Author Topic: Need legislation to allow carry on university campuses (Read 6486 times)

Aldo · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2012, 09:24:21 AM »

Wallace11bravo, as bullit noted, I would agree re Tim Clare. I had been thinking of contacting Tim Clare if I was going to contact any Regent at all (I am not a fan of pi$$ing in the wind....been there, done that enough in my life and career) only because he had campaigned somewhat in my neighborhood when he was running for the Regent position. He and I had an opportunity to chat at that time, and he seemed to be a straight shooter (no pun intended). If there would be a mutual time of visiting with him on this particular issue and if you would like to have a faculty member tag along for whatever that is worth (and it may be nothing), I would be happy to do so....but please feel free to just go ahead....please let me know what he says.

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2012, 11:41:43 AM »

Oh, I'm not giving up. Enough people are opposed to the ACHP idea here, and I have no interest in pi$$ing off the rest of the firearms community to reach my goals. What Dan mentioned, the bill being used to enhance restrictions for regular CHP applicants, does not seem too far fetched, and has done quite a bit to scare me away from the idea too.

I'll try to contact Tim Clare, and gain his input. We're a good minute from the next legislative session, so there is time to get the ducks in order.

RLMoeller · « **Reply #22 on:** April 10, 2012, 11:55:55 AM »

Looks like 3 Regents are leaving and a 4th is up for election this year? That is a lot of potential turnover.

DanClrk51 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 12, 2012, 01:53:05 PM »

Quote from: wallace11bravo on April 10, 2012, 11:41:43 AM

What Dan mentioned, the bill being used to enhance restrictions for regular CHP applicants, does not seem too far fetched, and has done quite a bit to scare me away from the idea too.

I agree with Dan W. We don't want to give the anti's any more ideas to use against us. If someone mentions psychological testing to them they will run with it and try to put that as a requirement for all of us. We don't want to go there. I don't even think police officers are required to do that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wallace11bravo: I think the best thing for us all to do is hold our horses. Andy Allen is trying to come up with a plan to throw out 1-3 liberal members on the judiciary committee. THAT IS THE KEY!
The root here is the fact that the legislature votes the senators to each committee. Senators run to be placed on a committee. All we have to do is figure out how to get the conservative legislature to realize that WE HAVE BEEN STABBED IN THE BACK time and time again by the liberal members on that committee and that they do not deserve to be put back on it.
Once we have the actual proportional balance of power restored to that committee it will be the conservatives in charge.

Once we have accomplished this virtually nothing will stop our pro gun efforts. I almost guarantee you most of our goals will sail through the committee and will be passed relatively with ease through the full legislature. From what I've learned all these years watching the legislature is this: What the committee says goes. The body seems to put a lot of trust behind the decisions of the committees and usually tend to go with them unless there is some kind of huge controversy.

Does this mean we will get CCW on campus right away. Probably not, but I'm pretty confident in our ability to pass LB 785 style legislation (employer parking lot firearms in cars protection bill) along with full Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground and FULL Civil Liability shield. I would definitely see the county attorney CCW with no restrictions bill pass and further improvements on CCW including SIGNAGE REFORM (Uniform Signage of last years LB 88 & reduction of signage violation to petty Class 4 Misdemeanor which would only be a $50 fine and not a firearms offense)

So just hold your horses. We should only consider the ACHP as a last resort if we cannot change the makeup of the judiciary committee. But I think we can and will change the makeup of that committee. Plus their term limits are coming up. We may be rid of Ashford and Lathrop sooner than we know it.

bk09 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2012, 04:07:34 PM »

What's up with wanting CHP carriers to have 2 years of normal CHP before being allowed to carry on campus? I don't know about you but that is worthless to the vast majority of students. I just turned 21 and I'm almost done with my Junior year, I will be graduated by the time I have been carrying for 2 years. One thing is for certain I wouldn't support such a strict legislation.

00BUCK · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2012, 05:09:48 PM »

Quote from: bradkoll on April 12, 2012, 04:07:34 PM

What's up with wanting CHP carriers to have 2 years of normal CHP before being allowed to carry on campus? I don't know about you but that is worthless to the vast majority of students. I just turned 21 and I'm almost done with my Junior year, I will be graduated by the time I have been carrying for 2 years. One thing is for certain I wouldn't support such a strict legislation.

Because that would put the minimum carry age on campus at 23, most students will graduate by age 22. See?

Dtrain323i · « **Reply #26 on:** April 16, 2012, 09:38:02 AM »

I just look at it like this, UNL is a fairly large campus. If you can't carry on campus then how much of Lincoln is denied to you to use? Why should I have to walk an extra 6 or 7 blocks just because I'm carrying if I want to walk somewhere?

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #27 on:** April 16, 2012, 03:30:34 PM »

Bill Kintner is running for Nebraska legislative district number two (south of Omaha).

http://www.facebook.com/kintnercutstaxes

I recently spoke with him about campus carry, and he is an enthusiastic supporter. In his own words: "Public Universities and campuses should not be state sanctioned killing zones."

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #28 on:** April 17, 2012, 03:08:59 PM »

Met with senator Fulton, many things were discussed. The conclusion was that without changing the makeup of the Judiciary Committee, campus carry bills will die before reaching the floor.

