NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: Famous556 on June 23, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
-
Hi all,
I have a question for those of you who live in or frequent Omaha,
I see that Oakview mall is listed on the "firearm unfriendly" list on the main NFOA site. However, on my visits to the mall I have seen no such signage. Could someone clarify?
Thanks!
-
As you walk in the main doors, take a look at the signs posted to your left. Among the many things not permited are firearms.
-
Thank you for the quick reply, it seems one could make the argument that this is not a conspicous place to place such a notice, as I have never noticed it before on my many trips to the mall.
-
Yeah, I never saw it 'till I was looking for it.
-
When I go into Oakview, I enter through Sears and haven't seen any signage. If it was there, it wasn't obvious. I will continue to go through Sears.
I wonder what the "Emergency Response Procedures" are for stores like No Frills, Oakview Mall, and others are if someone is spotted with a handgun but if it is concealed, who will know? :-\
What would happen if we targeted "No Frills" for a letter campaign full of polite letters about their policy?
The signs indicate all concealed handguns but allowances are made for police officers. Wouldn't it be nice for them to recognize the training we who hold permits have gone through?
-
I thought pretty much all Sears and K-Marts were "no defense" zones.
-
The signs indicate all concealed handguns but allowances are made for police officers. Wouldn't it be nice for them to recognize the training we who hold permits have gone through?
Not to be a jerk, but are you seriously comparing the one day of "training" required for a CCW permit to the training that LEO's go through on a continual basis?
I know there was at least one person in my CCW class that I didn't fell very comfortable knowing that they would potentially have a CCW permit. I won't go into the reasons why, but as a guy who spent time in the Army, went through specialized training in the Army and has continued to seek out specialized training afterward and practices defensive shooting on a regular basis I don't think the one day class required for CCW permits is enough to make a statement like the one above.
Sorry. Like I said, not trying to be a jerk.
-
I wonder what the "Emergency Response Procedures" are for stores like No Frills, Oakview Mall, and others are if someone is spotted with a handgun but if it is concealed, who will know? :-\
OK, now you have me a bit curious. I have been into the No Frills out here in Bellevue (Hwy 370) numerous times and have never seen any anti-gun signage. And I look for it. Been about a month since I was in there last, have they posted?
Ron
-
I understand the owner is firm on the no weapon policy for all the stores. The new one in the Elkhorn area is posted, Ashland is posted, LaVista is posted so if Bellevue isn't, it's probably a mistake so enjoy it.
-
The signs indicate all concealed handguns but allowances are made for police officers. Wouldn't it be nice for them to recognize the training we who hold permits have gone through?
Not to be a jerk, but are you seriously comparing the one day of "training" required for a CCW permit to the training that LEO's go through on a continual basis?
I know there was at least one person in my CCW class that I didn't fell very comfortable knowing that they would potentially have a CCW permit. I won't go into the reasons why, but as a guy who spent time in the Army, went through specialized training in the Army and has continued to seek out specialized training afterward and practices defensive shooting on a regular basis I don't think the one day class required for CCW permits is enough to make a statement like the one above.
Sorry. Like I said, not trying to be a jerk.
No kidding...I think there were about 20 people in my CCW class. About a handful of them acted like they've never shot a pistol before. I was completely uncomfortable being around them while they were performing the shooting portion of the class. However, to be fair, they passed the shooting test and written test and could now be walking around out there with a weapon. That's a little scary.... Eek....
-
The signs indicate all concealed handguns but allowances are made for police officers. Wouldn't it be nice for them to recognize the training we who hold permits have gone through?
Not to be a jerk, but are you seriously comparing the one day of "training" required for a CCW permit to the training that LEO's go through on a continual basis?
I know there was at least one person in my CCW class that I didn't fell very comfortable knowing that they would potentially have a CCW permit. I won't go into the reasons why, but as a guy who spent time in the Army, went through specialized training in the Army and has continued to seek out specialized training afterward and practices defensive shooting on a regular basis I don't think the one day class required for CCW permits is enough to make a statement like the one above.
Sorry. Like I said, not trying to be a jerk.
No kidding...I think there were about 20 people in my CCW class. About a handful of them acted like they've never shot a pistol before. I was completely uncomfortable being around them while they were performing the shooting portion of the class. However, to be fair, they passed the shooting test and written test and could now be walking around out there with a weapon. That's a little scary.... Eek....
Do you think individuals should have more training as a practical/proficiency matter? Or do you think only those meeting some specified criteria should be armed?
-
Do you think individuals should have more training as a practical/proficiency matter? Or do you think only those meeting some specified criteria should be armed?
I think it should definitely be more difficult for a person to get a CCW....not from a legal criteria (clean record, no weapons charges, etc.) but more from a training/proficiency matter as you mentioned.
I think more practical/scenario training should be required as well as just basic firearm proficiency. Honestly, a couple of the guys in my CCW class looked like they've never, ever shot a handgun...or ANY type of gun for that matter. I actually felt a little sorry for the instructor having to teach them some basics DURING the "proficiency" test...
I didn't want to be anywhere near them while they were performing their shooting test. And I definitely wouldn't want to be in the same area as them if SHTF and they're carrying and decide to use their weapon. They would probably be more dangerous than the perp....
-
I agree completely. Look at Vermont and Alaska, who have no training. Blood running in the street!
Actually, that makes me wonder... which enumerated rights require additional training and education? Who gets to decide?
/rl
-
All the data I have seen seems to point out the fact that states that have little or no training requirement have a nearly identical safety record compared to states that have the highest levels of training requirements.
-
What on earth was I thinking! ???
-
Thank goodness that there are very few reported incidents of CCW permit holders actually having to draw and discharge. That keeps the statistics looking good.
My $0.02 on "enumerated rights" is that with rights come responsibilities. Believe me, I'm a civil libertarian through and through. Does that mean I'm 100% comfortable with the guy in my class who appeared to be hard of hearing, mentally challenged and bordering on Alzheimer's carrying a concealed weapon everywhere he goes? No way! Would I be upset by a fair-handed requirement that those who carry concealed be required to meet continuing education/training requirements? Nope. I'd feel even safer than I do today.
My point earlier, however, had nothing to do with rights. It had to do with the foundational premise that someone with one day of "training" was as QUALIFIED to carry a weapon in a public place as someone who trains constantly.
I'm happy to debate that point any time, any place. ;)
-
IT seems that my thread has gone a bit off topic, so in light of that... I'll chip in my $.02
I do agree that there were people in my concealed carry class that I felt should take an "intro to pistol" class or the like. For instance, there was a person immediately next to me on the right shooting a sig that did not even know how to load the pistol besides inserting a magazine. I stood clear while the instructor came over to help them, but felt that this person (at this point) probably shouldnt be carrying a firearm in public. I was impressed when the instructor of the CCW class showed the person the basic safe operation of the pistol and suggested that they take a class as noted above to help them become more proficient with the weapon.
That being said, I feel it is the duty of a responsible citizen to seek some sort of training wether it be an intro class, defensive class, carbine/advanced class, or simply going to the range to get trigger time and practice on their own. I do not feel that it is the role of the government to constantly "protect" us from ourselves. I feel that we as responsible citizens have a duty to act and behave in responsible ways. I guess you could say I prefer individual responsibility rather than blanket regulations/rules/what have you from .gov, which I'm sure most if not all of you could agree with.
-
My $0.02 on "enumerated rights" is that with rights come responsibilities. Believe me, I'm a civil libertarian through and through. )
Really? That's not what it sounds like....
Yes, Rights = Responsibilities, but you can't go enforcing responsibilities, or we'd have a police state in short order. Let Darwin/ The Market / School of Hard Knocks sort out the idjits. If stupid hurts, there will be less stupid, same as if being a goblin gets a person shot, there will be fewer goblins.
-
I agree with Famous556. It is not the role of government to enforce responsibilities. Training requirements are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment because "you" (the government) are saying that if you don't get training you can't carry a firearm. It is not called "THE RIGHT to BEAR arms" for nothing. The CCW permit itself is unconstitutional because it singles certain people out (even non felons) and prohibits them from exercising a constitutional right. It also makes you pay a fee to the government in order to exercise a right. So we have to ask for permission to exercise a right?! What does that make it then? When you have to ask the government for permission it is no longer a right but has become a priviledge. A priviledge can be revoked just as they can revoke your CCW permit. This means it is no longer a right. That is flat out wrong and needs to end ASAP. But for now it is the only way to "legally" carry in this state.
To answer the original post: Yes, the No Frills in Bellevue (370) has a sign. It is very small and is located on the second set of automatic doors when you walk in coming in from the east side. The sign is maybe a 2inch by 2inch little cartoon revolver sign. It is one of the worst signs I have seen around.
-
If it's not the role of the government to enforce responsibilities (by making laws) whose role is it?
There are plenty of laws related to each of the first eight amendments to the constitution, including the second. Certainly, I disagree with some of those laws, but by-and-large those laws are intended for the well-being of the people.
We do have to "ask permission" to exercise rights - in a way - because each of our individual rights have the potential to infringe upon the rights of another individual. My absolute right to free speech may well infringe upon the right of other individuals to be safe, for instance. It is not in the best interest of the public at large, and therefore illegal, for me to yell "fire" in a crowded building. By so doing, I am putting the lives of people in jeopardy.
Likewise, by allowing those who are un-trained or unsafe to carry loaded guns, we are putting the lives of others at risk. Thank God we have yet to have an incident due to lack of training or ability (that I'm aware of) that has resulted in death. We have had incidents, however, that have clearly put people at risk and have given those of us who constantly train and practice a bad name. Just a couple weeks ago, there was a guy in Oregon with a CCW permit firing shots at a car that was driving away. The thieves had stolen a couple iPhones from an AT&T store. In the background was a commuter train full of people. That guy just gave up his 2nd Amendment right, IMO, because he couldn't handle the responsibility that came with it.
-
You're right, it is illegal in many places to incite panic by yelling "fire" in a crowded place. If you do it, you may be charged with inciting panic or something similar.
Similarly, if you do something stupid with a weapon, you may be charged with all manner of infractions.
Notice, though, that this is an apples and oranges situation. The government does not remove your voice box until you have proven that you are responsible enough to be able to speak in public. You are expected to behave yourself, and will be punished if you don't.
You are suggesting that nobody should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected rights until they have met some arbitrary standard of training, in effect assuming that people are guilty until proven innocent.
Who decides the standards we must meet?
There's a famous scrap of paper that reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
A particular addition to that piece of paper includes the words:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution."
If we let the government choose which of us are actually created equal before we have done anything to lose our rights we don't have any rights to begin with.
We are not born felons. We are born with "certain unalienable Rights" (another phrase lifted from that rag people seem to ignore).
If you are the one in power, it's quite likely you don't want me to carry a weapon because I haven't met some arbitrary and capricious standard. If I am the one making the rules, I probably won't want you to carry because your "some animals are more equal than others" sentiment scares me to death. Neither situation is proper or correct.
Until we do something to prove otherwise, we _both_ have the right to speak our minds, keep and bear arms, not have our homes tossed by random police or military forces, etc. Notice that we have those rights until we do something to have them taken away, not the other way around. If we need to prove we are worthy, they aren't rights.
/rl
-
So, when will we ask Nebraska to require a class and background check to get a permit to OPEN CARRY, like Omaha has?
It sure can't be safe for just anyone to open carry now can it??? We'd better regulate that some more too.
After all, is it really all that different if the gun is visible or not? In fact it's probably MUCH MORE FRIGHTENING for the sheep to see the gun. :o
Seems like that would make a few people here very happy. ::) ::) ::)
-
Just a couple weeks ago, there was a guy in Oregon with a CCW permit firing shots at a car that was driving away.
This sounds like something that happened in Bellevue NE a few years ago only the one behind the trigger was one of the " Only Ones ". Yep, a police officer. "Someone who trains constantly" to use your words.
That guy just gave up his 2nd Amendment right, IMO, because he couldn't handle the responsibility that came with it.
Do you think this happened to the officer in question?
NO! The shooting was ruled justified and he was put back to work.
-
Likewise, by allowing those who are un-trained or unsafe to carry loaded guns, we are putting the lives of others at risk.
No we are NOT. The act of simply carrying a loaded gun does not put other lives at risk nor does it infringe on other peoples rights. However restricting me from exercising my God-given, inalienable right to bear arms unless I jump through some arbitrary hoops IS a violation of MY rights. The "crime" of carrying a concealed weapon is a victimless crime since the act itself harms no one. If it did hurt or infringe on other people's rights, then cops would be arrested on the spot for carrying their back up weapons concealed. Why don't we use common sense and logic and punish those that actually hurt someone. What we are doing now is punishing people for possessing the ability to hurt someone. Is that fair?
And by the way, no amount of training is going to make anyone 100% safe. We are all humans, and humans make mistakes even the most trained and experienced police officers. This is why mandates for training are in all cases arbitrary. Punish someone if they have actually done something wrong!
rluening actually explained the concept very well.
-
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ---------- Jeff Snyder
-
I want to clear up a point that is an often misquoted item. It is not illegal to yell fire in a theater. You are responcible for the outcome of the act but the act is not illegal. Examples, there are plays (they take place in theaters) were a caricter on stage my yell fire as part of the play. If there is a fire in a theater and you are informing the audience it would be expected that a person would yell fire. But if you yell fire in a theater, when there is not one, and cause people to stampead out you would be guilty of multiple differing possible charges, depending on if anyone was injured by your act or not.
This is the outcome of 2 supreme court cases, the first the person was held guilty for their action and this is where the misquote often comes from. A year later there was another case where the supreme court changed the ruling to specify the speach is not what is illegal, it is the outcome.
To compare to firearms, it is not illegal to crry a firearm but the person carrying is resoncible for anything that may happen because of it (he pulls the gun to defend himself, negligent discharge ect.)
-
I don't even know where to begin to reply ....
I've been accused of wanting to ban guns. Training has been characterized as punishment. We're splitting hairs between carrying a loaded gun and using it irresponsibly. I see arguments where the logical extension would result in the mentally deficient and those who've been diagnosed as mentally unstable carrying guns.
Let's see if we can find some areas of agreement and work from there.
1. Can we all agree that the Second Amendment ... and every other amendment of the first eight (the Enumerated Rights) have limitations by necessity since we do not live in a Utopian society?
2. Can we all agree that training is a good thing and not a punishment?
3. Can we all agree that, all else being equal, individuals with inadequate gun training and skills pose more of a danger to themselves and their fellow man than those who have adequate training and skills?
Let's start with that and see if we can find some common ground (even though I'm sure we all share more common ground than not).
-
Actually I have trouble with the concepts in the common ground.
1. The enumerated rights in the constitution are not limited; they are God given rights that all people have. Otherwise referred to as natural rights.
2. Yes training is a good thing, when it is my choice. When it is dictated by a government it is a punishment. If I force you to eat ice cream until you become ill that?s a bad thing even though ice cream is good.
3. What is adequate? I have also seen some very well trained people (police, military, and civilians) endanger their families and the public, so training does not always mean that the person has common sense.
-
I never saw the limitations, is there small print at the bottom that I missed?
My "training" started with my father over 45 years ago, the only formal training I ever had was 35 years ago in the Army, and that was just shooting at silhouettes. I had the right to buy guns before I was allowed to buy alcohol. The limitations you speak of are added on because the gun grabbers are doing anything they can to take away our God given rights. Because the majority of my training came from my father, does that not qualify me to carry a gun in public? You might just want me around when something bad starts to happen. Might surprise you that I can hit what I'm aiming at, without the formal training. If someone wants training, they should be free to get it whenever they want. I would love to, just can't afford it.
I do agree that training is a good thing, but it should be voluntary. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to keep this runaway government from removing our rights.
I think that the qualifying for a CCW is more than enough.
-
Actually I have trouble with the concepts in the common ground.
1. The enumerated rights in the constitution are not limited; they are God given rights that all people have. Otherwise referred to as natural rights.
2. Yes training is a good thing, when it is my choice. When it is dictated by a government it is a punishment. If I force you to eat ice cream until you become ill that?s a bad thing even though ice cream is good.
3. What is adequate? I have also seen some very well trained people (police, military, and civilians) endanger their families and the public, so training does not always mean that the person has common sense.
1. So, you don't follow any of the laws that have been established over the 200+ years since the amendments were passed?
2. Why is training a bad thing if someone else requires it? Is hunter safety training a bad thing?
3. We're not going to achieve perfection here. Let's not fool ourselves (or try to fool others) by suggestion that training and practice bring perfection. We're trying to improve people's skills and abilities so they know how and when to utilize guns.
DaveB, the limitations I'm talking about are not limited to the Second Amendment. Each of the amendments has limitations. Most of those limitations are for the good of society. Some of the limitations go beyond "for the good of society" and truly restrict the right(s) to a point where they cannot be freely exercised. That is where our responsibility to be politically active and vote comes into play. We are responsible (there's that annoying word again) to remove the lawmakers from office - the ones who've pushed through truly restrictive laws - and put into office lawmakers who are fair in their approach to balancing rights and responsibilities.
It seems obvious from the arguments I'm getting that none of you has ever been personally endangered by a person who was not qualified to be using the gun they were holding. When you have, as I have, it apparently changes your perspective.
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
-
I've been reading the McDonald decision this morning, which hinges largely on the Heller decision, and have noticed an interesting consitency between both. Both decisions refer to keeping a gun in the home for self-defense.
Here are a couple quotations from the McDonald brief:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.?
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.
So, if those of you arguing against me are arguing for keeping a gun in your home for self-defense, I'll gladly acquiesce that you may participate in as little (or as much) training as you like. An untrained individual with a gun in their home is much less likely to put the general public at risk than someone like the idiot I mentioned in the AT&T store example eariler. Only those who enter that individual's home will be potentially put at risk. (Well, OK, I suppose a bullet could penetrate a wall and injure or kill someone within a few yards of the home.)
Finally, we all need to remember that our rights end where the rights of others begin. If the right of one individual to bear arms infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life, what are we to do?
-
When I lived and worked in Omaha, our store was robbed at gunpoint, I don't know how much training the robber had, but we were only allowed to be victims. By anybody being armed in the store at the time of the robbery, it may not have happened, and I would not have worried about whether or not they had formal training. The only people in danger were two people that had a gun pointed at them, all for $63.00. Fortunately no one was hurt. The right to self defense does not end as soon as I walk out of my home.
Seems that a lot of the pros are having some bad luck shooting change machines, their legs, and roofs, but I guess that's okay since they are cops.
I agree, we disagree.
I am also old and don't accept change well, and I argue until I get tired.
-
I've been reading the McDonald decision this morning, which hinges largely on the Heller decision, and have noticed an interesting consitency between both. Both decisions refer to keeping a gun in the home for self-defense.
Here are a couple quotations from the McDonald brief:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.?
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.
So, if those of you arguing against me are arguing for keeping a gun in your home for self-defense, I'll gladly acquiesce that you may participate in as little (or as much) training as you like. An untrained individual with a gun in their home is much less likely to put the general public at risk than someone like the idiot I mentioned in the AT&T store example eariler. Only those who enter that individual's home will be potentially put at risk. (Well, OK, I suppose a bullet could penetrate a wall and injure or kill someone within a few yards of the home.)
