Lincoln Chief of Police being anti CC

[OnTheFly]

Gary got his gun permit (05/21/2007)
Safety is job one (01/01/2008)
A hole in his bucket (01/03/2008)
Weapon type (10/29/2008)
Short fuse (04/08/2009)

Above are a few links to Tom Casady's blog.  These pages have some telling information about Chief Casady's opinion towards CC.  From what I've read in his blog, he does not list one specific statistic or incident which would help strengthen his anti CC stance.  His "Gary got his gun permit" blog only talks about who can get a CHP, but not about why he thinks people shouldn't be allowed to CC.  In fact, at one point he states...

?Although I am personally ambivalent about concealed carry, it no longer matters. It's a done deal by the Nebraska Legislature, and my job is to enforce the law as it exists.?...Source 11-05-2007

If he is ?ambivalent about concealed carry?, then why does he do things like show up at the Judiciary committee hearing on March 11, 2009 as an opponent to LB430?  To top it off, he is representing the ?City of Lincoln?.  How can he represent the city when he is a non-elected official expressing his own opinion?  Again, he seems to only be concerned with who can get a CHP, so why doesn't he work with the Nebraska Legislators and help improve that system instead of attacking CC in general?

In the "Weapons Type" blog above, Chief Casady said...

Glad you enjoy The Cheif's Corner. You really don't want me to blog about concealed carry permits, because if I did, I'd have to point out that exactly what I said would happen has indeed happened. A handful of permit holders have done some pretty stupid stuff--both with and without their pistols. It's a tiny percentage, though, just as I predicted.

So he almost breaks his own arm trying to pat himself on the back saying he was right, then states that the CHP holders who committed crimes were a "tiny" percentage.  Am I confused, or is he saying that he predicted a very small number of CHP holders would get into trouble, but it is not of great concern?  So why bring it up?

I think a better question to ask the Chief is, how many of these lawbreaking CHP holders committed a crime that was a direct result of having a CHP and could not have been committed without the permit?

Fly

[Jesse T]

He stated at the 430 hearing (which I and several member were at) that he was not against the entirety of 430, just against the portions that would cancel lincoln's firearms ordinances.  Specifically the no-carry-in-parks rules and the previous-offense rules.  The original wording of 430 would have struck these down for all firearms laws anywhere in the state.  The revised 430 clearly makes the rules invalid against concealed permit holders only. 

I am not here to defend or attack the chief, i think he just wants to do his job like we all do. I do agree that it is pretty clear that he has no desire for CCW to be here, but he has at least accepted that the state law allows it.  I have not heard of any cases where the Lincoln police have abused their power to prosecute a CCW holder for no reason.  All the cases I have heard of were indeed someone doing something idiotic with a gun. 

[wrenrj1]

Well stated Jesse T.  It's going to take a few years to evaluate any data whether CCW in Lincoln is an issue of concern, however I don't know that a system to collect any relevant data on CCW related incidents exists.  For both sides of the issue it would be a good thing IMHO.

[OnTheFly]

Maybe some data will be informative to determine if CC is really a concern.  The reason I formed the question...

"How many of these lawbreaking CHP holders committed a crime that was a direct result of having a CHP and could not have been committed without the permit?"

...is that we can't count certain crimes committed by these CHP holders against the CC system.  For example, if a person with a CHP were to walk into a gas station and commit a robery, their actions should not be counted against the CC system.  Any person could do the same thing.  Having a CHP would not contribute to or exacerbate the crime. 

The only incidents/accidents I can think of that should count against the CC program are things like NDs or brandishing.  If we had half the CHP holders shooting off their toes or the toes of someone else, then it would be reasonable to assume CC is a hazard to society.

What other situations do you think could be justifiably held against CC?

Fly

[bkoenig]

Casady saying he's ambivalent about CC is a lie.  He fought long and hard against allowing it in Lincoln but ultimately lost.

[Jesse T]

A CCW holder that commits any crime reflects badly upon all of us in my opinion. 

Other situations?
Someone carrying where it is prohibited
Anyone carrying a firearm while committing a felony even if that firearm isn't used
any kind of threat to a person while carrying a firearm (ex. road rage)

Of course these just my opinions I guess.  Hotheads should not carry guns!!!

[OnTheFly]

I agree with the hotheads comment.  No use for those people in our group.  I also agree that if a CHP holder does something stupid with a gun, then slap them silly.   However, how can "any" crime be held against the CC system?  For example...If we had 10% of the CHP holders cited for speeding, and assuming for this argument the non CHP holders cited for speeding was ~10% of the population, then how can that be held against the CC program?  It is a normal occurrence for the population and has nothing to do with the fact that the person had a CHP. 

