Now
Partly Cloudy
85°
High
82°
Low
67°

Seng plans to propose concealed-weapons ban

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By DEENA WINTER / Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Apr 20, 2006 - 07:05:47 pm CDT

Next year, outstate Nebraska residents may have to heed Johnny Cash’s warning when they head to Lincoln: Don’t take your guns to town.

Mayor Coleen Seng on Thursday proposed the city depart from the state by banning concealed weapons within city limits. Last month, after 10 years of trying, lawmakers passed legislation allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. Five of Lincoln’s six senators opposed it.

Seng and Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey also opposed the legislation.

Story Photo
(LJS File)

Supporters apparently intended to make the law uniform statewide, but senators didn’t repeal another statute allowing cities to prohibit residents from carrying concealed guns. So Seng will ask the City Council to pass an ordinance banning concealed weapons.

“The concealed weapon bill is a very real threat to the security of citizens,” she said. “I support the constitutional right of citizens to own weapons, but passage of the concealed weapons law unnecessarily puts Lincoln at risk for increased confrontations involving guns.”

Seng said she can’t go anywhere in Lincoln these days without being approached by people asking what she’s going to do about the concealed weapons law.

Her response: “Just be patient.”

The city law department needed time to look into the law. City Attorney Dana Roper has concluded that regardless of what senators may have “intended” to do — make the law uniform statewide — cities are free to make their own decisions before the law takes effect in January. Omaha already has a law prohibiting concealed weapons.

Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady has long opposed concealed weapons laws. According to some estimates, the law could inspire 19,000 Nebraskans to get permits to pack heat, which he said translates to as many as 3,000 in Lincoln.

The city doesn’t need a few thousand people carrying guns around, he sad.

“I think that it puts more guns out there,” Casady said. State law already allows certain people to carry concealed weapons, such as landlords collecting rent.

He said it’s rare for citizens to protect themselves with concealed weapons. He can only recall one incident in 32 years of law enforcement.

While concealed weapon supporters often portray rank-and-file police as supportive of such legislation, Casady said a survey of Lincoln police officers found 85 percent of them opposed a concealed weapons law.

Officers already operate in an uncertain environment, and even if it’s a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun, he said, “It’s still another gun at the party that you have to worry about.

“Guns will fall out of holsters at inopportune times,” he said. Guns will be left on shelves in restrooms, he said.

The state law will be difficult to enforce, he said, because it contains many exceptions. You can’t bring a gun into places like police stations, banks, schools, polling places and businesses that derive more than half their income from alcohol.

And the state already allows Nebraskans to defend themselves “in the very rare event that someone’s occupations or actions would justify the need for a concealed weapon,” Casady said.

While the law prohibits convicted felons from carrying guns, it allows people convicted of misdemeanors — including “people with pretty scary records” that include offenses such as stalking, violating a protection order, third-degree sexual assault and impersonating a law enforcement officer — to carry guns, Casady said.

Meanwhile someone charged with rolling back the odometer on a vehicle is banned, he said.

The City Council is expected to take up the issue in early May.

Reach Deena Winter at 473-2642 or dwinter@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Top Story > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Richard wrote on April 20, 2006 10:15 am:
" To Chief Casady: I will wager more crimes in progress are stopped by armed citizens than armed cops. Cops are good at investigating crimes but not very good at preventing them. T Mayor Seng: Maybe an indoor shooting range where all the soon to be licensed concealed weapons holders could attend training classes would be a better use of public money than building a gas station. "

Jen wrote on April 20, 2006 11:09 am:
" I really think she needs to look at the real issue. This may bring down the crime when criminals realize that the stales are even and that the criminals no longer have the upper hand. Besides the criminals are going to have concealed weapons if the law is there or not. This just make the playing field a little more even. "

