General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Need legislation to allow carry on university campuses
Dan W:
Another misconception is that priority bills bypass the committees...not true. They have a better chance of coming out, but the committee will amend out anything they don't like before it does.
Just like what happened to LB804 this session
AAllen:
Senator's Priority Bills do not get to skip the Judiciary Committee, and if someone is going to make it their priority bill it needs to be something that they would feel would have no real problem getting out of committee. I think LB804 showed how hard that is, Senator Fulton made it his priority bill because he felt that since Senator Lautenbaugh used the feedback from the last couple of bills over the last couple of years to write it that it should be able to get through without to much trouble. Obviously that was not the case with the bastardized piece that came out.
wallace11bravo:
Ah, thanks for the heads up on priority bills, I was misinformed. So another option would be to tack it on to another bill? Kansas, Texas, and Arizona SCC tried that, killed all of the parent bills... except Kansas, that bill still has a chance.
Mississippi already has something akin to this, and Michigan's bill has decent prospects.
I'll be giving Chris Z a call for some more insight on this.
FarmerRick:
--- Quote from: wallace11bravo on April 09, 2012, 05:43:30 PM ---http://www.facebook.com/NebraskaStudentsForConcealedCarry
I am hoping to see an Advanced CCW bill put up in the next legislative session. The ACHP would require:
-some more training (20ish hours total)
-slightly more strict background check guidelines (recent alcohol related offenses)
PERHAPS cannot be on any prescription drugs that are intended to correct a social/mental issue
PERHAPS a requirement that the applicant has had a standard CHP for 2 years, or prior mil/LE/armed security experience, or is granted a waiver on the 2 year requirement by local sheriff.
PERHAPS a psychological screening, at the applicants expense AND/OR disclosure of individual's mental health records (Still waiting for a comprehensive report from a psychologist to see if such a thing would be fiscally feasible for most people, or even relevant/needed)
Now the good part: would essentially mean that the only signs or policies that an ACHP holder must obey are ones enforced with metal detectors/xray machines.
Could use a hand when I go to talk to Fulton and Pirsch on Thursday. I'll be discussing such a bill, and what it's chances would be, and if the latter 3 requirements would be needed to give the bill a decent chance (hopefully not).
For all those who will proceed to jump on me for overly strict issuance guidelines, feel free to accompany me to meet the senators, or become more active in NSCC. I have invested hundreds of dollars and hours into this, and so far it has been 85% me that is actually getting anything tangible done.
I have been studying what bills have passed and died in other states. This is what I have come up with for a bill that MIGHT be able to pass committee, and the floor, without a horrible struggle that goes on for half a decade with no success, and eats away at my soul.
--- End quote ---
I would be completely opposed to a bill like this, and in fact would fight it with a passion.
I am opposed to the current Government-issued "permit" to exercise my Constitutional Right to begin with, and you want to create even MORE RESTRICTIONS on that right? :o
It may not be very popular with the CCW Permit instructor members of the NFOA, but the NFOA should be working towards Constitutional(permit-less) Carry, not more restrictions added onto the current mess of laws that exist.
wallace11bravo:
Rick,
I'm sorry that you feel that way. But I am looking a legislation that might be able to actually make it through, judging by other state's legislative records, and my current knowledge of our own state senate. Maybe I'm not the best man for the job, but I am the one willing to do it. I am also the one willing to learn how to do it.
I would be all for constitutional carry, but I'm afraid I just don't see it happening. Even if it does, you can be damn sure that no one will be allowed to carry on campus. Compromise is the best avenue to see anything actually happen, just as with the original CHP bill. Simply screaming "2nd Amendment" isn't going to get the job done, just as similar measures have not thwarted the patriot act, indefinite detainment of citizens, etc etc. The only other option would be a lawsuit. Costly, and we would have to wait for someone who is a permit holder to be a victim of a crime on campus, before we would have any real ground to stand on.
Current policies allow individuals to have the means to defend themselves, albeit with a permit. As a permit holder, I can avoid shopping malls and convenience stores that have no weapons policies, there are other places to buy gas and jeans. Even places of worship have an option. But with current laws, I have absolutely NO option for continuing my education without disarming in an environment that is by far the most likely to have someone, with or without a permit, with or without current policies, to come in and start executing people.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version