Lincoln Chief of Police being anti CC

[Jesse T]

State law says anyone can put up a sign at their entrance and prohibit carry. 

[armed and humorous]

That is true, but I seriously doubt the city will put up signs.  We'll see, though.  Still, as I said, you could have a handgun in your vehicle as long as you locked it up when you left the parking lot.  Doesn't do you a whole lot of good, though, if you get mugged on the bike trail.

[FarmerRick]

Omaha has signs up on nearly all city-owned properties.

[AAllen]

Yes Omaha has put up some signs, but only at drive in enterances, all the walkways that enter the parks are unmarked...

[armed and humorous]

So, if you walk into a park, and there is no sign apparent, and you're carrying concealed, are you guilty of carrying on posted property?

[Jay]

The problem is there is no clear answer, which of course could be bad for you.

The law only states that a sign must be conspicuously posted. What is considered "conspicuously posted" is anyone's guess.

This is one of those cases that you could legitimately walk into a park believing you are doing nothing wrong, and end up in a situation of being guilty until proven innocent.

[armed and humorous]

That's the trouble with so many of our laws.  They are either so wordy with legalese that a layperson can't understand them, or they are so vague that no one can interpret them.  Even when the intent of the law is clear to a reasonable person, if it isn't written precisely enough, it can be difficult to enforce or to come up with a valid defense.  I once read about a case where someone was arrested for possession of a certain street drug.  When the case went to court, they were unable to convict him because when the law was written, they used the scientific name for the drug and misspelled it.  Therefore, there was actually no law against possessing the drug that he was arrested for having.

One good thing came from the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act (well, lots of good things, but):  the term concealed was actually defined.  Prior to that, it was pretty much up to the individual police officer, or judge, to decide if someone was carrying a concealed firearm.  To some extent, there is still some ambiguity, but at least we have a definition of some kind.  Basically, the law says that if any part of the gun is visible, it is not concealed.  That seems pretty cut and dried.  However, no matter where or how you carry your gun, it is probably not visible from every possible angle.  If you have it in an open holster on your right hip, and a cop is standing on your left side, it is not visible to him.  I know that seems like a pretty ridiculous example, but when it comes to judges, lawyers, cops, and juries, nothing is too ridiculous to conceive.

[OnTheFly]

I hope the city doesn't post the signs.  I've got a fanny pack all ready to go that has Velcro straps to hold my holster.  I'm especially interested in carrying my CCW while riding my bike after a young man who was in a passenger seat of a car told me "You better hope I never see you on the road again!".  He and his girlfriend were apparently upset that I was riding my bike on the street.  I usually stick to the bike paths, but the one that crosses Vine near the downtown UNL campus is still under construction, so I have no choice.

The young man would get out of the car at the stoplights and start to cross the road towards me.  I'm thinking to myself, "my legs are like jello, I don't have the strength to defend myself, and I can't outrun a car if they want to come after me, what the heck am I going to do?".  Thank goodness the guy decided to get back in the car and leave it at a verbal threat.

I got the license plate and told the police, so that they would have some connection if I ended up dead on the side of the road with tire marks down my back.

Fly

[armed and humorous]

Fly:

I used to ride a lot, too, so I know what it's like when you get some hothead in a 4,000 lb. vehicle who doesn't think you deserve any part of his road.  About all you can do sometimes is head somewhere an automobile can't get to and hope you lose 'em.  In town, it's not too hard, but in a rural area you better have an off road bike and some tall corn around.  If you do carry in order to protect yourself, you better hope there are witnesses and that the threat is real before you pull it out.  In any case, you probably won't have to shoot, unless the guy's drunk, stupid, or also armed.  Still, if you start brandishing your gun without a legitimate threat to your safety, you could be the one who ends up in jail.

[SBarry]

Jay,

It's not too hard to loose them on a motorcycle, but I think he was referring to a bicycle. Of course with one of these, a long stretch of road is all you need.




With you, all they would have to do is follow you till you broke down again. Better mount a holster on that beast. LOL

[Jay]

I think you got me confused with someone elses's post. You were itchin' to get a chance to slam the old Harley weren't ya? 

...and my bike doesn't break down THAT much, well....ok, you may be right.

That's a great pic of your beemer by the way. I'll stick to my old iron though.

OK, back on track with this thread!

