Author Topic: Action Needed: State Wide Preemption - LB289 (Read 16966 times)

TroyR · « **Reply #20 on:** October 26, 2015, 05:24:52 PM »

Agreed that his choice of words doesn't sound like a full support. I'm also skeptical of people's use of the phrase "responsible gun ownership". I know what my version of that means, but it can mean a lot of things depending on your bias.

depserv · « **Reply #21 on:** October 27, 2015, 10:05:52 AM »

I sent an email to Kathy Campbell 5 days ago and haven't received a reply, so I sent the following today:

I sent the following email five days ago and haven't received a reply, so I'm assuming it didn't get through, and am sending it again. As I understand it, this bill will require local governments to obey the law written in our state Constitution, which says this:

"All persons... have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are... 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." (emphasis mine)

We all know what the U.S. Constitution says about the matter, and that has been reinforced by two recent Supreme Court decisions. It is the law, whether or not those who hold political power like it.

This bill of course is consistent with the oath of office all members of our legislature are required to take, which includes the following:

"I, ......................, do solemnly swear that I will support 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..."

Please let me know what your position is on LB289, the statewide preemption bill. If you have any questions about it I can get you all the information you want, or you can get get information from Senator Ebke's office. This is a very important bill that I hope you will support. But please let me know where you stand on it in either case. Thank you.

name, address, etc.

depserv · « **Reply #22 on:** October 27, 2015, 02:00:24 PM »

My second letter got a pretty quick reply (though it's more of a non-reply). Here it is:

"LB 289 was placed on General File (first round of debate) on 3/31/15. It did not come up for debate, I believe because it did not have a priority either from a Senator or Committee. It remains on GF for next year. The bill was heard by the Judiciary Committee; I do not serve on that committee. I read and review all bills that come before the two committees I serve on and then as other bills come up for debate on General File. I have not studied LB 289 nor done additional research as I would on a bill that comes up for debate.

I quickly reviewed the bill and have questions before I would state my position. I will certainly retain your email in the bill's file and keep in mind your comments. Thanks for taking time to write, Kathy"

tstuart34 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 27, 2015, 04:54:37 PM »

Ken Harr is a NO. His reply from from his administrative assistant.

Quote

Thank you for writing in and sharing your reasons for supporting LB289. Senator Haar is not in favor of this bill, and will vote against it. He feels that local control, in this case, is more important.

Thank you for expressing your opinion on this matter.

Sincerely,
Julie Diegel, AA
jdiegel@leg.ne.gov

Any pointers on how to respond if I even should? Writing to politicians is not my strong suit.

cftj · « **Reply #24 on:** October 27, 2015, 04:55:04 PM »

I got the same form letter

Senator Haar, district 21

Thank you for sharing your position on LB289. Senator Haar is not in favor of this bill, as he feels local control is more important on this issue.

Your opinions are respected and appreciated.

Sincerely,
Julie Diegel, AA

NE Bull · « **Reply #25 on:** October 27, 2015, 05:16:08 PM »

Quote from: cftj on October 27, 2015, 04:55:04 PM

I got the same form letter

Senator Haar, district 21

Thank you for sharing your position on LB289. Senator Haar is not in favor of this bill, as he feels local control is more important on this issue.

Your opinions are respected and appreciated.

Sincerely,
Julie Diegel, AA

^And thats why we MUST support Mike Hilgers in the coming election. He lost but by a relatively few votes to the incumbent Haar last time. The year will be an empty seat, so either an easy win or hard fought against an unknown.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

tstuart34 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 27, 2015, 05:33:24 PM »

Quote from: NE Bull on October 27, 2015, 05:16:08 PM

^And thats why we MUST support Mike Hilgers in the coming election. He lost but by a relatively few votes to the incumbent Haar last time. The year will be an empty seat, so either an easy win or hard fought against an unknown.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

Not sure I was in the district the last election and honestly didn't pay attention like I do now. Can you message me with some contact info or point me in the direction of finding it?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

RLMoeller · « **Reply #27 on:** October 27, 2015, 05:33:50 PM »

Quote from: tstuart34 on October 27, 2015, 04:54:37 PM

Ken Harr is a NO. His reply from from his administrative assistant.

Any pointers on how to respond if I even should? Writing to politicians is not my strong suit.

Might ask him about the authority granted to cities by the state. Does he have an issue with cities exceeding that authority? This bill is reigning in those cities that have exceeded that authority. I have more on that topic, but that is enough to respond with for now.

NE Bull · « **Reply #28 on:** October 27, 2015, 08:45:07 PM »

Quote from: tstuart34 on October 27, 2015, 05:33:24 PM

Not sure I was in the district the last election and honestly didn't pay attention like I do now. Can you message me with some contact info or point me in the direction of finding it?

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

http://www.mikehilgers.com/
And keep an eye on the PAF FB Page, I'll post info as things progress.

tstuart34 · « **Reply #29 on:** October 27, 2015, 08:55:22 PM »

Quote from: NE Bull on October 27, 2015, 08:45:07 PM

http://www.mikehilgers.com/
And keep an eye on the PAF FB Page, I'll post info as things progress.

Thank you! Will do.

