NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: TROYHAYS on June 07, 2015, 08:43:47 PM
-
I m new to this but i was just checking if any body knows if it legal to open carry in a city park ???
-
what city?
-
Unfortunately the city of Omaha bans all carry in their parks, concealed or open.
Can't wait for the preemption bill to pass next session.
-
If I don't see a sign, I carry :) Personally I'd advise against open carry in any situation because it just makes you the first target, but that's a whole nother beast
-
I don't know the cure administration's policy but the former city attorney in Omaha was of the opinion that even posting city parks could not prevent a CHP holder from carrying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I thought the state law was uniform across the whole state and prevented townships making their own laws?
-
I m new to this but i was just checking if any body knows if it legal to open carry in a city park ???
the city is Cozad , NE
-
Unfortunately the city of Omaha bans all carry in their parks, concealed or open.
Can't wait for the preemption bill to pass next session.
I thought the state law was uniform across the whole state and prevented townships making their own laws?
This was a battle in the legislature a few (couple?) years ago. I would have to look up the LB #, but H2O_King89 is correct. Unless that park is posted "No CC", then Omaha can not restrict concealed carry. Open is another story (in Omaha). Considering that they would have to post a "No CC" sign every six feet along the park perimeter, I highly doubt they would have luck enforcing this in a park. Now if the park has a fence all the way around and there are limited access points that could each be posted with "No CC" signage, then it would hold water.
ETA: @TROYHAYS...You will have to search Cozad ordinance to find out if open carry is allowed. Even if it is, expect to have a conversation with the local po-po after the first hoplophobe calls them regarding "man in park with gun".
Fly
-
Besides Omaha having limits other cities also have limits on carry, an example the City of Blair bans the open carry of loaded firearms everywhere in the city. To know about any given city you would need to read their local ordinances and possibly talk to an attorney. We really need LB289 to pass and end this patchwork of laws.
-
Besides Omaha having limits other cities also have limits on carry, an example the City of Blair bans the open carry of loaded firearms everywhere in the city. To know about any given city you would need to read their local ordinances and possibly talk to an attorney. We really need LB289 to pass and end this patchwork of laws.
Do you have a source for that info? That's news to me, for sure.
-
Unless that park is posted "No CC", then Omaha can not restrict concealed carry. Open is another story (in Omaha). Considering that they would have to post a "No CC" sign every six feet along the park perimeter, I highly doubt they would have luck enforcing this in a park. Now if the park has a fence all the way around and there are limited access points that could each be posted with "No CC" signage, then it would hold water.
They actually do have signs posted that include CC, unfortunately.
-
They actually do have signs posted that include CC, unfortunately.
Where are the signs? At sidewalk and driveway entrances? Is there a fence all the way around controlling how a person enters the park, or can they enter at a multitude of locations which do not have signage?
Fly
-
Where are the signs? At sidewalk and driveway entrances? Is there a fence all the way around controlling how a person enters the park, or can they enter at a multitude of locations which do not have signage?
Fly
Yes, sidewalk and driveway entrances, but no fences for most of them. Not happy about it at all.
I shall endeavor to acquire a picture of said signs.
-
Yes, sidewalk and driveway entrances, but no fences for most of them. Not happy about it at all.
I shall endeavor to acquire a picture of said signs.
How could that be enforceable? If you can enter the park without a sign in sight, then how could you be charged? I'm not expecting you, Mali, to come up with an answer. More of a rhetorical question.
Fly
-
My personal view is that the existing, limited preemption for CHP holders would prohibit a park ban by a city.
It would take a test case to find out for sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti12/ch1208.pdf (http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti12/ch1208.pdf)
12.08.200 Weapons Prohibited in Parks and Park Facilities.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or discharge, or cause to be discharged,
within any park or park facility, 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 or park facility, 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.
AND NO SIGNS. But if you want to be the test case have at it.
