NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => General Firearm Discussion => Topic started by: OnTheFly on May 20, 2009, 11:46:36 AM
-
Gary got his gun permit (05/21/2007) (http://lpd304.blogspot.com/2007/05/gary-got-his-gun-permit.html?showComment=1179881400000)
Safety is job one (01/01/2008) (http://lpd304.blogspot.com/2008/01/safety-is-job-one.html)
A hole in his bucket (01/03/2008) (http://lpd304.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html)
Weapon type (10/29/2008) (http://lpd304.blogspot.com/2008/10/weapon-type.html?showComment=1225462500000)
Short fuse (04/08/2009) (http://lpd304.blogspot.com/2009/04/short-fuse.html)
Above are a few links to Tom Casady's blog. These pages have some telling information about Chief Casady's opinion towards CC. From what I've read in his blog, he does not list one specific statistic or incident which would help strengthen his anti CC stance. His "Gary got his gun permit" blog only talks about who can get a CHP, but not about why he thinks people shouldn't be allowed to CC. In fact, at one point he states...
?Although I am personally ambivalent about concealed carry, it no longer matters. It's a done deal by the Nebraska Legislature, and my job is to enforce the law as it exists.?...Source 11-05-2007
If he is ?ambivalent about concealed carry?, then why does he do things like show up at the Judiciary committee hearing on March 11, 2009 as an opponent to LB430? To top it off, he is representing the ?City of Lincoln?. How can he represent the city when he is a non-elected official expressing his own opinion? Again, he seems to only be concerned with who can get a CHP, so why doesn't he work with the Nebraska Legislators and help improve that system instead of attacking CC in general?
In the "Weapons Type" blog above, Chief Casady said...
Glad you enjoy The Cheif's Corner. You really don't want me to blog about concealed carry permits, because if I did, I'd have to point out that exactly what I said would happen has indeed happened. A handful of permit holders have done some pretty stupid stuff--both with and without their pistols. It's a tiny percentage, though, just as I predicted.
So he almost breaks his own arm trying to pat himself on the back saying he was right, then states that the CHP holders who committed crimes were a "tiny" percentage. Am I confused, or is he saying that he predicted a very small number of CHP holders would get into trouble, but it is not of great concern? So why bring it up?
I think a better question to ask the Chief is, how many of these lawbreaking CHP holders committed a crime that was a direct result of having a CHP and could not have been committed without the permit?
Fly
-
He stated at the 430 hearing (which I and several member were at) that he was not against the entirety of 430, just against the portions that would cancel lincoln's firearms ordinances. Specifically the no-carry-in-parks rules and the previous-offense rules. The original wording of 430 would have struck these down for all firearms laws anywhere in the state. The revised 430 clearly makes the rules invalid against concealed permit holders only.
I am not here to defend or attack the chief, i think he just wants to do his job like we all do. I do agree that it is pretty clear that he has no desire for CCW to be here, but he has at least accepted that the state law allows it. I have not heard of any cases where the Lincoln police have abused their power to prosecute a CCW holder for no reason. All the cases I have heard of were indeed someone doing something idiotic with a gun.
-
Well stated Jesse T. It's going to take a few years to evaluate any data whether CCW in Lincoln is an issue of concern, however I don't know that a system to collect any relevant data on CCW related incidents exists. For both sides of the issue it would be a good thing IMHO.
-
Maybe some data will be informative to determine if CC is really a concern. The reason I formed the question...
"How many of these lawbreaking CHP holders committed a crime that was a direct result of having a CHP and could not have been committed without the permit?"
...is that we can't count certain crimes committed by these CHP holders against the CC system. For example, if a person with a CHP were to walk into a gas station and commit a robery, their actions should not be counted against the CC system. Any person could do the same thing. Having a CHP would not contribute to or exacerbate the crime.
The only incidents/accidents I can think of that should count against the CC program are things like NDs or brandishing. If we had half the CHP holders shooting off their toes or the toes of someone else, then it would be reasonable to assume CC is a hazard to society.
What other situations do you think could be justifiably held against CC?
Fly
-
Casady saying he's ambivalent about CC is a lie. He fought long and hard against allowing it in Lincoln but ultimately lost.
-
A CCW holder that commits any crime reflects badly upon all of us in my opinion.
Other situations?