Phil wrote on April 20, 2006 11:12 am:
" One more time. The mayor knows what's best for us. The state allows those who feel the need to carry concealed protection to do so legally, but nope... in the increadibly rare off chance of an accidental incident involving someone legally trained and permitted to carry a weapon, she is going to REMOVE THIS RIGHT just gained by the people of Nebraska. I dare say that this liberal knee jerk reactionist government in the city of Lincoln needs to be changed out as quickly as possible. "

scott wrote on April 20, 2006 11:17 am:
" I totally support the ban. This is a law to cater to the NRA. And as far as training classes and getting a license we already do that with driving a car and judging from what I see on the streets that is no garuntee there will be no accidents. I also enjoy the argument that concealed weapons won't be allowed in many public places. What part of 'concealed weapons' do they not understand. Please ban conealed weapons in Lincoln. "

Dianne wrote on April 20, 2006 11:30 am:
" Will all members of the household, and all visitors to that household also have training? Because if you have a gun in your house, you may think you have it locked up, etc., but you will find out that not only your children, but their friends, your friends, and your friends children now have access to a gun. Why would people want to carry guns around with them? Do they plan to be in a situation where they will need a gun? "

Allen T. wrote on April 20, 2006 11:40 am:
" Dianne: Your point, though valid, is irrelevant to the law at issue. It does not give people the right to own a weapon...they already ahve that from the Constitution. This law doesn't give people the right to carry a weapon...they already have that too. This law gives people the right to carry the weapon concealed. If the person is carrying the weapon with them, instead of leaving it home as they do now, there is less access to that weapon at home. "

Karen wrote on April 20, 2006 11:57 am:
" You go Mayor Seng !! I totally support you 100% !! "

Cindy wrote on April 20, 2006 12:06 pm:
" Mayor Seng says, "concealed weapon bill is a very real threat to the security of citizens." No, Mayor Seng, Criminals are a real threat to citizens. In all other states where conceal carry is allowed, crimes have gone down, and there has been no proof of shootings going up by people with conceal carry permits. Those are proven facts. A criminal is going to carry concealed whether you pass a law to ban conceal carry or not. That's why they are called "criminals." You are only hurting the law abiding citizens of Lincoln. You should do a little homework with an OPEN mind before proposing Lincoln to ban a state law. So Mayor, you support the constituional right of citizens to own weapons, but just not use them to protect themselves and their families? "

LeRoy wrote on April 20, 2006 12:45 pm:
" Well Mayor Seng I guess it's alright for us outsiders to refuse to patronize your fare city. We have both state law and federal law on the side of law abiding citizens and it would do you well to concentrate on the criminal aspect rather than the law abiding citizen. But it looks like you are not educated enough to understand the difference between criminal and law abiding people. How about if we just carry them in Lincon in plain sight, that is legal in Nebraska you know. "

Ken wrote on April 20, 2006 12:53 pm:
" I think we need to get the wild west restarted back in Lincoln we can have shoot them ups at high noon at 13th and O that will bring people back to downtown. "

Paul wrote on April 20, 2006 1:15 pm:
" If concealed-carry supporters would put down their "talking points" for a moment and answer this question: How is a concealed handgun going to protect you, if the person who is confronting you has their weapon pointed IN YOUR FACE? What's going to happen when you reach inside your pocket, or jacket or purse and try to pull your weapon? Think you'll be "quicker on the draw?" And what if someone jumps you from behind and they discover your gun? Think they are going to allow you to keep it? Guess what, you've just "donated" your gun to one of the bad guys. And if you think all the Meth-heads and other degenerates are really thinking clearly "gee, I'm not going to attack that person because they MIGHT have a gun", think again. Most of these thugs aren't going to be detered - and besides, they might just get more than your money in the attack, they might get your gun. Haven't we evolved from the "Old West" days? "

