General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Question about public parks...
OnTheFly:
--- Quote from: Dan W --- 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 ---
Just playing the devil's advocate here, but this is not a very definitive statement. Lot's of "suggest", "may", and "appears" in the AG's statement. Also, his statement is in reference to using the No CC sign to limit/control all CC within the city's borders. Not the same as what we are discussing here. Just my 2 cents. That and a $1.96 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's. ;D
Fly
Dan W:
Of Course it is not definitive...it is an opinion based in previous case law. Only a court's finding in a particular case would be definitive, and even then subject to appeal or reversal
OnTheFly:
--- Quote from: Dan W on December 31, 2010, 06:03:23 PM ---Of Course it is not definitive...it is an opinion based in previous case law. Only a court's finding in a particular case would be definitive, and even then subject to appeal or reversal
--- End quote ---
You are absolutely correct. My point was not that his statement did not clearly interpret the law. As you said that could only be done in a court of law, but that because of all the indecisiveness, it did not sound like a strong argument.
Fly
SemperFiGuy:
In Fuzzy Situations Such as This CCW-in-Omaha-Parks Issue,
It Will Be Whatever the Presiding Judge Says It Is.
Then That Decision Will Become Case Law.
And Set the Precedent for Similar Cases.
Unless.....Challenged and Overturned in Higher Court.
Which is.......Time Consuming, Expensive, Uncertain, and Risky.
Much as We Might Wish, There Just Ain't No Black-and-White on This Issue Yet.
sfg
OnTheFly:
If a town/city did try to post a park, I would think a competent attorney would be able to argue the "conspicuously" posted sign issue without even having to go to the newly enacted law. But then I suppose a good attorney would make both arguments.
Let's hope Omaha or any other city does not try this out. Lincoln also used to have a similar ordinance on the books. I half expected the city to try out the signage, but I'm glad they have not.
Fly
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version