[cdbeaver]

State Senator Gene Tyson of Norfolk will this week introduce a bill into the Nebraska Legislature that would, if passed, enable residents to apply for permits to carry conceled weapons.

No drumroll yet, please; as good intentioned as Tyson may be, the Nebraska Unicameral has considered such proposals several times before, and although such bills have been favorably received, the proposed legislation has always (up to now) become bogged down and never gone to a vote.

This session (90 working days) is likely to be very little different from those in the past: legislators generally introduce up to 400 or 500 new bills to be considered, and only a few survive to be actually voted upon by the 49 members.

This year could be especially tough for non-tax-related proposals because the state faces a 673-million-dollar revenue shortfall and most of the available time is likely going to be spent attempting to devise inventive new methods for increasing taxes without actually calling them tax increases.

Still, hope still beats in the breasts of gun lovers in the state, and miracles can happen. Time for us to get off our duffs and contact our state senator.

[Brian D.]

Who says a CCW bill can't be "sold" to the legislators as a money maker for the state? Licensing fees, textbooks to print up and sell, instructors on the payroll, etc. I bet there are several states who make more than a little profit from CCW legislation. Might not hurt the pro-2nd groups to at least point out that the state won't lose any dough on the deal!

[cdbeaver]

Brian d: A great idea. I'll contact my state senator first thing Monday.

That makes a lot more sense than trying to tack a sales tax on every package of Twinkies or soda pop sold.

[wQuay]

Is there a RKBA organization in this state?

[Gray Peterson]

My understanding is that a Senator from Omaha is holding it up.

My question is "Who's holding it up"?

[Sodbuster]

a Senator from Omaha
Well Cornhuskers, could it be Ernie Chambers?

[cdbeaver]

Sodbuster, you win the seegar. Ol' Ernie, the "dean" of the legislature, is at it again.

[mpthole]

I'm fairly familiar with the NE situation, but I need to ask this anyway. Since NE already has RKBA in the state constitution and is considered an open-carry state, why isn't someone pushing for full "Vermont-style" carry laws? Why not just eliminate the prohibition on concealed carry instead of creating more laws and more taxes...?

[cdbeaver]

I e-mailed my state senator this morning and have already received an answer. He solidly supports the proposal, but adds that "general support" in the legislature is "lukewrm" at best.

Nebraska has a rtkba clause in its constitution, but only for open carry. A Vermont-style proposition would be ideal, but not likely to carry in this state.

I'll keep at it.

[Drizzt]

Omaha World-Herald


February 5, 2003, Wednesday NEBRASKA EDITION

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 2b;

LENGTH: 476 words

HEADLINE: Concealed-weapon bill resurfaces Nebraska is one of seven states without a law allowing guns to be carried out of sight.

BYLINE: By Robynn Tysver

SOURCE: WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

DATELINE: LINCOLN

BODY:
A man with a holstered gun visibly strapped to his leg created a stir this fall when he walked into a discount store in Sarpy County.

In Nebraska, it is not illegal to carry a gun. It's only illegal if the gun is concealed. State Sen. Gene Tyson of Norfolk would like to change that.

Tyson is trying once again to get a concealed-weapons bill passed in Nebraska to allow the Sarpy County man to wear the gun under his clothes.

Nebraska is one of only seven states without such a law. Other states, including Iowa, either have permit systems or allow certain people to carry concealed weapons.

A hearing on Legislative Bill 265 is set for Thursday at 1:30 p.m. before the Nebraska Legislature's Judiciary Committee.

The controversial issue has been debated in Nebraska for years. Gun-rights supporters in the past have failed to get a bill approved in the face of aggressive opposition and filibusters.

On paper, Tyson would appear to have a good shot this year. He has 24 co-sponsors and he has prioritized the bill, meaning if it gets out of committee it will be debated on the floor of the Legislature.

However, although it only takes 25 votes to pass a bill, it takes 33 to end a filibuster. Does Tyson have the votes?

"I'm reasonably sure that I do," he said.

One key opponent of the bill will be law enforcement. Police oppose the bill because it does not have any educational requirements such as taking a handgun safety course.

