My CHP appeal is heading to the NE Supreme Court

[depserv]

This is a case we should be following closely.  Politicians can do all kinds of groping and commit every perverted sexual act, aggressively, and still make laws that we all have to live by.  Was what you got convicted of worse than some of the things Bill Klinton did?  It looks like NSP bureaucrats are looking for excuses to deny 2nd Amendment rights to anyone they can.  As I have said before, this is the kind of thing that happens when a right is treated like a privilege.   

[DanClrk51]

If you are not incarcerated or on probation of some sort, you should be able to carry a weapon in any manner you deem necessary in order to protect yourself and others.
I hope you win your fight.

I agree 100%. Our legal system is pathetic in this regard (sexual assault). They write these laws so broad and vague that it can be applied to way too many situations where there is no inappropriate acts taking place and on top of that they put these people on a public hate list. It disgusts me as these people are branded for life and face threats, attacks, and public scrutiny for the rest of their life for doing NOTHING wrong.

[Z3R0]

Why would they consider someone who is already legally able to obtain a firearm, requesting to be able to legally carry said firearm.  I mean if it's a question of this man being a "criminal" and a "danger" to "innocent" people because of his access to a firearm, wouldn't it have made more sense to deny the ability to own one legally in the first place?  I mean if hes going to get into an argument and shoot someone who would be deemed "innocent" by a court therefore making it manslaughter at best, murder at worse, he'd already be breaking the law (obviously) so would he really give two ****s about "illegally" carrying a concealed firearm? 

Sense this does not make.

[sidearm1]

Listened to the discussion at the Supreme Court on this.  XD did you forget some words from the charge?

Very interesting discussion and arguments.

[NENick]

Listened to the discussion at the Supreme Court on this.  XD did you forget some words from the charge?

Very interesting discussion and arguments.

Would you be able to elaborate on that? I wasn't able to hear it.

[CitizenClark]

Would you be able to elaborate on that? I wasn't able to hear it.

http://supremecourt.ne.gov/9827/underwood-v-nebraska-state-patrol

The assistant AG seemed very poorly prepared.

[NENick]

The "of a child" doesn't rattle my cage very much. Treyvon was a little helpless child. Now if they wheel out a 7 year old...

[Neeco]

:redacted:

Good luck in your fight.  If you can purchase a weapon, you should be able to carry it.  Otherwise, there should be the strict laws on obtaining the purchase permit.

[unfy]

Any updates on this ?

[skydve76]

Been looking at this, here is a video version of the already posted audio.  Not sure where the trial starts there are like 6 cases in the video.

http://supremecourt.ne.gov/10098/video/sc/2013-11-06

[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]

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

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

[XDHusker]

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....

lol, true that.   I wish there were something I could do, but all avenues have been exhausted on that one.  A pardon is the only option at this point, but typically you have to wait 10 years to even apply.

[unfy]

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

I've fetched and will give this a further reading before posting opinions.  Might be a few days.  Hopefully not.

Given the result: sorry to hear XDHusker

[XDHusker]

I've fetched and will give this a further reading before posting opinions.  Might be a few days.  Hopefully not.

Given the result: sorry to hear XDHusker

Thanks

My not so expert legal take is that the real meat that everyone here should be concerned about is this part:

Section 69-2433 lists numerous convictions which serve to disqualify an applicant from receiving a concealed handgun permit. The obvious purpose of § 69-2433 is to prevent people with a demonstrated propensity to commit crimes, including crimes involving acts of violence, from carrying concealed weapons so as to minimize the risk of future gun violence. Regardless of which definition of attempt is applied, Underwood stands convicted of having attempted to commit third degree sexual assault of a child. An attempt to commit a crime is indicative of future behavior, and in the context of § 69-2433(5), we believe the attempt itself is an act of violence. Thus, Underwood has “been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of violence” under § 69-2433(5), as the district court so determined.

[jFader]

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

Absolutely! I think the law regarding gun ownership should have the same parameters as the law to carry concealed... I also think that shouldnt be as restrictive as it is, but that's another topic for another day.

[RedDot]

Feel bad for ya.  From reading the PDF the conviction seemed based on a sketchy testimony and an emotional verdict.

From reading the paper today you could surmise that if you carry a small amount of drugs along with your gun in any "future crime" the DA will make the gun charge disappear.  Although, the legal system's ability to predict indicator of "future crime" is no longer even laughable...it's nearly a crime in and of itself.