NFOA MEMBERS FORUM

General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Coyote Dan on January 10, 2009, 11:08:54 AM

Title: Just Curious...
Post by: Coyote Dan on January 10, 2009, 11:08:54 AM
In LB63, an amended section is as follows below.  Now I know the majority here are not lawyers, but even in the event of self defense either by a CCW holder or in your own house (dwelling), the shooter is a felon according to this section, correct?

22 Sec. 15. Section 28-1212.02, Reissue Revised Statutes of
23 Nebraska, is amended to read:
24 28-1212.02 Any person who intentionally discharges a
25 firearm at an inhabited dwelling house, occupied building, occupied
-17-
LB 63 LB 63
1 motor vehicle, occupied aircraft, inhabited motor home as defined
2 in section 71-4603, or inhabited camper unit as defined in section
3 60-1801 shall be guilty of a Class III ID felony.

The bill and contents can be found at :
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/

Pages 17 and 18
Title: Re: Just Curious...
Post by: Coyote Dan on January 10, 2009, 11:18:53 AM
P.S...

It was Friend whom introduced this bill.  This bill also up the penalties for many gun related infractions to felonies, including the one in discussion of discharging a firearm.
Title: Re: Just Curious...
Post by: JimP on January 10, 2009, 07:32:09 PM
"28-1212.02 Any person who intentionally discharges a
25 firearm at an inhabited dwelling house, occupied building, occupied...... "

I take "at" to mean toward, but if you give a lawyer or prosecutor (same species of weasel, just a color varience) ANY wiggle room, they can twist it around to their employer's benefit.....
Title: Re: Just Curious...
Post by: Jesse T on January 12, 2009, 09:01:08 AM
I think it means firing a weapon at anything, while standing in an inhabited dwelling house, building, etc. 

At least, I would say that is how lawyers will use it.
Title: Re: Just Curious...
Post by: FarmerRick on January 12, 2009, 12:40:23 PM
Basically, I think they're trying to say "no drive-by's".  It's not really needed, but if adopted, I think that something about lawful self defense should be added somehow.
Title: Re: Just Curious...
Post by: JimP on January 12, 2009, 07:39:37 PM
Basically, I think they're trying to say "no drive-by's".  It's not really needed, but if adopted, I think that something about lawful self defense should be added somehow.

Yeah...... leave it to a batch of lawyers to say in 3 paragraphs what they could have said in 3 words.........