NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: omaharj on February 27, 2012, 01:21:10 PM
-
Democracy Park,at 88th and Templeman St. has a sign in the parking lot that says concealed carry is banned in the park. When did these go up? They don't match the state guidelines, but I suspect whoever had them put up doesn't care. Was there ever any discussion? I only noticed the sign because I parked right in front of it. Simple black and white sign, about 18 X 24 inches. RJ
-
I frequently run in Tranquility Park and I've noticed they have a no weapons sign as well.
-
The only state "guideline" is that it must be "conspicuous".
-
How can the possibly post an entire park and consider it legal when their are infinite routes to enter the park?!
No officer I did not park in front of the sign or enter on the path. I came in on the grass and there was no sign posted.
I was worried that Lincoln would go to the expense of attempting this. Thank goodness they have not.
Fly
-
Bullit- You are correct,I was not >:D There is a "strongly suggested" reference to the red circle with a line in it.
Anybody able to find where there was an official statement about this? I wouldn't be surprised if someone made an executive decision
-
Found this from back in 2006: http://www.ketv.com/news/9551103/detail.html (http://www.ketv.com/news/9551103/detail.html)
Fahey has decided that places such as city golf courses, parks, ice skating rinks and other properties will be concealed-weapon-free areas, even after the new law is implemented.
Not sure how Fahey could have made that decision unilaterally.
-
Lincoln parks, (last I knew) are also Free Crime Zones. I wish this was something we could fight later down the road as I would like to take my kids to the many nice parks in this town, but I do not feel comfortable in such a public place with so many potentials for violence.
I especially enjoy the trails in Pioneers Park, but the nature trails can get quite remote, and as anyone living here knows, Wilderness Park Trails are a blast, but have become a haven for SICKOS! Someone asked me once, 'Why would you need to carry a gun while playing with your kids at the park?" Well what better an opportunity than a expansive piece of ground, with many trees, buildings, etc. behind which to accost someone. Even the parks with playgrounds, they can get so busy that it would be too easy to grab a kid and go!
Are these type of city restrictions something we could take on in the future?
-
I've noticed several Omaha parks with these signs. I've also noticed that almost every one of them has at least one "official" entrance that is not posted, not to mention the fact that you can enter or exit most parks at many points between the actual entrances.
I don't think they meet the legal requirements. I also don't want to be the test case.
/rl
-
It's been awhile, but the Omaha park near me is only posted by the pool entrance, not the rest of the park.
-
Let's Try This One On For Size:
Nebraska State Statute 18-1703.
Ownership, possession, and transportation of concealed handguns; power of cities and villages; existing ordinance, permit, or regulation; null and void.
Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law, and shall not have the power to require registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act. Any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the act, except as expressly provided under state law, and any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation requiring the registration of a concealed handgun owned, possessed, or transported by a permitholder under the act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act.
Source:Laws 2009, LB430, § 5; Laws 2010, LB817, § 2.
Cross References: Concealed Handgun Permit Act, see section 69-2427.
Some time ago I called the Omaha City Prosecutor's Office about this Carry Concealed in the Parks issue. Talked to a nice lady lawyer. She told me that--after consultation around her office w/other city attorneys--there was no city ordinance prohibiting concealed carry in the the City of Omaha parks.
She did indicate that the parks could be posted against concealed carry by the city, but because of the infinite entrance points, such posting would be difficult to enforce.
Like others, I don't want to be the test case. Maybe we should get AndyAllen or DanW set up for packing and push them through the park. See what happens. Leadership has its responsibilities.
sfg
-
So, a business can post a "criminals welcome" sign but the city can't?
-
Like others, I don't want to be the test case. Maybe we should get AndyAllen or DanW set up for packing and push them through the park. See what happens. Leadership has its responsibilities.
I think this is where we need volunteerism from the membership. ;)
If we send AAllen out for a stroll in the park, the city and OPD would quickly assess it as a set-up and just leave him be. 8) I would like to think they have learned not to poke the bear that is the NFOA!
-
Democracy park.........pathetic...rename it democrat park
-
Is the city not pre-empted from banning ccw on city property because of the CHP Act pre-emption language?
-
OK, I have to admit that I already have carried my firearm concealed in an Omaha park. But I don't do anything wrong to have the police come by and question me so nobody knows...
Of course I have also open carried without getting any notice.
-
Is the city not pre-empted from banning ccw on city property because of the CHP Act pre-emption language?
No they can post facilities like a business, but an ordinance would have no effect without the posting.
-
Thats another loophole we need to fix sometime. Hopefully in the future we will be able to pass a law with FULL state pre-emption of all gun laws just like it is in Florida meaning that counties, cities, villages, towns and any other local govt cannot have laws on the books nor post signs regulating firearms in any way shape or form.
-
Andy,
Where does the CHL statute let a city post its property like a business?
-
018.04
A person, entity, or employer in control of a place or premises described in Section 018.01O above, which is open to the public, may prohibit permit holders from carrying concealed handguns in the place or premises by posting a conspicuous notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in or on the place or premises or by making a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permit holder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises.
018.05
State law does not mandate a specific requirement for a sign other than that it be conspicuously posted, however, the Nebraska State Patrol strongly suggests that a standardized format be utilized. The standardized form should contain a four (4) inch circle with a slash covering a handgun and text giving notice that carrying a concealed handgun anywhere on the premises is prohibited. A form will be available on the Nebraska State Patrol website which can be downloaded for printing. The Nebraska State Patrol also strongly recommends that a place or premises wishing to prohibit concealed handguns post the sign at normal eye level at each public entrance to the place or premises. Normal eye level is considered to be between 54” and 66” from the floor.
018.06
Except as prohibited by federal law, a permit holder may carry a concealed handgun in a vehicle or on his or her person while riding in or on a vehicle into or onto any parking area which is open to the public and used by any of the places or premises listed in Section 018.01 above if the handgun is not removed from the vehicle and the handgun is properly secured in the vehicle before the permit holder exits the vehicle. To be properly secured in the vehicle, the handgun must be locked inside the glove box, trunk or other compartment of the vehicle, in a storage box attached to the vehicle, or in a securely attached hardened compartment if the vehicle is a motorcycle.
-
Dan,
I may be completely wrong, but my interpretation of 18-1703 would mean the city cannot ban concealed carry in parks. Under the original act, cities could post property, but after preemption, I think the city is restrained from prohibiting guns anywhere where the act doesn't prohibit them.
I usually have no use for them since they have no binding effect, but it may be worth it to ask the AG's office for its opinion.
-
Husker_Fan
Have you read the AG's opinion from 2009?
http://www.ago.ne.gov/ag_opinion_view?oid=4133 (http://www.ago.ne.gov/ag_opinion_view?oid=4133)
Not exactly the question you're asking, but in the ballpark.
If further clarification is required we need to convince a State Senator to request the opinion
-
I have read it and think it's helpful, but the question I would want answered isn't in there. Those questions were very specific to Omaha's registration system. The question I'd ask is:
"Does Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 18-1703 prohibit a city or village from regulating the possession or transportation of a concealed firearm on municipal property that is open to the public?"
"Did cities and villages have the authority to prohibit the permit holders from carrying concealed handguns into or onto a place or premises where the city or village is in control of the property as provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(1)(a)?"
"If so, was such authority revoked or otherwise impaired by the subsequent enactment of Neb. Rev. Stat. 18-1703?"
I'll draft a request with these questions and maybe we can see if one of the state senators would be willing to sign and submit it.
-
Husker_Fan
I agree some clarification would be in order. Once you have a draft of the "Question" I think I may know a Senator that we can get to formally ask it.
-
After some thinking...... because the signs were put up before the statute outlawing ccw banning by cities, perhaps all that is needed is Andy to call the Mayor's hotline and explain their oversight. Perhaps the signs would just be quietly taken down. Hopefully, they will see it as a lost cause and comply. I wouldn't get into the enforceability aspects or even have a discussion: just point out they forgot to take down the signs and go from there. One step at a time RJ
-
I believe some of the signs went up after the change in the law. The prohibition on guns on some of them is included in a list of rules including having you dog leashed and what hours the park is open.
Andy,
I'll shoot you something today or tomorrow.
