NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: depserv on December 09, 2014, 03:55:27 PM
-
*Instead of a concealed handgun permit it should be a concealed weapon permit. It isn't that carrying something other than a handgun is a big deal to me, it's that restrictions like that should not be placed on those who have bought a license to exercise a Constitutional right, which by the way is not a right to keep and bear handguns specifically but to keep and bear arms. It is not a privilege to be bestowed on us by our caring big brother in the statehouse however he sees fit; it's a right that has already been infringed on far too much by having to get a license to exercise it in the first place. So let's end the arbitrary and idiotic language that only allows a handgun to be carried concealed.
*No license should be required to carry concealed in Nebraska, but one can be issued for those who want one so they can carry in other states. Having to get a license to bear arms is like having to get a license to attend church or read a book.
*There should be no duty to inform. It might be a good thing to do as a courtesy but should not be required. A law-abiding citizen exercising his right to bear arms is not a danger to police because he is exercising that right, and a citizen who is not law-abiding will not obey the law about informing the policeman in the first place (and probably doesn't have a license anyway). How about a law saying that all Moslems have to be registered, and have to inform any law enforcement officer they encounter that they are Islamic; that makes about as much sense (actually it makes more sense). The citizen is no more a danger to an agent of the state than the state is to the citizen, and our laws should reflect that, in order to keep us off the slippery slope so many others have fallen victim to.
*Instead of making places that derive above a certain amount of income from serving alcohol legally required to be felon-friendly by making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry in them, treat carrying under the influence like driving under the influence. Carrying a concealed weapon is not more dangerous than driving a car. It isn't ok to drink when you have a gun, but it isn't ok to drink and drive either, and the one is not worse than the other. The difference in treatment is based on a false (apparent) assumption that driving is more a right than bearing arms, which I guess is considered a privilege.
There should be no place where concealed weapons can not be carried except those mandated by federal law (and those laws should be changed too, but are beyond the scope of what our legislature can do). The only penalty for carrying into a place where an anti-gun bigot has put up a sign saying no guns allowed should be that the bigot can make you leave.
*Any law against any kind of knife, including switchblades and gravity knives, is an illegal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by both our federal and state constitutions, and any city council, mayor, police chief, sheriff, police officer, or any bureaucrat who tries to infringe on that right should be sentenced to jail; this goes beyond just knives, and should be written into Nebraska law.
That's all I can think of for now. Maybe other members have some ideas.
-
Agreed, but most of all with point #1 simply because I had to get rid of certain pocketknives when I moved into this state because concealed carry permits don't cover knives! I'm trusted with a handgun but not a 3.5" blade? ???
The other big one in that list would be no penalty for carrying where posted other than them asking you to leave. My previous state was basically like this and carrying concealed handguns was essentially "don't ask, don't tell."
-
I agree with All above
and All "no guns allowed" Signage should be UNIFORM across the entire State.
Or said Sign is not valid or binding.
-
I agree. We need to work at getting rid of gun free zones, the first step would be to make signage non enforceable, next would be to whittle away at the long list of gun free zones in the CHP law.(Standardized signage not too important if law doesn't back the signs)
Getting rid of duty to inform law enforcement needs to be done away with, the only guns that law enforcement needs to be considered with would be the unlawful ones, kinda doubt a criminal carrying a gun would inform. (Hence gun laws only effect the lawful)
I would like to see a legislative bill making any new restrictive gun laws federal or state null and void and non enforceable.( Need to put a cork in the infringements)
-
I think it would be nice to have a statewide preemption law passed which would disallow any city/local ordinance from being more strict than state law. I know that permit holders have preemption of sorts, but extending preemption to all gun owners is a worthehile goal, I think. It would be great to do away with Omaha's registration and their silly open carry permit.
Also, I know it would be great to have no "gun free" zones, but that may have to be done bit by bit. One area that I think would be a good place to start is publicly funded/owned properties, like public libraries or city parks (I am thinking of Lincoln here, since libraries are posted and parks are supposedly off limits, but i have never seen a sign).
-
One improvement in ALL laws would be to make term limits lifetime, not sit out and start over. Also, I do like the idea of making committee chair votes public.
-
I still have a relatively bad feeling about my CHP. Had to pay over $250 (class and application fine), drive long distances (to class and NSP)...provide proof of identity, residency and citizenship (that is deemed ridiculous for voters to prove in various places apparently or live in this country...but I digress). Then there is the whole fingerprinting thing. So, yeah...my constitutional rights have been reduced to a privilege by NE. Not to mention feeling like a criminal. No wait, criminals carry without doing any of that. So good people are being punished for following the law by following the law. Now I have to wonder if the police could make a mistaken visit to my house that they will enter un-announced. Could a simple traffic stop become complicated? And, people are concerned about "registration".
Where's the right?
Iowa has a minimal class, lower cost, no fingerprinting and a BAC limit...and NE recongnizes the permit.
-
There is definitely room for improvement..... (Mr obvious)
I wonder....what is possible with this new & undoubtedly improved legislature?
Would we be selling ourselves short by not going for 'Constitutional Carry'?
I believe that we will be able make forward progress at a decent pace after years of blah blah....
It pretty much makes me sick that every year our legislature keeps adding more laws to the list....justifying their very existence...I guess that I want to be one of the clowns at the party to help make sure some of those are rolling back over reaching laws.
Allowing teachers/faculty to carry is a no-brainer to me & I have been amazed talking to other Pro-Rights people who are against it? I guess that sticker on the glass is sufficient...
State Preemption is a big one for me....the fact that a few cities can basically do whatever they desire against the direct wording of the Nebraska Constitution makes me want to barf. I was amazed at how bad Omaha was until Lincoln started their backdoor registration scheme! I lived in Omaha nearly my entire life & I would not buy a house inside the city limits ever again!
At the end of the day it is an uphill battle. The things that we know as common sense are being opposed by the media & politicians every day....
How easy would it be for a billionaire to fund a ballot initiative here in Nebraska & wipe out years of efforts & hardwork?
I really believe in strength in numbers & now is as good a time as any to solidify our organization... to move forward and make our state a better place for future generations of firearm owners!
-
I was amazed at how bad Omaha was until Lincoln started their backdoor registration scheme!
Funny. There used to be a little shop on O st. called The Gun Rack bought a pistol from them and after the paper work was done they handed me a little card to fill out for LPD on the pistol. Asked Dave if I had to fill it out, answer was No, you don't live in Lincoln so it's voluntary. This was early 80's. Couple of years later it was mandatory for him to fill it out and send it in himself for all handgun purchases by Lincoln residents. Pizzed him off real good, but he had to do it to stay open. So this has been going on since the mid to late 80's. Amazing that people are just now finding out about it.
-
I agree. We need to work at getting rid of gun free zones, the first step would be to make signage non enforceable, next would be to whittle away at the long list of gun free zones in the CHP law.(Standardized signage not too important if law doesn't back the signs)
Yes ... Standardized signage / placement requirements. Aren't there warehouse clubs like Costco that are technically off limits without signage because they have a clause in your membership agreement? That should be disallowed.
Same goes for blanket prohibitions at malls. Do I understand that Scheels (probably the biggest firearms retailer in Lincoln) is a no-carry store, despite no signs on the door, because the whole mall area is posted somewhere?
Reduced administrative burden and fingerprinting. The process was much easier and cheaper in Virginia. Surely there are some good statistics out there showing that states like that do or don't (I'm banking on "don't") have any higher rates of crimes committed by CHP holders, negligent discharges by CHP holders, etc.
On the other hand (and I know this may not be popular) I actually liked the idea of a Level II carry permit with more advanced training (shelter in place, etc.) for areas like elementary schools, churches and hospitals.
* The main idea being that anything that would happen there would involve a thick mass of (possibly young / old / invalid) people and -- in the case of elementary schools kids at least -- a moral duty to fight back that might not exist in other scenerios. In some of those situations a knife in trained hands may be preferable, which goes back to idea of a CWP.
* The seondary idea being that such areas are the most vulnerable spots for a terrorist shooting, either in the classic sense of political terrorism ala the Westgate Mall Kenya, or a simple lone nutcase.
-
Any kind of "level II" license for carrying in certain sensitive areas would have to be issued on a shall issue basis once certain provisions are met, such as I suppose a marksmanship test, and I don't know what else, since it's kind of hard to assess how a person will do in an emergency. Any kind of may issue license system will be abused. My opinion is the only license any of us should need is Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.
Is South Point Mall in Lincoln posted as a felon friendly zone? I don't remember seeing any such signs.
-
The Level II CHP sounds like an interesting idea. Personally I'd rather ALL CHP's be like that, but we can't have everything we want. Additional mandatory training would make it easier to sell to the general public/legislature.
-
And I've always wondered what the purpose is for fingerprinting CHP applicants? Do they get filed in a database somewhere? Or are they used as part of the background checks and run against cold cases with unidentified fingerprints on record? And if the latter, what is the success rate of catching these criminals by fingerprinting applicants (has to be dang near 0)?
From the outside looking in, it seems like unnecessary overhead with no practical purpose.
-
Iowa has a minimal class, lower cost, no fingerprinting and a BAC limit...and NE recongnizes the permit.
Although you are correct, I want to point out that Nebraska evaluated all states CCW requirements to determine which states we would recognize. That process took place prior to major changes in the Iowa carry laws. If they were to re-evaluate, Iowa would drop off the list of recognized states for the reasons you noted above.
-
It has always amazed me how many NFOA members pretend they are against gun free zones, yet they aren't willing to get rid of the law that enforces them.
Many states, including several around Nebraska, their laws do not support no gun signs, private property owners can post them but, it's up to them to ask Individual to leave, if individual refuses, law is called and a trespass warrant could be prosecuted, just like any other behavior a business doesn't agree with. (NO NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL LAW PROSECUTING INDIVIDUALS FOR EXERCISING A RIGHT)
-
It has always amazed me how many NFOA members pretend they are against gun free zones, yet they aren't willing to get rid of the law that enforces them.
Is it because none of us is a member of the Unicameral?
-
Although you are correct, I want to point out that Nebraska evaluated all states CCW requirements to determine which states we would recognize. That process took place prior to major changes in the Iowa carry laws. If they were to re-evaluate, Iowa would drop off the list of recognized states for the reasons you noted above.
VVVVVVVVVVfarmerbobVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
This is another thing Nebraska should look at, I believe Nebraska should recognize all other states permits, this could help build a less restrictive atmosphere that would be more inclusive for such things as constitutional carry and national reciprocity.
-
The Level II CHP sounds like an interesting idea. Personally I'd rather ALL CHP's be like that, but we can't have everything we want. Additional mandatory training would make it easier to sell to the general public/legislature.
Well I didn't mention it as an argument for more mandatory training for everyone. I would like to see the current CHP issuance process made easier. There are a lot of states where the issuance process is much cheaper and easier and they don't require prints of the sides of your hand, etc. Are the streets running red with blood in those states? No. We in Nebraska are treated like criminals compared to other states' CWP applicants even if a farmer simply wants to keep a gun behind the seat of his pickup, or if an outdoorsman wants to carry a "kit gun" in his tackle box or backpack, or if a mother wants to put a pistol in her purse when she has to go to a 24 hour pharmacy at 1:00am when a kid is sick.
Many thousands of Nebraskans take to the fields every hunting season with only the hunter safety course they took in their teenage years (without a live-fire shooting test) and that seems to work pretty well. Frankly I'm not sure why the two couldn't be merged and why we needed a separate bureaucracy to confirm proficiency.
Any kind of "level II" license for carrying in certain sensitive areas would have to be issued on a shall issue basis once certain provisions are met, such as I suppose a marksmanship test, and I don't know what else, since it's kind of hard to assess how a person will do in an emergency. Any kind of may issue license system will be abused. My opinion is the only license any of us should need is Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.
Those are some good points. Bear in mind this is not my idea. Recall the legislature tried to pass a bill last year for teachers to carry in schools and the second day of training covered things like sheltering in place. I kind of liked the idea because - as I stated on this forum - if you're a teacher in one of my kids classroom and there's an active shooter or any other threat to kids' safety, you have a moral duty to fight to the death. Worrying about your own safety is not an option until every kid is safe. What was bad about the idea is that it required the school systems' knowledge and approval.
-
It has always amazed me how many NFOA members pretend they are against gun free zones, yet they aren't willing to get rid of the law that enforces them.
Are we just supposed to deem them gone?
History did not start the day you showed up here, rather late in the process I will note, and we have been fighting every year to remove gun free zones, for consistent signage requirements, for state wide preemption and to remove the penalties of gun fee zones and gotten no where.
Do you have some magic that will make this happen? If you do, I expect you will be at all the Legislative hearings this next year and share your wisdom with us.
At the very least you can quit blaming NFOA members for the gun free zones
-
Well actually I have been posting here on the no guns no money since 2010 so that's about enough of the Jonny come lately bull, may have had previous membership under LEO, that is what it was at Nebraska concealed carry site.
Not blaming NFOA members for anything!!! I've noticed from past discussion that some NFOA members seemed to be more for private property rights and gun free zones, not the elimination of them,just my observation.
The state capital is in your backyard not mine, 5 hour drive for me but I will try to make it.
Have you ever thought about decaff Dan???
-
Are we just supposed to deem them gone?
History did not start the day you showed up here, rather late in the process I will note, and we have been fighting every year to remove gun free zones, for consistent signage requirements, for state wide preemption and to remove the penalties of gun fee zones and gotten no where.
Do you have some magic that will make this happen? If you do, I expect you will be at all the Legislative hearings this next year and share your wisdom with us.
At the very least you can quit blaming NFOA members for the gun free zones
I did not take that the way you did. I believe he is stating that many who took the trouble to join here still think limits on our natural rights are acceptable if there is a perception of safety. Too many folks fear what might happen if we were to realize true liberty.
I think you (Dan) are referring to it taking increments to get where we should be.
-
I don't think Dan cares for me very much since I was so brazen to disagree with his best buddy Gunscribe, but I don,t care.
The more I learned about Gunscribe and his cause I believe he was right and I was wrong.
-
Not blaming NFOA members for anything!!!
Maybe I misread his quote too Dan W....
One novel COST saving idea would be to copy Texas online RENEWAL. NO LOGICAL reason exists for having to return to CID (or you local NSP) to reprint.
-
I absolutely think gun-free zones should be abolished, but that would be very hard to do in today's political climate. It's better to start small and get some of the easy changes fixed first.
Face it, if we took this list (a very reasonable, and dare I say "common sense" list) and tried to push for all of these at once, the media would instantly label us a bunch of baby-killing lunatic fringe gun nuts and 60% of the population would take that at face value without any thought.
The gun rights battle is a game of chess. Plan ahead, wait for the enemy to make mistakes, and exploit their weaknesses, one piece at a time. Marching straight for the king is PR suicide until the media's tide swings right again.
-
To make it easier for you to understand bullit, if we had a poll, if private property should have right to post no gun signs, I would bet we be lucky to get 50% saying they should not. Our right to carry is a basic civil right, can you name any other civil rights private property owners aren't allowed to discriminate against bullit??? (I can think of several)
We need to look at no gun signs as discrimination and refuse to sit in the back of the bus!!!! (UNDERSTAND NOW)
-
Have you ever thought about decaff Dan?
You call out NFOA members then are surprised when someone yells back? Don't care how far away you are, you don't get to criticize the ones that are there doing all the work.
And, since when did private property rights come in second to RKBA?
-
That's one vote for gun free zones.
-
That's one vote for gun free zones.
The rights are equal, are they not?
-
You are wrong again dan, as monthly contributor, which is monies I work for, I do have a say!!!
-
You are wrong again dan,
How so?
-
Last time I checked, this is N-Nebraska
F-firearm
O-owners
A- association
Property owners probably have their own groups and I'm sure they don't rally around our cause.
-
Last time I checked, this is N-Nebraska
F-firearm
O-owners
A- association
Property owners probably have their own groups and I'm sure they don't rally around our cause.
Ever consider that most all of us are both?
-
It has always amazed me how many NFOA members pretend they are against gun free zones, yet they aren't willing to get rid of the law that enforces them.
farmerbob ... I am CLEAR on the property rights thing... got it. I again, like DanW was referring to (and trying to) UNDERSTAND the above quote (the one I posted before). Your inference that NFOA members "aren't willing" to get rid of the law is perplexing. You sound like a knowledgeable person so I will give you the benefit of the doubt you know the Unicameral MAKES law, NOT the NFOA members. WE (the NFOA members) are and have been aggressive since our inception in getting laws more favorable for CHP and gun owners in general ... and if you care to bother looking you will see we have made a POSITIVE impact.
-
I'm not criticizing the NFOA or it's members and never said they weren't willing, but I think dan made my argument for me when he acknowledge the rights of the people putting up the signs are equal to the individuals they discriminate against.
-
It has always amazed me how many NFOA members pretend they are against gun free zones, yet they aren't willing to get rid of the law that enforces them.
Many states, including several around Nebraska, their laws do not support no gun signs, private property owners can post them but, it's up to them to ask Individual to leave, if individual refuses, law is called and a trespass warrant could be prosecuted, just like any other behavior a business doesn't agree with. (NO NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL LAW PROSECUTING INDIVIDUALS FOR EXERCISING A RIGHT)
First of all, I don't think it's helpful to any cause to call out NFOA members who support private property rights, and label them as being pro-Gun Free Zones. That's just simply not the case.
I would venture a guess that most of the NFOA members are conservative or libertarian; both categories hold private property rights and the right to keep and bear arms in high regard. Many believe those rights are equal in stature, and that one person's rights shouldn't trump another person's. These rights have to co-exist, and that's the point of the "no guns, no money" position (i.e. you can have your private property rights, but if you don't respect my RKBA, then I'll do business elsewhere).
Secondly, you'll be hard-pressed to find an NFOA member that doesn't think the law should be changed regarding the enforcement of posted locations. I'll bet there are very few, if any, NFOA members that believe those signs should have the force of law. I'm guessing most agree with you that a business owner should have to ask someone to leave, and that person would have to refuse before getting law enforcement involved. Then the situation would be handled as a trespass, as you mentioned in your post. I don't know where the perception comes from that people here don't agree with your position.
Sorry, farmerbob, must have been writing at the same time you were. Posted after your response.
-
Let me just add that there is a difference between private properties, some are open to the public others are not, I'm talking about the open to the public type only.
Never said I wasn't grateful for everything the NFOA and it's members do for gun rights. I would like to thank each and every one of you, not just the boots on the ground, but everyone that gives their hard earned money and time.( this organization should be of it's members for it's members)
This thread was to express our 2 cents worth, I've exhaust mine.
-
Do I understand that Scheels (probably the biggest firearms retailer in Lincoln) is a no-carry store, despite no signs on the door, because the whole mall area is posted somewhere?
The food court and mall are no carry zones at southpointe Pavillion. Nebr open carry lists Scheels as open carry friendly, and even the NFOA bad guy list doesn't have Scheels on it. I carry in scheels all the time with no problems.
The rights are equal, are they not?
Evidently Dan, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are only for the ones who believe in the 2nd Amendment. Everyone elses rights are inferior, and thus of no importance.