Finally, we all need to remember that our rights end where the rights of others begin. If the right of one individual to bear arms infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life, what are we to do?
Those were Justice Samuel Alito's words not mine. And I disagree with his take here. His assertion that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.? is dangerous. This means now that we are going to be limited in the choice of weapons, manner carried, and for the purpose carried in the future. Sounds a lot like California's "May Issue" system were only a handful of people get awarded the privilege of carrying a concealed handgun. There you have to have a "legitimate" purpose to carry. Legitimate can mean so many things to so many different people, especially liberals who think you should only be allowed to carry a weapon unless its for your job or you can physically prove that your life is being threatened. This is a dangerous path that we are on.
Plus, I wanna know how a loaded holstered firearm carried by a citizen of this country "infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life"?
The only way there would be an infringement is if the armed individual has ill intent and abuses his right to use the gun to commit a crime such as robbery, rape, assault, or murder. OR if the individual were to become negligent and pull the gun out of the holster and start to point at around all over the place entailing the muzzle being pointed at peoples bodies and limbs. Even then however, one could argue, their life wasn't entirely in danger unless the trigger was pulled.
Police point their guns at innocent people all the time because of mistaken identities or out of caution or suspicion. Are the officers ever charged with putting people's life's at risk? No.
So long as a citizen peacefully carries a loaded gun there shouldn't be a problem. They should not be charged with "carrying a concealed weapon" they should not be charged with "disturbing the peace", they should not be charged with "disorderly conduct", and they shouldn't be required by government to have formal training and a government issued permit "or else we the government will charge you with a crime". Remember that as soon as the government has the power to issue you a permit (permission=privilege) it can also revoke it at any time for any reason whatsoever. Take the case of this mom who legally obtained a concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania but was revoked her permit because she openly (and legally) carried it at a soccer game. The sheriff held that carrying at a soccer game was "bad judgement".
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/4226-pistol-packing-pa-soccer-mom-loses-gun-permit.html
Sadly there is an update to this story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/melanie-hain-gun-carrying_n_315291.html
A CCW permit is the same as a gun registration. Gun registration eventually leads to confiscation when enough bad guys are in government.
Once you have one (CCW), the government knows that you own guns and they also know what address to come to when a fascist government has taken over in order to disarm the public to prevent an uprising against its oppressive regime.
-
I think some people argue just to argue. Some people complain just to complain.
Dave, crazy story about your store getting robbed. I understand your point about only being allowed to be victims since guns weren't allowed. I try not to shop at stores with posted "No Guns" signs. That's an issue for another thread, though...
It would have been nice if an armed citizen that's proficient with his weapon would have been in the store to diffuse the situation however necessary. I think we all fully agree on that point. Mudinyeri's and my point is that it would NOT be nice if an armed citizen that didn't know a semi-auto from a revolver, has only ever put about 60 rounds through a handgun (56 of those at the CCW course), is not aware of their surroundings, etc. etc. etc.
Just look at the Walgreens incident... McCollough had some training (sounded somewhat minor), but he WAS proficient with his weapon, shot often, had situational awareness, etc. etc. etc. He only landed 4 of 8 shots, which in a situation like that is probably pretty darn good!
What happens when you throw somebody inexperienced off the street that just decided to get a CCW for the heck of it and now carries a gun everywhere? Maybe they land 1 of 8 shots, maybe zero? What happens if they hit the young lady at the ATM instead of the robber with the shotgun in her back? What if that young lady is your daughter? Your wife?
I'd rather the bad guy just take the $63 and leave rather than have one of the handful of idiots in my CCW class try to defend me or my family if I was unarmed. I didn't even want to stand next to them when they were in a controlled environment and shooting downrange at paper targets. No friggin' way would I want them shooting a gun in some crazy situation like a robbery in a small store.....
I'm a CHP holder. I own guns. I fully support the 2nd amendment. If people want to keep guns in their home then so be it. Keep an arsenal for all I care. However, I believe that a CHP should require additional training and/or testing than the current standard. Maybe the shooting and written tests should just be a little tougher? Maybe there should just be some testing to verify weapon proficiency...? That way it wouldn't require additional FORMAL training (or punishment, as so many of you like to call it) but it would help verify proficiency before someone is given a CHP.
Ok, now commence with the arguments for argument's sake and call me a gun hater.... >:D
-
My question is what training do you think is needed? Everything that you describe people in you CCW class as having done I have witnessed Police doing the same thing, at the range, in my CCW class (I had one officer there and they were the most unsafe person in the class) and at the OPD when registering handguns.
So with this great amount of constant training I hear about not being able to remove these issues what training should a citizen need to be able to carry a firearm?
-
We can talk about specific anecdotes all day long but they do not prove a larger point. That's like saying, "my grandpa smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 100 so cigarettes must be good for you." Or, "I knew a few people who drank a 12 pack of beer every day and none of them died of liver disease so alcohol must not be related to liver disease." A handful of anecdotes - to the good or to the bad - do not support an argument.
Certainly, there are instances of law enforcement officers being careless with weapons. There are also instances where someone with a gun might have prevented something ... maybe. Hindsight really isn't 20/20 as much as we would like to believe so. And there are also instances, I'm sure, where someone with little or no training or familiarity with weapons was able to do something positive with a gun. I'm not talking about anecdotes and could-have-beens. I'm talking about statistical probabilities.
Given a sample of say 100,000 random individuals, does anyone on here think it is truly realistic to expect that the individuals in the sample with less training and familiarity with weapons will do better than those with more training and familiarity ... on the whole? I'm not asking if there might be a few individuals with less training/familiarity that might do better than a few individuals with more. I'm talking about the overall results for the entire sample. Anyone who has taken a basic statistics course should understand the question I'm asking.
Does anyone know the NRA's stance on training? Now, I'm not saying that the NRA is the absolute authority on how we should view gun ownership, but they're probably about as close as it comes. In case you're not sure of their stance on training, they have an entire website devoted to it: http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp
OK, on to answer a few of the questions posed ....
Should it be my choice whether to take training or not? In a perfect world, yes. However, we do not live in a perfect world. Since we don't live in a perfect world, we've had to come up with laws as a society. Unfortunately, laws are largely reactive - they only come into effect after someone has broken them. How much better would it be for us to be pro-active as gun owners?
