2011 Legislative issues

[wrenrj1]

I know the Castle doctrine will be an issue in the 2011 legislature, are there other issues that this body needs to lobby for?  I for one would like to see a position taken on CCW weapons left in personal vehicles.  My issue is that public employees state/local cannot park personal vehicles on state property that may have personal weapons secured in them.  I am limiting this to CCW permit holders.  That means any state parking garages, or local government garages, etc.

My issue is, that you can park at a meter on the doorstep of state buildings, even the state capitol, in a public parking place and have a weapon secured in your vehicle, yet not park a block or two away in state owned parking, as most state employees do.

Are there other issues for 2011?

[Dan W]

Let's clarify this a bit...

you want to change what part of this rule.

018 PROHIBITED PLACES AND PREMISES
018.01 A permit holder may carry a concealed handgun anywhere except:
018.01A Police, sheriff, or Nebraska State Patrol station or office;
018.01B Detention facility, prison, or jail;
018.01C Courtroom or building containing a courtroom;
018.01D Polling place during a bona fide election;
018.01E Meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or other political subdivision;
018.01F Meeting of the Legislature or a committee of the Legislature;
018.01G Financial institutions as defined by Nebraska Revised Statutes ? 8-101(12);
018.01H Professional or semi-professional athletic event;
018.01I School building, school grounds, school-owned vehicle, or school-sponsored activity or athletic event of any public, private, denominational, or parochial elementary, vocational, or secondary school, a private postsecondary career school as defined in Nebraska Revised Statutes ? 85-1603, a community college, or a public or private college, junior college, or university;
018.01J Place of worship;
018.01K Hospital, emergency room, or trauma center;
018.01L Political rally or fundraiser;
018.01M Establishment having a liquor license which derives over one-half of its income from the sale of alcoholic liquor;
018.01N Any place where the carrying or possession of a firearm is prohibited by state or federal law;
018.01O 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; or
018.01P Any other place or premises where handguns are prohibited by state law.
018.02 A financial institution, notwithstanding Section 018.01G above, may authorize its security personnel to carry a concealed handgun while on duty so long as the security personnel have a concealed handgun permit and are in compliance with the law.
018.03 A place of worship, notwithstanding Section 018.01J above, may authorize its security personnel to carry a concealed handgun on its property so long as the security personnel have a concealed handgun permit and are in compliance with the law. If security personnel are so authorized, written notice of such authorization must be given to the congregation and, if the property is leased, it must not be in violation of the terms of the property lease agreement between the place of worship and the lessor.
018.04 A person, entity, or employer in control of a place or premises described in Section 018.01O above, which is open to the public, may prohibit permit holders from carrying concealed handguns in the place or premises by posting a conspicuous notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in or on the place or premises or by making a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permit holder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises.

As I see it you can park in a state parking structure if you meet the provisions of 018.06. You have a problem with your employer, not the CHP rules.  Am I wrong in the way I am reading this?

018.06 Except as prohibited by federal law, a permit holder may carry a concealed handgun in a vehicle or on his or her person while riding in or on a vehicle into or onto any parking area which is open to the public and used by any of the places or premises listed in Section 018.01 above if the handgun is not removed from the vehicle and the handgun is properly secured in the vehicle before the permit holder exits the vehicle. To be properly secured in the vehicle, the handgun must be locked inside the glove box, trunk or other compartment of the vehicle, in a storage box attached to the vehicle, or in a securely attached hardened compartment if the vehicle is a motorcycle

 
Maybe the " open to the public " is the difference.

[wrenrj1]

Great questions Dan, I'll get back with you on this.  Thanks for calling me on specifics. Currently, I'm aware that state employees (or the general public) cannot posses a firearm on state property.  State garages are state property.

[equinox137]

How about pushing to eliminate Section 018.04?

[Jesse T]

How about pushing to eliminate Section 018.04?

+1

[justsomeguy]

How about pushing to eliminate Section 018.04?

No Way!

I reserve the right to prohibit entry or to remove ANYONE from my property, for ANY reason I deem necessary.

Not that I would prohibit concealed carry.

[DaveB]

Private property is not the place for government control. That is the reason we have so many of the problems we are experiencing now. If I can't control my own property, it's not really mine.

[AAllen]

As I read the original question/issue; Currently employers have and can have policies that keep CCW holders from being able to store a firearms in their personal vehicle on company property.  This is not a violation of the Law but can be an issue that could get an employee terminated for the violation.  People not employed by those in control of the property can under current law store, in an a locked container, their firearm in their vehicle.

This applies to all employers not only those in Public Service.

Employee Parking Lot Law would be an area to go into, unfortunatly the only model I can think of at this time would be Oklahoma's that was thrown out by the Fed. Court several years ago.  This would require some research to put together but could be a good multi year project.  It's a little late to start another bill for this year, bills are in the final stages of being written to be proposed during the next couple of weeks.

[Burnsy87]

How about pushing to eliminate Section 018.04?

We can't do that, private business owner's have rights as well.  It's their property.

[Jesse T]

While I agree private businesses should have the right to dictate their own rules, I don't see why banning concealed carry should get its own special section in CCW rules for it.  (and punishments for breaking it). 

I just don't think you should get a firearms offense for it.   The business owner should have to treat a CCW'ing citizen the same as any other person he wouldn't serve for any other reason. 

It's hard for me to explain.  But let me try an analogy of sorts...

I own a restaurant.  But I hate people with brown socks. Its perfectly acceptable for me to post a sign next to my front door that says "no brown socks".  Now imagine this sign had the backing of a government ordinance (like the CCW law does).  If I catch someone wearing brown socks in my business and call the cops on them, not only are they in trouble for tresspassing (breaking my rules) the government will charge them with the ordinance, thereby creating a "brown socks" conviction on their permanent record.  This will result in the person losing their "brown socks" license for life and they can only wear white socks from here on out. 

I just don't see why CCW should be  any stiffer penalty than breaking any other rule a business owner would set.

[shaggy853]

I wont disagree that the penalty is too harsh for the offense, but the rights of the property owner come before the permit holder.

[justsomeguy]

I concede the point to Mr. Jesse T.

Good argument sir.
I was just thinking that it was one way or the other but just removing the provision from the CHP law preserves the rights of the property owner while eliminating additional unnecessary penalties for the gun owner.

[bkoenig]

It's not a huge priority, but I would personally like to see the fees for CCW permits come down.  It's bad enough that we have to pay to exercise a right, but for someone with a low income the cost can be downright prohibitive.

[Wymore Wrangler]

I was a State employee until last July working at BSDC.  When they opened up the campus to the public, I asked the Human Resources Manager about the CCW law.  She took the issue up to the HHS attorneys and they agreed that the State couldn't prevent CCW holders from having properly stowed pistol in their vehicle....  But then she told me "please don't tell any other employees"...LOL

[Husker_Fan]

I agree with Jesse and have said it on here before.  Private property owners have the right to deny entry to their property or ask someone to leave.  I think the rules should be the same across the board and you are presumed welcome on private property that is open to the public until you are asked to leave.  If you refuse, you are trespassing.  Heck, I'd be OK with a law that says you are trespassing if you enter conspicuously marked property and doesn't require that you be asked to leave.

[DanClrk51]

While I agree private businesses should have the right to dictate their own rules, I don't see why banning concealed carry should get its own special section in CCW rules for it.  (and punishments for breaking it). 

I just don't think you should get a firearms offense for it.

Jesse T. has hit the spot! Property owners should and do have the right to prohibit anyone for any reason on their own property. But lets keep it a trespassing issue not a firearms offense! Personally I would like to see Nebraska adopt Missouri's language regarding this.

http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/Publications/Brochures/documents/SHP-863.pdf

Carrying a concealed firearm in any location specified above is not a
criminal act. However, you can be denied access to the premises or may
be removed from the premises for doing so. If a peace officer is summoned:
? Upon the first offense, you can be cited and fined up to $100.
? If within six months, a second offense occurs, you can be fined up
to $200, and your concealed firearms endorsement can be suspended
for a period of one year.
? If within one year of the first offense a third citation for a similar violation
is issued, you may be fined up to $500, and your concealed
carry endorsement revoked. If your concealed carry endorsement
is revoked, you are not eligible for the endorsement for a period of
three years."