Under the bill, applicants can get concealed-carry permits if they are 21 or older and meet certain requirements, such as not being a felon or a habitual drunk.

"They need to follow the rules and they need to know there are rules and guidelines to using deadly force," said Lt. Steve Grabowski, a spokesman for the Fraternal Order of Police, which will oppose LB 265.

Ron Grapes, president of the Nebraska Shooting Sports Association, thinks the current law is unworkable and unfair.

He said it is difficult to walk around with a holstered gun because it draws a lot of attention.

"To the general public, emotions get involved and suspicions," he said. "Some things are just more appropriate if they're not so visible."

The biggest special interest group in this issue - the National Rifle Association - may not play an active role in this year's debate.

Tyson said he has been told by the NRA that Nebraska is not at the top of their agenda this year.

Kelly Whitley, a spokesman for the NRA, said the group was supportive of Tyson's bill but had some reservations.

"This bill is a step in the right direction, but we're unsure that this is the right bill with the people of Nebraska, at this time," Whitley said.

She declined to be more specific. In the past, the NRA has supported an education component in the bill.

[Drizzt]

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

April 1, 2003, Tuesday, BC cycle

4:00 PM Eastern Time

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 400 words

HEADLINE: Legislature advances concealed weapons bill

BYLINE: By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: LINCOLN, Neb.

BODY:
The carrying of concealed weapons would be legalized in Nebraska under a bill that won first-round approval on Tuesday.

The vote marked the first time the bill had advanced in the Legislature since 1998. The bill that year cleared one hurdle before time ran out. It was first introduced in 1996.

The bill advanced 31-14 after lawmakers voted 33-13 to stop a filibuster. That was the minimum number of votes needed to stop debate.

The proposal still must clear two other votes before it heads to Gov. Mike Johanns for his signature. Johanns said he would sign the bill into law.

Bill sponsor Sen. Gene Tyson of Norfolk said he believed the bill would pass.

"People realize this is a bill that sets up a policy the state of Nebraska needs," he said.

Opponents argued over two days of debate that concealed weapons would only lead to the potential for more violence.

Supporters countered that it was their constitutional right to carry concealed weapons.

Lincoln Sen. Ron Raikes asked where the right to bear arms ends.

"If it really is a right, can you carry hand grenades? If someone comes up with a consumer grade nuclear weapon, can you carry that?" he asked.

Fellow Lincoln Sen. Dave Landis said carrying a concealed weapon is different from the right to own a gun.

"Your right affects my safety because you are concealing a risk to me," he said.

Sen. Elaine Stuhr of Bradshaw said she supported the bill because it would help people feel safer.

"I do believe that people have the right to personal protection," she said. "Unfortunately, the bad guys are still carrying guns."

Tyson said carrying a concealed weapon provides people with a safeguard, but would not protect against all potential threats.

Nebraska is one of seven states without a concealed weapons law.

The bill (LB265) before lawmakers requires applicants for a permit to carry a concealed weapon to pass a background check and complete a handgun training and safety course. The permit would cost $100 and be valid for five years.

Concealed weapons would not be allowed in a variety of places, including bars, police stations, public meetings, schools, churches, hospitals and banks. Signs would be allowed to be posted disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons in other non-designated locations.

[mpthole]

cdbeaver:

Just re-read my last post and got to thinking... So, why aren't we pushing for "Vermont"-style carry in WI since WI is an open-carry state too? Answer: because it'll never happen in one fell swoop. Guess we have to be satisfied with baby-steps.

Best of luck to you in NE. I visit there at least one a year.

[Monkeyleg]

"Your right affects my safety because you are concealing a risk to me," he said

OK, if I have my gun "concealed" in my home, and I live next door to this jerk, is he still at risk?

And why can't these reporters get their facts straight? It's SIX states with no-issue, not seven. :fire:

[Drizzt]

Published Tuesday, April 1, 2003

Arms check

Legislature begins debate of proposal legalizing carrying of concealed weapons

Last modified at 12:17 a.m. on Tuesday, April 1, 2003

By Scott Bauer
The Associated Press

LINCOLN -- Legalizing concealed weapons would return Nebraska to the days of the wild west, one senator said.

Another lawmaker donned a multicolored court jester hat, complete with jangling bells, and said he would be a fool to support a bill legalizing the carrying of concealed weapons.

So began the debate Monday over a bill to allow Nebraskans to carry hidden guns. After more than four hours of debate, lawmakers adjourned for the day without voting on advancing the measure.

Supporters argued that being able to carry concealed weapons was a constitutional right. And they said the bill would merely put guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves against "bad guys" who already carry weapons.

Had the law been in effect last year, a deadly shooting in a Norfolk bank may have been prevented, said Sen. Carol Hudkins of Malcolm.

Gov. Mike Johanns also weighed in Monday, saying he would sign the measure if it passes.

"It's not like we're breaking new ground here," he said. "Many states have concealed carry."

Nebraska is one of just seven states not allowing people to carry concealed weapons. It is estimated that licenses could be granted to more than 64,000 people in Nebraska.

Opponents of the bill argued more guns on the street will only increase the chances that police and others will be hurt.

The bill would not improve society, said Lincoln Sen. DiAnna Schimek.

"It will return us to the days of the wild west when everyone carried guns and lived in fear of their lives," she said.

Omaha Sen. Lowen Kruse, who wore the jester hat, said the bill would only make the streets more unsafe.

"There are nuts out there who will assume if this passes, I am packing heat," said Kruse, a retired Methodist minister.

Chief opponent, Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, said the bill was "right-wing foolishness." He has promised to filibuster the bill, meaning 33 senators would have to vote to stop debate. The earliest that could be done is after eight hours of discussion.

The proposal was co-signed by 25 senators, including sponsor Sen. Gene Tyson of Norfolk.

Most of Monday's debate was spent on inconsequential amendments and stating positions in general on the idea.

"All we're doing is making speeches that aren't going to persuade anyone," said Omaha Sen. Pam Brown.

Backers of the bill (LB265) say it has enough safeguards to ensure that only law-abiding people trained in how to operate a weapon get a permit.

Concealed weapons wouldn't solve all problems related to crime, but it will prevent some, said Omaha Sen. Ray Mossey, who was an Omaha police officer for 12 years.

Under the proposal, applicants for a concealed weapons permit must pass a background check and complete a handgun training and safety course within three years of the application.

Convicted felons, and anyone with a history of violence or who is mentally ill would be barred.

The permit, which would be a card similar to a driver's license, would be valid for five years and would cost $100 initially, with a $50 renewal fee.

The permit would have to be carried whenever the cardholder is carrying a weapon.

Concealed weapons would not be allowed in a variety of places, including bars, police stations, public meetings, schools, churches, hospitals and banks. Signs would be allowed to be posted disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons in other non-designated locations.

http://www.theindependent.com/stories/040103/new_arms01.shtml

[Standing Wolf]

Opponents argued over two days of debate that concealed weapons would only lead to the potential for more violence.

Well, yeah, but so would reducing the price of cinnamon.

[mattd]

Nebraska Constitution

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense or 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. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

cdbeaver or anyone else: How does that only protect open carry?

[suijurisfreeman]

mattd,
Check out my thread on the General Discussion, page 2, 'Does your State's Bill of Rights 'allow' gun control?

According to what you posted from Nebraska's Bill of Rights, the people of Nebraska didn't delegate any authority to their Legislature to regulate the carrying of arms! So my question would be, "what CCW permit?" By what lawful authority would the Nebraska Legislature presume to consider passing a CCW 'law'?! :banghead:

[Partisan Ranger]

"It will return us to the days of the wild west when everyone carried guns and lived in fear of their lives," she said."

:scrutiny:

I think any pol who uses the mythical 'Wild West' analogy should be forced to take a history class, stat. A little reading and you would discover that the 'Wild West' was surprisingly polite and civilized. That's the way things are when most people carry.

[Standing Wolf]

"If it really is a right, can you carry hand grenades? If someone comes up with a consumer grade nuclear weapon, can you carry that?" he asked.

Just because you can lead an irrational hoplophobic mixed metaphor to water doesn't mean you can make it take off like a rocket.

[F4GIB]

The Devil is in the details. It the bill is a copy of last years it will be barely acceptable. The prior bill rivled New Mexico's for restrictions and limitations.

[Gray Peterson]

This bill was killed by Sen. Ernie Chambers.

[jimpeel]

The Constitutional language sounds like Vermont carry to me. There is a law against the carrying of concealed weapons but the effort might be better placed in finding that law unconstitutional than trying to get CCW permits. Go with the Constitutional law as the Supreme Law of the State.

The problem is that there would have to be a test case wherein someone -- or several someones -- strapped on their heat and got themselves arrested. The Constitutional challenge would have to be from the outset of the case and would have to involve persons who were willing to be disarmed for life if they lost.

The law does have an affirmative defense as I recall.

Still managing a motel in Kimball, NE so do drop in if any of you are in the area.

[mattd]

Well I already got a concealed weapon charge for carrying a knife and the next one would be felony so you can count me out in less I can get the charge removed from my record(if you can do that) because I was a minor then.

[suijurisfreeman]

mattd posted: "Nebraska Constitution, All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawfully 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. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I've seen posted in this thread atleast three times, "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute . He does not derive it from the State government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the State government.
It is one of the 'high powers' delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." Texas Supreme Court, Cockrum v. State (Texas 1859)

cdbeaver posted, "If passed, enable residents to apply for permits to carry concealed weapons." "Still, hope still beats in the breasts of gun lovers in the state, and miracles can happen. Time for us to get off our duffs and contact our state senator.

Enable? apply for permits to carry concealed weapons? See Nebraska's Constitution/Bill of Rights posted above! See Texas Supreme Court, Cockrum v. State above! Why oh why can't people see that if the people of your State didn't delegate the authority to their State Legislature to regulate the keeping or bearing of arms in their Bill of Rights and/or Constitution then the State Legislature does not have the lawful authority to pass any 'laws' attempting to do so! What am I missing here?! :banghead: There's a saying, 'hope springs eternal', but when are the people finally going to wake up and smell the coffee? The 'miracle' that I'd like to see, would be for be for the people to reclaim their sovereign power, to begin exercising their natural, inherent and inalienable rights! "Contact your state senator?" When the men in black ninja suits are knocking on your door, it's too late to contact your state senator!

How did we get so far away from the fundamental principles which this country was founded on?! :banghead: Why do people stand by like timid sheep, why are the great fundamental principles of the 'founding fathers' being allowed to languish through our neglect and apathy? :cuss: Wake-up Citizens, before it's too late!

[mattd]

In the few Nebraska Supreme Court rulings I've read, they don't belive the right to keep and bear arms is absolute so they can regulate it for public safety. So not only do you have to prove the law is unconstitutional you have to show its not great danger to public safety.

[suijurisfreeman]

mattd,

If that's the case then the fact that the people of Nebraska in their Bill of Rights made a prior reservation of their natural, inherent and inalienable right to self-defense doesn't mean jack :cuss: ! Nebraska's Bill of Rights isn't even good for toliet paper! Can someone, anyone show me where in Nebraska's Bill of Rights the Legislature was delegated the lawful authority to regulate the RKBA? Please show me! :banghead: Look at other State's Bill of Rights, some have delegated lawful authority for their state legislatures to regulate, some have not, Nebraska has not! Next question, does the Supreme Court have the lawful authority to interpret the people's natural, inherent and inalienable rights? See the quote above, Texas Supreme Court, Cockrum v. State.

Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 26 makes this point crystal clear, "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated , We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the genral powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void." To me this needs absolutely no interpretation, it's self-evident! :banghead: What needs to be understood is, what was the intent of those who wrote those Bill of Rights?

Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 963 defines 'inherent power' as, "An authority possessed without its being derived from another. A right, ability, or faculty of doing a thing, without receiving that right, ablility. or faculty from another." 'inalienable' , page 941 is defined as, "Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; eg, liberty."
'absolute' , page 15 is defined as, "Complete; perfect; final; withour any condition or incumbrance ....."

