NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: AAllen on November 16, 2010, 01:57:11 PM
-
Omaha World Herald has coverage:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20101116/NEWS01/711179997/182#clearer-self-defense-law-urged
-
I'd say it came across as fairly impartial although I dont like giving brenda the last word..
-
What? where did the gang thing come from? I don't recall it discussed today?
Also no mention of Chris or the NFOA? We need to fix that, get some 'press time'!!
-
Well, that sen brenda coumcil needs to be informed that as she would stated "proposal would grant immunity " What she doesn't understand is that Gang, members do not OBEY the law when carrying and as with us having an issued CCW in Nebr or are in our privately own autos or home, and we are the law abiding citizen that has passed an extensive back ground check as well as safety training it is her narrow minded scope of 1 citys problems with crime not that it fits all locale's in rural or urban locations. as Senators they should investigate further that Omaha and Lincoln are not considered NEBRASKA by virture of city limits.
-
http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_59f5c8ae-ac2b-5be7-a781-47430346e508.html
Lincoln Journal Star was the ONLY media actually there. OWH must have watched via the computer
-
here's the video in case you have not seen it on my other thread....
http://dropbox.unl.edu/uploads/20101130/a15b9cf91b57f4c8/Castle%20Law%20Study.mp4 (http://dropbox.unl.edu/uploads/20101130/a15b9cf91b57f4c8/Castle%20Law%20Study.mp4)
-
Great job Chris! I would have been much more confrontational (and therefore the WRONG person to speak).
.... a couple of things I thought about
1.) I would like to minimize any "West Nebraska" "East Nebraska" talk This is reasonable legislation to ALL reasonable Nebraskans.
2.) Why all the discussion about various escalating "combat" situations? I thought the standard was "imminent with means and intent" It sounds like those against this want to muddy the water with what ifs. I would stress that anyone using the Castle Doctrine as a guide OUTSIDE THE HOME will have undergone training to have a CCW. Ask if they have any questions on training.Inside the home,no CCW is required and this bill will ELIMINATE VAGARIES. If a Bad guy enters your home he's wrong. Period. As far as going after people after the fact, that's not our call. That's for the police.
Once again,great job Chris. I'm not posting to tell anyone what to do. Just trying to get dialogue going and working out phrasing of what I want to say to people who may discuss this with me. Thanks RJ
-
Senator Christensen made the East / West comment.......... He was just pointing out that there seems to be a different level of thought between the two. Unfortunately the left minded knuckleheads seem to dominate the legislature.
Council will never support any such bill and she will just continue bringing up what ifs? I think we have some very level minded folks that are on the right side here (some more discussions happened with the Legal Counsel for the Committee and a couple Senators after the actual hearing was over).
The majority of NE Firearms owners do not have a CCW permit. People who don't have a permit should be able to defend themselves outside the home.
-
As Chris said, open carry is legal in Nebraska so don't automatically assume anyone carrying is a CCW holder. I personally have had occasion to be armed, but I don't have a CCW. Although, personally, anyone who intentionally escalates a situation, or attacks someone who's clearly armed is not thinking clearly.
Once you get past North Platte going West, there is a much higher incidence of people having firearms in their possession even outside the home and I doubt most of those people would bother with a CCW permit.
I think Chris is exactly right. Council will never support the legislation and will muddy the waters as a delaying tactic. I watched the testimony last spring, and this session and her comment about someone being able to use force on someone in their backyard is a mischaracterization at best. McGill is going to be the silent resistance, in that she won't say a word during the meetings (was she even there today?) but will vote against it, all the while being non-committal to her constituents.
-
Living in Omaha I sometimes forget that open carry is allowed elsewhere. I'm embarrassed. Still, SHE represents an Omaha district and you need training to open carry here. That point could be brought up and perhaps you could offer to show her the CCW training in full as a way to answer her many "What if's?" If she agrees,she won't tie up the hearings with side crap. If she doesn't take you up on it, you can call her on it. RJ
-
Chris, I know that Ashford and Council were there, who from the judiciary committee was not in attendance?
-
Rogert, Coash, Christensen, Ashford and Council were there. Lautenbaugh missed the hearing, but came in just after it ended. McGill and Lathrop were not there.
-
It says a bit that Chris and the NRA representative were the only testifiers. No one from the Brady bunch or other group showed up
-
Chris,
I haven't had a chance to watch the video of the testimony, was Coash supportive? I've emailed him on many other issues and he has always seemed to be a good listener and has always responded. Any tips on 'talking points' us members can call, write, or email with to our state senators?
-
Coash didn't say anything during the hearing. He did come up after the hearing to shake my hand and thank me for speaking..... He usually doesn't say too much.
Talking points will be coming once we have a bill drafted and introduced.... Then the challenge becomes getting it out of committee (unless the bill is made a Priority bill, which it has a good chance of). A little too early to know for sure if that is going to happen though
-
I emailed Coash last time Castle Doctrine came up and he was supportive of it. He's a good friend to the NFOA.
-
Yes Colby Coash was one of the 4 "yes" voters to move it out of committee last year. Those were Rogert, Lautenbaugh, Coash, and Christensen. The other 4 naysayers were Ashford, Council, McGill and Lathrop. It was a 4-4 tie which is why it never got out of committee.
Rogert (Democrat) who sat on the committee was not re-elected and lost to Republican Lydia Brasch. From what i have read on this forum about Brasch it seems she is both pro 2nd Amendment and pro Castle Doctrine. Does anyone know if she will replace Rogert on the committee or if someone else will replace his seat?
Sadly both Ashford and McGill won re-election. Apparently Ashford changed party affiliation from Democrat to Republican just recently before the election however he was unopposed. I believe Lathrop is also a Republican? Correct me if i'm wrong. Regardless if we want to get Castle Doctrine out of committee this session we will need to sway Ashford and/or Lathrop to our side. McGill and Council will both be hardline "no" votes.
-
It would really surprise me if it gets out of committee without being someone's(Christensen's) priority bill.
-
Rogert (Democrat) who sat on the committee was not re-elected and lost to Republican Lydia Brasch. From what i have read on this forum about Brasch it seems she is both pro 2nd Amendment and pro Castle Doctrine. Does anyone know if she will replace Rogert on the committee or if someone else will replace his seat?
No, she won't automatically get that spot. An actually I think everyone will have to get reappointed to the committee, however I'm sure the current members usually do.
-
...I think everyone will have to get reappointed to the committee, however I'm sure the current members usually do.
How does the appointment process work?
-
There is a "committee on committees" that handles it and the Senators vote
-
Great......so there's a chance for the anti's to get another seat on the committee.
-
There is a "committee on committees" that handles it and the Senators vote
and this is how you know too much goverment is a bad thing.
-
There is a "committee on committees" that handles it and the Senators vote
and this is how you know too much goverment is a bad thing.
amen
-
Anti-freedom legislators always seek the Judiciary Committee as their priority. It feeds their lust for power.