Gun Rights and Conventions
Senator Laura Ebke·Tuesday, December 29, 2015
A certain misunderstanding has emerged, and I hope that those of you in the district (or with friends in the district) will help me set people straight.
My position on gun rights has always been clear: between the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 1 of the Nebraska Constitution, I believe that there is very limited room for legislation which would limit gun rights--and an argument could certainly be made that some of the limits we have already are at the margins of being constitutional.
I sponsored two pro-gun pieces of legislation in the 2015 legislation session: LB184 (which would have allowed private schools to designate security teams made up of CCW permit holders, just as churches are currently allowed to do), and LB289 (a “pre-emption” bill, which prohibits local municipalities from creating stricter gun regulations than the state has enacted--the intent being that if citizens who are in possession of, or carrying, a gun legally in one town, they ought not be subject to arrest by going into another municipality and doing the same thing).
LB184 was killed in committee.
LB289 was actually moved out of committee late in the session, and should make it onto the floor for debate during the next session. Some may wonder why I--as one who likes local control--believe that municipalities ought not have the right to enact their own gun ordinances. My rather simplistic view is this: I don’t believe that cities ought to be able to limit Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, or Freedom of the Press and I don’t think local law enforcement, county prosecutors or judges should be able to dispense with warrants or habeas corpus. Our Civil Liberties, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) should not be subject to local whim.
A pro-gun rights group of some sort--which one would think would normally be in support of my position--has decided to begin a campaign suggesting that I want to destroy the Second Amendment. Perplexing, I know, but not so much so if you understand the nature of the group, and the fear-mongering that some political advocacy groups engage in. This particular group has decided that my LR35 (which I wrote about here--as well as in a number of other instances:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sena...) is the promotion of a “constitutional convention” (sometimes referred to by this group as a “dangerous con-con”) that will result in the end of the republic as we know it, and certainly the end of the Second Amendment. THESE ARE UNADULTERATED SCARE TACTICS, designed to put this organization in the position as the protector of your liberties (if only you’ll send them a donation when they call or write you back, so that they can “continue to fight for you”).
LR35 would be Nebraska’s application for a Convention of States (NOT a Constitutional Convention). A Convention of States is a CONSTITUTIONAL method (Article V) of PROPOSING amendments to the Constitution. Anything that comes out of the Convention must still be RATIFIED by 38 states, or it doesn’t become part of the Constitution.
This application for a Convention of States deals with specific issues (from the resolution): “The Legislature of the State of Nebraska hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”
Today, I started receiving phone calls which were the result of “robocalls”, it would appear. People from the legislative district were called, had it insinuated (or were outright told) that I was ready to destroy the Second Amendment, and that they should “press 1” to talk to Senator Ebke. Typically those calls get directed to my office. Today, they went to my personal cell phone, which lit up for a little while. The nature of the calls was such that most of them went directly to my voicemail before I could answer them--I will be responding personally to those who called and left a message.
It would appear that I am now in a rather unique position--I am publicly criticized by those who want gun control, contrary to a plain reading of the Nebraska Constitution, for my efforts on LB289; and I’m publicly criticized by one of the most zealous gun rights groups in the country for seeking to limit the federal government and impose fiscal restraints on the federal government through a means that is absolutely constitutional (Article V of the Constitution was written by “Father of the Constitution” James Madison and “Father of the Bill of Rights” George Mason--as a “pull in case of emergency” lever for the states, should the federal government become unmanageable).
My constituents have a wide range of opinions on gun control. I understand that some will be disappointed with my position in favor of gun rights. But I wanted to make it absolutely clear where I stand on this issue, and why. And just as I am working (along with thousands in the state, and hundreds of thousands around the country) to bring clarity to the role of the federal government in our lives, those who believe that Nebraska’s gun laws should be stricter could probably get there (and still be within the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment), were it not for the very explicit language in the Nebraska Constitution.
Nebraska’s Constitution, though, is amendable (indeed, the current gun rights language was adopted in 1988 through constitutional amendment). Rather than asking legislators to violate their oaths of office, those who are in opposition to the expanse of gun rights in our Constitution should draft new language, and begin their own petition campaign to get it on the ballot, and see if enough people in the state are willing to go down that road.
LLE
