IN THE NEWS- Looser Gun Laws go into effect. ?????

[NE Bull]

Ok, I know I haven't been as attentive as usual on the legislative side of things, but could someone fill me in on what "LOOSER GUN LAWS" might be going into effect this week, as stated in all the interweb news sites. Of course they leave it at that and don't go into detail.

[NE Bull]

Nevermind, found 'em. I guess I don't consider these "Looser"
Just
Fair,
Clearing up some language
and Safety- Privacy .

""LOOSENING GUN RESTRICTIONS: People who are released from mental health facilities will get the opportunity to ask a mental health board to reinstate their rights to buy a handgun or obtain a concealed-carry permit. The law requires boards to reinstate gun rights if petitioners show "clear and convincing evidence" that the restriction should be removed. The law is LB100.

Another new gun law would let university-sanctioned firearms teams possess rifles, pistols and shotguns on campus. Current law only lets them have rifles. The law is LB321.

Still another will prohibit local law enforcement from disclosing individual gun permit records to the public, a policy cheered by gun-rights advocates as a way to protect firearm owners from harassment. Open-government advocates say it's unnecessary. The law is LB902. ""

[eelstrebor1]

They ought to do away with other gun laws also. Particularly,  the immediate "duty to inform". Do they really think that a bad guy/gal is going to voluntarily inform the LEO that they are CC'ing? A law abiding citizen is no threat to a LEO but you'll end up with a criminal record if you don't tell them. It's just another law that just makes criminals out of us for no good reason. Just like other ridiculous laws that don't make anyone safer.

[Jito463]

They ought to do away with other gun laws also. Particularly,  the immediate "duty to inform". Do they really think that a bad guy/gal is going to voluntarily inform the LEO that they are CC'ing? A law abiding citizen is no threat to a LEO but you'll end up with a criminal record if you don't tell them. It's just another law that just makes criminals out of us for no good reason. Just like other ridiculous laws that don't make anyone safer.

I don't really have much of an issue with that one personally (it shouldn't be a law, but it's still a good idea to do so in my opinion), however I'd love to see them remove the law making it a criminal action to carry in a so-called "Gun-free zone".  All it does is serve to disarm law abiding people while empowering the criminals.  If the property owner wants to make a statement, then so be it, but there should not be legal enforcement behind that (especially given that there's no clear guidelines on what the signs should look like or where they should be placed).

As has been said before so many times; gun control is always about the control, rarely about the guns.  The guns are simply a convenient means of exerting the control (that, and removing guns from the equation does make the control aspect easier to enforce).

The left just wants to meddle in and control our lives, from cradle to the grave.  And if failing to adhere to every jot and tittle of their laws incidentally leads to us becoming criminals, then so be it.

[FarmerRick]

Nevermind, found 'em. I guess I don't consider these "Looser"
Just
Fair,
Clearing up some language
and Safety- Privacy .

""LOOSENING GUN RESTRICTIONS: People who are released from mental health facilities will get the opportunity to ask a mental health board to reinstate their rights to buy a handgun or obtain a concealed-carry permit. The law requires boards to reinstate gun rights if petitioners show "clear and convincing evidence" that the restriction should be removed. The law is LB100.

Another new gun law would let university-sanctioned firearms teams possess rifles, pistols and shotguns on campus. Current law only lets them have rifles. The law is LB321.

Still another will prohibit local law enforcement from disclosing individual gun permit records to the public, a policy cheered by gun-rights advocates as a way to protect firearm owners from harassment. Open-government advocates say it's unnecessary. The law is LB902. ""

There used to be an organization around here that would keep people informed about things like this....  Don't hear much from it anymore though. 

[NE Bull]

Thought I might have missed it in the Summer Newsletter, but I reread it, not there either.....

[TwoSwords]

Again follow the Kansas model if you want things changed.  But you probably need to vote some people out first.

Basically did all this in 7 years.

State wide preemption.
Remove force of law on no CHP signs
Stand your ground / No duty to retreat
Protected open carry language.  (Not a huge fan of OC, mostly want it on the books to spite the Anti's)
School grounds carry
Constitutional carry  (Anti-gunners demanding firearms training is worth the entertainment value by itself)  And FUDD NRA instructors.  KS hearings witness to This.
Public building carry,  Forced metal detectors, or let us carry (It's the only way to be sure  )
Campus Carry

[Les]

Again follow the Kansas model if you want things changed.  But you probably need to vote some people out first.

