank you Sen Schnoor!!

Famous556 · « **Reply #67 on:** January 06, 2016, 08:59:36 PM »

Yes that is fantastic news. I'll have to write him and thank him. Anybody know if we will have enough votes to move past the promised filibuster from the senator who sues God?

jFader · « **Reply #68 on:** January 06, 2016, 10:22:12 PM »

Quote from: Famous556 on January 06, 2016, 08:59:36 PM

Yes that is fantastic news. I'll have to write him and thank him. Anybody know if we will have enough votes to move past the promised filibuster from the senator who sues God?

That is a good question...the push is back on to get everyone to contact their State Senator as well as any other Senators that they wish to. I have heard mostly positive feedback on this bill & we need to frame the narrative. THIS IS THE DEFINITIVE BILL....YOU ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT & THE NEBRASKA CONSTITUTION!

AAllen · « **Reply #69 on:** January 07, 2016, 09:44:58 AM »

Quote from: jFader on January 06, 2016, 10:22:12 PM

THIS IS THE DEFINITIVE BILL....YOU ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT & THE NEBRASKA CONSTITUTION!

This is an important thing to note, for years we have worked to get a major piece of legislation up for a vote, and here it is. The NFOA-PAF will be using this vote as a major benchmark, or grade if you need it said, for what current Senators it will support for reelection. If a Senator can not vote to support us we will not support them.

shooter · « **Reply #70 on:** January 07, 2016, 09:39:49 PM »

would this bill force Omaha to allow gun shows?

Mali · « **Reply #71 on:** January 08, 2016, 07:30:44 AM »

just a note, Chambers has promised to filibuster this bill so Schnoor is going to need 33 votes to shut him up and then 29 (I think) to get it passed. Contact your State Representative and tell them that this is a priority bill that must pass.

gplawhorn · « **Reply #72 on:** January 11, 2016, 10:09:53 AM »

Just got a reply from Spencer Head, legislative aid to Jim Scheer:

Thank you for sharing your support for LB289. Senator Scheer supports LB289 in its current form and plans to support the bill if it comes up for a vote. That being said, there are currently 57 bills in front of LB289 on General File. Unfortunately, I would not anticipate the bill coming up for a vote this session.

hilowe · « **Reply #73 on:** January 11, 2016, 11:09:02 AM »

Quote from: gplawhorn on January 11, 2016, 10:09:53 AM

Unfortunately, I would not anticipate the bill coming up for a vote this session.

Anything we can do to get this moved up the list?

RLMoeller · « **Reply #74 on:** January 11, 2016, 11:16:11 AM »

It is all up to the Speaker at this point. Being prioritized helps a lot. But if the speaker doesn't want it to be heard, he can delay it a bit.

Speaker Hadley represents Kearney, Gibbon, Shelton, and North from the Platte river. The more folks from his district that urge him to bring it up the more possible influence there would be. I don't imagine he wants his district upset with him when he returns home after being term limited this year. Would be a shame for his legacy to be killing pro-firearms / pro-constitutional goverment bill as Speaker of the Legislature.

bennysdad · « **Reply #75 on:** January 20, 2016, 12:00:44 PM »

Status of LB 289 today

Filibuster on LB 18, Change provisions relating to immunizations for students

Next bills up:

LB 18A, Appropriation Bill

LB 176, Change the Competitive Livestock Markets Act

Then:

LB 289, Prohibit certain regulation of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories by cities and villages as prescribed

Legislative session closed 11:57 AM, 1-20-16

45bthompson · « **Reply #76 on:** January 21, 2016, 04:57:53 PM »

Just talked to Tanya Cooks office again. She is still opposed. Her staff member said she thought it would be up for discussion tomorrow around 11 but she also sounded kind of confused. I had to explain lb 289 to her.

45bthompson · « **Reply #77 on:** January 21, 2016, 08:52:33 PM »

I got a letter in the mail today. The important line is "I oppose this legislation, as well as any other proposals which aim to promote firearm ownership over basic safety measures." Sincerely, Tanya Cook. Please God give me someone else to vote for.

f1fanatic · « **Reply #78 on:** January 22, 2016, 11:24:48 AM »

My email to Kate Bolz(29)...awaiting response.
Hello-
I am an active voting constituent in District 29. My family voted for Kate Bolz in the last election cycle and I even spoke to her when she came to our door. A very important bill is on the list of Priority Bills that is coming up on the floor here in the next few days. LB 289(sponsored by state Senator Laura Ebke) will ensure that all firearm and ammunition laws are applied evenly across our great state. This is not only important to make sure that Nebraska's law abiding citizens don't unknowingly run afoul of the law, but help set the precedent that Nebraska State Legislature makes laws in this state. Not local cities, townships, municipalities, etc. I think there are many instances across this country and, yes, even in this state, where the aforementioned have overestimated their ability to impose codes and ordinances that infringe on Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights.
I understand this topic is not generally in Kate Bolz's wheelhouse but she does have a duty to not only to represent her constituency but ensure the faithful adherence to the US Constitution via the Nebraska State legislature, by The People, for The People.
I look forward to her response and position on this important bill. Thank you for your attention in this matter. God Bless.
Regards,

depserv · « **Reply #79 on:** January 23, 2016, 07:44:08 AM »

Here's an NRA article on this bill:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160122/nebraska-state-preemption-bill-expected-for-first-floor-debate-and-vote

My state senator, Kathy Campbell, has refused to answer my requests to tell me where she stands on this bill. I'd say her cowardly silence speaks for itself.