General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Sen. Ashford's Gun Legislation
Jay:
Folks, this just went from bad to worse. We ALL need to take action NOW. I don't care if you're busy. I don't care if you have lunch plans, I don't care if your favorite show is on tonight, I don't care. Stop what you are doing and start writing and/or calling your representatives. Contact dip**** Ashford and all the other mush for brains senators that advanced this bill. People, I can't say it any clearer, THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS. Maybe not all in one fell swoop, but they want them ALL. If you are reading this post, then you should be sending a letter or making a phone call, or both.
Measure targeting assault weapons sent to the floor
BY LESLIE REED
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN - A heavily rewritten gun-control bill takes aim at assault weapons and, if approved by the Legislature, could lead to the banning of certain firearms in Nebraska.
As amended by the Judiciary Committee, Legislative Bill 958 would create a seven-member law enforcement commission to develop a list of guns deemed "inherently dangerous."
The Legislature would vote on whether to ban the weapons for sale or resale in Nebraska. The commission would be required to update the list every two years.
The committee sent the amended bill to the full Legislature on a 6-0 vote Wednesday.
All of the bill's original provisions were stripped out. Those provisions required that all guns be sold with a gun lock or trigger lock, that the loss or theft of a gun be reported to authorities within 48 hours and that people convicted of gun felonies go to prison for at least five years.
State Sen. Brad Ashford, sponsor of the bill and amendment, said he decided this week that the original provisions would do little to prevent another incident like the Von Maur shootings at Omaha's Westroads Mall.
After briefly considering requiring permits to purchase any firearm, whether handgun or long gun, he decided to focus on what he called "military-style" weapons.
"The assault weapons are the problem," he said. "There are some guns that are so inherently dangerous - they have no purpose for hunting. Those are the weapons we need to consider taking off the street."
A representative of the National Rifle Association expressed concern about the amended bill.
"If they want to systematically take away guns every two years, that sounds terrible," said Jordan Austin, government liaison for the group.
Eight people were killed in December at the Von Maur department store by a disturbed 19-year-old man armed with a semiautomatic rifle. The shooter killed himself.
Ashford proposes a governor-appointed commission of representatives from the State Patrol, the City of Omaha and a city other than Omaha; the governor, the attorney general and the Judiciary Committee chairman or their designees; and a firearms retailer.
The panel would define assault weapons, using criteria specified in the bill, and identify a list of weapons that meet those characteristics to be presented to the Legislature.
Ashford said it's possible that the commission would recommend that no guns be banned, but the approach would give law enforcement and other weapons professionals an opportunity to "take a crack at the issue."
"Nebraska has many avid hunters and sportsmen," the Omaha lawmaker said. "We have the expertise and knowledge to set these kinds of standards, and we should set the standards."
The bill describes the general characteristics of an assault weapon this way:
? A semiautomatic center-fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, with any one of the following: a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the weapon's action; a thumbhole stock; a folding or telescoping stock; a grenade launcher or flare launcher; a flash suppressor; or a forward pistol grip.
? A semiautomatic center-fire rifle with a fixed magazine with capacity for more than 10 rounds.
? A semiautomatic center-fire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
Antique or collectible weapons with their firing pins removed would not be considered assault weapons.
Austin objected to these definitions, saying "assault weapon" is a scare-tactic term that has little real meaning.
He said a semiautomatic rifle is no different from a semiautomatic handgun; both fire one bullet for each trigger pull.
The rifle, however, has cosmetic features to make it seem more dangerous, Austin said.
"If they can justify taking away the long gun, they can justify taking away the short gun," he said.
Voting with Ashford to advance the bill were Sens. DiAnna Schimek and Amanda McGill, both of Lincoln, Vickie McDonald of St. Paul, and Ernie Chambers and Steve Lathrop, both of Omaha. Sens. Dwite Pedersen and Pete Pirsch, both of Omaha, abstained.
