Question about public parks...

[OnTheFly]

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.

I absolutely agree with revised statute 18-1703 as you quoted above; however, the law which allows an "entity" to post a No CC sign is NOT an Omaha ordinance.  It is Nebraska state law.  So it is NOT null and void.  Tell me this...if you intend to enter a state building which is not specifically mentioned in State or Federal law as being off limits for CC, and the state has decided to post a sign, are you are legal to enter the building?

I think we are mixing apples and oranges.  You are saying that any laws passed by Omaha are null and void as a result of the passage of LB430.  I agree, but this is not the same as the CC signs since this is state law, which we are obligated to follow.

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Fly

[OnTheFly]

I can see your argument Justsomeguy jthhapkido about the difference between a park and a building, but I don't think there is that much of a difference.  I would argue that a government building is owned for public use.  It is not private property or used in furtherance of a business.

Fly

[RWNJ]

I still believe that we need Total Preemption in Nebraska.

[OnTheFly]

I still believe that we need Total Preemption in Nebraska.

That would be nice.

[Dan W]

To accomplish that we need control in the judiciary committee

[OnTheFly]

 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.

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. 

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]

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

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

[Dan W]

Like I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, IF we able to pass a signage requirement that makes it absolutely clear that a place or premises does not allow legal concealed handguns, then it will be much more difficult for a city to post a park and meet the legal requirement.

 

[JTH]

OnTheFly wrote:
"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."

Haven't they already?  I thought the Omaha parks were posted, and I believe that they have tried to post the Plattsmouth parks. 

[RLMoeller]

I believe a lot of parks are posted.  I recently noticed the park in Ceresco is posted.

[OnTheFly]

I have not witnessed any parks posted in Lincoln, and I don't get to Omaha very often.  Has anyone seen signs in Omaha?

If there are signs, then maybe a letter to the Nebraska AG and Omaha city attorney would be in order?

Fly

[DaveB]

Don't say too much, they'll put metal detectors at the entrance.

[FarmerRick]

There are signs at nearly every place that the City of Omaha has under their control.  Parks, buildings, trails, etc.

[RLMoeller]

The Omaha park near me has one sign.  I can't say for certain what the City had in mind, but it looks to me like it only applies to the swimming pool.