From the Heartland

This is my soap box, on these pages I publish my opinions on firearms and any other subject I feel like writing about.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

What part of "Do not have the power" don't they understand?

This is a third in what is turning out to be a series on the concealed/open carry situation in the state of Nebraska.
In the two previous installements I have pointed out that not only has the legislature violated the State Constitution and their oaths of office, they have illegaly empowered the political subdivisions to do so as well.

Previous entries

The truth about concealed carry in Nebraska

A follow up and a challenge

What is even more unsettling is the apathetic attitude of the citizens of Nebraska for gross misconduct of their elected officials.

In 1991 the Unicameral enacted, under the heading Personal Property, LB 355, creating statutes 69-2401 - 69-2425.
The statutes created by LB 355 mandate that anyone pruchasing a handgun after the effective date of the law, must have in their posession a "Handgun Purchasers Certificate".
In reading 69-2401 one only needs to be familiar with Initiative Measure no. 403, and CI-26, to see that legislature did not have the power vested by the people to enact this law.

69-2401 Legislative findings and declarations.
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the state has a valid interest in the regulation of the purchase, lease, rental, and transfer of handguns and that requiring a certificate prior to the purchase, lease, rental, or transfer of a handgun serves a valid public purpose.
Source: Laws 1991, LB 355, § 1.

This a mere three years after the people of Nebraska TOLD their goverment, to keep their grabbing grubby mitts off firearms legislation.

Doctrine of police power
From the findings and declarations statement it is obvious that the Unicameral was envoking the "Doctrine of Police Power" as a basis for their authority to enact this unconstitutional legislation.

What part of case law does the esteemed Unicameral not understand??
In Plain English case law states that the legislature CANNOT, I'll repeat that word, CANNOT invoke the "doctine of police power" to exercise powers NOT granted it by and inconsistant with provisions of the state Constitution.

How hard is that to understand.
The Unicameral had no Constitutional authority to delegate firearms regulation to is political subdivisions under the "Home rule authority". If they don't have the power themselves, they cannot delegate it.

The Unicameral had no Constitutional authority to enact Statute 28-1202 restricting concealed carry. They had not been giving the power to do so by they people they represent.

Three years after a MAJORITY vote of the people specifically told the legislature to keep their grubby gun grabbing wits away from our firearms, the Unicameral certainly did not, even under the color of "Police Power" have the authority to enact Statutes 69-2401 -69-2425.

The State Constitution
The state Constitution is the law that the people we elect have to follow. In that Document we have told them what they can and can not do as servants of us, the people. We have given them powers to do certain things and to act in certain ways. In that document we have also told them that there are areas and things that they can not act on. CI-26 expressly tells them that any powers not herein delegated to them remain with us the people.

What kind of example are they setting?
Leaders should lead by example. When our legislative leaders try to circumvent the Constitution with legalease and imaginary powers they do not have they are not only violating their oath of office, they are violating the trust of the people they represent. They expect us to obey the laws they enact to control us, all the while violating the laws WE ENACTED TO CONTROL THEM.

I call that hypocracy

No comments: