Need legislation to allow carry on university campuses

[Aldo]

http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/article/2012/04/guns_allowed_at_school

If it can happen in Michigan (see article in link), which is way more liberal than Nebraska, why can it not happen here in the land of the good life? I work at NU, and it will be a cold day in h-e-double hockey stick before the NU Board of Regents and NU President will, of their own accord, allow carry on campus for ccw permit holders.  Unfortunately, the current university policies trump the current state legislation because the latter allows the university to do so via LB430.  I as an individual faculty member cannot make it happen as my voice would get drowned out at a NU Board of Regents meeting (if even allowed to be on the agenda), but I am willing to work with NFOA, NRA, Students for Concealed Carry, etc to get the legislation in motion via the Senate route....preferably as a Senator's priority bill so that the Judiciary Committee can be bypassed since that committee's current composition will definitely NOT allow such bill to get to the general floor for discussion/vote.

[DanClrk51]

http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/article/2012/04/guns_allowed_at_school

If it can happen in Michigan (see article in link), which is way more liberal than Nebraska, why can it not happen here in the land of the good life? I work at NU, and it will be a cold day in h-e-double hockey stick before the NU Board of Regents and NU President will, of their own accord, allow carry on campus for ccw permit holders.  Unfortunately, the current university policies trump the current state legislation because the latter allows the university to do so via LB430.  I as an individual faculty member cannot make it happen as my voice would get drowned out at a NU Board of Regents meeting (if even allowed to be on the agenda), but I am willing to work with NFOA, NRA, Students for Concealed Carry, etc to get the legislation in motion via the Senate route....preferably as a Senator's priority bill so that the Judiciary Committee can be bypassed since that committee's current composition will definitely NOT allow such bill to get to the general floor for discussion/vote.

It's not happening here because half of the GOP senators in the legislature are wusses and want to compromise with Democrats in the interest of goodwill or something like that (which is impossible). It seems our legislature has this fear of being labeled too extreme or something like that. After all it was them who held a special session and rushed to "close a loophole" to ban concealed carry on college/university campuses.....as if it was some major breach of security.

So Aldo it's actually already out of the NU board's jurisdiction, the legislature did their bidding and banned it by statute. Also a priority bill DOES NOT cause a bill to bypass a committee. It just puts the committee members under more pressure to address the issue somehow.

As far as a CCW on campus bill we already brought a weak version of that last year (to allow school staff and security guards to carry with CCW) and not even that was allowed through.

The only solution to this problem and to getting our other pro 2nd Amendment causes passed into law is to get 3-5 of the liberal members on the judiciary committee REMOVED and REPLACED on that committee. Preferably all 5 of course (Brad Ashford, Brenda Council, Amanda McGill, Steve Lathrop, Burke Harr). It is absolutely outrageous that in a conservative republican state as Nebraska with a legislature that is 33 Republicans, 15 Demoncrats and 1 liberal Independent (Ashford) that our judiciary committee is stacked 5-3 in the liberals' favor. Proportionally it should be the EXACT opposite considering we hold a 2-1 advantage in the legislative body.

I think the legislature keeps voting these bimbos back onto that committee because they are lawyers and have "experience in those matters". Well as Senator Avery demonstrated so well last week during debate on LB 807 a lawmaker doesn't need to know the current law in order to make laws.
We have to get an effort underway to get our conservative legislature to grow some balls and vote against nomination of Brad Ashford, Brenda Council, Amanda McGill, Steve Lathrop, and Burke Harr to the judiciary committee next year. It's time to reward them for their blatant disregard of Nebraskans to be safe in their homes and in their person's wherever they have a legal right to be.

[bullit]

Aldo...you're fine with your double barrel stapler and picture of Mas Ayoob. 

[Aldo]

Aldo...you're fine with your double barrel stapler and picture of Mas Ayoob. 

Hah!!! I wish I could say that I felt safe that day last year when the SWAT team was going through the hallways of the dental college in Lincoln.....yes, stuck in my office with my staplers and photo of Mas   Actually, it doesn't take much for me to think back about it and remember how pissed I was at that time...and to some degree still am.

[wallace11bravo]

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. 

[rluening]

I'm not sure I can really get behind making my rights contingent on even more training, background checks, and invasion of privacy. I think this sort of "advanced ccw" legislation would give the anti-rights groups ammo to use against us...

/rl

[Dan W]

I'm not sure I can really get behind making my rights contingent on even more training, background checks, and invasion of privacy. I think this sort of "advanced ccw" legislation would give the anti-rights groups ammo to use against us...

