Action Needed: State Wide Preemption - LB289

[RLMoeller]

Jeremy is spot on.  Personal stories make all the difference.   One of our members actually made some great progress with Krist last evening.  They spoke for a half hour and the call ended much better than it began. 

[Trump]

My email to Heath Mello. No response in 2 days and don't expect one since he's term limited.

Dear Senator Mello,

I am a constituent in your district and was wondering if you will be supporting LB289?  I work in Papillion and need to travel there six days a week at 3:00 am. After the Andrea Kruger murder, I would like to carry my handgun to work for my protection as do not want to be a victim of stopping at a stop sign and being drug out of my vehicle and executed. Living in Omaha prevents me from doing so without jumping through hoops and costing me well over $200 to do so, or by locking my handgun unloaded in a case for the 1.4 miles to get me south of Q street. Why do my constitutional rights of defending myself end at the Omaha city limits? The Omaha Mayor and City Prosecutor both have gone on record stating Omaha's ordinance has done nothing to prevent gun violence and it never will. Was Nikko Jenkin's  weapons registered with the city? Did he have the Omaha open carry permit in his wallet? Please support LB289 as is, which will stop making criminals of honest law abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves from the evil that lurks in our community.
 

[Famous556]

Very well written trump!

[bradhaas]

I just called Sen. Mello's office to give my opinion again and ask whether my emails were received.  The lady I spoke with said my email was "starred for response."  I can't wait.

Prior to reading the OWH article I actually hadn't realized Omaha's minimum age for possession of a handgun is 21 versus Nebraska's 18.

Dropping the age to 18 would hamper Omaha’s efforts to combat criminal gangs and institute a “dangerous public policy,” Wells said.

“Frankly, the proposed changes arguably come across not so much as pro-gun, but pro-gang,” he wrote.

I can see where he's coming from... why wait to arrest a "gang member" until he actually commits a crime?  Better to go ahead and put "gang members" behind bars ahead of time, for the crimes we all know they're going to commit in the future.  After all, they're "gang members."  They don't know how to do anything else, besides commit crime.  Come to think of it, Omaha should probably make voting age 21 too, so "gang members" don't start affecting government.

Another point the anti-289 senators brought up repeatedly was that Omaha and Lincoln face problems that the rest of the state don't have.  Well, why stop at city limits?  I'm pretty sure that Districts 5, 11, and 13 in Omaha face problems that the rest of the city doesn't have.  So maybe we should have handgun restrictions in those portions of Omaha only, the ones with high populations of "gang members."

(Does this forum have a sarcasm font?)

I'm a tiny bit surprised Sen. Chambers didn't jump all over that BS from Wells when Sen. Mello read it.

[DanClrk51]

The cloture vote has failed! We fell one vote short of breaking Ernie's filibuster. The bill is now dead.

The results were: For cloture...32 (to end debate and vote to send to Select File)
                             Against Cloture...10
                             Not Voting...6

We needed 33 votes for cloture in order to end debate and move to a vote on whether to advance the bill to the next stage (Select File).

How the Senators voted:


Against Cloture: 10

Senator Campbell  (GOP)
Senator Chambers (INDEPENDENT)
Senator Cook (DEM)
Senator Haar (DEM)
Senator Hadley (GOP)
Senator Hansen (DEM)
Senator Burke Harr (DEM)
Senator Howard (DEM)
Senator Krist (GOP)
Senator Sullivan (DEM)

Not Voting: 6

Senator Baker (GOP)
Senator Coash (GOP)
Senator Kolowski (DEM)
Senator Mello (DEM)
Senator Morfeld (DEM)
Senator Pansing-Brooks (DEM)

The senators that voted against cloture were primarily responsible for the death of this bill and those who didn't vote are also somewhat responsible for the death of the bill.

All others who voted for cloture were at least willing to give the bill more time and work in order to get something passed.
Voting for Cloture: 32

Senator Bloomfield (GOP)
Senator Bolz (DEM)
Senator Brasch (GOP)
Senator Craighead (GOP)
Senator Crawford (DEM)
Senator Davis (GOP)
Senator Ebke (GOP)
Senator Fox (GOP)
Senator Friesen (GOP)
Senator Garrett (GOP)
Senator Gloor (GOP)
Senator Groene (GOP)
Senator Hilkemann (GOP)
Senator Hughes (GOP)
Senator Johnson (GOP)
Senator Kintner (GOP)
Senator Kolterman (GOP)
Senator Kuehn (GOP)
Senator Larson (GOP)
Senator Lindstrom (GOP)
Senator McCollister (GOP)
Senator McCoy (GOP)
Senator Murante (GOP)
Senator Riepe (GOP)
Senator Scheer (GOP)
Senator Schilz (GOP)
Senator Schnoor (GOP)
Senator Seiler (GOP)
Senator Smith (GOP)
Senator Stinner (GOP)
Senator Watermeier (GOP)
Senator Williams (GOP)

[NE Bull]

Coash was out of town....

[DanClrk51]

Coash was out of town....

Sigh...

[depserv]

So once again Ernie Chambers and his team of only ten traitors were able to override the democratic process and undermine the law. 

I see my senator, Campbell, is listed as a Republican.  This is a good example of why voters are sick of the RINO wing of that party.  Only a hard core America-hating liberal bigot would join with Chambers in this act of treason, but she calls herself a Republican.  Hopefully this will wake voters up and traitors like her and her RINO comrades can be replaced by loyal Americans.  I'd like to see them in jail, but I'll settle for just seeing them out of power.

[hilowe]

Campbell doesn't matter at this point.  Up against a term limit, if I got my copy/paste off of the Nebraska Legislature webpages correct.  Elected in '08, re-elected in '12 puts her at the term limit.

Just need to make sure that whomever replaces her next year is a 2A supporter.

[ILoveCats]

I see two democrats in the good group, including my district.  That deserves a lot of praise and I'll be sure to e-mail her accordingly.

[HuskerXDM]

Coash was out of town....

Shouldn't have mattered... Baker put in writing, to me, that he was a supporter of 289.  I just emailed him with my 'present but not voting is unacceptable' message.  Coward.

[Phantom]

Got this back  from Senator Sara Howard  (District 9 - Omaha)

Thank you for your email on LB 289 which would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances prohibiting conceal carry.


The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee and the Legislature has begun what will be a protracted debate.  Several members of the Judiciary Committee who voted to advance the bill out of committee have expressed concerns about the bill during floor debate.


The idea of local control is best on various issues is a common argument made in the Legislature.  LB 289 would seem to run counter to that philosophy.  I would expect a healthy debate on its merits and problems.  A majority of the Omaha City Council and the Omaha Police Officers Association have expressed their opposition to LB 289 and their support of local control on this issue.  I take very seriously the views of our law enforcement officers that LB 289 would make their jobs more difficult.  I cannot support LB 289 in its current form which is why I voted to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration.


I also expected similar legislation to prohibit gun free zones near schools, churches and other public areas to raise similar concerns about local control.  In my annual legislative survey of District 9, 65% opposed weakening the gun free zones law with only 30% supporting and the remaining 5% unsure.

I appreciate hearing from you and I will keep your views in mind as we move forward.

Sincerely,


Sara Howard
State Senator

I think she is firmly with Senator Chambers and a "NO" Vote on it!

[bradhaas]

LB 289 which would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances prohibiting conceal carry

Uh...

[Norris]

.

Shouldn't have mattered... Baker put in writing, to me, that he was a supporter of 289.  I just emailed him with my 'present but not voting is unacceptable' message.  Coward.

I called and said basically the same.

[gsd]

Shouldn't have mattered... Baker put in writing, to me, that he was a supporter of 289.  I just emailed him with my 'present but not voting is unacceptable' message.  Coward.

He was at a funeral according to Bill Kintner.

[gsd]

So, I got this email from Mr. Hansen, who is supposed to be my Senator (District 26):

Dear gsd,

Thank you for sharing your support for LB289.

I understand the desire for clarity and uniformity across the state. I was hopeful the body would adopt Senator Morfeld’s amendment that models the federal law addressing these concerns in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the proposed amendment here in Nebraska, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it.

I voted against cloture on LB289 because that compromise was rejected by the bill’s introducer. I further believe that cities and villages should have local control to address specific issues of concern in their community. For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters. The Omaha Police Department felt similarly about provisions that address gang violence in Omaha. I believe this is good policy, and voted to support it.

The views of constituents are very important to our office, so we will keep your information on file.

If you have further questions or concerns, please contact our office at (402) 471-­2610.