[mattd]

Recently, in State v. LaChapelle, 234 Neb. 458, 451 N.W.2d 689 (1990), we construed the Right to Bear Arms amendment in relation to a defendant's conviction for violation of a Nebraska statute which prohibited possession of a statutorily specified type of firearm, i.e., a short or sawed-off shotgun. Rejecting the contention that the Right to Bear Arms amendment authorized a citizen's absolute right to possession of certain types of firearms, we concluded in LaChapelle that a statute which prohibited possession of a particular type of firearm "is not vitiated by the Right to Bear Arms amendment of 1988, is a valid exercise of the State's police power in reasonable regulation of certain firearms, and does not contravene Neb. Const. art. I, [s] 1." 234 Neb. at 462-63, 451 N.W.2d at 691.

A similar conclusion was also reached in State v. Comeau, 233 Neb. 907, 448 N.W.2d 595 (1989), in which this court recognized, notwithstanding the Right to Bear Arms amendment, the validity of Nebraska statutes prohibiting a felon's possession of a firearm with a barrel less than 18 inches in length and possession of a firearm with the manufacturer's identification marks or serial numbers removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed. In Comeau, we noted that "courts throughout the country have recognized that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, and these courts have uniformly upheld the police power of the state through its legislature to impose reasonable regulatory control over the state constitutional right to bear arms in order to promote the safety and welfare of its citizens." Id. at 910, 448 N.W.2d at 597 (quoting City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1988).

Im sure this guy had a court apointed lawyer tho and I think we all know how good they are.

[suijurisfreeman]

The right to keep and bear arms is not a 'Constitutional right'! It's a natural, inherent and inalienable right of every free Human Being!

Nebraska's Statement of rights, Article I, CI-1: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So does Section 26 of Kentucky's Bill of Rights not really mean every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate ...." If the courts can over rule the Bill of Rights, which are the people's prior reservation of rights, which are off limits to any lawful government authority, then the people are not the sovereigns, all political power does not reside in the people and we are in fact not free!

Again see Texas's Supreme Court ruling, Cockrum v. State in which it's stated that the RKBA is in fact absolute!

Again quoting from 'Our Government', page 11, "The people are still sovereign; the Constitution still challenges any who would trespass individual rights or exceed the bounds of authority. One of the most important phrases in our State Constitution is found in Article 2, Section1, which reads: 'All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection. The government of Michigan was established and is maintained through the sovereign will and consent of its citizens. This will and consent is expressed through the State Constitution. No powers may be lawfully exercised by any official or agency which conflict with or exceed the authority conferred by the Constitiution.' Our laws are of three kinds, listed in the order of their superiority. (1) Constitutional (2) Statutory (3) 'The Common Law'. As has already been shown, Constitutional Law is the fundamental law. It is contained in a single document comparatively brief in words but broad in aspect. It declares principles rather than practices. It is concerned with doctrines rather than details. It is the foundation upon which the whole structure of our government rests. While constitutional law is capable of change, changes come showly and this is to be desired; it is a protection against whim and caprice. Our constitution confers upon the Legislature the authority to enact the second kind of laws - statutes, which furnish the practices and the details of government. The third kind of laws are not found in a single document or in a written code or compilation. They are expressed in the 'Common Law', established by precedents and maintained by judicial decisions."

So it's kinda like I said to Wildalaska, 'judicial decisions' come in a distant third place! :banghead:

[Quartus]

Say, what is with you Nebraskans, anyway? I always thought of you as part of free America. Then I got to looking into your state last week, as I was looking at possibly applying for a job there. Your gun laws aren't very good, and your home-schooling laws aren't very good (another good freedom barometer) and your real estate prices are BAD!

I coudn't afford to live in most of the state.


What's been going on there?

[cdbeaver]

Don't want to start any flames, but Nebraska also is heavily Republican-dominated.

Anyway, the issue is moot this year. The Legislature has adjourned and no concealed-carry bill was passed.

Maybe some one with good intellect and awesome amounts of money would like to steer a case through the court system.

[jimpeel]

We need to find a good lawyer who is willing to take on a case like this for free. The NRA won't touch it until someone goes to jail -- standing and all that you know.

I'd rather deal with it at the civil judicial level than at the criminal judicial level.

[mattd]

What so bad about Nebraska gun laws compared to other states? I just want to know.

[ThreadKiller]

I know Sen Tyson from his days as President of the Northeast Nebraska Shooting Association. I asked him about the CCW law several years ago. He told me then that our best chance to enact this law was start a petition. The various "powers" that haunt the Unicameral from Omaha will never let the bill come to a vote.

How many years has this bill been advanced now by Tyson and Co? It never makes it.

Sen Tyson is right. We have to start a petition.

Tim

PS My first post here. This is a "way cool" site to use the vernacular of today's youth.

[Frohickey]

If its introduced as a revenue-raising bill, it should get consideration.

What was it in Missouri? The $100 fee would actually turn a profit after the mandated background check and fingerprinting...

[mattd]

I don't support the ccw bill and ask you to not support it.

We have a state right to keep and bear arms. Carrying a concealed weapon is only a misdemeanor, 2nd time is a felony. Carrying openly is legal so you can do that if you want to stay 100% "legal". CCW licensing is gun registration. CCW laws don't make a forcefield around people to stop a gun from being hidden so the law of permit system is pointless.

[F4GIB]

Read the bill carefully. The last one introduced in Nebraska was a POS every bit as bad as New Mexico's or Ohio's. The Devil IS in the details.

NRA (and the "official" State Association) never watches the details so don't depend on someone else to do it for you.

[Shooter 2.5]

CCW bills are important because they show the dems for the gun grabbers that they are. The bill doesn't even has to pass to do good.

The CCW laws can also be worked on later on. The Texas law wasn't very good for carrying in churches or city property like parks. That was changed. The businesses that posted signs have largely disappeared. Now, we're working on the price of the license.

For a final note, you won't go to a Vermont or Alaska law without the "Shall Issue" step first.

[ThreadKiller]

So what's the answer then? I thought that one of the positive effects of a CCW law was that it helps put doubt in the BG's minds. Crime prevention, right?

We've got an open carry law. Yes, it's legal, but how many people would go ape if you strolled into the Crossroads mall with a 1911 on your hip? Of course in Omaha, open carry probably isn't legal to begin with. Not much is legal in Omaha. :) (Should be part of Iowa frankly)

I imagine that even in remote reaches of Nebraska, like Mullen for example, I think carryin' a piece openly into the local diner would raise more than one eyebrow and undoubtedly lead to a hassle of some kind.

What is it now, 38 states with CCW laws? It seems to be working elsewhere.

[mattd]

"For a final note, you won't go to a Vermont or Alaska law without the "Shall Issue" step first."

Its already a right, or so says the federal and state constitution. And from what I didn't find, there was no case took to the Nebraska Supreme Court about the cw ban.

"I imagine that even in remote reaches of Nebraska, like Mullen for example, I think carryin' a piece openly into the local diner would raise more than one eyebrow and undoubtedly lead to a hassle of some kind. "

Let them know where you stand. If they ask, then educate them

"CCW bills are important because they show the dems for the gun grabbers that they are."

Didn't Fienstein have a chl one time?

"how many people would go ape if you strolled into the Crossroads mall with a 1911 on your hip?"

If you have to hide from people then goto the SouthRoads, there is no one there to go ape.

[Shooter 2.5]

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and 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. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Well, Matt, here you go. Have at it. Talk to the state association and have an open or concealed carry walk. Just like what started in Ohio should happen in Nebraska. If it heads for the courts, you can go Vermont Green in no time.

Good luck and we'll all be rooting for you. [no, this is not sarcasm. I truly mean it]

[Sodbuster]

in remote reaches of Nebraska, like Mullen
These places would be better off as part of a Wyoming panhandle. Good luck, Nebraskans.

[cdbeaver]

For what it's worth, I e-mailed both Senator Tyson, the bill's sponsor, and my district's senator, Matt Connealy, last Thursday. Have yet to hear a response from either.

I wrote to Senator Tyson that I wanted to help passage of his proposal and asked what I could do to further it along. No response.

I wrote to Matt Connealy, a personal friend, and asked him what his position is on the current pending legislation. No response.

Further updates when they occur.

[mattd]

I think I'll call Ernie and ask him what I can do.:uhoh: