Omaha oakview mall

[Mudinyeri]

I don't believe either 2 E L O or I argued for gun control ... other than the good kind where you hit what you want to. 

It would seem that many of you are even against the training and qualification currently required to carry concealed. 

If criminals are exempt from training, why shouldn't I be?

Seriously?  Is that an argument for criminal behavior or what? 

Rights have nothing to do with statistics.

News to me!  Statistics are kept on all kinds of things related to our rights.  For instance, we track things like number of guns purchased, number of CCW permits in the state and how many crimes CCW permit holders are involved in.  In fact, one of the crew arguing against me suggested that statistically CCW permit holders were more likely to hit a person more times than LEO's.  So, either statistics apply or they don't.  We can't have it both ways.

Dave, I'm sorry you're so upset.  My only purpose was to conduct a thoughtful and thought-provoking debate. 

[rluening]

News to me!  Statistics are kept on all kinds of things related to our rights.

Uhm... Ok. But what bearing do those statistics have on our rights? By some counts 20 percent of US adults are functionally illiterate. Should that void the First Amendment?

I don't care what a particular statistic may claim to show. Rights can not be infringed without... well... infringing on them. Just because you, I, or the government doesn't like a particular person or group of people doesn't mean we get to start stomping on their rights. Just because Grandma hasn't been to GunSite doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to drop a .38 in her purse. If she's half blind and doesn't bother putting that .38 in a holster, so be it. I'll be the first to admit it's not safe, but until she actually has a negligent discharge we can't do anything about it.

/rl

[2 E L O]

DaveB, there's no mention of speed limits in the constitution.  There's no mention of wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.  There's no mention that requires a car owner to have liability insurance.  The constitution doesn't address standards for sanitation and quality for food production.  But these laws and standards supplement the constitution for the greater good of all people.  

The Constitution is not the end-all, be-all holy grail like so many of you wish it could be...nor was it ever intended to be the comprehensive authority.  If the Constitution was our sole source of standards and laws, our country would be a disaster.

[AAllen]

2ELO correct there is no mention of speed limits, liability insurance, motorcycle helmets ect. in the constitution.  Therefore there is no protected right involved on those things, and I don't see where there is much of an argument that there is an undifined right to those things.  Unless you wish to speak of the right to freely travel about (undifined right that would be considered a right), but requireing insurance or a helmet does not take that ability away from you.  Cann't afford car insurance there are many other forms of travel, including the leather personel carrier that was often freely used by those that could not afford the costs of a horse, the most convienent and fastest mode of travel at the time the Constitution was written.

[Mudinyeri]

I suppose you could say some of the laws that 2 E L O mentioned put limitations on the right to the pursuit of happiness, but that might be a stretch. 

However, more specifically, here are some examples of limitations of the Bill of Rights:

1. You have freedom of speech but you do not have the right to incite panic (yell fire ...) and put the lives of others in danger with your speech.

2. We have the right to freedom of religion, but Mormons are only allowed to legally have one wife.

3. We have the right to freedom of assembly but not for rioting.

4. We have the right to freedom of the press ... unless we print lies.

5. We have the right to keep and bear arms unless we are a felon or have been diagnosed with a mental/psychological disorder.

In each of these cases, our absolute rights are limited to protect the rights and lives of others.  After being pressed, I've only suggested that we, as firearms owners, could be pro-active for a change and actually self-regulate.  We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights).

[AAllen]

After being pressed, I've only suggested that we, as firearms owners, could be pro-active for a change and actually self-regulate.  We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights).

I think we are reaching a point where we can start to form an agreement.  Training is not bad, but it does not need to be mandated.  We as firearms owners have a responsibility to get training ourselves (even if it is just range time and practice) and encourage others to receive training in accordance with their interests and abilities.  We also have an obligation to recruit and develop new shooters, so our traditions will live on.

In that line what the Board has done is to create an education committee to start developing training opportunities that would act as a reach out to new owners or those considering the ownership of firearms.  This would teach basic firearm safety, things that apply to all firearms and firearm owners no matter what your discipline.  One of the goals of this training is to encourage people to become interested in becoming firearm owners/shooters wither hunting or some other sport shooting, or for self defense purposes.  Another purpose is to direct people to training opportunities that are in line with their goals, budgets, and area of interest.  The idea is to make this an introduction to firearms class that can be given freely to anyone who may be interested on a regular basis, and hopefully can strengthen and grow our community of responsible firearm owners.

