General Categories > Laws and Legislation
North Platte city parks and Ord. 93.05
cracked junior:
That is true. The bulletin is good. Some of the comments are hilarious.
Ronvandyn:
When I started reading this I was thinking the same thing as some others concerning State Statute 18-1703, which states:
“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, and shall not have the power to require registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act. Any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the act, except as expressly provided under state law, and any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation requiring the registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act.”
Pretty clear to me that a city or chartered village can’t tell us we can’t carry on city / citizen owned property without following proper protocol. Sounds like a good place to lay the foundation for state-wide removal of these signs on citizen owned property, which includes any city or village property.
Ron
Chuck Matson:
--- Quote from: Ronvandyn on June 23, 2012, 12:10:45 PM ---When I started reading this I was thinking the same thing as some others concerning State Statute 18-1703, which states:
“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, and shall not have the power to require registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act. Any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the act, except as expressly provided under state law, and any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation requiring the registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act.”
Pretty clear to me that a city or chartered village can’t tell us we can’t carry on city / citizen owned property without following proper protocol. Sounds like a good place to lay the foundation for state-wide removal of these signs on citizen owned property, which includes any city or village property.
Ron
--- End quote ---
Got them on record for not including the city council now because of knop interview. Get a chance, take a look. Its online at knoptv2 web site. Thanks for the support.
Chuck Matson:
Trying to get some Gals to come forward that have a permit. Think my ugly mug has scared enough Children and small pets.
Dan W:
I think the question here boils down to this.
Are city streets and sidewalks fundamentally different from a park, in that a political subdivision could ban valid CHP holders from carrying in one place, while at the same time being prevented from doing so in the other.
I think that these examples are fundamentally the same, and therefore a city can not ban legal concealed carry in a park any more than they can ban CCW with a valid permit on the sidewalks or streets or any other public areas that are not included in the list of banned places that the state law mandates.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version