NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Aldo on April 09, 2012, 09:09:01 AM
-
http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/article/2012/04/guns_allowed_at_school (http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/article/2012/04/guns_allowed_at_school)
If it can happen in Michigan (see article in link), which is way more liberal than Nebraska, why can it not happen here in the land of the good life? I work at NU, and it will be a cold day in h-e-double hockey stick before the NU Board of Regents and NU President will, of their own accord, allow carry on campus for ccw permit holders. Unfortunately, the current university policies trump the current state legislation because the latter allows the university to do so via LB430. I as an individual faculty member cannot make it happen as my voice would get drowned out at a NU Board of Regents meeting (if even allowed to be on the agenda), but I am willing to work with NFOA, NRA, Students for Concealed Carry, etc to get the legislation in motion via the Senate route....preferably as a Senator's priority bill so that the Judiciary Committee can be bypassed since that committee's current composition will definitely NOT allow such bill to get to the general floor for discussion/vote.
-
http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/article/2012/04/guns_allowed_at_school (http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/article/2012/04/guns_allowed_at_school)
If it can happen in Michigan (see article in link), which is way more liberal than Nebraska, why can it not happen here in the land of the good life? I work at NU, and it will be a cold day in h-e-double hockey stick before the NU Board of Regents and NU President will, of their own accord, allow carry on campus for ccw permit holders. Unfortunately, the current university policies trump the current state legislation because the latter allows the university to do so via LB430. I as an individual faculty member cannot make it happen as my voice would get drowned out at a NU Board of Regents meeting (if even allowed to be on the agenda), but I am willing to work with NFOA, NRA, Students for Concealed Carry, etc to get the legislation in motion via the Senate route....preferably as a Senator's priority bill so that the Judiciary Committee can be bypassed since that committee's current composition will definitely NOT allow such bill to get to the general floor for discussion/vote.
It's not happening here because half of the GOP senators in the legislature are wusses and want to compromise with Democrats in the interest of goodwill or something like that (which is impossible). It seems our legislature has this fear of being labeled too extreme or something like that. After all it was them who held a special session and rushed to "close a loophole" to ban concealed carry on college/university campuses.....as if it was some major breach of security.
So Aldo it's actually already out of the NU board's jurisdiction, the legislature did their bidding and banned it by statute. Also a priority bill DOES NOT cause a bill to bypass a committee. It just puts the committee members under more pressure to address the issue somehow.
As far as a CCW on campus bill we already brought a weak version of that last year (to allow school staff and security guards to carry with CCW) and not even that was allowed through.
The only solution to this problem and to getting our other pro 2nd Amendment causes passed into law is to get 3-5 of the liberal members on the judiciary committee REMOVED and REPLACED on that committee. Preferably all 5 of course (Brad Ashford, Brenda Council, Amanda McGill, Steve Lathrop, Burke Harr). It is absolutely outrageous that in a conservative republican state as Nebraska with a legislature that is 33 Republicans, 15 Demoncrats and 1 liberal Independent (Ashford) that our judiciary committee is stacked 5-3 in the liberals' favor. Proportionally it should be the EXACT opposite considering we hold a 2-1 advantage in the legislative body.
I think the legislature keeps voting these bimbos back onto that committee because they are lawyers and have "experience in those matters". Well as Senator Avery demonstrated so well last week during debate on LB 807 a lawmaker doesn't need to know the current law in order to make laws.
We have to get an effort underway to get our conservative legislature to grow some balls and vote against nomination of Brad Ashford, Brenda Council, Amanda McGill, Steve Lathrop, and Burke Harr to the judiciary committee next year. It's time to reward them for their blatant disregard of Nebraskans to be safe in their homes and in their person's wherever they have a legal right to be.
-
Aldo...you're fine with your double barrel stapler and picture of Mas Ayoob.
-
Aldo...you're fine with your double barrel stapler and picture of Mas Ayoob.