On the other hand I would like Nebraska to eventually become a "Constitutional Carry State" with no permit requirement but this Missouri language shouldn't interfere with that.

[wrenrj1]

Sorry for the delay in response.  The issues I've outlined with regard to state parking facilities are indeed addressed in state policy.  First, the state labor contract and second, the DHHS department policy.  The DHHS policy however is a bit concerning.

Per the State Labor Contract: 
Possession of a firearm is forbidden in State work places by employees other than those who may be authorized in connection with official duties for the employer, and Game and Parks Commission employees who reside in State housing or who serve as Volunteer Hunter Education Instructors, and Aeronautics employees who reside on state airfields.

DHHS Policy Weapons in the Workplace:
DHHS employees are prohibited from bringing weapons into the workplace. Possession of firearms and explosive devices by employees are also prohibited by the DHHS Workplace Policies and/or NAPE/AFSCME contract. This policy applies to all DHHS occupied buildings, grounds, parking areas, and agency vehicles.

So I guess my point is mute as these are indeed policies.  it does beg the question however so I'll ask it. What about city owned parking garages used by the public?

[WESchultz]

FYI Only: Where we are on 1/12/11

Please read the PDF?s - Notice LB298 the term ?Castle Doctrine? was not used this session.

LR20 - Encourage the school boards, in conjunction with the Game and Parks Commission, to voluntarily promote and include trap shooting as a high school sport
(Sen. Dubas)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LR20.pdf


LB88 - Provide signage requirements and duties for the Nebraska State Patrol regarding concealed handguns
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB88.pdf
Scheduled for Judiciary Committee Public Hearing on Friday, Jan. 21 at 1:30 in room 1113.
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/calendar/hearings.php?day=2011-01-21


LB138 - Change residency requirements under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act
(Sen. Lautenbaugh)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB138.pdf


LB232 - Change use of force provisions to include protection of an unborn child as prescribed
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB232.pdf


LB298 - Change provisions relating to self-protection
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB298.pdf

[WESchultz]

FYI Only: Take your pick. LR/LB's of interest as of 1/18/11

Please read the PDF?s - Notice LB298 the term ?Castle Doctrine? was not used this session.

LR20 - Encourage the school boards, in conjunction with the Game and Parks Commission, to voluntarily promote and include trap shooting as a high school sport
(Sen. Dubas)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LR20.pdf

LB88 - Provide signage requirements and duties for the Nebraska State Patrol regarding concealed handguns
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB88.pdf
Scheduled for Judiciary Committee Public Hearing on Friday, Jan. 21 at 1:30 in room 1113.
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/calendar/hearings.php?day=2011-01-21

LB138 - Change residency requirements under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act
(Sen. Lautenbaugh)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB138.pdf

LB232 - Change use of force provisions to include protection of an unborn child as prescribed
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB232.pdf

LB298 - Change provisions relating to self-protection
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB298.pdf

LB512 - Change provisions relating to mental health determinations regarding the possession and purchase of handguns
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB512.pdf

LB516 - Authorize carrying of concealed handguns in educational institutions by security personnel, administrators, or teaching staff
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB516.pdf

LB518 - Change certain penalty and violation provisions of the Concealed Handgun Permit Act
(Sen. Christensen)
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=12191

LB538 - Change provisions relating to the disposition of seized firearms
(Sen. Karpisek)
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB538.pdf

[ComputerCowboy]

The problem I see is that if someone puts a sign up thten no matter what it may not be seen. If you get asked there is no way you don't know the wishes of the property owner. If you restricted access like at the airport when you try to board a plane once again you are sure to have either seen the signs, been asked about it, or both. The intention of the offender is very important here because while no one wants to see an absent minded old guy go to jail because he didn't understand,, everyone is sure to want to see a guy who trys to sneak a gun somewhere in an attempt to do harm get some time in a cell. We all know criminals don't use ccw licences to commit crimes.