How can a law-abiding citizen carrying a "loaded, holstered firearm" potentially infringe upon my right to life? As long as the firearm stays holstered, the risk is low. However, once that firearm comes out of its holster, I think Ben's (2 E L O) example of the scenario in Dave's store is a good one to use. Suppose there was a law-abiding citizen carrying a firearm that day. Suppose that individual did not grow up with guns and had only received the training required in a Nebraska CCW class. Suppose the individual decides to pull his gun from his holster. He's nervous and relatively unfamiliar with his weapon since he never has time to get to the range. He's obviously nervous and stressed. He fires. His weapon sprays bullets around the store. An innocent bystander is hit and later dies. That's how a law-abiding citizen with a holstered weapon potentially infringes on someone's right to life.
In my CCW class we were shown a photo of a scenario where a man had a woman at knifepoint. He was behind her with only his head available as a target. The instructor asked the class who would take the shot. A guy behind me immediately bellowed that he would. Most of the rest of the class was hesitant. Having practiced similar scenarios just the weekend before I suggested that both the perp and the victim would most likely be moving, your adreniline would be flowing, your hand might be shaking and taking a head shot at 15-20 feet was a pretty big risk. The guy in the back grumbled something under his breath and the instructor moved on.
By the way, I was about 95% accurate in my shooting the previous weekend (meaning 95% of my shots hit the perp or missed the victim; of the 95% about 98% hit the perp). I was shooting at a still target while moving, to simulate a dynamic scenario. I know I'm 5% likely to hit the victim. Do you suppose the guy in the back had any such knowledge of his skill? Having met him and talked with him a bit, I doubt it. So, here you have a guy who has no idea whether or not he can make the shot ready and willing to take it without even a thought. What if the woman in the scenario was your wife, girlfriend, daughter, mother ...?
What training do I think is needed? Obviously, I have my own opinion. My suggestion would be that we as collective gun-owners agree upon some level of training and propose it ourselves - beat the Brady Bunch to the punch, so to speak. At a minimum, I'd like to see some scenario shooting as a part of the CCW test. (Let's see if the guy in the back of the room can make the headshot.) I'd also like to see some practice with mis-fires, FTF's, etc. as a part of the CCW process. I'd also like to see people get to the range at least once a quarter if they want to carry concealed. A little bit of retention training and practice would also be good. I haven't spent the time to develop a specific proposal for curriculum, but I don't think any of those things are onerous.
-
So what you are proposing is that i should not be able to carry concealed because i have not been to a class that teaches the items you spoke of (retention, dynamic situations ect.) in almost 2 years. In fact in that time span I have made it to the range only 3 times, and 2 of those were rifle training/practice.
Does it make a differance that over a year of that time was as an unarmed civilian federal employee working in a combat zone?
Yes I support training. Get all you can afford both in time and money. But just because you don't have the latest wizbang course does not mean you should not have the ability to defend yourself.
And in case you are wondering, fact based statistically civilians have a greater chance of hitting what they are shooting at without injuring bystanders that the Police and other highly trained responders. Even in the Walgreens example he hit over 50% of the time (4 to the body one down the barrel of the shotgun) thats double what police hit in that same situation. Don't use the emotional don't you think the statistics would be the way you say, because the facts go the other direction.
-
AAllen, first, I'm not proposing anything. I suggested some things that I think would be valuable. As I stated, I haven't put together a syllabus that I would be ready to propose. I'm definitely not suggesting "whiz-bang" courses. I would only support substantive and practical training. (Of course, I might be overruled.)
Second, if someone wanted to "test out" because they felt their skills were sufficient without training I would have no problem with that.
Third, with respect to the statistics ... the statistical sample of LEO shootings is MUCH larger and much more statistically valid than that of civilian shootings. I haven't studied the research but the confidence interval for any research related to civilian shootings has to be a mere fraction of the CI for LEO shootings. Since you don't cite the research on which you base your premise (as I didn't) neither of our premises is more valid than the other. I will readily admit that I'm making an assumption that more training and practice improve performance. Of course, it seems to be a pretty sound theory since I can't think of a single discipline where the outcome isn't readily evident.
-
Rights have nothing to do with statistics.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If people don't like it, it can be changed with a Constitutional Amendment. That won't remove our right to self defense, but at least the nanny state would have some control over it.
/rl
-
2 E L O and Mudinyeri, you both fully support the 2nd amendment, but only at home. Does that mean that cops are going to be everywhere to protect my family?
If criminals are exempt from training, why shouldn't I be? I don't think the criminals are any too concerned about stray spray, but I'll bet the law abiding citizen that is carrying a gun will be. I at least am going to protect my family and self as long as I have the right to do so. Training or not.
Gun control is nowhere to be found in the constitution or any of the amendments, nor is a training clause that meets with your approval. Besides, if the guy has 60 rounds through his first gun, 56 while getting his carry permit, he is well qualified to be an American with all the rights that go along with it.
I am done now, this is upsetting me too much, I don't live in Omaha, Illinois, or California. I live in America, land of what is supposed to be the free.
-
I don't believe either 2 E L O or I argued for gun control ... other than the good kind where you hit what you want to. ::)
It would seem that many of you are even against the training and qualification currently required to carry concealed.
If criminals are exempt from training, why shouldn't I be?
Seriously? Is that an argument for criminal behavior or what?
Rights have nothing to do with statistics.
News to me! Statistics are kept on all kinds of things related to our rights. For instance, we track things like number of guns purchased, number of CCW permits in the state and how many crimes CCW permit holders are involved in. In fact, one of the crew arguing against me suggested that statistically CCW permit holders were more likely to hit a person more times than LEO's. So, either statistics apply or they don't. We can't have it both ways.
Dave, I'm sorry you're so upset. My only purpose was to conduct a thoughtful and thought-provoking debate.
-
News to me! Statistics are kept on all kinds of things related to our rights.
Uhm... Ok. But what bearing do those statistics have on our rights? By some counts 20 percent of US adults are functionally illiterate. Should that void the First Amendment?
I don't care what a particular statistic may claim to show. Rights can not be infringed without... well... infringing on them. Just because you, I, or the government doesn't like a particular person or group of people doesn't mean we get to start stomping on their rights. Just because Grandma hasn't been to GunSite doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to drop a .38 in her purse. If she's half blind and doesn't bother putting that .38 in a holster, so be it. I'll be the first to admit it's not safe, but until she actually has a negligent discharge we can't do anything about it.
