General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Question about public parks...
Dan W:
Tell me how you think a court will rule on that...
The reference to section 018.01O
--- Quote ---Any place or premises or employer owned vehicle where those in control of the place, premises or vehicle have prohibited permit holders from carrying concealed handguns;
--- End quote ---
You could argue that a government subdivision is not in control of the place or premises, but I don't think it will hold up.
LB430 does allow for restrictions consistent with state law
justsomeguy:
Fly, since when has costly and ineffective stopped Obamaha from doing anything?
justsomeguy:
Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law, and shall not have the power to require registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act. Any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the act, except as expressly provided under state law, and any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation requiring the registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act.
Dan, It could be argued that your reference is "expressly provided for in state law". How successful you would be would depend on whose court you were in.
The intent of the statute is perfectly clear. (To most at least)
Dan W:
Here is the source for my opinions, stated previously, quoted from an opinion by AG Bruning
http://www.ago.ne.gov/agopinions/details.htm?searchStr=1&_search_id=2065
--- Quote ---
While not able to prohibit permitholders from carrying concealed handguns anywhere in the city, a city or village could still, under the next-to-last exception in ? 69-2441(1)(a) of the act, prohibit permitholders from carrying concealed handguns in specific places or premises that it directly controls. For example, a city or village could ban concealed handguns in city-owned parks, buildings, recreation facilities, arenas, etc. The city or village would have to comply with the procedures outlined in ? 69-2441(2) regarding the posting of notice.
We do not believe, however, that these posting provisions can be used by a city or village to prohibit permitholders from carrying concealed handguns anywhere within its borders. To allow cities and villages to use the posting provisions to ban permitholders from carrying concealed handguns on any public property (especially streets and other public ways) within their borders would seriously undermine the policy of the Legislature to allow permitholders to carry their concealed handguns ?anywhere in Nebraska.? Also, the term ?in control of the property? seems to suggest that it is a narrow exception which only applies to owners or lessees of distinct ?properties? and not to a city or village, which may have some ?control? over everything within its boundaries, but is the owner or lessee only of property it, as an entity, actually owns or leases. Therefore, it appears that cities and villages cannot utilize this provision to effectively ban permitholders from carrying concealed handguns everywhere within their boundaries.
--- End quote ---
This opinion was pre-LB430, so it still is a question in my mind whether or not LB430 preempted the power of cities and villages to ban concealed handguns in city-owned parks, as the AG stated they had previous to LB430.
JTH:
Dan wrote:
"...so it still is a question in my mind whether or not LB430 preempted the power of cities and villages to ban concealed handguns in city-owned parks, as the AG stated they had previous to LB430."
Precisely. City parks and such are expressly "owned" by the city for public use, as opposed to buildings "owned" for business/administration purposes---given these circumstances, are city/county governments able to thus regulate concealed carry in public parks?
When city parks are posted, is that a "regulation" from the city government? If so, is it valid considering LB430?
This is separate from the "can it really be posted appropriately" question.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version