Someone carrying where it is prohibited
Anyone carrying a firearm while committing a felony even if that firearm isn't used
any kind of threat to a person while carrying a firearm (ex. road rage)
Of course these just my opinions I guess. Hotheads should not carry guns!!!
-
I agree with the hotheads comment. No use for those people in our group. I also agree that if a CHP holder does something stupid with a gun, then slap them silly. However, how can "any" crime be held against the CC system? For example...If we had 10% of the CHP holders cited for speeding, and assuming for this argument the non CHP holders cited for speeding was ~10% of the population, then how can that be held against the CC program? It is a normal occurrence for the population and has nothing to do with the fact that the person had a CHP.
I think you are concerned with the overall image of the group in the public eye and how the actions of some CHP holders could affect the rest of us. If that's right, I agree with the attitude that we should hold each other to a higher standard. I'm a professional pilot tasked with checking my peers and I would like to be proud of the group of pilots I work with. In the same light, I want to be proud of ANY group I'm associated with. Regardless, I think there is a fairly limited number of situations that the public could hold against us as a group.
Fly
-
There's always going to be "bad apples" or those with CCW permits that violate the law. Just like there are LE Officers that break the law as of which we've seen several instances recently here in our state. Those that oppose CCW will try to exploit these few people (on the CCW side) for their purpose against CCW. It's important to show the whole story that regardless of what permits, certifications, responsibilities, licenses, etc. people receive that are in the "public trust" (my words) there will be people that will not live up to the standards of their responsibilities under the law.
-
Specifically the no-carry-in-parks rules and the previous-offense rules. The original wording of 430 would have struck these down for all firearms laws anywhere in the state. The revised 430 clearly makes the rules invalid against concealed permit holders only.
I am afraid that I have a real problem with Lincolns "prior-offense" rules and am now confused as to how this new bill changes things. First, these "rules" are by and large all misdemeanors that if convicted of do not allow a citizen of Lincoln to even posses firearms in the city let alone carry one. How this can be is beyond me due to the fact that in the rest of the state and the US in general one must have commited a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor to loose the right to own firearms. This of couse is another issue ,thanks to the city council and the chief of police, but if I obtain a CHP does it then supercede these "exta" regulations in the case of my CHP firearm? Can one who has one of these misdemeanors even get a CHP even though Lincoln is the only place in the state that this applies? What about people who do not live in Lincoln and obtian a CHP outside the city? On the face of things it would seem we have excatily what the law was intended to prevent, conflicting rules, here in Lincoln it now seems possible that I can carry a firearm that I cannot by Lincoln ordanances, if conviced of one of the several sepcial misdemeanors, not legaly own.
-
Wildgoose.
I agree that LB430 should repeal Lincoln's possession restrictions for misdemeanor offenses. I have commented frequently in the past that Chief Casady had over stepped his bounds when he became a legislator, and wrote these ordinances, while at the same time was the advising the City council, in his capacity as Chief of Police, of the need for them.
LB430 clearly states that all ordinances concerning the ownership, possession, and transport of concealed handguns, by persons with a valid concealed handgun permit, are null and void when the bill takes effect. (SEPT. 1, 2009 ?)
I expect that the Lincoln City Council will act responsibly, and remove the offending ordinances before that time comes, but with a majority of Democrats now seated, who knows what they might do
That does not mean I in any way condone or support convicted criminals carrying concealed handguns, BUT, I do think that the crimes must be felonies before we let the government remove anyone's rights.
I would not be surprised to see an attempt to add the list of misdemeanors Chief Casady deems serious enough to strip one's rights away added into State Law in the near future and he may be successful with a few of them.
I think a few of his examples might justifiably be made felonies, and if that is the case, and the law is statewide, there may be support for those changes
-
Thanks for the reply Dan. Well put and I agree with you. As for the misdemeanors in question, if they were made felonies then I would have no problem with that. I truly feel that lowering the bar for the loss of ones constitutional rights is a very dangerious path to go down. At what point can one have his or her rights taken away for spitting on the sidewalk. On the other hand if these "misdemeanors" are of a grave enough concern then they should be felonies in the first place. At any rate I hope they are either upgraded or this issue is done away with all together. Otherwise we will wind up with a diffrent set of laws in Lincoln for those who have CHP's and those who do not. Hopefully LB430 will bring up this issue again with the city council at some point.
