General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Question about public parks...

(1/8) > >>

JTH:
Possibly stupid question---given the state's pre-emption law that just passed, are cities and counties still able to post public parks and such as "no CCW" areas?

For example, in Plattsmouth I believe that the city administrator has the parks posted (along with the community center)---but there wasn't an ordinance created to do so.  As a functionary of the city government, can they unilaterally do that?

NE Bull:
I've been wondering the same about Lincoln and their putting public parks off limits, one of the places my kids would like to go, but I'm sorry, I'm not stepping foot onto the trails in Wilderness Park or Pioneers Park without protection.

bkoenig:
In Wilderness park you don't need to be worried about being mugged so much as being chased by a naked guy  :P

SemperFiGuy:
For What It's Worth...........

[Pertains to Omaha, only]

Late summer 2010 I called the Omaha City Attorney's office to see if an Omaha ordinance existed which prohibited Concealed Carry in Omaha public parks.

The Nice Lady Attorney said that--after checking around and consulting other attorneys in the office--she and they could not find any such ordinance.

However, she also said that no prohibition exists to prevent the City Parks folks from posting NO CCW signs on such parks as the City Parks Department wishes to post.   Elmwood Park is so posted at one of the Pacific Street entrances, as I recall from driving through recently.   Also, the little tiny parking area along the West Papio Bike Trail immediately south of 84th Street was also posted, last time I checked.

So--check the Omaha parks for NO CCW signs when you go there.   Of course, you'll have to check the Entire Park and All Its Many Entrances and Parking Areas and Whatever, just to be sure.    Just like the City of Omaha to try to cover an entire park area of many acres with one small sign.   And then nail you for not seeing the one small sign.


sfg

JTH:

--- Quote ---However, she also said that no prohibition exists to prevent the City Parks folks from posting NO CCW signs on such parks as the City Parks Department wishes to post.
--- End quote ---

This is what I'm curious about---state pre-emption means that city/county governments cannot create rules that limit CCW.  However, city/county departments and regulatory agencies _can_?

So that is what I'm asking---has anyone checked on anything officially as to whether or not any city or county person/institution (City Parks and Rec, City Administrators, etc.) can ban CCW in public places? 

For example, in Ohio:
"The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that a Clyde city ordinance banning possession of firearms in municipal parks is unconstitutional because it conflicts with a general state law that permits licensed individuals to carry a concealed weapon on any public property other than at locations specified in the state statute. The Court?s 4-3 decision was authored by Justice Terrence O?Donnell.

In January 2004, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2923.126, a state law allowing persons who meet certain qualifications and obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in Ohio other than in excepted locations enumerated in the statute. In uncodified language adopted as part of the concealed carry bill, the legislature declared that its purpose was to adopt a general and uniform regulatory scheme for the concealed carry of firearms in all parts of the state. In adopting that scheme, the legislature stated that it intended to preempt the future adoption or enforcement by any Ohio municipality or political subdivision of any local ordinance that conflicted with state law by prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon in a location where concealed carry is permitted by R.C. 2923.126."


Don't we have a similar situation here, with respect to the way our state laws have been written?  Now, in Ohio's case, a municipality created an ordinance to ban carry in their parks---in Plattsmouth, we have a case where they didn't create an ordinance, the city administrator unilaterally chose to do post the city parks.  (Well, I assume with the backing of the mayor, who is strongly anti-gun.)  Is that difference sufficient to circumvent the pre-emption law? 

Anyone know of any official legal opinions on this?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page