Now
Fair
52°
High
51°
Low
29°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Top Story > Extras
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Concealed-carry plans emerge

Comments 48 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Jul 27, 2006 - 08:45:45 am CDT

Short of banning concealed weapons in Lincoln, Mayor Coleen Seng and several City Council members will propose reducing  the number of people who can carry them.

The Lincoln City Council decided early this week not to ban concealed handguns in Lincoln.

But Seng and some council members still want to limit the number of people who can carry guns in the city limits.

Story Photo
Svoboda

If they prevail, some people would be able to get state concealed carry permits, but they could not legally possess that gun in Lincoln.

City Councilman Ken Svoboda said Wednesday he has been working on a city ordinance that would expand the list of people who could not possess guns in Lincoln.

The mayor, Councilmen Jonathan Cook and Dan Marvin and Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady have also been crafting legislation on the subject, which they unveiled Wednesday afternoon.

On Monday, the council voted 5-2 to kill a proposed concealed weapon ban in Lincoln. The surprise vote eliminated a public hearing and denied the public and city officials the ability to express their opinions on guns and the proposed city ordinance.

At a Wednesday afternoon press conference, Seng said a proposal will be presented to the council on  Monday addressing the types of crimes that would prevent a person from possessing a firearm in Lincoln.

A state law  to go into effect Jan. 1 would allow Nebraska residents to get $100 permits to carry concealed weapons. They must first complete firearms training and be cleared by Nebraska State Patrol background checks.

The state law says people convicted of a felony or violent crimes, found in the previous 10 years to be mentally ill or dangerous or judged mentally incompetent, cannot get the concealed carry permits.

Specifically, those with convictions in the past 10 years relating to firearms, unlawful use of a weapon or controlled substances can’t get permits.

The state law deals with who can get a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

The city ordinances deal with who can possess a firearm within the city limits.

Three years ago the city council  made it unlawful for anyone convicted of a list of violent or serious misdemeanor crimes to possess a firearm in the city.

Those crimes included stalking, violation of a protection order, third-degree sexual assault, resisting arrest, obstructing government operations, concealing a death and others.

The proposal from the mayor’s office would expand that list to include assaults, making menacing threats, contributing to the delinquency of a child, public indecency and second-offense driving under the influence.

That means some people who could get permits to carry a concealed handgun could not possess guns in Lincoln — concealed or not, explained City Attorney Dana Roper.

It would likely be enforced the same way marijuana laws are enforced, he said. If you are caught with marijuana in your pocket you are charged.

Casady said the ordinance would address his most significant concern with the state’s new law: loopholes for people convicted of serious misdemeanor crimes. While council members may have questions about some of the crimes on the list, he believes it’s a good start.

It would be frightening to think of people carrying concealed weapons who have been convicted of some of the crimes he has come across in his research of statutes and municipal codes, he said.

Svoboda said Wednesday morning he, too, had been crafting an ordinance to introduce in case the concealed weapons ban failed. His list included stalking, violating a protection order, impersonating a peace officer, indecent exposure and driving under the influence offenses.

Councilman Cook addressed another proposed ordinance at the press conference that would ban concealed weapons in public buildings.

“We need to make sure that when people come into a public building, they have some feeling they are protected,” he said.

The state law lists places where concealed guns are banned, including police stations, jails, government meetings, schools, college athletic events, places of worship or hospital emergency rooms.

The proposed ordinance would extend that ban to all buildings owned or leased by county or city government.

Seng said she believes council members and the mayor’s office could work together to get an ordinance passed.

Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.


