< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: AM835 to LB430  (Read 3979 times)

Offline Jesse T

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 499
  • XD Shooter
AM835 to LB430
« on: March 25, 2009, 12:59:37 PM »
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/AM/AM835.pdf

I like it, I think the bill has a better chance of passing with these changes.  It will not knock down any local gun registration or banned places, but CCW holders are exempt from any such laws.  Which (as I interpret it) means as long as I carry within the rules of the State CCW laws, I dont have to register my gun within omaha.  (YESSSS! I can actually go to omaha again!) They changed at the bottom of

69-2441(1)(a)or into or onto any other place or premises where handguns are prohibited by state law.

Instead of "any law or rule or regulation". This basically says state law ONLY, applies to CCW holders as long as they carry within the rules of the state Concealed Carry rules.

I am sad they took out the church thing, too. but still overall I think it is good. Reciprocity and statewide CCW uniformity, I like it.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 01:07:21 PM by Jesse T »
N0ZXR

Offline babayaga

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 4
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2009, 03:12:08 PM »
I wonder if Omaha will delete my registration records if this passes.   ::) :D

Offline schlumper

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 30
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2009, 03:35:26 PM »
It worries me that they changed the wording from firearms to concealed handguns. If Omaha really fights it, this may not get rid of their registration.  :(

Offline Jay

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Plattsmouth, NE
  • Posts: 871
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2009, 03:46:00 PM »
I need to read this a little closer tonight when I am at home.

Offline Jesse T

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 499
  • XD Shooter
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2009, 03:53:20 PM »
I can see omaha fighting it, but I think you might win in court over it. 
Below is the exact wording:

Cities and villages shall not have the power
to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a
concealed handgun as authorized under the Concealed 1 Handgun Permit
2 Act, except as expressly provided by state law, and any existing
3 ordinances, permits, or regulations regulating the ownership,
4 possession, or transportation of concealed handguns are declared
5 null and void.
N0ZXR

Offline babayaga

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 4
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2009, 05:20:07 PM »
I can see omaha fighting it, but I think you might win in court over it. 
Below is the exact wording:

except as expressly provided by state law, and any existing
3 ordinances, permits, or regulations regulating the ownership,
4 possession, or transportation of concealed handguns are declared
5 null and void.

I think that this might allow Omaha to keep its registration law.  "Concealable firearms" (or "handguns") is not the same as "concealed" firearms.  In other words, if you're just transporting a handgun --unconcealed, what then?

Offline Jesse T

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 499
  • XD Shooter
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2009, 05:37:38 PM »
I think that this might allow Omaha to keep its registration law.  "Concealable firearms" (or "handguns") is not the same as "concealed" firearms.  In other words, if you're just transporting a handgun --unconcealed, what then?

This bill/amendment would not affect you if you are not carrying within the realm of the CHP rules.  I see your point, it is kind of a catch 22.  I guess my boycott of omaha will continue! :P

Though I still argue that the point of this bill is not to fix all of omaha's stupid firearms laws, only to fix CCW law across the state.  So again if you got caught driving through omaha and you were carrying your legally concealed weapon on your person, concealed, you would win in court.  If you were carrying your concealable firearm on the seat next to you, the city would win.

That is kinda how i read it anyway.  This amendment only applies If you are carrying your weapon concealed with the permit.
N0ZXR

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2009, 08:05:22 PM »
This is something that we definitely need to get a clarification on from at least a few senators.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2009, 08:52:17 PM »
let's look at this closely.

What does the Omaha registration ordinance do?  It regulates the possession of a concealable firearm

What would LB430AM835 change?

Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun as authorized under the Concealed 1 Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law, and any existing ordinances, permits, or regulations regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of concealed handguns are declared  null and void


So, As I read it the Omaha ordinance will be void, BUT, what matters is what a judge says. And nobody knows how that will play out. Just look at how the State Constitution is ignored...

Section I-1 of the Nebraska Constitution:

I-1 Statement of rights. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

If a Judge would follow what that law says, the rest of this stuff is irelevant. Yet here we are arguing that an unconstitutional law be  struck down by yet another unconstitutional law... :-\
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 08:54:34 PM by Dan W »
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2009, 12:48:19 PM »
This is kind of long, but bear with me.  I wrote to Sen. Lautenbaugh(an Attorney) this morning about my concerns with AM835.  He was not in the office today and referred me to his legal council. The following is our conversation on the subject. 
I thought that the NFOA membership would be interested in an attorney's legal view(for what it's worth) of the wording and intent of AM835, especially pertaining to Omaha's ordinances. 

===========================
Senator Lautenbaugh,

I have a few questions for you.  I'd write to my Senator, Beau McCoy, but after no response to 4 emails I have sent to him since this session started, I have given up on expecting anything from him.  Very disappointing.


Anyway, concerning AM835, it says on the bottom of page 16 to page 17(bold emphasis is mine):

Sec. 5. Cities and villages shall not have the power
27 to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a
concealed handgun as authorized under the Concealed 1 Handgun Permit
2 Act, except as expressly provided by state law, and any existing
3 ordinances, permits, or regulations regulating the ownership,
4 possession, or transportation of concealed handguns are declared
5 null and void.


Then, from Omaha city ordinance codes:

Sec. 20-200.  Permit required for purchasing or renting firearm.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or rent a concealable firearm to any person who has not obtained a written permit from the chief of police as provided for in this article.
(Code 1980, ? 20-200)


  DIVISION 2.  FIREARM REGISTRATION

Sec. 20-251.  Required.
(a)   It shall be unlawful for any person to own, have possession of, or maintain control over any concealable firearm which has not been registered to said person with the chief of police in accordance with this division, except when such possession or control is with the knowledge and express consent of the person in whose name such concealable firearm is registered.
(b)   A corporation, including a body corporate created by Nebraska statute, may register a concealable firearm in its corporate name. However, the corporation may consent to a person possessing or controlling the corporation's registered concealable firearm only if that person:
(1)   Is a part-time or full-time employee of the corporation;
(2)   Is acting within the scope of his or her employment with the corporation; and,
(3)   Possesses a current identification card issued pursuant to section 20-208 upon satisfaction of the requirements of section 20-207.
(Code 1980, ? 20-251; Ord. No. 36045, ? 1, 9-24-02)


So, my questions for you are:
Can "concealed" equal "concealable" when it comes to AM835?
Will this amendment make Omaha's "permit" to purchase a concealable firearm null and void?
Does AM835 need to include the term "registration" to be effective?
Will a person that does not live in Omaha city limits have to register their handgun to carry it concealed in Omaha(as is currently required)?

The wording of this amendment seems to be geared only towards a handgun that is "concealed", not one that is "concealable".
If you could shed some light on this for myself and the other members of the NFOA, we would be very grateful.


Thanks for your time and attention,

Rick
===========================

Rick--

I'm out today, so I asked my Legis. aide to figure this out.  Also, Beau's a good guy, a good senator, and a reliable vote-- I know he'll be in touch to make this right.

===========================

Rick,

My name is Brent and I am Senator Lautenbaugh?s legal counsel.  He has asked me to review your questions.

First, the simplest legal analysis would be that concealable does not equal concealed.  BUT, that is not necessarily a fatal flaw, or cause for concern.  A ?concealable firearm? by very definition, would be a firearm that could be easily hidden upon one?s person without indication of it?s possession, quite simply: a handgun; as a rifle or other larger firearm would essentially be unconcealable on one?s person (under normal circumstances).

The amendment directly references ?handgun? which being a concealable firearm would allow the amendment to apply to Omaha?s law.

Second, Omaha?s permit to purchase (as well as permits to own) firearms would still be in effect.  430 and AM 835 only apply to how CCW permits are enforced.

Third, I may have misread the question, but I do not see why you would feel the need to include the term  ?registration? in the amendment.  You always have, and will continue to have, to register any guns you own (concealed carry or otherwise) in accordance with state and local laws.  LB 430 does not change that.  It deals strictly with the issue of CCW.

Finally, pending further research into the state statutes, and knowing LB 430?s intent to standardize CCW permits across the state, the intent of 430 and AM 835 can be clearly construed to pre-empt the requirement of Omaha registration.  Again, AM 835 states ?any existing ordinances, permits or regulations regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of concealed handguns are declared null and void? (emphasis mine).  Thus, on its face, LB430 (and AM835) would undo that Omaha requirement so long as the person carrying concealed is in compliance with the Concealed Handgun Permit Act (LB 430).

I hope this helped clarify some things.  It would be difficult for a judge in any hypothetical court challenge by the cities to read 430 differently than the interpretation stated.  It is clear in it?s intent and purpose.  If you have any further questions/clarifications, please let me know.

Brent Smoyer, JD
Legal Counsel
Rules Committee
Office of Senator Scott Lautenbaugh
State Capitol Room #1021
(402) 471-2618
bsmoyer@leg.ne.gov

============================

Brent,

Thanks for your reply.  My reference to "registration" is regarding the Omaha ordinances.  Omaha is the only city in Nebraska that has any "registration" requirement for any firearm(that I am aware of).  There is no state-wide registration requirement of firearms.

In the Omaha ordinance section 20-200, it is called a permit to purchase a handgun.  Then in section 20-251, this same procedure is called a handgun registration, thus my concern for the term "registration" not being included in AM835.
I would say that one of the purposes of Omaha's permit/registration IS "regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of concealed handguns", and as such should be declared null and void as prescribed in AM835.
If I understand this interpretation correctly from the way you are describing it, if a person had a Concealed Handgun Permit, that person would not need to follow the Omaha permit/registration for purchase or possession, but if they did not have a CHP, they would need to follow Omaha's permit/registration requirement.

I'm just trying to get this wording and intent clarified as it is a major sticking point for many CHP holders that live near Omaha, but not in the city limits.  We are unwilling to register our handguns and pay a $10 fee to a city that we do not live in.  We should not have to do so in order to protect ourselves as we can in the rest of the state.

Thanks for your help,

Rick

============================

In the simplest terms, if you live in Omaha?s city limits, you will be required to register any firearms you own, whether for CC or not.  If you live outside the city limits (and do not purchase your weapons within the city limits) then under AM 835 and LB 430 in general you should not have to have such registration.  The Omaha ordinance is recognized as having a primary purpose of regulating all firearms, and thus is not (according to intent and function) encompassed as regulation of concealed handguns because it merely touches on the subject, rather than directly addresses it.  Though essentially, again as long as you don?t live or buy your guns in Omaha, you should not have to be subject to Omaha?s ordinance if LB 430 passes.

-Brent

============================

Brent,

Thanks again for your help.  This bill does not go as far as I and many others would like, but I suppose it is better than the current mess.  I'm sure there will be more changes and amendments next week after some floor debate as well.
Can I get your permission to post this correspondence on our web-forum?

Rick

============================

No Problem Rick.  Glad to help.

Of course those of us who support gun rights know that 430 doesn?t go as far as we?d like, but it IS a start and gives standards to build upon.  Yes, there will be more amendments during floor debate, unfortunately, not all of them will be good.  I think it?s important to remain vigilant that any amendments that would degrade LB 430 are soundly defeated.  I know Senators Lautenbaugh, Christensen, Fulton, McCoy and others will all work hard to ensure LB 430 gets passed without being weakened.

Feel free to share this with your forum, and please remind your members to pay attention to the debate and contact their individual senators regarding any concerns they may have.

Take care,

-Brent

============================

I guess we'll see what happens next week.  Please write, email, and/or call your senators!
« Last Edit: March 27, 2009, 12:53:40 PM by FarmerRick »
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline Rich B

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Posts: 864
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2009, 07:06:20 PM »
*Awesome* work Rick!
NRA Life Member.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2009, 09:40:38 PM »
That is pretty much the way I see it. If you have a CHP, and reside outside the city, Omaha can not mess with you.

If this were not the case, we would have a real mess once Reciprocity goes into effect.

Kudos  to Rick for getting this information out
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline Wymore Wrangler

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 251
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2009, 10:42:01 PM »
Thanks for posting Farmer Rick...

Offline Burnsy87

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: Omaha, NE
  • Posts: 176
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2009, 11:23:26 AM »
Wow, thanks for all of that Rick.

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2009, 02:20:14 PM »
Remember guys, this is just one attorney's opinion.  Others may have a completely different view on this, some better and some worse.  I hope that part of AM835 gets a bit more well defined and little less ambiguous than as it is currently written. 
I believe that Sen. Council and others will do everything in their power to block this amendment, and the bill as a whole.  We're going to have one hell of a fight on our hands here. 

I'm willing to go the whole 12 rounds.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline Dan W

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Location: Lincoln NE
  • Posts: 8143
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2009, 06:49:46 PM »
As Andy A suggested in another thread, we should not only fight to pass LB430, we should fight to reverse the loss of preemption for all firearms owners, not just CHP holders. Push the envelope people
Dan W    NFOA Co Founder
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.   J. F. K.

Offline OnTheFly

  • Steel Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 2617
  • NFOA member #364
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2009, 04:47:07 PM »
Any word on what happened with LB430/AM835 today?  I would check myself if I were smart enough to know where/how to do it.  ;)

Fly
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Offline FarmerRick

  • NFOA Co-Founder
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Location: Valley, NE
  • Posts: 3250
  • Antagonist of liberals, anti-hunters & hoplophobes
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2009, 04:48:52 PM »
The only debated 2 bills today.  At this rate, I'd be surprised if they get to it by Friday.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Offline dbleess

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 4
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2009, 06:43:51 PM »
-ENGC

Offline Aldo

  • Ever vigilant. Ever ready. Ever willing. www.everreadyccw.com
  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
  • Posts: 411
    • EverReadyCCW
Re: AM835 to LB430
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2009, 07:32:29 PM »
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=6960
Great deal of movement today.
There's also good reading on another thread on this NFOA site about what transpired for the last couple of days:
http://nefirearm.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=24
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 07:33:28 PM by Aldo »
www.everreadyccw.com
"Always remember that you are Americans, and it is your birthright to dream great dreams in this sweet and blessed land, truly the greatest, freest, strongest nation on Earth." -- Ronald Reagan