Glyn wrote on April 20, 2006 1:44 pm:
" Once again, the grand dam of Lincoln is tottering off on the wrong path! She and only she, with her vast years and years of experience can ensure that Lincoln is safe by forbidding legally carried weapons. Is she so naive to believe that many people are now carrying weapons legally, but not concealed as is legal in Nebraska presently? Does she believe that there is not a shotgun behind most pick up seats today? Of course the Police Chief dosen't want you to able to defend yourself, (violent crimes have decerases in evey state after concealed weapons laws were passes) then he wouldn't be able to take a huge salary for doing nothing but appearing on camera at press events. Has there ever been any justification to the overly large police force Lincoln presently has for a municipality of it's size. Compared to other towns the same size as Lincoln our police force is nearly twice their size. That's probably a good thing as we'll need a larger force of police trying to stop citizens legally carrying conealed weapons in Nebraska but traveling through Lincoln innocently breaking the new law. Maybe we can rename the City to Lennongrad, it's not being used anymore. I know, why don't we put it ot a vote of the people like the non-smoking ordenance? "

Gun Owner wrote on April 20, 2006 1:54 pm:
" Since when does local city ordinance override Nebraska State Law? Is this even legal? I am torn on this issue. As a gun owner I am not about to start caring a concealed weapon anyway. People in certain lines of work I believe though its almost a must that they do such as private investigators who investigate insurance fraud, people repossessing vehicles or material possessions obtained through loans that are delinquent, or private security for certain venues. I think it is unrealistic to say that the streets in general will be safer because of guns but in turn it is also unrealistic to think that banning concealed weapons will help to reduce these types of crimes because the people who commit them while using a concealed weapon usually are not even going to obtain a permit because they would not even qualify to have one in the first place. If you are a convicted felon and are trying to purchase a gun in this state you can't legally obtain a handgun so that kind of negates the argument that this puts guns in the hands of criminals. In conclusion to this whole issue I think it’s highly disturbing that our Mayor is going to try and use local city ordinances to override a right granted by Nebraska State Law just because she personally is objectionable to the law. I shutter to think what would happen if it was a right granted by federal law that has a larger impact. It would be best to investigate possible alternatives that might send a strong but positive message to gun carries such as saying it’s up to businesses and property owners to let people know if they are carrying a concealed weapon they are not welcome. The message carries more weight if the people around you say they won't tolerate something you are doing then if someone in a position of power says they are going to outright take away a legal right you are granted by state law. BTW remember Mayor Seng your voters are of both sides of this issue ;) "

Gregg wrote on April 20, 2006 2:03 pm:
" It is really sad to see how short sighted the Mayor and the police chief are regarding the CCW law. First of all, the law was never meant to allow cities to ban CCW. Had Sen. Chambers not done what he always does (stand in the way of the legislative process to push his own agenda), then pre-emption would have been included, as would reciprocity. If the Mayor had any idea how many people I've run into this year that were illegally carrying a handgun, she'd change her tune. Criminals do NOT CARE about the laws. CCW ONLY benefits law abiding citizens who can jump through all the hoops and pay for all the classes and permits. And its still only good for 5 years. Nebraska was the 48th state to realize that carry conceal is a good thing. That's right, 47 other states already said "yes, citizens with correct training and background checks are responsible enough to protect their lives with a concealed weapon". FORTY-SEVEN! The longer I live in Lincoln (9 years now) the more I realize how messed up the city council and usually the Mayor's thought processes are. Apparently the mayor and the police chief think Lincoln residents are only allowed to protect themselves in the privacy of their own home. Out on the streets, we're fair game. Go ahead, try to ban it. The legislature already has plans to add pre-emption (state law trumps local ordinance) as well as reciprocity, so its a moot point anyways. By 2008, we'll be able to carry in Lincoln and Omaha, like our founding fathers wanted...like the Second Ammendment guarantees. "

TC wrote on April 20, 2006 2:05 pm:
" I'm with you Mayor Seng -- hang tough! "

Gun Owner wrote on April 20, 2006 2:07 pm:
" Since when does local city ordinance override Nebraska State Law? Is this even legal? I am torn on this issue. As a gun owner I am not about to start caring a concealed weapon. People in certain lines of work I believe though its almost a must that they do have this option such as private investigators who investigate insurance fraud, people repossessing vehicles or material possessions obtained through loans that are delinquent, or private security for certain venues. I think it is unrealistic to say that the streets in general will be safer because of guns but in turn it is also unrealistic to think that banning concealed weapons will help to reduce these types of crimes because the people who commit them while using a concealed weapon usually are not even going to obtain a permit because they would not even qualify to have one in the first place. If you are a convicted felon and are trying to purchase a gun in this state you can't legally obtain a handgun so that kind of negates the argument that this puts guns in the hands of criminals. In conclusion to this whole issue I think it’s highly disturbing that our Mayor is going to try and use local city ordinances to override a right granted by Nebraska State Law just because she personally is objectionable to the law. I shutter to think what would happen if it was a right granted by federal law that has a larger impact. It would be best to investigate possible alternatives that might send a strong but positive message to gun owners such as saying it’s up to businesses and property owners to let people know if they are carrying a concealed weapon they are not welcome. The message carries more weight if the people around you say they won't tolerate something you are doing then if someone in a position of power says they are going to outright take away a legal right you are granted by state law. BTW remember Mayor Seng your voters are of both sides of this issue ;) "

Gary wrote on April 20, 2006 2:16 pm:
" Karen, does that also mean you support her effort to get a city run gas station, or tear down the Starship, or build a useless arena, or pour money into a defunct ambulance service??? I guess if you're so supportive of those ideas that don't make sense, I can see why you'd be opposed to an idea that does make sense. Rather than rationally thinking about a subject, weighing the pros and cons, and coming to a rationalized decision...let's all just take the easy way out and become Queen Seng's cheerleaders!!! Give me a break...the Lord, and Chief Cassady both know that the police department is incapable of preventing crime, or stopping them from happening. From what I see, they're not even that good at investigating crime, unless that crime involves arresting a few "johns" on 11th & E, or breaking up loud parties...whoohooo!!!! I feel so much safer! To Paul...if the criminal does get my gun, I'll be able to call up all the pawn shops with the serial number and tell them to keep a look out for it...that way when the criminal goes to pawn it off, which he's more than likely to do, the pawn shop can have spoon feed the criminal to the cops...they're not likely to catch him by actually looking for him. "

Doug wrote on April 20, 2006 2:18 pm:
" We once again our Mayor at her best! What is really troubling here is Everyone is talking about armed citizens. Does anyone of you that are against this bill understand what a concealed weapon is? It does not have to be on your body to be concealed. It can be locked in your glove box and be concealed. If you understand the law this would force people to be trained and a back round checked before they could have such a permit. A back round check is something I would bet your average criminal is not getting done before they walk into the local gas station to rob it. Maybe that is why the Mayor is worried about this law. When she opens her gas station she does not want anyone to protect her gas station from robbers. To the police chief Tom Casady you are contradicting yourself. In 30 years it is very rare the people protect themselves with guns. Then why worry about this law? The other question for you sir is how many times have your police officers left their guns in the bathroom? Please find something better than that to talk about. Between those two people they have ran out more businesses from this town then it will see in another 20 years. When will Lincoln change from being a one horse town to a town that is open for change? Their are a lot of other cities growning in Nebraska and Lincoln is not one of them because of those two people. "

fred wrote on April 20, 2006 2:47 pm:
" Well Paul I like the option of having a weapon for protection. I suppose you would throw your pack of cigaretts or bottle at him while you are dieing from a slug. "

Allen T. wrote on April 20, 2006 2:51 pm:
" Paul: I'll put down my talking points if you put down yours (more guns for criminals, Meth-heads aren't rational, the "Old West" reference...like those are new ideas). But, to answer your question, concealed weapons permits will protect some of the victims that you mention through fear. Criminals, some of which do think rationally, will fear situations where they might get shot while perpetrating their crime. Many criminals (unlike the Meth-heads which do not make up all the criminals in this state) actually hope to live to enjoy the fruits of their crimes. It's why humans eat, sleep, drink water...the will to live and all that. Will fear work on every criminal? No. Will it even work on most of them? Who knows. The point is, there is some suggestion that it does work...just the fear. Just brandishing a weapon and not even firing it. Those that support these laws believe that the fear will lower crime. They also believe that sometimes armed citizens may thwart criminal behavior. As citizens, we already have a right to protect ourselves and others from violence, even to the level of deadly force. Is there a chance that some criminals might get a gun from an armed person? Sure. Not that they couldn't get a gun from somewhere else, but does that really matter. The people that support this law have heard your arguments, recognize the dangers and believe that the good outweights the bad. We've devolved from the days of the "wild West" which is why personal protection is so important. "

