NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: sidearm1 on July 05, 2016, 07:44:40 PM
-
(Note: This is NOT legal advice, just an FYI) Interesting court case from Nebraska Court of Appeals. State v Senn 24 Neb App 160.
Court ruled that a weapon sitting behind the back seat of a truck out of reach of the driver is not a concealed weapon.
Not getting into details, but driver stopped by deputy, deputy found handgun in case behind passengers seat, admitted that the driver could not easily reach weapon. Still cited him for carrying a concealed firearm. Court of appeals over ruled lower court ruling that it was.
-
OH MY GOD! a judge with common sense, what will happen next?
-
OH MY GOD! a judge with common sense, what will happen next?
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.
Sorry, had to pull out the Ghostbusters quote.
-
24 Neb App 160
I had trouble looking that citation up, so thought there was a typo, but there isn't. The case just came out yesterday.
-
I had trouble looking that citation up, so thought there was a typo, but there isn't. The case just came out yesterday.
Very interesting!
-
https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00003117PUB
What interested me was the appellate judge's interpretation of the Nebraska concealed carry law:
. Criminal Law: Weapons. The purpose of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1202 (Cum. Supp. 2014), Nebraska’s concealed weapon statute, is to prevent the carrying of weapons because of the opportunity and temptation to use them which arise from concealment.
The "purpose" as he explains it contradicts the 2nd Amendment, which makes no distinction about "opportunity" or "temptation". Obviously 28-1202 fringes the blanket right granted by the 2A and thus is an unconstitutional infringement. It was common when I was young for people to casually carry pocket pistols on their person or keep one in their glove compartment, a life was a lot safer then than now.
Another story brought up a statistic about Obama being the best gun salesman ever. It quoted a statistic that during his eight years in office over 141,000,000 background checks had been made. The number of checks doesn't relate to the number of guns purchased during a single check, nor does it relate to weapons purchased by thugs illegally. The figures do suggest that the percentages of Americans owning firearms is well above the 30% claim by the media, and is increasing, not decreasing as the media claims. This figure probably doesn't include the explosion of gun purchases and concealed carry permits by Gays, who now clearly understand why No Gun signs are not affective in preventing abuses of firearms by thugs and mentally deranged individuals.
-
Thanks for the highly informational research, GG.
sfg
-
While the end result of the case is favorable, some of the legal reasoning used in reaching that result is flawed. The Court sprinkled in civil law concepts that have not been applicable to, and should not apply in, the realm of criminal law. Those concepts, however, have nothing to do with the actual firearm issues in the case.
-
.... the percentages of Americans owning firearms is well above the 30% claim by the media, and is increasing, not decreasing ....
Right after the husband-and-wife terrorist attack in San Bernardino, local residents were lined up outside the doors at gun shops. Lots of guns were sold, much to the President's displeasure.
Rural California is much different from the major coastal cities. The sheriff of San Bernardino County is CCW friendly. Unfortunately, the large populations of the cities means they dominate state politics.
-
Same here in Nebraska. Omaha and Lincoln are strongholds of "Intellectuals" and those dependent on gov welfare and "freebies" (to them, at taxpayers expense).
While I was working at the dept of Revenue 10 years ago writing the Homestead application and working on tax returns I noticed an interesting trend. A LOT of people were moving from California to Nebraska. This was before the housing bubble burst. They were selling their modest two bedroom houses in California for $500-750K and buying better houses here for $250-300K, and banking the rest. They also brought other things with them ... voting for the policies that made California almost. a third world state.
It reminds me of an old joke about Berkeley: Too small to be a nation state and too big to be an insane asylum. (In response to Berkeley city council declaring Berkeley to be a "Nuclear Free Zone".
-
Another story brought up a statistic about Obama being the best gun salesman ever. It quoted a statistic that during his eight years in office over 141,000,000 background checks had been made. The number of checks doesn't relate to the number of guns purchased during a single check, nor does it relate to weapons purchased by thugs illegally. The figures do suggest that the percentages of Americans owning firearms is well above the 30% claim by the media, and is increasing, not decreasing as the media claims. This figure probably doesn't include the explosion of gun purchases and concealed carry permits by Gays, who now clearly understand why No Gun signs are not affective in preventing abuses of firearms by thugs and mentally deranged individuals.
[/quote]
how many states have a system like Nebraska, we get 1 background check every 5 years. and can buy all the firearms we want, ( notice I said want. NOT afford!) so the entire state of Nebraska throw that number off.
-
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.
Sorry, had to pull out the Ghostbusters quote.
:) Yes, your honor, this man (the cop) has no D***.
-
Article in todays (Dec 17,2016) Omaha World Herald titled "High court clarifies concealed carry law" might want to check it out. It discusses 'beyond reach' and 'accessible/inaccessible" meanings. Rod Moeller is mentioned toward the end of the article. I would appreciate any comments/clarifications.
-
It appears that the NE Supreme Court ruling further defined reachability of a handgun while being transported by vehicle; namely, that the handgun must not be reachable by the driver while either driving or while stopped. Which therefore now makes any handgun within the passenger compartment to be "reachable".
From what I could tell by reading the article, non-CHP pickup truck drivers will now need a lockable toolbox in the bed of their vehicle for use in order to transport a handgun. Non-CHP auto drivers can use their car trunks. Non-CHP Soccer Moms with SUVs and minivans can just go to jail; get a nice break from the kids and the dog and the laundry. And work, of course.
Article didn't appear to address or clarify transportation of long guns.
It's a Never-Ending Battle Out There.
sfg
-
I downloaded and attached a copy of the Court Decision referenced in the article and a copy of Nebraska 28-1201 and 28-1202.
What it seems to say is that if a weapon is in the passenger compartment of a vehicle then it is considered to be accessible to the driver. From reading 28-1201/1202 and the associated notes this applies to handguns, knives (blade over 3.5"), brass knuckles, or other deadly weapons.
In the notes of 28-1202 it specifies that the gun dose not need to be operable in order to meet the definition.
A loaded handgun was inside of a case, on the far side of the truck cab "against the wall of the truck—between the passenger seat and the right side wall of the truck, partially behind the seat, with some clothing on top of it" and was described as not accessible while driving.
According to the decision "Neither 28-1202 nor case law requires that the weapon be within the defendant’s reach while driving in order to be considered “on or about his person.”"
John K
-
It appears that the NE Supreme Court ruling further defined reachability of a handgun while being transported by vehicle; namely, that the handgun must not be reachable by the driver while either driving or while stopped. Which therefore now makes any handgun within the passenger compartment to be "reachable".
From what I could tell by reading the article, non-CHP pickup truck drivers will now need a lockable toolbox in the bed of their vehicle for use in order to transport a handgun. Non-CHP auto drivers can use their car trunks. Non-CHP Soccer Moms with SUVs and minivans can just go to jail; get a nice break from the kids and the dog and the laundry. And work, of course.
Article didn't appear to address or clarify transportation of long guns.
It's a Never-Ending Battle Out There.
sfg
Yup, lockbox time for pickups it appears. "Sigh"
-
This is a big reason I encouraged my wife to get her CCW. In some ways that is a Get-Out-of-Jail pass since so many things don't apply to someone with that little card in their possession. This is clearly something we need to address in law since it is more and more turning into a no-guns-or-else approach to enforcement.
-
Another link. http://www.guns.com/2016/12/17/nebraska-supreme-court-clarifies-concealed-carry-in-cars/?utm_content=bufferbf86f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
From reading 28-1201/1202 and the associated notes this applies to handguns, knives (blade over 3.5"), brass knuckles, or other deadly weapons.
Is there some definition of "deadly weapon" in Nebraska state law beyond a knife having to have a blade over 3 1/2"? How about a tool box containing common lethal weapons like screwdrivers and a hammer? Or yard and camping tools like a hand ax or machete? Or how about a baseball bat? If I had to defend myself and I had to choose between a baseball bat and a knife with a 4" blade I know which one I'd pick. And the biggest mass murder committed by an individual in America was committed with about a dollar's worth of gasoline and a lighter, so would a gas can be like a so-called assault weapon?
Is there some kind of a phony test like legitimate use, as in it's ok to have a deadly weapon if it also has a non-weapon function?
-
Is there some definition of "deadly weapon" in Nebraska state law beyond a knife having to have a blade over 3 1/2"?
Here's about what I can find for the moment:
=======================================
28-1205.
Use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony; penalty; separate and distinct offense; proof of possession.
(1)(a) Any person who uses a firearm, a knife, brass or iron knuckles, or any other deadly weapon to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of this state commits the offense of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.
(b) Use of a deadly weapon, other than a firearm, to commit a felony is a Class II felony.
(c) Use of a deadly weapon, which is a firearm, to commit a felony is a Class IC felony.
(2)(a) Any person who possesses a firearm, a knife, brass or iron knuckles, or a destructive device during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of this state commits the offense of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony.
==========================================
Basically, a Deadly Weapon is any "destructive device" (a term found elsewhere in Nebraska Statutes) that may be used to inflict lethal (killing/maiming) force.
Like a:
Brick
Broken beer bottle
Baseball bat
Chairs (Over the head, like the Cowboy Movies)
Club
Crowbar
[I'll stop here: We're only in the B's and C's, but you get the idea]
I'm guessin' that fists aren't Deadly Weapons, per se. Unless somebody is killed with them.
You can also look up Lethal Force. Same idea.
If the Prosecutor sez it's a Deadly Weapon, then the Defense Attorney is going to be on the spot.
FWIW,
sfg
-
It appears that the NE Supreme Court ruling further defined reachability of a handgun while being transported by vehicle; namely, that the handgun must not be reachable by the driver while either driving or while stopped. Which therefore now makes any handgun within the passenger compartment to be "reachable".
From what I could tell by reading the article, non-CHP pickup truck drivers will now need a lockable toolbox in the bed of their vehicle for use in order to transport a handgun. Non-CHP auto drivers can use their car trunks. Non-CHP Soccer Moms with SUVs and minivans can just go to jail; get a nice break from the kids and the dog and the laundry. And work, of course.
Article didn't appear to address or clarify transportation of long guns.
It's a Never-Ending Battle Out There.
sfg
NE state law states you can open carry witch makes this mute if the gun is visible and or on your person does it not ? and what about those people that ride motorcycles that open carry ? there is no compartment out of there reach at all... i think this is just a way to add more charges to crimminal types and those in possession of stolen guns or those in Omaha and Lincoln that have unregistered guns but i am not nor ever want to be a lawyer lol the legal double speak makes my head hurt
so if this is what your saying ? this "clarification" now makes it so ONLY people that have chp's can open carry in Nebraska while driving ? the state Constitution just got **** on . and should be challenged and re-clarification to add that those in legal possession of a gun are not breaking any law.
-
Update... The State petitioned the Supreme Court for further review and after oral arguments in November, issued a ruling Friday reversing the Court of Appeals ruling. The opinion could be read to make it almost impossible to carry a firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, even if it is in a case. The court basically threw out the requirement that the firearm must be within immediate reach. "[T]he jury, as a rational trier of fact, could have found that the handgun was on or about Senn's person, even though it was not within his reach when driving."
The handgun in Senn was in a hardsided case when it was found in the vehicle, outside the reach of the driver. So, say you have your deer rifle in a case in the backseat of your truck and it's outside your reach, you could be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. And your CHP won't save you. CHP only applies to handguns. The concealed carry statute (28-1202) doesn't just apply to handguns, it applies to any weapon. And under Nebraska caselaw, to be classified as a weapon, a firearm does not have to be loaded.
So, I guess we'll have to see how this plays out in real life.
https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sc/opinions/2016-12-16 (https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sc/opinions/2016-12-16)
-
This ruling would appear to apply to any vehicle that doesn't have a trunk. Examples, in addition to pickups, are SUVs, vans and hatchbacks. If you have a pickup, you would need a storage box in the bed. For the others, all I can think of is a roof top carrier. A CHP would cover you for handguns but not for rifles or shotguns. The only solution for them may be to transport them in plain sight rather than in a case.
-
As for storage in a locked trunk. Wouldn't this also apply to sedans in which the back seat or arm rest can be dropped (usually by pulling a lever) to give access to the locked trunk from inside the car in the back seat. This is getting rediculous.
-
...a firearm does not have to be loaded.
Yes........ Actually, it doesn't even have to work:
===========================
State v. Clark, 10 Neb. App. 758, 637 N.W.2d 671 (2002).
A firearm does not have to be operable in order for the defendant to be guilty of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.
===========================
And for that matter, doesn't even have to be a complete firearm. Just the bare frame w/serial number constitutes a firearm. Doesn't need a barrel, magazine, cylinder, etc.
But we have the right to keep and bear it... Don't we???
sfg
-
I don't think a lockbox anywhere the vehicle would work either. There is caselaw that a firearm in a locked glove box is still concealed for the purposed of this statue.
The other issue is, even if you openly display the firearms, what do you do when you stop at Walmart? You'd have to leave your firearm out in the open because if you hide it, it's again concealed. If you leave it in the open, you're just begging to have it stolen.
-
Hopefully this nonsense will act as a catalyst to put real common sense in Nebraska statutes.
-
This is a big reason I encouraged my wife to get her CCW. In some ways that is a Get-Out-of-Jail pass since so many things don't apply to someone with that little card in their possession. This is clearly something we need to address in law since it is more and more turning into a no-guns-or-else approach to enforcement.
My wife and I both got our CCW because of the the confusing laws.
-
What utter foolishness. Constitutional carry will cure all these super confusing issues for the poor supreme court.
-
Concerning Rod's statement to the OWH - I approve.
Rod Moeller of Omaha, president of the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association, said he had not yet read the opinion, so he wasn’t sure how far-reaching it might be.
Good, good Rod :D
Off to read the opinion myself - but at face value this is asinine.
-
Senn was charged in the district court for Richardson County,
Nebraska, with attempted second degree murder, use of a firearm
to commit a felony, two counts of terroristic threats, and
carrying a concealed weapon. Following a jury trial, he was
convicted of carrying a concealed weapon but was acquitted of
the remaining charges.
Wait... what ? I'm confused lol...
anyway... continuing to read...
-
Citing a civil case, the Court of Appeals declined
to address the State’s argument that Senn could have committed
the offense just before he allegedly shot at Buckley,
I'm sorry - "could have committed the offense" ? EXCUSE ME ? TRY AGAIN.
(shaking head)
-
The Court of Appeals relied on testimony establishing that
Senn could not reach the handgun while driving, but that testimony
did not speak to whether he could have reached it in
other driving situations, such as while the vehicle was stopped.
Neither § 28-1202 nor case law requires that the weapon be
within the defendant’s reach while driving in order to be considered
“on or about his person.” In fact, in Kennedy v. State,
171 Neb. 160, 170-71, 105 N.W.2d 710, 718 (1960), where the
defendant was one of several occupants in the vehicle, we held
that a weapon is concealed when it is hidden from ordinary
observation and is “readily accessible on [the] person [of] or
in a motor vehicle operated by [the] defendant.” (Emphasis
supplied). Further, in State v. Goodwin, 184 Neb. at 541, 169
N.W.2d at 273, we affirmed the jury’s factual finding and held
that a loaded pistol found in a locked glove compartment during
a postarrest search was concealed “on or about” the person
of the driver because it was concealed in an accessible location
over which the defendant had control.
Could not reach the handgun while driving but it could be reached in other driving situations ?
I'm a bit confused.
Anyway, the locked glove box appears to be very relevant. I'd wanna read Goodwin as well just to make sure... but anyway...
I think we need "readily accessible" defined. Cause it's kind of looking like the weapon HAS to be outside of the passenger area - which is somewhat impossible in several vehicle types. IE: a minivan, suv, compact car with a hatch back, etc.
Given my initial quote of the opinion/decision a couple posts a go, it looks like a domestic situation that might have involved a questionable character (I honestly dunno) - and that the concealed weapons charge decision is more or less "poisoning the tree" (legal / liberty term). Possibly bending the law in order "to get one bad guy". See also - "you have to invoke your 5th amendment rights in order for it to apply to you" that the SCOTUS did a couple years ago.
-
This is my case. I've been working on this thing for two years and got the outcome we wanted on appeal. The ruling from the Supreme Court was disappointing to say the least. What was worse is that it didn't really clarify anything except making it appear that it is no longer possible to carry a firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle unless it is in plain sight.
I am filing a motion for rehearing with the Supreme Court this week but I'm not holding my breath that much comes of it. Unfortunately the Nebraska Supreme Court has a lot of former prosecutors on it.
If anyone has questions about the case or the ruling, I'll do my best to clear it up.
-
This is my case......If anyone has questions about the case or the ruling, I'll do my best to clear it up.
And you must feel like you're caught in a really, really bad, bizarre dream.
The contradiction here is that we have the right to keep and bear arms (US and NE Constitutions), but we can't keep them and bear them in our automobiles, where we spend a great deal of our time and life's essence.
So: How Can We--the NE Forum Membership--Help You?
Because...........By helping you we help ourselves and all other NE firearms owners.
sfg
-
This is my case. I've been working on this thing for two years and got the outcome we wanted on appeal. The ruling from the Supreme Court was disappointing to say the least. What was worse is that it didn't really clarify anything except making it appear that it is no longer possible to carry a firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle unless it is in plain sight.
I am filing a motion for rehearing with the Supreme Court this week but I'm not holding my breath that much comes of it. Unfortunately the Nebraska Supreme Court has a lot of former prosecutors on it.
If anyone has questions about the case or the ruling, I'll do my best to clear it up.
I still fail to see how they came to this conclusion, after the previous ruling that was correct. Are they attempting to give law enforcement the widest possible brush for prosecution? Did they give any insight into intent of the ruling?
-
The problem is that it is hard to have a jury verdict overturned. And this jury, I feel, felt like they needed to convict Senn of something since they found him not guilty of the felony charges. This was a fairly minor issue at the trial and I thought the testimony of the Deputy and the Sheriff saying it was outside his reach, along with the fact it was in a hard case, would be enough to get a not guilty on that too.
Although I was happy with the Court of Appeals ruling, I didn't really like their reasoning either. We have a lot of appellate judges and justices who don't really understand gun law and how this opinion will affect transporting a firearm in Nebraska (even though I stressed this multiple times).
-
Ref. Kendahl's forum comment above. Lets assume you have a CCW and own a SUV, van or hatchback. You want to take your rifle/shotgun to the range or go hunting sometime within the next 2 weeks. Since the rifle/shotgun are not covered by your CCW. Under this ruling how are you going to do it. If you say tie it on the roof I'm going have trouble believing it.
-
And you must feel like you're caught in a really, really bad, bizarre dream.
The contradiction here is that we have the right to keep and bear arms (US and NE Constitutions), but we can't keep them and bear them in our automobiles, where we spend a great deal of our time and life's essence.
So: How Can We--the NE Forum Membership--Help You?
Because...........By helping you we help ourselves and all other NE firearms owners.
sfg
At this point, I'm making a motion for rehearing and see what happens with that. It's more than likely they will not allow a rehearing. At that point, I'm going to be contacting my state Senator and see if this can be resolved by the Unicam. There is plenty of room in the statute to clarify what "on or about" actually means. I'd think even Ernie Chambers would be on board with making this more clear (since a few of his constituents get convicted of this now and again).
-
Ref. Kendahl's forum comment above. Lets assume you have a CCW and own a SUV, van or hatchback. You want to take your rifle/shotgun to the range or go hunting sometime within the next 2 weeks. Since the rifle/shotgun are not covered by your CCW. Under this ruling how are you going to do it. If you say tie it on the roof I'm going have trouble believing it.
Your only choice is to leave it in plain sight. I made this point as well at oral arguments. You're on your way to the range with your rifle in an SUV, you stop at Cabela's to buy ammo. What do you do with it? If you cover it up with anything (including a case) it's now a concealed weapon. Leave it out in the open and anyone could see it and break into your vehicle. I tried to frame that part as a public safety issue but clearly didn't have any effect.
-
The issue is bigger then transportation of firearms. What about when your wife or you decides to buy a new kitchen knife which is larger then 3.5 inches? How are you going to get it home.
John K
-
The issue is bigger then transportation of firearms. What about when your wife or you decides to buy a new kitchen knife which is larger then 3.5 inches? How are you going to get it home.
John K
^ This.
So much this.
Can't "this" hard enough.
-
The issue is bigger then transportation of firearms. What about when your wife or you decides to buy a new kitchen knife which is larger then 3.5 inches? How are you going to get it home.
John K
Hammer, ax, pipe wrench, bottle of wine, tee ball bat, on and on and on.....
-
The issue is bigger then transportation of firearms. What about when your wife or you decides to buy a new kitchen knife which is larger then 3.5 inches? How are you going to get it home.
John K
My Uncle, in Maryland adds:
You'll not believe that I tried to buy my wife a standard 13" Sabatier chef's knife and was told I couldn't take it home with me from the shop selling it. They sent it to me via UPS or FedEx or some such, without charge because of the silly laws. :D Never let a lawyer or a politician tell you how to throw out your bathwater, you'll lose your youngest children!
:D
-
I'd think even Ernie Chambers would be on board with making this more clear (since a few of his constituents get convicted of this now and again).
