NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: grumpy old man on August 15, 2014, 03:25:07 PM
-
Does anyone besides me find it Unconstitutional (and very upsetting) in Nebraska legal law abiding citizens have to get finger printed to get a conceal and carry permit? Why are we presumed guilty (only guilty of exercising our second amendment right) of crimes where we have to get finger printed. If you want to exercise your right of free speech you don't have to get finger printed. I find this Unconstitutional and a violation of my rights of privacy.
Would you support getting this changed? If so please like my facebook page as I have contacted certain state legislators who are willing to hear my thoughts if I can show them enough people. In fact I have written to the Highway patrol to see if I can collect signatures in front of the Highway Patrol office in Omaha where people have to get fingerprinted to start collecting signatures to take to these legislators to get this law changed.
https://www.facebook.com/Nebraskansforconcealandcarryeverywhere (https://www.facebook.com/Nebraskansforconcealandcarryeverywhere)
-
Do you post anything other than "like my Facebook page"?
And besides, as a Veteran, a former EMT, and firefighter, among having a checkered past, I'm on so many lists and have been printed so many times that I don't care about one more.
-
Do you post anything other than "like my Facebook page"?
And besides, as a Veteran, a former EMT, and firefighter, among having a checkered past, I'm on so many lists and have been printed so many times that I don't care about one more.
The reason I post the request to like it is because I am trying to get the Nebraska Legislators to uphold the 2nd Amendment. Just like the NFOA I want Nebraskans to be active in making sure we can keep our gun rights. I am not saying You ok but in general I find many Nebraskans who are not willing to be an active participant in making sure we keep our 2nd Amendment rights.
God Bless and I hope you have a good day.
-
Truth is, anyone can carry concealed under statue 28-1202 and then if caught and charged, defend themselves in court using 28-1202 and the Nebraska constitution as an affirmative defense.
I (and many others in NFOA )did so for years prior to the Concealed Handgun Act being passed.
Of course that offers no help if you want to leave Nebraska and travel with a CCW in another state, so many of us made a choice.
What really needs to happen is a test case, where an otherwise totally law abiding citizen, violating no other law than the concealed carry of a handgun, is arrested, charged and convicted, and then push that case to the Nebraska Supreme Court on appeals for a definitive ruling that creates precedence.
Most people choose instead to give up essential liberty to gain a little security, save on legal fees and get the bonus of legal CCW in other states.
Morally it is not the way I want to go, but realistically, it is the best situation I can obtain with my limited resources, so I submit my prints and pay my fee and move on.
I am not quite the true patriot we all strive to be, but there is a line I will not be pushed past right there at my feet.
-
Truth is, anyone can carry concealed under statue 28-1202 and then if caught and charged, defend themselves in court using 28-1202 and the Nebraska constitution as an affirmative defense.
I (and many others in NFOA )did so for years prior to the Concealed Handgun Act being passed.
Of course that offers no help if you want to leave Nebraska and travel with a CCW in another state, so many of us made a choice.
What really needs to happen is a test case, where an otherwise totally law abiding citizen, violating no other law than the concealed carry of a handgun, is arrested, charged and convicted, and then push that case to the Nebraska Supreme Court on appeals for a definitive ruling that creates precedence.
Most people choose instead to give up essential liberty to gain a little security, save on legal fees and get the bonus of legal CCW in other states.
Morally it is not the way I want to go, but realistically, it is the best situation I can obtain with my limited resources, so I submit my prints and pay my fee and move on.
I am not quite the true patriot we all strive to be, but there is a line I will not be pushed past right there at my feet.
Thanks Dan. My goal is to save someone a lot of money and time by getting the Legislators the opportunity to correct a bad law that restricts the 2nd Amendment. I am thankful for your comments. God Bless
-
I am afraid that the Legislation will be ignored just as the words of our Constitution are now ignored, not to mention this legislation will never be allowed to come out of committee until we replace the committee members with patriots in an election.
-
I am afraid that the Legislation will be ignored just as the words of our Constitution are now ignored, not to mention this legislation will never be allowed to come out of committee until we replace the committee members with patriots in an election.
I have emailed the gentlemen you told me to about volunteering for the NFOA but I never got a response. I would love to volunteer anyway i can.
-
How precisely is requiring fingerprinting for CCW unconstitutional??
You are NOT required to submit prints to purchase, or to possess or to own or to even sell your privately owned guns ( I did have to submit prints with my application for my FFL )
Your rights to own, purchase, or posses do NOT hinge on your willingness to submit prints.
How is requiring fingerprints "presuming guilt"??
-
Finger printing, is an infringement of our 2nd Amendment Rights!
as is paying a fee for a permit.
-
Finger printing, is an infringement of our 2nd Amendment Rights!
How??
Fingerprinting is NOT required to purchase, possess, or sell privately owned firearms.
-
Why?
As others have said, I have been fingerprinted for the military, working in corrections, security clearance to get into areas for my work. So why should it bother me to be printed to get CHP ? I have nothing in my background to worry about, only those that want to hide something would care.
-
How??
Fingerprinting is NOT required to purchase, possess, or sell privately owned firearms.
You are only considering the "keep" part of "To keep and bear arms". The "bear" part should not be something that has to be approved by government. A few states have "Constitutional Carry" which means they don't have to get approval to bear arms. A right is not a right if those who are not disallowed have to get approval to do it. Do you have to get approval to exercise your First Amendment rights? No, but you can be held accountable if you are not responsible with those rights AFTER the fact. Same should be true for all rights, including the Second Amendment.
Fly
-
You are only considering the "keep" part of "To keep and bear arms". The "bear" part should not be something that has to be approved by government. A few states have "Constitutional Carry" which means they don't have to get approval to bear arms. A right is not a right if those who are not disallowed have to get approval to do it.
Do you have to get approval to exercise your First Amendment rights?
No, but you can be held accountable if you are not responsible with those rights AFTER the fact. Same should be true for all rights, including the Second Amendment.
Fly
Am I??
I don't have to be fingerprinted to open carry a handgun, nor openly carry longguns...
When was the last time you showed up at a city council meeting WITHOUT at some point along the way getting permission to speak??
Since you like to use the 1st amendment as a measuring stick, would asking to be added to the agenda, or raising your hand when asked " who is here to speak on... " be an infringement??
-
I have only a very limited knowledge on one states "constitutional carry" and if I am not mistaken, the law reads something along the lines of " any resident ... with NO CRIMINAL intent"
So those people cant carry with criminal intent............is that a restriction on their rights???
( I am really just trying to make a point more than say the law is wrong, for what its worth... )
-
I don't have to be fingerprinted to open carry a handgun, nor openly carry longguns...
Why should it matter whether you want to open or conceal? Neither should be something that requires permission.
When was the last time you showed up at a city council meeting WITHOUT at some point along the way getting permission to speak??
I have to admit that I don't think I have ever gone to a city council meeting. With that said, are those in charge asking what your point of view is? Are they denying you permission to speak because it doesn't align with what the council believes? Or, if you are denied, is it because there are time constraints? If they are determining permission based on your stand on an issue then, yes, this would be wrong. However, I doubt that is what is going on.
Since you like to use the 1st amendment as a measuring stick, would asking to be added to the agenda, or raising your hand when asked " who is here to speak on... " be an infringement??
You are comparing apples and oranges. Organizing a meeting to make sure everyone gets an opportunity to speak is not the problem. Denying you your opportunity to speak is.
I have only a very limited knowledge on one states "constitutional carry" and if I am not mistaken, the law reads something along the lines of " any resident ... with NO CRIMINAL intent"
So those people cant carry with criminal intent............is that a restriction on their rights???
This verbiage is redundant. It is already illegal for a person to kill, rob, rape, etc. another person. It is also already really, really, really illegal to commit any crime with a gun. So no, this is not an infringement. Just verbiage to make some politician and/or constituent happy.
Fly
-
(http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo234/barmandr/TinFoilHatAreaOnly_zps1beedc8d.jpg)
-
I don't have to be fingerprinted to open carry a handgun, nor openly carry longguns...
Agreeing with Fly here---the "bear" part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't limit what type of carry. And your listed infringement does.
Here's another way of putting it: You have the right to free speech. However, are you okay with the government telling you that you can say it verbally however you like, but you can't actually write it down to convey the message? Without a permit, of course?
Why not? After all, you can still tell your message. You just can't do it in a written form without having a background check to make sure you are the right kind of person, allowed to put things in writing so that others might read it even if you aren't around.
You are saying: that we can carry---we just can't do it with concealment? As long as you let us "bear" in some fashion, that's good enough, right? We should probably just go the California route, with guns only carried openly, without one in the chamber, and without a magazine inserted. That's still allowing us to "bear" them, right?
On a similar note, I think that words can hurt (we tell this to our children, right?) and that online bullying is getting worse and worse lately (which is true) so since we don't want that kind of assault occurring, we should just ban people's ability to speak their mind on the internet. They can still say whatever they like, but they can't do it in a written form---it must be verbally.
That's okay, right? You can still have free speech a-plenty.
Oh wait, no.
2nd amendment says "bear". It doesn't say "bear only in a set of circumscribed situations in a particular manner after having paid for the privilege and jumping through multiple hoops as set by a government that is supposed to be specifically restrained by this amendment."
I really wouldn't argue that concealed carry permits aren't an infringement, unless you are all right with your choice of speech or religion requiring permits either. Or any of the other rights you are supposed to have.
-
+1 and well stated jthhapkido .
-
Truth is, anyone can carry concealed under statue 28-1202 and then if caught and charged, defend themselves in court using 28-1202 and the Nebraska constitution as an affirmative defense.
I (and many others in NFOA )did so for years prior to the Concealed Handgun Act being passed.
Of course that offers no help if you want to leave Nebraska and travel with a CCW in another state, so many of us made a choice.
What really needs to happen is a test case, where an otherwise totally law abiding citizen, violating no other law than the concealed carry of a handgun, is arrested, charged and convicted, and then push that case to the Nebraska Supreme Court on appeals for a definitive ruling that creates precedence.
Most people choose instead to give up essential liberty to gain a little security, save on legal fees and get the bonus of legal CCW in other states.
Morally it is not the way I want to go, but realistically, it is the best situation I can obtain with my limited resources, so I submit my prints and pay my fee and move on.
I am not quite the true patriot we all strive to be, but there is a line I will not be pushed past right there at my feet.
That is one of the better explanations of the CHP dilemma in Nebraska I have come across, and it mirrors my experience with the law from the time I moved here in 1983 from Iowa with a CCW permit.