Hah!!! I wish I could say that I felt safe that day last year when the SWAT team was going through the hallways of the dental college in Lincoln.....yes, stuck in my office with my staplers and photo of Mas :) Actually, it doesn't take much for me to think back about it and remember how pissed I was at that time...and to some degree still am.
-
http://www.facebook.com/NebraskaStudentsForConcealedCarry (http://www.facebook.com/NebraskaStudentsForConcealedCarry)
I am hoping to see an Advanced CCW bill put up in the next legislative session. The ACHP would require:
-some more training (20ish hours total)
-slightly more strict background check guidelines (recent alcohol related offenses)
PERHAPS cannot be on any prescription drugs that are intended to correct a social/mental issue
PERHAPS a requirement that the applicant has had a standard CHP for 2 years, or prior mil/LE/armed security experience, or is granted a waiver on the 2 year requirement by local sheriff.
PERHAPS a psychological screening, at the applicants expense AND/OR disclosure of individual's mental health records (Still waiting for a comprehensive report from a psychologist to see if such a thing would be fiscally feasible for most people, or even relevant/needed)
Now the good part: would essentially mean that the only signs or policies that an ACHP holder must obey are ones enforced with metal detectors/xray machines.
Could use a hand when I go to talk to Fulton and Pirsch on Thursday. I'll be discussing such a bill, and what it's chances would be, and if the latter 3 requirements would be needed to give the bill a decent chance (hopefully not).
For all those who will proceed to jump on me for overly strict issuance guidelines, feel free to accompany me to meet the senators, or become more active in NSCC. I have invested hundreds of dollars and hours into this, and so far it has been 85% me that is actually getting anything tangible done.
I have been studying what bills have passed and died in other states. This is what I have come up with for a bill that MIGHT be able to pass committee, and the floor, without a horrible struggle that goes on for half a decade with no success, and eats away at my soul.
-
I'm not sure I can really get behind making my rights contingent on even more training, background checks, and invasion of privacy. I think this sort of "advanced ccw" legislation would give the anti-rights groups ammo to use against us...
/rl
-
I'm not sure I can really get behind making my rights contingent on even more training, background checks, and invasion of privacy. I think this sort of "advanced ccw" legislation would give the anti-rights groups ammo to use against us...
/rl
Might some on the Judiciary committee think these new rules should apply to everyone, but they will amend out the part about the reduced restrictions
-
I would hope that the bill could be killed if it came to that, or that this could be made a senator's priority bill to skip the committee.
I just don't see flat-out removing the reciprocity for colleges having a snowball's chance in hell. Not with the judiciary committee, and not with the influence of the board of regents, who have repetitively refused to speak with me. (It took 3 emails and a phone call to even get a response)
-
The University of Nebraska may well wield more power in the legislature than any other single entity
-
Might some on the Judiciary committee think these new rules should apply to everyone, but they will amend out the part about the reduced restrictions
I would like to see a form of CCW allowed on campus, but I also think, having seen how the process works, that Dan might have a point.
-
Another misconception is that priority bills bypass the committees...not true. They have a better chance of coming out, but the committee will amend out anything they don't like before it does.
Just like what happened to LB804 this session
-
Senator's Priority Bills do not get to skip the Judiciary Committee, and if someone is going to make it their priority bill it needs to be something that they would feel would have no real problem getting out of committee. I think LB804 showed how hard that is, Senator Fulton made it his priority bill because he felt that since Senator Lautenbaugh used the feedback from the last couple of bills over the last couple of years to write it that it should be able to get through without to much trouble. Obviously that was not the case with the bastardized piece that came out.
-
Ah, thanks for the heads up on priority bills, I was misinformed. So another option would be to tack it on to another bill? Kansas, Texas, and Arizona SCC tried that, killed all of the parent bills... except Kansas, that bill still has a chance.
Mississippi already has something akin to this, and Michigan's bill has decent prospects.
I'll be giving Chris Z a call for some more insight on this.
-
http://www.facebook.com/NebraskaStudentsForConcealedCarry (http://www.facebook.com/NebraskaStudentsForConcealedCarry)
I am hoping to see an Advanced CCW bill put up in the next legislative session. The ACHP would require:
-some more training (20ish hours total)
-slightly more strict background check guidelines (recent alcohol related offenses)
PERHAPS cannot be on any prescription drugs that are intended to correct a social/mental issue
PERHAPS a requirement that the applicant has had a standard CHP for 2 years, or prior mil/LE/armed security experience, or is granted a waiver on the 2 year requirement by local sheriff.
PERHAPS a psychological screening, at the applicants expense AND/OR disclosure of individual's mental health records (Still waiting for a comprehensive report from a psychologist to see if such a thing would be fiscally feasible for most people, or even relevant/needed)
Now the good part: would essentially mean that the only signs or policies that an ACHP holder must obey are ones enforced with metal detectors/xray machines.
Could use a hand when I go to talk to Fulton and Pirsch on Thursday. I'll be discussing such a bill, and what it's chances would be, and if the latter 3 requirements would be needed to give the bill a decent chance (hopefully not).
For all those who will proceed to jump on me for overly strict issuance guidelines, feel free to accompany me to meet the senators, or become more active in NSCC. I have invested hundreds of dollars and hours into this, and so far it has been 85% me that is actually getting anything tangible done.
I have been studying what bills have passed and died in other states. This is what I have come up with for a bill that MIGHT be able to pass committee, and the floor, without a horrible struggle that goes on for half a decade with no success, and eats away at my soul.
I would be completely opposed to a bill like this, and in fact would fight it with a passion.
I am opposed to the current Government-issued "permit" to exercise my Constitutional Right to begin with, and you want to create even MORE RESTRICTIONS on that right? :o
It may not be very popular with the CCW Permit instructor members of the NFOA, but the NFOA should be working towards Constitutional(permit-less) Carry, not more restrictions added onto the current mess of laws that exist.
-
Rick,
I'm sorry that you feel that way. But I am looking a legislation that might be able to actually make it through, judging by other state's legislative records, and my current knowledge of our own state senate. Maybe I'm not the best man for the job, but I am the one willing to do it. I am also the one willing to learn how to do it.
I would be all for constitutional carry, but I'm afraid I just don't see it happening. Even if it does, you can be damn sure that no one will be allowed to carry on campus. Compromise is the best avenue to see anything actually happen, just as with the original CHP bill. Simply screaming "2nd Amendment" isn't going to get the job done, just as similar measures have not thwarted the patriot act, indefinite detainment of citizens, etc etc. The only other option would be a lawsuit. Costly, and we would have to wait for someone who is a permit holder to be a victim of a crime on campus, before we would have any real ground to stand on.
Current policies allow individuals to have the means to defend themselves, albeit with a permit. As a permit holder, I can avoid shopping malls and convenience stores that have no weapons policies, there are other places to buy gas and jeans. Even places of worship have an option. But with current laws, I have absolutely NO option for continuing my education without disarming in an environment that is by far the most likely to have someone, with or without a permit, with or without current policies, to come in and start executing people.
-
I'm all for getting carry approved on college campuses and I applaud your efforts in that quest, I just don't think we need even more restrictions on law-abiding citizens in order to get it.
How many "classes" of citizens are needed? What make me apparently more dangerous(in need of even more training, or psychological screening, or some other arbitrary requirement) on a college campus than when I'm in a Walmart, or some crowded street? You are beginning to sound like those in the Unicameral, cities of Omaha, Lincoln, Columbus, etc. and their respective police departments that we've been fighting tooth and nail with for the better part of the last decade that warned of "blood in the streets" and "old west shootouts" because we didn't have law-enforcement training and weren't "professional enough" to carry weapons like the Only Ones.
Remember, OPEN CARRY is legal everywhere in this state(except Obamaha's BS permit) where firearms are not prohibited by state or federal law. Just because a jacket or shirt may cover up that weapon, should not create a requirement for me to jump through hoops and pay hundreds of dollars for training and permits to carry said weapon because the almighty government says so.
-
I'm gonna withdraw, as I'm being compared to those who spout the "wild west" rhetoric. I am tired of arguing on the internet. I do it everyday on the NSCC page, and in real life, and I have no interest in doing it here with actual pro-gun people.
I suppose if this is the general consensus, then I'll just push for vanilla CCW on campus even though I am almost certain it will never get anywhere. I'm trying to think outside the box (and not just for on campus), empty holster protests are great, but they don't actually change anything.
-
FarmerRick: I believe that LB430 allows you as a non-employee of the university to carry concealed on campus as you drive onto campus but not in buildings and that you are allowed to lock your hand gun in your vehicle upon exiting if you are going to enter a building. However, university policy (allowed by LB430) does not allow university students/employees to even drive onto campus unless we go directly to UNL campus security office on city campus and have it locked up in their station while we teh go about our business on campus.
I work on east campus, and so there is a great inconvenience for me to follow that policy plus I would then be without my handgun as I then would have to drive without it to east campus, and then at the end of my workday I would need to do the reverse process, all the while having myself exposed to the potential untoward adversarial elements of society during both treks (read what happened recently to the UNO faculty member as she was going to her car after work).
Thus, I support what wallace11bravo wishes to do as it would help to remove the university's restrictive and incredibly inconvenient policies on me as a university employee. My hours of additional training way exceeds the 20+ hours and there aren't any mental medications or issues with me (other than my willingness to vote for a can of pineapple before I would vote for Obama). If that is what it would take to get a Level II ccw permit, I would support it wholeheartedly.
Wallace11bravo: please don't give up. I am willing to help you as best as my work schedule allows (e.g., Thursdays typically during semesters I treat patients in the morning and teach students in the afternoon), but there is more latitude during semester breaks, etc or possibly on a couple select other half-days depending on my semester's schedule.
-
Wallace....forgive me if you've been this route, but are you contacting Regents individually? I ask, because your BEST chance for meeting even one will likely be Tim Clare. He is officed out of Rembolt Ludtke in Lincoln and I bet a dime to a dollar he will meet with you at least "off the record" and can guide you. He could also give the "pulse" of his fellow Regents i.e. you may be pi$$ing in the wind.
Jim McClurg is a great and honorable guy, but he is retiring. Don't know about any of the others, but could guess about Chuck Hassebrook.
-
Speaking of Regents . . . Brad Ashfords wife is running for Regent, isn't she? I wonder if she has similar firearms views as her husband?
-
Wallace11bravo, as bullit noted, I would agree re Tim Clare. I had been thinking of contacting Tim Clare if I was going to contact any Regent at all (I am not a fan of pi$$ing in the wind....been there, done that enough in my life and career) only because he had campaigned somewhat in my neighborhood when he was running for the Regent position. He and I had an opportunity to chat at that time, and he seemed to be a straight shooter (no pun intended). If there would be a mutual time of visiting with him on this particular issue and if you would like to have a faculty member tag along for whatever that is worth (and it may be nothing), I would be happy to do so....but please feel free to just go ahead....please let me know what he says.
-
Oh, I'm not giving up. Enough people are opposed to the ACHP idea here, and I have no interest in pi$$ing off the rest of the firearms community to reach my goals. What Dan mentioned, the bill being used to enhance restrictions for regular CHP applicants, does not seem too far fetched, and has done quite a bit to scare me away from the idea too.
I'll try to contact Tim Clare, and gain his input. We're a good minute from the next legislative session, so there is time to get the ducks in order.
-
Looks like 3 Regents are leaving and a 4th is up for election this year? That is a lot of potential turnover.
-
What Dan mentioned, the bill being used to enhance restrictions for regular CHP applicants, does not seem too far fetched, and has done quite a bit to scare me away from the idea too.
