Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: El Gato
I read your comment on Packing. What I don't understand is with a Second Amendment in their State Constitution, why hasn't the citizens forced the issue like Ohio did. Here's the amendment:
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. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).

I even checked for a Nebraska Concealed Association and all I found was a rather lame Yahoo group. So much for the Conservative Mid-West. It's sad.
10 posted on 01/08/2004 6:58:04 AM PST by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Shooter 2.5
What I don't understand is with a Second Amendment in their State Constitution, why hasn't the citizens forced the issue like Ohio did. Here's the amendment:

It's even harder to understand given that the the language of the state consititutional provision was changed, by vote of the people, in 1986. What was added was "for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes,".

I don't live in Nebraska (not since 1977), so I don't understand the problem either. I did a little checking and found only one state Supreme Court case addressing the issue since the changes were made. The Court basically ignored the changes. However it was "bad case" as the defendent was not a "nice person", but rather a penny ante criminal. AFAIK, the laws, including the requirement to have a FOID to purchase a handgun, which was passed about the same time (can't recall if before or after) the constitutional amendment, have otherwise not been tested at the State Supreme Court level.

With that constitutional provision, Nebraskan's shouldn't *need* a CHL to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise.

As I said, I don't live there, but my parents, brother and in-laws do. I did get stopped for speeding once in the mid to late 1980s on the way from my in-laws farm to their house in town. I had enough guns in the trunk to start a revolution in a small central Amercian country, because we'd had a family picnic and shoot that afternoon and I had everybody's guns) But the subject never came up with the county mountie. (Who my father in law said is a known Cylmer :) )

12 posted on 01/08/2004 10:37:14 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson