Posted on 02/01/2003 12:29:47 AM PST by Super Mak90kid
Mayor, chief seek gun restrictions BY AARONS ANDERFORD / Lincoln Journal Star and NATE JENKINS
If Lincoln's mayor and police chief get their way, more criminals could be arrested for carrying guns, and others could find it harder to sell potentially stolen goods.
Mayor Don Wesely and Police Chief Tom Casady offered three potential ordinances Thursday. They plan to bring the proposals to the City Council in March.
The proposals will ask the council to enact the following changes:
• Prohibit people convicted of theft or a theft-related crimes twice over the last 10 years from selling or trading property to pawn brokers and dealers of secondhand jewelry.
• Make it illegal to keep firearms in parked, unattended vehicles for more than 24 hours.
• Outlaw firearms possession for people convicted of any of 19 charges the mayor and chief selected as "serious, violent or potentially violent misdemeanors."
Police say they found a positive reaction to the first proposal when Casady met Jan. 17 with pawn shop owners and managers.
Jeremy Cosier, manager of Capitol City Pawn &Jewelry, 2541 N. 11th St., said owners initially worried what would be required of them. Those fears were allayed.
"What it's going to try to do is weed out a bad element," Cosier said. "Pawn shops get that bad image, but we're more than happy to cooperate with police and get those types of folks out of the shops."
State law requires pawn shops to provide police information about items they purchase and the people who sold them.
If the proposal were to pass, police would be able to cross-reference lists of who's selling what with lists of known criminals and arrest those who sell items to pawn shops or dealers of secondhand jewelry.
Pawn brokers would not be given a "hot" list of names to avoid, officials said, but would be required to avoid buying from people they knew were convicted twice of such crimes.
No one interviewed Thursday expressed angst about the 24-hour proposal for keeping handguns out of unattended cars.
Investigators brought the ordinance idea to Casady after several victims of larcenies from autos reported firearms stolen.
The firearms-possession ban is modeled on restrictions Omaha uses to keep people convicted of violent misdemeanors from getting gun permits.
Omaha's ordinance also denies gun registration to anyone with a record of drug use or of dangerous mental disorders.
Lincoln's proposal would not address the mental health or substance abuse questions, because both are addressed in state law, Casady said.
But the language of the proposals could ignite legal challenges if written too broadly, said Tim Butz, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska.
Butz worried most about the inclusion of "obstructing government operations" among misdemeanors that could eliminate someone's right to bear arms.
Political demonstrators, particularly at war times, are cited for such crimes, he said.
"What the mayor and the chief are talking about could be completely constitutional if done right, and it could be flagrantly unconstitutional if not,"he said.
City Council members, some of whom first learned of the proposals Thursday, said they need more information and discussion before they'll take concrete positions.
Framing the gun-possession debate will be questions of fairness -- specifically fairness to those convicted of the targeted crimes, council members said.
Councilwoman Annette McRoy said she doesn't yet know enough to say "yea or nay" but added that the ordinances "sound good."
Councilwoman Coleen Seng, a candidate for mayor, said she trusts Casady's judgment.
Councilman Ken Svoboda said public reaction could be a major factor in his decision.
"I'm for anything that takes firearms out of the hands of a potential or convicted criminal," said Svoboda. "But there's a fine line" between public protection and infringing on an individual's rights.
Reach Aaron Sanderford at 473-7225 or asanderford@journalstar.com Reach Nate Jenkins at 473-7223 or njenkins@journalstar.com.
I say we are no different from the Banners who lockstep support total gun bans for everyone. Both knee jerk positions
In an ideal world that would be a reasonable statement; in our world it isn't. History strongly indicates that the gungrabbers will ultimately stop at nothing short of elimination of the 2'nd ammendment. I'd like to stop them as far short of that as possible.
I agree 100%. That's why I'm fighting mad about this and will never give up.
Thankfully, federal law overrules state laws on such matters. When you're ready to become an employee of an armored car service as our Nebraska representative, let me know. Try not to spend your paycheck of $1.00 per year all in one place.
See US Code Title 15, Section 5902 and 5903 *here*. You will of course have to undergo mandatory companty training and qualification; oughta take about six rounds.
-archy-/-
I came up with a little something. It oughta bear fruit sometime around the end of next week, Friday or Saturday. Check back with me then, and let's keep this post going until then, and spread the word.
Super Mak90kid, don't you apologize for the format or appearance of your post again; you got the job done, and THAT's the part that counts. Now watch what happens from here.
-archy-/-
But the 2nd amendment says..."shall not be infringed" meaning that no one... state, federal or local could infringe the right to bear arms.
Check your state constitution it probably has a "right to bear arms" law too since most states wrote it in their constitutions when they joined the Union.
Use both in your letters and to the mayor and council members.
Good luck in your fight, yes we must constantly fight to protect our freedoms.
If they are going to attempt to abrogate my second amendment rights, I am certainly going to abrogate theirs under the first and third, fourth, fifth and seventh. And if the constitution is moot, their protection from acts that would otherwise be unconstitutional is thereby dissolved as well, and they are no longer constitutionally protected fellow Americans, but simply tribesmen of a outlaw pack with no more moral authority than any drug cartel or dictatorship.
And they will not like what happens next.
-archy-/-
Point out that this law will effect them. Ask them if they have any guns. Ask them if they have armed security. Tell them if they pass this law you will sue for the exact protection they have.
Try anything to get them to change their minds.
Yes that is exactly what this law would do! I had a friend who was charged with 'Attempting to posess a concealed weapon' for having his gun in his car. He would lose his right to have guns under this law.
It appears that the Chief and mayor have not only comitted felony criminal violations of federal law, both by conspiring against the rights of others and intending to do so under the color of the law they have proposed but may also be liable as racketeers for triple the amount of any costs incurred by citizens who have to take legal steps to halt their criminal activities. Happily, federal law provides that an attorney pursuing such an action against them can be paid time-and-a-half his usual fee, and can collect it from the criminals.
Accordingly, I'd suggest that a good beginning would be to have those two criminal suspects provide a listing of all personal assets and property in their possession or under their control; if they're willing to break the laws in this case there';s no good reason to think that they haven't profitted from previous crimes they've committed while masquerading as public servants.
You're a bit behind the curve, as per the links in my post above. The Chief and the Mayor are going to be charged with the commission of felonies, and if the council also wishes to be so named, and included in a civil lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights, they're certainly welcome to join the dance.
Federal law REQUIRES that citizens with knowledge of federal law violations report those violations to the appropriate federal prosecutor or magistrate; I intend to do just that. And civil action is certainly also possible, unless of course that right is also denied to those residing in Nebraska.
I don't believe Lincoln is going to be happy about the attention they're about to receive.... It should cost the town considerably; financially, politically and personally for those involved.
-archy-/-
Uhhh I have to do that everytime I go into a state building, my childs school, a bank . . . . . . . .
Any public official who can't trust citizens with guns can't be trusted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.