Just goggled his adress he actually lives about mile away or so. I will have to watch for him walking around
Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

tstuart34 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 27, 2015, 08:59:25 PM »

Quote from: RLMoeller on October 27, 2015, 05:33:50 PM

Might ask him about the authority granted to cities by the state. Does he have an issue with cities exceeding that authority? This bill is reigning in those cities that have exceeded that authority. I have more on that topic, but that is enough to respond with for now.

I will do that. Thank you.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Husker_Fan · « **Reply #31 on:** October 28, 2015, 02:54:58 PM »

Mike is good guy. I've been on both sides of legal issues with him and have been impressed with him as both an adversary and when working on the same side.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RLMoeller · « **Reply #32 on:** October 28, 2015, 03:23:13 PM »

Quote from: Husker_Fan on October 28, 2015, 02:54:58 PM

Mike is good guy. I've been on both sides of legal issues with him and have been impressed with him as both an adversary and when working on the same side.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had a great conversation with him last year when he was running for AG. I was pleased with some of his ideas. Of course you hear a lot of things when someone is running for office, but these were not the usual talking points and were unsolicited.

ILoveCats · « **Reply #33 on:** October 28, 2015, 09:47:37 PM »

E-mail sent to Kate Bolz (District 29).

She came around door-to-door this summer and I spoke with her about this bill for quite some time. I emphasized the point that tourism is big business in Lincoln, but most of that is not what you usually think of when you say "tourism". It's not a bunch of visitors flying in from out of state to visit the National Museum of Roller Skating. No, it's intra-state travel and tourism for sporting events, business conferences, state FFA convention, etc. etc. A lot of Lincoln residents have friends and relatives from Out West coming into the Big City throughout the year, and when those visitors are here in town they love to shop. But they could go to Scheels, buy a new hunting shotgun, leave it safely locked in their car trunk over the weekend, and unintentionally run afoul of the city ordinance. Somehow that's supposed to make us all safer?

Anyway, Kate seemed really receptive face-to-face. I'm hoping I can get a positive response in writing.

gsd · « **Reply #34 on:** October 29, 2015, 06:19:07 PM »

Needless to say, Matt Hansen won't be getting a vote from me anytime in the near future:

Thank you for sharing your support for LB289. I certainly understand the dilemma this places on responsible gun owners.

However, I believe that cities and villages should have the power to regulate themselves above what is required by state law. For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters.

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 call our office at (402) 471-2610.

Sincerely,

State Senator Matt Hansen
District 26, State Capitol
PO Box 94604
Lincoln, NE 68509
mhansen@leg.ne.gov

gsd · « **Reply #35 on:** October 30, 2015, 09:16:29 AM »

Taking some time to collect my thoughts, I submitted this response to Mr. Hansen this morning:

Sir,

Primarily, thank you for you reply.

So I am to take from this that you are in favor of allowing municipalities the authority to legislate and regulate legal firearm owners as they see fit? I do have an issue with that course of action, and I will explain my stance regarding that:

A state facility has more than enough right, (without being granted powers by the municipality in which it resides) to restrict by rote the possession if deadly weapons inside it's facility. This very principle is evidenced by the private stores and other facilities that do not allow possession of said items. In respect for those facilities, those of us who are lawfully licensed holders of the Nebraska Concealed handgun Permit do not enter those facilities.

The "One State, One Law" principle to me, a voting constituent, means that if enacted, I am able to visit my friends in another city within this great state, and not fear prosecution for violating a "city ordinance" I was not aware of.

In closing, if you plan to vote against LB289, please inform me so that I may explore other avenues of adequate representation.

Thank You,
gsd

GreggL · « **Reply #36 on:** October 30, 2015, 10:03:51 AM »

Matt Hanson uses this example of why not to support LB289:

Quote

For instance, Lancaster county has prohibited the possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in domestic violence or substance abuse facilities or shelters.

Yet in the case of those convicted of domestic violence, they are already prohibited by law from possessing firearms. So, the real result of this municipal legislation is to disarm victims of domestic violence, reduce there ability to defend themselves and assure their abusers they will be met with minimal resistance.

This type of legislation seems designed to give criminals the upper hand over law abiding citizens.

RLMoeller · « **Reply #37 on:** October 30, 2015, 10:56:11 AM »

This is good info. Keep the dialog going with these senators and keep pushing for support of LB289 or further information on their position.

Everyone else, if you haven't seen your senator mentioned in this thread please reach out to them. Give the office a call and write them.

TroyR · « **Reply #38 on:** October 30, 2015, 01:32:02 PM »

No reply from Kolowski yet time for a follow up message to him.

Lmbass14 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 30, 2015, 03:15:10 PM »

Quote from: gsd on October 30, 2015, 09:16:29 AM

Taking some time to collect my thoughts, I submitted this response to Mr. Hansen this morning:

In closing, if you plan to vote against LB289, please inform me so that I may explore other avenues of adequate representation.

Thank You,
gsd

Dave, gotta love that closing. Great job.

Just got this from Sen. Jim Smith

Thank you for your interest in this issue. While I have not reviewed LB 289 in detail, I am generally in favor of measures like this that would strengthen Second Amendment rights in Nebraska. LB 289 has advanced out of the Judiciary Committee and will likely be considered by the full Legislature during the 2016 session, which begins in January. I look forward to learning more about this legislation as it's discussed on the floor of the Legislature.

Again, I appreciate you contacting me and taking the time to engage in the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Jim Smith