-
Well it depends DR4NRA, if your 2nd. Amendment rights and rights of self defense are basic fundamental civil rights as a citizen of this country, then we could argue that it would be discrimination. Not to long ago certain races were not allowed in certain businesses, I'm sure their was a lot of business owners crying about their rights as business owners not to allow them in and how this infringed on their constitutional rights.
Maybe right to carry, right to self defense and 2A are not a civil rights then I'm wrong and it's not discriminatory. After all a civil right is something you should never have to check at the door.
-
Do I understand that Scheels (probably the biggest firearms retailer in Lincoln) is a no-carry store, despite no signs on the door, because the whole mall area is posted somewhere?
The food court and mall are no carry zones at southpointe Pavillion. Nebr open carry lists Scheels as open carry friendly, and even the NFOA bad guy list doesn't have Scheels on it. I carry in scheels all the time with no problems.
Ok, and somehow I missed this groovy thread from last February...
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,11164.msg79178.html#msg79178 (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,11164.msg79178.html#msg79178)
...which makes it clear as mud that:
* Scheels Lincoln welcomes concealed carry, however...
* Some of the Southpointy (how I pronounce it when people put a stupid superflous "e" at the end of a word to sound cool) sidewalk signs prohibit OC or CC, however...
* Some folks here reasonably surmise that such signage doesn't meets the definition of "conspicuous", however...
* I really don't want to have to argue that before the judge. ::)
All of which does make me wish the laws were better in this state regarding the whole signage matter. I understand both sides of the "RKBA versus Property Rights" conversation above, but having to rely on inconsistent signage seems silly and puts lawful carriers, property owners and LEOs in a confusing situation.
-
Maybe right to carry, right to self defense and 2A are not a civil rights then I'm wrong and it's not discriminatory. After all a civil right is something you should never have to check at the door.
This may be a useful analogy: I read in another forum about a bearded-weirdo hippie type hanging out in a California gun store then confronting every ammo / bullet buyer about whether they were aware that lead is killing the California Condor. If you were the gun store owner would you say Hippie Guy's first amendment rights trumped your rights to throw him off your private property?
-
This may be a useful analogy: I read in another forum about a bearded-weirdo hippie type hanging out in a California gun store then confronting every ammo / bullet buyer about whether they were aware that lead is killing the California Condor. If you were the gun store owner would you say Hippie Guy's first amendment rights trumped your rights to throw him off your private property?
That seems to be an individual thrown out do to bad behavior, I think we are talking about not allowing an entire group of people for exercising their rights guaranteed by the constitution.
If you said no hippies in your business, it might be infringing, might be sued, look at what happened when someone didn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple. (Just saying)
Does it state in the constitution you have the right to be gay or a hippie??? I can show you exactly where it says shall not be infringed.
-
This may be a useful analogy: I read in another forum about a bearded-weirdo hippie type hanging out in a California gun store then confronting every ammo / bullet buyer about whether they were aware that lead is killing the California Condor. If you were the gun store owner would you say Hippie Guy's first amendment rights trumped your rights to throw him off your private property?
Depends if the signage is right!!!!!
-
That seems to be an individual thrown out do to bad behavior, I think we are talking about not allowing an entire group of people for exercising their rights guaranteed by the constitution.
If you said no hippies in your business, it might be infringing, might be sued, look at what happened when someone didn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple. (Just saying)
Does it state in the constitution you have the right to be gay or a hippie??? I can show you exactly where it says shall not be infringed.
No, but the Declaration of Independence does, which predates the constitution.
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...
Guess what ever makes you happy.
-
No, but the Declaration of Independence does, which predates the constitution.
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...
Guess what ever makes you happy.
In Jefferson's mind, and that of the framers, "the pursuit of happiness" had nothing to do with temporary pleasure, but rather with owning property and all that comes with it.
Just an FYI
-
Our right to carry is a basic civil right, can you name any other civil rights private property owners aren't allowed to discriminate against bullit??? (I can think of several)
Like what?
-
Like what?
Race
sex
disabilities
national origins
religious beliefs
I carry everyday, this is who I am, this what I do, every time I see one of these signs I fill like I am discriminated against.
-
Race
sex
disabilities
national origins
religious beliefs
I carry everyday, this is who I am, this what I do, every time I see one of these signs I fill like I am discriminated against.
Actually, you can discriminate who can use your business. I know recent rulings fly in the face of that, but, the truth is the truth. Segregation was not legal because it was mandated by law.
-
In Jefferson's mind, and that of the framers, "the pursuit of happiness" had nothing to do with temporary pleasure, but rather with owning property and all that comes with it.
Just an FYI
Wow, so now it was all about land ownership? Seems to me it was about getting rid of tyranny and creating a new government.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
-
So how does all this improve gun laws in our state? We can get involved so deeply in arguing about this or that tree that we lose sight of the forest. We have property rights and we have a right to bear arms; can we all agree on that? As I understand it, we can decide who comes on our property, as long as wanting someone off our property is not an expression of thoughtcrime, as defined by liberalism, America's official state religion.
I think we should be aggressive in ending the illegal edicts that have been imposed by the criminal gang in our statehouse. Some think we should be timid and careful not to upset those who are ignorant about the issue and are led by anti-gun bigots, but to me that's a losing strategy. We should approach the issue as ones who have truth and the law on our side, because we do. And we have the experience of other states that have been obeying the law to base our arguments in. There is an old saying that the best defense is a good offense, and nowhere is that more true than in politics.
So how could our state laws be stripped of the illegal edicts that corrupt them?
*No permit should be needed to exercise a Constitutional right, especially when an amendment to the preamble of our state constitution reinforces that right. The law is the law, whether or not Ernie Chambers likes it. He is no more a king than Obama, and he is not above the law. And neither is the rest of the state legislature. If they refuse to obey the law, they are criminals, and citizens should not put up with their lawlessness.
*If we have no choice but to submit to this illegal licensing system, the license should be a concealed WEAPON permit, not a concealed handgun permit. making it a handgun only permit is insane, and serves only to give the impression that the permit is bestowing a privilege instead of complying with the written law. Also, the state has no legal right to make us pay to exercise that right.
*How about this: since we have to prove we are not guilty and pass tests to get this license, let it also be a Class III license.
*There is no valid reason for there to be a duty to inform; anyone the officer has a reason to fear will not inform him no matter what the law says. There can be a recommendation that informing the officer is a nice thing to do, but it should not be a requirement.
*There should be no state-imposed gun free zones, and the state should not cater to anti-gun nitwits by throwing its weight behind their no guns signs. If certain business owners want to be bigots that's fine; I don't want to do business with them anyway, but the state should not give legitimacy to their intolerance and back it up with its power.
No city or any government entity, including all who act as agents of government, should be able to impose any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that go beyond what the state requires. That means no laws against things like switchblades. And no registration, unless a citizens wants to voluntarily register in case of theft. There should be criminal penalties for those who serve in government that impose on the right to keep and bear arms of any law-abiding citizen.
Are there any patriots in the new legislature who would be willing to begin an effort to turn our state government into a legal body instead of the criminal gang that it is?
-
^^^^^^WELL SAID^^^^^^^^^
-
Exemption for CHL holders that allows carry on school property.
Picking the kiddos up and having to handle a gun (to disarm and store it) is asking for someone to have an accident in their car... Just saying.
-
I think most of us would agree that while property rights ought to be respected, the state of Nebraska should not be violating its own constitution by punishing us for exercising our rights. The fact that they can charge us with the crime of carrying a concealed weapon if we walk into a business that has a no gun sign is unconstitutional.
If any law is broken then it would be the one dealing with trespassing, and only then when the property owner has become aware that you have broken one of his/her rules for being allowed on the property and he has asked you to leave and you refuse, forcing him/her to summon Law Enforcement.
Now if we want to argue that carrying arms is a basic part of our right to self defense AND that it follows our person WHEREVER we go AND that it belongs in the category of all other protected classes that someone cannot discriminate against, which is an idea that I do support, we'll have to take it to the courts and perhaps even change the US Constitution. It's not going to be an easy battle though. Many Questions will rise up as to where the limit of that right is: Would airlines/federal govt no longer have the right to restrict firearms on airplanes? Would people be allowed to carry guns into courtrooms or detention facilities, jails and prisons? Etc......And I think more people would probably think that its better to not allow that right to be unlimited if at all support such a right since it would have to trump property rights in every case.
-
^^^^^^+1^^^^^
Our government including the Obama administration and Ernie Chambers are against discrimination, Do you think we that carry could use this to our advantage??? I don't think Chambers would want to discriminate against a minority group of individuals rights, which people with a CHP are, this would be fighting fire with fire which has been used successfully before.
-
Two or three legislative sessions ago, there was a bill introduced to preempt a private company's rules banning the legal possession of an employee's personal sporting property when locked and out of sight in their vehicle while parked on that company's lot. My understanding is my representative, Mr. Brad A., was instrumental in not allowing this to a vote. I would like to see this re-introduced and passed, just as several other states nationwide have passed it.
-
Our government including the Obama administration and Ernie Chambers are against discrimination, Do you think we that carry could use this to our advantage???
Pigment of skin my friend ... pigment of skin .... Senator Soul Glo has no intention of helping a white honky cracker .... period
-
That's the first time this cracker played the race card, looks like I should of just folded my hand when I was ahead. ::)
-
Things I would like to see in Nebraska. Will some of these be against federal law maybe but its things I would like to see!
1- Constitutional Carry! open and/or Concealed. No test, no payment, no fingerprinting, no background checks. If you want a CHP because you will carry to other states fine pay for the class but in Nebraska everyone can carry.
2- Legal age of 18 to purchase & carry. Its amazing to me the government gave me a 60 ton tank to shoot at 18 but I couldn't buy a handgun? WTF!!
3- CARRY EVERYWHERE PERIOD! schools, colleges, universities, churches, bars EVERWHERE!
4- No city or county can institute a stricter law than whats on the book. IE OMAHA
-
Things I would like to see in Nebraska. Will some of these be against federal law maybe but its things I would like to see!
4- No city or county can institute a stricter law than whats on the book. IE OMAHA
In regards to CC, we already have #4. Had to get two bills passed to make Omaha and a few others comply, but it is done. Or maybe you were speaking of gun laws in general?
Fly
-
Things I would like to see in Nebraska. Will some of these be against federal law maybe but its things I would like to see!
1- Constitutional Carry! open and/or Concealed. No test, no payment, no fingerprinting, no background checks. If you want a CHP because you will carry to other states fine pay for the class but in Nebraska everyone can carry.
2- Legal age of 18 to purchase & carry. Its amazing to me the government gave me a 60 ton tank to shoot at 18 but I couldn't buy a handgun? WTF!!
3- CARRY EVERYWHERE PERIOD! schools, colleges, universities, churches, bars EVERWHERE!
4- No city or county can institute a stricter law than whats on the book. IE
Agreed
-
My wish list is similar to last years:
1) Explicit statewide preemption. We need to abolish Omaha's and Lincoln's pointless registration policies that countless people violate everyday without even knowing it.
2) Change the no-gun provision for businesses. If you open a business to the public, then CHP holders should be able to carry unless told otherwise. If they don't comply, charge them with trespassing. That balances the property rights of the owners while not putting a CHP holder in jeopardy of committing a gun crime by failing to see a poorly displayed sign.
3) Expand the Welfare State. With .22 so scarce and the experience of the recent ammo scares, I think the government has a moral duty to make sure that its citizens have sufficient ammo to maintain the skills so "necessary to the security of a free state." Accordingly, Nebraska should issue "ammo stamps" to all residents redeemable for two boxes of practice ammo every month.
Ok, maybe the last one isn't a deal breaker.
-
3) Expand the Welfare State. With .22 so scarce and the experience of the recent ammo scares, I think the government has a moral duty to make sure that its citizens have sufficient ammo to maintain the skills so "necessary to the security of a free state." Accordingly, Nebraska should issue "ammo stamps" to all residents redeemable for two boxes of practice ammo every month.
I motion that we form a special legislative committee to look into this well thought out plan!
-
I think the government has a moral duty to make sure that its citizens have sufficient ammo to maintain the skills
That sounds like Nanny State talk. Some of us make our own. Can't expect government to do everything for you. :)
-
3) Expand the Welfare State. With .22 so scarce and the experience of the recent ammo scares, I think the government has a moral duty to make sure that its citizens have sufficient ammo to maintain the skills so "necessary to the security of a free state." Accordingly, Nebraska should issue "ammo stamps" to all residents redeemable for two boxes of practice ammo every month.
Maybe we can get Sandra Fluke's cousin from Arkansas, Billy Bob Fluke, to come and testify before the Nebraska legislature about how horrible it is for us to have to pay for our own ammo. That request is actually more in line with our law than Sandra's was, since the federal Constitution does say that Congress can provide for training the militia. Which means I guess that Billy Bob should be testifying in Washington. But he might start in Nebraska anyway. As high as our taxes are here you'd think they'd have some money to make a wholesale order for the patriots living among us.
I have a question for those who know our state law better than I do: I know we have a preemption law but I don't know how far it extends. For example, is it illegal for a city to outlaw something like switchblades? If the law does not extend to something like that then the law should be strengthened so that it does. Every illegal infringement creates a flaw in the armor of freedom, and should be corrected.
-
I for along time thought we should push hard for Civil Liability remedy in the event a defensive shooting was deemed "righteous" by the Grand Jury or Criminal court. Alas, I was reading Mitch Vilos new book, Self Defense Laws of all 50 States (WHICH EVERY GUN OWNER SHOULD BUY AND READ THOROUGHLY !!!!). According to his interpretation and research of Neb Rev. St 28-1416 sec 1-2 provides such as of July 18, 2012. Wowee.... I must has been asleep. NOW, if I didn't miss something AND anyone here feels he is WRONG, please let me know. He has requested contact to make certain his text remains accurate.
-
My reading of the section in question, the authors footnotes state
"Even though you may be innocent in a criminal trial on the theory of self defense, it doesn't necessarily shield you from a lawsuit for money damages if you injure or kill someone in a defensive incident"
So I am not following your reasoning on this...
~ read it at the link ~ http://tinyurl.com/knhycdg (http://tinyurl.com/knhycdg)
-
That is the First Edition released in 2010. See 2nd Edition released in 2013.
-
(2) The justification defenses provided for under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 shall be available in any civil action for assault and battery or intentional wrongful death and, where applicable shall be a bar to recovery. (A person who is justified under Nebraska’s criminal statutes on grounds of self-defense or defense of others is also immune from damages in a civil case brought by the person he injured or the heirs of a person he killed in self-defense. This new civil immunity statute went into effect on July 18, 2012)
-
Bullit, I apologize, as I realized shortly after I posted that I was not reading the latest edition, but circumstances kept me from making a correction until now.
