My quick notes from the watching/listening to the debate...my wrist hurts from all of the writing real fast; hope it doesn't hurt me for this Saturday's Rock Your Glock
Sen Christensen opened regarding clarification of Amendment 929 on LB 430: it makes any city/town ordinances null and void; basically the state law supersedes any local ordinances; also, this bill and amendment are limited to just CHP holders and does not include broadly to other guns, thus being in accord to what Lincoln police chief Tom Cassidy has expressed reservations about.
Sen Ashford was initially against cc as a skeptic, but admits that some of the significant fears have not been borne out over time; supports the amendment and the bill in trying to address the confusion of the existing CHP law relative to transportation of cc handguns throughout the state by CHP holders.
Sen Janssen co-sponsored LB 430; prefers the "green copy" (the one without any amendment), but can understand need for clarification that amendment provides, and he requests support; also emphasized that guns are not bad things, and that it is the non-responsible people who don't go for CHP training that lend to the fears, and it is not those who are CHP trained folks; even those here at this hearing are open targets, and he feels safer with CHP holders around in meetings and wherever else he goes; also, people in churches are sitting ducks since there are psychologically disturbed people who attend churches as much as they attend anything else; LB 430 will prevent legal citizens from becoming law breakers.
Sen Stutman was not supporter of CHP when it was initially passed, but since we now have it as law, we now should have a level playing field by allowing CHP holders the ability to travel throughout the state without any confusion of local laws.
Sen McGill doesn't know how will vote on LB 430 but does support the amendment; has talked with folks in the city who have concerns regarding rules of who can own firearms as well as where they can be carried; not the biggest fan of CC, and bringing in CC will not make a place safer and prevent tragedies since psychologically disturbed people will all end up killing themselves anyway and do not fear being shot by someone with a CHP.
Sen Price support the bill; discussed issues regarding military personnel and their family (spouse) relative to: residency of NE and thus qualification for a NE CHP while stationed in another state, the waiting period for military folks especially since they are already familiar with arms, and what is the status of their NE permit should they be relocated to another state. Sen Ashford said if military person is a resident of NE, then they are qualified for a CHP, and if the individual moves to another state, the individual is still a CHP holder in NE, but it is up to the other state regarding reciprocity.
Sen Hadley asked Sen Christensen to elaborate on the letter from NE State Attorney General; Kearney as a result of that letter changed its 70-year-old law banning cc in Kearney; understands the confusion between different jurisdictions, therefore rises and supports the bill and amendment.
Sen Ashford clarify amendment by Sen Christensen; it is enlarging the ability and opportunity for CHP holders to carry where they previously could not, therefore passage of this bill/amendment will supersede any city ordinances such as Lincoln's about not carrying in city parks and Omaha's registration with the city police department; again, just want to clarify and support LB 430 and the amendment; appreciates Sen McGill's concerns and there will be time between now and Select File to entertain concerns since the Judiciary Committee is always open for business; also, want to clarify that this bill and amendment only pertains to CHP holders.
Sen Lautenbaugh rises and supports the underlying bill; the provisions are important and urges support.
Sen Council am absolutely opposed to LB 430 and any amendements to it; they do not bring safety to society, and am amazed how this body can support bringing in the FBI and other LE agencies and their restrictions, but yet allow CHP holders through this bill to carry anywhere they want to even though cities like Lincoln and Omaha have expressed reservations about places for carrying guns; most of the individuals here who have talked about needing to be strapped in church, well I did some research and found that of those shootings in churches, most of them were law abiding citizens and members or former members of those churches; the evidence does not bear it out about CC making places safer; in short, it is crap; these people who do the shooting are just pissed off people; how about the example of the Miamia Burger King where in Miami one can carry wherever they want, and there was a robber who went into a Burger King during after school hours with tens of children there, and someone in the Burger King with a CHP decides to get into a shootout with the robber, well some here will say it was okay because the robber is dead, but the CHP holder is hanging onto life by a thread because of critical injuries, and if the CHP holder had chosen not to get into a shootout, all that would have happened was a $200 robbery and no one hurt. (NOTE: the timekeeper stopped her because her time ran out).
Sen Lautenburgh one clarification: was for the original bill for churches to decide for themselves; we agreed to the amendment that took out that right so that LB 430 can move on, but I would support in the future that right of the church to choose for themselves.
Sen Nelson intend to vote in support but with the understanding that AM 929 will be revised or reworded to clarify what the cities feel should be protected; also question to Sen Ashford regarding why a 45-day wait instead of a 30-day wait since modern technology and software should allow for a shorter waiting period; Sen Ashford said State Patrol asked for the 45 days.
Sen Korpisek if had been here initially when first CHP bill was considered, would not have supported it, but now it is law and there are now big enough issues that it should be ok to approve the bill and amendment, but am now back on the fence because getting nervous when hearing Sen Christensen talking about coming back next year with an amendment to allow churches to have CC security; am not against guns and open carry, would rather prefer to see the person carrying, but am concerned about CC; so, just go for the vote now and see how it turns out.
Sen Ashford private businesses already have the right to post no carry, so there shouldn't have to be local control by cities; regarding Sen McGill's comments, if CHP holder is in a Lincoln city park and an officer goes to that person and asks about their gun, then the CHP holder just has to present their permit, and obviously that person has been through the CHP training; there are other circumstances such as CC without a permit or other guns like long guns concealed or not that are not permitted as it currently stands.
Sen Christensen closed by asking for vote of support.
VOTE: 27 Yes, 2 No.....(NOTE: I think 15 or 25 no vote....it was tough to see the voting board on my laptop).
Sounded like there might be further consideration tomorrow about another one or two amendments?
??....the end of the debate happened so fast, and then the live stream ended.
NE legislature website says there is a "McCoy AM936" filed, a "Judiciary AM835" filed, and a "Price FA24" filed....all pending. Check out the website to hit those links and read about them......
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=6960NOTE: McCOY AM835 adds back into the bill the right for a place of worship to authorize its security personnel to CC etc. PRICE FA24 is a timeline change of some sort but doesn't appear to be a biggie, and JUDICIARY AM835 revises state statute so that CHP holders will NOT be punished for CC as long as they are in compliance with the CHP Act.
I gotta give my wrist a break...and my head....it is swimming!!!!!