Link you might like to look at.
http://handgunlaw.us/documents/NECityLaws.pdf (http://handgunlaw.us/documents/NECityLaws.pdf)
-
12.08.200 is preempted for any valid CHP holder, and if there are no signs to meet state law requirements, then I will " keep calm and carry on"... And, yes I will be the test case if ever charged
-
Dan,
Can you please point me to the statute regarding that specifically under city or state.
Thanks.
-
The language is from LB430 passed in 2009...I am not certain of the statute it is found in anymore, but it is in the area limiting powers of cities
ETA statute is 18-1703
Nebraska Revised Statute 18-1703
18-1703. Ownership, possession, and transportation of concealed handguns; power of cities and villages; existing ordinance, permit, or regulation; null and void.
Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law, and shall not have the power to require registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act. Any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the act, except as expressly provided under state law, and any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation requiring the registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act.
Source
Laws 2009, LB430, § 5;
Laws 2010, LB817, § 2.
Cross References
Concealed Handgun Permit Act, see section 69-2427
-
AND NO SIGNS. But if you want to be the test case have at it.
This blanket city code no longer stands in regards to CC after the legislature passed the statute that Dan W is referring to. So in reference to CC, your point is like a cow's opinion, it doesn't matter (moot).
Fly
-
So, if I read that correctly, NE statute 18-1703 makes Omaha's signs in their parks that state concealed carry prohibited to be illegal. Is that correct?
I hate reading legaleez. It is just too hard to read and violates every rule I was ever punished for breaking with regard to commas.
-
So, if I read that correctly, NE statute 18-1703 makes Omaha's signs in their parks that state concealed carry prohibited to be illegal. Is that correct?
I hate reading legaleez. It is just too hard to read and violates every rule I was ever punished for breaking with regard to commas.
I believe that is Incorrect, it means that if posted at every entrance that a person can possibly enter the park then they have by law made it illegal to carry in that park. But if they have not posted the park and are trying to use a city ordinance or blanket law against conceal carry then we are covered under Dan's post to carry legally in that park.
-
This blanket city code no longer stands in regards to CC after the legislature passed the statute that Dan W is referring to. So in reference to CC, your point is like a cow's opinion, it doesn't matter (moot).
Fly
Actually you are wrong again as I did not post in response to CCW. As the OP asked about OPEN carry. Which is the ordinance I posted.
Also I asked Dan nicely to post the statute that repealed the ordinance as it applies to OPEN carry in Lincoln parks. Quit being a jerk for once.
-
It is legal to carry in all parks, concealed or in the open. The problem is, not all government entities obey the law, and it doesn't matter what the law says when those who have no respect for the law have the power to put you in jail. But the law is clear: the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and so-called gun free zones in public parks do not meet any realistic standard of a reasonable restriction on a Constitutional right.
-
Also I asked Dan nicely to post the statute that repealed the ordinance as it applies to OPEN carry in Lincoln parks. Quit being a jerk for once.
If you can carry legally concealed, you can carry openly and the preemption still applies if you have a valid CHP
-
Actually you are wrong again as I did not post in response to CCW
The ordinance cited does not speak to open or concealed carry, but rather to possession
-
I believe that is Incorrect, it means that if posted at every entrance that a person can possibly enter the park then they have by law made it illegal to carry in that park. But if they have not posted the park and are trying to use a city ordinance or blanket law against conceal carry then we are covered under Dan's post to carry legally in that park.
sparky is spot on. They would have to post at EVERY possible entrance to the park which would be nearly impossible unless there was a fence around the entire perimeter restricting how one could enter the park.
Fly
-
Also I asked Dan nicely to post the statute that repealed the ordinance as it applies to OPEN carry in Lincoln parks. Quit being a jerk for once.
My "cow's opinion" phrase was meant as humor using a Seinfeld reference. I am not aware that I have been "a jerk" on the forum to anyone, let alone you. In fact, I don't know that you and I have had much of any kind of exchange in the past. I have however read several posts where you get your feathers ruffled when someone doesn't agree with your opinion or interpretation. This seems to result in you firing back with a vitriol post instead of an argument implementing reason.