Jason wrote on April 20, 2006 2:54 pm:
" Regardless how you feel about concealed weapons, once again Seng proves that she's using powers granted by the citizens to push agendas set forth by department heads and chiefs, Lincoln "old money" legacy and other NON-ELECTED officials. She's willing to go so far as to run face first into a law passed by elected officials. I hope the city council looks to this deeper issue of Seng's wielding of a crony-based government that barely escapes the legal definition of corrupt and tells her NO! "

SFC Stu wrote on April 20, 2006 2:58 pm:
" Concealed carry laws work in St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo. There has never been a Police Officer shot by anyone who has a CCW License. In fact, several Police Officers have be saved by law abiding citizens carrying a firearm. TheMayor and Police Chief are way wrong on on this! "

Jed wrote on April 20, 2006 3:06 pm:
" For those of you who ask, why do you need to carry a weapon? Call the police if you are in trouble! Courts have routinely ruled that the job of the Police is not to be a personal protector for individuals. They react to crimes that have already happened. Do we want to go and get into situations where we might need to use a gun? No way! Do you not ever watch the news? Crime happens to anyone, anywhere at any time! If you want to be defenseless that's fine, but don't force me to be! Could we be quicker on the draw with a weapon pointed in our face? yes, that's where training and distraction comes in while making the draw. Get educated on concealed carry, before you speak your mind on it. Simply being scared of guns, does not make you educated on the reasons against CCW you have. I want to carry a gun for the 1 event in my life, which I hope never happens, I need a gun to defend my life. I'd rather grow old and gray having never had to draw a weapon in defense. I don't want to shoot anyone. "

Jed wrote on April 20, 2006 3:19 pm:
" While the chief likes to state that he can only recall one incident in 32 years where a citizen has protected themself with a concealed weapon.. has he had the mindset to realise that maybe that is due to the fact that it's been illegal to carry a concealed weapon? therefor nobody was carrying and able to defend themselves more. And as far as saying people who have been convicted of violent crimes, or protection order.. etc.. something which by the way is something checked for when you apply for your handgun purchase permit, and will disqualify you. Here is a quote from LB454 itself. "(4) Not have pled guilty to, not have pled nolo 4 contendere to, or not have been convicted of a felony or a 5 crime of violence under the laws of this state or under the laws of 6 any other jurisdiction;" If sexual assault isn't a violent crime, or violating a protection order, or a "scary record", then what is? I think those of you who are so against this, need to read the whole bill and understand it. You bring up invalid points, which clearly would be proven wrong if you would just read the bill and understand the gun laws of this state. "

Carrie wrote on April 20, 2006 3:32 pm:
" I think many of you are forgetting that it is perfectly legal for people to carry their legally owned weapons out in the open. Any given vehicle you pass by on the street could have a gun on the front seat, or in the back window. It isn't becoming the wild west at all. Though I don't have any specific evidence to back up what is my opinion, I highly doubt a Conceal-Carry law passing is going to lead to a mad rush of gun toting in this city. "

luvwknd wrote on April 20, 2006 4:06 pm:
" Seng; Cassidy and all the cops are dead WRONG! By not allowing law abiding citizens their constitutional right to carry a weapon and to protect themselves using that weapon if necessary, only indicates that the criminals are the only ones who will be carrying guns. Finally the state gets something right, and the “country” folk running the cities of Lincoln and Omaha want to keep the citizens in the dark ages! Come on, get with the program, Lincoln is a joke and so is Omaha! "

