I live in North Platte and was involved in the changing. in talking with my ward council member Dan Mcguire. who was one of no votes. He said that state statute 18-1703 has nothing to do with this issue. yeah he needs to go bye bye this election.
18-1703 states Ownership, possession, and transportation of concealed handguns; power of cities and villages; existing ordinance, permit, or regulation; null and void.
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.
I contacted Senator Christensen office on this. They replied that a city can post a park since they are the entity in control of the property. Also the attorney general Jon Bruning released an opinion. and in it he said a city can post parks but not streets or sidewalks.
copied section of opinion. 2 While not able to prohibit permitholders from carrying concealed handguns anywhere in the city, a city or village could still, under the next-to-last exception in § 69-2441(1)(a) of the act, prohibit permitholders from carrying concealed handguns in specific places or premises that it directly controls. For example, a city or village could ban concealed handguns in city-owned parks, buildings, recreation facilities, arenas, etc. The city or village would have to comply with the procedures outlined in § 69-2441(2) regarding the posting of notice.
We do not believe, however, that these posting provisions can be used by a city or village to prohibit permitholders from carrying concealed handguns anywhere within its borders. To allow cities and villages to use the posting provisions to ban permitholders from carrying concealed handguns on any public property (especially streets and other public ways) within their borders would seriously undermine the policy of the Legislature to allow permitholders to carry their concealed handguns “anywhere in Nebraska.” Also, the term “in control of the property” seems to suggest that it is a narrow exception which only applies to owners or lessees of distinct “properties” and not to a city or village, which may have some “control” over everything within its boundaries, but is the owner or lessee only of property it, as an entity, actually owns or leases. Therefore, it appears that cities and villages cannot utilize this provision to effectively ban permitholders from carrying concealed handguns everywhere within their boundaries.
link to full opinion.
http://www.ago.ne.gov/ag_opinion_view?oid=4133If your local city has posted areas. i suggest you get a group of people together and fight it locally like north platte did. you might even make new friends. i know i did.