Another idea for a course development is to reach out to those at greatest risk of becoming irresponsible firearm users and show them the problems associated with improper firearm use.  This also would direct those who wish to become responsible firearm owners, and their families, toward educational opportunities were they can learn about safe firearm handling, storage, and proper use.  This would include not only just shooter education but opportunities for participating in mentored or coached activities that involve the use of firearms.

There is still 2 openings on this committee and I am looking for people with firearm training experience who would be interested in developing this training and finding ways to bring it to those who need it, in an manner that is cost (both financially and time) efficient for those who receive it.  These ideas are starting points and we do not want to get into competition with firearm instructors who are delivering a product to shooters already, what we want is to develop new ways to reach people to encourage them to get more training, voluntarily and in the manner that works best for them.

[Mudinyeri]

Wow!  That's fantastic!

My firearm training experience is very practical in nature.  I have no NRA certifications or the like, but I'll volunteer for the committee if you'll consider me.

Feel free to ping me through PM if you'd like to know more about my background and (potential) qualifications.

[Dan W]

We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights)

You left out physical fitness guidelines, annual mental evaluations, and dietary restrictions.  

Ooops forgot the 

[Mudinyeri]

We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights)

You left out physical fitness guidelines, annual mental evaluations, and dietary restrictions. 

Ooops forgot the 

Just like the service ... hmm. 

[SemperFiGuy]

Reply to AAllen, re:  Education Committee

I'd like to be considered for one of the two open positions on this committee.

You are invited to contact me directly by Forum email to obtain any additional information that might help you in the consideration process.




sfg

[tut]

...among many others!

[td]

Hello,

I am new to the forum and not a CCW permit holder.  This is also probably covered elsewhere and I apologize for that in advance but what are the penalties, civil or criminal, for carrying in a store that has this signage posted (assuming you actually have a CCW permit)? 

Thanks,
Terry

[SemperFiGuy]

Reply to td:

According to the Nebraska Administrative Code, Title 272, Chapter 21, addenda, p. 24:


Permit holder carrying a concealed handgun into a prohibited place or premises


is a Class III Misdemeanor for the First Offense  [Maximum Penalty:  3 Months imprisonment and/or $500 fine, not to mention the legal costs, criminal record, and loss of CHP.]

and a Class I Misdemeanor for 2nd/Subsequent Offenses  [Maximum Penalty:  1 year imprisonment and/or $1000 fine.]

Definitely NOT recommended.

And this portion of the NAC is clearly being enforced.   You might want to get in touch with ComputerCowboy on this NFOA Forum for more insights on this particular issue.


sfg
.

[td]

That's interesting.  The fact that someone can put up a sign enters a criminal discussion is perplexing.  I can see them filing a civil suit but I would read prohibited place as being a federal institution, bank, etc.  I am sure they legally define "prohibited place".  Interesting.

[DaveB]

Reply to td:

According to the Nebraska Administrative Code, Title 272, Chapter 21, addenda, p. 24:


Permit holder carrying a concealed handgun into a prohibited place or premises


is a Class III Misdemeanor for the First Offense  [Maximum Penalty:  3 Months imprisonment and/or $500 fine, not to mention the legal costs, criminal record, and loss of CHP.]

and a Class I Misdemeanor for 2nd/Subsequent Offenses  [Maximum Penalty:  1 year imprisonment and/or $1000 fine.]

Here shows the intelligence of our lawmakers.

There can not be a second offense if you have lost your CHP.

I agree, I feel that a prohibited place is defined in the list of places you can not legally carry concealed. Also, if you cannot easily see a sign prohibiting law abiding citizens from carrying guns, it should be even less of an offense. Besides, if I can't easily see the sign, the criminally intent won't see it either, not that they care anyway.

[SemperFiGuy]

It's an interesting pastime to check out the various "No Concealed Weapons" signage forms around Nebraska.

[Actually, they are intended for "No Concealed Handguns", but that's another whole story about the legal nature of "weapons", "deadly weapons", etc.]

Methodist Hospital [Omaha] has no signs on the two main entrance doors fed by the major overhead walkways from the parking garage.   However, the other doors on the ground floor below, across from the parking garage are signed.   Further. the NCW signs are on the coming out doors, not the going in doors.   The coming out doors swing away in such a manner that if someone else is coming out while you are going in, you will not see the NCW sign.   Their intent appears to be to post the entire premises, not just the ICUs and ERs, which do not need posting.   The Methodist signage needs work to clarify their intent.   Nevertheless, you could still be busted.