Jason wrote on April 20, 2006 4:07 pm:
" Good. "

D wrote on April 20, 2006 4:11 pm:
" Way to go Seng. If someone in Nebraska want to commit a crime against an individual (strong arm robbery, rape, assault) they will want to make sure and come to Lincoln where there is no chance a law abiding citizen might be able to stop the crime. Why would they want to try anywhere else in Nebraska when Lincoln is leaving it's citizens hanging in the wind? When you enact the ban, you might want to widen the streets because you have just succeeded in attracting all the trash to this city and they will be rolling in by the dozens. "

Mike wrote on April 20, 2006 4:23 pm:
" In response to Paul's post below: Does anyone remember the strange surge in certain robberies which occured in Florida in the 1990's? It was widely reported in the news at the time because it was so odd. What was so strange about it was that the crime surge involved victims who were tourists. Remember? Tourists were getting robbed at hugely higher rates than normal, and much higher than the rate of Florida citizens there for a while. Why? Simple. Florida had just passed their own CCW law - they were one of the nation's first. During the months that followed, robbers started targetting tourists because they knew they didn't have concealed carry permits. They weren't residents, you see? Interviewed criminals who were caught confirmed this. What Paul calls "talking points" I call evidence. You can debate what-if anectodes all day long, but society-wide the data is there. Criminals change behavior due to concealed carry laws. Sometimes crime rates actually drop in measurable ways, sometime they don't. What crime rates NEVER do is go up, and that should be good enough for you. The "Old West" thing doesn't happen. Period. What's also interesting is that as a citizen of this state, those who choose not to carry get to enjoy this benefit whether they carry a gun or not, because the ciminal has to assume they might. You're welcome, by the way. "

SFC Stu wrote on April 20, 2006 5:13 pm:
" Concealed carry laws work in St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo. There has never been a Police Officer shot by anyone who has a CCW License. In fact, several Police Officers have be saved by law abiding citizens carrying a firearm. The Mayor and Police Chief are way wrong on on this! "

Political Motive wrote on April 20, 2006 5:15 pm:
" How can the City override a State Law? Wouldn't this be the = to a state law overriding a federal law? Is this more of a politicly charged motive to setup a legal show down over concealed weapons on a higher level? "

Jim wrote on April 20, 2006 5:17 pm:
" So let's pretend all these 'thugs' that are shooting people every day in Lincoln (?) now start thinking that potential victims might be packin' heat. What will the thug do? I'll tell you what - he'll get his own gun (when before a knife or even a finger in the pocket might have sufficed). What else will he do? Approach people who are unlikely to think they are Dirty Harry reincarnated and carrying a weapon. In other words he will target more women, the elderly, and teenagers instead. And lets be clear - this about grown men with Walter Mitty fantasies dreaming of a chance to use their gun and play the hero. I've lived in Nebraska for 36 years and can't recall a single time when I ever felt threatened enough that I would have pulled out a gun if it was available. "

peb wrote on April 20, 2006 5:38 pm:
" No one is being realistic. Tell me what good carrying a concealed weapon will be, only to leave it in my car because I can't carry into restaurants, schools, churchs, stores, theaters, football game, etc. My gun would be left in my car so I could carry it back into my house when I get home. And I can already have a gun in my house. Wow!! "

DMP wrote on April 20, 2006 5:53 pm:
" GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE...I'm thrilled that our Senators passed such legislation only to waste more Government time restricting the law even further. In Lincoln, don't get caught smoking down the public street with a concealed weapon, surely that's a life sentence. "

Gregg wrote on April 20, 2006 6:01 pm:
" Carrie, while it is legal to carry open in Nebraska, all it takes is one 'concerned citizen' to call the police, and you WILL be given a ticket for disturbing the peace. Isn't that a lovely catch-22? The point of carrying a gun isn't to scare everyone around you into good behavior. Its to defend yourself, should the need arise. Hopefully it does not, but you never really know. "

