Author Topic: North Platte city parks and Ord. 93.05 (Read 14682 times)

Chuck Matson · « **on:** June 03, 2012, 08:53:23 AM »

Hi, firstly I would like to thank Dan W. for all his help and insight. I would also like to thank Andy for all he has done, and all he continues to do.

Back in 2010, I decided to send a contribution to the second amendment march that was to happen that April. After doing so , I was asked by the folks involved with arranging the D.C. March if I would be a coordinator here in NE. I respectfully declined for several reasons, one I felt that such a position should come from the larger population area of my state. More people= more turnout. That being said, I finally told those folks I would do all I could to assist with donations, and I might even have a march of my own.

I went to city hall here in NP to check on ordinances and laws prior to deciding if I would have a open carry picnic across the street from where I live at Saint Mary`s park. Wanting to be within the law, I went to city hall. I was told by the Mayor and city administrator, they were not aware of any ords. or laws preventing my carry picnic, but just to make sure, they called in the city atty. The city atty assured me no ord. or law prevented me from doing so. Unfortunately or maybe by luck, I was not able to arrange the get together because of weather and the window of opportunity because of my job.

Fast forward to about a month and a half ago. While visiting the NFOA site. I went to the unfriendly business section. Much to my surprise, there was North Platte city parks etc. as you can see on that forum, that was the beginning of a little struggle. I will not mention a name at this time, because the ball is rolling as I write this. A agreement was reached between myself , and this person that the city ordinance had no validity. And, that open carry, and concealed carry was legal because of amended laws that had recently been fought for by many on this sight and elsewhere.

I will say after said agreement, signs were placed in two of our parks entrances, 69-2441, and they were zip-tied paper signs. I was at work when I was made aware of this, and needless to say, my blood immediately went to boil! Come Monday morning, I will have some info coming to me from inside. I will leave it at that for now.

Several people from my local gun club have offered their assistance in this soon to be all out challenge, and I`m glad for that. Flying solo sucks! I will keep posting here as things progress. Thanks to all of you for your dedication to the NFOA!

P.S my spell check is not working, and my spelling sucks also!

NE Bull · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2012, 08:48:38 PM »

ChuckM, please keep us informed on how this 'fight' goes.
I take it after you spoke to them, they posted the parks as Free Crime Zones?
I have learned thru work, that sometime it's best not to bring things up for clarification, as you may not like the results. Not that you did anything wrong, but it sounds like bringing the issue to their attention resulted in them posting to appease someone that got scared.

omaharj · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2012, 08:15:20 AM »

Allright!! I like fighting!! Ya need money to make those responsible suffer? I can come up with $50. PM me with where to send it. RJ

AAllen · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2012, 08:23:37 AM »

Chuck you are talking about something we are working on a statewide level. Basically the question is:

Can a City enact through administrative policy things that they can not enact through Legislation?

I have a formally written question I have been trying to get a Senator to ask of the AG's office, so far without any luck. That would need to be the first step, after that would be lawsuit or a request for clarifying legislation. I have had a couple of Senators that have wanted us to jump directly to the lawsuit, but I hate spending money on Lawyers if it can be avoided.

cracked junior · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:24:39 AM »

I live in North Platte. I first noticed the signs in cody park on thursday. When the family went for ice cream at the concession stand. I took a picture on my phone and sent to several people I know who have chps. most replied whats that about and screw the park then. a few thought it was because of the softball fields and tennis courts and falling under sporting events. cody park is located in the north part of town. next to the north platte river. It has camping spots, pool, Frisbee golf, union pacific locomotive displays, softball fields, tennis courts, concession stands, covered picnic areas.

it is weird that its laminated paper or in plastic sleeve and zip tied to several posts around the park.

I have been meaning to post this but I don't get a lot of computer time. I search internet on my smart phone a lot. After seeing this thread i got on computer.

I have tried twice to post the picture but it keeps saying file is too large. Is there another way to post it? I can post to facebook easy enough.

