NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: Aldo on February 13, 2010, 08:22:59 AM
-
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/84274247.html (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/84274247.html)
Yes, it is all the way up in the Pac West area, but it is great to see a pro-gun ruling nonetheless in another major city: a judge ruled that Seattle's gun ban is illegal. 8)
-
If this is the case in Seattle couldn't the NRA file a lawsuit here in Omaha per LB 430 regarding Omaha's ban of concealed carry in City Parks?
-
I think LB430 took care of that. Lincoln had a similar law in city parks, but LB430 made it null and void. Or is the mayor trying to be sneaky?
Fly
-
DanClrk51 - in September of last year I requested clarification from the Omaha prosecutor - this was his response:
-=-=-=-=QUOTE-=-=-=-=-
Because the park restriction ordinance regulates the 'ownership, possession, or transportation' of the concealable firearm, it is voided as to permit holders. Note, however, the language of Sec. 69-2441(1)(a) which limits the applicability of the permit. There is language about the permit being restricted in certain areas, including those "where handguns are prohibited by law'. This seems inconsistent with the new language of LB 430. My advice would be that no one should be ticketed or restricted in the city parks, and if the officer feels the park is restricted under this state law, then the warning under section (2) of 69-2441 should be given. If the person would not comply, the most they could be cited for would be refusing to leave as ordered under Sec. 20-155 of the city code. I don't know how a court would resolve this inconsistent language, but I do know that the person should not be cited under the void city ordinance, which no longer applies to permit holders.
-=-=-=-=-=UNQUOTE=-=-=-=-=
Make of it what you will. Some park are posted, some are not. Some are posted inconsistantly.
/rl