General Categories > Carry Issues
open carry almost gone bad in lincoln
Dan W:
Andy, it also specifically states a permit holder " does not violate this section"... Not a violation of what, you ask? The entire "Section 69-2441" which includes subsections 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) 2, 3, 4 and 5.
So, In my opinion as a non lawyer, subsection 3 is referring to subsection 2 specifically, and was intentionally added to limit subsection 2.
There would be no other reason for the language in subsection 3 to exist
Not ambiguous at all to me
D.A.D.:
Gentleman,
I have a busy week ahead and will probably not make any more comments this week, but I have had a discussion with a top level management person who holds the understanding provided him by the attorney from whom he receives guidance in the posting of buildings, and it is their practice and policy that the typical sign designating a premise to be a non-carry premise also includes the parking lots to the property line. They use the exception provided by the word "unless" in the articles to nullify the ability a CHP holder is given in (1)(a) to possess, transport or securely store a firearm in a vehicle on the property.
The manager was a bit taken back when I told him that I knew his property had vehicles with firearms in them on a daily basis (and that I had done so on many occasions) because the absence of signs served as an indication that the parking lot was not a prohibited area.
I also noticed that the signs usually reference only the entire statute, but that may only be for convenience.
This manager intends to contact me the first of next week after discussing this issue with his attorney in further detail. It is my belief that this attorney would be willing to discuss the meaning of the entire statute (and indeed should make himself available to do so given the influence he has in Lincoln), but I think it would be best if DanW and AAllen (and or others of their choosing) be directly involved in the discussion. I think this should be discussed outside of this forum given the importance and level of impact this conversation might have.
I do know that there is a lot of confusion among people on both sides of this issue and it is my highest concern that someone who thinks he is in compliance with the statute is charged with being in violation and he has a permanent mark on his record because people don't understand what the law says.
I will attempt to contact either or both DanW and AAllen offline when I have more information. I can definitely see this having to go through a court setting in order to get it resolved. But, no, I am not volunteering to be the subject of the case.
I will be in touch as soon as I can. In the mean time, after learning what I learned today, be careful out there. I know that there are many parking lots accessible to the public that are thought by the managers of the lots to be clearly posted as not open to concealed carry storage in vehicles due to the signs on the building doors.
D.A.D.
OnTheFly:
Would this be something that could be referred to the state attorney for an interpretation?
Fly
Husker_Fan:
This isn't a question the AG would likely answer in an opinion, unless the question is submitted by a local prosecutor. That's just my gut impression.
Personally, I agree with Dan's reading of the statute. An example is Westwood plaza in Omaha, most, but not all, parking lot entrances are posted. I don't believe that impacts a permit holder who follows the storage requirements.
One thing to worry about, though, is that a city prosecutor could, at the urging of the property owner, pursue criminal trespass, but I would need to look into that. For an employee it is also a concern.
bullit:
Westwood is NOT in compliance with the CHP as the notice MUST be conspicuously (sp?) posted....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version