- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2010
- May 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- August 2009
- March 2009
- November 2008
- March 2008
January 24, 2016
Certain elected representatives in our Unicameral are attempting to avoid taking a stand and putting into question whether they actively uphold their oath to the Nebraska Constitution. A motion by Senator Ernie Chambers to place LB289 back into the Legislative Committee (effectively killing this critical piece of legislation) is actually being considered by other State Senators, even some who successfully moved it out of committee so that it could be debated and openly voted on by our elected representatives.
A failure to act and honorably discharge their responsibilities as our elected representatives in the Unicameral is shameful!
The duty of the Unicameral is to serve the citizens of Nebraska by actively and fully discharging their responsibilities to represent, fully discuss and vet legislation and uphold the Constitution.
Contact your Senator now and let them know you will hold them accountable for killing this legislation by allowing it to be recommitted back to the Legislative Committee.
If you can join us at the Capitol to watch, debate resumes at 10am Monday.
Board of Directors,
Nebraska Firearms Owners Association.
Rumor has it that debate will finally begin on LB-289 today & resume on Monday!
We have heard a lot of misconceptions about 289 from Senators & even from the Police Chief in the states 2nd largest city.
LB-289 does Not ‘take away’ anything from cities that have enacted UnConstitutional ordinances…they Never have had that Authority & this proposed bill simply brings them in line with the Nebraska Constitution!
We Absolutely need to break the switchboard at the Capital to get this passed! http://nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/senator_find.php
There are some Senators sitting on the Freedom Fence…lets respectfully help them over to the correct side!
*Senator John Stinner #402-471-2802
*Senator Merv Riepe #402-471-2623
*Senator Galen Hadley #402-471-2726
*Senator Les Seiler #402-471-2712
*Senator Burke Harr #402-471-2722
*Senator Kathy Campbell #402-471-2731
*Senator Bob Hilkemann #402-471-2621
*Senator Paul Schumacher #402-471-2715
*Senator Kate Sullivan #402-471-2631
*Senator Bob Krist #402-471-2718
*Senator Kate Bolz #402-471-2734
*Senator Roy Baker #402-471-2620
Perfect case for LB-289 in Nebraska!
The Nebraska Legislature is set to debate the merits of LB-289 & we do not have to look far to see a real need for State Preemption of firearm laws in the Cornhusker state.
This past July a Lincoln Nebraska man had his firearm collection returned to him after a court case that was spearheaded by the Second Amendment Foundation.
The individual in this case was eligible to own firearms on a federal & state level but he was excluded from this Constitutional Right inside the city limits of Nebraska’s capital city because of a misdemeanor conviction in his past.
Reactionary municipal ordinances like this are in direct violation of Article One Section One of the Nebraska Constitution & the intent of LB-289 is to bring cities into compliance with their State Constitution.
Our Affiliate The Nebraska Firearms Owners Association is leading the charge towards State Preemption as lobbying efforts from the Bloomberg front groups begin to ramp up their efforts.
The N.F.O.A. does not need your money to win this battle, they need the Pro Liberty Grassroots involvement of Patriots like you. Take one minute, call a Nebraska State Senator & let them know that you support LB-289!
You can use the following link to get a list of the members of the Nebraska legislature.
Thank you for your help at this critical time.
Below is a brief description of LB289 from Creighton Law Professor, and former Dean, Patrick Borchers. I appreciate Mr. Borchers taking time to share his thoughts with us on this critical piece of legislation.
THOUGHTS ON LB289
by Patrick Borchers
Senator Ebke’s bill (LB 289) is an important effort to unify firearms regulation throughout our state and not allow localities to implement regulations that likely violate the Second Amendment.
Perhaps a brief history is in order. The U.S. Constitution as ratified gave to the federal government limited, enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was not included. The Anti-Federalists argued (it would turn out correctly) that the powers given to the federal government would expand and eclipse the powers of states.
As a concession to the Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights was enacted. As it would turn out, this was a fortunate event. The powers of the federal government (driven mostly by a vastly expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause) turned out to be almost all-encompassing.
As the Supreme Court ruled as to the First Amendment (protection of free speech), the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches) and various other parts of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court eventually ruled that the Second Amendment conferred a personal right to bear arms and that this right applied as against both the state and federal governments.
But for this to be truly meaningful, the right must apply across the state and not be subject to restrictive, local regulation. With terrorist attacks in the U.S. becoming an unfortunate reality, gun owners who seek to protect themselves and others who might be targets ought not be hamstrung by local and inconsistent regulation.
Senator Ebke’s LB 289 offers an important antidote.
Gun Rights and Conventions
A certain misunderstanding has emerged, and I hope that those of you in the district (or with friends in the district) will help me set people straight.
My position on gun rights has always been clear: between the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 1 of the Nebraska Constitution, I believe that there is very limited room for legislation which would limit gun rights–and an argument could certainly be made that some of the limits we have already are at the margins of being constitutional.
I sponsored two pro-gun pieces of legislation in the 2015 legislation session: LB184 (which would have allowed private schools to designate security teams made up of CCW permit holders, just as churches are currently allowed to do), and LB289 (a “pre-emption” bill, which prohibits local municipalities from creating stricter gun regulations than the state has enacted–the intent being that if citizens who are in possession of, or carrying, a gun legally in one town, they ought not be subject to arrest by going into another municipality and doing the same thing).
LB184 was killed in committee.
LB289 was actually moved out of committee late in the session, and should make it onto the floor for debate during the next session. Some may wonder why I–as one who likes local control–believe that municipalities ought not have the right to enact their own gun ordinances. My rather simplistic view is this: I don’t believe that cities ought to be able to limit Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, or Freedom of the Press and I don’t think local law enforcement, county prosecutors or judges should be able to dispense with warrants or habeas corpus. Our Civil Liberties, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) should not be subject to local whim.
A pro-gun rights group of some sort–which one would think would normally be in support of my position–has decided to begin a campaign suggesting that I want to destroy the Second Amendment. Perplexing, I know, but not so much so if you understand the nature of the group, and the fear-mongering that some political advocacy groups engage in. This particular group has decided that my LR35 (which I wrote about here–as well as in a number of other instances: https://www.facebook.com/notes/sena…) is the promotion of a “constitutional convention” (sometimes referred to by this group as a “dangerous con-con”) that will result in the end of the republic as we know it, and certainly the end of the Second Amendment. THESE ARE UNADULTERATED SCARE TACTICS, designed to put this organization in the position as the protector of your liberties (if only you’ll send them a donation when they call or write you back, so that they can “continue to fight for you”).
LR35 would be Nebraska’s application for a Convention of States (NOT a Constitutional Convention). A Convention of States is a CONSTITUTIONAL method (Article V) of PROPOSING amendments to the Constitution. Anything that comes out of the Convention must still be RATIFIED by 38 states, or it doesn’t become part of the Constitution. This application for a Convention of States deals with specific issues (from the resolution): “The Legislature of the State of Nebraska hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”
Today, I started receiving phone calls which were the result of “robocalls”, it would appear. People from the legislative district were called, had it insinuated (or were outright told) that I was ready to destroy the Second Amendment, and that they should “press 1” to talk to Senator Ebke. Typically those calls get directed to my office. Today, they went to my personal cell phone, which lit up for a little while. The nature of the calls was such that most of them went directly to my voicemail before I could answer them–I will be responding personally to those who called and left a message.
It would appear that I am now in a rather unique position–I am publicly criticized by those who want gun control, contrary to a plain reading of the Nebraska Constitution, for my efforts on LB289; and I’m publicly criticized by one of the most zealous gun rights groups in the country for seeking to limit the federal government and impose fiscal restraints on the federal government through a means that is absolutely constitutional (Article V of the Constitution was written by “Father of the Constitution” James Madison and “Father of the Bill of Rights” George Mason–as a “pull in case of emergency” lever for the states, should the federal government become unmanageable).
My constituents have a wide range of opinions on gun control. I understand that some will be disappointed with my position in favor of gun rights. But I wanted to make it absolutely clear where I stand on this issue, and why. And just as I am working (along with thousands in the state, and hundreds of thousands around the country) to bring clarity to the role of the federal government in our lives, those who believe that Nebraska’s gun laws should be stricter could probably get there (and still be within the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment), were it not for the very explicit language in the Nebraska Constitution.
Nebraska’s Constitution, though, is amendable (indeed, the current gun rights language was adopted in 1988 through constitutional amendment). Rather than asking legislators to violate their oaths of office, those who are in opposition to the expanse of gun rights in our Constitution should draft new language, and begin their own petition campaign to get it on the ballot, and see if enough people in the state are willing to go down that road.
NFOA membership is open to all types of firearms owners as long as you are a resident of the state of Nebraska. Whether you are a trap shooter, long-range rifle shooter, concealed handgun permit holder, air gun, rifle and or shotgun hunter, NFA firearms enthusiast or belong to any other group of firearms owners, you are welcome to join our organization.
We are local firearms owners who have a personal interest in representing firearms owners rights in Nebraska. While there are much larger firearms owner groups and lobbyists, we have a personal stake right here in fighting for our rights. We do not have big money to fly in lobbyists from the coasts, we do not have the money to wine and dine Legislators, and we are just everyday normal Nebraska residents like you who want our voices to be heard by the various law makers. We will operate on what money is donated to us voluntarily.