Basically did all this in 7 years.

State wide preemption.
Remove force of law on no CHP signs
Stand your ground / No duty to retreat
Protected open carry language.  (Not a huge fan of OC, mostly want it on the books to spite the Anti's)
School grounds carry
Constitutional carry  (Anti-gunners demanding firearms training is worth the entertainment value by itself)  And FUDD NRA instructors.  KS hearings witness to This.
Public building carry,  Forced metal detectors, or let us carry (It's the only way to be sure  )
Campus Carry

Kansas model would work if we weren't so purple/blue.  Not red by a long shot. 

[m morton]

Again follow the Kansas model if you want things changed.  But you probably need to vote some people out first.

Basically did all this in 7 years.

* State wide preemption.
*** Remove force of law on no CHP signs
** Stand your ground / No duty to retreat
Protected open carry language.  (Not a huge fan of OC, mostly want it on the books to spite the Anti's)
*** School grounds carry
Constitutional carry  (Anti-gunners demanding firearms training is worth the entertainment value by itself)  And FUDD NRA instructors.  KS hearings witness to This.
*** Public building carry,  Forced metal detectors, or let us carry (It's the only way to be sure  )
*** Campus Carry

* State wide preemption. agreed no town or city should be able to make law the counters the US Constitution , state Constitution. or laws of the state. if the state law says you can carry a 3.5 inch knife. a town in that state should not be able to say any knife over 3" is against the law. same as cc or oc...

** again agreed no perosn should have to back away from an attacker before defending them self.

*** IMO any place that is posted no guns should be forced to have licensed and bonded Armed Security at x number of security per x amount of people. not sure what that X number should be 1 per 100 or some other number?  weather it is a school ,or public building .store , mall or any other place. if you remove our right granted by the 2nd amendment of self defense then you should be responsible 100% for our safety & security while on your property plus any medical bills, pain and suffering etc. if shot while on your property so posted..        once they get the bill for licensed and bonded  armed security they will most likely go scrape the no guns stickers off their doors.

my 2 cents

[bullit]

[quote author=FarmerRick
There used to be an organization around here that would keep people informed about things like this....  Don't hear much from it anymore though. 
[/quote]

An end of session update was sent out. Is your contact info up to date? Also, was publshed in this forum.
This weekend, Rod will discuss these changes on a live town hall. You can also be updated at the Annual Meeting on 25 August.
 You're always welcome to become "active" again.  Board elections are coming up this Fall.  I know one Board member is moving out of state so his seat will be open.  Feel free to come help guide the ship.  You know from experience, the same 10-12 people every year on average since the inception trying to run the NFOA welcome all comers. 

[Les]

[quote author=FarmerRick
There used to be an organization around here that would keep people informed about things like this....  Don't hear much from it anymore though. 


An end of session update was sent out. Is your contact info up to date? Also, was publshed in this forum.
This weekend, Rod will discuss these changes on a live town hall. You can also be updated at the Annual Meeting on 25 August.
 You're always welcome to become "active" again.  Board elections are coming up this Fall.  I know one Board member is moving out of state so his seat will be open.  Feel free to come help guide the ship.  You know from experience, the same 10-12 people every year on average since the inception trying to run the NFOA welcome all comers.

Hmmmm, if memory serves it was posted to fb as well.

[omaharj]

Board elections are coming up this Fall.  I know one Board member is moving out of state so his seat will be open.  Feel free to come help guide the ship.


Yeah, Rick M. for board of directors. Sounds good to me.

[bullit]

Board elections are coming up this Fall.  I know one Board member is moving out of state so his seat will be open.  Feel free to come help guide the ship.


Yeah, Rick M. for board of directors. Sounds good to me.

omaharj ... you too are welcome to step up and be a the "social catalyst" the board needs.

[Dalamar]

You've misinterpretend LB100, most of what's there already exists and even restored rights still apparently bar you from CHP until 10 years after commitment. It looks like they've just made some minor wording changes like subject -> petitioner.

"The petitioner shall prove by clear and convincing evidence" sounds more restrictive than the replaced text,

The addition of "(b) The mental health board shall grant a petition filed under this section if the mental health board determines that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm-related disabilities set forth in subsection (1) of this section should be removed. " appears like they are trying to reduce restorations by adding more words that were pretty much implied to begin with,

More or less, it looks like that bill was just a waste of legislation, it doesn't seem too much different aside from Politically Correct wording. Probably to appease the liberals in Lincoln...