The Westwood Shopping Center at 120th and Center [Omaha] has NCW signs posted at the main street entrances to their parking lots.   Hardly the place you'd be checking for NCW signage.   Yet none of the actual building doors and entrances in the entire shopping center are posted.   Nevertheless, you could still be busted.

1 Valmont Plaza [Omaha] has a very high quality white frosted etched glass NCW sign posted well to the right side of their main entrance door.   Hardly where you'd look.   Hardly looks like NCW posting.   Looks like some sort of a financial institution logo, until closely examined.   Yet, you could be busted.

And many, many more such instances are seen around town.

At a glance, any NCW sign could be mistaken for the "No Smoking", "No Trucks", "No Parking" and similar "No Whatever" signs commonly encountered.   You've got to be alert and careful, considering the potential penalties, which also include legal fees and loss of CHP.

Nebraska CHPs carrying on posted premises face an immediate NCW violation charge which carries a 3rd Class Misdemeanor penalty.   By contrast, if Iowa CCWs violate Iowa signage, at first they only may be asked to leave the premises.   If they do so immediately, then there's no bust and no penalty.    The incident only becomes a violation if you stay after being asked to leave.   Even then, it's only a trespassing charge.

Conclusion:   Nebraska NCW signage and rules are tricky and put legit CHPs at risk; the signage rules need to be modified.    [Which will no doubt generate howling and hollering from the merchant class.]


sfg

[475okh]

Just a note as I can remember a time, not that long ago, when a business could put up a sign to keep out blacks, Indians, or others who were branded as bad.  Still have a friend that remembers a bar outside Ft. Bragg that had a sign that stated "no ******s, GI's, or dogs".  Times have changed and hopefully these concealed carry signs will change as well.

[Dan W]

SFG, the Hospitals were added to the banned places sometime back, at the same time the colleges and Universities were added by passage of LB145, so the signs are redundant.

NSP really needs to get their rules and regs updated, and I know that the process is going on right now

[2 E L O]

Another attempt at thread hijacking:

Question regarding parks...  Specific locations in Omaha that I've seen are Elmwood Park (68th & Pacific) and Heflinger Dog Park (110th & Maple). 

Elmwood Park Drive and Heflinger Park Road seem to be "through" streets that are not actually park "entrances".  However, there are signs posted "No Weapons (even with CHP)" at the turn off of Pacific (Elmwood) and Maple (Heflinger).  Does that mean a CHP holder isn't even supposed to drive down those roads? 

I could understand--but don't agree--if they didn't want you to actually be IN the park areas with a CCW but to not even allow us to drive down the road that seems to be a "through" street!?!?  What gives?

[rluening]

2 E L O -
I brought this up with Marty Conboy a while back:

According to Code 1980, ? 21-9; Ord. No. 33732, ? 3, 12-12-95 "It shall be unlawful for any person ...... or to carry any firearms, in any park, playground or boulevard in this city;"

According to recently enacted LB 430 the state has overridden this law for concealed carry permit holders - " Any existing city or village ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder possessing a valid permit under the act."

As I am not a lawyer, and I don't wish to become a test case, can you clarify Omaha's position on permit holders carrying in city parks? Many are posted "No concealed weapons", making them a posted place that permit holders can not carry in. Several, though, are either not posted or only posted at some entrances.

Thanks for any information you can provide!

His response:

Because the park restriction ordinance regulates the 'ownership, possession, or transportation' of the concealable firearm, it is voided as to permit holders.  Note, however, the language of Sec. 69-2441(1)(a) which limits the applicability of the permit.  There is language about the permit being restricted in certain areas, including those "where handguns are prohibited by law'.  This seems inconsistent with the new language of LB 430.  My advice would be that no one should be ticketed or restricted in the city parks, and if the officer feels the park is restricted under this state law, then the warning under section (2) of 69-2441 should be given.  If the person would not comply, the most they could be cited for would be refusing to leave as ordered under Sec. 20-155 of the city code. I don't know how a court would resolve this inconsistent language, but I do know that the person should not be cited under the void city ordinance, which no longer applies to permit holders.

I don't see that the sign has any bearing on what you do in your car while passing through.

/rl