/rl
-
DaveB, there's no mention of speed limits in the constitution. There's no mention of wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle. There's no mention that requires a car owner to have liability insurance. The constitution doesn't address standards for sanitation and quality for food production. But these laws and standards supplement the constitution for the greater good of all people.
The Constitution is not the end-all, be-all holy grail like so many of you wish it could be...nor was it ever intended to be the comprehensive authority. If the Constitution was our sole source of standards and laws, our country would be a disaster.
-
2ELO correct there is no mention of speed limits, liability insurance, motorcycle helmets ect. in the constitution. Therefore there is no protected right involved on those things, and I don't see where there is much of an argument that there is an undifined right to those things. Unless you wish to speak of the right to freely travel about (undifined right that would be considered a right), but requireing insurance or a helmet does not take that ability away from you. Cann't afford car insurance there are many other forms of travel, including the leather personel carrier that was often freely used by those that could not afford the costs of a horse, the most convienent and fastest mode of travel at the time the Constitution was written.
-
I suppose you could say some of the laws that 2 E L O mentioned put limitations on the right to the pursuit of happiness, but that might be a stretch. ;D
However, more specifically, here are some examples of limitations of the Bill of Rights:
1. You have freedom of speech but you do not have the right to incite panic (yell fire ...) and put the lives of others in danger with your speech.
2. We have the right to freedom of religion, but Mormons are only allowed to legally have one wife.
3. We have the right to freedom of assembly but not for rioting.
4. We have the right to freedom of the press ... unless we print lies.
5. We have the right to keep and bear arms unless we are a felon or have been diagnosed with a mental/psychological disorder.
In each of these cases, our absolute rights are limited to protect the rights and lives of others. After being pressed, I've only suggested that we, as firearms owners, could be pro-active for a change and actually self-regulate. We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights).
-
After being pressed, I've only suggested that we, as firearms owners, could be pro-active for a change and actually self-regulate. We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights).
I think we are reaching a point where we can start to form an agreement. Training is not bad, but it does not need to be mandated. We as firearms owners have a responsibility to get training ourselves (even if it is just range time and practice) and encourage others to receive training in accordance with their interests and abilities. We also have an obligation to recruit and develop new shooters, so our traditions will live on.
In that line what the Board has done is to create an education committee to start developing training opportunities that would act as a reach out to new owners or those considering the ownership of firearms. This would teach basic firearm safety, things that apply to all firearms and firearm owners no matter what your discipline. One of the goals of this training is to encourage people to become interested in becoming firearm owners/shooters wither hunting or some other sport shooting, or for self defense purposes. Another purpose is to direct people to training opportunities that are in line with their goals, budgets, and area of interest. The idea is to make this an introduction to firearms class that can be given freely to anyone who may be interested on a regular basis, and hopefully can strengthen and grow our community of responsible firearm owners.
Another idea for a course development is to reach out to those at greatest risk of becoming irresponsible firearm users and show them the problems associated with improper firearm use. This also would direct those who wish to become responsible firearm owners, and their families, toward educational opportunities were they can learn about safe firearm handling, storage, and proper use. This would include not only just shooter education but opportunities for participating in mentored or coached activities that involve the use of firearms.
There is still 2 openings on this committee and I am looking for people with firearm training experience who would be interested in developing this training and finding ways to bring it to those who need it, in an manner that is cost (both financially and time) efficient for those who receive it. These ideas are starting points and we do not want to get into competition with firearm instructors who are delivering a product to shooters already, what we want is to develop new ways to reach people to encourage them to get more training, voluntarily and in the manner that works best for them.
-
Wow! That's fantastic!
My firearm training experience is very practical in nature. I have no NRA certifications or the like, but I'll volunteer for the committee if you'll consider me.
Feel free to ping me through PM if you'd like to know more about my background and (potential) qualifications.
-
We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights)
You left out physical fitness guidelines, annual mental evaluations, and dietary restrictions.
Ooops forgot the ;D
-
We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights)
You left out physical fitness guidelines, annual mental evaluations, and dietary restrictions.
Ooops forgot the ;D
Just like the service ... hmm.
-
Reply to AAllen, re: Education Committee
I'd like to be considered for one of the two open positions on this committee.
You are invited to contact me directly by Forum email to obtain any additional information that might help you in the consideration process.
sfg
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
...among many others!
-
Hello,
I am new to the forum and not a CCW permit holder. This is also probably covered elsewhere and I apologize for that in advance but what are the penalties, civil or criminal, for carrying in a store that has this signage posted (assuming you actually have a CCW permit)?
Thanks,
Terry
-
Reply to td:
According to the Nebraska Administrative Code, Title 272, Chapter 21, addenda, p. 24:
Permit holder carrying a concealed handgun into a prohibited place or premises
is a Class III Misdemeanor for the First Offense [Maximum Penalty: 3 Months imprisonment and/or $500 fine, not to mention the legal costs, criminal record, and loss of CHP.]
and a Class I Misdemeanor for 2nd/Subsequent Offenses [Maximum Penalty: 1 year imprisonment and/or $1000 fine.]
Definitely NOT recommended.
And this portion of the NAC is clearly being enforced. You might want to get in touch with ComputerCowboy on this NFOA Forum for more insights on this particular issue.
sfg
.
-
That's interesting. The fact that someone can put up a sign enters a criminal discussion is perplexing. I can see them filing a civil suit but I would read prohibited place as being a federal institution, bank, etc. I am sure they legally define "prohibited place". Interesting.
-
Reply to td:
According to the Nebraska Administrative Code, Title 272, Chapter 21, addenda, p. 24:
Permit holder carrying a concealed handgun into a prohibited place or premises
is a Class III Misdemeanor for the First Offense [Maximum Penalty: 3 Months imprisonment and/or $500 fine, not to mention the legal costs, criminal record, and loss of CHP.]
and a Class I Misdemeanor for 2nd/Subsequent Offenses [Maximum Penalty: 1 year imprisonment and/or $1000 fine.]
Here shows the intelligence of our lawmakers.
There can not be a second offense if you have lost your CHP.
I agree, I feel that a prohibited place is defined in the list of places you can not legally carry concealed. Also, if you cannot easily see a sign prohibiting law abiding citizens from carrying guns, it should be even less of an offense. Besides, if I can't easily see the sign, the criminally intent won't see it either, not that they care anyway.
-
It's an interesting pastime to check out the various "No Concealed Weapons" signage forms around Nebraska.
[Actually, they are intended for "No Concealed Handguns", but that's another whole story about the legal nature of "weapons", "deadly weapons", etc.]
Methodist Hospital [Omaha] has no signs on the two main entrance doors fed by the major overhead walkways from the parking garage. However, the other doors on the ground floor below, across from the parking garage are signed. Further. the NCW signs are on the coming out doors, not the going in doors. The coming out doors swing away in such a manner that if someone else is coming out while you are going in, you will not see the NCW sign. Their intent appears to be to post the entire premises, not just the ICUs and ERs, which do not need posting. The Methodist signage needs work to clarify their intent. Nevertheless, you could still be busted.
The Westwood Shopping Center at 120th and Center [Omaha] has NCW signs posted at the main street entrances to their parking lots. Hardly the place you'd be checking for NCW signage. Yet none of the actual building doors and entrances in the entire shopping center are posted. Nevertheless, you could still be busted.
1 Valmont Plaza [Omaha] has a very high quality white frosted etched glass NCW sign posted well to the right side of their main entrance door. Hardly where you'd look. Hardly looks like NCW posting. Looks like some sort of a financial institution logo, until closely examined. Yet, you could be busted.
And many, many more such instances are seen around town.
At a glance, any NCW sign could be mistaken for the "No Smoking", "No Trucks", "No Parking" and similar "No Whatever" signs commonly encountered. You've got to be alert and careful, considering the potential penalties, which also include legal fees and loss of CHP.
Nebraska CHPs carrying on posted premises face an immediate NCW violation charge which carries a 3rd Class Misdemeanor penalty. By contrast, if Iowa CCWs violate Iowa signage, at first they only may be asked to leave the premises. If they do so immediately, then there's no bust and no penalty. The incident only becomes a violation if you stay after being asked to leave. Even then, it's only a trespassing charge.
Conclusion: Nebraska NCW signage and rules are tricky and put legit CHPs at risk; the signage rules need to be modified. [Which will no doubt generate howling and hollering from the merchant class.]
sfg
-
Just a note as I can remember a time, not that long ago, when a business could put up a sign to keep out blacks, Indians, or others who were branded as bad. Still have a friend that remembers a bar outside Ft. Bragg that had a sign that stated "no ******s, GI's, or dogs". Times have changed and hopefully these concealed carry signs will change as well.
-
SFG, the Hospitals were added to the banned places sometime back, at the same time the colleges and Universities were added by passage of LB145, so the signs are redundant.
NSP really needs to get their rules and regs updated, and I know that the process is going on right now
-
Another attempt at thread hijacking:
Question regarding parks... Specific locations in Omaha that I've seen are Elmwood Park (68th & Pacific) and Heflinger Dog Park (110th & Maple).
Elmwood Park Drive and Heflinger Park Road seem to be "through" streets that are not actually park "entrances". However, there are signs posted "No Weapons (even with CHP)" at the turn off of Pacific (Elmwood) and Maple (Heflinger). Does that mean a CHP holder isn't even supposed to drive down those roads?
I could understand--but don't agree--if they didn't want you to actually be IN the park areas with a CCW but to not even allow us to drive down the road that seems to be a "through" street!?!? What gives?
-
2 E L O -
I brought this up with Marty Conboy a while back:
According to Code 1980, ? 21-9; Ord. No. 33732, ? 3, 12-12-95 "It shall be unlawful for any person ...... or to carry any firearms, in any park, playground or boulevard in this city;"
According to recently enacted LB 430 the state has overridden this law for concealed carry permit holders - " 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, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act."
As I am not a lawyer, and I don't wish to become a test case, can you clarify Omaha's position on permit holders carrying in city parks? Many are posted "No concealed weapons", making them a posted place that permit holders can not carry in. Several, though, are either not posted or only posted at some entrances.
Thanks for any information you can provide!
His response:
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.
I don't see that the sign has any bearing on what you do in your car while passing through.
/rl
-
Thanks!!! Great information!!!
-
Yeah, they cannot forbid you from carrying inside your vehicle at or on posted premises. State law is clear about this.
-
This thread got seriously off track. Does everyone agree the mall is NOT posted legally, in accordance with the current signage rules or lack thereof?
There is not a no gun sign as required, just a written rule. Does that written rule count? I thought it had to be a sign as in a picture and posted on the door.
-
WOW, old thread.
Are you volunteering to be the test case?
This is the reason we are pushing for a change in signage requirements this year.
-
i plan to carry in the mall, yes.
-
Good luck! :D
-
I think that if you read the Nebraska rules for carry you will find that all malls are off limits as are bank, hospitals, and all state & federal bulidings. It also says something about any place where a large group of people gather. Posted or not.
-
All malls?
-
I find nothing in state laws regarding ccw for malls or gatherings.
-
No...malls are not included in the list of places that CC is prohibited.
Fly
-
All malls? That's news to me.
-
I think that if you read the Nebraska rules for carry you will find that all malls are off limits as are bank, hospitals, and all state & federal bulidings. It also says something about any place where a large group of people gather. Posted or not.
69-2441. Permitholder; locations; restrictions; posting of prohibition; consumption of alcohol; prohibited.
(1)(a) A permitholder may carry a concealed handgun anywhere in Nebraska, except any: Police, sheriff, or Nebraska State Patrol station or office; detention facility, prison, or jail; courtroom or building which contains a courtroom; polling place during a bona fide election; meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or other political subdivision; meeting of the Legislature or a committee of the Legislature; financial institution; professional or semiprofessional athletic event; building, grounds, vehicle, or sponsored activity or athletic event of any public, private, denominational, or parochial elementary, vocational, or secondary school, a private postsecondary career school as defined in section 85-1603, a community college, or a public or private college, junior college, or university; place of worship; hospital, emergency room, or trauma center; political rally or fundraiser; establishment having a license issued under the Nebraska Liquor Control Act that derives over one-half of its total income from the sale of alcoholic liquor; place where the possession or carrying of a firearm is prohibited by state or federal law; a place or premises where the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has prohibited permitholders from carrying concealed handguns into or onto the place or premises; or into or onto any other place or premises where handguns are prohibited by state law.
(b) A financial institution may authorize its security personnel to carry concealed handguns in the financial institution while on duty so long as each member of the security personnel, as authorized, is in compliance with the Concealed Handgun Permit Act and possesses a permit to carry a concealed handgun issued pursuant to the act.
(c) A place of worship may authorize its security personnel to carry concealed handguns on its property so long as each member of the security personnel, as authorized, is in compliance with the Concealed Handgun Permit Act and possesses a permit to carry a concealed handgun issued pursuant to the act and written notice is given to the congregation and, if the property is leased, the carrying of concealed handguns on the property does not violate the terms of any real property lease agreement between the place of worship and the lessor.
(2) If a person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or an employer in control of the property prohibits a permitholder from carrying a concealed handgun into or onto the place or premises and such place or premises are open to the public, a permitholder does not violate this section unless the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has posted conspicuous notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in or on the place or premises or has made a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permitholder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises.
(3) A permitholder carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle or on his or her person while riding in or on a vehicle into or onto any parking area, which is open to the public, used by any location listed in subdivision (1)(a) of this section, does not violate this section if, prior to exiting the vehicle, the handgun is locked inside the glove box, trunk, or other compartment of the vehicle, a storage box securely attached to the vehicle, or, if the vehicle is a motorcycle, a hardened compartment securely attached to the motorcycle. This subsection does not apply to any parking area used by such location when the carrying of a concealed handgun into or onto such parking area is prohibited by federal law.
(4) An employer may prohibit employees or other persons who are permitholders from carrying concealed handguns in vehicles owned by the employer.
(5) A permitholder shall not carry a concealed handgun while he or she is consuming alcohol or while the permitholder has remaining in his or her blood, urine, or breath any previously consumed alcohol or any controlled substance as defined in section 28-401. A permitholder does not violate this subsection if the controlled substance in his or her blood, urine, or breath was lawfully obtained and was taken in therapeutically prescribed amounts.
So if the mall does not have a "conspicuous notice" (whatever that is) prohibiting CC, then you are good to go in the mall, or a large group of people as long it is not a locale specifically listed above.
Fly
-
I stand corrected. I went back and double checked and you are right. I was going by what our class instructer told us. He said that carrying in malls was not a good idea as you would probably get into trouble if you did. Sorry for the misinfo.
-
Without conspicuous notice, the mall would have to notify you personally to remove your concealed handgun, and if it becomes visible, they will do so.
or has made a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permitholder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises.
Once that happens, you have been notified according to the law, and you may not carry concealed there any more
-
i plan to carry in the mall, yes.
If you knew what this member knows, you would too!
Until they post it legally I am not going into any mall unarmed, and once they do post it legally I will not go back.
-
I was going by what our class instructer told us. He said that carrying in malls was not a good idea as you would probably get into trouble if you did.
Who was your instructor?
-
I`d rather not say just to keep him from being blasted. He said that it came under the heading of a public gathering which I also can not find anything on. I`m agree with the others--carry where you can and where it`s not posted. There are a lot of crazies out here.
-
Could he be teaching at Nebraska Safety Council???
-
No--he is a private instructor in the eastern third of Nebraska. Seems like a nice guy and gave a good class. After reading some more I am not sure on a few things that he said. I guess that he wants us to be extra carefull in where we carry. That might be ok for someone who hasn`t been around guns much in their lives but it could come back to hurt them sometime. I am 65 and have been around guns all my life and don`t have a problem with where I carry as long as it`s not posted.
-
If he is teaching things that aren't right, he needs to be called out. An instructor just can't be doing this.
-
If he's giving out incorrect information he's doing a disservice to his students and needs to be corrected. I would suggest doing it diplomatically, though. How about contacting him privately and informing him that his information is wrong? Maybe he's just mistaken. I would give him the opportunity to make it right before calling him out publicly.
-
I talk to him now and then. I will ask him the next time just to see what he says. It`s not a big deal to me but it could be to someone else.
-
I went to the mall yesterday, through the younkers enterance. No signs at all except no smoking signs.
I went over to the food court entrance, no signs, not even the typical "rules" sign they used to have (which is not conspicious anyways).
As far as I am concerned, oakview is 100% carryable and should be removed from the NFOA list.
I have not checked all entrances such as sears and penny's, but the general mall is not posted.
I would be careful though, ensuring good concealment. They have wanna be state trooper look alikes as security guards and I am sure they would love to put you face down.
I tend to carry a blackhawk serpa CQC OWB holder covered by my coat, but it can flash if I bend over far enough or if my coat gets blown back by wind.
I'll only carry IWB in the mall for now until this is figured out.
PS I WOULD NOT call them and ask about it.
The mall is the ONE place I will carry no matter what.
-
Not to be a jerk, but are you seriously comparing the one day of "training" required for a CCW permit to the training that LEO's go through on a continual basis?
I know there was at least one person in my CCW class that I didn't fell very comfortable knowing that they would potentially have a CCW permit. I won't go into the reasons why, but as a guy who spent time in the Army, went through specialized training in the Army and has continued to seek out specialized training afterward and practices defensive shooting on a regular basis I don't think the one day class required for CCW permits is enough to make a statement like the one above.
Sorry. Like I said, not trying to be a jerk.
Many of us get training at Front Sight or other higher level venue's. I've been there with both LA cops and boarder patrol guys and both groups indicated that the level of training they receive in their departments falls short of that we are getting 'here' (Front Sight at the time), complete with live-fire home invasion scenarios, etc. Not to be a jerk, but many CCW holders do not rely on the rather skimpy training required for CCW and do get advanced training and therefore CAN be compared to a typical LEO. At any rate, i know you were not trying to be confrontational or trying to measure your pee-pee, but it does get under my skin when misleading information is brought and given with a wide brush. True, tho, now that I think about it, most CCW types likely don't get a lot of higher level training and do settle with the initial and minimal CCW training so therefore you are correct, generally speaking I suppose. (shaking of of hands) However, it should be noted that many ordinary citizens do train and they deserve a level of respect from all of us including LEO's, just as even the typical LEO (usually) deserves ours.
-
tut,
I will throw in my 2 cents on this "older" but relevant topic.....having recently attended Rangermasters Tactical Conference in Tulsa last month I will share a statistic that appears pretty true and unfortunately, too common.
There was an instructor/lecturer dinner on Saturday night. All the bigs attended i.e. Ayoob, Given, Aprill, Dobbs, et al. The common consensus of the 25 or so in attendance felt like roughly 2,000 (yes, TWO THOUSAND) CHP individuals in the ENTIRE country maintain a ONGOING (not the once in a lifetime free trip to Frontsite or Bill's Gun Camp) training regimen since obtaining a CHP. They based this upon feedback from surveys of their own courses. Now...if that is true, which I can't see whay they would make that up.....pretty scary. I know the CHP courses I've taught, I know some have not and likely never will go beyond the CHP course or their own range time.