Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: What in the he!! is going on in Lincoln ? ? ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I read on another forum that an individual in Lincoln had all of his firearms confiscated when the polce learned that he had a couple year old misdemenaor conviction for possession of marijuana.

    Have any of you heard of this ?

    Is there more to the story ?

    How does the new pre-emption law (congrats by the way !) effect these local laws like Lincolns ?



    Thanks

    BB

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    52 views and no replies - - - that is pretty scary - - -



    Here is the text of the ordinance - - - two DUIs and you are out too - - -



    9.36.100 Unlawful Possession of Firearms.

    (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any firearm within the corporate limits or

    on any property of the City of Lincoln outside the corporate limits when that person has been

    convicted of any one of the following offenses within the last ten years: Stalking in violation of

    Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 28-311.03 or any other comparable or similar state statute from another state;

    Violation of a protection order as set forth in
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-924 or Violation of a foreign

    protection order as set forth in
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-931; False imprisonment in the second degree

    in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-315; Sexual assault in the third degree in violation of Neb. Rev.

    Stat.
    § 28-320; Impersonating a peace officer in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-610; or,

    Impersonating police officer in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.08.060; Debauching a

    Minor in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-805; Obstructing government operations in violation of

    Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 28-901; Resisting arrest in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-904; Resisting officer

    in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.08.030; Obstructing a peace officer in violation of
    Neb.

    Rev. Stat.
    § 28-906; Interfering with an officer making an arrest in violation of Lincoln Municipal

    Code § 9.08.020; Carrying concealed weapon in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1202; Criminal

    child enticement in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311; Implements for escape in violation of Neb.

    Rev. Stat.
    § 28-913; Unlawful possession of explosives, second degree in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat.

    § 28-1216; Use of explosives without a permit in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1218; Concealing

    the death of another person in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1302; Minors not to be furnished

    with firearms, ammunition, or weapons in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.36.020;

    Discharge of firearms unlawful in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.36.010; Assault in the

    third degree in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-310; Assault and battery, menacing threats in

    violation of Lincoln Municipal Code §9.12.010; Unlawful intrusion in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat.

    § 28-311.08; Violation of custody in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-316; Domestic assault in

    violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-323; Criminal trespass in the first degree in violation of Neb. Rev.

    Stat.
    § 28-520; Contributing to the delinquency of a child in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-709;

    Public indecency in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-806; Public indecency or indecent exposure

    in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.16.180; Operating a motor vehicle or vessel to avoid

    arrest in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-905; Fleeing in a vehicle to avoid arrest in violation of

    Lincoln Municipal Code § 10.14.280; any violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act as

    set forth in
    Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-401 to 28-456.01; Toxic compounds, unlawful use in violation of

    Lincoln Municipal Code §9.16.110; Criminal attempt in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-201 for

    any of the state crimes set forth in this subsection (a).

    (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any firearm within the corporate limits or

    on any property of the City of Lincoln outside the corporate limits when that person has been

    convicted of two or more of the following offenses within the last ten years: Driving under the

    influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,196; Driving under the

    influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code § 10.16.030; Implied

    consent to submit to chemical test, refusal in violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6-197; Chemical test,

    refusal in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code §10.16.040; or any conviction under a law of another

    state or municipality if at the time of the conviction under said law the offence for which the person

    was convicted would have been a violation of
    Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-6,196 or 60-6,197.

    (c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to (1) the issuance of firearms or the

    possession by members of the Armed Forces of the United States, active or reserve, the National

    Guard of this state, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, when on duty or training; or (2) a peace

    officer as defined by
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-109(14). (Ord. 19060 §1; March 24, 2008: prior Ord.

    18793 §1; August 21, 2006: Ord. 18158 §1; April 7, 2003).



  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Bay Bob wrote:
    52 views and no replies - - - that is pretty scary - - -



    Here is the text of the ordinance - - - two DUIs and you are out too - - -

    ...
    Sorry, if you wanted us to jump on it right away....



    Wow. What a laundry list.

    I could see many of thse as exclusions for a CHL or CWP.

    But for firearmownership a lot of these would seem to be flat out unconstitutional....



    When did stinkin' Lincoln pass this mess?



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Horse Thief, New Mexico
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    Chief Casady promulgated this list a few years ago and got the entire city council and mayor to violate their oaths off office to make it law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    And the worst part is they are enforceing it, going back 8 years in one case for a misdemeanor pot possesion at a college party.



    My guess is that Lincoln is a liberal controlled college town - - -



    Good luck to you all in getting this turned around.



    BB

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Here's an old article I found that furnishes a lot of background...



    Council considers gun restrictions
    DEENA WINTER / Lincoln Journal Star |

    Posted: Monday, August 14, 2006



    In Lincoln, it’s illegal to possess firearms if you’ve been convicted of certain crimes, such as stalking, resisting arrest and violating a protection order.

    The City Council is considering tightening the law by adding additional crimes to that list, including assault, drug crimes, unlawful intrusion, domestic assault and public indecency. The ban would apply to people who have been convicted within the past 10 years.

    Last month, the City Council rejected Mayor Coleen Seng’s proposal to ban concealed weapons in Lincoln. Instead, the council is looking at limiting who can possess guns within the city limits.

    So when the state begins allowing people to get concealed weapons permits in January, people convicted of these crimes would not be able to legally possess the guns in Lincoln.

    Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady said the proposed ordinance is designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and wouldn’t affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to get concealed weapons permits.

    Casady said the earlier 2003 ordinance, which passed unanimously, has helped police take firearms out of the hands of convicted criminals, and the new ordinance will take them away from even more criminals.

    A representative of the National Rifle Association, Jordan Austin, testified against the proposed ordinance, saying it would create a patchwork of gun laws.

    Casady pointed out that the city has all kinds of ordinances that other cities don’t. For example, “you have to pick up your dog’s poop,” you can’t smoke indoors while working and “you can’t keep a rooster.”

    “I don’t think this one is difficult to understand,” Casady said.

    If a convicted criminal were found with a weapon, police would confiscate the weapon as evidence and the person would face a misdemeanor charge with a maximum penalty of $500 and up to six months in jail.

    Casady said he’s concerned about 10 “serial flashers” who are continually window-peeping or masturbating in public, some of whom have guns.

    To illustrate his point, he unfolded a long printout of the criminal history of “Peter,” who’s been arrested 106 times by police, including five times for indecent exposure, and has 11 pending charges. Then he unrolled another printout of “Robert,” who’s been arrested 121 times, 13 for indecent exposure.

    “These are the kinds of people that I would like to keep guns from,” Casady said. “Peter has a gun. I would like to take it away from him, if we find him with one.”

    Nothing would prevent people with those convictions on their record from buying a weapon, Casady said, but the minute they took possession of the gun they’d be violating Lincoln’s law.

    Austin said it would be unreasonable to make people passing through Lincoln memorize its “obscure local ordinance.”

    He said state law only allows the city to regulate the use, not possession, of firearms and asked the council to get the state attorney general’s opinion on the legality of the ordinance before proceeding.

    City Attorney Dana Roper disagreed with the NRA’s interpretation of state statute and said Lincoln has the legal power, as a home rule city, to pass such an ordinance.

    Councilman Jonathan Cook pressed Austin to answer whether he thought it was OK for people convicted of the proposed crimes to be allowed to possess firearms.

    Austin said he doesn’t think any of the crimes should preclude people from possessing weapons. The offenses are misdemeanors, not felonies, he said, and people convicted of two DUIs, for example, aren’t necessarily a danger to society.

    “Why this sudden urge to make the gun laws stricter than they are?” Austin asked.

    Gary Muckel, a retired USDA scientist, called the proposed ordinance “nothing more than overreaction or sour grapes” by those who oppose the state conceal-carry legislation.

    He also said 10 years was too long to ban people convicted of the crimes from having weapons.

    He said the ordinance would unjustly punish a hypothetical 21-year-old who gets caught twice for driving under the influence of alcohol twice in one weekend.

    But Casady said the ordinance was written to give a second chance to people who made mistakes like two DUIs.

    “Maybe it’s a good idea not to have firearms until you’re 31,” he said of Muckel’s fictional character.

    The council is expected to vote on the proposed ordinance at its next meeting, on Monday.

    http://www.journalstar.com/news/arti...5aea5d774.html


  7. #7
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    If they an go back 10 years then that is an Ex post facto law, completely un-Constitutional.
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Good grief, that is quite the list there.

    Too bad for them they are unable to legally enforce their bs ordinances against permit holders.

    One more reason to get a permit.

    Edit: Full text posted below.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Bay Bob wrote:
    I read on another forum that an individual in Lincoln had all of his firearms confiscated when the polce learned that he had a couple year old misdemenaor conviction for possession of marijuana.

    Have any of you heard of this ?

    Is there more to the story ?

    How does the new pre-emption law (congrats by the way !) effect these local laws like Lincolns ?



    Thanks

    BB
    Start by requesting original information on the supposed confiscation. If it is based upon a local Lincoln Statute, it would appear that the state preemption should be operable to make it invalid. WHEN did this supposedly happen?

    Unless preemption is only for the CCW regulations......

    EDIT: It appears that preemption applies to only CCW holders... Unless I misread it.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    It only applies to permit holders. This is the full text:

    "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 against any permit holder possessing a valid permit under the act."
    http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/Flo...inal/LB430.pdf

    While the pre-emption is specific to handguns, I suspect it would also make it difficult for them to enforce the ordinance against other firearms, as well. of course, IANAL.

  11. #11
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    The problem is the same everywhere, failure to hold legislators accountable for unconstitutional law.

    Nebraska Constitution states Article I, Section 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 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".

    Nebrakans have to wake up and realize the second amendment has nothing to do with guns, it's about the people -not the government,having the monopoly on power.

    The Nature and Origin of Human Rights
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSHg3JV_V8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •