NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: RLMoeller on October 22, 2015, 11:47:19 AM
-
As we get closer to the 2016 session we need to get a feel for which senators we can count on to support LB289.
Please call AND write your senator and ask them where they stand on LB289. Report back here what you get as a response. It may take some gentle prodding to get them to give a position. We need to know where to spend our energy to educate those that are not fully behind this bill (yet).
Find your senator here: http://nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/senator_find.php (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/senator_find.php)
We have asked our followers on Facebook to do the same and have gotten firm support from:
Senator Garrett
Senator Ebke - (introduced the bill)
Senator Kintner
A few other, but I really want you to reach out and contact your senator. Ask them to support the bill and ask what their position is. If they want more information, please report that here as well. You can point them to Senator Ebke's office for more detail, but I would like to know what seems to have not taken a close look at this bill yet. This is a critically important bill for us and all of us needs to get involved.
Thanks
-
Mine is Kathy Campbell. I sent her the following email:
Please let me know what your position is on LB289, the statewide preemption bill. If you have any questions about it I can get you all the information you want, or you can get get information from Senator Ebke's office. This is a very important bill that I hope you will support. But please let me know where you stand on it in either case. Thank you.
name, address, etc.
I'll let you know what I hear, if she decides to respond.
-
Sent my letter to Sen. Jim Smith. Will let you know what he says. He's pretty quick on replies.
-
I'll let you know what I get in return.
Here is my message to Senator Hilkemann:
Dear Senator Hilkemann,
As your constituent in District 4, I'm writing to you ahead of the upcoming 2016 legislative session to ask where you will stand on LB 289 when it comes to the floor.
This is an important bill that, if enacted into law, will allow Nebraska state law to reign supreme regarding possession and transportation of legally owned firearms. This will remove the current confusing patchwork of laws, created by individual municipalities enacting laws that supersede those of the State.
As a sportsman and CHP holder that has lived and worked in Nebraska my entire life, I am more confident in the law when traveling from one state to another, with my firearms, than when traveling from one Nebraska community to another. I know the Nebraska state laws on firearms. I can't possibly know differing laws in individual communities. To this point, abiding by state law, could unwittingly make me a criminal in some Nebraska communities.
I support LB 289 and hope that you will too. If you need more information on the bill please let me know, or contact Senator Ebke's office.
FOR, or against, I would appreciate understanding what your position will be.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
MartyB...
-
Done. I pretty much stole Marty's text, considering as how it was written so well. I made a few minor alterations, and fired it off to Sen. Matt Hansen of District 26.
-
Sent an email to my lame duck senator, Cook, and am awaiting her response.
-
Here is Senator Hilkemann's reply:
Hello Marty,
Thank you for reaching out to me.
LB289 is on general file. It has a broad range of support including the City of Omaha.
In my review of the legislation, unless I learn some reason not to, I will support it if/when it comes to the floor for debate. While I have never owned a gun, I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and believe that we should encourage responsible gun ownership.
Hope that answers your question.
Have a wonderful weekend.
-
I just emailed Senator Merv Riepe. He verbally told me that he supports LB-289 but I better get it in writing!
-
Message sent to Kolowski, district 31. I'll share the response.
-
Message sent to District 28 Pansing Brooks. Wondering if I will even get a response.
Fly
-
Message sent to District 28 Pansing Brooks. Wondering if I will even get a response.
Fly
Lol.
She's almost to the left of Ernie.
-
Lol.
She's almost to the left of Ernie.
If I recall correctly, Patty Pansing was the only no vote against advancing this bill out of committee. Ernie did not vote for some reason?
Another interesting thing regarding Ernie & LB-289....at the NFOA day at the Legislature this year, Ernie said nearly nothing following the testimony on LB-289....he was loud & obnoxious during the testimony on LB-14(maybe?) dealing with use of a facsimile firearm & he even got going on 'the flying lantern fiasco' testimony. Maybe others recall better, but I don't remember him saying almost anything against LB-289.
-
Here is Senator Hilkemann's reply:
Well let me know if I need to pester Hilkemann more as well later, I'm also in District 4.
-
Well let me know if I need to pester Hilkemann more as well later, I'm also in District 4.
Sounds like he's on board for now. When it hits the floor for debate, we'll send him some reminders of where we stand. ;)
-
Just sent mine off to Senator Murante (District 49). I will post any reply I get from him.
-
Sent a message to John Murante, District 49. He says "I support LB 289 and will vote for it."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
From Sen. Hilkemann
Thank you for reaching out to me.
LB289 is on general file. It has a broad range of support including the City of Omaha.
In my review of the legislation, unless I learn some reason not to, I will support it if/when it comes to the floor for debate. While I have never owned a gun, I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and believe that we should encourage responsible gun ownership.
Hope that answers your question.
-
unless I learn some reason not to,
Anyone else flag on this?
maybe I am just really suspicious of any and all politicians.
-
unless I learn some reason not to,
Anyone else flag on this?
maybe I am just really suspicious of any and all politicians.
Giving himself some wiggle room.
-
Anyone else flag on this?
Sure. It's a positively committed noncommittal.
-
Agreed that his choice of words doesn't sound like a full support. I'm also skeptical of people's use of the phrase "responsible gun ownership". I know what my version of that means, but it can mean a lot of things depending on your bias.
-
I sent an email to Kathy Campbell 5 days ago and haven't received a reply, so I sent the following today:
I sent the following email five days ago and haven't received a reply, so I'm assuming it didn't get through, and am sending it again. As I understand it, this bill will require local governments to obey the law written in our state Constitution, which says this:
"All persons... have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are... 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." (emphasis mine)
We all know what the U.S. Constitution says about the matter, and that has been reinforced by two recent Supreme Court decisions. It is the law, whether or not those who hold political power like it.
This bill of course is consistent with the oath of office all members of our legislature are required to take, which includes the following:
"I, ......................, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Nebraska, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
Please let me know what your position is on LB289, the statewide preemption bill. If you have any questions about it I can get you all the information you want, or you can get get information from Senator Ebke's office. This is a very important bill that I hope you will support. But please let me know where you stand on it in either case. Thank you.
name, address, etc.
-
My second letter got a pretty quick reply (though it's more of a non-reply). Here it is:
"LB 289 was placed on General File (first round of debate) on 3/31/15. It did not come up for debate, I believe because it did not have a priority either from a Senator or Committee. It remains on GF for next year. The bill was heard by the Judiciary Committee; I do not serve on that committee. I read and review all bills that come before the two committees I serve on and then as other bills come up for debate on General File. I have not studied LB 289 nor done additional research as I would on a bill that comes up for debate.
I quickly reviewed the bill and have questions before I would state my position. I will certainly retain your email in the bill's file and keep in mind your comments. Thanks for taking time to write, Kathy"
-
Ken Harr is a NO. His reply from from his administrative assistant.
Thank you for writing in and sharing your reasons for supporting LB289. Senator Haar is not in favor of this bill, and will vote against it. He feels that local control, in this case, is more important.
Thank you for expressing your opinion on this matter.
Sincerely,
Julie Diegel, AA
jdiegel@leg.ne.gov
Any pointers on how to respond if I even should? Writing to politicians is not my strong suit.
-
I got the same form letter
Senator Haar, district 21
Thank you for sharing your position on LB289. Senator Haar is not in favor of this bill, as he feels local control is more important on this issue.
Your opinions are respected and appreciated.
Sincerely,
Julie Diegel, AA
-
I got the same form letter
Senator Haar, district 21
Thank you for sharing your position on LB289. Senator Haar is not in favor of this bill, as he feels local control is more important on this issue.
Your opinions are respected and appreciated.
Sincerely,
Julie Diegel, AA
^And thats why we MUST support Mike Hilgers in the coming election. He lost but by a relatively few votes to the incumbent Haar last time. The year will be an empty seat, so either an easy win or hard fought against an unknown.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
-
^And thats why we MUST support Mike Hilgers in the coming election. He lost but by a relatively few votes to the incumbent Haar last time. The year will be an empty seat, so either an easy win or hard fought against an unknown.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
Not sure I was in the district the last election and honestly didn't pay attention like I do now. Can you message me with some contact info or point me in the direction of finding it?
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
-
Ken Harr is a NO. His reply from from his administrative assistant.
Any pointers on how to respond if I even should? Writing to politicians is not my strong suit.
Might ask him about the authority granted to cities by the state. Does he have an issue with cities exceeding that authority? This bill is reigning in those cities that have exceeded that authority. I have more on that topic, but that is enough to respond with for now.
-
Not sure I was in the district the last election and honestly didn't pay attention like I do now. Can you message me with some contact info or point me in the direction of finding it?
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
http://www.mikehilgers.com/ (http://www.mikehilgers.com/)
And keep an eye on the PAF FB Page, I'll post info as things progress.
-
http://www.mikehilgers.com/ (http://www.mikehilgers.com/)
And keep an eye on the PAF FB Page, I'll post info as things progress.
Thank you! Will do.
Just goggled his adress he actually lives about mile away or so. I will have to watch for him walking around
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
-
Might ask him about the authority granted to cities by the state. Does he have an issue with cities exceeding that authority? This bill is reigning in those cities that have exceeded that authority. I have more on that topic, but that is enough to respond with for now.
I will do that. Thank you.
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
-
Mike is good guy. I've been on both sides of legal issues with him and have been impressed with him as both an adversary and when working on the same side.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Mike is good guy. I've been on both sides of legal issues with him and have been impressed with him as both an adversary and when working on the same side.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had a great conversation with him last year when he was running for AG. I was pleased with some of his ideas. Of course you hear a lot of things when someone is running for office, but these were not the usual talking points and were unsolicited.
-
E-mail sent to Kate Bolz (District 29).
She came around door-to-door this summer and I spoke with her about this bill for quite some time. I emphasized the point that tourism is big business in Lincoln, but most of that is not what you usually think of when you say "tourism". It's not a bunch of visitors flying in from out of state to visit the National Museum of Roller Skating. No, it's intra-state travel and tourism for sporting events, business conferences, state FFA convention, etc. etc. A lot of Lincoln residents have friends and relatives from Out West coming into the Big City throughout the year, and when those visitors are here in town they love to shop. But they could go to Scheels, buy a new hunting shotgun, leave it safely locked in their car trunk over the weekend, and unintentionally run afoul of the city ordinance. Somehow that's supposed to make us all safer?
Anyway, Kate seemed really receptive face-to-face. I'm hoping I can get a positive response in writing.
-
Needless to say, Matt Hansen won't be getting a vote from me anytime in the near future:
Thank you for sharing your support for LB289. I certainly understand the dilemma this places on responsible gun owners.
However, I believe that cities and villages should have the power to regulate themselves above what is required by state law. For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters.
The views of constituents are very important to our office, so we will keep your information on file.
If you have further questions or concerns, please call our office at (402) 471-2610.
Sincerely,
State Senator Matt Hansen
District 26, State Capitol
PO Box 94604
Lincoln, NE 68509
mhansen@leg.ne.gov
-
Taking some time to collect my thoughts, I submitted this response to Mr. Hansen this morning:
Sir,
Primarily, thank you for you reply.
So I am to take from this that you are in favor of allowing municipalities the authority to legislate and regulate legal firearm owners as they see fit? I do have an issue with that course of action, and I will explain my stance regarding that:
A state facility has more than enough right, (without being granted powers by the municipality in which it resides) to restrict by rote the possession if deadly weapons inside it's facility. This very principle is evidenced by the private stores and other facilities that do not allow possession of said items. In respect for those facilities, those of us who are lawfully licensed holders of the Nebraska Concealed handgun Permit do not enter those facilities.
