NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Dtrain323i on January 10, 2013, 08:18:03 PM
-
http://www.ketv.com/news/local-news/Neb-senators-introduce-gun-control-laws/-/9674510/18089438/-/12ihci6z/-/index.html (http://www.ketv.com/news/local-news/Neb-senators-introduce-gun-control-laws/-/9674510/18089438/-/12ihci6z/-/index.html)
Sen. Brad Ashford and the chair of the Judiciary Committee introduced a bill Thursday that would hold gun owners civilly liable if a minor or mentally ill person gets ahold of their firearms to commit a crime.
“Having a firearm is fine. It's a constitutional right, but it doesn't create an exception to personal responsibility,” Ashford said. “What we are asking is similar to the laws on children and liquor.”
Ashford said banning assault weapons or high-capacity ammo clips is a national issue, and his proposal is something the state can do, but gun rights advocates urge caution.
“You can't have them locked up all the time or you can't defend yourself,” said Sen. Mark Christensen.
Christensen believes there is a better way to keep kids safe in school. He is considering reintroducing his proposal to allow trained gun owners to carry a concealed gun in schools.
“Truth is guns protect. People kill. Guns protect,” Christensen said.
Attorney General Jon Bruning said he questions whether more guns in schools is the answer.
“We want to protect our kids, but I'm not sure we want to create an armed encampment,” Bruning said.
Christensen said he has eight days to decide whether he will introduce his guns-in-schools bill as well as a bill that would place the "castle doctrine" in the state's self-defense law, which would make it easier for homeowners to legally use lethal force to defend their property from intruders.
-
I for one hope he reintroduces both of them...
-
Attorney General Jon Bruning said he questions whether more guns in schools is the answer.
“We want to protect our kids, but I'm not sure we want to create an armed encampment,” Bruning said.
Well I think we can safely say Gun free zones are sure not the answer to keeping them safe.
Maybe Modifying laws to allow for concealed carry Holders to carry in those Zones is one step closer to a solution.
-
The Anti-Constitution crowd mocked the NRA president when he suggested that armed guards in schools would be a good idea. The mockers were ignorant of or dismissed the fact that the media and government elite in Washington send their children to a school that has ELEVEN armed guards in full battle gear, and who knows what kind of heavy weapons are hidden behind the walls?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service)
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/12/24/sidwellfriendsSecretService.jpg (http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/12/24/sidwellfriendsSecretService.jpg)
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.
If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.
The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).
Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.
-
Link to proposed bill: http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7071.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7071.0.html)
-
Funny how Ashford and his committee.... Keep in mind who the Vice Chair is.......... Don't want to give Civil Immunity to citizens who lawfully defend themselves..... But boy here they are right away introducing a bill to hold a gun owner civilly liable if you don't keep your gun stored properly...... Sounds like trying to keep the Civil Lawyers in business if you ask me.
-
I'm not sure but do we hold parents responsible when kids break into their liquor cabinet and subsequently do something stupid?
-
Yes, we do. We just don't have a separate statute for it. It's a tort issue and is addressed in case law. I'm not sure what the case law is for firearms, but it should be worked out as a matter of common law (case by case).
I'm all for holding gun owners responsible for not taking reasonable measures to secure their weapons, I just don't think a new statute will help.
-
Just another thing that I'll be held accountable for that I didn't do. When are we going to start holding people accountable for what they do?
You’re too lazy to find job – don’t worry, we’ve got money for you.
You’re too careless to keep your pants on – don’t worry, we’ll abort it for you.
Oh, you stole some liquor or did something stupid with a gun? – don’t worry, we’ll sue the **** out of your family for it.
The list just keeps going. It's similar to how the commerce clause has been morphed into the Federal governments way to get to you no matter where you are and what you're doing.
Yay, lets keep the lawyers working hard.
-
Funny how Ashford and his committee.... Keep in mind who the Vice Chair is.......... Don't want to give Civil Immunity to citizens who lawfully defend themselves..... But boy here they are right away introducing a bill to hold a gun owner civilly liable if you don't keep your gun stored properly...... Sounds like trying to keep the Civil Lawyers in business if you ask me.
Yep, plus this will have a disproportionate effect on poor people who can't just drive over to Wal-Mart and spring for a $300 safe.
-
Yes, we do. We just don't have a separate statute for it. It's a tort issue and is addressed in case law. I'm not sure what the case law is for firearms, but it should be worked out as a matter of common law (case by case).
I'm all for holding gun owners responsible for not taking reasonable measures to secure their weapons, I just don't think a new statute will help.
What it does is exactly what Chris suggested: it makes it easier for plaintiff's attorneys to make out their prima facie case for negligence. The explicit language in the bill would allow attorneys to argue that leaving a firearm unsecured is negligence per se (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence_per_se"), something that offers a major shortcut for lawyers trying to prove all the elements of a negligence claim (i.e., duty, breach, causation, and damages).
-
This is what we get when self-serving lawyers are elected to craft the laws that govern the citizens.
No offense to any attorneys here... ;)
-
This is what we get when self-serving lawyers are elected to craft the laws that govern the citizens.
No offense to any attorneys here... ;)
As an attorney, I hereby absolve you! :)
The same is true for "self-serving" anything, and of course it is true for the altruistic do-gooders, too. This is why government needs to be drastically reduced from it current bloated size. There should be a lot fewer laws and lot more reliance on free market solutions.
-
Yep, plus this will have a disproportionate effect on poor people who can't just drive over to Wal-Mart and spring for a $300 safe.
The words "safe" and "$300" cannot be used in the same sentence...
66bigblock
-
The words "safe" and "$300" cannot be used in the same sentence...
66bigblock
Meh. No protective measure is so secure that a determined person couldn't eventually bypass it. If you have enough goodies to warrant spending lots of money on a safe, good for you.
-
Brad Ashford's Bill ... here are the affected laws:
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1204 (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1204)
28-1204. Unlawful possession of a handgun; exceptions; penalty.
(1) Any person under the age of eighteen years who possesses a handgun commits the offense of unlawful possession of a handgun.
(2) This section does not apply to the issuance of handguns to members of the armed forces of the United States, active or reserve, National Guard of this state, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, when on duty or training, or to the temporary loan of handguns for instruction under the immediate supervision of a parent or guardian or adult instructor.
(3) Unlawful possession of a handgun is a Class I misdemeanor.
and
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1204.01 (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1204.01)
Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1204.01
Revised Statutes » Chapter 28 » 28-1204.01
Unlawful transfer of a firearm to a juvenile; exceptions; penalty; county attorney; duty.
(1) Any person who knowingly and intentionally does or attempts to sell, provide, loan, deliver, or in any other way transfer the possession of a firearm to a juvenile commits the offense of unlawful transfer of a firearm to a juvenile. The county attorney shall have a copy of the petition served upon the owner of the firearm, if known, in person or by registered or certified mail at his or her last-known address.
(2) This section does not apply to the transfer of a firearm, other than a handgun, to a juvenile:
(a) From a person related to such juvenile within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity if the transfer of physical possession of such firearm does not occur until such time as express permission has been obtained from the juvenile's parent or guardian;
(b) For a legitimate and lawful sporting purpose; or
(c) Who is under direct adult supervision in an appropriate educational program.
(3) This section applies to the transfer of a handgun except as specifically provided in subsection (2) of section 28-1204.
(4) Unlawful transfer of a firearm to a juvenile is a Class III felony.
Brad Ashford's change, LB50, is as follows:
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB50.pdf (http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB50.pdf)
Section 1. Section 28-101, Revised Statutes Cumulative
Supplement, 2012, is amended to read:
2
3 28-101 Sections 28-101 to 28-1356 and section 2 of this
4 act shall be known and may be cited as the Nebraska Criminal Code.
5 Sec. 2. Any person nineteen years of age or older in
6 possession of a firearm shall be subject to liability for civil
7 damages if such person unreasonably leaves the firearm in a place in
8 which a person under the age of nineteen years or a mentally
9 incompetent person may take possession of it. This section does not
10 apply to firearm activities in which a person under the age of
11 nineteen years or a mentally incompetent person may otherwise
12 lawfully engage in, while being supervised by a person nineteen years
13 of age or older and not mentally incompetent, such as, but not
14 limited to, hunting and target shooting.
