Aurora City Ordinance Question

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
jlficken	Aurora City Ordinance Question	Lead	[-]
Posts: 21 (08/03/09 10:24:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None According to Section 5 of the revised LB 430 does the following City Ordinance fall under the "null and void" clause so that it is invalid when the new Statute takes effect? Edit: I just got this printed off this morning so it is the most current version and they plan on continuing to enforce it. Sec. 5. Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, 1 or transportation of a 2 concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation 3 is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as 4 expressly provided by state law. Any existing city or village 5 ordinance, permit, or regulation regulating the ownership, 6 possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such 7 ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the 8 act, is declared to be null and void as against any permitholder 9 possessing a valid permit under the act. Thanks
ram4x4nut		#1	[-]
Posts: 271 (08/03/09 22:23:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That ordinance will be null and void. If they try to enforce it after 9/3 ( think that is the official date) then the city will be wide open to a HUGE lawsuit. They can post the signs, but an ordinance is not enforceable. Last Edited By: ram4x4nut 08/03/09 22:26:09. Edited 1 times.
bullit		#2	[-]
Posts: 329 (08/04/09 12:04:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	jlficken, Ram is right. LB430 SPECIFICALLY nullifys/disallows these type of ordinances. However, as I understand it the city is able to post signs on their property (as Ram mentioned) similiar to a private business, etc. Do you have the time to call the City Attorney's office and "challenge" them on this ordinance? Be interesting to hear their reply.
jlficken		#3	[-]
Posts: 22 (08/04/09 12:07:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I suppose I can call the City Attorney as I know him. It would be interesting to see what his reaction is.
Immortality		#4	[-]
Posts: 12 (08/04/09 16:03:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Just a quick look but I'd guess this is legal since they are allowing carry on "city street right-of-ways, streets, alleys and sidewalks". They are only keeping them out of city buildings and parks. Similar to a private business' right to post. It's definitely not a citywide ban and doesn't appear to interfere with the "ownership, possession, or transportation" of a concealed handgun. But they would still need to post.
ram4x4nut		#5	[-]
Posts: 272 (08/04/09 16:42:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Immortality wrote: Just a quick look but I'd guess this is legal since they are allowing carry on "city street right-of-ways, streets, alleys and sidewalks". They are only keeping them out of city buildings and parks. Similar to a private business' right to post. It's definitely not a citywide ban and doesn't appear to interfere with the "ownership, possession, or transportation" of a concealed handgun. But they would still need to post. You would be guessing wrong. LB430 explicitly says that they CAN NOT have these ordinances. They can post their signs on any city property they choose, but they can not have an ordinance.What part of the following is not crystal clear to you? "Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, 1 or transportation of a 2 concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation 3 is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as 4 expressly provided by state law." Also, this was written in 2007, right after CCW became law. It has zero teeth now.
Immortality		#6	[-]
Posts: 13 (08/04/09 18:39:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ok Ram I guess I was in a bit of a rush with that last one... Now I'll go the other way and say that under section 5 cities should not even be able to post signs since that could be argued as the city regulating ownership, possession or transportation of a concealed handgun. The act of a city posting could easily been seen as regulating. The Act doesn't prohibit private businesses from "regulating" just cities. Who wants to be the first to walk into Lincoln's City/County building?
LJUnaTIC		#7	[-]
Posts: 692 (08/04/09 19:23:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The reason they can post signs to prevent CCW is that state law allows it... see the last line of the quoted law "except as expressly provided by state law." LJUnaTIC
jlficken		#8	[-]
Posts: 23 (08/06/09 11:26:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I talked to the City Attorney and they have no plans on repealing it or changing it in any way. I then called the State Attorneys office and got a call back from someone that is the legal advisor for the State Patrol on CCW laws and he said that some of it can stand but some wouldn't be able to. He was really vague on what would still be enforceable and what wouldn't be. I dunno it is just a pain. I read the law one way and someone else reads it another and then I get told the intent of the new law was to make all signs and ordinances go away from someone at the State Attorney Generals office. I am not sure if I want to be the first one to challenge it though. I have enough stress in my life as is. Maybe I should contact Sen. Christiensen and ask him what his original intent was on this subject? Last Edited By: jlficken 08/06/09 11:31:14. Edited 1 times.
ram4x4nut		#9	[-]
Posts: 274 (08/07/09 11:53:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	jlficken wrote: I talked to the City Attorney and they have no plans on repealing it or changing it in any way. I then called the State Attorneys office and got a call back from someone that is the legal advisor for the State Patrol on CCW laws and he said that some of it can stand but some wouldn't be able to. He was really vague on what would still be enforceable and what wouldn't be. I dunno it is just a pain. I read the law one way and someone else reads it another and then I get told the intent of the new law was to make all signs and ordinances go away from someone at the State Attorney Generals office. I am not sure if I want to be the first one to challenge it though. I have enough stress in my life as is. Maybe I should contact Sen. Christiensen and ask him what his original intent was on this subject? All of the anti-2A city attorneys say this. The are talking out of their arses. One lawsuit in one podunk town will bring all of them in line.
lindh		#10	[-]
Posts: 98 (08/19/09 12:36:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Well, just to add to the confusion, I say that the city does have a right to post city property where it is expressly approved in State law, such as jails, voting places during voting, council meetings during those meetings, a place where court is held, etc. But State law is pretty definate in spelling out just where CCW is prohibited. Other than the specified locations, I don't think a town or city can post generally on city property (after Aug 26). And, posting itself is qualified. That is, it would take an action such as an ordanance or rule by the town or city council to physically post a place. Such an action would be prohibited, I'd think, if it is a post on a place not defined by State law. Actually, they don't need to post anyplace because State law does not require posting prohibited places. Maybe it makes them feel warm and fuzzy to put up a sticker. I have an idea that these folks are going to be brought into the Nebraska carry law kicking and screaming all the way to the judge. Our little town is posted in the main city building (no jail or court there) and I've asked the city clerk to take down the no carry sign by midnight Aug 26. Like in "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall", I said, "Ms Kinney, tear down this sign". I got a blank look.
jimbob86		#11	[-]
Posts: 1244 (08/22/09 21:13:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Lindh, you are right- the town hall is not off limits, unless there is an actually meeting of the governing body of the "political subdivision" going on. No CCW to town board meeting by permit holders........ guess you'll have to OC then. .....Clingin' to my guns over here, Boss.......

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Aurora City Ordinance Question

Aurora City Ordinance Question

Quick Reply