The "One State, One Law" principle to me, a voting constituent, means that if enacted, I am able to visit my friends in another city within this great state, and not fear prosecution for violating a "city ordinance" I was not aware of.
In closing, if you plan to vote against LB289, please inform me so that I may explore other avenues of adequate representation.
Thank You,
gsd
-
Matt Hanson uses this example of why not to support LB289:
For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters.
Yet in the case of those convicted of domestic violence, they are already prohibited by law from possessing firearms. So, the real result of this municipal legislation is to disarm victims of domestic violence, reduce there ability to defend themselves and assure their abusers they will be met with minimal resistance.
This type of legislation seems designed to give criminals the upper hand over law abiding citizens.
-
This is good info. Keep the dialog going with these senators and keep pushing for support of LB289 or further information on their position.
Everyone else, if you haven't seen your senator mentioned in this thread please reach out to them. Give the office a call and write them.
-
No reply from Kolowski yet time for a follow up message to him.
-
Taking some time to collect my thoughts, I submitted this response to Mr. Hansen this morning:
In closing, if you plan to vote against LB289, please inform me so that I may explore other avenues of adequate representation.
Thank You,
gsd
Dave, gotta love that closing. Great job.
Just got this from Sen. Jim Smith
Thank you for your interest in this issue. While I have not reviewed LB 289 in detail, I am generally in favor of measures like this that would strengthen Second Amendment rights in Nebraska. LB 289 has advanced out of the Judiciary Committee and will likely be considered by the full Legislature during the 2016 session, which begins in January. I look forward to learning more about this legislation as it's discussed on the floor of the Legislature.
Again, I appreciate you contacting me and taking the time to engage in the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Jim Smith
-
A group I belong to invited Sen Haar to several meetings in the summer of 2013 to share views on bill we wanted to introduce in the Legislature, it may or may not shock some of you how little some Senators actually know about the legislation they're passing, I know I was.
-
i finally remembered to send Sen Morfeld an email. i think he is in favor of it, but will report back after i hear from him.
-
I sent an email to Sen. Kolterman in Dist. 24, and will report back any reply that I get.
-
I am disappointed by the response from Kolowski. Anyone else in District 31, please send him a note or call him. I'm surprised and disappointed when a former marine and someone who claims to support 2A, comes back with a response like this. I even gave a real example of driving from SW Omaha to a farm north of Tekamah this weekend to visit a friend and do some shooting, means I was probably a criminal passing through various Nebraska small towns.
His response:
Dear Mr. Rader:
Thank you for your email on LB 289. I apologize for not responding earlier but Senator Kolowski was out of town last week. I talked to him about your email and he remains undecided on LB 289. He has taken the concealed carry course, and as a former marine he understand the importance of guns and is a supporter of the second amendment. However he generally supports local control and the ability of municipalities and local elected officials to make decisions that are best for their localities. However, you obviously have a real concern when you are legally carrying a concealed weapon and then the status changes because of local rules you may not even be aware of.
He has not made up his mind yet on how he will vote on LB 289 when it comes up for debate next year. Emails from constituents like yourself are helpful to him in deciding on this issue.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Tom Green
Legislative Aide for Senator Kolowski
-
Got my reply from Morfeld.
Hi RobertH,
Thanks for getting in touch. I remain in support of LB 289, and unless there is some drastic amendment or change in the purpose of the legislation, I will remain in support.
Stay in touch!
Adam
-
Do we have a count of the For/Against on this bill?
-
I sent an email to my Senator, Brett Lindstrom in District 18 earlier today. I was out of state the entire month of October and just returned on Saturday afternoon. I will post his response here when I receive it.
-
As expected...
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on LB289. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I voted against advancing this bill and will continue to oppose it if it is discussed on the legislative floor. I understand your concern about inconsistent gun laws, however I feel that municipalities should have the right to create reasonable restrictions on guns that they feel can protect the safety of their citizens.
Best wishes,
Patty
Fly
-
Thanks for posting her response Fly. I wonder how she believes municipalities have been granted the authority to create those restrictions?
-
I'm beginning to wonder what it would take to run for office...it appears as though just by interacting with people I'm already more connected with what they would prefer to have happen.
Also, Matt Hansen has failed to respond to my followup email, I think I hurt his feelings...must sting a bit when what you think is best is proven wrong by a constituent.
-
I'm beginning to wonder what it would take to run for office...it appears as though just by interacting with people I'm already more connected with what they would prefer to have happen.
There are a lot of liberal nitwits in Lincoln and those they (or I should say we) elect to represent us reflect that. I'd like to see arrogant traitors like Passing-gas get replaced by patriots, and it is worth working for, but when a patriot ran against Beutler he lost. I'd like to keep trying though. So by all means patriots should be looking into it, and we should be helping them. As I understand it voter turnout is typically very low, so if we can get enough loyal Americans motivated to get off their rear ends and vote maybe we can have an effect even if the liberal cattle herd is big. The biggest question we have to answer is probably how do we get patriots out to vote in bigger numbers.
-
Andy's loss was minimal at best if I remember correctly I believe he only actually lost by about 5%. He has not given up I do know that he said he was looking forward to the next campaign so we have a little bit of hope.
-
Andy's loss was minimal at best if I remember correctly I believe he only actually lost by about 5%. He has not given up I do know that he said he was looking forward to the next campaign so we have a little bit of hope.
Wow, we came that close... There is hope. And that hope applies to the legislature as well. We need to be finding ways to get patriots motivated. One thing that always annoys me: I hear people say that they will fight to the death before being disarmed, but those same people won't even get off their ass and get out and vote. We should find ways to motivate them. You'd think we could find some way to increase the patriot turnout by 6%...
-
Wow, we came that close... There is hope. And that hope applies to the legislature as well. We need to be finding ways to get patriots motivated. One thing that always annoys me: I hear people say that they will fight to the death before being disarmed, but those same people won't even get off their ass and get out and vote. We should find ways to motivate them. You'd think we could find some way to increase the patriot turnout by 6%...