15 Sec. 3. Original section 28-101, Revised Statutes
16 Cumulative Supplement, 2012, is repealed.
Except for the age discrepancy (19 instead of 18), it makes an adult liable to civil damages if they allow the firearms in their home to come into the possession of a juvenile without adult supervision.
This implies that that both handguns and long guns have to be concealed out of their reach or locked up. A trigger lock would not do because the juvenile only has to "take possession", even if the gun is not operable. A sure-fire solution would be to forbid any person under the age of 19 years from entering your home.
The law does not distinguish between a handgun or a long gun. It appears to me that the Class III felony penalty carries over from the 28-1204.01 law. If a kid in your house got his hands on a gun and you were accused under LB50 and convicted you'd be a convicted felon and unable to possess firearms or a hold a CCW permit. It would also give "ammo" to a mad ex-significant other to claim that your/their child was waving your gun around without your knowledge. If a kid was hurt or hurt someone else with a gun you left exposed you'd be exposed to civil lawsuits even if you weren't convicted of violating LB50.
The law would certainly remove the "instant access" capability which is probably the major reason why you would want to have a handgun at home for protection from home invasion. Perhaps a vault with a rapid bio-metric lock using either a print or retinal scan? Expensive! Conceal carry inside your home? Even in bed?
I keep my handgun locked in a mini gun vault in a location my grandchildren can't access. And, they don't know of its existence or location. Not even their parents know. I live in a section of town where home invasion has never been a problem and I don't anticipate any changes in that trend any time soon. But, if I lived where I used to live this law would be a concern if my grandchildren visited, as they often did.
CitizenClark can correct me if I have interpreted these laws and LB50 wrongly.
-
Meh. No protective measure is so secure that a determined person couldn't eventually bypass it. If you have enough goodies to warrant spending lots of money on a safe, good for you.
"All a safe can do is buy you some time." is the best quote I've heard about the subject.
Given sufficient time and privacy, most anybody with common tools can break into even the most expensive safes.
-
Jim, that's true but it's not an excuse to not use one. A safe, even a basic RSC can deter someone from trying.
-
"All a safe can do is buy you some time." is the best quote I've heard about the subject.
And it also will cost me time....precious time I can't afford in a life and death situation.
We need to kill this bill........again....using probably the same arguments against his last storage bill (unconstitutional b.c of Supreme Court ruling, prevents self defense etc.)
-
Jim, that's true but it's not an excuse to not use one. A safe, even a basic RSC can deter someone from trying.
This maxim is also true:
If you want less of a thing or behavior, you make it more expensive, hazardous and inconvenient.
People of limited means will be further deterred from owning a gun if they are subject to such liability issues, and further security requirements that cost as much as, or more, than the gun itself.
-
So using Ashford's flawed logic and continuing the thought process...
IF someone steals/car-jacks a vehicle and then harms someone with it, that would be the owners fault?
IF someone breaks into a home, steals a hammer and beats a neighbor: that wuld be the homeowners fault?
I could go on...
He's just another lawyer without basic reasoning skills. His conclusion and entire premise of his bill is again completely wrong and should be easily disqualified.
-
He's just another lawyer without basic reasoning skills. His conclusion and entire premise of his bill is again completely wrong and should be easily disqualified.
There is nothing wrong with his reasoning skills: he's just not working to solve the problem you think he is (hint- it's not the problem he says he is trying to solve, either. You and I don't even see it as a problem.......)
"It's not that (he's) ignorant- It is just that he knows so much that just isn't so." -Ronald Reagan (paraphrased)
-
Well I think we can safely say Gun free zones are sure not the answer to keeping them safe.
Maybe Modifying laws to allow for concealed carry Holders to carry in those Zones is one step closer to a solution.
I completely agree. My personal opinion is the NRA and others are making a mistake by calling for "more guns in school" because to the sheeple guns are evil so of course they don't want that. But if the position was simply to ban the "gun free zones" to allow law abiding citizens to carry everywhere then it would be an easier sell. Then teachers/parents/janitors or whoever that chooses to exercise their God given right is allowed to.
I roll my eyes every time I see an article about "arming teachers" touting how us crazy gun nuts want to force Mrs. Molly to go through gun training and carry a desert eagle in front of all the children.
-
Regardless of Ashford's bill and its attempt to infringe the 2nd Amendment by legislating stiff penalties for accidents, which is a bare naked attempt to scare people out of having guns in their homes, or even owning them, I made my own personal decision to use a biometric gun safe to store my handgun in. When my two grandsons, 6 and 11, come over I don't want them to be able to have access to the gun, accidentally or not, if I take my eyes off of them or become distracted. Boys those age are very adventuresome.
With a biometric gun safe access to the gun is very quick. If 3 seconds is too long of a time then the only way you could have quicker access is if you carried it on your person at all times while you are in your home or in bed.
How times have changed. When I was twelve I owned a BB gun and a short time later a .20 Sheridan BlueStreak air rifle. I rode my bike to outlying rural areas, guns strapped on my back, to go hunting and target shooting. I was never stopped once. No one hysterically called the police shouting "gun!". Even when I was in HS in the late 1950s it was not uncommon to see pickup trucks with guns in gun racks in the back window. .22's, 30-30's, even .270s and 30-06's. Lots of people kept handguns in their glove compartment. That was in the suburbs called Englewood, on the South edge of Denver. Today, someone might ask "didn't they get stolen by crooks?". Some did, no doubt, but guns were widely available and affordable, there were no background checks, no waiting period, no permits necessary, so stealing wasn't necessary. Just walk into a Sporting Goods store, plunk down your money and buy anything in the store. Leave as anonymously as you arrived. It was a Constitutional Right and no one was going to challenge you. As I said before, when I was 16 or 17 I took a bus to Dave Cook's Sporting Goods store in downtown Denver and purchased two M1-Garands when they were released to surplus. Took them home on a bus. No one even raised an eyebrow or took a sideways glance. You never knew who had a small handgun in their pocket, and many did. That's why crime was so low, criminals would not risk being shot so most crimes were against property, not people. Criminals who did abuse the use of a gun were the only ones punished for it, NOT the general population of gun owners.
If you think the present struggle is about the 2nd Amendment, you are sadly mistaken. It is not only the 2nd Amendment that is being threatened, it is the ENTIRE Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Toss in the Declaration of Independence while you are at it because it states the reason why the 2nd Amendment is unalienable -- Rights are given by God, not the State. Many of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, they were Deists, so this isn't a "Christian" issue.
Most of those who are attacking the Constitution do not believe in it or God, but they have an unalienable belief in Socialism and their most fervent wish is that the US would become a Socialist State submitting to the rule of the United Nations. That cannot happen as long as the Law of our land is the Constitution. To destroy the Constitution they MUST first destroy the 2nd Amendment so that they can confiscate the guns. If you think that the current struggle is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill you misunderstand the struggle and have put yourself on a slippery slope. You can see the slope working now. Giving in to past "be reasonable" arguments people who believed that the 2nd Amendment should not be infringed did not fight hard enough to prevent infringement. Now, we are being asked to "be reasonable" again, by submitting to further infringements. Being "reasonable" we let the Socialist take two steps toward confiscation and then, "being reasonable". the Socialists give back one step. That's how you lose money in Las Vegas, and that is how we are now on the brink of losing the 2nd Amendment WITHOUT a Constitutional amendment being offered, discussed or passed. New York Socialists say they "protected" the 2nd Amendment by not confiscating the guns. They also know that their bans and other obviously silly measures, all of which have been tried in the past and have failed miserably, will fail again. They are counting on it. The next time there is a mass shooting, and there will be another one because the media is glorifying them to encourage the insane to repeat the acts, Socialists will demand gun confiscation as "the only way to be sure people are safe because we've tried banning and it didn't work". "Be reasonable" this time and you might as well sell your gun to the next sucker who doesn't keep up on the news, because it will be confiscated.
