Author Topic: North Platte city parks and Ord. 93.05 (Read 15349 times)

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #40 on:** June 17, 2012, 12:16:54 PM »

Quote from: cracked junior on June 17, 2012, 01:22:45 AM

Chuck, got your number in my phone. Are there any plans or ideas we need ahead of time? So we don't show up lost infront of the council.

Also, I have that look of the lost all the time! I call it my 10 yard stare in a 5 yard room look! I have mon-tues off. I`m available for a get together on either of those days. Give me a call. Thanks

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #41 on:** June 17, 2012, 12:22:10 PM »

Quote from: bkoenig on June 16, 2012, 07:02:23 AM

I live in Lincoln so I won't be there to support you guys, but I just wanted to say it sounds like you're doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the support! Chuck

cracked junior · « **Reply #42 on:** June 17, 2012, 11:10:30 PM »

I have printed off lb430, state statute 69-2441 as stated on the signs, north platte ord. 93.05 and the nebraska constitution statement of rights.

That way we have it in writing, instead of here say.

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #43 on:** June 17, 2012, 11:44:52 PM »

Quote from: cracked junior on June 17, 2012, 11:10:30 PM

I have printed off lb430, state statute 69-2441 as stated on the signs, north platte ord. 93.05 and the nebraska constitution statement of rights.

That way we have it in writing, instead of here say.

You wanna be the go to guy if the telegraph wants to talk to someone? We are organizing a group of 4 or 6 to start vetting future candidates for city offices also. Lots of things on the horizon so this kinda stuff doesn't happen so readily! Tell me if you want to get in on some of this. Will make sure you are involved all you want! Let me know

cracked junior · « **Reply #44 on:** June 18, 2012, 12:59:35 AM »

Never done that before. Problem is im afraid what i say will get printed wrong.

cracked junior · « **Reply #45 on:** June 18, 2012, 02:53:55 AM »

I got a email from my council member. Copy and paste his words.

"Unless the council agenda has been ammended since Friday agternoon, there will no vote on this issue Tuesday night. If the issue is not on the agenda, we cannot discuss or vote on it. LB 430 has nothing to do with your issue."

So hopefully it got amended or something.

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #46 on:** June 18, 2012, 08:58:16 PM »

No more posting on this subject from me till this is over. If anyone wishes to contact me, my text messaging via my phone number I have already put on this site is available. Or you can contact me at chuckmatson@msn.com . Don't mean to be rude. This has to be done. Thanks to all who are supporting this endeavor, Chuck

bullit · « **Reply #47 on:** June 19, 2012, 07:55:41 AM »

Reference state statute 18-1703 cities cannot regulate, etc, etc, etc. Pretty clear.....

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #48 on:** June 21, 2012, 09:14:17 PM »

Council meeting went well. Will let you know. Thanks

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #49 on:** June 21, 2012, 10:50:02 PM »

www.northplattebulletin.com By the way, mentioned the NFOA during both interviews. Guess I was ignored on that.

NE Bull · « **Reply #50 on:** June 22, 2012, 07:57:56 AM »

Did they really need to list these guy's addresses? that seems dangerous to me.
Otherwise, ya done a good job bringing this to light through all the proper channels.

sparky · « **Reply #51 on:** June 22, 2012, 08:06:40 AM »

I was thinking the same thing, full name and address. Where is the common sense?

cracked junior · « **Reply #52 on:** June 22, 2012, 03:04:16 PM »

The bulletin has no common sense. My neighbor wishes it would close.

Wesley D · « **Reply #53 on:** June 22, 2012, 03:42:55 PM »

Awesome grassroots activism guys!

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #54 on:** June 22, 2012, 04:12:45 PM »

Quote from: cracked junior on June 22, 2012, 03:04:16 PM

The bulletin has no common sense. My neighbor wishes it would close.

Actually they have treated us pretty fair.

cracked junior · « **Reply #55 on:** June 23, 2012, 01:05:43 AM »

That is true. The bulletin is good. Some of the comments are hilarious.

Ronvandyn · « **Reply #56 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

Chuck Matson · « **Reply #57 on:** June 23, 2012, 01:06:53 PM »

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

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 · « **Reply #58 on:** June 23, 2012, 01:12:56 PM »

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 · « **Reply #59 on:** June 23, 2012, 02:49:21 PM »

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.