NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: BV on July 23, 2012, 07:19:32 PM
-
Well I just got back from doing a little grocery shopping in Lincoln, during which I was open carrying. I do have a CHP and usually conceal, but sometimes if I'm not going to be out long I'll open carry. It's rare for me, but it does happen. Anyway, as I'm checking out I overhear a conversation between another customer and the clerk in the next lane over. They're using phrases like "crisis averted", but talking fairly quietly. I grab my bags and start to leave when the customer from the next lane gets my attention and tells me that "you should wear something (while motioning in the area of his left breast, in the general location LEOs wear their badge) that says its ok for you to have that.(pointing at my pistol)" and "I almost tackled you on the way in." I politely informed him, as well as both cashiers since they were watching intently, that Nebraska is an open carry state and explained to them what that meant. I also informed him, as politely as I could, that tackling me for simply trying to go grocery shopping could quite likely end up with him being arrested for assault. His reply to that was "and thats the sad thing". At that point I reiterated that what I was doing was perfectly legal and then continued on my way.
I'm posting this because I've seen in some of the older threads where people have asked for any negative stories regarding open carry. But I'm also posting because I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for what I can do to help raise people's awareness of the law. I'm certainly not looking to try to provoke a situation just to provide an oppurtunity to talk to people. Had this man actually tackled me on my way into the store, all I would have know was that I was being attacked. That alone is a dangerous enough situation, but if he'd attempted to disarm me, the situation likely would have turned lethal as all I would know was that a large man was attacking me and trying to take my pistol. All because a well intentioned but very misguided citizen thought he was doing the right thing. This is an extreme example, but a good reminder of why I usually conceal in this state.
Bottom line, I'm looking for something I can get involved with that helps educate the public about the law without turning into a youtube spectacle.
-
It's sad that open carry is frowned upon and incites reactions such as this from the general public. It really would be great if open carrying would be acceptable in a public place, however, we do not live in such a world. Open carrying in public is one heck of a way to NOT gain any support for gun rights, all it does is hurt our cause through creating additional fear. In our anti-gun society, it is not a good idea to be showing off our rights in the faces of gun-hating voters (especially when you have a CHP already).
I know this video is a little long (14 min) but you should definitely watch.
Open VS Concealed Carry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLLxkMrBsFA#ws)
As far as creating awareness, first I would think we would need to raise acceptance of firearms in general. When people see that guns aren't "evil" and are merely tools wielded by humans, then they may find open carry acceptable.
-
"I'm certainly not looking to try to provoke a situation just to provide an oppurtunity to talk to people."
However you did just that and as you pointed it out could have been tragic (a very needless tragedy). Why weren't you carrying concealed? I don't see how the duration of your trip has any bearing on your method of carry.
-
But I'm also posting because I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for what I can do to help raise people's awareness of the law. I'm certainly not looking to try to provoke a situation just to provide an oppurtunity to talk to people. Had this man actually tackled me on my way into the store, all I would have know was that I was being attacked. That alone is a dangerous enough situation, but if he'd attempted to disarm me, the situation likely would have turned lethal as all I would know was that a large man was attacking me and trying to take my pistol. All because a well intentioned but very misguided citizen thought he was doing the right thing. This is an extreme example, but a good reminder of why I usually conceal in this state.
Bottom line, I'm looking for something I can get involved with that helps educate the public about the law without turning into a youtube spectacle.
Well, here at the NFOA, we have just the thing for you ... :)
Seriously, if you want to get involved, simply speak up. The board of directors meet online at the beginning of every month, and we are looking for people willing to step up and help out. If you are interested in being more active, please let us know (you can send me a PM if you want). I can bring it to the BOD this next meeting and we can get you involved. We have new elections coming up soon, so if you want on the board, let us know that, too. :)
Otherwise, hang in there. People are stupid and react emotionally to many things. I'm glad that you didn't get injured, and that you did not have to defend yourself against assault. I'm actually somewhat surprised that the guy did say something to you, as I've seen people turn their heads and walk away - not wanting to get involved. Hopefully, you gave this guy something constructive to think about.
-
All I can say is your timing is very poor considering recent events
-
dcjulie, I want to thank you for posting a constructive response rather than assuming I am uneducated about the pros and cons of open vs concealed carry or just out right criticizing open carry. However, while the NFOA certainly seems to have been instrumental in helping to push through legislation and will likely continue to be so, its not legislation that I'm looking to get involved with directly. Its certainly important, and I support those that are directly involved, but its not something I'm looking to be active with right now. Perhaps thats not all the NFOA does, but its all I've seen.
To the rest. I understand you don't like open carry, and I understand the reasons why. But I lived in WV for many years and have only been back in the midwest a short time. So WV is still fresh in my mind. Out there (at least the part of the state I lived in) open carry was very common. I can't remember a single business that banned firearms other than the college. Anywhere I went it was normal to see several people open carrying. We had a state maintained free outdoor range for both pistol and rifle. I even knew a guy that 2 or 3 times a month rode through the city and out to the range on his motorcycle with his AK-47 on his back and never once got hassled by the police for it. And all this was in a democratic state. Then I move to NE, a republican state, and suddenly guns are no where to be seen and are apparantly percieved as evil. Its hard to wrap my head around that twisted reality. Add to that my years in armed security(ie. being required to open carry), and yes, I'm comfortable with open carry. I do understand that not everyone that will see me necessarily is.
Perhaps there is no answer. Perhaps NE is a lost cause. If the majority of members in what appears to be the states most influential gun rights group have come to see open carry the same way the liberals see firearms ownership, well then perhaps the liberals have already won. I'm sure this post will likely upset many members, and for that I apologize. I simply spoke my mind. I'm also sure that many people will try to tear me apart for my opinions. And thats ok. I'm clearly out of touch with NE. So I will it to you all.
-
Don't take what I said the wrong way, and after re-watching that video I noticed they used some harsh phrases that I don't support (something like "we don't want you representing gun owners"). From your initial post it seemed you were open carrying more or less just because you can, and not out of necessity. I have full confidence that as a CCW holder you have sound logic in your reasoning for concealed carry, and I'm sure you know that part of being a gun owner is being aware of your surroundings. As the video stated, in certain places open carry is very acceptable. In fact, I used to open carry in my vehicle and other accepting places before I received my CCP. However, given the recent news events and the fact that the bigger cities in NE aren't very accepting of guns, you definitely made a mistake in open carrying. You shouldn't use the excuse that you're so comfortable around guns that you felt it was alright to open carry. Everything you said is truth however, it is a twisted reality and it's a damn shame. I hope there is a day where we can acceptably open carry anywhere, but now isn't the time.
I still stand by my original post, and feel that if you didn't find it constructive other members will. I also still feel that we should first concentrate on the public's acceptability of firearms, rather than focusing on raising awareness of our firearms rights.
-
dcjulie, I want to thank you for posting a constructive response rather than assuming I am uneducated about the pros and cons of open vs concealed carry or just out right criticizing open carry. However, while the NFOA certainly seems to have been instrumental in helping to push through legislation and will likely continue to be so, its not legislation that I'm looking to get involved with directly. Its certainly important, and I support those that are directly involved, but its not something I'm looking to be active with right now. Perhaps thats not all the NFOA does, but its all I've seen.
To the rest. I understand you don't like open carry, and I understand the reasons why. But I lived in WV for many years and have only been back in the midwest a short time. So WV is still fresh in my mind. Out there (at least the part of the state I lived in) open carry was very common. I can't remember a single business that banned firearms other than the college. Anywhere I went it was normal to see several people open carrying. We had a state maintained free outdoor range for both pistol and rifle. I even knew a guy that 2 or 3 times a month rode through the city and out to the range on his motorcycle with his AK-47 on his back and never once got hassled by the police for it. And all this was in a democratic state. Then I move to NE, a republican state, and suddenly guns are no where to be seen and are apparantly percieved as evil. Its hard to wrap my head around that twisted reality. Add to that my years in armed security(ie. being required to open carry), and yes, I'm comfortable with open carry. I do understand that not everyone that will see me necessarily is.