RLMoeller · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:32:43 AM »

Zip tied? In a plastic sleeve? Sounds like vandals to me!

cracked junior · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:37:02 AM »

One more thing. A friend that I sent the picture too. Text me saturday night. He said in the shooting range newsletter. The north platte police are not going to enforce the ban. But I don't want to be a guinea pig on this.

OnTheFly · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:59:43 AM »

Quote from: cracked junior on June 04, 2012, 10:24:39 AM

I have tried twice to post the picture but it keeps saying file is too large. Is there another way to post it? I can post to facebook easy enough.

If you can upload them to an online photo storage website such as photobucket.com, you can just post a link to the picture in your post.

Fly

Dan W · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2012, 12:01:23 PM »

I am sorry but this free site just can not afford to buy the bandwidth to host huge pictures

OnTheFly · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2012, 12:52:45 PM »

Quote from: Dan W on June 04, 2012, 12:01:23 PM

I am sorry but this free site just can not afford to buy the bandwidth to host huge pictures

Does linking to pictures on Photobucket or the like cost us bandwidth?

Fly

Dan W · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2012, 02:25:27 PM »

Quote from: OnTheFly on June 04, 2012, 12:52:45 PM

Does linking to pictures on Photobucket or the like doesn't cost us bandwidth?

Fly

NO

but it does require limiting the attachments size

cracked junior · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2012, 04:22:32 PM »

NE Bull · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2012, 05:14:41 PM »

That's pretty classy right there.

bullit · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2012, 07:56:41 AM »

They are complying with the the law as tacky as it looks.....

Husker_Fan · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:06:43 AM »

Bullit,

It's not entirely clear that they are. Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(1)(a) says "entities" can post the property in their control. That probably included cities and towns originally, but Neb. Rev. Stat. 18-1703 was modified to prohibit the regulation of possession by a CHP holder.

"Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law...."

The question is whether or not 69-2441(1)(a) expressly gives cities and villages the authority to post public property. I don't think it does.

cracked junior · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:39:38 AM »

I thought of something. I know its crazy with me thinking. Are other cities going to see north platte posting and follow with posting their own parks?

JTH · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2012, 10:27:16 AM »

Quote from: cracked junior on June 05, 2012, 09:39:38 AM

I thought of something. I know its crazy with me thinking. Are other cities going to see north platte posting and follow with posting their own parks?

Many already do---including places like Plattsmouth (town a little south of Omaha). The question is, is it legal?

After all, the state preemption wording specifically says that cities and such cannot regulate the carry, possession, or purchase of firearms by CHP holders. Cities have said "but we can post places that we own!" and yet....that has been struck down elsewhere.

http://nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/washington-supreme-court-puts-an-end-to-gun-ban-in-seattle-parks.aspx

When taken to court: "In response, the city claimed the ban wasn’t a "law" or a criminal regulation, and that it was acting in its "proprietary capacity" as a property owner." ---and they LOST.

I'm thinking that "public lands" aren't exactly owned by the city, though they are administered by the city. And it'll probably take a lawsuit with some poor guinea pig to get posted city parks done away with.

Other discussions: http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio-supreme-court-case-strengthens-arkansas-preemption-law

Husker_Fan · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2012, 10:42:22 AM »

I read the Washington opinion and, while that's the result we want, the statutes are worded quite differently. I think there is a good chance that posting as a property owner is not something a city or village can do as applied to CHP holders. They can, however, still ban open carry.

What we need is a blanket preemption clause rather than just preemption for CHP holders.

bullit · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2012, 11:41:09 AM »

Husker_Fan... you raise an interesting perspective. Some examples I am familiar with...a few volunteer fire departements that post no carry. Ceresco village hall posts no carry... interesting, interesting.....

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #19 on:** June 07, 2012, 05:38:43 AM »

Quote from: cracked junior on June 04, 2012, 10:37:02 AM

One more thing. A friend that I sent the picture too. Text me saturday night. He said in the shooting range newsletter. The north platte police are not going to enforce the ban. But I don't want to be a guinea pig on this.

If you read the news letter from the prsc club, it stated the deputy cheif was awaiting a memo about 93.05. They are posting a state statute now.