Term limit?
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
-
What I got from Sue Crawford (District 45) was,
"Thank you for sharing these concerns with me. As you may already know, LB 289 was voted out of the Judiciary Committee late last session. I have been talking with law enforcement and city officials about this issue in order to understand the implications for Bellevue and other cities. As a constituent, your input is especially helpful as I learn more about this issue."
Not the best response but not the worst either,
John K
-
Ironically, Pansing-Brooks was the UNL president of the College Republicans back in the day .... Of course Johanna and The Fort are "former" Dems ....and Ashford ... well who knows anymore ....
-
Got fairly positive feedback from Senator Bolz who replied:
" ... At this stage, I agree with your analysis and support the bill. However, I want to review the bill from all angles and ensure that the legislation that hits the floor dots all the i's and crosses all the t's. I'll be in touch if I have follow up questions."
-
Have not heard anything back yet from Sen. Kolterman in Dist. 24. I had sent an email on Nov. 1. If I ever get a reply, I will post it here.
-
After two weeks, no reply from Sen. Mello. Maybe email isn't a good medium for him.
-
After two weeks, no reply from Sen. Mello. Maybe email isn't a good medium for him.
I didn't get a reply to my first email from my rep so I sent her another one, and it got an answer more or less right away. It didn't commit to anything and left me with the impression that she would be unlikely to support it (though maybe she will). But at least she did write back. So a second email might get you a response. My second email quoted the part of the state Constitution that says neither the state government nor any subdivision of it can infringe on the right to bear arms, along with the oath they all swore to uphold the law, both of which I think our state senators need to be reminded of from time to time.
-
My second email quoted the part of the state Constitution that says neither the state government nor any subdivision of it can infringe on the right to bear arms, along with the oath they all swore to uphold the law, both of which I think our state senators need to be reminded of from time to time.
Yes, they do. Thanks for contacting your senator.
Keep in mind too that while they are out of session some senators are around more than others. Many will spend one day a week in the office at the Capitol. Some more than that and others less. One week without a response isn't unheard of this time of year. But after a week I would recommend writing again and then follow up with a phone call. You'll speak with an aide usually, but they do relay what they hear from phone calls.
-
I see she has the same response to another constituent on this topic too...
Senator Sue Crawford
District 45
Thank you for sharing these concerns with me. As you may already know, LB 289 was voted out of the Judiciary Committee late last session. I have been talking with law enforcement and city officials about this issue in order to understand the implications for Bellevue and other cities. As a constituent, your input is especially helpful as I learn more about this issue.
All the Best,
Sue
-
Got this response from Senator Brett Lindstrom this morning:
I am in support of Ebke's Preemption bill, as I believe it will secure our 2nd amendment rights in the state. While I respect the lawmaking authority of municipalities, it is the state's responsibility to secure our natural rights, and the right to self defense is certainly one of them. The protection of this right is expressly written not only in the U.S. Constitution, but Nebraska's Constitution that, "...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."
-
It's good to hear the Sen Lindstrom gets it! Thanks for sharing Greybeard.
-
There is an important aspect of LB289 that may be overlooked by those viewing this as a gun bill. This is not just a "gun bill". It is important to realize who has the power to make law, and where cities get their powers from. This bill is a way to tell cities they have overstepped their authority. The state is governed by the constitution. The state authorizes cities with certain powers. Cities are provided authority to form their own charters. Ordinances that some cities have passed to restrict ownership or possession of firearms exceeds the authority granted to them by the state. Those ordinances are a violation and only exist because they have not been challenged in court.
An important point to make with any senator claiming they support local control is that this bill is only reaffirming the authorities granted to cities by the state. Ask them where cities have ever been given the power exceed the states restrictions on firearms. If a senator claims it is alright for a city to exceed the authority they have been granted, what does that say about how they view their own job in the legislature? Or is it a lack of understanding of the legislative body they are a part of?
-
I'm told that Senator Schnoor will be making LB289 his priority bill this session. This was confirmed by his office.
This is a big help to insure this bill get brought up on the floor for discussion.
-
Thank you Sen Schnoor!!
-
Yes that is fantastic news. I'll have to write him and thank him. Anybody know if we will have enough votes to move past the promised filibuster from the senator who sues God?
-
Yes that is fantastic news. I'll have to write him and thank him. Anybody know if we will have enough votes to move past the promised filibuster from the senator who sues God?
That is a good question...the push is back on to get everyone to contact their State Senator as well as any other Senators that they wish to. I have heard mostly positive feedback on this bill & we need to frame the narrative. THIS IS THE DEFINITIVE BILL....YOU ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT & THE NEBRASKA CONSTITUTION!
-
THIS IS THE DEFINITIVE BILL....YOU ARE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT & THE NEBRASKA CONSTITUTION!
This is an important thing to note, for years we have worked to get a major piece of legislation up for a vote, and here it is. The NFOA-PAF will be using this vote as a major benchmark, or grade if you need it said, for what current Senators it will support for reelection. If a Senator can not vote to support us we will not support them.
-
would this bill force Omaha to allow gun shows?
-
just a note, Chambers has promised to filibuster this bill so Schnoor is going to need 33 votes to shut him up and then 29 (I think) to get it passed. Contact your State Representative and tell them that this is a priority bill that must pass.
-
Just got a reply from Spencer Head, legislative aid to Jim Scheer:
Thank you for sharing your support for LB289. Senator Scheer supports LB289 in its current form and plans to support the bill if it comes up for a vote. That being said, there are currently 57 bills in front of LB289 on General File. Unfortunately, I would not anticipate the bill coming up for a vote this session.
-
Unfortunately, I would not anticipate the bill coming up for a vote this session.
Anything we can do to get this moved up the list?
-
It is all up to the Speaker at this point. Being prioritized helps a lot. But if the speaker doesn't want it to be heard, he can delay it a bit.