I agree with Dan W. We don't want to give the anti's any more ideas to use against us. If someone mentions psychological testing to them they will run with it and try to put that as a requirement for all of us. We don't want to go there. I don't even think police officers are required to do that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wallace11bravo: I think the best thing for us all to do is hold our horses. Andy Allen is trying to come up with a plan to throw out 1-3 liberal members on the judiciary committee. THAT IS THE KEY!
The root here is the fact that the legislature votes the senators to each committee. Senators run to be placed on a committee. All we have to do is figure out how to get the conservative legislature to realize that WE HAVE BEEN STABBED IN THE BACK time and time again by the liberal members on that committee and that they do not deserve to be put back on it.
Once we have the actual proportional balance of power restored to that committee it will be the conservatives in charge.
Once we have accomplished this virtually nothing will stop our pro gun efforts. I almost guarantee you most of our goals will sail through the committee and will be passed relatively with ease through the full legislature. From what I've learned all these years watching the legislature is this: What the committee says goes. The body seems to put a lot of trust behind the decisions of the committees and usually tend to go with them unless there is some kind of huge controversy.
Does this mean we will get CCW on campus right away. Probably not, but I'm pretty confident in our ability to pass LB 785 style legislation (employer parking lot firearms in cars protection bill) along with full Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground and FULL Civil Liability shield. I would definitely see the county attorney CCW with no restrictions bill pass and further improvements on CCW including SIGNAGE REFORM (Uniform Signage of last years LB 88 & reduction of signage violation to petty Class 4 Misdemeanor which would only be a $50 fine and not a firearms offense)
So just hold your horses. We should only consider the ACHP as a last resort if we cannot change the makeup of the judiciary committee. But I think we can and will change the makeup of that committee. Plus their term limits are coming up. We may be rid of Ashford and Lathrop sooner than we know it.
-
What's up with wanting CHP carriers to have 2 years of normal CHP before being allowed to carry on campus? I don't know about you but that is worthless to the vast majority of students. I just turned 21 and I'm almost done with my Junior year, I will be graduated by the time I have been carrying for 2 years. One thing is for certain I wouldn't support such a strict legislation.
-
What's up with wanting CHP carriers to have 2 years of normal CHP before being allowed to carry on campus? I don't know about you but that is worthless to the vast majority of students. I just turned 21 and I'm almost done with my Junior year, I will be graduated by the time I have been carrying for 2 years. One thing is for certain I wouldn't support such a strict legislation.
Because that would put the minimum carry age on campus at 23, most students will graduate by age 22. See?
-
I just look at it like this, UNL is a fairly large campus. If you can't carry on campus then how much of Lincoln is denied to you to use? Why should I have to walk an extra 6 or 7 blocks just because I'm carrying if I want to walk somewhere?
-
Bill Kintner is running for Nebraska legislative district number two (south of Omaha).
http://www.facebook.com/kintnercutstaxes (http://www.facebook.com/kintnercutstaxes)
I recently spoke with him about campus carry, and he is an enthusiastic supporter. In his own words: "Public Universities and campuses should not be state sanctioned killing zones."
-
Met with senator Fulton, many things were discussed. The conclusion was that without changing the makeup of the Judiciary Committee, campus carry bills will die before reaching the floor.
The Senator was kind enough to take the time to explain how we could shake up the Committee in both the upcoming elections, and at the beginning of the next session, when committee members are selected.
We also discussed alternative methods, such as trying to push a bill through a different committee, such as the Education Committee. As well as an Advanced CHP bill, while considered a potentially bad move with the current Judiciary Committee, could be a good route in the future.
One very interesting idea, would be to push for bill that would open any firearms control law up to review by the courts.
He also mentioned, and I will be looking into it, the possibility of taking the current state sanctioned no-carry zones to court. Such restrictions are against the state constitution, and could potentially be litigated. It would be costly and time consuming, but not impossible.
