Improvements in NE gun laws I'd like to see

[farmerbob]

This may be a useful analogy:   I read in another forum about a bearded-weirdo hippie type hanging out in a California gun store then confronting every ammo / bullet buyer about whether they were aware that lead is killing the California Condor.   If you were the gun store owner would you say Hippie Guy's first amendment rights trumped your rights to throw him off your private property?

That seems to be an individual thrown out do to bad behavior, I think we are talking about not allowing an entire group of people for exercising their rights guaranteed by the constitution.

If you said no hippies in your business, it might be infringing, might be sued, look at what happened when someone didn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple. (Just saying)

Does it state in the constitution you have the right to be gay or a hippie??? I can show you exactly where it says shall not be infringed.

[DR4NRA]

This may be a useful analogy:   I read in another forum about a bearded-weirdo hippie type hanging out in a California gun store then confronting every ammo / bullet buyer about whether they were aware that lead is killing the California Condor.   If you were the gun store owner would you say Hippie Guy's first amendment rights trumped your rights to throw him off your private property?

Depends if the signage is right!!!!!

[DR4NRA]

That seems to be an individual thrown out do to bad behavior, I think we are talking about not allowing an entire group of people for exercising their rights guaranteed by the constitution.

If you said no hippies in your business, it might be infringing, might be sued, look at what happened when someone didn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple. (Just saying)

Does it state in the constitution you have the right to be gay or a hippie??? I can show you exactly where it says shall not be infringed.

No, but the Declaration of Independence does, which predates the constitution.

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...

Guess what ever makes you happy.

[DenmanShooter]

No, but the Declaration of Independence does, which predates the constitution.

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...

Guess what ever makes you happy.

In Jefferson's mind, and that of the framers, "the pursuit of happiness" had nothing to do with temporary pleasure, but rather with owning property and all that comes with it.

Just an FYI

[CitizenClark]

Our right to carry is a basic civil right, can you name any other civil rights private property owners aren't allowed to discriminate against bullit??? (I can think of several)

Like what?

[farmerbob]

Like what?

Race
sex
disabilities
national origins
religious beliefs

I carry everyday, this is who I am, this what I do, every time I see one of these signs I fill like I am discriminated against.

[Mntnman]

Race
sex
disabilities
national origins
religious beliefs

I carry everyday, this is who I am, this what I do, every time I see one of these signs I fill like I am discriminated against.

Actually, you can discriminate who can use your business. I know recent rulings fly in the face of that, but, the truth is the truth. Segregation was not legal because it was mandated by law.

[DR4NRA]

In Jefferson's mind, and that of the framers, "the pursuit of happiness" had nothing to do with temporary pleasure, but rather with owning property and all that comes with it.

Just an FYI




Wow, so now it was all about land ownership? Seems to me it was about getting rid of tyranny and creating a new government.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[depserv]

So how does all this improve gun laws in our state?  We can get involved so deeply in arguing about this or that tree that we lose sight of the forest.  We have property rights and we have a right to bear arms; can we all agree on that?  As I understand it, we can decide who comes on our property, as long as wanting someone off our property is not an expression of thoughtcrime, as defined by liberalism, America's official state religion. 

I think we should be aggressive in ending the illegal edicts that have been imposed by the criminal gang in our statehouse.  Some think we should be timid and careful not to upset those who are ignorant about the issue and are led by anti-gun bigots, but to me that's a losing strategy.  We should approach the issue as ones who have truth and the law on our side, because we do.  And we have the experience of other states that have been obeying the law to base our arguments in.  There is an old saying that the best defense is a good offense, and nowhere is that more true than in politics.

So how could our state laws be stripped of the illegal edicts that corrupt them?

*No permit should be needed to exercise a Constitutional right, especially when an amendment to the preamble of our state constitution reinforces that right.  The law is the law, whether or not Ernie Chambers likes it.  He is no more a king than Obama, and he is not above the law.  And neither is the rest of the state legislature.  If they refuse to obey the law, they are criminals, and citizens should not put up with their lawlessness. 

*If we have no choice but to submit to this illegal licensing system, the license should be a concealed WEAPON permit, not a concealed handgun permit.  making it a handgun only permit is insane, and serves only to give the impression that the permit is bestowing a privilege instead of complying with the written law.  Also, the state has no legal right to make us pay to exercise that right.

*How about this: since we have to prove we are not guilty and pass tests to get this license, let it also be a Class III license.   

*There is no valid reason for there to be a duty to inform; anyone the officer has a reason to fear will not inform him no matter what the law says.  There can be a recommendation that informing the officer is a nice thing to do, but it should not be a requirement.

*There should be no state-imposed gun free zones, and the state should not cater to anti-gun nitwits by throwing its weight behind their no guns signs.  If certain business owners want to be bigots that's fine; I don't want to do business with them anyway, but the state should not give legitimacy to their intolerance and back it up with its power.

No city or any government entity, including all who act as agents of government, should be able to impose any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that go beyond what the state requires.  That means no laws against things like switchblades.  And no registration, unless a citizens wants to voluntarily register in case of theft.  There should be criminal penalties for those who serve in government that impose on the right to keep and bear arms of any law-abiding citizen.   