Speaker Hadley represents Kearney, Gibbon, Shelton, and North from the Platte river. The more folks from his district that urge him to bring it up the more possible influence there would be. I don't imagine he wants his district upset with him when he returns home after being term limited this year. Would be a shame for his legacy to be killing pro-firearms / pro-constitutional goverment bill as Speaker of the Legislature.
-
Status of LB 289 today
Filibuster on LB 18, Change provisions relating to immunizations for students
Next bills up:
LB 18A, Appropriation Bill
LB 176, Change the Competitive Livestock Markets Act
Then:
LB 289, Prohibit certain regulation of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories by cities and villages as prescribed
Legislative session closed 11:57 AM, 1-20-16
-
Just talked to Tanya Cooks office again. She is still opposed. Her staff member said she thought it would be up for discussion tomorrow around 11 but she also sounded kind of confused. I had to explain lb 289 to her.
-
I got a letter in the mail today. The important line is "I oppose this legislation, as well as any other proposals which aim to promote firearm ownership over basic safety measures." Sincerely, Tanya Cook. Please God give me someone else to vote for.
-
My email to Kate Bolz(29)...awaiting response.
Hello-
I am an active voting constituent in District 29. My family voted for Kate Bolz in the last election cycle and I even spoke to her when she came to our door. A very important bill is on the list of Priority Bills that is coming up on the floor here in the next few days. LB 289(sponsored by state Senator Laura Ebke) will ensure that all firearm and ammunition laws are applied evenly across our great state. This is not only important to make sure that Nebraska's law abiding citizens don't unknowingly run afoul of the law, but help set the precedent that Nebraska State Legislature makes laws in this state. Not local cities, townships, municipalities, etc. I think there are many instances across this country and, yes, even in this state, where the aforementioned have overestimated their ability to impose codes and ordinances that infringe on Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights.
I understand this topic is not generally in Kate Bolz's wheelhouse but she does have a duty to not only to represent her constituency but ensure the faithful adherence to the US Constitution via the Nebraska State legislature, by The People, for The People.
I look forward to her response and position on this important bill. Thank you for your attention in this matter. God Bless.
Regards,
-
Here's an NRA article on this bill:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160122/nebraska-state-preemption-bill-expected-for-first-floor-debate-and-vote (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160122/nebraska-state-preemption-bill-expected-for-first-floor-debate-and-vote)
My state senator, Kathy Campbell, has refused to answer my requests to tell me where she stands on this bill. I'd say her cowardly silence speaks for itself.
-
Here's an NRA article on this bill:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160122/nebraska-state-preemption-bill-expected-for-first-floor-debate-and-vote (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160122/nebraska-state-preemption-bill-expected-for-first-floor-debate-and-vote)
My state senator, Kathy Campbell, has refused to answer my requests to tell me where she stands on this bill. I'd say her cowardly silence speaks for itself.
Yep she's mine too. I called and asked that she call me back to discuss it and so far, nothing.
-
I need 4 volunteers to assist with LB289 on Monday, for about 6 hours (or even 3), in Omaha. I'll provide lunch. Contact me directly for details.
-
I need 4 volunteers to assist with LB289 on Monday, for about 6 hours (or even 3), in Omaha. I'll provide lunch. Contact me directly for details.
What's the time frame you are looking for on Monday? From when to when presumably?
-
9 - 3
-
9 - 3
I hope you can find your volunteers. Unfortunately, I'm working the bulk of that time.
-
I sent you a PM, but I thought it was in Lincoln not Omaha...
-
I'll call you here in a few minutes. We need people at the Capitol in Lincoln, yes. I have a need for a couple volunteers in Omaha for something too.
-
Be sure to like the NFOA Facebook page if you use Facebook and haven't already.
https://www.facebook.com/NebraskaFirearmsOwnersAssociation (https://www.facebook.com/NebraskaFirearmsOwnersAssociation)
I will be doing a live update from the Capitol tomorrow.
-
what ya need done in omaha ?
-
have an opportunity to do pass through calls and will cost almost nothing if we staff with volunteers. The call center is in Omaha
Pass through calls are when you tell someone the key points and ask if they would like to talk to their senators office. Hit the button and the call gets transferred. Not robo calls, live person talking to registered voters.
-
OK, tomorrow is the big day. Anyone that can come to Lincoln and watch is welcome (and encouraged) to come on down. The General Session starts at 10am.
Also, I wanted to share the key points I'm pushing on the senators, which may help as you make calls and write emails (or visit in person before the general session tomorrow morning).
What LB289 does:
- Provides for a State-Wide standard regarding Gun Ownership.
- Reaffirms that the Nebraska Legislature is the body that sets restrictions on firearms ownership.
- Sends a clear message that cities may not exceed the authority the state has provided.
- Would eliminate the unconstitutional ordinances in Lincoln and Omaha that restrict ownership, in excess of State law.
What LB289 DOES NOT do:
- Does not affect the ability to regulate the discharge of firearms within city limits.
- Does not affect the zoning abilities of cities and regulation of firearms related businesses.
- Does not prevent cities from posted city buildings as Gun Free Zones.
What a vote against LB289 does:
- Is a vote against Article 1 of the Nebraska Constitution.
- Forfeits the role of the legislature in providing certain authorities to cities.
What a vote to recommit does:
- Kills the bill.
- Will be viewed as a vote against the bill.
It is important to note that Statewide Preemption exists today for Concealed Carry Permit holders. Equality under the law principles should apply to all gun owners.
-
Lincoln Mayor Beutler and the Lincoln Police chief seem to be getting a lot of senators to waver on this because of their "concerns", which mostly consist of inaccurate fear based b.s. Oddly, much like we are seeing coming from the Bloomberg funded group.
-
My email and response from Senator Baker R-30...
Skip,
I continue to support 2nd amendment rights.