As far as the Regents, he seemed to downplay the chances of ever gaining any real support from them, as well as the influence they would have over such a bill.
-
Wallace, I'm looking forward to being able to have some time to visit with you this weekend. We have a lot to discuss.
-
Andy, I look forward to it. I'll probably be arriving a bit early, let me know if you need a hand with setup or anything else.
-
Sadly Tony is term limited in the Unicameral. That being said, "Governor" would be an apt title for him.
-
If you want to see the stinky history of how college campuses had Concealed Carry banned, reference the original CCWNE forum:
http://ccwnebraska.yuku.com/reply/4558/LB97-Passed#reply-4558 (http://ccwnebraska.yuku.com/reply/4558/LB97-Passed#reply-4558)
Basically Sen. Ashford took a bill entitled "Repeal terminated provisions relating to settlement escrow funds" and amended it by replacing the entire contents of the bill convert it into a bill to ban concealed handguns from college campuses. As someone who lives in his district, I did communicate my concerns about the manner in which this was passed. His response: "We needed to get this passed."
Remember this when he runs for Mayor of Omaha. :angry:
-
(http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6960/kirkyellingatkahn.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/kirkyellingatkahn.jpg/)
-
I just spent about 20 minutes learning how post pictures to a forum, making that picture, making a imageshack account, blah blah blah, just so I could do that.
It will now be an automatic post everytime I hear of Ashford doing something backhanded.
-
The conclusion was that without changing the makeup of the Judiciary Committee, campus carry bills will die before reaching the floor.
The Senator was kind enough to take the time to explain how we could shake up the Committee in both the upcoming elections, and at the beginning of the next session, when committee members are selected.
I told you so.... ;D
-
We also discussed alternative methods, such as trying to push a bill through a different committee, such as the Education Committee.
Now that is an interesting proposition :)
As well as an Advanced CHP bill, while considered a potentially bad move with the current Judiciary Committee, could be a good route in the future.
I think that would be a bad move period. The current committee would abuse the idea and if we change the committee to our liking then we wont have to push an ACHP because we would likely just be successfull in passing a bill that removes most gun free zones such as (banks, churches, colleges/universities, hospitals, trauma centers)
I don't think we'll ever be able to eliminate private property gun free zones by posted sign since that would trample on property rights. However we should continue to push for a law similar to Missouri's where violating a "no guns" sign would not constitute a criminal offense. You could only be charged with a petty infraction which would be on the level of a traffic violation and name it "minor trespass" if the property owner somehow found out you were carrying a concealed handgun on his/her property and you refused to leave after having been told to remove the handgun from the premises. Also this would only be a small fine ($50) and not a firearms offense. The fine should remain at $50 with minor trespass infraction for each and every subsequent occasion and you shall never lose your permit (Constitutional rights cannot and should not be taken away because of a simple trespass). The property owner retains the right to have you removed from the premises if they find out you are carrying a concealed handgun and the armed citizen therefore still retains his/her 2nd Amendment rights. Everybody is happy.
-
(http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6960/kirkyellingatkahn.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/kirkyellingatkahn.jpg/)
This image is Admin approved :laugh: :kiss:
-
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150741981942381 (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150741981942381)
-
To quote Wallace11Bravo:
"I am hoping to see an Advanced CCW bill put up in the next legislative session. The ACHP would require:
-some more training (20ish hours total)
-slightly more strict background check guidelines (recent alcohol related offenses)
PERHAPS cannot be on any prescription drugs that are intended to correct a social/mental issue
PERHAPS a requirement that the applicant has had a standard CHP for 2 years, or prior mil/LE/armed security experience, or is granted a waiver on the 2 year requirement by local sheriff.
PERHAPS a psychological screening, at the applicants expense AND/OR disclosure of individual's mental health records (Still waiting for a comprehensive report from a psychologist to see if such a thing would be fiscally feasible for most people, or even relevant/needed)."