After confiscation shootings will continue or even increase because those who don't obey laws, that's why they are called criminals, and the insane, who are not necessarily stupid, will know they won't encounter any weapons being held by law abiding citizens, but cries to re-establish the 2nd Amendment will fall on deaf ears. The reason is simple. Now, it is estimated that around 50% of Americans depend on a check from the government for their subsistence. They know that Conservatives, folks who support the 2nd Amendment, are not in favor of massive dependency on government, so they will continue to vote into office the folks who bribe them with the most "benefits". However, you have noticed that all of the Socialist elites have used, or are using guns to protect themselves or their loved ones, so they don't even believe their own arguments. They are only wanting to create a Socialist State. You can tell who they are by how they honor their own sworn oath to "protect, preserve and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic". They are, by their own defining actions, domestic enemies of the Constitution.
Two rules apply:
1) Those who are powerful enough to give you everything you need are powerful enough to take everything you have.
2) Power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Those who own the guns have the power and make the rules.
Freedom in America is fighting for its life and a large segment of the population doesn't seem to care. The question is, "Do enough care?" I hope so.
By the way. If you consider the number of people being subsidized today against the massive and growing debt and then realize that the US has been funding their 24/7/365 printing of money by taking advantage of the Dollar's status as a World Reserve Currency (at one time the ONLY WRC), you'll understand that we have, in affect, been exporting our debt to other countries because they were forced to do business on the world markets by first exchanging their money into Dollars, thus buying, in effect, our debt. They got tired of that and the BRICS (Britain, Russia, India, China, South Africa) started doing business among themselves using their own currency. Now, other countries are joining them -- France, Japan and other countries. Sometime this year the Dollar will lose it status as a WRC and from that time on the only effect of the continued printing of the US Dollar will be to inflate our own economy. This will give the Socialist an excuse to institutionalize a Command & Control Economy. Welcome to the USSR, where you pretend to work and the government pretends to pay you, and you stand in long lines waiting for hours for a loaf of bread.
-
Great Post, Grey....
...though i have one quibble: most of the folk in charge do not believe in Socialism- it's just a convenient vehichle to put/keep them in power.
The same can be said of those in charge in both major political parties in this country: they don't so much believe in the values of the party as they believe that they need to stay in power.
-
I disagree with the premise behind Ashford's proposed legislation, but in practice I would encourage anyone with firearms to do whatever they can to secure them against theft, intentional, or accidental misuse.
I believe that if you own a firearm, you assume some responsibility to try and keep in out of the wrong hands.
If gun owners don't do the right thing on their own, then someone is going to try and legislate it.
No, it is never possible to absolutely secure everything we own, but owners should make a reasonable attempt to do so.
-
While I'm not a lawyer and perhaps do not understand all of the nuances and verbage in each new proposed law, could I suggest that we possibly make a start on the issue by APPLYING the penalties past laws name for violations? I once had the displeasure of sitting through an entire morning session in Douglas Co. Court and saw at least half a dozen cases roll through where the firearm possession charge was tossed away to get the plea.
One was pulled over for outstanding drug possession warrant, found in possession of additional drugs and an unlicensed firearm, stolen goods, unplated vehicle, no insurance... Sentence? 90 days jail, 30 to be served as in-house drug treatment, fines and court cost..... If I had not been sitting there I would never have believed it.
-
If gun owners don't do the right thing on their own, then someone is going to try and legislate it.
I think legal gun owners do Secure them .....But "a Lock only keeps an honest person honest"
If someone truly wants in they will find away if they have enough time.
But Ashford wants to make my 17 year old daughter a criminal if she should for some reason need one of my or my adult son's guns to protect herself if (god forbid) a intruder try's or does breaks in to our home while I'm away.
He would turn her into a defenceless victim
And I still want to know how you can make sure anyone isn't a mentally incompetent person?
If you use your weapon to defend yourself will they then try to say that you are a mentally incompetent person for defending your self or family ?
-
audio of the public hearing at the judiciary committee for this bill (LB50) available for listening here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8y6wkk14a2wy1lx/LB50_audio.wma (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8y6wkk14a2wy1lx/LB50_audio.wma)
will be deleted in two weeks.