Author Topic: lb 817 ?? (Read 3272 times)

son of liberty · « **on:** February 24, 2010, 09:59:59 PM »

has anyone heard more on lb 817? i was curious of its progress. from what i understood, it sounded like parts of lb 889 were going to be reconsidered also. ??

Chris Z · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2010, 10:08:20 PM »

Parts of 889 will be added to 817. It is on the agenda again for tomorrow but they likely won't get to it. I would imagine they will get to it in the next week sometime. Sounds like 817 has the support needed to advance without a lot of issues

son of liberty · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2010, 09:42:32 AM »

thats good. if you could, post what parts of 889 will be law when 817 passes that would be much appreciated. also is there any web sites that show what nebraska laws are being considered and tells whether they pass or not?

RLMoeller · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2010, 09:50:06 AM »

You can go here and see everything you are asking about.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/

As for what parts of what bill will be included in another and what will pass.... well, that is a work in progress and all any of us can do is speculate at this point.

Rod

AAllen · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2010, 01:13:14 PM »

Debate on 817 opened this morning; it should be picked back up Monday morning. Sen. Council filed an amendment to add the word Recklessly back into the drive by portion. Having the word recklessly here does not mean recklessly endangers someone but accidentally/negligently discharges a weapon in the vicinity of a vehicle. Please contact your Senator to support the passage of LB 817 with the committee amendment and the amendment to be filed by Sen. Christiansen (not yet filed), and not to support Sen. Councils amendment.

WESchultz · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2010, 03:20:09 PM »

A little more detailed Update on LB817
Debate started today on LB817, sponsored by Sen. Rogert and which is now Sen. Fulton?s Priority LB. The title: Exempt concealed handgun permit holders from the requirement that they obtain a certificate to purchase a handgun. The Legislature ran out of debate time today and adjourned at noon. Legislative debate on LB817 should be picked up again Monday 3/1/10 when the Legislature reconvenes at 09:00 A.M. As of today, all Public Hearings are now over for this session, so the Legislature will be debating issues for FULL DAYS the rest of this session.
The are FOUR pending amendments which are being considered to LB817, which can be read at these URL?s.

AM 1964 by the Judiciary Committee - http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/AM/AM1964.pdf
AM1097 by Senator Brad Ashford - http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/AM/AM1976.pdf
AM2048 by Senator Brenda Council - http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/AM/AM2048.pdf
And
FA? By Senator Mark Christensen which he hasn?t presented yet.

Sen. Christensen?s Floor Amendment will include the civil immunity protection that LB 889 would have provided and is of considerable importance to the citizens of Nebraska. This planned floor amendment will add that section of LB 889 to LB 817.

If you haven?t already done so, NOW is the time to write, call or email your PERSONAL NE State Senator and ask them to support LB817 with AM1964, AM1097 and Sen. Christensen?s FA (Floor Amendment). We are AGAINST Sen. Council?s AM2048.

Gunscribe · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2010, 11:56:23 PM »

If some of these amendments are attached it will deny the handicapped the right to hunt. In essence the state would be vulnerable to an Americans with Disabilities lawsuit.

FarmerRick · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2010, 06:15:24 AM »

Quote from: Gunscribe on February 25, 2010, 11:56:23 PM

If some of these amendments are attached it will deny the handicapped the right to hunt. In essence the state would be vulnerable to an Americans with Disabilities lawsuit.

I'm guessing you're talking about this part:
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/AM/AM1976.pdf
28-1212.04 Any person, within the territorial boundaries
7 of any city, ~~incorporated village~~, of the first class or county
8 containing a city of the metropolitan class or primary class, who
9 unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally or ~~recklessly~~ discharges
10 a firearm, while in any motor vehicle or in the proximity of
11 any motor vehicle that such person has just exited,

but, goes on to say:

at or in the
12 general direction of any person, dwelling, building, structure,
13 occupied motor vehicle, occupied aircraft, inhabited motor home as
14 defined in section 71-4603, or inhabited camper unit as defined in
15 section 60-1801,

That was passed last year, and is not changed much by LB817. http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1212.04

A handicapped person shooting from a vehicle should be OK, as long as someone is not shooting "at or in the
12 general direction of any person, dwelling, building, structure,
13 occupied motor vehicle, occupied aircraft, inhabited motor home as
14 defined in section 71-4603, or inhabited camper unit as defined in
15 section 60-1801"

Gunscribe · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2010, 12:59:27 PM »

Tell me where at Pawnee or Branched Oak where it cannot be said that there is not "at or in the general direction of any of the things listed?"

Hell if your shooting a 12 gauge at a duck and a jet liner is flying over at 20,000 feet that is in the general direction. What is the legal definition of "proximity?

On most state wildlife places I have been to there is no general direction where you won't find one of those items. Any time a hunter takes a shot even if it is safe there will be something in the general direction.

The other problem I have with this is that it only effects the residents of two counties. State statutes must apply equally to all parts of the state. The Unicameral can not make a law a felony in only one part of the state. This law even as a misdemeanor is unconstitutional

Gunscribe · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2010, 02:42:17 PM »

Any person, within the territorial boundaries
7 of any city, incorporated village, of the first class or county
8 containing a city of the metropolitan class or primary class,

We all understand that applies to the entire county the "city" located in.

As I read the rest of it the discharge of a firearm in any of those counties anywhere will be a felony, Yes even if you are hunting or target shooting.

How you say?

who
9 unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally

unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally are meaningless words for the effect of the statute.

or recklessly discharges

The inclusion of the word OR means that unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally do not have to apply.

Shooting that deer, duck from a hunting blind or rabid skunk in your yard was lawful, you knowingly and intentionally did it all well and good Right?

How many of you use the hood of you truck for a rifle rest? If not how proximate is you vehicle when you are target shooting.

You may think you are being safe and prudent, but what about that anti rights cop that comes along and decides your being reckless.
You just lost your guns and have to hire an attorney to MAYBE keep from being convicted of a FELONY, because some cop can articulate in court that you were recklessly discharging a firearm.

Is there an exemption in this for existing shooting ranges? How about the cops showing up at a Saturday shoot at the Ikes, Weeping Water or where ever and arresting everyone they see shooting a gun?

Oh yea I get it, we have berms at those ranges. If there is a possibility that a projectile might traverse the berm and there are houses, dwellings etc in that general direction then a REAL case can be made that you are recklessly discharging a firearm in close proximity to your vehicles.

Define recklessly.

Because of that OR it makes recklessly a stand alone FELONY.

You just came home and shot the skunk that was about to attack your family pet or child, you are in or close proximity to your vehicle.

10 a firearm, while in any motor vehicle or in the proximity of
11 any motor vehicle that such person has just exited,

You are fortunate enough to have a deer or waterfowl blind tou can drive to within 40 yards of. Define proximity.

What is the legal time frame for just exited? 30 seconds? 10 minutes? 30 minutes.

If you are legally target shooting anywhere in Lancaster county a case can be made that you are guilty of a felony according to this amendment. Are you willing to bet your future on it if you let it be added just so lb 817 will pass?

AAllen · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2010, 12:01:49 PM »

Senators Ashford and Council have withdrawn their amendments to LB 817.

AAllen · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2010, 02:01:22 PM »

817 with the committee amendment passed first round, Sen Christensen's amendment on civil liability for self defense was introduced and is still pending.

DanClrk51 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2010, 10:14:05 PM »

Gunscribe: Your analysis of the language has raised alarm bells. Is there any way you can get a direct line to Christensen or someone who can talk about these big problems before the entire legislature so we can get that crap taken out?

Dan W · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2010, 10:44:12 PM »

The only change LB817 makes in this area, is to extend a previously passed law that already applies to "a county containing a city of the metropolitan class or primary class" to also apply to cities of the first class. The bill does not create this penalty, it was already law.

Unless a bill is introduced to repeal the parts of the existing law that may effect handicapped shooters and hunters, we are not going to change anything in that regard by opposing LB817

Gunscribe · « **Reply #14 on:** March 02, 2010, 01:07:34 PM »

I am not opposed to 817, I am horrified by the Ashford amendment. At first I was not aware that the law this amendment adds to was passed last year.

DanClrk51 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 03, 2010, 01:08:32 AM »

I don't oppose 817 either. Well both Ashford's and Council's amendments have been withdrawn. But we need to really look into this issue and perhaps come up with a bill repealing this language. I know the legislature is trying to do Omaha's bidding tackling gangs and drive by shootings in this regard. But this language is so broad it can apply to almost anyone discharging a firearm. They need to look at some of the other State's language such as Arizona's that spells out what they are targeting.

"Discharging a firearm at an occupied structure in order to assist, promote or further the interests of a criminal street gang, a criminal syndicate or a racketeering enterprise"

See Arizona bill HB2347: This bill is a proposal to change current Arizona law regarding concealed weapons but most of it already is law including the above quoted section. Only colored and stricken areas would be new to the law.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2347p.pdf

AAllen · « **Reply #16 on:** March 03, 2010, 10:42:40 AM »

I have proposed the following amendment to clarify what would be a lawful discharge of a firearm within this statute; I'm hoping it will receive support.

Nothing in this Statute prohibits actions taken in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated under Chapter 37 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes or special rules and regulations that make available activities described by Chapter 37 available to those with handicaps.

Chapter 37 is where Game and Parks derives it's authority as well as Game Laws are placed and the Range Protection Act resides.

bullit · « **Reply #17 on:** March 03, 2010, 11:34:12 AM »

"They need to look at some of the other State's language..."

Yeah right. That would be TOO novel for the NE Unicameral. The "Safe Haven Law" is evidence of how they monkey things up to the nth degree.

tut · « **Reply #18 on:** April 18, 2010, 11:25:14 AM »

I'm looking for, but maybe one of you guys can point me in the direction of when LB 817 takes effect now that it's been signed. Specifically, when can we say F.U. to Omaha's gun registration scheme and carry a free firearm without Omaha's stamp of Fuhrer approval?

AAllen · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2010, 11:35:03 AM »

LB817 will take effect 90 days after the Legislature ended their session so July 13th by my count.