I do not wish to argue- I cannot however support any such bill like this. This is even more restriction and infringement upon our rights.
The ACHP bill like this- absolutely NOT.
For me, this is just completely unacceptable.
I think that the CHP is the CHP. There should not be levels of it. We have too many law makers making laws without our consent.
There is absolutely no reason that students should not be allowed to carry on campus. In fact, given the number of students on campus, allowing the students to carry would be a great way to exercise constitutional rights.
-
I realize that there hasn't been a post in this thread for some time, but has any progress been made?
I'm a graduate student at UNL and have a MN permit to carry, which is recognized by NE. It would be nice if my permit were valid on campus. As an aside, MN's law allows carry on campus, but the university has the power to expel students or fire faculty/staff if found carrying.
-
I would be completely opposed to a bill like this, and in fact would fight it with a passion.
I am opposed to the current Government-issued "permit" to exercise my Constitutional Right to begin with, and you want to create even MORE RESTRICTIONS on that right? :o
It may not be very popular with the CCW Permit instructor members of the NFOA, but the NFOA should be working towards Constitutional(permit-less) Carry, not more restrictions added onto the current mess of laws that exist.
+1
The Second Amendment is perfectly clear that citizens have the right to keep and BEAR arms and that right shall not be infringed upon. I spent $150 to take a class and $100 application fee (not to mention full fingerprints and background checks) simply for the privilege to exercise my RIGHT as an American.
If I am not prohibited from owning a gun by law I should not be restricted in where or how I may carry.
-
+1
The Second Amendment is perfectly clear that citizens have the right to keep and BEAR arms and that right shall not be infringed upon. I spent $150 to take a class and $100 application fee (not to mention full fingerprints and background checks) simply for the privilege to exercise my RIGHT as an American.
If I am not prohibited from owning a gun by law I should not be restricted in where or how I may carry.
Pixtaker,
I think that many on this forum and in the gun community would agree with you. We ALWAYS want to be working towards less restrictions, but there is "what should be" and "what is possible".
I was not around from the beginning, and those folks who put in all the hard work to get CCW passed (such as AAllen and others that co-founded the NFOA) can fill you in on how it all progressed. Such legislation was probably an easy step (compared to other options) that could be taken to recognize/exercise our rights that would have otherwise required a much more expensive battle in a higher court.
At this point, we have a foot in the door. Not until we have a history of demonstrating that concealed carry by law abiding citizens is not a threat to society, and the criminals continue to demonstrate that they will CC regardless of the requirement for a permit, will we be able to take the next step towards securing our rights without limitations.
Baby steps...baby steps.
Fly
-
I think that many on this forum and in the gun community would agree with you. We ALWAYS want to be working towards less restrictions, but there is "what should be" and "what is possible".
Before I took a CCW class and gone through it all, I too thought to myself, "why should I have to go through all of this." Today however I have a different view on it. Although it may not be/have been justified or right, I think there was likely a legitimate reason why carrying a concealed weapon was made illegal in the first place. I think had we not had a CCW option put in place as we do, and simply made it legal to carry a concealed weapon; we would likely have that right once again taken away by now. As we know gang members and criminals are unlikely to obtain a CHP before carrying a concealed weapon. So in most instance/if not all instances when a concealed weapon is used in a crime they(media/legislators/anti-gun), can't blame this on us law abiding CHP holders. You know they would be too.
It's a happy medium IMO. Requiring the class does two things. First of all it educates people who would not otherwise research and understand important laws to know before carrying independently. Secondly it helps to "weed" out criminals and those who are not serious about carrying a concealed handgun for self defense from being lumped in with us as law abiding CHP holders in the news/media. It helps protect our right to carry concealed as CHP holders from those legislators and anti-gun groups that want to take that right away.