Perhaps there is no answer. Perhaps NE is a lost cause. If the majority of members in what appears to be the states most influential gun rights group have come to see open carry the same way the liberals see firearms ownership, well then perhaps the liberals have already won. I'm sure this post will likely upset many members, and for that I apologize. I simply spoke my mind. I'm also sure that many people will try to tear me apart for my opinions. And thats ok. I'm clearly out of touch with NE. So I will it to you all.
I'm with ya on this. Unfortunately, two plus two equals purple nowadays.
-
Coming into someone else's house and insulting them is not a good way to start off here. With the forum, the organization, or the state in general. There are people here who have given countless hours and dollars to start up and maintain this organization. Including people who pushed through CC in this state in the first place.
Personally, I've never sided too much with or against OC. I do not teach pistol, and have never had a student ask my opinion. I haven't OC since I got my CHP, and when I did it was out of legal necessity. After reading your account of these events, I am going to have to plant my flag in the anti-OC camp. I've been leaning that way for a long time.
When dealing with anti-gunners and fence-sitters, you do not want to fuel their fire. OC only serves to do just that, just as me walking down O street with my AR-15 would be a terrible move right now, or any time really. They will not listen, they will not learn, they refuse to, and instead will use your demonstration of your right to bear arms as ammo for their argument. It does not make sense, and it does not need to for them. Their minds are made up and they will feed on fear and ignorance to pursue their issues.
It is similar in almost every way to the anti-tobacco campaigns. How many people believe that there is any real evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful? What if I told you that there exists no such evidence? The ONLY report was completed by the CDC in the late 1980s that attempted to show causation between secondhand smoke and smoking related illness was thrown out by a federal judge only a few years later for ignoring it's own data (confirming a false hypothesis) In the study of 100,000 participants, the chances for increased risk of smoking related illnesses between those exposed to secondhand smoke and those who were not exposed where "statistically irrelevant" IOW a number not worthy of measuring, and not valid for confirming a hypothesis.
Yet there exists today public smoking bans, in fact, I cant remember the last time I saw someone smoking indoors in this country. Why? because the masses are ignorant, and will support whatever feels and sounds right.
-
"Open carrying in public is one heck of a way to NOT gain any support for gun rights, all it does is hurt our cause through creating additional fear. In our anti-gun society, it is not a good idea to be showing off our rights in the faces of gun-hating voters (especially when you have a CHP already)."
Anti-gun people want guns gone ... period. Open or concealed it doesn't matter. If you think keeping your guns covered or locked up in a safe is going to change any minds your deluded. If you don't like open carry don't do it.
When a large number of pro-gun people publically slam another large number of pro-gun people for their LEGAL method of carry it creates a divide that the anti-gun folks drive a wedge into. It is the reason we have all of those "sensible gun laws". Too many supposed pro-gun people siding with the anti's. We need this (fill in the blank law), see even pro-gun people are in favor of it.
It does not matter one wit whether you carry openly or only fondle your gun under your bed after midnight in a dark room the anti-gun people want you dissarmed. The sooner some of you get that and quit trying to placate the anti's the more that can be accomplished.
-
"Open carrying in public is one heck of a way to NOT gain any support for gun rights, all it does is hurt our cause through creating additional fear. In our anti-gun society, it is not a good idea to be showing off our rights in the faces of gun-hating voters (especially when you have a CHP already)."
Anti-gun people want guns gone ... period. Open or concealed it doesn't matter. If you think keeping your guns covered or locked up in a safe is going to change any minds your deluded. If you don't like open carry don't do it.
When a large number of pro-gun people publically slam another large number of pro-gun people for their LEGAL method of carry it creates a divide that the anti-gun folks drive a wedge into. It is the reason we have all of those "sensible gun laws". Too many supposed pro-gun people siding with the anti's. We need this (fill in the blank law), see even pro-gun people are in favor of it.
It does not matter one wit whether you carry openly or only fondle your gun under your bed after midnight in a dark room the anti-gun people want you dissarmed. The sooner some of you get that and quit trying to placate the anti's the more that can be accomplished.
If you're insinuating that I would be on the side of any "sensible gun law" then you are definitely mistaken. I agree that the issue of open vs concealed divides people to some extent, but I don't think that a healthy discussion such as this is hurting our cause and not allowing us to accomplish anything. I also agree with you that keeping our guns covered/in our safes is not going to change any minds, however, what it does do is keep people from panicking over a gun wielding citizen. You can't argue with that.
However, I want to ask, how is open carrying in a gun fearing community going to help our cause? What about the voters that are on the fence on this issue? I agree that there is probably no way to sway the majority of the anti-gun people, but why give them anything more that they could use against us to gain support for their side? The way they'll swing it is that we're a boastful bunch of 2nd Amendment supporters that live to tout our gun rights in the faces of those that are fearful of us.
-
All I can say is your timing is very poor considering recent events
+1
Western part of the state people probably won't say a thing about open carry. In the liberal east part this is probably another story. I only open carry if I am out at a WMA or on my way to a WMA to hunt or fish. I would carry concealed but I'm still waiting for that dang permit...
-
First off, I realize the negative attention that OCing can bring, especially in certain places. I have OCed in the past, but since acquiring my CCW have only CCed daily for fear of others knowing I am actively practicing my right to keep and bear arms. Isn't that ironic, that we are scared of people knowing we are legally practicing a right because of what their reaction might be. (I know that's not the only reason) I realize the pros and cons. And I think that after that encounter and the replies to this post you likely will think twice about OCing again, at least in Lincoln. However seeing all the previous posts I'm going to bring a different perspective to this post, just because.
"Tackled you on the way in?" Wow, I don't even know what to say about that, other than that was uncalled for and idiotic. The ironic thing is that these same customers who were disgruntled with you would likely be the ones you would be defending should something bad happen. Not that guy who felt so big by stating he almost tackled you and certainly not the police who would arrive 20 min. after an occurrence. I'm not going to rag on you OCing, something that is legal and perfectly within your rights. I understand that it can draw bad attention, but I highly doubt any of these people in the grocery store will go to the polls bent solely on voting for whomever will abolish guns. Should they, they will be sad to find that candidate not on the ballot. I'm sure many didn't even notice your firearm, while some saw it but didn't think anything of it because they know our rights, others thought "what is that guy doing carrying a gun around" but didn't say anything, and the few you encountered decided to open their mouth about it. The last two obviously are uneducated and misinformed on something as simple as our 2A.
I know there are negative aspects but, a positive aspect of your encounter you did inform a few about our rights, and that what you were doing is perfectly legal. They may not have liked that but maybe next time they see someone OCing, they won't feel the need to open their mouth about it because you informed them that it is perfectly legal.
We have all seen the videos on youtube of those OCing and video taping their negative encounters with the public and/or police. I have seen some videos of a guy OCing and people actually asking him questions and him handing out pamplets and he seemed to be truly educating the public. He also after having some negative encounters with police, had videos of positive interaction where they would just stop see that it was him, have a casual conversation with him, and both go on their ways. I always wondered why the dispatcher doesn't simply say, "guy has a gun, that's legal." Or simply drive by say hi, see whomever isn't a danger and go on there way.