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

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
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)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Doug wrote on July 26, 2006 2:05 pm:
" Indecent exposure? So if you got caught peeing outside after a football game in college you can no longer have a CCW? I understand the intent, but why arbitrarily pick and choose offenses? why not just ban all those found guilty of misdemeanors? Quite frankly, i'd be more concerned with a guy convicted of disturbing the peace for getting into a bar fighting than the local flasher. "

 Al wrote on July 26, 2006 2:10 pm:
" The city council is nothing but a "kiddie day care center". Having been in business for years, the action of this city council is appalling. Having lived in other states/cities I have never seen such supposedly respected government officials that have NO business like demenor, including NO common sense or good judgement. If the business I was in pulled any of the stunts this city council has, we would NOT have had a respected highly profitable business. This shows exactly why the assessed values and property taxes and state income taxes are being squandered by a bunch of delinquent government officials. It is amazing, this mentallity I find in grocery stores and everywhere. Even at church, I pull up to a parking space to back in to park and several times "church going people" will dart head first into the parking space so I can't park. If people have to be so secreative to conceal a weapon that will never be used unless "they" are the criminals, I sure would'nt trust them anymore than a bank robber. The gun carrying people are asking for a city of murders etc. like Chicago, Indianapolis and others. Peoples mentallity is unbelievable. "

 Phil wrote on July 26, 2006 2:12 pm:
" That makes more sense. But I would think that the legislature should make these changes anyway. Perhaps that could be worked out, and the city can stay on focus, dealing with the issues of out of control taxes and city government mismanagement. "

 c.h. wrote on July 26, 2006 2:29 pm:
" This is a laudable effort by councilman svoboda, but, I believe, futile. The people he's talking about exempting from the right to conceal-carry,are, for the most part, criminals. I'm sorry, but criminals aren't going to apply for a permit folks. Only the law-abiding will do that. The criminals will just continue to carry without a permit, as they always have. "

 Lew wrote on July 26, 2006 2:30 pm:
" Carrying concealed weapons?? What do you people think your teaching your children. If your child or someone else's get your's or somebody's gun and hide it, cause the adults do???, there are all sorts of implications that child or someone else could face for life. Example, the sniper in Indiana shot cars and semis on interstate 69 north of Indianapolis and interstate 65 south of Indianapols, killing a young girl and injuring a young man in a car. This person police caught, is 17 years old, and they found the gun STASHED in his grandparents home. How many lives have to be ruined before a supposedly city government wakes up and understands the probable concequences THEY are causing. I hope you on the city council are extremely proud of youselves. "

 BT wrote on July 26, 2006 3:11 pm:
" Lets face it, the right to conceal-carry are for the CRIMINALS. Isn't it interesting this is all the city council has to do, but to protect the criminals "rights". While the mayor and city council bicker over the "rights" for the criminals, they, the supposedly government officials hold a gun to the citizens head for out of control property taxes. Svoboda has shown his intelligence in my book, no vote from me. "

 jm wrote on July 26, 2006 3:14 pm:
" The councilperson is just looking to stand apart and use the media for a free ride. Felons already are restricted and the Nebraska law didn't carve out other options. Someone needs to focus on finding another part-time job. "

 Allan wrote on July 26, 2006 3:50 pm:
" Well, no more downtown evenings out for me and my family. Now--thanks to Jon Camp and gang--downtown should be loads of fun in the evening; liquored-up young guys packing iron ought to make everyone feel much safer. Nice way to "kill" the downtown business district--thank you city council. "

 Les wrote on July 26, 2006 4:10 pm:
" Svoboda get off the campaign trail and try to at least act like a city council member. "

 connie wrote on July 26, 2006 4:19 pm:
" I can't BELIEVE most of the comments here! Conceal-carry has been the law of the land in all states except 6 (now, 5) for YEARS and none of the ghastley scenarios dreamed up in this space have happened. Do you imagine Nebraskans are more stupid, or more violent than the people every where else? Lew, your scenario doesn't even INVOLVE a concealed weapon. Criminals will carry weapons whenever they want. They're not going to apply for permits. I personally know two women who have carried guns in their purses for years! Until all this came up, they didn't even know they were doing anything illegal. The guns are already being carried. Nothing's going to change, of course it isn't. Try and use a little logic people. They aren't going to start having shootouts on 'O' street. "

 Good wrote on July 26, 2006 4:39 pm:
" I hope more like Allen make that decision. Downtown will be less crowded without all of those hyper-nervous types. And it will be much safer, because that's the last place armed criminals will be looking. They will probably stick to the hyper-nervous neighborhoods. The criminals know those people will not be armed. What a target for home invasion robberies. Have fun with that, all you unarmed hyper-nervous types. "

 Darrell wrote on July 26, 2006 5:24 pm:
" Criminals could care less what the law says, they will carry if they want to no matter if there is a law against it in Lincoln or not. The ban would only keep the law-abiding citzen from being able to protect htmself if they were put in a life threating position. That's why the vote Monday was a good thing. "

 Troy wrote on July 26, 2006 6:08 pm:
" Many of these are redundant. I support CCW, will get a permit, and will carry. But I agree with any good attempt at reducing the number of carriers who have a high likelihood of using them improperly (ie those who have already shown themselves willing to violate existing laws). But instead of just passing this bill for Lincoln, take the list to the State Patrol meeting on August 9th and have them implemented into Chapter 21 for the entire state!!! "

 Bruce wrote on July 26, 2006 7:26 pm:
" Peoples Republic of Lincoln. Why do some people in Lincoln think they are above the law of the state. If this law is in place in Nebraska why does Lincoln not follow it. And since when does the police chief craft legislation. That sounds like a police state, don't you think. "

 JBD wrote on July 26, 2006 9:31 pm:
" This proposal just reassures me that Svoboda, Cook, Marvin, Seng and Casady have no respect fot the Constitution or the Oath of Office they took. There are no legal provisions in the home rule charter, state statutes or the Constitution for the Council to adopt this ordinance, none. If adopted this ordinance will surely be challenged in court. I guess Marvin, Cook and Svoboda have a million or so bugeted tax dollars set aside to fight and loosw the legal challenge to this assinine action. "

 Allan wrote on July 27, 2006 1:51 am:
" The writer calling himself "good" makes my point beautifully. Now downtown will be abandoned to young toughs with attitudes who will be able to carry concealed weapons. Those of us who can truly afford to support downtown businesses will take our families (and our money) to the malls in the outlying areas (where far fewer of the young toughs like to "hang"). The city council has supported the young toughs with attitudes and given the downtown business community the shaft--nice job boys and girls! Just watch as the downtown continues to drift toward more bars and theaters--"good" and his gang will love it! "

 No Way wrote on July 27, 2006 4:11 am:
" Good, Do you really think a criminal will think I won't attack that person because he may be armed? A criminal who is intent on robbing you or causing you harm will not be thinking about if you may be carrying a concealed gun. The only thing that will happen is that he will end up with your weapon and your money. Come on get real! "

 connie wrote on July 27, 2006 9:03 am:
" Hey!, I resent the attitude that my women friends who have carried guns in their purses for years, are 'young toughs'. One is a school teacher, for pity's sake! The right to carry concealed weapons has been the law in most states for decades. None of the awful things people here seem to think will happen, have happened in those states. I don't think Nebraskans are any more stupid, or violent than those people. Where's the logic for your doomsday predictions? Use some sense, please. "

 Rob wrote on July 27, 2006 9:18 am:
" Fear driven laws. That is what grandma and the commandant want. When will people see this? I wonder how this proposed ordinance can be seen as constitutional. The general standard of review used to determine the constitutionality of a law requires the law to be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, but if it is a law that infringes on a fundamental constitutional right strict scrutiny is used. This requires the government to have a compelling or overriding interest in the passage of the law. Fundamental interests, for example, include life, liberty, property, and privacy. The question needing to be answered is whether there is a fundamental right in the 2nd Amendment. If so, does the city have a compelling interest in passing the ordinance. Whether you use strict scrutiny or the legitimate interest test I would question the validity of the proposed ordinance. I can understand how the city would have a reasonable interest in preventing those convicted of stalking, protection order violations, and impersonating a peace officer...it's public safety and there might be a direct link between those crimes and the use of a weapon. But indecent exposure and driving under the influence have nothing to do with violent crimes and thus in my opinion it would be unconstitutional for the city to pass an ordinance with those crimes listed, even under the easier standard of proof. "

 sarah s. wrote on July 27, 2006 9:21 am:
" This is actually a good thing. Freedom-loving citizens tell our blockhead politicians "no" to their rights-grabbing. Then they go back to the drawing board and look for more intelligent alternatives. That's the way the process is supposed to work. Depending on the list of restrictions, I'm totally fine with denying permits to drunks and wife-beaters who only have minor convictions. As far as "getting real" goes, any criminal who attacks me WITHOUT a gun is going to end up dead. And once I'm allowed to have a gun, the criminal will have to be an interstate sniper if he wants to take me down. "