[armed and humorous]

I think I saw that BMW broke down along side the road earlier today.  Or, maybe it just wasn't fast enough to get away from some hothead!  Just kidding.

And, yes, by all means, carry as a last resort!

[SBarry]

My baby was in the barn today. If you saw one, hey, they are bound to break down after 200k miles or so.

We need to get a bunch of republican minded people to register as democrats so they get voted in, but it may be hard to take that type of shame upon yourself. Too bad Lincoln and Omaha can't be absorbed by Iowa. Like I've said before, we need to redraw the state lines. The south border needs to be at the Oklahoma line and the east border could run up Highway 81, with a loop to the west side of Wichita. That would keep all the wackos in the east and hard working independant minded people could run the west state like it should be. I am sure a lot of west Kansas people would love that too.

[bkoenig]

Hey!  Lincoln's not all wackos!

There are at least a few of us with our heads screwed on straight.  And Senators Coash & Fulton from Lincoln are friends of the 2nd Amendment.  Too bad we can't say the same for McGill....

[armed and humorous]

I, too, often feel Lincoln is too liberal with all its university types around.  They don't call it liberal arts for nothing.  On the other hand, we seem to be less restrictive as far as guns go (or at least no more) than many other towns and cities around the state.  Some of that is changing due to 430, at least for permit holders.  But, we haven't really seen how that will play out yet either.

[wwhuskerman]

My baby was in the barn today. If you saw one, hey, they are bound to break down after 200k miles or so.

We need to get a bunch of republican minded people to register as democrats so they get voted in, but it may be hard to take that type of shame upon yourself. Too bad Lincoln and Omaha can't be absorbed by Iowa. Like I've said before, we need to redraw the state lines. The south border needs to be at the Oklahoma line and the east border could run up Highway 81, with a loop to the west side of Wichita. That would keep all the wackos in the east and hard working independant minded people could run the west state like it should be. I am sure a lot of west Kansas people would love that too.

Oh there's plenty of conservative people here in the eastern portion of the state. Problem is that the dominant media" in Nebraska is here too. The World-Herald sucks up to anyone in power (except Suttle 'cause he's too much, even for them), and right now, that's the Dems... and the tv stations are populated by journalism school graduates. Need I say more?

Of course, the World Herald isn't going to be around much longer. There are a lot of rumors that they're in severe financial trouble. Don't know about the Journal Star.

Oh, and just so I don't get accused of hijacking this thread... my perception of Casady is that he's a reasonable person, just doesn't like the loopholes in the current law. Of course, I would like to see him write on his blog as much about the REAL illegal gun problems, as he does about PERCEIVED/POTENTIAL problems with CHP holders.

[armed and humorous]

I'd say you nailed it pretty well, both regarding the conservative/liberal aspect of our state and on your perception of Casady.  By the way, the JournalStar isn't doing very well financially either (hee hee hee!).  This should probably go on another thread, but I was once selected as a guest columnist for them.  However, my first submission was regarding the concealed handgun act which was up in front of the legislature at the time.  I happened to be out of town for about a week when the dealine came for my submission so I sent it in an email.  They (LJS) chose not to publish it using the excuse that the bill had already been tabled for the current session (this was the year before it finally passed), and therefore all my arguments for it were moot.  Instead, I sent in a somewhat lackluster story about treating the flag with repsect, which they did print.  My next effort was in regard to Chief Casady and his handling of a case about a certain individual in Lincoln whom he felt the public needed to be warned about.  It seems the man had a string of fairly minor offenses for which he had either paid fines or spent his time in jail.  The Chief felt that this guy still posed a threat to the public and got an interview with the local television station to let the public know that this guy was a scum bag and not to be trusted.  Now, I didn't necessarily think Casady was wrong to do this.  However, I questioned whether it was wise, considering the possibility that the guy might get the ACLU on his side and sue the city for defamation of character.  My article simply explained both sides of the issue and was written as sort of a what-do-you-think type piece.  LJS wouldn't publish that one either, claiming that there was no point to the article.  When my next deadline came (I was offered the opportunity to do three articles), I just stiffed them without even giving them time to come up with something to fill the space.  They apparently have my computer blocked now from even offering comments to online articles or simple letters to the editor.  There's freedom of the press for you.

[wwhuskerman]

There's freedom of the press for you.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who benefit (and profit) most from the 1st Amendment are so fast to deny it to others who may disagree with their views.