Unsettling thought about LB-430 for us out-of-staters

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
lincmercguy	Unsettling thought about LB-430 for us out-of-staters	Lead	[-]
Posts: 35 (09/01/09 20:56:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None So I was thrilled to see CO made the list of states whose permits will be recognized in NE. I do have an unsettling thought about Omaha though. If I read the ordinance correctly, it would be illegal for me to carry in Omaha because my permit was not issued by the state of NE. I've also not found anything difinitive about Omaha's handgun registration for non-residents. Anyone have any thoughts? Here's the ordinance that I'm thinking about: Sec. 20-192. Carrying concealed weapon. It shall be unlawful for any person except an authorized law enforcement officer purposely or knowingly to carry a weapon concealed on or about his person. On or after January 1, 2007, any person possessing a lawful permit issued by the State of Nebraska authorizing the carrying of concealed handguns shall be permitted to carry such a concealed handgun in the City of Omaha as permitted by state law. (a) In any violation where the concealed weapon is a concealable firearm, any sentence shall include a minimum jail sentence of 30 days. (b) Any person convicted under this section where the concealed weapon is not a concealed firearm shall be punished as provided in section 1-10. (Code 1980, § 20-192; Ord. No. 37432, § 1, 7-18-06; Ord. No. 38294, § 1, 11-18-08)
twodogs		#1	[-]
Posts: 18 (09/01/09 21:06:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Go and read lb430. It repels the Omaha ordnance. Last Edited By: twodogs 09/01/09 21:08:49. Edited 1 times.
jimbob86		#2	[-]
Posts: 1257 (09/01/09 21:42:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	IIRC, 430 preempts the power of local gubmint to regulate firearms regulations pertaining to CCW, no? .....Clingin' to my guns over here, Boss.......
cmzneb		#3	[-]
Posts: 1547 (09/02/09 21:23:38) Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Well, the law now says that cities of the Metropolitan Class (Omaha) cannot punish the carrying of concealed weapons by people who hold permits under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act. In the "Act" there is a specific statute 69-2448 http://www.legislature.ne....php?statute=s6924048000 This law basically says your permit, "shall be recognized as valid in this state under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act" What is wishy washy though is still the registration thing.... The "Null and Void" of city ordinance language seems to be eluding me right now........ And I think Omaha is going to try to continue to enforce that stupid ordinance. I am checking into this further with the powers that be and will report back what I learn. It is not practical for Omaha to expect residents of other states to register their handgun just because they are legally passing through the state while carrying concealed. www.neccwtraining.com www.neccw.blogspot.com
lincmercguy		#4	[-]
Posts: 36 (09/02/09 21:57:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	After reading those parts of LB-430, it sounds like I would be OK. However, it still might be that Omaha thinks they are within the law when they are not. I'll have to see how this one plays out. Wife's parents live in LaVista, so I could leave it there, but it kind of defeats the purpose.
RLM5150		#5	[-]
Posts: 1 (09/03/09 06:36:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	LaVista has never repealed their ban on Concealed Carry. I asked one of the city council members about it last week. He told me that no one has ever come before the board to request it be repealed so they have not discussed it. With LB430 in effect it doesn't really matter, but it is another law in the books that shouldn't be.
LJUnaTIC		#6	[-]
Posts: 696 (09/03/09 21:06:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	A Nebraska resident that lives outside the Omaha city limit and has a valid CHP does not have to register as of August, 30 2009. It is not specifically referred to in the law, but I have to assume that a valid permit issued by a reciprocal state would carry the same exemption. LJUnaTIC
cmzneb		#7	[-]
Posts: 1549 (09/03/09 21:39:08) Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'm not so sure....... The new law says that cities don't have the power to PUNISH THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS for permit holders. Doesn't say they can't punish them for not registering handguns. I don't think cities have the power period to require handgun registration period, but Omaha has done it, and nothing I can see in the final version of LB 430 clarifies registration issues. Omaha just needs to get rid of that stupid ordinance. period www.neccwtraining.com www.neccw.blogspot.com
SFC STU		#8	[-]
Posts: 162 (09/03/09 22:20:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I have a Missouri License To Carry concealed and I have traveled to and through Omaha numerous times. I will continue to do so, only now I will be carrying a firearm legally. I try to obey the law, but if I'm charged with a handgun violation in Omaha, I'll fight them and win!
lindh		#9	[-]
Posts: 101 (09/04/09 10:52:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'd guess that there might have to be a test case for Omaha and other cities and towns. Sec 5 (430) looks like it's in two parts addressing the preempt issue: First there is the part addressing authority to regulate ownership, possession and transportation: Cities and villages (read: the City of Omaha) shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law." "Expressly" provided would indicate named exemptions. Regulating "ownership" is probably the key wording here regarding registration. Then the second part of Sec 5 appears to address current local regulations: "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 permit holder possessing a valid permit under the act." Again, the key word is regulating "ownership". Certainly if a city law requires registration, that would be regulating ownership, and such regulation would now be "null and void". That's my take on this but then I'm not a lawyer. I just play one around my house - and no one pays much attention to me.
lindh		#10	[-]
Posts: 102 (09/04/09 11:17:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It appears to me that if LB430 was a roadside bomb that was triggered on Aug 30, 2009, it pretty well obliterated any city, town or village regulation prohibiting State authorized conceal carry. Remember that the AG pretty much whacked most of those local regulations even before LB430 became law.
bubba803		#11	[-]
Posts: 8 (09/04/09 11:55:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Maybe someone can answer this for me. As I understood it, prior to LB430, Omaha had a ban on all city owned property, including city parks. After LB 430 is this ban repealed unless the property is posted with a sign? Is this correct?
farmerRick		#12	[-]
Posts: 272 (09/04/09 17:19:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	bubba803 wrote: Maybe someone can answer this for me. As I understood it, prior to LB430, Omaha had a ban on all city owned property, including city parks. After LB 430 is this ban repealed unless the property is posted with a sign? Is this correct? No, Omaha can still post any city-owned property with a no-gun sign, just as any private property owner can. "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." -Thomas Jefferson Nebraska Firearms Owners Association-Board of Directors Member NRA Life Member
cmzneb		#13	[-]
Posts: 1551 (09/05/09 00:28:36) Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	lindh wrote: I'd guess that there might have to be a test case for Omaha and other cities and towns. Sec 5 (430) looks like it's in two parts addressing the preempt issue: First there is the part addressing authority to regulate ownership, possession and transportation: Cities and villages (read: the City of Omaha) shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law." "Expressly" provided would indicate named exemptions. Regulating "ownership" is probably the key wording here regarding registration. Then the second part of Sec 5 appears to address current local regulations: "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 permit holder possessing a valid permit under the act." Again, the key word is regulating "ownership". Certainly if a city law requires registration, that would be regulating ownership, and such regulation would now be "null and void". That's my take on this but then I'm not a lawyer. I just play one around my house - and no one pays much attention to me. Maybe there is a boo-boo here............. Or maybe I am missing it.... Look carefully at Section 5 of LB 430 (Final Version). It does not quote a specific statute to add this language to (like the other sections of the bill). Sooooooooooooooooo.... Where in the laws did this section 5 language end up??????????? www.neccwtraining.com www.neccw.blogspot.com
cmzneb		#14	[-]
Posts: 1552 (09/05/09 00:51:09) Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	OK, found it!!!! I definitely can't see the Omaha registration ordinance being enforceable. 18-1703 Ownership, possession, and transportation of concealed handguns; power of cities and villages; existing ordinance, permit, or regulation; null and void. Cities and villages shall not have the power to regulate the ownership, possession, or transportation of a concealed handgun, as such ownership, possession, or transportation is authorized under the Concealed Handgun Permit Act, except as expressly provided by state law. 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. Source 1. Laws 2009, LB430, § 5. Effective Date: August 30, 2009 www.neccwtraining.com www.neccw.blogspot.com
bubba803		#15	[-]
Posts: 9 (09/05/09 05:40:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	farmerRick wrote: bubba803 wrote: Maybe someone can answer this for me. As I understood it, prior to LB430, Omaha had a ban on all city owned property, including city parks. After LB 430 is this ban repealed unless the property is posted with a sign? Is this correct? No, Omaha can still post any city-owned property with a no-gun sign, just as any private property owner can. I understand that they can post city owned property, my question is, if it is not posted can I carry there? Will the city have to post a no weapons sign at every park if they want to ban CCW there?
farmerRick		#16	[-]
Posts: 274 (09/05/09 09:05:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I believe they already have. "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." -Thomas Jefferson Nebraska Firearms Owners Association-Board of Directors Member NRA Life Member
lindh		#17	[-]
Posts: 103 (09/05/09 14:21:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Their (cities) source law for prohibiting cc on property exempts the permitholder unless the "place" is "conspicuously" posted. However, there is no defined sign in the law. I'm inclined to think that the law was designed for private, not public property but I suppose cities will argue they have authority to post. But in order to post non-"expressly provided" places, they are going to have to issue an order, a resolution or a regulation to post. And then you have this: "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 permit holder possessing a valid permit under the act." I hope Bruning will come out and give an opinion saying that cities and towns don't have authority to post anywhere. The "expressly provided by State law" rule means those places expressly named such as a court building. Those don't have to be posted because the law says they are prohibited. I think there is a good argument that when it comes to a concealed carry permit, cities and towns don't have any authority to regulate anything.
lincmercguy		#18	[-]
Posts: 37 (09/05/09 23:45:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	LJUnaTIC wrote: A Nebraska resident that lives outside the Omaha city limit and has a valid CHP does not have to register as of August, 30 2009. It is not specifically referred to in the law, but I have to assume that a valid permit issued by a reciprocal state would carry the same exemption. Do you have a source for this? Always like to print things out to carry with me. Thanks!
mustang5o		#19	[-]
Posts: 74 (09/06/09 13:41:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I would like some clarification from the AG about Omaha's registration then. I would really like to see that going away. "But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." the Dalai Lama.
RLM5150		#20	[-]
Posts: 3 (09/06/09 13:52:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	farmerRick wrote: I believe they already have. I know of two parks around my neighborhood that are not posted. At least I have not been able to find any signs. When I walk my dogs I go through two parks so I get a chance to look for signs everyday. I am in Millard, so these are City of Omaha parks. I too would like to see a ruling from Mr. Bruning, both on posting various city properties as well as Omaha's registration.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Unsettling thought about LB-430 for us out-of-staters

Unsettling thought about LB-430 for us out-of-staters

Quick Reply