 TJ wrote on July 27, 2006 9:27 am:
" The younger generations (which you can tell by their names and/or usual selfish intelligence) only have respect for themselves and could care for anyone. They want the immature unresponsible things and the sad part is the supposedly "adults" on the city council are ready and willing to hand it to them. This has been the attitude of adults for a number of years, little wonder the world is in the shape it is in. One day people will answer for it. "

 Shooter wrote on July 27, 2006 9:35 am:
" So now we're supposed to be opposed to concealed carry because it will kill downtown? Armed toughs will take it over, after of course going through the screening, training, and expense to get a concealed carry permit? What are you people smoking? I've looked over Casady's list of misdemeanors which would bar Lincolnites from poessessing a firearm, and most of them are already covered in LB 454...with the exception of indencent exposure. If they get ahold of it, the late night tv comedians will have a lot of fun with this one. Just one more opportunity for our local leaders to make Lincolnites look like a bunch of hay shakers and jerks. "

 AB wrote on July 27, 2006 10:03 am:
" Simply because someone is a school teacher or minister or whatever, doesn't mean that they are always rational. As a former police officer, I had an elementary school teacher (an otherwise law-abiding stereotypical teacher with a denim ankle length dress on) lose her mind and start violently cursing at me and beating on the hood of my police cruiser, after throwing my ticket book into the street, all because she was getting a ticket for speeding (in a school zone no less). This occurred in front of her children, which you would think a rationale person wouldn't do. I can only imagine the possibilities, had she been armed. An otherwise rationale person goes temporarily insane every day in Lincoln, though none of the rest of the "law-abiding" citizens see it so they assume it doesn't happen. "

 Smith wrote on July 27, 2006 10:12 am:
" It is time more women packed guns to protect themselves. If more criminals knew that more women are packing heat they would be more reluctant to attack them. IF you are caught the first time carrying a concealed weapon in Nebraska it is a misdemeanor. I would rather be tried by 12 than buried by six. It is your right to protect yourself. "

 Gary B wrote on July 27, 2006 10:13 am:
" TJ, what do the names have to do with anything? Do you honestly believe that only young people will apply for a permit? If that truly is your believe, then I guess there's no accounting for naiveté. My father, definitely not a "young tough" (most ridiculoust term I've ever heard) has carried a pistol in his vehicle for years, but because of Nebraska's new law, he won't have to leave it out in the open for theives to see, and possibly steal. Furthermore, I would much rather display "selfish intelligence" rather than just plain selfishness any day of the week, because my "selfish intelligence" comes from extensivie knowledge on gun handling and facts on concealed carry, not from emotional banter with little or no factual backing. "

 RK wrote on July 27, 2006 10:33 am:
" This is not an issue about carrying a concealed weapon anymore. Does everyone understand that this ordinance focused more on "possessing" or owning a gun in the city of Lincoln rather than being able to carry a gun. If this passes, anyone that has been convicted of any of these crimes can no longer legally own a gun of any kind. This includes rifles or shotguns used for hunting. "

 Mrs. Jane Doe wrote on July 27, 2006 10:46 am:
" Friends contacted me to tell me to read the comments following the conceal-carry articles and letters online. I suspect that I am one of the women mentioned, who have carried guns for years without knowing it wasn't legal. If I'm not,well then I could have been. My Dad gave me a gun to carry when I left for college more than 30 years ago. I already knew how to use it. I still have that gun, but it's been replaced in my purse a few times over the years by newer models. I've never had to use it in self-defense. There have been more than a few times, walking alone in a dark deserted area, when I've walked with my hand on it. Will I get a permit, now that I know I need one? Of course I will, of course. Will I stop carrying it in the meantime? Truthfully, I'll try, but the peace of mind it gives me will be tough to give up. Will the predators out there take a break 'til I have time to get a permit? I really doubt it. Will my daughters give uo their 'purse protection' (interestingly enough, my boys have never felt the need)? I don't know. As a mother, I can't condone breaking the law, but they're adults. Secretly, I kind of hope they don't. The mom's version of 'don't ask, don't tell'. I just want to let people know who the average gun-carriers really are. We're not a bunch of 'young toughs' We just don't want to be victims! "

 Too Early? wrote on July 27, 2006 12:17 pm:
" If this has been covered please excuse my ignorance, but what about waiting to see what restrictions the State Patrol will place on carrying concealed? If people with the listed offenses are allowed to get a state permit, but not allowed to carry in Lincoln, how much of a burden will this put on our police to enforce? What happens to someone from out-of-town (or state) that has been convicted of such offenses,has the proper permit and is unaware they are not allowed to carry? Being convicted of a firearm offense is no small matter, especially if it is over such a misunderstanding. If it has not occured, I wish the Mayor and Chief would sit down with the State Patrol and discuss their concerns. If their concerns are realistic, one would think, the State Patrol would help alleviate their worries and add the appropriate restrictions on obtaining a permit. After all, one would think these concerns would be universal and not just specific to Lincoln. "

 Kenneth H. Zike wrote on July 27, 2006 12:40 pm:
" Please, someone explain to this old retired police officer, why anyone convicted of indecent exposure, "a winnie waiver" should be denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon? The Mayor and City council along with the, Chief of Police, need to stop having night mares regarding tax payers, the voters, the people who elected them in to office,the same ones who PAY THE BILLS and can vote them out of office are going to have shoot outs in the streets and buisinesses in down town Lincoln. I ask the question again " IF A PISTOL IS NOT THE BEST TOOL FOR SELF DEFENSE, THAN WHY DO ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CARRY ONE. The criminals have been and will continue to carry without a permit. "

 Jed wrote on July 27, 2006 1:11 pm:
" While I support keeping bad people from getting a permit, this is not needed. The state already says "crime of violence". it does not say what crimes, because it means any crime of violence. Public indecency is NOT a crime of violence. It is a lewd crime. Some girl who choose to flash herself, should not be kept from having a gun for protection. Is it illegal to expose yourself? Sure it is. But c'mon, the federal govt and the state govt, nor any local govt oesn't stop a person from getting a gun with that on their record. This is just another childish attempt to keep ANYONE who has ANY crime on their record, from getting a permit. So in fact, they are trying to ban concealed weapons in a different way, by making it so nobody qualifies for it. There are things people get convicted for, that are to petty it's not even worth paying attention to. Leave it how it's meant to be, crime of violence is just that, a violent crime.. any crime. Anyone with a restraining order on them, cannot purchase a gun. Quit trying to double up on laws to attempt to keep people from getting permits, for no reason. "

 Jed wrote on July 27, 2006 1:13 pm:
" One other thing, once you start picking and choosing which crimes people have been convicted for exclude them from getting a permit, then you leave it open for a crime not listed to be on someone's record and they get a permit. There are so many crimes that can be commited, that's why the state chose to list "any crime of violence", and numerous other misdemeanors, etc. "

 Rael wrote on July 27, 2006 3:02 pm:
" This is unbelievable. They are going to widen restrictions as to who can possess firearms in Lincoln concealed or otherwise? They are really overstretching their bounds. If they don't understand the can of worms they are opening with this one they are stupider than I thought they were. In the past I never paid much attention to city poliltics but now I feel like I must do everything in my power to get these people out of office and into positions more fitting to their intelligence like working at McDonalds. Folks this is an attempt at a blatant violation of our civil rights. "

 Haste Makes Waste wrote on July 27, 2006 3:40 pm:
" I agree with Mr. Camp. We need not rush into this. We have plenty of time to figure out the details before the law goes into affect in Jan. Why is the Mayor in such a hurry? The timing could not be worse, putting this before the council at the same time they NEED to be focusing on our city budget. It seems she is trying to set them up to fail. Is this an attempt to keep the minds of the public off of her Firetruck issue. Interesting we have not heard anything about that meeting with EDM. "

 Ellie wrote on July 27, 2006 3:46 pm:
" Twenty-five years ago, I was the victim of a stalker. A friend who was a deputy, gave me a hand-gun and told me to carry it with me at all times. For over two years, I "packed" that hand-gun, even as the stalking and threats escalated. I finally ended up leaving where I was living, because my life was in danger and there were no laws in place at that time to protect me. Would I have used the gun-YES!!! The gun was all that kept me feeling safe. Don't you dare try to take away my right to bear arems, concealed or not!!!!! "

 Zike's Nephew Mark wrote on July 27, 2006 3:50 pm:
" Just as with the Lautenberg Amendment I see this as an attempt to redefine a criminal act. I agree that folks convicted of crimes covered by the Lautenberg Amendment should not possess firearms, but the real issue is "Are those Crimes Felonies?" and "What constitutional rights remain after any conviction?" If these crimes are so serious that they require a restriction of individual rights, shouldn't they be re-classified as felonies? Is a second DUI serious enough to remove individual rights and if so, shouldn't public officials be fired for the same offenses? How many armed public servants have two DUIs? How many members of our armed forces have two DUIs? I'm not suggesting they should or shouldn't carry weapons, I'm just asking where the limits are. I think more questions need to be answered before we take this leap of faith (of lack of faith) and amend the (yet untried) law. When we know what we want, let's make it state law and quit the piecemeal approach. Hi Ken. "

 Shrinking Violet wrote on July 27, 2006 4:39 pm:
" Determination of danger or safety, it is all in the mind...that feeling of safety or a void. A non concealed weapon would have been just another symbol of safety for Ellie, why do people need to hide guns and be shadowy? Some dangers are not real, others very much are...don't you prefer to see the dangers? That is what your neighbors think of those who would be shadowy carriers of concealed weapons. "

 Ben Miner wrote on July 27, 2006 5:10 pm:
" Councilman Cook's comment is laughable. "We need to make sure that when people come into a public building, they have some feeling they are protected". Earth to Mr. Cook - Unless you provide security and force everybody to walk through a metal detector you are not really making anybody any safer. Sure they may FEEL safer because there is a sign on the door that says "no guns allowed", but that’s all it is, a feeling. Since when have criminals paid attention to those signs? Good public policy is not made on the basis of feelings and fear-mongering, it’s made on a careful examination of the facts surrounding an issue, when it comes to concealed carry laws the facts are very clear. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns does not endanger public safety. Despite all the doom-and-gloom fear-mongering by anti-gun groups, the “blood in the streets” predictions have never come true, not once. So in essence Mr. Cook, you are taking the position that the citizens of your fine city are less stable and more prone to violent outrages than the millions of citizens in this country who legally carry a gun. "

 barbie wrote on July 27, 2006 5:40 pm:
" I don't know about the rest of the women who have written here, but I carry my gun in my purse because I always have my purse with me and (go ahead and laugh) because a gun holster doesn't go with any of my outfits. "

 Concerned Mom wrote on July 27, 2006 6:32 pm:
" Most of those purse owners must be single women without children. My God!, would a mother or grandmother EVER carry a purse with a gun? Talk about "Families first", this is not a behavior that fits into ANY home with children. "

 Lost1 wrote on July 27, 2006 7:07 pm:
" It is interesting why women on the council didn't look at this dangerous practice and increased risks to children, someone left children behind! No one from HHS or County Health is concerned about children? The smoking ban seems pale in comparison as family values and family security begins with protecting the child from guns. "

