NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: RobertH on October 16, 2015, 08:32:30 PM
-
i didn't see a thread about this so here i go....
Senator Tommy Garrett will introduce a bill to eliminate gun free zones. expect the antis to jump all over this one. we must be prepared to contact our state reps and the committee members and get this bill passed!
Link to Journal Star Article: http://journalstar.com/legislature/gun-free-zones-are-what-s-killing-us-nebraska-lawmaker/article_0d3b8e68-5852-5bef-a332-d4ceed62e685.html (http://journalstar.com/legislature/gun-free-zones-are-what-s-killing-us-nebraska-lawmaker/article_0d3b8e68-5852-5bef-a332-d4ceed62e685.html)
the comment section has been entertaining....
-
I had to comment on the article itself.
It started out fairly balanced, but it didn't take long for the author to take a hard left toward the end.
-
OWH has an article on this.
http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/nebraska-lawmaker-get-rid-of-the-gun-free-zones-at/article_6534ec49-f3a6-5848-8e17-3a832be1c2aa.html (http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/nebraska-lawmaker-get-rid-of-the-gun-free-zones-at/article_6534ec49-f3a6-5848-8e17-3a832be1c2aa.html)
-
OWH has an article on this.
http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/nebraska-lawmaker-get-rid-of-the-gun-free-zones-at/article_6534ec49-f3a6-5848-8e17-3a832be1c2aa.html (http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/nebraska-lawmaker-get-rid-of-the-gun-free-zones-at/article_6534ec49-f3a6-5848-8e17-3a832be1c2aa.html)
At least this article was a little more balanced. The LJS article was embarassingly biased.
I am hoping that this one gets traction.
-
I can think of three arguments to support this bill:
- The overwhelming majority of mass murders are committed in locations where the victims are prohibited from carrying firearms to defend themselves. Forceful intervention, whether by a police officer or a private citizen, is required to halt the killing
- The bill leaves the decision up to each institution rather than imposing a blanket, government-knows-best mandate.
- Nine years of experience with holders of Nebraska CHPs shows that they can be trusted. I am aware of only two exceptions. A CHP holder had a negligent discharge in a restaurant when he drew his Glock to show it off. Another CHP holder is awaiting trial for murder because he mishandled intervention in a domestic abuse situation. Are there any others?
The bill is less than perfect. I would prefer that concealed carry be permitted unless comparable or better security is provided. But it's a start and the incremental approach works better than all or nothing. At least one state has an enhanced permit, with additional training requirements, that authorizes carry in places prohibited to those with an ordinary permit or no permit.
-
I can think of three reasons it won't pass:
1. Ernie Chambers and his comrades don't want it.
2. Ernie Chambers, his comrades, and their PR team the liberal press would rather see innocent people die than see liberal bigotry rolled back even just a little tiny bit.
3. Ernie Chambers and his comrades are not affected by truth and reason any more than they are affected by the law they swore an oath to obey.
(This is part of that oath, which I think they should be reminded of):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Nebraska, and will faithfully discharge the duties of ..."
This is the preamble to our state Constitution:
"All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (emphasis mine)
We all know what the U.S. Constitution says about the matter.
Both the federal and state constitutions are crystal clear in their guarantee of a right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms. Those who deliberately infringe on that right are in violation of those laws, and therefore have no legal authority; all they have is power. When they deliberately break the law they swore an oath to uphold, they become nothing more than a criminal gang, and they belong in jail with the rest of the criminals. The problem, of course, is the criminal gang holds too much power to be brought to justice. For the time being anyway. But if loyal Americans ever do come to power, I'd like to see those criminals brought to justice. And that applies especially to those whose hands are filthy with the blood of the victims they disarmed.
This bill, as with others like it, will be a good loyalty test for members of the legislature, showing whether their loyalty is to the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold, or to the liberal cult so many of them grovel before. It will show whether they think of bearing arms as a right or a privilege. It will show whether they base what they do as legislators in truth or untruth, since gun control can not be justified without lies. And it will show whether they are law-abiding citizens or part of a criminal gang.
-
I can think of three reasons it won't pass:
1. Ernie Chambers ....
2. Ernie Chambers ....
3. Ernie Chambers ....
Ernie Chambers was on the judiciary committee when the concealed carry bill was passed 9 years ago. I can't remember whether he was in or out when state preemption was strengthened. That says he isn't all powerful. The divide on guns is usually between rural and urban senators with the rural ones on our side. It's encouraging that this bill comes from an urban senator. We shouldn't quit trying.
-
I need some clarification, I know churches are "gun free zones" but was under the impression that it was ok to carry if it was allowed with the Pastors knowledge and permission. Can someone show me where that is written in the law?
-
I need some clarification, I know churches are "gun free zones" but was under the impression that it was ok to carry if it was allowed with the Pastors knowledge and permission. Can someone show me where that is written in the law?
The law specifies that you have to be designated as a member of the security personnel for the church and the church would have to give written notice of the decision to arm the security personnel.
The specific area in the law would be Section 018.03.
-
The specific area in the law would be Section 018.03.
Mali is pointing to the State Patrol's Rules and Regulations. The authority for the NSP to issue those comes from statute. In this case, sec. 69-2441(1)(c).
-
The church would have to give "written notice" to who? Not sure "who" you mean.
-
The church would have to give "written notice" to who? Not sure "who" you mean.
The church leadership must give written notice to the congregation of the decision to arm the security personnel. Sorry, the NSP published this as a PDF and locked it so I can't cut and paste from the PDF and it would take me too long to type it here.
here is a link to the PDF however: http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/State_Patrol/Title-272/Chapter-21.pdf (http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/State_Patrol/Title-272/Chapter-21.pdf)
-
The church leadership must give written notice to the congregation of the decision to arm the security personnel. Sorry, the NSP published this as a PDF and locked it so I can't cut and paste from the PDF and it would take me too long to type it here.
here is a link to the PDF however: http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/State_Patrol/Title-272/Chapter-21.pdf (http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/State_Patrol/Title-272/Chapter-21.pdf)
"Written notice" is not specifically defined. Moreover, if the church building is leased, the lease must not prevent church members from carrying.
-
If all it says is "written notice" and there is no definition of what that constitutes, my guess is something could be posted on a church bulletin board or church Facebook page or even a handout that said something like this: [this church] designates those licensed by the state to carry a concealed handgun as security for the church. For more information, contact [the pastor or whoever].
-
Has any reached out to their representative to see if they support Senator Garrett's bill? Should this be an exercise we all do to drive positive attention for this bill? Like with the pre-emption bill, we could all report back here to see what responses we get.
-
Has any reached out to their representative to see if they support Senator Garrett's bill? Should this be an exercise we all do to drive positive attention for this bill? Like with the pre-emption bill, we could all report back here to see what responses we get.
I for one would like to read it first.