RW wrote on April 20, 2006 6:51 pm:
" I would like the Police Chief to do a nation wide study on the number of police officers that were arrested for various crimes in the past year vs. concealed weapons carriers. Lets throw in accidental weapon discharges as well. Perhaps the Police Chief hasn't seen more than one instance in 32 years because it wasn't reported, and ESPECIALLY it wasn't discharged, and served as a potially life saving deterrant. "

Deb wrote on April 20, 2006 6:56 pm:
" Seng and Casady make some interesting points, yet they seem to be forgetting one major concern (at least of mine): we can plainly see that the criminals are ALREADY carrying concealed weapons. I'm just all for leveling the playing field. Texas had the same misgivings when they introduced the concealed weapons law. But what they found is that people are far less likely to start trouble with someone if they think that person might be carrying. "

Blaine wrote on April 20, 2006 8:01 pm:
" Why not have the firemen carry concealed weapons. Maybe they could collect some of the money owed to the ambulance fiasco. "

Dave wrote on April 20, 2006 8:29 pm:
" I am not a Nebraska resident, but I spend a lot of my money in Lincoln specifically. I am pleased to see the state legislators passing a law that allows those that have passed a background check, training class and paid a rather large fee have a right to take responsibility for their own safety. You might ask yourself why I mentioned that I spend money in Lincoln.. I am no longer planning to thanks to your Mayor. There are plenty of safer places for me to vacation that allow their population, and even permit holders from other states to protect themselves. I have one question for the Mayor: What do you intend to do about the people IN YOUR CITY that are convicted felons or that would become that ARE carrying concealed weapons now? Call me crazy, but I would worry more about them than licensed individuals from rural Nebraska. "

Firth wrote on April 20, 2006 8:40 pm:
" Another reason to move out of this city/town. Terrible traffic, congested streets, no parking, a mayor who has no business sense, horrible tax assessments, and people who won't and don't know how to defend themselves. "

Erik wrote on April 20, 2006 8:59 pm:
" Good job, Colleen. This is the first actually thing you've done as the mayor of Lincoln. I commend you! "

who gets the right the criminals!! wrote on April 20, 2006 9:58 pm:
" I think the law should be passed SENG! I also think your CITY COPS should do thier jobs and not bs or park and look busy! Guns are important look at the couple in Murdock, did they have a hand gun? What if they did would things of turned out differently! Lincoln and most cities in Nebraska do not have adequate police protection! There are racial issues everyone dances around instead of making community adjustments. Yeah, public meetings, announcements and letters to a few that's done just so it looks legal!! What about REAL LIFE? Who's helping these kids in the heart of Lincoln? Maybe if citizens could defend themselves Lincoln could become cleaner and friendly again! "

Judy Cantrell wrote on April 20, 2006 10:08 pm:
" I miss the days when Lincoln was ruled by "old money." The state has gone hopelessly redneck. "

C wrote on April 20, 2006 11:05 pm:
" We should absolutely have a ban on concealed guns. What the heck was the Legislature thinking? This is crazy that cities are going to have to take on this issue. Thank you, Mayor Seng, for taking leadership on this issue. "

Nimrod wrote on April 21, 2006 4:39 am:
" As a person who carried a gun under the authority of a CCW permit in an Eastern state for almost 15 years, I can say that Mayor Seng and Chief Casady are clueless on this issue. There has never been a state where allowing citizens to legally carry concealed weapons has increased crime. If Mr. Casady would review the FBI crime statistics for those areas where CCW laws were recently encacted, they would come to the inescapable conclusion that legally carried firearms either decreased crime or had no effect. There have never been any credible studies to support the contention that licensed citizens carrying firarms consituted a threat to other citizens or to law enforcement. In fact, the statistics infer the contrary. Without any facts to support their position, one must assume Mayor Seng and Mr. Casady are either acting out of their own misplaced perceptions or out of political expediency. If they really want to see what the citizens of Lincoln think about the issue, why not put it to a vote? We are, after all, supposed to be a democracy; why not ask the members of that democracy for their opinion? "