NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Information Arsenal => Topic started by: huskergun on March 26, 2009, 07:35:47 PM
-
All I have to say about Her response below my letter is Oh my God. Feel free to email and call her ripping her on this one. What a freakin joke.
...
My letter to her.
Concerning LB430.
It is imperative that this bill is brought out on the floor for a vote.
Cities in Nebraska have made their own laws which have made things confusing and difficult for those of us who are law abiding conceal carry holders. The way it is now a conceal carry permit holder could be a criminal just by passing through a city or town and not even know it.
Furthermore, I will be honest with you. I believe that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution IS my conceal carry permit. I have no felonies and am a responsible gun owner. I believe that the Second Amendment protects all the other Amendments in the Constitution.
All of us need to start remembering why our founding fathers put the Second Amendment in place. It was so "We The People" had the ability to protect ourselves, our families and our country form enemies both foreign and domestic. I know that some in this country do not take the Constitution seriously and believe that it can just be ignored, manipulated or changed through back door tactics. I however believe it says what it says for a reason. It is the job of the law making bodies in this state and this country to defend every aspect of it no matter their personal or political opinions.
It is time for Nebraska to take the National stage in protect Freedom. Protecting the rights set by our founders. It is time for those who believe in freedom to stand apart from those who don't and be counted. So please take this step and stand and be counted. Then continue to stand up for this and all rights.
Thank you for your time
Rich Wiese
Proud NRA and NFOA (Nebraska Firearms Owners Association) Member.
...
Brenda Councils response.
Dear Mr. Wiese:
While I respect your right to your opinion on LB 430, I do not agree and, therefore, I did not vote to advance it to General File and I will speak against it during floor debate. Additionally, I do not agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution and your assertion that my opinion represents a denial of ?Freedom.? To the contrary, there is as much if not more historical support for my interpretation that the 2nd Amendment ?right? to bear arms is limited. I direct your attention to www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html.
So, while it is clear that we will never agree on this issue, I trust that we can be civil in our disagreement.
Senator Brenda J. Council
-
Pretty pathetic, but what else would you expect?
I didn't read the whole article she linked to, but am assuming it argues that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. And that the States have the right to regulate it as they see fit. Hmm, I guess that's all well and good.
But I wonder what she has to say about http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/articles.php?article=I-1 (http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/articles.php?article=I-1)?
I-1 Statement of rights. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It seems to me that our State (in other words, us) have decided that we do want to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.
-
I sent the esteemed Senator a little note
Senator Council:
You recently wrote in an Email:
"While I respect your right to your opinion on LB 430, I do not agree and, therefore, I did not vote to advance it to General File and I will speak against it during floor debate. Additionally, I do not agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution and your assertion that my opinion represents a denial of ?Freedom.? To the contrary, there is as much if not more historical support for my interpretation that the 2nd Amendment ?right? to bear arms is limited. I direct your attention to www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html."
Perhaps, Senator, you could find the time to read the Nebraska Constitution. I think you might find that the debate at the Federal level becomes moot when our State has protected the God given right to self defense. The very protection you seem determined to deny with some specious argument about a Federal issue, while this debate is a State of Nebraska issue.
Here is the text if you can't find it for yourself:
I-1 Statement of rights. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Please try to include the Rights of Nebraskan's in your interpretations of State issues
Sincerely,
Dan W
Lincoln NE
-
Dan, you've been a hero of mine for a long time, and you just reminded me yet again why.
-
Good job Dan.
When she was a host on KETV channel 6 on Omaha's Kalidescope show she made a comment one day that she would like to see all guns gone. I wish I had that show on tape. I tried to get it through the news station but no response yet.
Oh and my response back to Mrs. Council was not as nice as Dan's. She just rubbed me the wrong way and with her opinion as it is and felt I had nothing to lose.
-
Dan, you've been a hero of mine for a long time, and you just reminded me yet again why.
Wow Jay, I don't know what to say... Thanks
-
" When she was a host on KETV channel 6 on Omaha's Kalidescope show she made a comment one day that she would like to see all guns gone. "
Wishing for that is wishing for a return to the dark ages: Rule by the Strong, the Young, and the Mobs.... him that swings the biggest or most clubs. The gun is civilization.
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html
Go there, read it.
-
Dan - That was one heck of a reply! Well done, I'm glad you're on our side.
-
Imagine a world without guns:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
-
It has shut her up for now. No replies yet...maybe Ernie is thinkin on her next move
-
I don't think we'll ever "shut these people up." What we need to do is vote them out.
They are malignant, self-righteous ideologues. And arrogant to boot.
Send 'em packing, I say. (And I don't mean toting!)
-
She was pretty much hand-picked by Ernie to take his place.
Although I disagreed with nearly all of Ernie's position, I respected him in that he did his job well and had perfected his debating skills over the years. If Ernie didn't like something, it didn't get done 90% of the time.
Brenda Council is no Ernie ChambersKING COBRA.
-
Although I disagreed with nearly all of Ernie's position, I respected him in that he did his job well and had perfected his debating skills over the years. If Ernie didn't like something, it didn't get done 90% of the time.
Brenda Council is no Ernie ChambersKING COBRA.
I agree with this 110%.
-
Dan-
Did you ever get a response from Senator Council?????????
Well done sir!
-
Yea and she was absent from the floor when the vote on LB430 was being voted on. The vote tally was I think 45yes,3 no, and 1[senator brenda council,absent and not voting. rich17z@cox.net
-
Dan-
Did you ever get a response from Senator Council?????????
Well done sir!
......crickets chirping...nothin yet
-
Do senators take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Nebraska? While many people "interpert" the constituions(s) to mean what theysay, I believe the constution(s) mean what the constitution(s) says. I also believe that if a person disagrees with one clause of the constituion then that person also has to disagree with the rest of the constiuiton. I do not believe that the constiutuion is a pick and chose document. If a person who has taken an oath to defend the constution, fails to deend all of the constituition then that person has violated their oath and should be removed from office.
-
Section 11-101.01
Oath of office; state and political subdivisions; employees; form.
All persons in Nebraska, with the exception of executive and judicial officers and members of the Legislature who are required to take the oath prescribed by Article XV, section 1, of the Constitution of Nebraska, who are paid from public funds for their services, including teachers and all other employees paid from public school funds, shall be required to take and subscribe an oath in writing, before a person authorized to administer oaths in this state, and file same with the Department of Administrative Services, or the county clerk of the county where such services are performed, which oath shall be as follows:
I, .........., do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Nebraska, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or for purpose of evasion; and that I will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of the office of .......... according to law, and to the best of my ability. And I do further swear that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this state by force or violence; and that during such time as I am in this position I will not advocate nor become a member of any political party or organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this state by force or violence. So help me God.
Source:
Laws 1951, c. 206, ? 1, p. 765
Laws 1967, c. 35, ? 1, p. 158
~Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska
XV-1 Official oath; refusal; disqualification. Executive and judicial officers and members of the legislature, before they enter upon their official duties shall take and subscribe the following oath, or affirmation. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Nebraska, and will faithfully discharge the duties of .......... according to the best of my ability, and that at the election at which I was chosen to fill said office, I have not improperly influenced in any way the vote of any elector, and have not accepted, nor will I accept or receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other valuable thing from any corporation, company or person, or any promise of office, for any official act or influence (for any vote I may give or withhold on any bill, resolution, or appropriation)." Any such officer or member of the legislature who shall refuse to take the oath herein prescribed, shall forfeit his office, and any person who shall be convicted of having sworn falsely to, or of violating his said oath shall forfeit his office, and thereafter be disqualified from holding any office of profit or trust in this state unless he shall have been restored to civil rights.
Source
1. Neb. Const. art. XIV, sec. 1 (1875);
2. Transferred by Constitutional Convention, 1919-1920, art. XV, sec. 1.
Annotations
Violation of judicial oath aggravates offense of disregarding oath as a lawyer. State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Conover, 166 Neb. 132, 88 N.W.2d 135 (1958).
County judge is required to take oath of constitutional officers. State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Wiebusch, 153 Neb. 583, 45 N.W.2d 583 (1951).
Exact form of oath to be taken by executive and judicial officers and members of Legislature is prescribed. State ex rel. Johnson v. Chase, 147 Neb. 758, 25 N.W.2d 1 (1946).
A judicial officer is required to take and subscribe to the oath prescribed by this section. Duffy v. State ex rel. Edson, 60 Neb. 812, 84 N.W. 264 (1900).
