Any one else have a problem with this?

[justsomeguy]

Does any one else have a problem with the government collecting and keeping on record personal biological information (finger prints) for the purpose of obtaining permission to carry an object legal for every law abiding American to own? I have not commited, nor am I even suspected of any crimes and I refuse to be treated like a criminal without cause.

[Dan W]

Sure I do. You have the choice  of carrying concealed without a permit under the Affirmative Defense statute.

Many in this forum and in the NFOA have  made this choice.

Doesn't help much if you want to CCW in Texas or Colorado though, or any other state where the Nebraska permit is valid.

I am sure with your views, we can count on you to be a big supporter of the NFOA's efforts in rolling back the loss of freedom that has occurred in our lifetimes.

[SBarry]

Welcome JustSomeGuy.

These types of things won't go away by themselves. We have to get active and get rid of this kind of crap. This takes money and active involvement by thousands of gun owners.

Getting progun politicians elected, antigunners voted out, and non-leading fence straddlers shown the door are just a few of the things we need to accomplish every year. Just because your representative votes with us most of the time, does not mean we can't do better. We need to elect leaders, not followers. Tony Fulton and Mark Christensen are great examples of leaders in our state senate.

A new year, a new direction. Thanks for joining us, and bring in your friends, help us to grow and become more powerful.

[huskergun]

 Another problem in this state, Omaha in particular is Omahas' handgun registration for those living in Omaha. I did the conceal class and due to living in Omaha I had to sell myself out and registor my handgun. I shouldn't have to do that either as a FREE man.
 SBarry you are right on the money. Keep up the good work.

[justsomeguy]

So.... we disagree with this in principal but not in practice?

[FarmerRick]

So.... we disagree with this in principal but not in practice?

Yes. 

Not much of a choice at this point, without breaking laws.  But, that doesn't stop us from trying to change those laws.

[A-FIXER]

But the same is true in my class III firearms permits have to have the finger prints and ID card from the police dept they say the trust bypasses this as well but before I knew this I had already undergone the process. I figure I am not losing my privicy on the account of serving in the Marines and they got the complete gambit of my personal info from tatoo's to scar's on my body as well as finger prints..... on the other hand if the Health Care that hussinobama passes the goverment will HAVE ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFO INCLUDING YOU BLOOD/and GENETIC FINGERPRINTS so as the world is coming to if your a democrat and you voted for the clown in your getting what his political party stands for more goverment CONTROL...Ok I vented and yes I feel BETTER.....

[justsomeguy]

So.... we disagree with this in principal but not in practice?

Yes. 

Not much of a choice at this point, without breaking laws.  But, that doesn't stop us from trying to change those laws.

Open carry.

[bkoenig]

Dan, could you expand a little on what's involved in Affirmative Defense?

[Dan W]

Dan, could you expand a little on what's involved in Affirmative Defense?

 
IF you were to be arrested for CCW, and had not been engaged in any other illegal act, you could claim to have a "good excuse" or an Affirmative defense. You would have to convince a jury and a judge that you were justified in your actions. The specifics of the statute are below

28-1202. Carrying concealed weapon; penalty; affirmative defense.

(1)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any person who carries a weapon or weapons concealed on or about his or her person, such as a handgun, a knife, brass or iron knuckles, or any other deadly weapon, commits the offense of carrying a concealed weapon.

(b) It is an affirmative defense that the defendant was engaged in any lawful business, calling, or employment at the time he or she was carrying any weapon or weapons and the circumstances in which such person was placed at the time were such as to justify a prudent person in carrying the weapon or weapons for the defense of his or her person, property, or family.

(2) 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.

(3) Carrying a concealed weapon is a Class I misdemeanor.

(4) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this section, carrying a concealed weapon is a Class IV felony.
Source

    * Laws 1977, LB 38, ? 234;
    * Laws 1984, LB 1095, ? 1;
    * Laws 2006, LB 454, ? 22;
    * Laws 2009, LB63, ? 10.
      Effective Date: May 28, 2009

Cross References

    * Concealed Handgun Permit Act, see section 69-2427.

