Here We Go Again!

From the Lincoln Journal Star July 11, 2006

Lincoln Jumps the gun on debate
By Sen. Jeanne M. Combs

As the one who is familiar with LB 454, the concealed handgun statue enacted by the 2006 session of the Nebraska Legislature, I believe that the city of Lincoln’s debate over whether the community should “drop out” of the provisions of the act are premature at best. Guess what? LB454 specifies no provision for a local governmental subdivision to essentially void the bill within their border.

My understanding is that the drop-out proponents are basing their legal arguments on a provision of the law which prohibits concealed-carry in certain venues, including "any other place or premises where handguns are prohibited by law or rule or regulation."

Note the sentence in question says “handguns”—not “concealed handguns.” Doesn’t that sentence appear to mean that for an entire municipality to qualify as a prohibited location, it would be necessary for Lincoln to ban the possession of handguns in their entirety within city limits… not just the concealed-carry of them? Just asking.

Also, it seems to me that the debate on whether to allow a legally issued concealed-carry permit to be valid in Lincoln (if indeed they have the authority) should proceed on the facts, and it isn’t. Attempting to justify dropping out by citing the possibility of domestic violence – or that permit applicants could be guilty of a misdemeanor crime of violence and still be approved—is essentially specious.

The facts are that federal law (18 U.S.C. 922) prohibits an individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm if they have been convicted in “any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and the prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. 922 are grounds in LB 454 for denying the issuance of a Nebraska permit to carry, as is any felony conviction.
(It’s actually overkill, if you think about it—the person can’t even legally own a gun—how could they possibly be permitted to carry one?)

The same federal statute also prohibits the sale to or possession of a firearm by any individual who has been the subject of a “court order prohibiting contact with the intimate partner or child of partner” of the hearing held attendant to the order includes a finding that the person “represents a credible threat and explicitly prohibits the use of physical force.”

Parenthetically, it would surprise me to find that Police Chief Tom Cassidy is not aware of these federal provisions; their original adoption was a cause of some concern in the national law enforcement community, which found itself in some jurisdictions with law enforcement officers who were no longer able to legally possess or carry a firearm because of a previous domestic violence conviction. That being the case, the only conclusion I can come to is that he has joined Chief Bill Muldoon of Nebraska City in camping vigorously against a piece of legislation that has not yet been thoroughly researched.

So far as the possibility of an individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of violence being approved for a concealed-carry permit, that too is prohibited by LB 454, which states that a “crime of Violence” is automatically grounds for denying the permit. It does not specify a felony crime of violence, just a crime of violence. End of argument.

The Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922, that Senator Combs refers to.