General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Question about public parks...

<< < (2/8) > >>

OnTheFly:
This is just my layman, non-attorney, man-on-the-street view, but...

The passage of recent legislation (LBxxxx?...I forget  ??? ) which disallowed any town, city, etc. from passing local ordinances more restrictive than state law in regards to concealed carry, left only one way to limit concealed carry in a location not already listed in the state law (schools, polling places, etc.).  That is to post a No CC sign.  This would prove to be VERY difficult IMHO since most public parks can be entered from driveways, sidewalks, or just parking on the street and walking through the grass.  How can they argue that they have posted conspicuously as state law requires?

Fly

mizzly:
You talking about "public" parks?

Don't we own them?

Dan W:
I believe that Fly is correct. Any park can be posted by those in control of it, question is can they effectively post the area.

NFOA is working to enhance the signage statutes, to force the use of signs that are consistent, visible and posted in such a way that they can not be missed.

Watch the front page of the NFOA website, where I will be re posting a  great study done by one of our  new directors.

It it the impetus for Legislation that will be introduced in the upcoming session, along with a few other things, to eliminate the confusion about places that are posted " No Concealed Handguns" and to clarify the law.

I plan to post it up at the beginning of the session, with part 2 to follow about a week later

justsomeguy:

--- Quote from: rluening on July 22, 2010, 01:24:09 PM ---2 E L O -
I brought this up with Marty Conboy a while back:

--- Quote ---According to Code 1980, ? 21-9; Ord. No. 33732, ? 3, 12-12-95 "It shall be unlawful for any person ...... or to carry any firearms, in any park, playground or boulevard in this city;"

According to recently enacted LB 430 the state has overridden this law for concealed carry permit holders - " 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, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act."

As I am not a lawyer, and I don't wish to become a test case, can you clarify Omaha's position on permit holders carrying in city parks? Many are posted "No concealed weapons", making them a posted place that permit holders can not carry in. Several, though, are either not posted or only posted at some entrances.

Thanks for any information you can provide!
--- End quote ---

His response:

--- Quote ---Because the park restriction ordinance regulates the 'ownership, possession, or transportation' of the concealable firearm, it is voided as to permit holders.  Note, however, the language of Sec. 69-2441(1)(a) which limits the applicability of the permit.  There is language about the permit being restricted in certain areas, including those "where handguns are prohibited by law'.  This seems inconsistent with the new language of LB 430.  My advice would be that no one should be ticketed or restricted in the city parks, and if the officer feels the park is restricted under this state law, then the warning under section (2) of 69-2441 should be given.  If the person would not comply, the most they could be cited for would be refusing to leave as ordered under Sec. 20-155 of the city code. I don't know how a court would resolve this inconsistent language, but I do know that the person should not be cited under the void city ordinance, which no longer applies to permit holders.
--- End quote ---

I don't see that the sign has any bearing on what you do in your car while passing through.

/rl



--- End quote ---

It seems that Marty Conboy, The Omaha City Prosecutor, is of the opinion that LB 430 prohibits cities from posting parks.

Laws of cities or other political subdivisions of the state are considered null and void. Concealed Carry can only be prohibited by State or Federal law. Not some internal policy of the Parks Department.

Or am I missing something? ::)

OnTheFly:

--- Quote ---I believe that Fly is correct...
--- End quote ---

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.  ;D

Fly

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page