Improvements in NE gun laws I'd like to see

[jFader]

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.

I motion that we form a special legislative committee to look into this well thought out plan! 

[SS_N_NE]

I think the government has a moral duty to make sure that its citizens have sufficient ammo to maintain the skills

That sounds like Nanny State talk. Some of us make our own. Can't expect government to do everything for you.

[depserv]

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.

Maybe we can get Sandra Fluke's cousin from Arkansas, Billy Bob Fluke, to come and testify before the Nebraska legislature about how horrible it is for us to have to pay for our own ammo.  That request is actually more in line with our law than Sandra's was, since the federal Constitution does say that Congress can provide for training the militia.  Which means I guess that Billy Bob should be testifying in Washington.  But he might start in Nebraska anyway.  As high as our taxes are here you'd think they'd have some money to make a wholesale order for the patriots living among us.

I have a question for those who know our state law better than I do: I know we have a preemption law but I don't know how far it extends.  For example, is it illegal for a city to outlaw something like switchblades?  If the law does not extend to something like that then the law should be strengthened so that it does.  Every illegal infringement creates a flaw in the armor of freedom, and should be corrected.

[bullit]

I for along time thought we should push hard for Civil Liability remedy in the event a defensive shooting was deemed "righteous" by the Grand Jury or Criminal court.  Alas, I was reading Mitch Vilos new book, Self Defense Laws of all 50 States (WHICH EVERY GUN OWNER SHOULD BUY AND READ THOROUGHLY !!!!).  According to his interpretation and research of Neb Rev. St 28-1416 sec 1-2 provides such as of July 18, 2012.  Wowee.... I must has been asleep.  NOW, if I didn't miss something AND anyone here feels he is WRONG, please let me know.  He has requested contact to make certain his text remains accurate. 

[Dan W]

My reading of the section in question, the authors footnotes state

"Even though you may be innocent in a criminal trial on the theory of self defense, it doesn't necessarily shield you from a lawsuit for money damages if you injure or kill someone in a defensive incident"

So I am not following your reasoning on this...

~  read it at the link ~    http://tinyurl.com/knhycdg

[bullit]

That is the First Edition released in 2010.  See 2nd Edition released in 2013.

[bullit]

(2) The justification defenses provided for under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 shall be available in any civil action for assault and battery or intentional wrongful death and, where applicable shall be a bar to recovery. (A person who is justified under Nebraska’s criminal statutes on grounds of self-defense or defense of others is also immune from damages in a civil case brought by the person he injured or the heirs of a person he killed in self-defense. This new civil immunity statute went into effect on July 18, 2012)

[Dan W]

Bullit, I apologize, as I realized shortly after I posted that I was not reading the latest edition, but circumstances kept me from making a correction until now.

[bullit]

DanW ....were you aware of this change? Any of the NFOA leadership? CZ?  Like I alluded to earlier I must have slept through 2012. Awesome to see....and was looking for others opinion/confirmation

[Dan W]

We thought that Lathrop's language was kinda weird when it finally was allowed out of committee and passed, so most NFOA advocates did not do cartwheels or even tout the change at all. Perhaps we were wrong to assume( as I did) that Steve Lathrop did not keep his word to NFOA on the civil immunity clause that was passed

[Dan W]

It is really good to see that a legal scholar fluent in self defense legislation views this as a real gain

[RLMoeller]

Dan said it well.    Additionally, we had not found an attorney that wanted to weigh in on what that new language really meant.

In a class I attended earlier this year Mr. James Fleming also interpreted what we have on the books now as civil immunity.

[bullit]

I recall Lathrops actions now....  Me likey ...Now if we could get all of Chap 20 suggestions from Vilos' book codified into law.....

[DanClrk51]

Don't fool yourselves. This:

28-1416 (2) The justification defenses provided for under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 shall be available in any civil action for assault and battery or intentional wrongful death and, where applicable, shall be a bar to recovery.

DOES NOT EQUAL this:

(2) The fact that conduct is justifiable under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 and section 3 of this act abolishes any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action.


We didn't get civil immunity. And if for some reason that convoluted language they passed does prevent certain suits in regards to  assault and battery or intentional wrongful death you will be guaranteed to be sued in regards to other issues such as lost wages, pain and suffering, and whatever else they can come up with.

[bullit]

Don't fool yourselves. This:

28-1416 (2) The justification defenses provided for under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 shall be available in any civil action for assault and battery or intentional wrongful death and, where applicable, shall be a bar to recovery.

DOES NOT EQUAL this:

(2) The fact that conduct is justifiable under sections 28-1406 to 28-1416 and section 3 of this act abolishes any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action.


We didn't get civil immunity. And if for some reason that convoluted language they passed does prevent certain suits in regards to  assault and battery or intentional wrongful death you will be guaranteed to be sued in regards to other issues such as lost wages, pain and suffering, and whatever else they can come up with.

And you base this on ?

[FarmerRick]

I'll believe something that comes out of Sen. Lathrop's mouth just as soon as he donates $1,000,000 to the NFOA.

[bullit]

I'll believe something that comes out of Sen. Lathrop's mouth just as soon as he donates $1,000,000 to the NFOA.

Never trust a lawyer who says "The check is in the mail."

[FarmerRick]

Never trust a lawyer who says "The check is in the mail."

Fixed it for you *.


*NFOA member Attorneys excluded... 

[Husker_Fan]

Fixed it for you *.


*NFOA member Attorneys excluded... 

Well, thanks.

[Husker_Fan]

We didn't get civil immunity. And if for some reason that convoluted language they passed does prevent certain suits in regards to  assault and battery or intentional wrongful death you will be guaranteed to be sued in regards to other issues such as lost wages, pain and suffering, and whatever else they can come up with.

Just to clarify something, lost wages, pain and suffering (which I believe is very limited in NE), and things of that sort are the basis for damage awards. Liability is based on committing a tort (such as assault, batter, wrongful death). Establishing liability means the defendant is responsible. Then you look at lost wages etc. to see how much damage they are responsible for.

If you are exempt from liability for the tort, you never get to the question of damages.