-
People who live in cities with gang violence and higher crime rates in lower income areas traditionally vote anti-gun. Council is no different. They see the way to end the violence is to outlaw/eliminate firearms. We're too far down that road for that to ever happen. They can't get past the last gang shooting, or the occasional accidental discharge and use these issues to support their position.
Sure, eliminate firearms. Bad guys will still use em, and when they're all gone they'll use bow and arrows, rocks, silverware, etc. After all, they're bad guys. I'm sure we can eliminate all those too if certain people interpret the 2nd amendment in a particular way.
There's always going to be dissenting opinions, as we have a senator or two who voted against the bill here in Lincoln, luckily the majority vote on this issue was overwhelming. That's got to tell you something.
-
It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Ernie would pick an anti-2A person to be his successor. We're just lucky that she's ineffective. That's a lot better than when Ernie was there.
-
I can empathize with the people who see poverty and the violence it breeds. They have compassion and want to help. The problem is that they attack the tool of the wrongdoer, but NEVER the root cause.
Why are these youths resorting to violence?
If you took away the guns, would this end the violence?
These are the questions that liberals don't want to address. They would rather attack it from the wrong end. Keep disarming them of guns, then knives, then bats, then cars. Meanwhile, these youth still don't have any healthy parental/guardian guidance.
Fly
-
People....It is not about guns...it is about control
-
People....It is not about guns...it is about control
I would agree that many politicians are power hungry or just think there is nothing wrong with the government controlling every aspect of our lives. Though I think that Council and Chambers are truly concerned about people. They just don't use any rational thought to attack the problem. They thrive on emotion and that's how they convince their constituency that they are doing something. Never addressing the true problem, just the emotional response.
Fly
-
People....It is not about guns...it is about control
I agree ..... Once you control the flock then you can have your way with just about everything and the sheep will never even know what hit them nor will they care.
Look at what Obama and Libs/Socialist are doing in D.C. Chambers and Council are no differant.
-
And she is also a lawyer for Union Pacific Railroad here in Omaha and she carrys a firearm concealed also when she works at her bar in North Omaha. So,Should we not use Union Pacific Railroad since she works for them or Amtrac?????? Am-trac uses Union Pacific tracks. rich17z@cox.net
-
ah yes... the "chosen ones"
gotta love em...
-
and she carrys a firearm concealed
Just curious how you know this.
Fly
-
I have heard that Brenda has an Omaha open carry permit. I did a little looking into it, but I could not verify that information. So if someone has some confirmation from a solid source I would sure like to hear about it, especially if someone has solid info that she carries concealed
-
I wander if she carries concealed without a permit? Is her gun even registered with OPD? Kinda like ernie the scumbag refusing to pay speeding tickets.
ernie the scumabg is not capitalized, on purpose. That may show an ounce of respect from me, which will never happen.
We could nickname her Rosie O'Council.
-
I wander if she carries concealed without a permit? Is her gun even registered with OPD? Kinda like ernie the scumbag refusing to pay speeding tickets.
ernie the scumabg is not capitalized, on purpose. That may show an ounce of respect from me, which will never happen.
We could nickname her Rosie O'Council.
That's an insult to fat slobs everywhere.
-
And she is also a lawyer for Union Pacific Railroad here in Omaha and she carrys a firearm concealed also when she works at her bar in North Omaha. So,Should we not use Union Pacific Railroad since she works for them or Amtrac?????? Am-trac uses Union Pacific tracks. rich17z@cox.net
People ride Amtrak??? ;)
-
We could nickname her Rosie O'Council.
That's an insult to fat slobs everywhere.
just spit coffee EVERYWHERE!!!!
-
Rosie O'Council......That's freakin funny !!!!
-
LOL! I hate it when you guys make me laugh at work cuz then my co-workers all wanna know what the heck was so funny!
-
How could you make fun of Rosie? She's awesome!
Yes I'm just kidding.
-
And she is also a lawyer for Union Pacific Railroad here in Omaha and she carrys a firearm concealed also when she works at her bar in North Omaha. So,Should we not use Union Pacific Railroad since she works for them or Amtrac?????? Am-trac uses Union Pacific tracks. rich17z@cox.net
People ride Amtrak??? ;)
Riding Amtrack at 4am with a case of beer and a bottle of Jack Daniels is about as much as you can have with pants on.
-
Is anyone certain that she still has ownership in the bar?
I asked a lady from North O of African-American descent a couple of days ago and she thought that she sold her interest in the establishment.