And my response:

Mr. Hansen,

I feel you have failed to understand the underlying components of LB289. The entities you made mention of in your response, specifically the "domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters" still retain the ability to ban firearms on their premises. Regarding your statement that the compromise was rejected by Senator Ebke, allow me to explain something. By exempting the cities of Lincoln and Omaha from LB289, Mr. Morfeld's amendment would have effectively rendered LB289 pointless. The point of "One state, One statute" is to apply the Laws of the State, across the State. This bill had nothing to do with gang violence. This bill would have protected law abiding citizens from imprisonment or confiscation on the grounds that they chose to protect themselves while visiting a city that had an obscure registration requirement, or they had a pocket knife that was 1/8 inch longer than allowed by another city's self-imposed length regulations.

Allow me to close this email with one additional point: LB289 would have had no effect on criminals, who by definition, do not obey the laws of this State. Law abiding citizens by definition will acquiesce to the requests of those businesses and installations who request firearms not be present on their property. I am disappointed in your vote against LB289.

A Voting Constituent,

[bennysdad]

So, I got this email from Mr. Hansen, who is supposed to be my Senator (District 26):

Dear gsd,

Thank you for sharing your support for LB289.

I understand the desire for clarity and uniformity across the state. I was hopeful the body would adopt Senator Morfeld’s amendment that models the federal law addressing these concerns in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the proposed amendment here in Nebraska, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it.

I voted against cloture on LB289 because that compromise was rejected by the bill’s introducer. I further believe that cities and villages should have local control to address specific issues of concern in their community. For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters. The Omaha Police Department felt similarly about provisions that address gang violence in Omaha. I believe this is good policy, and voted to support it.

The views of constituents are very important to our office, so we will keep your information on file.

If you have further questions or concerns, please contact our office at (402) 471-­2610.

And my response:

Mr. Hansen,

I feel you have failed to understand the underlying components of LB289. The entities you made mention of in your response, specifically the "domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters" still retain the ability to ban firearms on their premises. Regarding your statement that the compromise was rejected by Senator Ebke, allow me to explain something. By exempting the cities of Lincoln and Omaha from LB289, Mr. Morfeld's amendment would have effectively rendered LB289 pointless. The point of "One state, One statute" is to apply the Laws of the State, across the State. This bill had nothing to do with gang violence. This bill would have protected law abiding citizens from imprisonment or confiscation on the grounds that they chose to protect themselves while visiting a city that had an obscure registration requirement, or they had a pocket knife that was 1/8 inch longer than allowed by another city's self-imposed length regulations.

Allow me to close this email with one additional point: LB289 would have had no effect on criminals, who by definition, do not obey the laws of this State. Law abiding citizens by definition will acquiesce to the requests of those businesses and installations who request firearms not be present on their property. I am disappointed in your vote against LB289.

A Voting Constituent,

I like it, good job.

[mikkojay]

Hey Rod, great interview on KFAB!  Just caught it.  I agree on all points you made.
The thing that gets me is how easy it is for bad laws and regulations to be implemented, VS the incredible amount of time, money, and effort it takes to repeal them.

[f1fanatic]

The official response from Kate Bolz AFTER the bill was killed.

I support the Second Amendment and I believe that we need to protect the ability of law abiding
citizens in Nebraska exercise their second amendment rights statewide. That is the intent of
this bill and I support and respect the goal of creating a clearer and more uniform approach for
law abiding citizens statewide.
I have worked to listen carefully to my constituents on this issue. Among the details of this bill is
one that concerns me greatly: the protection of individuals who are survivors and victims of
domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault. The bill as written would remove existing local
protections for domestic violence shelters and drug rehabilitation centers and would remove
current provisions that prohibit individuals convicted of stalking and sexual assault from
possessing weapons.
I have expressed these concerns to my constituents and to stakeholders on both sides of this
issue. Today, I intend to support LB 289 to create a fairer system for law abiding gun owners.
At the same time, I remain committed to protecting individuals and families targeted by
criminals.
I am committed to working with my constituents, my colleagues, and other stakeholders to find a
pathway forward to both protect the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and to
protect individuals and families vulnerable to domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. If
these legitimate concerns are not adequately addressed, I cannot commit to LB 289 as the
vehicle to achieve our Second Amendment goals moving forward.
I ask my fellow lawmakers to work to achieve policy that works.

[gsd]

So basically, I support it, but I don't. Typical politician.