Jay:
A much as I want to, I can not take any time off of work today, but I can make some free time tonight. If there is anyone that can take the time to start putting together the wording for a one page flyer briefly explaining to people why an "assault" rifle is not what they think it is and what Ashford is trying to do and why they need to get involved etc etc, I will donate the paper and the ink and whatever time it takes to add to it and will print off as many copies as I can and spend as many hours as I can spreading these things everywhere I can think of. I don't know if it will do any good, but I'll stick a flyer in every bar, restraunt, convenience store, and every public display board I can find, and will hit as many parking lots and side streets as I can sticking them on windshields.
Is there anyone that will help me with this?
1hickey:
Well, I wrote to whoever was appropriate in this matter. I stopped just short of calling Ashford a pinko commie and threatening civil war. I truly hope that common sense prevails in this situation. Everyone MUST take action in this situation!
1hickey:
If this keeps up, I am deathly afraid that my government will end up on the business end of my duty as a soldier to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic". No matter how much arguing goes on, the Constitution still states that the rights of the individual shall not be infringed. The second amendment is not just describing the National Guard or the Army.
JimP:
Senator Pankonin,
Senator Ashford's lb958 fails the most basic test for any law: it does not
solve any of the problems it is supposed to. Sen. Ashford came up with this
bill "in response to the von Maur tragedy". NOTHING in this bill will prevent a
determined homicidal nut from getting ahold of any weaponry he wants, if he
wants it bad enough. The proposed ban on "assault weapons" would not work, as
MARIJAUNA IS BANNED, yet nut that committed the von Maur atrocity used it
regularly. Had the gun he used had a trigger lock on it, a pair of vice grips,
a drill and 10 minutes would have defeated that. I, myself, have most of my
guns locked in a gunsafe, but given 30 minutes and an angle grinder, a thief
could clean that out.
This bill is an emotionally driven attempt "to do something" in the wake of von
Maur. Senator Ashford admitted as much at the judiciary hearing I attended
recently, when he asked "Are we supposed to do NOTHING?" So we adopt this law,
and when it happens again, we make the law stricter, ignoring the fact that
nuts and criminals IGNORE THE LAW, however strict or lenient it may be?
My answer is this: These nutcases target places that they KNOW that they will
be the only ones with a gun. They don't shoot up court houses, or police
stations. They go to places like Churches and Shopping malls. Eliminate the gun
free zones (all of them at once) or make places that do not allow the licensed
CHP holders to defend themselves assume liability for those they require to be
disarmed. Look at it logically: There will always be nuts. You cannot prevent
them from getting a weapon. What you can do is put some doubt in their mind
that they will be able to kill innocent people until they get tired of doing
so. My answer would not be popular with the Judiciary Comittee, as it expands
individual liberty instead of the State's power.
Gun control has never been about guns. It is about control. I have serious
doubts that thousands of gun owners in Nebraska will stand for some Blue Ribbon
Panel in Lincoln telling them which guns they can have in their closet, gun
cabinet, or safe. I also doubt that such a panel would pass Constitutional
muster (Art. I-1, in particular.)
Sincerely,
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You know, England's wonderful gun laws began with a ban on military style semi-automatic rifles, after a mass shooting (Hungerford). Gun owners of other types of guns were assured that THEIR guns were safe. Then handguns were banned (after the Dublane Massacre). "Your hunting guns are safe." Then repeating shotguns were dis-allowed. Then storage regulations were tightened. More regulations and red tape added, until as it stands today, there are virtually no law abiding gun owners left.
Tell your gun owning friends, whether or not they have or even LIKE AK-47s, that this gun control measure is NOT about guns. It is about CONTROL. Once they have "assault weapons", they won't rest. Next will be some other subset of firearms owners...... a piece at a time until we have NOTHING. Have you written/e-mailed your Senator? Have you called 2 friends to get them to do the same? Why are you still reading this? GET CRACKIN'!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version