EC himself was charged with CCW but I am unsure if he was convicted
-
I have only been assaulted with one deadly weapon, a beer bottle. I nearly lost an eye. I had never seen the assailant before (or since) and he never said a word to me. Simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I know a guy that the same thing happened to and he did lose an eye.
Point is, don't haul beer bottles home, :o
-
Think this was mentioned earlier, but if not:
I have kids in the car. I don't want the gun out in the open while I'm focusing on traffic.
-
The word "surreal" really applies in this case. I believe those Justices knew what they were doing and they knew why they were doing it ... throwing another hurdle in front of the 2A.
-
EC himself was charged with CCW but I am unsure if he was convicted
If it happened while the legislature was in session, he was immune due to his status as a state senator. He once beat a speeding ticket on those grounds. It's my understanding that immunity was granted to prevent harassment of state senators by political opponents.
-
If it happened while the legislature was in session, he was immune due to his status as a state senator. He once beat a speeding ticket on those grounds. It's my understanding that immunity was granted to prevent harassment of state senators by political opponents.
Happened in June 1969 (note the image at the link)
http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/chambers-to-begin-final-year-of-legislative-career/article_2b7e2cd3-7ee1-52d3-aba7-6b1cd501f9b0.html
-
Happened in June 1969 (note the image at the link)
http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/chambers-to-begin-final-year-of-legislative-career/article_2b7e2cd3-7ee1-52d3-aba7-6b1cd501f9b0.html
i love this line "He’s known as the single most powerful senator in the Legislature, a power some say he abuses from time to time." and he is still doing the same ****
-
I think it should be pointed out that according to FBI data more people are killed with so-called personal weapons, which means hands, feet, teeth, etc. than by all rifles combined. And just one type of rifle is supposedly so dangerous that gun control crusaders have been trying to outlaw it for decades. So hands and feet must be pretty dangerous.
That means that if it's illegal to have a rifle within reach (unless you have purchased a permission slip to exercise your constitutional right to bear arms), it must also be illegal for your hands and feet to be in reach of your hands. This might create a problem with compliance. And if you are wearing gloves, are your hands concealed weapons (even though they might be printing)?
Regarding Ernie Chambers, I'd like to point out again that he is only a powerful senator because the RINO majority gives him power. If I read the information on Ballotpedia right, our legislature contains 12 Democrats, 35 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 1 Libertarian (who I assume would be pro-freedom). With that makeup, or anything close to that makeup, there is no reason for Nebraska to have gun laws as restrictive as we have, and no reason Ernie Chambers should be anything but a minor annoyance. Unless we are electing RINOs instead of real Republicans.
-
Regarding Ernie Chambers, I'd like to point out again that he is only a powerful senator because the RINO majority gives him power. If I read the information on Ballotpedia right, our legislature contains 12 Democrats, 35 Republicans, 1 Independent, and 1 Libertarian (who I assume would be pro-freedom). With that makeup, or anything close to that makeup, there is no reason for Nebraska to have gun laws as restrictive as we have, and no reason Ernie Chambers should be anything but a minor annoyance. Unless we are electing RINOs instead of real Republicans.
I agree with what you are saying, but keep in mind that Chambers is a bully and a big reason he gets away with his antics is that others are afraid to stand up to him and be subjected to the ridicule and obstructionism he is focusing on others. If they were to all realize what you are saying and stand up to him as a group he would become far more ineffectual. But that has, unfortunately, a slim chance of happening because he has created a Pavlovian type response in the experienced Senators who want to maintain the dignity of the Unicameral instead of represent their constituents.
-
I agree with what you are saying, but keep in mind that Chambers is a bully and a big reason he gets away with his antics is that others are afraid to stand up to him and be subjected to the ridicule and obstructionism he is focusing on others. If they were to all realize what you are saying and stand up to him as a group he would become far more ineffectual. But that has, unfortunately, a slim chance of happening because he has created a Pavlovian type response in the experienced Senators who want to maintain the dignity of the Unicameral instead of represent their constituents.
I agree with what you are saying my friend, but would say it more succinctly with these words: the Nebraska Republican Party has no cajones. They should be reminded of this, and reminded that if they do not have what it takes to do their duty, they should step down and let someone willing to stand up to Chambers take their place. With the numbers so much in their favor, the situation we have is simply not acceptable, and is a black mark on the state Republican Party.