NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: FreedomOne on September 28, 2011, 12:42:20 AM
-
Why is it that in Omaha, NE you have to register any gun you own? I do believe that is called infringement on my rights to own a gun. Why hasn't that issue been taken up at the court level? Of course that is just like why do we have to take a class to carry concealed? That is also infringement on my rights to carry. Why wasn't that discussed before that dumb law was passed a few years ago. According to Nebraska's Constitution we didn't need it! What are the thoughts on these subjects? Would like to hear them all! Thanks!
-
Because the courts say it does not prevent you from owning or carrying, and therefore your rights are not infringed.
Not agreeing with it, just answering the question.
-
00BUCK I understand what you are saying, but it is still infringing when I am being told where I can and can't carry. It is also infringing to be told I have to tell someone when I buy a gun or own a gun. I realize there are those that can't be trusted with guns, however letting those of us that would only use a gun for defense would balance out those odds in a hurry!
"....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...."
Now that to me says that these rights shall not be denied or infringed upon. When I have to go to the police and say"Look I just bought a gun....." That is an infringement! When I have to take a class to just carry a gun under my shirt or wherever, That is an infringement.
If I had the money I would hire a lawyer and go after the state and the city of Omaha about this. They are infringing to the point where I might say this is too much regulation to put up with and Iget rid of all my guns, then they are messing with my rights. I hope this makes sense from my point of view. I know you are just stating facts too. Thanks again for the feed back!
-
FreedomOne I completely agree with you. However the powers that be see it otherwise. The solution to this problem would be that the Nebraska Legislature pass a full encompassing firearms preemption bill. We need to break Omaha's grip on the Legislature in regards to them trying to hold onto "home rule" rights which they claim. Such a bill would need to dictate that the State of Nebraska has supreme authority in regards to all gun laws/regulations and that any county, city, town, village or other local rule, regulation, ordinance, or law in regards to firearms is null and void and that any of the aforementioned make any such law or allow such law to remain on the books will be held criminally and civily responspible (fines, criminal charges). Florida has had such a law on the books since the 80's but cities were still violating it because there was no penalty associated with breaking the law. So Florida just this year signed into law strict penalties for cities and their officials that violate the state law.
Furthermore, we also need to include provisions that make it illegal for the State of Nebraska to require registration of firearms. Provisions as this one also are on the books in some other states.
Of course I would like to one day see Nebraska do away with the conceal carry permit and finally respect the 2nd Amendment fully just as Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming have done.
-
Hey Dan! Thanks for the reply! Tell me, what do we need to do to get the ball rolling on getting what you mentioned done here in Nebraska? Let me know as I am tired of having to be fearful of just being a good citizen of America, and a local resident of big bad old Omaha! Thank you very much!
-
FreedomOne I completely agree with you. However the powers that be see it otherwise. The solution to this problem would be that the Nebraska Legislature pass a full encompassing firearms preemption bill. We need to break Omaha's grip on the Legislature in regards to them trying to hold onto "home rule" rights which they claim. Such a bill would need to dictate that the State of Nebraska has supreme authority in regards to all gun laws/regulations and that any county, city, town, village or other local rule, regulation, ordinance, or law in regards to firearms is null and void and that any of the aforementioned make any such law or allow such law to remain on the books will be held criminally and civily responspible (fines, criminal charges). Florida has had such a law on the books since the 80's but cities were still violating it because there was no penalty associated with breaking the law. So Florida just this year signed into law strict penalties for cities and their officials that violate the state law.
Furthermore, we also need to include provisions that make it illegal for the State of Nebraska to require registration of firearms. Provisions as this one also are on the books in some other states.
Of course I would like to one day see Nebraska do away with the conceal carry permit and finally respect the 2nd Amendment fully just as Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming have done.
That should be the NFOA's next and top priority goal... in MY opinion anyway.
-
I couldn't agree more with this thread. I just need some marching orders.
-
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,3274.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,3274.0.html)
March!
-
Keep an eye on the page linked below late thursday/early friday for next tuesday's Omaha City Council agenda. It may include a resolution doing away with the citizenship requirement for handgun registration. We need to fill the council chambers when it comes up for the public hearing, which would usually be the week after it is introduced.
http://www.cityofomaha.org/cityclerk/city-council/meeting-calendar/agendas (http://www.cityofomaha.org/cityclerk/city-council/meeting-calendar/agendas)
-
Don't forget business casual attire when you show up.
-
Why is it that in Omaha, NE you have to register any gun you own? I do believe that is called infringement on my rights to own a gun. Why hasn't that issue been taken up at the court level? Of course that is just like why do we have to take a class to carry concealed? That is also infringement on my rights to carry. Why wasn't that discussed before that dumb law was passed a few years ago. According to Nebraska's Constitution we didn't need it! What are the thoughts on these subjects? Would like to hear them all! Thanks!
This city ordinance has been on the books since the very early 1900s at least, why hasn't the city council repealed it all these years? I think because in general, Nebraskans as whole are anti gun. I had a concealed carry permit in South Dakota back when I was stationed there. All it cost was $25 and they sent it in the mail. I was shocked and dismayed when I PCSd here to Nebraska in 1995 and found out that they didn't have concealed carry permits at all. It wasn't until 2007 when the law was finally passed allowing concealed carry. Are you serious? On top of that you have to go through a class and pay an outrageous processing fee.
Sure, the number of CHP holders is increasing, at over 15,000 at last count. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to other states. Unfortunately, I think that the Omaha City Council and perhaps the legislators and the Nebraskan public in general, views organizations like the NFOA as a fringe group, representing a small special interest. Sad to say, a moron like Ernie Chambers has more political clout than law abiding gun owners, and that's a reflection of the voting public.
-
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,3274.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,3274.0.html)
March!
It's sad that that thead has been viewed only 51 times......
-
Perhaps LM4202 also views NFOA as a fringe group , since he has neglected to join our fine association ;D
-
Perhaps LM4202 also views NFOA as a fringe group , since he has neglected to join our fine association ;D
I'm just like the 10,000 other people who haven't joined. I have my reasons. :)
-
I'm just like the 10,000 other people who haven'_t joined. I have my reasons. :)
must be that name on a list thing again. ;)
-
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,3274.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,3274.0.html)
Could not open this link.
http://www.cityofomaha.org/cityclerk/images/stories/agenda/a11-10-04.pdf (http://www.cityofomaha.org/cityclerk/images/stories/agenda/a11-10-04.pdf)
Went to this link and did not see anything listed about Gun Registration.
I agree. If it does come up as many as possible should show up and voice how registration is unconstitutional and wrong and needs to be officially taken off the books!
Thanks for all the great feedback on this topic so far! I knew I wasn't alone on this subject. Good to see others voice their feelings too!
-
Here is an article that many don't know about. We could use this info when we go after these old laws.
DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
Submitted by Jonathan on Sun, 03/29/2009 - 2:04pm.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Governddddddddddddmddddddddddddent can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
-
I read that whole thing and found it very interesting... How do we forget these points?
-
must be that name on a list thing again. ;)
Nope. Nothing to do with that at all. I've had the government look up many years of my life for my TS/SCI security clearance while serving my country for 24 years, so my name being on some list doesn't bother me at all. My reasons are my own.
-
Regarding the "Unorganized Militia", see United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 13, section 311.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)
-
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
The Law, nor the Constitutions it is based on, means nothing to a Progressive, be he Wilson, the Won, or the Powers that Be in Omaha ...... just another obstacle to be dealt with on the path of "Progress".
-
Sorry folks, I don’t see Omaha ever giving up the ordinance concerning registration, not without as big a fight as they can make it.
One simple reason. It’s a revenue stream. $$$ in the city's pocket. Sure, there is a small cost in the process required for the registration, but to a medium sized city the lure of $$$ is just too great for them to "shoot themselves in the foot" so to speak. ;D
Ron
-
...........I don’t see Omaha ever giving up the ordinance concerning registration, not without as big a fight as they can make it...........the lure of $$$ is just too great.............
I agree that Omaha won't give up gun registration without a fight, but I think it the motivation is political and philosophical, not financial. At most, the $10 or $15 one-time registration fee only covers the cost of processing the application and maintaining the database. It's not a significant revenue source like the wheel tax or restaurant tax.
-
Wonder what it would really take to get all this "illegal" back to Legal? That is the real question!