General Categories > Carry Issues
open carry almost gone bad in lincoln
cckyle:
(3) A permitholder carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle or on his or her person while riding in or on a vehicle into or onto any parking area, which is open to the public, used by any location listed in subdivision (1)(a) of this section (Police, sheriff, or Nebraska State Patrol station or office; detention facility, prison, or jail;on and on) , does not violate this section if, prior to exiting the vehicle, the handgun is locked inside the glove box, trunk, or other compartment of the vehicle, a storage box securely attached to the vehicle, or, if the vehicle is a motorcycle, a hardened compartment securely attached to the motorcycle.
I don't get it? So are you guys saying that section three is not part of the law or only is applicable to certain places in 1a? I don't remember what the signs says at correctional facilities but I'm going by what the law says and to me the law says that if I am entering a public parking lot at a place where concealed carry is prohibited(places listed in 1a), as a CHP holder I can lock up my handgun in my vehicle before exiting the vehicle and be completely within my legal rights.
If the public can use the parking lot for visits, then to me it's a parking lot that is open to the public. Lets say you were parked in the parking lot at a correctional facility. You are a CHP holder and have locked up your handgun per 69-2441. They decide to search your vehicle you would say, I am a CHP holder, and I have a firearm in my vehicle locked up accordingly to 69-2441 section 3. Then they would say, ok, thanks for letting us know.
I understand the employer/employee aspect may be different in terms of employment, but not legal charges against you.
Am I missing something? I just don't understand why they put section 3 in there if it doesn't have an legal standing for CHP holders.
D.A.D.:
CCKyle,
In a sense, that is what I have been asking. And, using the example of the State Correctional facility, the property of my employer and Article (2), it seems that the controller of the property decides where the line is drawn beyond which a firearm can be carried. Article (3) offers reasonable relief on the property by drawing the line at the door, but Article (2)seems to provide discretion to be exercised by the controller of the property to draw the line at the property line. Premises include the buildings and the grounds, so the line can be legally drawn anywhere on the property.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not saying I agree, I'm not saying that is way it should be. What I'm saying is, that is the way it is being interpreted by some governmental (mostly) and private agencies.
But then, I would probably have the right to say that about my own property as well. And I think I should because it is my castle. What I say goes as long as it is legal. If I put up a "No Trespassing" or "No Hunting" sign, I expect people to obey it, or else. You would probably want the same authority over your property.
As an employee of the company I work for, I am not being afforded the right under Article (3) because they are (probably without knowing it) trying to trump it with Article (2). But I want to work on that.
Dan W:
--- Quote from: D.A.D. on August 06, 2012, 06:42:39 PM --- But then, I would probably have the right to say that about my own property as well. And I think I should because it is my castle. What I say goes as long as it is legal. If I put up a "No Trespassing" or "No Hunting" sign, I expect people to obey it, or else. You would probably want the same authority over your property.
--- End quote ---
Is your property open to the public? Does it have a public parking area? Those are limiters in the statute
Dan W:
--- Quote ---Article (3) offers reasonable relief on the property by drawing the line at the door, but Article (2)seems to provide discretion to be exercised by the controller of the property to draw the line at the property line.
--- End quote ---
I am not sure how many different ways I can state that article 3 is there to limit the scope of article 2 .
Most of the statements you are making are just supposition and have no real basis in fact, at least as far as the language of the statute reads your are just assuming that your employer has legal powers that are not supported by the evidence.
Of course, you are free to do as you wish, and free to limit yourself in ways the law in this instance does not.
The only other way to end this dispute is a test case in the courts
AAllen:
Dan, section 3 specifically refers to subsection 1a for where the exemption for carrying and storing in a vehicle, while posting places is mentioned in section 1a it is further discussed and elaborated upon in section 2 .
So there is a valid question if the posting talked about in section 1a is the same or something separate form that discussed in section 2. I agree with you that the posting in section 1a is the same as in section 2 with section 2 just giving further detail as to the posting needing to be conspicuous etc. But since section 3 does not mention section 2, there is a valid question of weather a posted lot is exempted or not.
Yes a test case would be one way to clarify but I think it would be a lot less expensive to simply clarify it in the way the law is written. With the parking lot bill coming back next year we should work to get that addressed there.
I see both sides of the discussion, and think that the interpretation being given by the majority here is correct or at least what was meant by those that wrote the statute. But I can also understand someone wanting to be cautious in how they would handle this situation, because I would not want to be the test case just like D.A.D does not wish to be.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version