Allright, folks, here is the best I could do regarding my notes on what transpired today....it got pretty bizarre at one point....
Sen Christensen withdraws Amendment 1105.
Sen Christensen opens with Amendment 1132; says AM 1132 further positions the rights of the CHP holder and it clarifies the transportation issue of guns by a CHP holder onto public places; the CHP holder can go, leave the handgun in the vehicle, and not be in violation as long as the handgun is locked in the vehicle; it harmonizes the policy of Sen Avery with AM 1332 by clarifying the ability of a CHP holder to transport a CCW onto public places except where Federal Law prohibits it; I met with the university officials as well as Sen Avery, and both are okay with the wording of AM 1132.
Sen Nantkes I rise up in support of the underlying legislation, but this is a serious topic and thus needs discussion. Question to Sen Christensen: my understanding that the main point of the amendment is to protect citizens regarding the right to a concealed carry permit, so where does this emanate from? Sen Christensen says it comes from the Second Amendment. Question to Sen Christensen: where does the Second Amendment talk about concealed carry weapons? Sen Christensen says 2A is the right to bear arms. Sen Nantkes says that 2A doesn't cover all rights, so then it is up to the judiciary to decide what is covered and not covered [NOTE: Sen Nantkes then reads the entire 2A], and so the Second Amendment talks about a well regulated militia and doesn't really give broad rights to carry a concealed weapon, doesn't it? Sen Christensen says that's why we're all here today is to clarify LB 430, and he tells her that he is not sure where she is trying to go with this. [NOTE: he's not the only one
] Sen Nantkes says she is doing this for consistency and public policy sake, that we're going to support ALL parts of the constitution...[NOTE: Speaker stopped her since her time expired...thank GOD
].
Sen Christensen introduces AM 1192 to AM 1132; says AM 1192 clarifies the language of AM 1132 to read more clearly and is just a clerical cleanup of the bill with a change of "the" and "and".
Sen White question to Sen Christensen: let's assume I'm carrying a big .45 and I go to pick up my child at school and I take out the gun in public to put it in the trunk of my car; now I am in support of LB 430, but I am concerned about frightening people in public.
Sen Christensen again explained the intent of the amendment, and also how CHP with a motorcycle can be covered leagally.
Sen White I understand the intent, but I am concerned about public exposure of a gun. Sen Christensen asked if Sen White would be okay if the word "quickly" were to be added to the amendment regarding placing a gun in the trunk after the CHP holder exits the vehicle. Sen White said that "promptly upon exiting the vehicle to put away the weapon" would be better since the current wording is too loose. Sen Christensen said that he and his team will do a language change here to accommodate the concern.
Sen Avery said I helped Sen Christensen put AM 1132 together; I can also clarify what Sen White means and what Sen Christensen is doing: AM 1132 already takes care of the concern as it is written and does not need any changes.
Sen Gloor question to Sen Christensen: let's look at a real world scenario---a person is brought to the emergency room and a concealed weapon is discovered on the person and the weapon is given to the family members to put away, so is that breaking the law? Sen Christensen said no since it was not willfully being done in the emergency room, and then asks Sen Gloor is he has any concern with AM 1132. Sen Gloor says no, I understand that Sen Avery and you have worked together, so I am in support of LB 430 and the amendement.
Sen Harr question to Sen Christensen: is the purpose of this amendment so that we don't trap the CHP holder? Sen Christensen says that we are just wanting consistency of transportation throughout the state and also if the CHP holder is picking up a child or someone at the university. Sen Harr says that years ago he would not have approved of the bill and amendment, but he has a friend who went through CCW training in Texas and now sees that it was a positive experience.
Sen Harr expresses his concern, as a former motorcyclist, that a saddlebag on a motorcycle can be cut free and stolen pretty easily, and asked Sen Christensen if that is a concern? Sen Christensen says that the amendment identifies either a saddlebag or a compartment, but if Sen Harr wants the amendment reworded about the saddlebag, then that can be changed. Sen Harr says that he is okay with the bill and the amendment.
Sen Nantkes [NOTE: here is where you as the reader need to put on your tin foil hat] expresses thanks to Sen Christensen for cooperating with all parties regarding the amendment; question to Sen Christensen: are there rights in the Constitution for all citizens? Sen Christensen says yes. Sen Nantkes asks: then are there rights that are more important than others? Sen Christensen says it's up to each person's interests as to what may be more important to one person from another. Sen Nantkes asks: is the right to privacy as important as the Second Amendment? Sen Christensen starts to answer, but Sen Nantkes interrupts abruptly with: yes or no?!? Sen Christensen says yes. Sen Nantkes says that for the sake of argument, the courts have not found broad rights on the Federal level and that NE is actually more broad, so local control is an issue that the NE bill under Sen Christensen would supersede the local control, so I just want the Senators to be committed to ALL rights to ALL citizens. [NOTE: Speaker stops Sen Nantkes because her time expired]
Sen McGill [NOTE: this is where you the reader need to put another tin foil hat on top of the first one] I do not support LB 430; I understand why concealed carry supporters want this, but there is a warped perception of violence by what we see on television; I was at a neighborhood meeting the other night with Chief Cassidy, and we noted that crimes are going down and that killers kill themselves after they kill who they targeted and so anyone with a concealed weapon is not going to make it any safer, and gang crimes are targeted crimes and don't involve anyone else, and...[NOTE: Speaker stops Sen McGill because her time expired....seemed like a short clock, but that was okay by me].
Sen 
? I rise in support of the bill and the amendment.
Sen Friend emphatically states that Sen Nantkes is wrong in what she is saying about constitutional rights and court decisions and fundamentals of the Bill of Rights; never in my time here have I witnessed one Senator challenging another Senator for a "yes or no" answer!; that was offensive to my sensibilities to say something like that; if you want me to speak for 2 hours, or 4 hours, or 40 hours on this, I will; yes, I am furious!
Sen Nantkes I am supportive of the bill and the amendment, but I just want to say that.....[NOTE: sorry, folks, but this is where I lost it and couldn't take any more notes because of her rambling again about all of the Bill of Rights, and right to privacy, and yada yada yada]. [NOTE: Speaker stops Sen Nantkes because her time expired].
Sen Schilz I am from western NE where gun support is strong; I support both the bill and the amendment.
Sen Fulton expressed support for both the bill and the amendment.
[NOTE: there were some other Senators who came up, but I had to leave the office area and couldn't pick up on the rest until when I came back, which was the call for a voice vote].
Voice vote: Speaker called for Sen McGill to make motion to move the bill and amendment forward. Sen McGill did so, and the voice vote approved.
So, folks, that's it. Sorry that I missed some towards the end, but it seemed to be droning on about this right and that right....and it was one heck of a rabbit trail....I really wondered if it was going to end with a vote. Thankfully, it did.
So now we wait for the Final reading as all of the language is put together in one final document.
--Aldo
