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