On Jan 24, 2016 1:04 PM, "Skip McPheron" <hm91754@hotmail.com> wrote:
Senator Baker, I'm and calling on you to keep the promise you made to me on my front porch to support the 2nd Amendment and the Nebraska Constitution. LB-289 supports both of them, and keeps liberal anti-gunners from creating Catch-22 laws to trip up people lawfully exercising their God given rights... Senator Chambers in his continued tantrum filled agenda against law abiding citizens is trying to kill this bill with the recommit vote because he isn't sure he can bully his way to a filibuster. Nebraskan need to cut down these antics so we can pass need legislation so that we remain viable in attracting new commerce to the State... Thank you again for you attention to this vital piece of legislation that is good for all Nebraskans...
-
I emailed my Sen. Roy Baker District 30 but never go a email back. I also called and a woman answered and I told her I hoped Mr. Baker would support LB 289 and she said that he was going to support LB 289, we shall have to see if he does.
Dick
-
Matt Hansen couldn't even bring himself to respond to my email. Apparently my response from the last round must have insulted him. Can't understand why, all I did was tell him if he didn't honor the Will of the People he was elected to represent, I'd find someone who would...
-
Our primary target today is Senator Morfeld. Press him to articulate what specific Lincoln ordinances that restrict ownership does he believe are just. Ask him what they are. I don't believe he knows. I don't think they understand which restrictions are duplication of state law and which are specific to Licoln (or Omaha). If we can educate Morfeld we have made huge progress.
-
No response from the office of Kate Bolz(29). Color me surprised.
-
Response from Murante:
Thank you for your email on LB 289. I support LB 289 and am a strong advocate for the 2nd amendment. I will work with Senator Ebke to ensure that the bill is passed into law.
Again, thank you for your email. Please feel free to contact me on any other issues facing the Legislature.
Sincerely,
John Murante
State Senator
District 49
-
No response from the office of Kate Bolz(29). Color me surprised.
Keep working on it. I've spoken to her a couple times, exchanged e=mails and spoken with her staffer. She was, initially, very clearly in favor.
Now that the whole issue is getting bogged down with rhetoric about robocalls during the football game, and carve-outs for city parks, etc., it's all getting muddled.
-
Our primary target today is Senator Morfeld. Press him to articulate what specific Lincoln ordinances that restrict ownership does he believe are just. Ask him what they are. I don't believe he knows. I don't think they understand which restrictions are duplication of state law and which are specific to Licoln (or Omaha). If we can educate Morfeld we have made huge progress.
Here are my thoughts concerning Lincoln's ownership restrictions. When you read down thru the list, most sound , on the surface, "reasonable" even- assault/ domestic, DUI, concealed weapon, etc, etc. are mere misdemeanors and many of these are nothing more than a "don't do it again" and a fine. No harm no foul- collect a few bucks for the court. (such as in Kevin William's case- simple fine) life goes on.
My take is that if these folks were actually a possible menace to society, then a heftier sentence, including jail time and rehabilitation would have been appropriate- ie- felony- which then puts them under federal/ state law as a prohibited person.
Just my take on things
I actually spoke to quite a few folks at the fair last summer, that by Lincoln laws, were barred from owning a gun for various things that happen in life. A couple guys had gotten caught up in a bar brawl- everyone got assault charges (of some sort)- now barred for 10 years IN Lincoln. At least another couple fellas were barred due to
'Domestic Assault' for what was no more than pushing past their significant other to leave the house/ room during an argument. She called po po first- he's without rights IN LINCOLN for at least 10 years.
The list goes on and on. These are the kinds of stories our Senators need to hear. These unconstitutional laws have overreaching unintended consequences and are not needed.
-
Jeremy is spot on. Personal stories make all the difference. One of our members actually made some great progress with Krist last evening. They spoke for a half hour and the call ended much better than it began.
-
My email to Heath Mello. No response in 2 days and don't expect one since he's term limited.
Dear Senator Mello,
I am a constituent in your district and was wondering if you will be supporting LB289? I work in Papillion and need to travel there six days a week at 3:00 am. After the Andrea Kruger murder, I would like to carry my handgun to work for my protection as do not want to be a victim of stopping at a stop sign and being drug out of my vehicle and executed. Living in Omaha prevents me from doing so without jumping through hoops and costing me well over $200 to do so, or by locking my handgun unloaded in a case for the 1.4 miles to get me south of Q street. Why do my constitutional rights of defending myself end at the Omaha city limits? The Omaha Mayor and City Prosecutor both have gone on record stating Omaha's ordinance has done nothing to prevent gun violence and it never will. Was Nikko Jenkin's weapons registered with the city? Did he have the Omaha open carry permit in his wallet? Please support LB289 as is, which will stop making criminals of honest law abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves from the evil that lurks in our community.
-
Very well written trump!
-
I just called Sen. Mello's office to give my opinion again and ask whether my emails were received. The lady I spoke with said my email was "starred for response." I can't wait.
Prior to reading the OWH article I actually hadn't realized Omaha's minimum age for possession of a handgun is 21 versus Nebraska's 18.
Dropping the age to 18 would hamper Omaha’s efforts to combat criminal gangs and institute a “dangerous public policy,” Wells said.
“Frankly, the proposed changes arguably come across not so much as pro-gun, but pro-gang,” he wrote.
I can see where he's coming from... why wait to arrest a "gang member" until he actually commits a crime? Better to go ahead and put "gang members" behind bars ahead of time, for the crimes we all know they're going to commit in the future. After all, they're "gang members." They don't know how to do anything else, besides commit crime. Come to think of it, Omaha should probably make voting age 21 too, so "gang members" don't start affecting government.
Another point the anti-289 senators brought up repeatedly was that Omaha and Lincoln face problems that the rest of the state don't have. Well, why stop at city limits? I'm pretty sure that Districts 5, 11, and 13 in Omaha face problems that the rest of the city doesn't have. So maybe we should have handgun restrictions in those portions of Omaha only, the ones with high populations of "gang members."
(Does this forum have a sarcasm font?)
I'm a tiny bit surprised Sen. Chambers didn't jump all over that BS from Wells when Sen. Mello read it.
-
The cloture vote has failed! We fell one vote short of breaking Ernie's filibuster. The bill is now dead.
The results were: For cloture...32 (to end debate and vote to send to Select File)
Against Cloture...10
Not Voting...6
We needed 33 votes for cloture in order to end debate and move to a vote on whether to advance the bill to the next stage (Select File).
How the Senators voted:
Against Cloture: 10
Senator Campbell (GOP)
Senator Chambers (INDEPENDENT)
Senator Cook (DEM)
Senator Haar (DEM)
Senator Hadley (GOP)
Senator Hansen (DEM)
Senator Burke Harr (DEM)
Senator Howard (DEM)
Senator Krist (GOP)
Senator Sullivan (DEM)
Not Voting: 6
Senator Baker (GOP)
Senator Coash (GOP)
Senator Kolowski (DEM)
Senator Mello (DEM)
Senator Morfeld (DEM)
Senator Pansing-Brooks (DEM)
The senators that voted against cloture were primarily responsible for the death of this bill and those who didn't vote are also somewhat responsible for the death of the bill.
All others who voted for cloture were at least willing to give the bill more time and work in order to get something passed.
Voting for Cloture: 32
Senator Bloomfield (GOP)
Senator Bolz (DEM)
Senator Brasch (GOP)
Senator Craighead (GOP)
Senator Crawford (DEM)
Senator Davis (GOP)
Senator Ebke (GOP)
Senator Fox (GOP)
Senator Friesen (GOP)
Senator Garrett (GOP)
Senator Gloor (GOP)
Senator Groene (GOP)
Senator Hilkemann (GOP)
Senator Hughes (GOP)
Senator Johnson (GOP)
Senator Kintner (GOP)
Senator Kolterman (GOP)
Senator Kuehn (GOP)
Senator Larson (GOP)
Senator Lindstrom (GOP)
Senator McCollister (GOP)
Senator McCoy (GOP)
Senator Murante (GOP)
Senator Riepe (GOP)
Senator Scheer (GOP)
Senator Schilz (GOP)
Senator Schnoor (GOP)
Senator Seiler (GOP)
Senator Smith (GOP)
Senator Stinner (GOP)
Senator Watermeier (GOP)
Senator Williams (GOP)
-
Coash was out of town....
-
Coash was out of town....
Sigh...
-
So once again Ernie Chambers and his team of only ten traitors were able to override the democratic process and undermine the law.
I see my senator, Campbell, is listed as a Republican. This is a good example of why voters are sick of the RINO wing of that party. Only a hard core America-hating liberal bigot would join with Chambers in this act of treason, but she calls herself a Republican. Hopefully this will wake voters up and traitors like her and her RINO comrades can be replaced by loyal Americans. I'd like to see them in jail, but I'll settle for just seeing them out of power.
-
Campbell doesn't matter at this point. Up against a term limit, if I got my copy/paste off of the Nebraska Legislature webpages correct. Elected in '08, re-elected in '12 puts her at the term limit.
Just need to make sure that whomever replaces her next year is a 2A supporter.
-
I see two democrats in the good group, including my district. That deserves a lot of praise and I'll be sure to e-mail her accordingly.
-
Coash was out of town....
Shouldn't have mattered... Baker put in writing, to me, that he was a supporter of 289. I just emailed him with my 'present but not voting is unacceptable' message. Coward.
-
Got this back from Senator Sara Howard (District 9 - Omaha)
Thank you for your email on LB 289 which would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances prohibiting conceal carry.
The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee and the Legislature has begun what will be a protracted debate. Several members of the Judiciary Committee who voted to advance the bill out of committee have expressed concerns about the bill during floor debate.
The idea of local control is best on various issues is a common argument made in the Legislature. LB 289 would seem to run counter to that philosophy. I would expect a healthy debate on its merits and problems. A majority of the Omaha City Council and the Omaha Police Officers Association have expressed their opposition to LB 289 and their support of local control on this issue. I take very seriously the views of our law enforcement officers that LB 289 would make their jobs more difficult. I cannot support LB 289 in its current form which is why I voted to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.
I also expected similar legislation to prohibit gun free zones near schools, churches and other public areas to raise similar concerns about local control. In my annual legislative survey of District 9, 65% opposed weakening the gun free zones law with only 30% supporting and the remaining 5% unsure.
I appreciate hearing from you and I will keep your views in mind as we move forward.
Sincerely,
Sara Howard
State Senator
I think she is firmly with Senator Chambers and a "NO" Vote on it!
-
LB 289 which would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances prohibiting conceal carry
Uh...
-
.
Shouldn't have mattered... Baker put in writing, to me, that he was a supporter of 289. I just emailed him with my 'present but not voting is unacceptable' message. Coward.
I called and said basically the same.
-
Shouldn't have mattered... Baker put in writing, to me, that he was a supporter of 289. I just emailed him with my 'present but not voting is unacceptable' message. Coward.
He was at a funeral according to Bill Kintner.
-
So, I got this email from Mr. Hansen, who is supposed to be my Senator (District 26):
Dear gsd,
Thank you for sharing your support for LB289.
I understand the desire for clarity and uniformity across the state. I was hopeful the body would adopt Senator Morfeld’s amendment that models the federal law addressing these concerns in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the proposed amendment here in Nebraska, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it.
I voted against cloture on LB289 because that compromise was rejected by the bill’s introducer. I further believe that cities and villages should have local control to address specific issues of concern in their community. For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters. The Omaha Police Department felt similarly about provisions that address gang violence in Omaha. I believe this is good policy, and voted to support it.
The views of constituents are very important to our office, so we will keep your information on file.
If you have further questions or concerns, please contact our office at (402) 471-2610.
And my response:
Mr. Hansen,
I feel you have failed to understand the underlying components of LB289. The entities you made mention of in your response, specifically the "domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters" still retain the ability to ban firearms on their premises. Regarding your statement that the compromise was rejected by Senator Ebke, allow me to explain something. By exempting the cities of Lincoln and Omaha from LB289, Mr. Morfeld's amendment would have effectively rendered LB289 pointless. The point of "One state, One statute" is to apply the Laws of the State, across the State. This bill had nothing to do with gang violence. This bill would have protected law abiding citizens from imprisonment or confiscation on the grounds that they chose to protect themselves while visiting a city that had an obscure registration requirement, or they had a pocket knife that was 1/8 inch longer than allowed by another city's self-imposed length regulations.
Allow me to close this email with one additional point: LB289 would have had no effect on criminals, who by definition, do not obey the laws of this State. Law abiding citizens by definition will acquiesce to the requests of those businesses and installations who request firearms not be present on their property. I am disappointed in your vote against LB289.
A Voting Constituent,
-
So, I got this email from Mr. Hansen, who is supposed to be my Senator (District 26):
Dear gsd,
Thank you for sharing your support for LB289.
I understand the desire for clarity and uniformity across the state. I was hopeful the body would adopt Senator Morfeld’s amendment that models the federal law addressing these concerns in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the proposed amendment here in Nebraska, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it.
I voted against cloture on LB289 because that compromise was rejected by the bill’s introducer. I further believe that cities and villages should have local control to address specific issues of concern in their community. For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters. The Omaha Police Department felt similarly about provisions that address gang violence in Omaha. I believe this is good policy, and voted to support it.
The views of constituents are very important to our office, so we will keep your information on file.
If you have further questions or concerns, please contact our office at (402) 471-2610.
And my response:
Mr. Hansen,
I feel you have failed to understand the underlying components of LB289. The entities you made mention of in your response, specifically the "domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters" still retain the ability to ban firearms on their premises. Regarding your statement that the compromise was rejected by Senator Ebke, allow me to explain something. By exempting the cities of Lincoln and Omaha from LB289, Mr. Morfeld's amendment would have effectively rendered LB289 pointless. The point of "One state, One statute" is to apply the Laws of the State, across the State. This bill had nothing to do with gang violence. This bill would have protected law abiding citizens from imprisonment or confiscation on the grounds that they chose to protect themselves while visiting a city that had an obscure registration requirement, or they had a pocket knife that was 1/8 inch longer than allowed by another city's self-imposed length regulations.
Allow me to close this email with one additional point: LB289 would have had no effect on criminals, who by definition, do not obey the laws of this State. Law abiding citizens by definition will acquiesce to the requests of those businesses and installations who request firearms not be present on their property. I am disappointed in your vote against LB289.
A Voting Constituent,
I like it, good job.
-
Hey Rod, great interview on KFAB! Just caught it. I agree on all points you made.
The thing that gets me is how easy it is for bad laws and regulations to be implemented, VS the incredible amount of time, money, and effort it takes to repeal them.
-
The official response from Kate Bolz AFTER the bill was killed.
I support the Second Amendment and I believe that we need to protect the ability of law abiding
citizens in Nebraska exercise their second amendment rights statewide. That is the intent of
this bill and I support and respect the goal of creating a clearer and more uniform approach for
law abiding citizens statewide.
I have worked to listen carefully to my constituents on this issue. Among the details of this bill is
one that concerns me greatly: the protection of individuals who are survivors and victims of
domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault. The bill as written would remove existing local
protections for domestic violence shelters and drug rehabilitation centers and would remove
current provisions that prohibit individuals convicted of stalking and sexual assault from
possessing weapons.
I have expressed these concerns to my constituents and to stakeholders on both sides of this
issue. Today, I intend to support LB 289 to create a fairer system for law abiding gun owners.
At the same time, I remain committed to protecting individuals and families targeted by
criminals.
I am committed to working with my constituents, my colleagues, and other stakeholders to find a
pathway forward to both protect the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and to
protect individuals and families vulnerable to domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. If
these legitimate concerns are not adequately addressed, I cannot commit to LB 289 as the
vehicle to achieve our Second Amendment goals moving forward.
I ask my fellow lawmakers to work to achieve policy that works.
-
So basically, I support it, but I don't. Typical politician.
-
So basically, I support it, but I don't. Typical politician.
From talking to her I think she was voting in our favor but was willing to support an amendment or two. There are some liberal kooks in the Lincoln Districts who probably give their reps a lot of static, so let's not be too hard on one of only two democrats who voted the right way.
-
I would like to work on a project that details the good, the bad, & the ugly regarding the one year plus campaign that we worked on in an attempt to get LB-289 into law.
I want to expose the reasons given by 'conservatives' for voting against it, the lies told to help stop the bill, the senators who flip flopped on their position, & anything else of importance.
I'm not sure what the final product will look like yet. Possibly a video, a slideshow, or maybe just a series of posts online detailing them.
I could definitely use some assistance. If anyone has any screenshots of Senators responses I could really use them. If you would prefer to forward me the entire message that works as well. Beyond that I will look at anything that you feel is pertinent to 289.
You can message me on here Or email me jfader.nfoa@gmail.Com
Thanks in advance!
-
J,
Feel free to pull anything you would like from the email Matt Hansen sent me.
-Dave
-
Will this bill be making an encore appearance next year? We need to get started on our lobbying efforts and organization.
-
Kilroy. I believe so.
I see your status shows you as a forum only member. Please sign up as a full member (be sure to use the same email address for quicker vetting) You can then access the Full Members' area for more exclusive content.
-
I noticed on the 2017 calandar from the NE Gov site - LB289 is not State Wide Preemption - has this been reintroduced for 2017 and if so, what is the new number?
-
Yes, this is a new session, everything starts over.
-
I noticed on the 2017 calandar from the NE Gov site - LB289 is not State Wide Preemption - has this been reintroduced for 2017 and if so, what is the new number?
Preemption LB68 (Senator Hilgers)