General Categories > Laws and Legislation

My CHP appeal is heading to the NE Supreme Court

<< < (7/9) > >>

Husker_Fan:
It sounds like the opinion issued today and was not what the OP had hoped for.

ETA link to opinion:

http://supremecourt.ne.gov/sites/supremecourt.ne.gov/files/sc/opinions/s13-207.pdf

jFader:
Just saw this online....sounds more like we are in a 'may issue' than a 'shall issue' state...

Unrelated to this guys case, I've never been one to backdown...but reading the assult clause where the state can revoke your chp for any version of assult or attempted assult(apparently), I guess if a criminal wants to attack me with bare fists & I want to ever have a concealed weapon ever again....I better error on the side of caution & just let him beat me up....

Before anyone defends it with the "you always have the right to defend yourself".....I personally know people who have been convicted of assult when they were the initial victim...even worse yet, In high school I witnessed a classmate attacked by 2 other teens after school & he got the best of both of them....nothing excessive, just enough to save himself with about 100 witnesses in the school parking lot & he went to court & was convicted of 2nd degree assult.

Bull****....I say we replace these "feel good legislation" liberals that are in control of the judiciary committee with enough legislators to pass a better CHP as well as other bills in the future....


....I know, I make it sound so easy! I feel like I have to rant somewhere & you guys seem to be the most receptive!

barmandr:
The OP must have sensed the tide would turn against him...he hasn't been on the forum since August, 2013.

RedDot:
Without being too judgmental I would say the legal fees would have been better spent fighting the original conviction than trying to split hairs over the definition of "violent" in relation to a sexual crime.  Just sayin....

XDHusker:

--- Quote from: barmandr on January 17, 2014, 05:45:44 PM ---The OP must have sensed the tide would turn against him...he hasn't been on the forum since August, 2013.

--- End quote ---

Nope, not at all.  I've actually been very busy with my business and I haven't had a chance to keep up on my gun forums.  :(
For some reason I didn't get the forum update email so I didn't realize anyone had replied since the last time I was here.

I honestly thought the case was a 50/50 shot at best, but I thought it was worth a shot.  The law was ambiguous so this was a case of first impression.
I knew I wouldn't get any "emotional sympathy" from anyone but there was a genuine legal question that I wanted to know the answer to.
The weird part is that my crime is not a "crime of violence" from the standpoint of criminal law (state v. palmer test), but the supreme court has ruled that criminal law doesn't apply to the CCW statute.  Only the "intent" of the legislature applies.  That IMHO is pretty scary.

The part that I find interesting is if you were to read the transcripts from the initial state patrol hearing they specifically cited the criminal statue "state v. palmer" as their determination/test of a crime of violence.  They also said it was what they used when I called them before I applied.  Yet, when it gets to the supreme court they pretended as though the criminal case law didn't matter.  They then cite the evidence of my conviction, but the only evidence was the original police report which had a tremendous amount of false information including components that the witness admitted she lied about on the stand.  That's the big flaw with the case based denials if they're only going to use the arrest report.

I'm not sure if this helps or hurts the cause in Nebraska, but it does add some clarity to how the courts are going to interpret the statute.

I think there is one thing we can agree on though.  If I am going to commit a "future crime" with my weapon the fact that I have a CCW or not is going to change nothing.

Tony

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page