-
Casady "advising the city council..." !! Police chiefs, unlike sheriff's which have to be elected, police chief's are HIRED (by the city council, et al). What is needed is the political clout to oust the people who hired him. Think he would change his tune? Probably. If not, he can be replaced.
-
Problem is you will NEVER get rid of a Democratic majority or at least equivalency on the Lincoln City Council. The citizens of this city are "out there man".
-
First of all, I am unaware of any Lincoln ordinance prohibiting a person from carrying a firearm in a city park. If anyone has documented evidence of this, I would like to know about it.
As far as Chief Casady goes, I think it is clear he would prefer that carrying concealed handguns had not been legalized. However, his main objections are regarding what he calls loopholes, that allow certain individuals to obtain a permit who perhaps shouldn't be carrying guns at all. I think he realizes, as we all do, that legally carrying concealed poses no danger to anyone but criminals out to do us harm. He wants to keep guns out of the hands of those who are likely to do stupid, or illegal things with them, thereby causing harm to citizens or his officers. I certainly don't agree with all of the things he considers indicators of this likelihood, but some of them are probably not unreasonable. Still, like some of you have commented, I think the way to go about it is to have these offenses considered as felonies rather than create a separate list of misdemeanor offenses that would deny a CHP or even the right to possess or carry a gun.
I'm not supporting his stance or methods, just the fact that he is a man of his word, he deserves to have his own opinion, and he's not the anti-gun zealot that some of you are making him out to be.
-
http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti12/ch1208.pdf
12.08.200 Weapons Prohibited in Parks.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or discharge, or cause to be discharged,
within any park, 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, 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.
(d) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to duly
authorized Parks and Recreation Department employees or law enforcement officers acting in the
course of their duty. (Ord. 17365 ?1; June 29, 1998: P.C. ? 12.08.120: Ord. 12600 ? 1; June 25,
1979: Ord. 10868 ? 1; July 23, 1973: Ord. 3489 ? 30-112, as amended by Ord. 5775; July 12, 1954).
-
Edit: Dang! Dan W. beat me to it. ;D
Here it is...
City Ordinance, Title 12- Parks, Chapter 12.08, GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS (http://lancaster.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti12/ch1208.pdf)
The text is below. Emphasis added.
12.08.200 Weapons Prohibited in Parks.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or discharge, or cause to be discharged,
within any park, any firearm, including, but not limited to, any pistol, revolver, shotgun, or rifle.
Fly
-
LB 430 would have ended this for CHP holders, but the City of Lincoln will just post the parks with signage that would prevent legal concealed carry.
-
Thnaks for that info, Dan. I guess it was wrong for me to try and look it up under the "weapons" section of the code. That's the first time I've ever known anything about carrying firearms in our parks being illegal. I don't think Casady has ever even mentioned it. I would imagine that even that law would not apply to a CHP holder once 430 becomes effective.
I was actually charged once, many years ago, for discharging a firearm in a city park. I was not even aware I was in a park at the time. It was along the creek through Wilderness Park which was not a park when I left Lincoln for a stint in the navy. Apparently, it was by the time I got back and decide to go out plinking with my brother to an area we had frequently gone years earlier. I assumed we were actually being charged with discharging firearms within the city limits and not specifically because we were in a park. Obviously, we were also in possession of firearms, too (each with a revolver and a rifle). Not only that, but we each had our dogs with us running loose (also against the law). My dog, which had been playing in the muddy creek, also managed to jump into the front seat of the park police officer's car and shake off the muddy water all over the interior. The officer himself, took it rather well, and actually seemed to regret having to cite us once we explained we had both been in the service for four years and were not aware we were in a park. On our day in court, most of the others there were charged with allowing their dogs to run loose in a city park, a charge we were not cited for. All in all, I think it only cost us about $40 a piece, and we got all our guns back once the fines were paid. Good thing that was over ten years ago, or I wouldn't have been able to get my CHP.
I guess from now on, I'll have to pay a little more attention to what I'm carrying if I pass through the park. Come to think of it, I was just out walking my dog (on a leash) and walked all through Antelope Park carrying my .45. I was on the sidewalk along the street, so maybe I would have been okay there anyway.
-
I would imagine that even that law would not apply to a CHP holder once 430 becomes effective.
As Dan said, if the city finds a legitimate way to post the "No Weapons" signs in/around the park, then it will make CC illegal. Regardless of 430.
Fly
-
I would imagine that even that law would not apply to a CHP holder once 430 becomes effective.
As Dan said, if the city finds a legitimate way to post the "No Weapons" signs in/around the park, then it will make CC illegal. Regardless of 430.
Fly
But isn't that the point of 430...?... that the cities and counties can't have ordinances that differ from the State? If there's no variation allowed from State law, then there is no legitimate way to ban conceal carry in parks, is there?
-
State law says anyone can put up a sign at their entrance and prohibit carry.
-
That is true, but I seriously doubt the city will put up signs. We'll see, though. Still, as I said, you could have a handgun in your vehicle as long as you locked it up when you left the parking lot. Doesn't do you a whole lot of good, though, if you get mugged on the bike trail.
-
Omaha has signs up on nearly all city-owned properties.
-
Yes Omaha has put up some signs, but only at drive in enterances, all the walkways that enter the parks are unmarked...
-
So, if you walk into a park, and there is no sign apparent, and you're carrying concealed, are you guilty of carrying on posted property?
-
The problem is there is no clear answer, which of course could be bad for you.
The law only states that a sign must be conspicuously posted. What is considered "conspicuously posted" is anyone's guess.
This is one of those cases that you could legitimately walk into a park believing you are doing nothing wrong, and end up in a situation of being guilty until proven innocent.
-
That's the trouble with so many of our laws. They are either so wordy with legalese that a layperson can't understand them, or they are so vague that no one can interpret them. Even when the intent of the law is clear to a reasonable person, if it isn't written precisely enough, it can be difficult to enforce or to come up with a valid defense. I once read about a case where someone was arrested for possession of a certain street drug. When the case went to court, they were unable to convict him because when the law was written, they used the scientific name for the drug and misspelled it. Therefore, there was actually no law against possessing the drug that he was arrested for having.
One good thing came from the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act (well, lots of good things, but): the term concealed was actually defined. Prior to that, it was pretty much up to the individual police officer, or judge, to decide if someone was carrying a concealed firearm. To some extent, there is still some ambiguity, but at least we have a definition of some kind. Basically, the law says that if any part of the gun is visible, it is not concealed. That seems pretty cut and dried. However, no matter where or how you carry your gun, it is probably not visible from every possible angle. If you have it in an open holster on your right hip, and a cop is standing on your left side, it is not visible to him. I know that seems like a pretty ridiculous example, but when it comes to judges, lawyers, cops, and juries, nothing is too ridiculous to conceive.
-
I hope the city doesn't post the signs. I've got a fanny pack all ready to go that has Velcro straps to hold my holster. I'm especially interested in carrying my CCW while riding my bike after a young man who was in a passenger seat of a car told me "You better hope I never see you on the road again!". He and his girlfriend were apparently upset that I was riding my bike on the street. I usually stick to the bike paths, but the one that crosses Vine near the downtown UNL campus is still under construction, so I have no choice.
The young man would get out of the car at the stoplights and start to cross the road towards me. I'm thinking to myself, "my legs are like jello, I don't have the strength to defend myself, and I can't outrun a car if they want to come after me, what the heck am I going to do?". Thank goodness the guy decided to get back in the car and leave it at a verbal threat.
I got the license plate and told the police, so that they would have some connection if I ended up dead on the side of the road with tire marks down my back.
Fly
-
Fly:
I used to ride a lot, too, so I know what it's like when you get some hothead in a 4,000 lb. vehicle who doesn't think you deserve any part of his road. About all you can do sometimes is head somewhere an automobile can't get to and hope you lose 'em. In town, it's not too hard, but in a rural area you better have an off road bike and some tall corn around. If you do carry in order to protect yourself, you better hope there are witnesses and that the threat is real before you pull it out. In any case, you probably won't have to shoot, unless the guy's drunk, stupid, or also armed. Still, if you start brandishing your gun without a legitimate threat to your safety, you could be the one who ends up in jail.
-
Jay,
It's not too hard to loose them on a motorcycle, but I think he was referring to a bicycle. Of course with one of these, a long stretch of road is all you need.
(http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/LitlRat396/BMWR1100S005.jpg)
With you, all they would have to do is follow you till you broke down again. Better mount a holster on that beast. LOL
-
I think you got me confused with someone elses's post. You were itchin' to get a chance to slam the old Harley weren't ya? ;D
...and my bike doesn't break down THAT much, well....ok, you may be right.
That's a great pic of your beemer by the way. I'll stick to my old iron though.
OK, back on track with this thread!
-
I think I saw that BMW broke down along side the road earlier today. Or, maybe it just wasn't fast enough to get away from some hothead! Just kidding.
And, yes, by all means, carry as a last resort!
-
My baby was in the barn today. If you saw one, hey, they are bound to break down after 200k miles or so.
We need to get a bunch of republican minded people to register as democrats so they get voted in, but it may be hard to take that type of shame upon yourself. Too bad Lincoln and Omaha can't be absorbed by Iowa. Like I've said before, we need to redraw the state lines. The south border needs to be at the Oklahoma line and the east border could run up Highway 81, with a loop to the west side of Wichita. That would keep all the wackos in the east and hard working independant minded people could run the west state like it should be. I am sure a lot of west Kansas people would love that too.
-
Hey! Lincoln's not all wackos! :)
There are at least a few of us with our heads screwed on straight. And Senators Coash & Fulton from Lincoln are friends of the 2nd Amendment. Too bad we can't say the same for McGill....
-
I, too, often feel Lincoln is too liberal with all its university types around. They don't call it liberal arts for nothing. On the other hand, we seem to be less restrictive as far as guns go (or at least no more) than many other towns and cities around the state. Some of that is changing due to 430, at least for permit holders. But, we haven't really seen how that will play out yet either.
-
My baby was in the barn today. If you saw one, hey, they are bound to break down after 200k miles or so.
We need to get a bunch of republican minded people to register as democrats so they get voted in, but it may be hard to take that type of shame upon yourself. Too bad Lincoln and Omaha can't be absorbed by Iowa. Like I've said before, we need to redraw the state lines. The south border needs to be at the Oklahoma line and the east border could run up Highway 81, with a loop to the west side of Wichita. That would keep all the wackos in the east and hard working independant minded people could run the west state like it should be. I am sure a lot of west Kansas people would love that too.
Oh there's plenty of conservative people here in the eastern portion of the state. Problem is that the dominant media" in Nebraska is here too. The World-Herald sucks up to anyone in power (except Suttle 'cause he's too much, even for them), and right now, that's the Dems... and the tv stations are populated by journalism school graduates. Need I say more?
Of course, the World Herald isn't going to be around much longer. There are a lot of rumors that they're in severe financial trouble. Don't know about the Journal Star.
Oh, and just so I don't get accused of hijacking this thread... my perception of Casady is that he's a reasonable person, just doesn't like the loopholes in the current law. Of course, I would like to see him write on his blog as much about the REAL illegal gun problems, as he does about PERCEIVED/POTENTIAL problems with CHP holders.
-
I'd say you nailed it pretty well, both regarding the conservative/liberal aspect of our state and on your perception of Casady. By the way, the JournalStar isn't doing very well financially either (hee hee hee!). This should probably go on another thread, but I was once selected as a guest columnist for them. However, my first submission was regarding the concealed handgun act which was up in front of the legislature at the time. I happened to be out of town for about a week when the dealine came for my submission so I sent it in an email. They (LJS) chose not to publish it using the excuse that the bill had already been tabled for the current session (this was the year before it finally passed), and therefore all my arguments for it were moot. Instead, I sent in a somewhat lackluster story about treating the flag with repsect, which they did print. My next effort was in regard to Chief Casady and his handling of a case about a certain individual in Lincoln whom he felt the public needed to be warned about. It seems the man had a string of fairly minor offenses for which he had either paid fines or spent his time in jail. The Chief felt that this guy still posed a threat to the public and got an interview with the local television station to let the public know that this guy was a scum bag and not to be trusted. Now, I didn't necessarily think Casady was wrong to do this. However, I questioned whether it was wise, considering the possibility that the guy might get the ACLU on his side and sue the city for defamation of character. My article simply explained both sides of the issue and was written as sort of a what-do-you-think type piece. LJS wouldn't publish that one either, claiming that there was no point to the article. When my next deadline came (I was offered the opportunity to do three articles), I just stiffed them without even giving them time to come up with something to fill the space. They apparently have my computer blocked now from even offering comments to online articles or simple letters to the editor. There's freedom of the press for you.
-
There's freedom of the press for you.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who benefit (and profit) most from the 1st Amendment are so fast to deny it to others who may disagree with their views.