The Senator was kind enough to take the time to explain how we could shake up the Committee in both the upcoming elections, and at the beginning of the next session, when committee members are selected.

We also discussed alternative methods, such as trying to push a bill through a different committee, such as the Education Committee. As well as an Advanced CHP bill, while considered a potentially bad move with the current Judiciary Committee, could be a good route in the future.

One very interesting idea, would be to push for bill that would open any firearms control law up to review by the courts.

He also mentioned, and I will be looking into it, the possibility of taking the current state sanctioned no-carry zones to court. Such restrictions are against the state constitution, and could potentially be litigated. It would be costly and time consuming, but not impossible.

As far as the Regents, he seemed to downplay the chances of ever gaining any real support from them, as well as the influence they would have over such a bill.

AAllen · « **Reply #29 on:** April 17, 2012, 03:22:16 PM »

Wallace, I'm looking forward to being able to have some time to visit with you this weekend. We have a lot to discuss.

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #30 on:** April 17, 2012, 03:57:20 PM »

Andy, I look forward to it. I'll probably be arriving a bit early, let me know if you need a hand with setup or anything else.

bullit · « **Reply #31 on:** April 17, 2012, 05:47:14 PM »

Sadly Tony is term limited in the Unicameral. That being said, "Governor" would be an apt title for him.

PhilK · « **Reply #32 on:** April 17, 2012, 08:18:58 PM »

If you want to see the stinky history of how college campuses had Concealed Carry banned, reference the original CCWNE forum:

http://ccwnebraska.yuku.com/reply/4558/LB97-Passed#reply-4558

Basically Sen. Ashford took a bill entitled "Repeal terminated provisions relating to settlement escrow funds" and amended it by replacing the entire contents of the bill convert it into a bill to ban concealed handguns from college campuses. As someone who lives in his district, I did communicate my concerns about the manner in which this was passed. His response: "We needed to get this passed."

Remember this when he runs for Mayor of Omaha.

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #33 on:** April 18, 2012, 12:21:39 AM »

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #34 on:** April 18, 2012, 12:24:54 AM »

I just spent about 20 minutes learning how post pictures to a forum, making that picture, making a imageshack account, blah blah blah, just so I could do that.

It will now be an automatic post everytime I hear of Ashford doing something backhanded.

DanClrk51 · « **Reply #35 on:** April 18, 2012, 08:36:13 AM »

Quote from: wallace11bravo on April 17, 2012, 03:08:59 PM

The conclusion was that without changing the makeup of the Judiciary Committee, campus carry bills will die before reaching the floor.

The Senator was kind enough to take the time to explain how we could shake up the Committee in both the upcoming elections, and at the beginning of the next session, when committee members are selected.

I told you so....

DanClrk51 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 18, 2012, 08:56:51 AM »

Quote from: wallace11bravo on April 17, 2012, 03:08:59 PM

We also discussed alternative methods, such as trying to push a bill through a different committee, such as the Education Committee.

Now that is an interesting proposition

Quote from: wallace11bravo on April 17, 2012, 03:08:59 PM

As well as an Advanced CHP bill, while considered a potentially bad move with the current Judiciary Committee, could be a good route in the future.

I think that would be a bad move period. The current committee would abuse the idea and if we change the committee to our liking then we wont have to push an ACHP because we would likely just be successfull in passing a bill that removes most gun free zones such as (banks, churches, colleges/universities, hospitals, trauma centers)
I don't think we'll ever be able to eliminate private property gun free zones by posted sign since that would trample on property rights. However we should continue to push for a law similar to Missouri's where violating a "no guns" sign would not constitute a criminal offense. You could only be charged with a petty infraction which would be on the level of a traffic violation and name it "minor trespass" if the property owner somehow found out you were carrying a concealed handgun on his/her property and you refused to leave after having been told to remove the handgun from the premises. Also this would only be a small fine ($50) and not a firearms offense. The fine should remain at $50 with minor trespass infraction for each and every subsequent occasion and you shall never lose your permit (Constitutional rights cannot and should not be taken away because of a simple trespass). The property owner retains the right to have you removed from the premises if they find out you are carrying a concealed handgun and the armed citizen therefore still retains his/her 2nd Amendment rights. Everybody is happy.

Dan W · « **Reply #37 on:** April 18, 2012, 12:05:19 PM »

Quote from: wallace11bravo on April 18, 2012, 12:21:39 AM

This image is Admin approved

wallace11bravo · « **Reply #38 on:** April 20, 2012, 07:23:51 PM »

Post

just_me_mongo · « **Reply #39 on:** May 18, 2012, 02:00:28 PM »

To quote Wallace11Bravo:

"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)."

I do not wish to argue- I cannot however support any such bill like this. This is even more restriction and infringement upon our rights.

The ACHP bill like this- absolutely NOT.

For me, this is just completely unacceptable.

I think that the CHP is the CHP. There should not be levels of it. We have too many law makers making laws without our consent.

There is absolutely no reason that students should not be allowed to carry on campus. In fact, given the number of students on campus, allowing the students to carry would be a great way to exercise constitutional rights.