General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Apparently it's basically illegal to transport guns without a CHP.

<< < (4/6) > >>

BranchMillardian:
There is more to this story:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/inneco20160706375
https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/51/5109.asp


Do stupid things, win stupid prizes...unfortunately maybe for the rest of us too. I'm not happy about the precedent this sets...but I'm not exactly worried about it either. Probably needs more research.

It looks like he was found not guilty of the terroristic threats, attempted murder, etc...but they were just trying to nail him for anything and the concealed weapons charge was the best that they could do.

It also looks like he appealed it and was denied appeal, but to be honest my eyes glazed over from the walls of text from multiple articles I was scanning and I need to get to work, so I'll have to look later...if I remember. 

By the way, this is incident happened three and a half years ago. The court ruling was in Dec, 2016.

SemperFiGuy:
The Anaconda Squeeze.

A bit tighter each time you exhale.

sfg

Immortality:
Ok, so I was the defense attorney on this case so I'll give you a rundown on what happened and what the issues were.  The defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.  The handgun was loaded in the manufacture's hardside case.  He was driving a Uhaul and the case was placed basically as far away from him (he was driving) as was physically possible in the cab.  Under the concealed carry statute, it doesn't matter if the firearm is loaded or unloaded so that's not the issue.  Actually you can have an inoperable firearm and still be convicted for concealed carry.

The main issue was whether or not the firearm was located "on or about" his person.  The case law in Nebraska previously said that it must be within the reach of the person to be considered "or about his person."  But my guy was still convicted by a jury of carrying a concealed weapon even though I had the deputy that arrested him say that the handgun was not within his reach.  The jury had found him not guilty of the other felony charges but I think they wanted to convict him of something so they hit him with the concealed weapon conviction.

So I appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals and successfully had the conviction overturned.  The Attorney General's office appealed the Appellate Court's decision.  The Supreme Court then reversed the Appellate Court and reinstated the original conviction.  This decision basically overruled the prior case law regarding the concealed weapon having to be within reach of the person.  This can be interpreted as the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle being "on or about his person". 

The Nebraska Supreme Court is very pro prosecution so it's not a huge surprise that they would do this but what really sucked is that the attorney for the AG office appealed just to get clarification on an entirely different issue that was addressed by the appellate court and not on the concealed weapon conviction.  But the Supreme Court ran with it anyway.

And an FYI, a CHP does not cover you with any weapon other than a handgun.  Neb. Stat. 28-1202 specifically states "This section does not apply to a person who is the holder of a valid permit issued under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act if the concealed weapon the defendant is carrying is a handgun."

Most LE aren't going to arrest anyone for having their rifle in a case in the back of their SUV but under current case law, they could.  I would rather not rely on an officer's discretion.

How LB 666 hasn't been passed yet is beyond me.

SemperFiGuy:

--- Quote ---Ok, so I was the defense attorney on this case.........
--- End quote ---

Happy Day.

We here on the Forum need much more of this firsthand kind of input from legal professionals.
Because....  firearms law is entirely arcane and its application by law enforcement and the courts is even worse.

Here we have both a US-Federal Constitution and a Nebraska State Constitution which assert that "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."   Yet that basic right is continually infringed upon, ignored, set aside, yada-yada, to our peril.

Compare constitutional RKBA to the rights associated with free speech.  Tread on free speech, then 100,000 voices from all parts of the media will shout and scream loud in protest.   Tread on the RKBA, and the same 100,000 media voices will scream, but they are screaming in approval.  Many voices in the legal realm will join them  (cf:  Omaha City Council, et.al.)

Thanks, Immortality, for sharing your expertise and special insights.


sfg

Dalamar:
Wow that's really bad, not even rifles covered, need to keep the pressure up on politicians to pass LB666 this year.

imo the supreme court justices involved should be in jail.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page