Annotations

    * In order to be a deadly weapon per se under subsection (1) of this section, the weapon must be one specifically enumerated in the statute. Whether an object or weapon not specifically named in the statute is a deadly weapon is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, and the resolution of that fact question will depend on the evidence adduced as to the use or intended use of the object or weapon. State v. Williams, 218 Neb. 57, 352 N.W.2d 576 (1984).

    * Whether an object or weapon not specifically enumerated in subsection (1) of this section was a deadly weapon is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. State v. Kanger, 215 Neb. 128, 337 N.W.2d 422 (1983).

    * Section 28-1202(1), R.S.Supp.,1978, combined with the definition of "deadly weapon" found in section 28-109, R.S.Supp.,1978, is sufficiently definite to meet the requirements of the first and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, section 3, of the Nebraska Constitution. State v. Valencia, 205 Neb. 719, 290 N.W.2d 181 (1980).

    * When a person is charged with violation of this section, the State need not prove that a revolver or gun is operable in order to establish that it is a "firearm". The test is whether evidence of possession of a revolver or gun of prohibited description, which is in apparently good condition and has the characteristics and appearance commonly understood to be those of the firearm it purports to be, is prima facie evidence sufficient to go to the trier of fact in a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon. In re Interest of Cory P., 7 Neb. App. 397, 584 N.W.2d 820 (1998).

    * Any instrument that consists of finger rings or guards made of a hard substance and that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with a fist enclosed in the knuckles is per se a deadly weapon under this section. State v. Lewis, 6 Neb. App. 867, 577 N.W.2d 774 (1998).

[bkoenig]

Yikes....I don't think I'd want to take that chance.  Sounds to me like it would come down to who was the better lawyer - yours or the prosecutor.  I need to take a break from spending money on guns and get my CCW one of these days.

[Hardwood83]

Does any one else have a problem with the government collecting and keeping on record personal biological information (finger prints) for the purpose of obtaining permission to carry an object legal for every law abiding American to own? I have not committed, nor am I even suspected of any crimes and I refuse to be treated like a criminal without cause.

Of course you're right. Vermont (of all places) and Alaska are the only 2 states that have it right- anyone that is not a criminal is free to CCW. No licenses, checks, classes or other nonsense. Ben Franklin said 'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety' in this case 'Convenience' might apply instead of safety. Do I believe that? Yes. Do I always practice it? Sadly, no. I'm not always willing go through the hassle, expense and potential consequences of fighting city hall. As the abuses become more egregious that may change. In the meantime I attempt to change the laws within the system. We have made progress- slowly.

[DJPeter]

If it comes down to having to defend one self in court over these issues; Is there a list of pro-gun lawyers in the State of Nebraska a person could choose from?

I agree that we must pressure our representatives to broaden our rights and secure a free society based on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

[DaveB]

I found this on pro gun lawyers, can't vouch for it or them. It does show two in Nebraska, I'm sure there are more.

http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/law/lawr_list.htm

[Bill]

Updated URL:  http://www.theshootersbar.org/

[mustang5o]

Yikes....I don't think I'd want to take that chance.  Sounds to me like it would come down to who was the better lawyer - yours or the prosecutor.  I need to take a break from spending money on guns and get my CCW one of these days.

Actually I kind of wished I hadn't done CCW and just went with affirmative defense.  If you carry concealed nobody should know you have a firearm anyway.  In the event you have to (justifiably) use it, well, you have an argument for why you needed it.

A couple reasons I'd prefer no CCW....no informing police you have the gun and a lessor charge if you carry in a posted area.

A couple of reasons I like CCW...State backing us against stupid city laws (ahemaha).  Oh and Reciprocity except that in the limited travel I've done since having CCW I've been in Iowa, Illinois, Missouri and Minnesota.  So I've only been legally allowed to carry in 1/4 of the states I've been to.