When you submitted your post regarding the Lincoln ordinance, the conversation had shifted to CHP and signage. By your statement "AND NO SIGNS. But if you want to be the test case have at it.", it is apparent that you were also referring to CC.
Fly
-
I don't often disagree with Sparky or OnTheFly, but I think posting city parks is "regulation" of possession. The preemption for CHP holders would therefore apply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't often disagree with Sparky or OnTheFly, but I think posting city parks is "regulation" of possession. The preemption for CHP holders would therefore apply.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think we are all in agreement. For CHP holders. the preemptive law that Dan W referenced disallows any city, town, etc. from establishing laws more restrictive on CHP holders than what is already in the state law. For example, it is already illegal for CHP holders to carry in an establishment that derives more than 50% of its revenue from alcohol sales (I know...a WHOLE other subject), so a city could not establish a more restrictive ordinance that says CHP holders can not carry in an establishment that sells ANY alcohol.
Using Lincoln's ban on firearms (possession, discharge, etc.) in city parks as an example. As a holder of a CHP, we can ignore this ordinance UNLESS the city could effectively post signs at controlled entrances to the park. This is the only way that the city can restrict CC at locations other than those which are already prohibited by state law.
So as you said Husker_Fan, the preemptive law supersedes a city ordinance, BUT the city/towns work around is to post "No CCW" signs, if that is possible given the property being posted. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Fly
-
We are not quite in the same page. The preemption applies to regulating possession. While an ordinance clearly does that, my position would be that posting parks like private property would regulate possession as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
We are not quite in the same page. The preemption applies to regulating possession. While an ordinance clearly does that, my position would be that posting parks like private property would regulate possession as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok...then I'm not understanding. I aint no genesis, so humor my questions. When you speak of "Preemption", are you referencing the same law that Dan W posted, or another law? Or are you using the correct interpretation of the 2A?
Fly
-
The statute. The concealed carry act allows those in control of a place to post it as not allowing carry. However, the law Dan posted was passed after that and, imho, restricts a city's ability to regulate possession by posting city property.
It's not clearly spelled out and some city may argue they can post city property.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The statute. The concealed carry act allows those in control of a place to post it as not allowing carry. However, the law Dan posted was passed after that and, imho, restricts a city's ability to regulate possession by posting city property.
It's not clearly spelled out and some city may argue they can post city property.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
statute is 18-1703
Quote (selected)
Nebraska Revised Statute 18-1703
18-1703. Ownership, possession, and transportation of concealed handguns; power of cities and villages; existing ordinance, permit, or regulation; null and void.
Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law, and shall not have the power to require registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act. Any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the act, except as expressly provided under state law, and any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation requiring the registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act.
Source
Laws 2009, LB430, § 5;
Laws 2010, LB817, § 2.
Cross References
Concealed Handgun Permit Act, see section 69-2427
I understand where you are coming from. However, my inclination is that the city will use the "except as expressly provided under state law" clause. You might be able to win that battle arguing your stance, but it would be an expensive and risky battle. I like your interpretation better than mine, but if I were a gambling man, I would have to bet against it being interpreted in favor of your position.
Fly
-
I agree it would be a risky fight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Do you have a source for that info? That's news to me, for sure.
City Ordinance Section 3 - 315 through 317 (http://mail.ci.blair.ne.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=69492&dbid=0, (http://mail.ci.blair.ne.us/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=69492&dbid=0,) I believe you need to scroll down to the exact ordinance).
315 - deals generally with long arms and B B guns
316 - deals with handguns
316.01 - persons under 21 banned from possessing a handgun
317 - creates an exception for long arms in parades and other ceremonies and some other lawful purposes.
It has been relayed to me that the Blair PD says they will ticket anyone that open carries a firearm, even if they have a CCW. My guess is they would also confiscate the firearm and it would be a fight to get it back.