In today's world we can't ignore the fact that there will always be legislators/those in office and anti-gun groups working to reduce our rights. If we were to go permit-less today, all the shootings and crimes committed w/ a firearm would be ammunition(no pun intended) for these people to take our right to conceal carry away; and they would once again take it away. I think our current system has proven to do a great job at taking away any ground these anti-gun folks have at reducing our rights away from us as CHP holders. They just are not able to look at the news/media and say, "see, these CCW laws were bad, look at all the trouble this has cause." Granted I don't agree with every aspect of our current system, but it has worked for us. I also consider the time and money I spent to obtain a CHP as well spent.
I know there are a lot of you on this forum, and I don't think I have ever said this on here, but thank you to those of you who fought for the current CCW laws/rights we have today in Nebraska. To think you all are responsible for me having the ability to protect myself/family should a life/death situation ever occur is truly astonishing. Thank You!!!!
-
It is true that attempts to pass Vermont style CCW in Nebraska were introduced every session for many many years along side the attempts to pass a permit system.
There was an amendment to the state constitution that I hold gave us the protections necessary to carry concealed without a permit, but the state supreme court soon ruled that it did not. ( I do not have the case citation that made this ruling ) Maybe someone can remind us of the facts and issues in that case
But my point is until we passed the current concealed handgun act, carrying concealed was still considered a crime unless one could successfully argue in court, after your arrest and jailing, that you had a very good reason to be carrying a handgun at the time and get the judge to agree that your reason was acceptable.
This was not an inexpensive case to make, possible loss of job from time in jail, likely charged and convicted of a crime, possible loss of gun rights if convicted, not to mention the cost of your defense.
And frankly our efforts to get a permitless system started were getting frustrating and increasingly fruitless.
So the dreaded "compromise" of our constitutional right began and Nebraskans eventually successfully passed a bill that allows for a permit system. One, that I might add, extended the right to carry concealed into other states. That was a big plus in my mind
Now, with a working system in place, I and others in the NFOA are working to add back the losses that were compromised away to get our foot in the door. We have been very successful in a few short years, all using volunteer grassroots efforts with limited fund raising.
At this time I think we have a pretty decent system...cost of training and permit is around $250 for five years, $300 for ten years if you renew as required... that is $30 bucks a year. Not bad compared to the expense of defending one's self against a charge of illegal concealed carry of a handgun.
Are we moving fast enough to satisfy strict constitutionalists that insist on immediate full restoration of our state and federal 2nd amendment rights...No
But I can tell you my all or nothing type of thinking has definitely been altered by the last 10 years of work on this issue, and I think it has made me a much more effective freedom fighter.
So all I ask is that we hang together and keep working as hard as we can to move the Nebraska laws back to where they belong.
-
I guess I should've been more specific. Has any progress been made towards allowing concealed carry on campus? Is there anything that I can do? Write to legislators, etc.?
-
Rudy athis moment the best thing you can do is vote, and vote for Senators that will support your rights. Want to help develop Senators that will do that, check out the NFOA-PAF we are really just getting started but it is already having an effect. Then of course there is the ultimate, be certain to help the Legislative Candidates that support you, it does not require a lot of money they need people to help walk neighborhoods, put out yard signs, make a few phone calls. If you can give one evening or a couple of hours on a weekend they would appreciate your assistance, and understand how important your rights are and that they need to support them.
-
As someone who lives in his district, I did communicate my concerns about the manner in which this was passed. His response: "We needed to get this passed."
In one of the Judiciary Hearings I attended (after the Westroads shooting, IIRC), Ashford asked the question, "What, do you propose we do nothing? We MUST do SOMETHING." His proposal was to form a blue-ribbon commission to make and biannually update a list of guns "Too dangerous for civilian ownership.", and ban them. He worked a backroom deal with the NRA to get them to be "Nuetral" on this in exchange for getting rid of the Firearm Purchase Permit. Only quick action by Nebraska gun rights groups, including this one, got this stopped.
This is the mark of a Progressive: the idea that the answer to everything is more Government.
For the record, Bill Kintner's District 2 opponent, Paul Lambert of Plattsmouth, is of this ilk.