-
Lincoln parks, (last I knew) are also Free Crime Zones.
I don't recall ever seeing a sign at any parks in Lincoln. Not saying they aren't there. I could see them putting one sign at an obscure entrance and calling it good.
-
I thought I read somewhere the city 'banned' CCW in the parks. I will try and find the ordinance.
-
I don't know about the parks but I know they have the trails posted.
-
I don't recall ever seeing a sign at any parks in Lincoln. Not saying they aren't there. I could see them putting one sign at an obscure entrance and calling it good.
There used to be a Lincoln ordinance banning firearms in parks, but I can not seem to find it now. Regardless, with the passage of the new state law prohibiting cities/towns from having laws more restrictive than state CCW law, the Lincoln ordinance would be null and void for CHP holders.
Fly
-
There used to be a Lincoln ordinance banning firearms in parks, but I can not seem to find it now. Regardless, with the passage of the new state law prohibiting cities/towns from having laws more restrictive than state CCW law, the Lincoln ordinance would be null and void for CHP holders.
Fly
The ordinance is still there, and would be null and void for CHP holders, but I don't think that will stop them from trying to post no weapons signs in the parks
12.08.200 Weapons Prohibited in Parks.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or discharge, or cause to be discharged, within any park, any firearm, including, but not limited to, any pistol, revolver, shotgun, or rifle.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or discharge, or cause to be discharged, within any park, any air rifle, bow and arrow, crossbow, toy pistol, toy gun, slingshot, or any other air, gas, manually operated or spring operated gun, weapon, apparatus, or instrument designed or intended to be used for the purpose of throwing or projecting missiles of any kind by any means whatsoever, whether the instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department
may designate areas in certain parks and park facilities to allow various organized programs to engage in the activities described herein.
(d) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to duly
authorized Parks and Recreation Department employees or law enforcement officers acting in the course of their duty. (Ord. 17365 §1; June 29, 1998: P.C. § 12.08.120: Ord. 12600 § 1; June 25, 1979: Ord. 10868 § 1; July 23, 1973: Ord. 3489 § 30-112, as amended by Ord. 5775; July 12, 1954).
-
The ordinance is still there, and would be null and void for CHP holders, but I don't think that will stop them from trying to post no weapons signs in the parks
What is interesting is that when cities, posing as "business owners," post public parks and such, they really are attempting to regulate pistol carry which is illegal under state law.
Just noticed that in Washington, cities lost this lawsuit---and I'm betting Omaha and Lincoln would also if it was pushed. Anyone able to ask the Attorney General what he thinks about it? :)
"In response, the city claimed the ban wasn’t a "law" or a criminal regulation, and that it was acting in its "proprietary capacity" as a property owner." ---and they lost.
http://nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/washington-supreme-court-puts-an-end-to-gun-ban-in-seattle-parks.aspx (http://nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/washington-supreme-court-puts-an-end-to-gun-ban-in-seattle-parks.aspx)
-
What is interesting is that when cities, posing as "business owners," post public parks and such, they really are attempting to regulate pistol carry which is illegal under state law.
Just noticed that in Washington, cities lost this lawsuit---and I'm betting Omaha and Lincoln would also if it was pushed. Anyone able to ask the Attorney General what he thinks about it? :)
"In response, the city claimed the ban wasn’t a "law" or a criminal regulation, and that it was acting in its "proprietary capacity" as a property owner." ---and they lost.
http://nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/washington-supreme-court-puts-an-end-to-gun-ban-in-seattle-parks.aspx (http://nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/washington-supreme-court-puts-an-end-to-gun-ban-in-seattle-parks.aspx)
I agree, the differences between a public road, a public sidewalk, a public trail (right of way?) and a public park are nil.
How a city can ban CCW in one place and be prevented from banning it in the others is beyond me, and I strongly support action to overturn this practice.
We need to get a Senator to request the AG's opinion, and that effort has begun
-
I agree, the differences between a public road, a public sidewalk, a public trail (right of way?) and a public park are nil.
How a city can ban CCW in one place and be prevented from banning it in the others is beyond me, and I strongly support action to overturn this practice.
We need to get a Senator to request the AG's opinion, and that effort has begun
Thank Fellas.