Are there any patriots in the new legislature who would be willing to begin an effort to turn our state government into a legal body instead of the criminal gang that it is?     

[farmerbob]

^^^^^^WELL SAID^^^^^^^^^

[whatsit]

Exemption for CHL holders that allows carry on school property.

Picking the kiddos up and having to handle a gun (to disarm and store it) is asking for someone to have an accident in their car... Just saying.

[DanClrk51]

I think most of us would agree that while property rights ought to be respected, the state of Nebraska should not be violating its own constitution by punishing us for exercising our rights. The fact that they can charge us with the crime of carrying a concealed weapon if we walk into a business that has a no gun sign is unconstitutional.

If any law is broken then it would be the one dealing with trespassing, and only then when the property owner has become aware that you have broken one of his/her rules for being allowed on the property and he has asked you to leave and you refuse, forcing him/her to summon Law Enforcement.

Now if we want to argue that carrying arms is a basic part of our right to self defense AND that it follows our person WHEREVER we go AND that it belongs in the category of all other protected classes that someone cannot discriminate against, which is an idea that I do support, we'll have to take it to the courts and perhaps even change the US Constitution. It's not going to be an easy battle though. Many Questions will rise up as to where the limit of that right is: Would airlines/federal govt no longer have the right to restrict firearms on airplanes? Would people be allowed to carry guns into courtrooms or detention facilities, jails and prisons? Etc......And I think more people would probably think that its better to not allow that right to be unlimited if at all support such a right since it would have to trump property rights in every case.

[farmerbob]

^^^^^^+1^^^^^

Our government including the Obama administration and Ernie Chambers are against discrimination, Do you think we that carry could use this to our advantage??? I don't think Chambers would want to discriminate against a minority group of individuals rights, which people with a CHP are, this would be fighting fire with fire which has been used successfully before.

[Larry.K]

Two or three legislative sessions ago, there was a bill introduced to preempt a private company's rules banning the legal possession of an employee's personal sporting property when locked and out of sight in their vehicle while parked on that company's lot.   My understanding is my representative, Mr. Brad A., was instrumental in not allowing this to a vote.  I would like to see this re-introduced and passed, just as several other states nationwide have passed it.

[bullit]

Our government including the Obama administration and Ernie Chambers are against discrimination, Do you think we that carry could use this to our advantage???

Pigment of skin my friend ... pigment of skin .... Senator Soul Glo has no intention of helping a white honky cracker .... period

[farmerbob]

That's the first time this cracker played the race card, looks like I should of just folded my hand when I was ahead.

[grumpy old man]

Things I would like to see in Nebraska.  Will some of these be against federal law maybe but its things I would like to see!

 1- Constitutional Carry!  open and/or Concealed.  No test, no payment, no fingerprinting, no background checks.  If you want a CHP because you will carry to other states fine pay for the class but in Nebraska everyone can carry.

2- Legal age of 18 to purchase & carry. Its amazing to me the government gave me a 60 ton tank to shoot at 18 but I couldn't buy a handgun?  WTF!!

3- CARRY EVERYWHERE PERIOD!  schools, colleges, universities, churches, bars EVERWHERE!

4- No city or county can institute a stricter law than whats on the book.  IE OMAHA

[OnTheFly]

Things I would like to see in Nebraska.  Will some of these be against federal law maybe but its things I would like to see!

4- No city or county can institute a stricter law than whats on the book.  IE OMAHA

In regards to CC, we already have #4.  Had to get two bills passed to make Omaha and a few others comply, but it is done.  Or maybe you were speaking of gun laws in general?

Fly

[Airborne]

Things I would like to see in Nebraska.  Will some of these be against federal law maybe but its things I would like to see!

 1- Constitutional Carry!  open and/or Concealed.  No test, no payment, no fingerprinting, no background checks.  If you want a CHP because you will carry to other states fine pay for the class but in Nebraska everyone can carry.

2- Legal age of 18 to purchase & carry. Its amazing to me the government gave me a 60 ton tank to shoot at 18 but I couldn't buy a handgun?  WTF!!

3- CARRY EVERYWHERE PERIOD!  schools, colleges, universities, churches, bars EVERWHERE!

4- No city or county can institute a stricter law than whats on the book.  IE

Agreed

[Husker_Fan]

My wish list is similar to last years:

1) Explicit statewide preemption. We need to abolish Omaha's and Lincoln's pointless registration policies that countless people violate everyday without even knowing it.

2) Change the no-gun provision for businesses. If you open a business to the public, then CHP holders should be able to carry unless told otherwise. If they don't comply, charge them with trespassing. That balances the property rights of the owners while not putting a CHP holder in jeopardy of committing a gun crime by failing to see a poorly displayed sign.

3) Expand the Welfare State. With .22 so scarce and the experience of the recent ammo scares, I think the government has a moral duty to make sure that its citizens have sufficient ammo to maintain the skills so "necessary to the security of a free state." Accordingly, Nebraska should issue "ammo stamps" to all residents redeemable for two boxes of practice ammo every month.

Ok, maybe the last one isn't a deal breaker.