 Shirley wrote on July 27, 2006 7:22 pm:
" Has anyone asked Ken if 'Pistol Packin Mommas' are on his safe or danger list? Some one needs to ...family values, safe practices begin in the home. Those without children might need to recuse themselves since they "don't get it" as a parent does. "

 Matt Thomas wrote on July 27, 2006 7:24 pm:
" Clarity in politics is a dream. Banning any thing or further restricting the current concealed permit guidelines just complicates the proposal. Let the state patrol and the police department do there job. Get on with what you have to do as a city committee. HOW MANY MEMBERS HAVE THE CAPICITY OR THE KNOWELAGE TO WRITE LAW???? Let those who wish to carry do it legally. The guns being carried by those that have had a background check are much less likely to commit a crime than those that carry a concealed weapon that don’t care if its illegal to do so. It’s our second amendment right to have and bear arms. The people you are afraid of already conceal and carry. Conceal and carry by written law just levels the playing field. As a council you should review the Castle Doctrine and pass that along with your concealed carry. That is if you really want you trusted constituents to have the right they need to defend themselves and not be prosecuted by the current laws that denies them that right. "

 Lance Arnold wrote on July 27, 2006 7:24 pm:
" Just a thought here I am a male that is 5'11 and 245 lbs not small not big but large enough to take care of my self, my wife who is Licensed to carry in 38 states but not this one yet> is 5'2 105lbs her only way to equalize any potential threat is her firearm that is in her purse when we leave this state. If a parent does not take the time to teach young children not to handle or use a firearm before they are ready then shame on the parent. We have 2 small children and they both know not to touch and play with mom or dads guns. I would challenge any parent that is not proficent in the use of a firearm to learn how to use one and then take the whole family to the range for family time togethter. We do and it is a great time together. As to lincoln's ban I is funny how the city council members are so worried about the people where were they when some woman was being raped or some person was being robbed. It is not the responsibility of law enforcemetn to protect you dont believe me just look at the cout cases. You are responsible for you well being and safety. I do not go to lincoln if i can help it and will avoid that city if they keep this ban idea in effect. Look at the law. it is very ridiged in its wording. "

 D.S.B. wrote on July 27, 2006 7:25 pm:
" I don't know about most of the purse owners, but I deduce from her comment that Mrs. Doe has at least 4 grown children. She talks about 'daughters' and 'her boys' OK, re-reading it, I guess she only SAYS the girls are grown ups, but still, 4 kids anyway. She doesn't sound deranged, she sounds law-abiding. I think she just wants her and her daughters to be safe. "

 JUST LOST wrote on July 27, 2006 7:32 pm:
" Concerned MoM Teach your children well.It may save there LIFE>>>> "

 Michael Lee, Jacksonville, Florida wrote on July 27, 2006 8:40 pm:
" I do hope that Lincoln will retain it's status as "free range" for the two legged predators - economic refugees from Florida, Georgia, South Caroline (and about 35 other states!). They need some place besides New York, Boston and Washington D.C. to find unarmed sheeple peasants to prey on. Rapist, muggers and Nazis are all enthusiastic about "gun control". You'll find the largest collection of opponents of "CWL" laws in the Florida State Prison, Starke, Florida. They, to a man, just hate them. Mike Lee "

 W G Martin wrote on July 27, 2006 10:05 pm:
" So it will be the Mayor and several cronies who will decide for the people of Linclon! Perhaps the good people of Linclon should make a decision as to who the next Mayor and her cronies will be come nexy election! Personally I don't think that they should be the divineing voice as to who is good or evil! Enforce the laws you have now, don't make up more of them! "

 Ruff Character wrote on July 27, 2006 11:18 pm:
" My wife and I are evening shift workers and both in our 50's and many times walk at night after work. My wife was raped here in Lincoln 30+ years ago. Yes there was violent crime here even then. I carry a gun or a knife with me on our walks and we may be walking past your house tonight, Allan. You'll never know (unless you try to rape my wife). Yes, I know I'm breaking the law but my wife will never go through what she did 30 years ago on my watch. I'm looking forward to being law abiding in January. "

Ads by Yahoo!