Nebraska will reconsider CCW bill

[Township75]

Concealed-carry bill may get a shot

LINCOLN - By the numbers, it would appear that Nebraskans might get a shot at packing heat next year.

Two-thirds of state lawmakers responding to a survey by The World-Herald voiced support for some sort of legislation to allow carrying of concealed weapons, at least with conditions.

That would be enough votes to cut off a filibuster and pass legislation if all 33 senators hang together.

But the Nebraska Legislature has been down this road several times before. Every previous effort to pass a concealed-carry bill has failed in the face of outnumbered but determined opponents.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=528&u_xid=947&u_sid=1297083

Nebraska is one of 4 states left that have no CCW (either Shall Issue or May Issue). It would be great to get that number down to 3, or lower.

[MrSandman]

1. Nice of those outnumbered opponents to...

protect the interests of the majority.

[JeebusB]

2. The "May Issue" states don't even count.

"Nebraska is one of 4 states left that have no CCW (either Shall Issue or May Issue). It would be great to get that number down to 3, or lower."

Everyone knows that you have to be a politician, major celebrity or grease the right palms with a LOT of cash in order to get a license/permit in those states.

Hardly shining examples of liberty. Those states are just more OVERTLY corrupt than the 4 non-issue states.

[NorthernSpy]

3. isn't Nebraska the state...

... that didn't have a single blue county in this past presidential election? All that "heartland" Republicanism, and they still don't have concealed carry in any form!

I think I'll point that out to the next person who claims that gun control is all the work of liberal Northeastern Democrats.

[slackmaster]

4. If Nebraska is anything like Kansas they do indeed have concealed carry

Illegal, and very widespread.

[anonymous44]

6. They'll pass it.

I have a feeling that they'll pass it this year. They will be followed by Kansas and Wisconsin in a year or two. Sometime in 2008 Illinois will probably be the last state to finally pass it.

[left15]

10. Chicago will never have concealed carry

After all, the ban of handguns is what's keeping their crime rate down.

[anonymous44]

12. you're right

chicago is a beast of its own. with the gang problem there i doubt that they will ever have something remotely close to ccw.

[PaganPreacher]

8. I grew up in west Nebraska, and....

both concealed and open carry are common.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[iverglas]

5. Nebraskan peculiarities

In googling to determine the make-up of the Nebraska legislature, I find that it is an odd one out.

First, it is unicameral: no Senate. And Second, it is "non-partisan". I'm still trying to figure out what that means. Are legislators elected without party affiliation? Apparently, from what I can tell; but also, perhaps, in (no)name only.

My question would be whether concealed weapon permits were in issue in the most recent election. Did candidates (or parties) campaign on a position on the issue?

As a firm believer in party politics and party discipline, I of course do not believe that elected legislators should never take positions in office that they or their party did not expressly adopt during a campaign. After all, we live in representative democracies, not in societies governed by referendum.

But there is a line beyond which a legislator or party would be simply dishonest if s/he/it attempted to implement a policy that it had not espoused prior to the election and that electors did not have reason to think it would try to legislate. Some policies are just too fundamentally important, and fundamental to the differences between political philosophies, to be imposed in that way without the public having a voice; electors are entitled to know what they're voting for when it comes to, say, a party's position on public spending on education, even if not when it comes to, say, exactly how many schools the party proposes to build.

Entitlement to carry concealed weapons may not fall into the fundamentally-important category, but it certainly falls into the divisive category, and if I were the elector, I'd expect to be told what position the people I might be voting for took on the issue.

Anyhow, I was just curious about the reasons for the present state of affairs in Nebraska ...

[NEDem]

7. let me try to answer

I'm a Nebraskan, so maybe I can try to answer...

The unicameral actually works and is non-partisan, state legislators are elected on non-partisan ballots. There is very little infighting among the members. With that said, we pretty much know who the D's and R's are, but it really doesn't matter much because they all seem to work together very well.

CCW was not an issue in the last campaign season, I don't think I've ever heard any senator address the issue at length. We've known that one hillbilly state senator has wanted it for a while. I don't see it being all that divisive, to be honest. Most of us don't expect it to pass this time around, too many other truly important issues on the table. Most people I talk to (on both political spectrum's) could give a rats a$$ about it, if it passes it passes, if it fails it fails. Its just not that much of an issue around here. That may change if things progress, but right now its a big yawner.

The one interesting aspect about the part-time unicameral system is that issues like this don't get proposed and voted on overnight, it takes several years to get it up the chain of priority bills. There will be many days of debate within the committee and then many days of debate on the floor and then it will get tabled until next year where it will move up the ladder of priorities and go a step farther. I think this is the second or third year for debate on the bill.

People not familiar with a non-partisan state legislature might not understand, but when you elect the legislators to act in the best interests of the citizens of the state, rather than some imaginary party line, you generally get legislators that act in the best interests of the citizens of the state. It may be hard to believe, but the system works quite well.

[iverglas]

9. ta!

How I initially learned this arcane (to most of us) bit of fact was that I had mistakenly left the "pages in Canada" box checked at google.ca when I asked it for nebraska non-partisan (having already found something that said that). Here's what I got:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=60&art=26

Nunavut is one of two jurisdictions in Canada (the other being the Northwest Territories) where there are no political parties in the legislature. This article argues that consensus government is a northern variation of the standard Westminster model of responsible government. It describes the theory and practice of consensus government in Canada’s newest territory.

... People often wonder how we can truly have a parliament on the British responsible government model without political parties. Others presume that the absence of parties is simply a sign of our lack of political “maturity” and that once we have reached the proper stage of political development we will acquire parties. I note in passing that no one ever describes Nebraska as politically immature, although its legislature has long operated on a nonpartisan basis.

Now, my experience with politics and political science (and this is generally recognized) is that "non-partisan" bodies, like municipal councils almost everywhere in Canada, favour the right wing in elections; it is better at pretending to be non-partisan and accusing the left of being partisan. I remember doing a research paper back in the early seventies in my (conservative) home-town in Ontario, which had bizarrely elected a very left-wing mayor that term, and interviewing a city councillor who was prominent member of a right-wing party (Liberal) and listening to him as he sat there looking as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth and being greatly offended that I would so much as imply that his party affiliation had anything to do with his voting record on council. Yeah, right.

In the Northwest Territories, before the switch to a non-partisan legislature, the New Democratic Party (the left/social democrat "third" party in Canada) had considerable success, including having control of the legislature. The present situation is meant to reflect First Nations (what you call American Indian) values of consensus-building and the like, but I'm not persuaded. It strikes me as a way of pulling the rug out from under the development of an influential left in the territory.

Me, I prefer to know exactly what my candidate believes, or claims to believe, is in my "best interests", before voting for him/her. I'm not quite willing to just elect somebody who says s/he will act in my best interests without a bit firmer commitment to something specific. And I find party platforms and party discipline to be the best way of ensuring that.

Thanks for the info -- the concept and practice are interesting, so I'll have a reason to prick up my ears if I hear something about what the Nebraska legislature is up to in future.

[Cooper]

11. go nebraska! n/t

n/t