I think you are concerned with the overall image of the group in the public eye and how the actions of some CHP holders could affect the rest of us.  If that's right, I agree with the attitude that we should hold each other to a higher standard.  I'm a professional pilot tasked with checking my peers and I would like to be proud of the group of pilots I work with.  In the same light, I want to be proud of ANY group I'm associated with.  Regardless, I think there is a fairly limited number of situations that the public could hold against us as a group.

Fly

[wrenrj1]

There's always going to be "bad apples" or those with CCW permits that violate the law.  Just like there are LE Officers that break the law as of which we've seen several instances recently here in our state. Those that oppose CCW will try to exploit these few people (on the CCW side) for their purpose against CCW.  It's important to show the whole story that regardless of what permits, certifications, responsibilities, licenses, etc. people receive that are in the "public trust" (my words) there will be people that will not live up to the standards of their responsibilities under the law.

[Wildgoose]

  Specifically the no-carry-in-parks rules and the previous-offense rules.  The original wording of 430 would have struck these down for all firearms laws anywhere in the state.  The revised 430 clearly makes the rules invalid against concealed permit holders only. 

I am afraid that I have a real problem with Lincolns "prior-offense" rules and am now confused as to how this new bill changes things. First, these "rules" are by and large all misdemeanors that if convicted of do not allow a citizen of Lincoln to even posses firearms in the city let alone carry one. How this can be is beyond me due to the fact that in the rest of the state and the US in general one must have commited a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor to loose the right to own firearms. This of couse is another issue ,thanks to the city council and the chief of police, but if I obtain a CHP does it then supercede these "exta" regulations in the case of my CHP firearm?  Can one who has one of these misdemeanors even get a CHP even though Lincoln is the only place in the state that this applies? What about people who do not live in Lincoln and obtian a CHP outside the city? On the face of things it would seem we have excatily what the law was intended to prevent, conflicting rules, here in Lincoln it now seems possible that I can carry a firearm that I cannot by Lincoln ordanances, if conviced of one of the several sepcial misdemeanors, not legaly own.   

[Dan W]

Wildgoose.

 I agree that LB430 should repeal Lincoln's possession restrictions for misdemeanor offenses.  I have commented frequently in the past  that Chief Casady had over stepped his bounds when he became a legislator, and wrote these ordinances, while at the same time was the advising the City council, in his capacity as Chief of Police, of the need for them.

LB430 clearly states that all ordinances concerning the ownership, possession, and  transport of concealed handguns, by persons with a valid concealed handgun permit, are null and void when the bill takes effect. (SEPT. 1, 2009 ?)

I expect that the Lincoln City Council will act responsibly, and remove the offending ordinances before that time comes, but with a majority of Democrats now seated, who knows what they might do

That does not mean I in any way condone  or support convicted criminals carrying concealed handguns, BUT, I do think that the crimes must be felonies before we let the government remove anyone's rights.

I would not be surprised to see an attempt to add the list of misdemeanors  Chief Casady deems serious enough to strip one's rights away added into State Law in the near future and he may be successful with a few of them.

I think a few of his examples might justifiably be made felonies, and if that is the case, and the law is statewide, there may be support for those changes

[Wildgoose]

Thanks for the reply Dan. Well put and I agree with you. As for the misdemeanors in question, if they were made felonies then I would have no problem with that. I truly feel that lowering the bar for the loss of ones constitutional rights is a very dangerious path to go down. At what point can one have his or her rights taken away for spitting on the sidewalk. On the other hand if these "misdemeanors" are of a grave enough concern then they should be felonies in the first place. At any rate I hope they are either upgraded or this issue is done away with all together. Otherwise we will wind up with a diffrent set of laws in Lincoln for those who have CHP's and those who do not. Hopefully LB430 will bring up this issue again with the city council at some point.

[iiranger]

Casady "advising the city council..."  !! Police chiefs, unlike sheriff's which have to be elected, police chief's are HIRED (by the city council, et al). What is needed is the political clout to oust the people who hired him. Think he would change his tune? Probably. If not, he can be replaced.

[bullit]

Problem is you will NEVER get rid of a Democratic majority or at least equivalency on the Lincoln City Council.  The citizens of this city are "out there man".

[armed and humorous]

First of all, I am unaware of any Lincoln ordinance prohibiting a person from carrying a firearm in a city park.  If anyone has documented evidence of this, I would like to know about it.