-
DanW ....were you aware of this change? Any of the NFOA leadership? CZ? Like I alluded to earlier I must have slept through 2012. Awesome to see....and was looking for others opinion/confirmation
-
We thought that Lathrop's language was kinda weird when it finally was allowed out of committee and passed, so most NFOA advocates did not do cartwheels or even tout the change at all. Perhaps we were wrong to assume( as I did) that Steve Lathrop did not keep his word to NFOA on the civil immunity clause that was passed
-
It is really good to see that a legal scholar fluent in self defense legislation views this as a real gain
-
Dan said it well. Additionally, we had not found an attorney that wanted to weigh in on what that new language really meant.
In a class I attended earlier this year Mr. James Fleming also interpreted what we have on the books now as civil immunity.
-
I recall Lathrops actions now.... Me likey ...Now if we could get all of Chap 20 suggestions from Vilos' book codified into law.....
-
Don't fool yourselves. This:
28-1416 (2) The justification defenses provided for under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 shall be available in any civil action for assault and battery or intentional wrongful death and, where applicable, shall be a bar to recovery.
DOES NOT EQUAL this:
(2) The fact that conduct is justifiable under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 and section 3 of this act abolishes any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action.
We didn't get civil immunity. And if for some reason that convoluted language they passed does prevent certain suits in regards to assault and battery or intentional wrongful death you will be guaranteed to be sued in regards to other issues such as lost wages, pain and suffering, and whatever else they can come up with.
-
Don't fool yourselves. This:
28-1416 (2) The justification defenses provided for under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 shall be available in any civil action for assault and battery or intentional wrongful death and, where applicable, shall be a bar to recovery.
DOES NOT EQUAL this:
(2) The fact that conduct is justifiable under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 and section 3 of this act abolishes any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action.
We didn't get civil immunity. And if for some reason that convoluted language they passed does prevent certain suits in regards to assault and battery or intentional wrongful death you will be guaranteed to be sued in regards to other issues such as lost wages, pain and suffering, and whatever else they can come up with.
And you base this on ????
-
I'll believe something that comes out of Sen. Lathrop's mouth just as soon as he donates $1,000,000 to the NFOA.
-
I'll believe something that comes out of Sen. Lathrop's mouth just as soon as he donates $1,000,000 to the NFOA.
Never trust a lawyer who says "The check is in the mail."
-
Never trust a lawyer who says "The check is in the mail."
Fixed it for you *.
*NFOA member Attorneys excluded... ;)
-
Fixed it for you *.
*NFOA member Attorneys excluded... ;)
Well, thanks.
-
We didn't get civil immunity. And if for some reason that convoluted language they passed does prevent certain suits in regards to assault and battery or intentional wrongful death you will be guaranteed to be sued in regards to other issues such as lost wages, pain and suffering, and whatever else they can come up with.
Just to clarify something, lost wages, pain and suffering (which I believe is very limited in NE), and things of that sort are the basis for damage awards. Liability is based on committing a tort (such as assault, batter, wrongful death). Establishing liability means the defendant is responsible. Then you look at lost wages etc. to see how much damage they are responsible for.
If you are exempt from liability for the tort, you never get to the question of damages.
-
I'm not a self defense attorney. My thought on this is that it does lower the bar for establishing the defense in a civil suit because it makes the criminal defense apply. In a criminal trial, you need to show you had a reasonable fear for the safety of yourself or another (big simplification). In a civil case, you must rebut evidence that you acted negligently.
I've never done cartwheels over "civil immunity" statutes. The reason is that you will still wind up in court to litigate whether immunity applies. They do lower the bar a defendant (the shooter) needs to meet to establish the defense because the criminal self defense rule is broader than but you will still wind up in front of a judge or jury. The lower bar may help a defendant in close cases, but he'll still be on the hook for all the expense of defending himself.
-
The reason is that you will still wind up in court to litigate whether immunity applies.
And that is the problem right there.
-
still be on the hook for all the expense of defending himself.
That is one of the greater issues I have with law. Guilty until YOU prove your innocence at YOUR expense. Anyone can sue you at any time and it is going to have a cost. A person can be financially ruined by the unlawful act of another and further by legal action of yet another group of individuals. Even if there is law that the action can not be continued, someone has to decide if and how that law applies.
-
How about a law saying something like this then: Any finding of not guilty in a criminal case due to self defense shall include complete immunity from any and all civil liability, and no civil action against the one found not guilty shall be permitted. Any lawyer attempting to take civil action in such a case shall not be allowed to practice law in Nebraska for not less than ten years.
Here are a few other laws we might want to add:
State senators shall be allowed to serve no more than two terms. This law removes the word consecutive from the previous term limit law.
No one shall be allowed to serve in the state senate whose first name is Ernie and last name is Chambers.