I have an acquaintance who frequently OC's everywhere around my town (a town of around 25k ppl 20 min from Omaha). One time I saw him at walmart, he was OCing and I stopped to talk to him. While talking to him I overheard a man and his daughter talking at the checkout behind us. The daughter said to her dad, "that guy has a gun." I then heard the dad say, "yes, he could be a cop, or a security guard, or anyone. It's ok for someone to have a gun as long as you aren't a bad guy". What a great example of how the media has slandered and biased ppl (the girls reaction), but yet the dad was obviously educated on our rights and able to inform her. I don't know whether he supported it or not, but at least he seemed to be knowledgable of our rights and respectful of them. I wish every OC encounter could be like this one.
From your post you don't seem like the kind of person OCing to prove how cool you are or that you a real man because you have a gun, or the kind that was purposely trying to draw attention to yourself. And when someone did say something to you you didn't freak out on them, and stated that you weren't rude to them. So I don't feel I can be judgmental of you.
Bottom line they want guns gone whether their on your hip or under your shirt. The mind set of, "a real man carries his gun on his hip, a criminal tries to conceal it," has gone. Originally we couldn't conceal it, but we could carry it openly. Then because less and less OCed, when someone did want to carry people weren't "comfortable" with it. So now we have to hide it and CC so no one knows it's there. We can't let anyone realize that we are practicing a right. If they knew we were practicing a right legally, they would wish to take it away. Kind of crazy to me when you think about it, but I guess that's the way it is. Sad though that we have to tip toe around our rights like we do.
-
Isn't that ironic, that we are scared of people knowing we are legally practicing a right because of what their reaction might be.
Sad is what it is. A shame.
Anti-gun people want guns gone ... period. Open or concealed it doesn't matter. If you think keeping your guns covered or locked up in a safe is going to change any minds your deluded.
I do realize that they want guns gone no matter where they are. It is a matter of out-of-sight=out-of-mind. Once you start shoving it in their face, they become more adamant and active... you have "poked the bear" in a matter of speaking.
For reference on this: the AWB expired in 2004, I have not heard ANY real public outcry to reinstate it until this past week. Nothing changed except the fact that it is now public attention. Now I doubt someone OCing is going to make the news, but it still has an impression on those you encounter. I will say that given the scenario handed too him by "Mr. Ihaveanenourmouspenis" who stated that he almost tackled him, and others, that 'o' handled this encounter very well, and I would doubt there was any real negative consequences.
-
I will say that given the scenario handed too him by "Mr. Ihaveanenourmouspenis" who stated that he almost tackled him,
Most of the time when I say LOL, I didn't actually... this one I really did LOL
-
To quote Gunscribe:
"When a large number of pro-gun people publically slam another large number of pro-gun people for their LEGAL method of carry it creates a divide that the anti-gun folks drive a wedge into. It is the reason we have all of those "sensible gun laws". Too many supposed pro-gun people siding with the anti's. We need this (fill in the blank law), see even pro-gun people are in favor of it."
I completely agree!! Very well stated.
-
The two guys in the video are total douchebags. The "I'm too cool sunglasses" made that evident before I even hit play. Thirty two seconds into it I had to stop. I'd had all the douchebaggery I could stand for one evening.
-
The two guys in the video are total douchebags. The "I'm too cool sunglasses" made that evident before I even hit play. Thirty two seconds into it I had to stop. I'd had all the douchebaggery I could stand for one evening.
Perhaps, but feel free to check their credentials
-
The two guys in the video are total douchebags. The "I'm too cool sunglasses" made that evident before I even hit play. Thirty two seconds into it I had to stop. I'd had all the douchebaggery I could stand for one evening.
I have to agree with you. I think I made it a little farther than 32 seconds but not to much more. As "normal" sized guys, I don't see how they can say I should have no problem carrying concealed if it's a IWB holster. I have a much smaller waist than a lot of men (and some chunky women) which makes carrying concealed a little difficult depending on what I'm carrying or what kind of shirt I'm wearing. Of course a different holster can make a world of difference. Don't get me wrong though I like carrying concealed especially when it's some place I don't know the police very well, but around here I have no problems OCing.
-
I have to agree with you. I think I made it a little farther than 32 seconds but not to much more. As "normal" sized guys, I don't see how they can say I should have no problem carrying concealed if it's a IWB holster. I have a much smaller waist than a lot of men (and some chunky women) which makes carrying concealed a little difficult depending on what I'm carrying or what kind of shirt I'm wearing. Of course a different holster can make a world of difference. Don't get me wrong though I like carrying concealed especially when it's some place I don't know the police very well, but around here I have no problems OCing.
I don't understand that if someone appears to be a douchebag, that their talking points are rendered invalid. Close-mindedness is something we expect anti-gun people to overcome, yet some of us are equally guilty of...
I'm a fairly skinny gun, and I have a friend that is very skinny. We both are able to easily conceal our carry guns on a daily basis using different carry methods (appendix vs. small of the back). All I have is a cheap Galco leather IWB holster that I bought at Scheels while I wait on my Alabama holster to arrive.
...and just for the record, i do agree that they are a bit douchebaggy
-
After reading this string, I thought I would make a short, less-than-all-encompassing comment. I have both open and conceal carried without benefit of a CHP when I felt it was necessary thus reaping the benefits and hazards of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1202(1)(b). At this time I hold the opinion that I am (as others might be) wrestling with two issues rather than one.
I have ramped up my progress on obtaining a CHP, but have hit a wall due to a policy of my employer stating that employees cannot have firearms in their vehicles on company property. If I do not have a CHP, I only violate company policy by choosing to possess a firearm in my vehicle for protection while travelling to and from work. It is a risk and it has its consequences. If I obey the policy, my guns are largely relegated to be well-preserved treasures for my kids and grandkids to sell or keep and enjoy my investments. Not all bad, but I bought the things to use not to just store.
If I get a CHP, I not only violate company policy, but I can earn myself a Misdemeanor charge and revocation of my CHP which would further justify the belief of some that gun owners/carriers are shady people. Darned if I do and darned if I don't.
The fears of hardline concealed carry folks are justified in many instances because they don't want people to know they are armed, and they have permission to do so. It is not a direct constitutional right, they have only received permission from the State to do so under a separate set of laws. It is a permission that can be revoked as easily as it has been granted, and if it is revoked then they are "only" left with the rights recognized under the Constitution. Which brings us back full circle to the subject of standing up for our rights.
In the fears of the hardline concealed carry camp lies the smell of what Thomas Paine addressed in his pamphlet "Common Sense" in which he successfully argued against the fears of those who sought compromise and conciliation with the British while they enjoyed some liberties that were practiced substantially in secret. After all, they didn't want to lose those secret liberties and make the King angry, and declaring full independence sounded too messy and dangerous.
But on the other hand, I don't have the energy to refight the Revolutionary War every day which makes me a lazy sort of patriot. Nothing to be proud of, I would fight if I had to, but some days I just want to go to work, go home, eat supper, and give God thanks for the blessings afforded me by His grace and those who laid down their lives so I would have the opportunity to do just that.
I am angling toward getting involved with more public education and awareness of the right to keep and bear arms whether open or concealed. I think that is the real issue. We need to lose the adjectives "open" and "concealed". But the population is and has been poorly informed of the 2nd Amendment rights, and, for whatever reason, that is a very unfortunate state of affairs. For now, most of my "educational" efforts have centered around my immediate circle of family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. My initial interest in hunting and firearms has had a positive educational impact on three children (one is a Marine), one wife (that should be enough for anybody), and is progressively being passed on to several grandchildren. I have encouraged many to take up hunting and shooting sports, and have done more than my share to support the firearms and ammunition manufacturing industries.
It helps me at this time to keep the two issues separate and in perspective. Of top priority is the protection of the life and well-being of me and my own. When I can, I will do what I can to help educate and promote liberty in any way I can. As I gain knowledge (now that is power!), I will willingly share it with anyone who will listen. But I have learned that it isn't appropriate to try to bring an instantaneous, mature understanding into the mind of a fearful, anti-gun citizen in a public setting anymore than you than it is to teach the details of human sexuality to a pre-schooler. But you can create the opportunity for them to witness the birth of kittens or puppies which sets their minds in motion.
I have eaten several cattle in my lifetime, but never all in one setting. Slow and steady wins the race. But you do have to get into the race to compete and win.
P.S. - As for the well-qualified gentlemen in the video, I found it interesting that they chose a hidey-hole near a man-made lagoon for their back drop. Smell the fear?
-
D.A.D good comment, I especailly liked the end. Slow and steady is needed not only in dealing with the anti gun or just not informed but also with legislation.
If I get a CHP, I not only violate company policy, but I can earn myself a Misdemeanor charge and revocation of my CHP which would further justify the belief of some that gun owners/carriers are shady people. Darned if I do and darned if I don't.
I'm trying to understand how having a gun in your vehicle would be a misdemeanor, I understand the violation of company policy which could carry punishment including being fired, but there policy does not make having the firearm in your vehicle (secured) a violation of the law. In fact there are protections in the law for those with CCW to keep their firearm in their vehicle (which unfortunately does not apply to employment policies).
The good news is that it sounds like it will be a priority for the NRA, and the NFOA will be involved as well as some others that we are working with, to give parking lot protections in the next legislative session.
-
I'm trying to understand how having a gun in your vehicle would be a misdemeanor, I understand the violation of company policy which could carry punishment including being fired, but there policy does not make having the firearm in your vehicle (secured) a violation of the law. In fact there are protections in the law for those with CCW to keep their firearm in their vehicle (which unfortunately does not apply to employment policies).
Thanks for the comments, Andy. It would become a legal issue because the company would do like they just did last week and contacted the police regarding an employee who had a long gun locked in his car, but fully in view. Another employee reported it to management and they called LPD. The company I work for has so far made a strong stand against firearms on company property. They are ignorant in some specifics of the law (and I am content to let them remain that way so it doesn't make it worse), but if I had a CHP and another employee noticed me locking it up in my glovebox in my locked vehicle and it was reported to LPD, then I would be in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(2) if the parking lot was posted and employees notified.
Check with Chris Z. about an email I sent to him today on this matter. Have him forward you the attachment, too.
Doug
-
If I get a CHP, I not only violate company policy, but I can earn myself a Misdemeanor charge and revocation of my CHP which would further justify the belief of some that gun owners/carriers are shady people. Darned if I do and darned if I don't.
D.A.D. While I find that educating the public is an admirable trait, it is imperative that you not give out the false impression that keeping a firearm in your vehicle on work property is a crime, because it is not, regardless of your employers policies.
I also take exception to your use of the word "hardline" when describing CHP devotees that do actually know the laws
-
Dan, please see my freshly posted response to Andy. Would I not be violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(2)?
By "hardline" I mean those who will accept no other means of carrying other than concealed carry. This seems to demonstrate a refusal to accept any circumstance under which open carry may have an advantage.
Respectfully,
Doug
-
69-2441 Section 3 exempts public parking areas...
(3) A permitholder carrying 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, used by any location listed in subdivision (1)(a) of this section, does not violate this section if, prior to exiting the vehicle, the handgun is locked inside the glove box, trunk, or other compartment of the vehicle, a storage box securely attached to the vehicle, or, if the vehicle is a motorcycle, a hardened compartment securely attached to the motorcycle. This subsection does not apply to any parking area used by such location when the carrying of a concealed handgun into or onto such parking area is prohibited by federal law.
Emphasis mine...the only thing I can see that could void the exemption is if your employer has a fenced lot with no public access (a secured private company parking lot) or is federal property
-
Carrying concealed is different from storing a firearm in your vehicle on company property if I remember correctly. You would be under the protection of law for having a gun stored in your glovebox while at work, as it is not concealed on your person.
Is someone really going to call the cops on you after noticing you locking your glovebox? There are a million different reasons you could give for that, and the police would have no right to search your vehicle unless you gave them permission to do so.
edit: Dan W beat me to it, exceptions would be a "secured" or federal facility
-
Dan, thank you for your response. I was referring to article (2) not article (3). If the lot is posted or the employer has directly contacted you to remove your firearm from the premises (and I assume not return it again) then the word "unless" renders the firearm owner in violation of article (1)(a) if I am reading the law correctly.
Please help me to understand if I am reading this wrong.
Thank you.
Doug
-
Public Parking areas attached to premises listed in 1(a) are exempted in section 3... as long as you secure the firearm as required your employer has no legal power to prevent or block CCW in the parking lot. That power is removed in section 3 when the required storage rules are met.
That said, they could still enforce the company policy, but the law has not been violated
-
Is someone really going to call the cops on you after noticing you locking your glovebox? There are a million different reasons you could give for that, and the police would have no right to search your vehicle unless you gave them permission to do so.
Ineuke,
Thank you also for your input. Yes, this is exactly what the employer is saying and recently did. The recent event involved a long gun and therefore does not fall under the CHP Act. That being said, it is still the expressed policy that the employer will follow this course regardless of what type of firearm is involved. But more importantly, I would know that I am intentionally violating a company policy that would in turn place me in violation of Article (1)(a) and subject me to possible misdemeanor charges and loss of my CHP.
There is no other available parking or I could park there. I am bound by ethics to obey both my employers policy and the State law. If I must choose the lesser of two evils (that of disobeying company policy or placing myself or other occupants of my vehicle at risk of loss of life or harm while travelling between work and home, or places in between), then it is best to do so without the added harm of a Misdemeanor charge and the legal consequences that would come with having a CHP.
Please let me know if I am reading this law incorrectly. It would be of great relief to find that I am doing so.
Doug
-
An added clarification is that the employer will contact LPD in every incident which brings the violation of Article (1)(a) to bear because they have forbidden employees to possess firearms in personal vehicles on the company parking lot.
-
You should also consider that a change in the law this year removes the threat of losing your permit for a first offense charge of violating a valid "no concealed carry" sign
-
An added clarification is that the employer will contact LPD in every incident which brings the violation of Article (1)(a) to bear because they have forbidden employees to possess firearms in personal vehicles on the company parking lot.
Section 3 says they do not have that power
-
maybe you need to hire an attorney
-
Dan,
Hiring an attorney is exactly what my CCW training class manual suggests for everyone before they begin carrying a weapon. It is all about the law. Everyone should be aware of this. As simple as it should be, there is nothing simple about it.
Any lawyer members well versed in this matter out there want a little business?
-
Ask yourself this...
If DanW were to park in your company parking lot, waltz into the office and announce "I have a legally concealed handgun secured in my vehicle" What do you envision will happen?
Apparently you are under the impression that I will be arrested and convicted.
-
If DanW were to park in your company parking lot, waltz into the office and announce "I have a legally concealed handgun secured in my vehicle" What do you envision will happen?
Apparently you are under the impression that I will be arrested and convicted.
Personally, Dan, I would welcome you to the facility and give you a tour!
If you came in as a non-employee, there is a chance that you would be politely asked to conduct your business and asked not to bring a firearm with you in your vehicle if you were to ever return.
However, given the nature of our facility/business and a heightened sense of awareness when it comes to such a statement, it is most likely that an employee would feel obligated to report what they have been trained to identify as an intimidation by your presence and statement, notify their supervisor who would in turn notify those in charge of the facility. At that time, LPD would be called and you would be escorted outside by an officer accompanied by the highest level manager available in the facility department. The officer would have already been informed that firearms are not allowed on the premises so he would instruct you of this fact and ask that you leave the property immediately and return without a firearm in your vehicle if you have business to conduct there.
I doubt that you would be charged or arrested on a first incident, but you would be assured that charges (of some sort) would be filed against you should you return without complying with the policy which you would then have knowledge of. Again, this would seem to put you in violation of 69-2441(2) because you have been "directly" "requested" to remove your firearm from the premises. Conviction on the charges would be up to the judge or jury.
I can all but guarantee you that the second scenario is the most accurate. If you were an employee, you would probably be terminated under the authority of the policy if you neglected to respond affirmatively to the first warning.
Want to work where I work?
-
Dan, after giving it some thought, you would be treated just as if you were to walk in openly carrying because my employer recognizes no difference between firearms on your person or in your vehicle. If it is on the premises, it is contrary to policy. Period. And 69-2441(2) gives them that right as I understand it.
Honestly, I am not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful in any way. I am just pointing out that there seems to be authority in the law given to property owners to make the decision as to the presence of firearms on the property they control. I wish it weren't true and would be thrilled to learn that they cannot exercise that power over me, but as I read the law it just ain't so.
-
D.A.D this is where the law gets complicated, and it is confusing. But in the case Dan described, his Concealed weapon being stored in his vehicle properly, there is no violation of the law. Now the announcement of such yes that there could be some other discussion about. But the law actually gives a person with a CCW to store a firearm in their vehicle in a publically accessable parking lot, even if the owner of said lot does not allow Concealed Carry, specifically so people have the ability to store their firearms before going in to do business there. That means there could be no charges for this, as long as the parking lot is open to the public.
This would not protect your employment though, as your employer they can take action up to and including termination. But there would not be any charges available if the lot is open to the public. There will be another bill next year dealing with the employer / employee issue.
-
Andy, I appreciate your comments and you putting up with my line of discussion, but I hope it proves to be instructive to others.
Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(2) - What if you are carrying concealed and you start to pull into a parking lot only to find that the conspicuous signage recommended by the State Patrol is posted at the entrance to the parking lot? Would that not signify that that entrance to the premises was the line beyond which a person with a concealed carry permit would not be allowed to bring a firearm? If it was a gated property and the sign was posted on the gate, does not that indicate the point at which firearms are not allowed?
Article (3) seems very clear regarding the parking lot attached to the premises listed in Article 1(a), but Article (2) seems to allow the entity in control of the property to determine whether the sign is on a door or parking lot entrance since the word "premise" can extend to the property line.
If my employer puts "the sign" at the driveway entrance for the purpose of making that the line that should not be crossed with a handgun, and I have a CHP and am noticed putting a handgun in my glovebox by another employee and it is reported to management, my employer will (as they did a week ago in the instance I have discussed) both call me on the rug and notify LPD. I will obviously have violated company policy, but also Article (2) because I have brought a handgun into a prohibited area. This will expose me to being charged with a misdemeanor and potentially losing my CHP as a penalty for doing so.
I have visited a State correctional facility and their signage makes it very clear that it is illegal to possess a firearm, ammunition and everything but the kitchen sink in your vehicle in the parking lot.
So, for me, it is my employer's policy that prohibits me from carrying a weapon in my vehicle to and from work (and places in between) and deprives me of the right to protect myself, family, or other occupants with a firearm while enroute. That is an issue that has to be dealt with apart from the CHP regulations as they now stand. If I choose to not comply with company policy so that I may have protection in my vehicle while travelling to and from work (40 mile round trip each day), I don't want to also increase my exposure to legal problems because I have a CHP. That should give you an idea of what my practice to date has been and why I am hesitant to obtain a CHP.
Well, I am starting to feel like a house guest that has stayed too long. I intend to pursue getting an answer to the physical location of the line a property controller can set, so I welcome any additional postings.
Thank you all again.
D.A.D.
-
D.A.D these discussions are educational for all of us, don't feel out of place by having questions. These questions are how we find the flaws real or perceived and work to either fix them or get clarification, either in the bill or in floor debate.
I understand and see your concern, this is a clarification that we will need to get taken care of next year when we address the parking lot issue. A note on what is being worked upon there, it includes everyone not just concealed carry permit holders. This will make this more difficult to get done so we will need a lot of people to show up for the hearing and making trips into the Capital to talk to their Senators to get the pressure there to get this done.
-
Andy, I appreciate your comments and you putting up with my line of discussion, but I hope it proves to be instructive to others.
Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(2) - What if you are carrying concealed and you start to pull into a parking lot only to find that the conspicuous signage recommended by the State Patrol is posted at the entrance to the parking lot? Would that not signify that that entrance to the premises was the line beyond which a person with a concealed carry permit would not be allowed to bring a firearm? If it was a gated property and the sign was posted on the gate, does not that indicate the point at which firearms are not allowed?
Parking lots are a different story, you're fine as long as it's locked in a trunk/glovebox or the like. That's all there is to it unless you're trying to carry onto a "secured" parking lot (like the National Guard lot) or other outlawed places. You can still bring your firearm into any parking lot, whether your employer owns it or not, as long as you lock it up. They can post as much signage as they want, it doesn't give them the power to overturn that law. Although if you screwed up somehow and they found out, you could still be legally fired for violating their company policy, but that's as far as they could take it. They couldn't press any legal charges, as they would have no basis to pursue them. Furthermore, I don't think they could even legally search your car unless they had reason to or you gave them permission...and I'm sure locking a glovebox doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion.
I'm sure a state correctional facility is one of those places where you aren't going to be allowed to carry a firearm.
-
I agree you could not get your CHP taken away for this or charged with anything. Under section 3 if it is locked properly and the public is allowed to enter the parking lot there is nothing illegal about this as a CHP holder. It does not matter where the sign is, the parking lot is the parking lot. Even if it's a parking lot at a correctional facility it doesn't matter as long as the public is allowed to enter the parking lot. The law says nothing about the signs placement creating boundaries or a line or anything of that sort. That's the way the law reads, and the CHP class explains this (or at least they did at the class I took).
As far as employment repercussions, put some tint on your windows and/or lock your handgun up a before you get to the parking lot. As CHP holders or future CHP holders, let's just hope lb785 will pass. Then we won't have to worry about any repercussions from being legal armed in these cases from employers.
-
I agree you could not get your CHP taken away for this or charged with anything. Under section 3 if it is locked properly and the public is allowed to enter the parking lot there is nothing illegal about this as a CHP holder. It does not matter where the sign is, the parking lot is the parking lot. Even if it's a parking lot at a correctional facility it doesn't matter as long as the public is allowed to enter the parking lot. The law says nothing about the signs placement creating boundaries or a line or anything of that sort. That's the way the law reads, and the CHP class explains this (or at least they did at the class I took).
As far as employment repercussions, put some tint on your windows and/or lock your handgun up a before you get to the parking lot. As CHP holders or future CHP holders, let's just hope lb785 will pass. Then we won't have to worry about any repercussions from being legal armed in these cases from employers.
If I understand correctly, Department of Corrections Employees have to sign a waiver allowing searches of their vehicles as a condition of employment........ And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was a case in the last year where a Dept of Corrections employee challenged that requirement and lost.
-
All State Correctional Facilities are posted very plainly, that firearms or ammunition are not allowed on Correctional Facilities property. All vehicles, (as posted) are subject to search, not only employee vehicles, but any visitor or public official. They may be searched by Department K9 units or State Patrol K9 units, also. While the public may use the parking lot, they can only use them for visiting, any other use would be classified as loitering, and that is prohibited by state law.
-
(3) A permitholder carrying 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, used by any location listed in subdivision (1)(a) of this section (Police, sheriff, or Nebraska State Patrol station or office; detention facility, prison, or jail;on and on) , does not violate this section if, prior to exiting the vehicle, the handgun is locked inside the glove box, trunk, or other compartment of the vehicle, a storage box securely attached to the vehicle, or, if the vehicle is a motorcycle, a hardened compartment securely attached to the motorcycle.
I don't get it? So are you guys saying that section three is not part of the law or only is applicable to certain places in 1a? I don't remember what the signs says at correctional facilities but I'm going by what the law says and to me the law says that if I am entering a public parking lot at a place where concealed carry is prohibited(places listed in 1a), as a CHP holder I can lock up my handgun in my vehicle before exiting the vehicle and be completely within my legal rights.
If the public can use the parking lot for visits, then to me it's a parking lot that is open to the public. Lets say you were parked in the parking lot at a correctional facility. You are a CHP holder and have locked up your handgun per 69-2441. They decide to search your vehicle you would say, I am a CHP holder, and I have a firearm in my vehicle locked up accordingly to 69-2441 section 3. Then they would say, ok, thanks for letting us know.
I understand the employer/employee aspect may be different in terms of employment, but not legal charges against you.
Am I missing something? I just don't understand why they put section 3 in there if it doesn't have an legal standing for CHP holders.
-
CCKyle,
In a sense, that is what I have been asking. And, using the example of the State Correctional facility, the property of my employer and Article (2), it seems that the controller of the property decides where the line is drawn beyond which a firearm can be carried. Article (3) offers reasonable relief on the property by drawing the line at the door, but Article (2)seems to provide discretion to be exercised by the controller of the property to draw the line at the property line. Premises include the buildings and the grounds, so the line can be legally drawn anywhere on the property.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not saying I agree, I'm not saying that is way it should be. What I'm saying is, that is the way it is being interpreted by some governmental (mostly) and private agencies.
But then, I would probably have the right to say that about my own property as well. And I think I should because it is my castle. What I say goes as long as it is legal. If I put up a "No Trespassing" or "No Hunting" sign, I expect people to obey it, or else. You would probably want the same authority over your property.
As an employee of the company I work for, I am not being afforded the right under Article (3) because they are (probably without knowing it) trying to trump it with Article (2). But I want to work on that.
-
But then, I would probably have the right to say that about my own property as well. And I think I should because it is my castle. What I say goes as long as it is legal. If I put up a "No Trespassing" or "No Hunting" sign, I expect people to obey it, or else. You would probably want the same authority over your property.
Is your property open to the public? Does it have a public parking area? Those are limiters in the statute
-
Article (3) offers reasonable relief on the property by drawing the line at the door, but Article (2)seems to provide discretion to be exercised by the controller of the property to draw the line at the property line.
I am not sure how many different ways I can state that article 3 is there to limit the scope of article 2 .
Most of the statements you are making are just supposition and have no real basis in fact, at least as far as the language of the statute reads your are just assuming that your employer has legal powers that are not supported by the evidence.
Of course, you are free to do as you wish, and free to limit yourself in ways the law in this instance does not.
The only other way to end this dispute is a test case in the courts
-
Dan, section 3 specifically refers to subsection 1a for where the exemption for carrying and storing in a vehicle, while posting places is mentioned in section 1a it is further discussed and elaborated upon in section 2 .
So there is a valid question if the posting talked about in section 1a is the same or something separate form that discussed in section 2. I agree with you that the posting in section 1a is the same as in section 2 with section 2 just giving further detail as to the posting needing to be conspicuous etc. But since section 3 does not mention section 2, there is a valid question of weather a posted lot is exempted or not.
Yes a test case would be one way to clarify but I think it would be a lot less expensive to simply clarify it in the way the law is written. With the parking lot bill coming back next year we should work to get that addressed there.
I see both sides of the discussion, and think that the interpretation being given by the majority here is correct or at least what was meant by those that wrote the statute. But I can also understand someone wanting to be cautious in how they would handle this situation, because I would not want to be the test case just like D.A.D does not wish to be.
-
Andy, it also specifically states a permit holder " does not violate this section"... Not a violation of what, you ask? The entire "Section 69-2441" which includes subsections 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) 2, 3, 4 and 5.
So, In my opinion as a non lawyer, subsection 3 is referring to subsection 2 specifically, and was intentionally added to limit subsection 2.
There would be no other reason for the language in subsection 3 to exist
Not ambiguous at all to me
-
Gentleman,
I have a busy week ahead and will probably not make any more comments this week, but I have had a discussion with a top level management person who holds the understanding provided him by the attorney from whom he receives guidance in the posting of buildings, and it is their practice and policy that the typical sign designating a premise to be a non-carry premise also includes the parking lots to the property line. They use the exception provided by the word "unless" in the articles to nullify the ability a CHP holder is given in (1)(a) to possess, transport or securely store a firearm in a vehicle on the property.
The manager was a bit taken back when I told him that I knew his property had vehicles with firearms in them on a daily basis (and that I had done so on many occasions) because the absence of signs served as an indication that the parking lot was not a prohibited area.
I also noticed that the signs usually reference only the entire statute, but that may only be for convenience.
This manager intends to contact me the first of next week after discussing this issue with his attorney in further detail. It is my belief that this attorney would be willing to discuss the meaning of the entire statute (and indeed should make himself available to do so given the influence he has in Lincoln), but I think it would be best if DanW and AAllen (and or others of their choosing) be directly involved in the discussion. I think this should be discussed outside of this forum given the importance and level of impact this conversation might have.
I do know that there is a lot of confusion among people on both sides of this issue and it is my highest concern that someone who thinks he is in compliance with the statute is charged with being in violation and he has a permanent mark on his record because people don't understand what the law says.
I will attempt to contact either or both DanW and AAllen offline when I have more information. I can definitely see this having to go through a court setting in order to get it resolved. But, no, I am not volunteering to be the subject of the case.
I will be in touch as soon as I can. In the mean time, after learning what I learned today, be careful out there. I know that there are many parking lots accessible to the public that are thought by the managers of the lots to be clearly posted as not open to concealed carry storage in vehicles due to the signs on the building doors.
D.A.D.
-
Would this be something that could be referred to the state attorney for an interpretation?
Fly
-
This isn't a question the AG would likely answer in an opinion, unless the question is submitted by a local prosecutor. That's just my gut impression.
Personally, I agree with Dan's reading of the statute. An example is Westwood plaza in Omaha, most, but not all, parking lot entrances are posted. I don't believe that impacts a permit holder who follows the storage requirements.
One thing to worry about, though, is that a city prosecutor could, at the urging of the property owner, pursue criminal trespass, but I would need to look into that. For an employee it is also a concern.
-
Westwood is NOT in compliance with the CHP as the notice MUST be conspicuously (sp?) posted....
-
TITLE 272, NEBRASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CHAPTER 21
NEBRASKA STATE PATROL
Concealed Handgun Permits
Section 018.01 thru 018.09 seem to duplicate Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441 articles 1-6 in simpler language.
"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." This portion seems to be the equivalent of 69-2441(2).
"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." This section seems to be the equivalent of 69-2441(3) and distinctly leaves out the terminology that follows the word "unless" which creates all of the confusion in my mind. 018.06 gives credence to DanW's argument that Article (3) trumps Article (2) in parking lots open to the public that otherwise prohibit carrying concealed on that property. Neither vehicles or parking lots are mentioned in (2), but the are specified in (3). And the same holds true for 018.04 and 018.06 respectively.
This seems to be a key point so it sounds like a call to the State Patrol is in order to see if Neb. Rev.Stat. 69-2441 or the Nebraska Administrative Code has the final say. All of the prohibition signs that I have seen reference 69-2441 and not the NAC 018.
D.A.D.
-
D.A.D.
You may or may not be aware that the statutes give the power to write the rules and regulations for the Concealed Handgun Act to the Nebraska State Patrol.
The Administrative code is in fact the set of rules and regulations that the NSP has written, so they are the practical application of the statutes.
The NSP is charged with adhering to the statutes as closely as possible while at the same time establishing a workable set of rules and regs that can be applied by the permit holder and enforced by the Patrol.
In such an effort, understandably the language is not always identical after "translation", so my take on the ambiguities is that the Administrative Code is the law as practically applied by the state of Nebraska and, in my opinion, the final word on how a permit holder should act to remain within the law.
-
Does anyone know what legislation or changes to the current law are being considered for proposal during the next legislative session? Do you know what Legislator is going to be proposing the changes? I would like to send him some input. I will also send the same information to my legislator.
Does the NFOA have an attorney (list of them) that they recommend that I could discuss possible legal action with regarding the parking issues in the law? DanW and AAllen, I will be sending you a private email regarding what I have come up with in my discussions with the AG's office, State Patrol's office, LPD and some others. The problems lies in that each can hold their legal opinion, but until it is interpreted in court, there can be no clarification of the law. A legislative bill could do this, but it would have to be very tightly written. And this would be no guarantee unless it changed the legal opinion of the City of Lincoln.
D.A.D.
-
It is still a bit early to really have an idea of whats where and who for next year. There are a lot of balls in motion and until the elections are over most of the Senators are being very noncommittal on bills, unless it addresses a major problem (and without something happening in the courts to require clarification they would not consider this a major issue, even though we do). I look forward to finding out what you have come across and discussing it with you so we can see if we can find a way to work on the issue.
-
D.A.D. lb785 is one I would consider pertinent to your case. Here is a link to the neb legislature with info about it.
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=15219 (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=15219)
-
cckyle,
This bill, had it not been sidetracked, would have resolved the issue as I understand it. I don't know what it might take to get it moving again, but I intend on writing both to my senator and to Sen. Christensen to see if that will help in some manner.
AAllen, I will be sending my email address to you via the NFOA "Contact Us" site so I can send you the information I have gathered to this point. I think it will enable you to understand my concerns and the concern I have for all CHP holders regarding the legal opinions held by different branches of the LE community. I hope to have that to you within the next few hours.
D.A.D.
-
AAllen,
I have sent in my contact information and have a Word document that I will send to you.
-
Off subject a bit. having a firearm in my vehichle at work is not a crime but it will make me uneployed real quick. I need my job so my employer is restricting my rights in a round about way..
Need to work on this >>>
FLUFF
-
Fluff there was a bill last year and I hear there is a good chance that it will be back next year.
-
Why would that make you unemployed? Do you go around at work bragging you have a gun in your car? No one except you should know, just keep it in a locked compartment and call it good.
-
Gentlemen,
Having corresponded outside of this forum with AAllen and others, I would like to make this post as an update and somewhat of a conclusion to my search for clarification on State and City law on the legality of parking a personal vehicle on a City-owned parking lot open to the public especially if you are an employee of that City.
I would like to give special thanks to Sen. Mark Christensen and his staff member, Dan Wiles, for providing clarity on this issue. Of special help was his reference to Neb. Rev. Stat. 18-1703 that I had not heard of prior to his response. Since I had not heard it or seen it referenced in any discussions, it could be that it is not well known by others within the CHP or firearm owners community either so I will quote it here:
"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.Effective Date: July 15, 2010 Cross References Concealed Handgun Permit Act, see section 69-2427."
This law (for some reason tucked away in a different section of State Law) convinces me that Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2441(3) exempts any CHP holder from any prohibition that any City may make against the possession, transportation and secure storage of a handgun in a private vehicle parked in or on any City-owned or operated parking facility (whether an open lot or a multi-level facility) that is open to the public. This should apply equally to any CHP holder whether or not they are an employee of the City in question because (in my opinion) any employee policies of a City are City regulations that are regulating the “ownership, possession, or transportation or a concealed handgun.”
So, DanW, AAllen, and all others, though I wanted to agree with you earlier on in this forum, I needed to find out what the laws had to say before I felt confident in exercising my rights under 69-441(3). I hope my search for this clarification can provide more awareness of the laws to others as well. They are in no way implied to be a legal opinion, just my findings and the conclusion to which I have come.
D.A.D.
-
Off subject a bit. having a firearm in my vehichle at work is not a crime but it will make me uneployed real quick. I need my job so my employer is restricting my rights in a round about way..
Need to work on this >>>
FLUFF
FLUFF,
See my posting from a few minutes ago. It is my understanding that if your employer's parking lot (even though it is privately owned) is open to the public, then your employer cannot restrict you from securely storing a handgun in your personal vehicle while it is parked in the parking lot. I cannot speak to your particular employer's employment policies (I would ask to see a written copy of them). If the lot is not open to the public, then I don't think you can find relief from the employment policies because it is private property and we all want to be able to exercise our rights as property owners.
The reintroduction and passage of LB785 by Sen. Christensen would eliminate this prohibition because it basically would be legal to possess a lawfully owned legal firearm in your personal vehicle wherever your personal vehicle is allowed to be otherwise. In other words (and this is a mind-blowing concept to those who do not understand "freedom"), if it is yours and it is otherwise legal, it is lawful to store in your vehicle whether it is a firearm or a basket of apples.
Another wildly beneficial thing about LB 785 is that does not restrict the possession of a firearm in a personal vehicle to only CHP holders or to only handguns (remember, no loaded shotguns!). It would show that the State acknowledges this right regarding any and all firearms and firearms owners which simply gives credence to the 2nd Amendment. This is a huge thing for the State to acknowledge so specifically.
I believe Sen. Christensen's bill, if it is reintroduced in 2013, deserves all of the support that can possibly be mustered. Like all things that have to do with freedom and liberty, just because it is your legal right doesn't mean that it is going to be acknowledged or respected by those who don't like it.
Yes, you need your job and you need to do what you can to keep it and advance your career. But, if you want to exercise your Federal and State Constitutional rights, you may need to do some hard work to accomplish that goal. "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't quite as cliche when one is talking about their own liberty or their own life. Fight the fight, that is what freedom is all about.
D.A.D.
-
If my understanding of the proposed bill is right, your employer cannot terminate your employment for having a firearm/ammunition in your vehicle, but it does have to be hidden from view and locked up accordingly. I think this bill is aimed more at the CHP holders, because the firearm has to remain concealed/hidden from view. However it would also apply if you had a long gun locked up properly in the trunk.
To me the bill is extending the same right's you have at home, regarding firearms, to your vehicle as personal property, no matter where it is parked; as long as the firearm is hidden from view and stored properly.
-
cckyle,
It is easy to find a copy of the bill on line and it is very short. In my opinion, I like the way it is written (using language provided by the NRA) because it does not reference personal concealed carry of handguns at all. Section 1(2) is a major portion which simply states that "any" employer "shall not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits" an employee from storing a firearm (of any type) that is legal and lawfully owned in their personal vehicles when their vehicles are where they are otherwise allowed to be.
So, yes, it is like your house to a certain degree. You can't be fired or punished by your employer for having a legal object that they may not like in your personal vehicle.
Oh, how I miss the days of seeing a rifle in a rack in the back window of a pickup truck . . . . .
D.A.D.
-
I had referenced the proposed bill. It does say it has to be kept from "ordinary observation". To me that seems to mean that if you do a walk around of the vehicle you wouldn't be able to see it. So it couldn't be left in a gun rack.
Thinking about this though, if this bill passes; it simply states the firearm has to be kept from "ordinary observation". It goes on to say, "OR kept from ordinary observation and locked within the trunk, glove box, or interior of the person's privately-owned motor vehicle or a container securely affixed to such vehicle". But if the firearm was just kept from "ordinary observation", say under a coat in the back seat, if one did not have a CHP wouldn't this be considered a concealed weapon? Or even if you had a CHP and had a rifle wouldn't this be a concealed weapons charge??? At least until you left the vehicle or you left the parking lot and uncovered the firearm. To get a concealed weapons charge the weapon has to be concealed AND easily accessible, right??? That would be why an unloaded rifle/shotgun cased in a trunk cannot get you a concealed weapon charge because it's not easily accessible.
Would the CHP laws/requirements trump this bill as a CHP holder? Or would this bill trump the CHP laws/requirements??? Meaning if you went to work and parked your vehicle, as a CHP holder would you no longer need to "lock up" your handgun just keep it from "ordinary observation"?? What about one who does not hold a CHP???
That's a lot of questions. lol. Maybe I am just over thinking this, but the more I think about it to me it seems like in a sense this bill's contents may clash in certain areas with laws in place for concealed weapon and/or CHP laws/regulations.
Maybe we need to start a new thread regarding lb785???
Below is a link to the proposed bill in case anyone didn't have it or is interested.
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB785.pdf (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB785.pdf)
-
Sen. Christensen, who introduced LB 785 in 2012, is receptive in any and all input regarding a bill that he could introduce next year. The intent of the bill was to provide a better balance between private property rights and 2nd Amendment rights.
At this time, many employers (private and public) are using the wording of 69-2441(2) as a means of prohibiting CHP holders and all other firearms owners (remember CHP means "handguns" only) from storing their private property in their private property on someone else's private property. If you can't park your vehicle with your firearm(s) in it on your employer's property, then the effect is that your right to possess, transport, and store firearm(s) and is rendered null and void if you don't have a place to park your vehicle. You have to leave your firearm(s) at home and are not able to exercise your right to self-protection while traveling to and from work with a firearm because you can't leave it in your vehicle while you are working.
LB 785, whatever wording it might contain, needs to be like Neb. Rev. Stat. 12-1204.04(1)(e) and (f) which give firearm owners relief from the prohibition of firearms on school grounds by allowing them to be secured and completely covered in their vehicles while on school grounds "with no part of the firearm exposed."
I think the idea is for firearms owners to be discrete in their storage of firearms in vehicles and for employers (or people in control of the property) to relax their restrictions so that both parties are able to have their private property rights honored. Both parties would release the other from any civil liabilities that might arise from the presence or discharge of a firearm on/in the other's property.
In this day and age, you don't want to encourage anyone to knock out your car window to help themselves to some inviting personal possession that is lying out in the open. I just miss the days when people respected other people's property and would not steal a rifle out of a rack in the back window of a pickup truck even if the windows were down and the door unlocked. Sigh.
D.A.D.
-
I don't remember a time seeing rifles in rifles racks in the back of pickups, let alone windows down and unlocked doors. lol Hard to imagine. I did see a video on youtube once of a rifle rack that went on the ceiling in a jeep, but not in the window. I could see this being useful for hunting/hunters still. Is there a law outlawing rifles in rifle racks, or has it just become not common practice due to theft? I tried to search on the Nebraska legislature site for something regarding this but couldn't find anything.
Also lb785 didn't get voted down, did it?? I thought it was just postponed until next session, and may go up for vote next session, or no??
-
Years ago it was common place to see 2 or 3 rifles, shotguns and maybe a lariat or two hanging on the gun rack of an unlocked pickup with the windows down in our town. Still see the rifles at times but the vehicles are usaslly locked now days. I carried a .22 Remington in my school car, which was left unlocked daily at our high school and mine wasn't the only one. Times have changed!
-
Also lb785 didn't get voted down, did it?? I thought it was just postponed until next session, and may go up for vote next session, or no??
LB785 did not make it out of committee last year. It was just kind of being floated to see what the reception was and what may need to be changed to get a workable bill. It is my understanding that a new bill that is very similar to LB785 will be introduced in the upcoming session.
At this point Senator Christensen's office is looking at the comments received about it and trying to get the new bill written. Note this bill addresses issues beyond Concealed Carry but also protects hunters that may have their bags and guns packed so they can take off traveling once they get off work, or perhaps the person that goes to the range on their way to work. It also should or will address all weapons such as can a hunter keep a bow in their vehicle (with or without arrows), what if they were called in on their day of for an emergency and had been out hunting.
These are some of the many issues and comments that are being worked on during the off session time.
-
To get back onto topic, D.A.D.'s initial problem is still an issue, he can see how he is not breaking the law and in fact there is a law there to protect him from criminal prosecution. But the Lincoln City prosecutor's office interprets the laws in an entirely different way than how anything is written. Unfortunately the only way that there can be a challenge to this would for someone to get charged, if someone has a spare 20 or 30 thousand laying around to get this started we can see if we can come up with another way.
At this point I don't see how we can legislate away the stupidity, but if someone has an idea I'm open to listening.
-
I guess I'm a little slow, or ignorant, but I had a light come on in my head today. I came to understand that the section of the Nebraska Statutes under which the concealed carry laws are listed is Chapter 69 which is reserved for laws regarding Personal Property. The concealed carry laws are all about personal property not about owning guns.
The laws are not about owning personal property ( I like owning and using guns), but the laws are about where I can take my personal property without violating the personal property of others and of the right they have to control their property. With the first passage of the law in 2006, cities began to say, "not on our property." But state law was changed to say that they could not say that. Now cities cannot ban concealed carry of my property on their property.
Businesses can allow or disallow my personal property on their personal property (inside their buildings, events, or activities), but not their parking lots. If I can't keep my personal property in my personal vehicle while on their personal property, then I can't have my personal property anywhere but on my personal property (at home). Fortunately, the state law was modified to recognize that my vehicle is my personal property and, as long as I stored my firearms securely in my vehicle, the other property owners had to accept that degree of respecting my rights.
The issue now is, employers, at least as they are interpreting the law to fit their bias. Unfortunately, LB 785 or the final reading of LB 430 in 2009 were not advanced as they were presented. If one sentence in 69-2441(2) had not been struck out, this issue would be resolved. It read, "A permitholder carrying a concealed hangun in a vehicle into or onto any place or premises does not violate this section so long as . . . ." it is stored securely in a personal vehicle. This was addressed to employers not being able to bar the storage of handguns in employees personal vehicles. But it was struck from the final law.
So this battle is clearly about property rights. And though the Nebraska State Patrol seems to clear this up in the Nebraska Administrative Code 018.05 and 018.06, it has not been tested in court to see who has final say where the property rights line is drawn. That is why the reintroduction of LB 785 by Sen. Christensen (and maybe other senators), properly worded and passed would clear up this huge grey area without some poor individual CHP holder losing his job and having to fight it out in court.
Sen. Christensen's bill needs to be written to contain all the necessary safeties to allow employers the comfort level (read freedom from civil law suits over damages caused by an employee with a firearm in their vehicle) to allow employees to store firearms in their vehicles in company parking lots. If you have to park in your employer's lot and the employer says "not on my property" then you have to leave your firearm(s) at home on your property unless you have another parking option where it is legal (like on the street).
So, Sen. Christensen, is there anything we can do to help because many of us need the help this sort of bill would provide. When can we start writing to our senators to try to pursuade them that we can be responsible for our own actions and handle our firearms properly when they are on our person or personal property (vehicle) anywhere we go?
D.A.D.
-
Here is an article regarding employees storing firearms in their personal vehicles on company parking lots in Texas. Some of you may have seen this already, but I thought I would put it out there so everybody can see what an issue this is for many firearms owners, CHP or not.
http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/NRA-ILA-Wants-Help-on-Texas-Parking-Lot-Law_4385-1.html?ET=gunreports:e1285:204086a:&st=email (http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/NRA-ILA-Wants-Help-on-Texas-Parking-Lot-Law_4385-1.html?ET=gunreports:e1285:204086a:&st=email)
D.A.D.
"Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom." - Friedrich A. Hayek, 1944