As far as Chief Casady goes, I think it is clear he would prefer that carrying concealed handguns had not been legalized.  However, his main objections are regarding what he calls loopholes, that allow certain individuals to obtain a permit who perhaps shouldn't be carrying guns at all.  I think he realizes, as we all do, that legally carrying concealed poses no danger to anyone but criminals out to do us harm.  He wants to keep guns out of the hands of those who are likely to do stupid, or illegal things with them, thereby causing harm to citizens or his officers.  I certainly don't agree with all of the things he considers indicators of this likelihood, but some of them are probably not unreasonable.  Still, like some of you have commented, I think the way to go about it is to have these offenses considered as felonies rather than create a separate list of misdemeanor offenses that would deny a CHP or even the right to possess or carry a gun.

I'm not supporting his stance or methods, just the fact that he is a man of his word, he deserves to have his own opinion, and he's not the anti-gun zealot that some of you are making him out to be.

[Dan W]

http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti12/ch1208.pdf

12.08.200 Weapons Prohibited in Parks.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or discharge, or cause to be discharged,
within any park, any firearm, including, but not limited to, any pistol, revolver, shotgun, or rifle.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or discharge, or cause to be discharged,
within any park, any air rifle, bow and arrow, crossbow, toy pistol, toy gun, slingshot, or any other
air, gas, manually operated or spring operated gun, weapon, apparatus, or instrument designed or
intended to be used for the purpose of throwing or projecting missiles of any kind by any means
whatsoever, whether the instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department
may designate areas in certain parks and park facilities to allow various organized programs to
engage in the activities described herein.
(d) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to duly
authorized Parks and Recreation Department employees or law enforcement officers acting in the
course of their duty. (Ord. 17365 ?1; June 29, 1998: P.C. ? 12.08.120: Ord. 12600 ? 1; June 25,
1979: Ord. 10868 ? 1; July 23, 1973: Ord. 3489 ? 30-112, as amended by Ord. 5775; July 12, 1954).

[OnTheFly]

Edit: Dang! Dan W. beat me to it. 

Here it is...

City Ordinance, Title 12- Parks, Chapter 12.08, GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

The text is below.  Emphasis added.

12.08.200 Weapons Prohibited in Parks.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or discharge, or cause to be discharged,
within any park, any firearm, including, but not limited to, any pistol, revolver, shotgun, or rifle.

Fly

[Dan W]

LB 430 would have ended this for CHP holders, but the City of Lincoln will just post the parks with signage that would prevent legal concealed carry.

[armed and humorous]

Thnaks for that info, Dan.  I guess it was wrong for me to try and look it up under the "weapons" section of the code.  That's the first time I've ever known anything about carrying firearms in our parks being illegal.  I don't think Casady has ever even mentioned it.  I would imagine that even that law would not apply to a CHP holder once 430 becomes effective.

I was actually charged once, many years ago, for discharging a firearm in a city park.  I was not even aware I was in a park at the time.  It was along the creek through Wilderness Park which was not a park when I left Lincoln for a stint in the navy.  Apparently, it was by the time I got back and decide to go out plinking with my brother to an area we had frequently gone years earlier.  I assumed we were actually being charged with discharging firearms within the city limits and not specifically because we were in a park.  Obviously, we were also in possession of firearms, too (each with a revolver and a rifle).  Not only that, but we each had our dogs with us running loose (also against the law).  My dog, which had been playing in the muddy creek, also managed to jump into the front seat of the park police officer's car and shake off the muddy water all over the interior.  The officer himself, took it rather well, and actually seemed to regret having to cite us once we explained we had both been in the service for four years and were not aware we were in a park.  On our day in court, most of the others there were charged with allowing their dogs to run loose in a city park, a charge we were not cited for.  All in all, I think it only cost us about $40 a piece, and we got all our guns back once the fines were paid.  Good thing that was over ten years ago, or I wouldn't have been able to get my CHP.

I guess from now on, I'll have to pay a little more attention to what I'm carrying if I pass through the park.  Come to think of it, I was just out walking my dog (on a leash) and walked all through Antelope Park carrying my .45.  I was on the sidewalk along the street, so maybe I would have been okay there anyway.

[OnTheFly]

I would imagine that even that law would not apply to a CHP holder once 430 becomes effective.

As Dan said, if the city finds a legitimate way to post the "No Weapons" signs in/around the park, then it will make CC illegal.  Regardless of 430.

Fly

[wwhuskerman]

I would imagine that even that law would not apply to a CHP holder once 430 becomes effective.

As Dan said, if the city finds a legitimate way to post the "No Weapons" signs in/around the park, then it will make CC illegal.  Regardless of 430.

Fly

But isn't that the point of 430...?... that the cities and counties can't have ordinances that differ from the State? If there's no variation allowed from State law, then there is no legitimate way to ban conceal carry in parks, is there?