/rl

Might some on the Judiciary committee think these new rules should apply to everyone, but they will amend out the part about the reduced restrictions

[wallace11bravo]

I would hope that the bill could be killed if it came to that, or that this could be made a senator's priority bill to skip the committee.

I just don't see flat-out removing the reciprocity for colleges having a snowball's chance in hell. Not with the judiciary committee, and not with the influence of the board of regents, who have repetitively refused to speak with me. (It took 3 emails and a phone call to even get a response)

[Dan W]

The University of Nebraska may well wield more power in the legislature than any other single entity

[NE Bull]

Might some on the Judiciary committee think these new rules should apply to everyone, but they will amend out the part about the reduced restrictions

I would like to see a form of CCW allowed on campus,  but I also think, having seen how the process works, that Dan might have a point.

[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]

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.

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?   

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.

[FarmerRick]

I'm all for getting carry approved on college campuses and I applaud your efforts in that quest, I just don't think we need even more restrictions on law-abiding citizens in order to get it. 

How many "classes" of citizens are needed?  What make me apparently more dangerous(in need of even more training, or psychological screening, or some other arbitrary requirement) on a college campus than when I'm in a Walmart, or some crowded street?   You are beginning to sound like those in the Unicameral, cities of Omaha, Lincoln, Columbus, etc. and their respective police departments that we've been fighting tooth and nail with for the better part of the last decade that warned of "blood in the streets" and "old west shootouts" because we didn't have law-enforcement training and weren't "professional enough" to carry weapons like the Only Ones. 

Remember, OPEN CARRY is legal everywhere in this state(except Obamaha's BS permit) where firearms are not prohibited by state or federal law.  Just because a jacket or shirt may cover up that weapon, should not create a requirement for me to jump through hoops and pay hundreds of dollars for training and permits to carry said weapon because the almighty government says so.

[wallace11bravo]

I'm gonna withdraw, as I'm being compared to those who spout the "wild west" rhetoric. I am tired of arguing on the internet. I do it everyday on the NSCC page, and in real life, and I have no interest in doing it here with actual pro-gun people.

I suppose if this is the general consensus, then I'll just push for vanilla CCW on campus even though I am almost certain it will never get anywhere. I'm trying to think outside the box (and not just for on campus), empty holster protests are great, but they don't actually change anything.

[Aldo]

FarmerRick: I believe that LB430 allows you as a non-employee of the university to carry concealed on campus as you drive onto campus but not in buildings and that you are allowed to lock your hand gun in your vehicle upon exiting if you are going to enter a building. However, university policy (allowed by LB430) does not allow university students/employees to even drive onto campus unless we go directly to UNL campus security office on city campus and have it locked up in their station while we teh go about our business on campus.

I work on east campus, and so there is a great inconvenience for me to follow that policy plus I would then be without my handgun as I then would have to drive without it to east campus, and then at the end of my workday I would need to do the reverse process, all the while having myself exposed to the potential untoward adversarial elements of society during both treks (read what happened recently to the UNO faculty member as she was going to her car after work).

Thus, I support what wallace11bravo wishes to do as it would help to remove the university's restrictive and incredibly inconvenient policies on me as a university employee. My hours of additional training way exceeds the 20+ hours and there aren't any mental medications or issues with me (other than my willingness to vote for a can of pineapple before I would vote for Obama). If that is what it would take to get a Level II ccw permit, I would support it wholeheartedly.

Wallace11bravo: please don't give up. I am willing to help you as best as my work schedule allows (e.g., Thursdays typically during semesters I treat patients in the morning and teach students in the afternoon), but there is more latitude during semester breaks, etc or possibly on a couple select other half-days depending on my semester's schedule.

[bullit]

Wallace....forgive me if you've been this route, but are you contacting Regents individually?  I ask, because your BEST chance for meeting even one will likely be Tim Clare.   He is officed out of Rembolt Ludtke in Lincoln and I bet a dime to a dollar he will meet with you at least "off the record" and can guide you.  He could also give the "pulse" of his fellow Regents i.e. you may be pi$$ing in the wind.
Jim McClurg is a great and honorable guy, but he is retiring.  Don't know about any of the others, but could guess about Chuck Hassebrook.

[RLMoeller]

Speaking of Regents . . .    Brad Ashfords wife is running for Regent, isn't she?  I wonder if she has similar firearms views as her husband?