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.

Friday, January 28, 2005

LB 454 and the Future of Concealed Carry in Nebraska

Anyone that has been reading this Blog for a period of time knows that I and many other people in Nebraska believe that concealed carry is and always has been legal in this state. In past postings I have articulated that fact and provided links to articles of the constitution, statutes and case law to re-enforce that position.

Being a realist I understand that the only way this can be put to rest and to ensure that a Nebraskans ability to carry is not contravined by local ordinance and, recognized in other jurisdictions is for the subject to be legislated as a matter of state wide concern.

The citizens of Nebraska deserve more than this from their representitives. Considering what has been legislated in other states in recent years the Senators of Nebraska consider their constituants to be nothing more than children that are not deserving of the same laws that have passed in those states.

Personally I am offended by that abhorent demeanor of the Senators, as should every Nebraskan that is of the age of majority and capable of independant rational thought. Whether one supports this legislation or not anyone that recognizes the under current of arrogance and condemnation at work here should be mad, damned mad. If the Senators are of this tact on LB454, it has to be asked how many other bills do they hold their constituancy in such contempt on?

Their proposed legislation is an antiquated attempt to appease both sides of the issue and the result is a compromise that infers that the citizens of Nebraska are not as responsible as those of the other 46 states that do have some form of concealed carry laws.

To our Loyal SubjectsConstituancy,

We the Senators of the Unicameral hold that the citizens of Nebraska are not equal to and are therefore undeserving of the forms of legislation that has been enacted on behalf of the citizens in several of the other states. We shall provide you with LB454 and in the ensuing years should you demonstrate to us that you can be subserviant subjects accepting of our dominance responsible citizens led by our devine guidance we may at our leisure reward you with a change in this law. Be forewarned however that these changes if effected will only occur in years that require your vote for our re-election.

Sincerely, Your Royal Family Unicameral

P.S. - Do not attempt to influence us to change this bill. The NRA in the form of the representitive lobbying this body supports LB454 in it's present form and, in their recognized infinate wisdom, they have informed us that they do not wish to see it trifled with. We have therefore appeased the largest organization that represents a threat to our individual existence as Senators. The NRA has spoken for you on this matter and in wishing to maintain viable opportunities for our own individual re-elections we will be resisting your attempts to influence change prior to passage of LB454.

In not any specific order of relevance, because they are all equal, I will address the major points of concern that make LB454 unsuitable legislation for the citizens of Nebraska.

This bill does not address the issue of pre-emption.
There is nothing in it that will prohibit any political subdivision from restricting, banning or requiring their own licensing scheme. The ramifications are obvious and that the cities of Omaha, Lincoln and others will address this at city council is without doubt. Once a local law is passed any and all local ordinances are generally grandfathered when new state statute contravines. Once these local laws are instilled they can only be changed with local action.

Granted the CI-1 of the state Constitution is suppose to prevent that from happening, but it has yet to do so and it will doubtless prevent local ordinance in this respect either.

Training Requirements
The entire mandate for training has been designated to the State Patrol for establishment and implimentaion. Under LB454 as it is written the State Patrol could in it's judgement require the applicants for a Nebraska license to carry a concealed firearm undergo any number of hours of training. At their discretion they can also rewrite the requirements when ever they want to without approval of the Unicameral.

As it is now written there is nothing in LB454 that prevents the Patrol from manadating a minimum 40 hours of training be conducted at the Grand Island Law Enforcement Training Center, on a lottery basis and as space provides, to 40 individuals per year at an individual cost of 2000 dollars.

That it would be that extreme is doubtful, but the point is that the Patrol has utter and complete authority lacking any and all oversite from the Unicameral to establish anything they see fit at any time they see fit. That is just not good governement and is far too wide open for bereaucratic abuse.

A stated number of hours of training must be written into this bill. That is and has been the practice in all of the other states. The number of hours, within reason is inconsequential be it 10, 12, 14, 16 or even 20, but the number must be written in the bill.

Time limit for issuance
Under LB454 as it is written a Sheriff must issue a permit within 5 days of the completion of a background check. It is also pretty much up to the Sheriff to establish the entire scope and length of the background check.

Should a conceincious Sheriff determine that a complete and thorough background check take 6 months to a year, or more to complete for certain residents, there is nothing in this bill that hinders that efficiancy. One could profitably wager that friends, associates and campaign contributors would be the kinds of upstanding citizens that qualify to receive their permit in mere days.

This bill must be amended to reflect a maximum number of days the Sheriff has to issue from the receipt of an application. This requirement has not been a problem in any other state and the Sheriff is held harmless by the LB454 for problems arrising from the issuance of the permit anyway.

In the last year or two, the states of Missouri and Ohio have enacted CCW legislation that included recirpocity/recognition. New Mexico a state whose law predates Ohio and Missouri does not yet have that provision.

In recent years many of the other states have changed their laws to create or enhance the reciprocity and or recognition of other states permits. Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma come immediately to mind.

That reciprocity/recognition cannot be a provision of LB454 is an affront to not only the responsible citizens of Nebraska but to those of the other states as well.

There is more that needs to be addressed in LB454, but the aforementioned articles of the bill are the most agregious, insulting and infringing. Virtually none of the topics addressed in the present form exist in the laws of any of the other states. (Any number of states may have one of these issues, but in their entirety there is no shall issue state, that I know of, that still emcompasses all of the items addressed above.)

This bill is a supposed model that has been passed in many other states. Given that being true, those states have in the last 2-20 years made the necessary changes and their laws no longer represent the original work.

That the citizens of Nebrsaka be required to submit to an original bill that many states have spent at least the last decade rewriting clearly demonstrates the regard in which the Unicameral holds the citizens it is suppose to be responsible to.

Informative point: Yes the NRA supports this bill in it's present form and does not want to see it trifled with. There may be more to report on that in the coming weeks.

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Yes I know I have been lazy and not posted anything since Monday.

But hey;

  1. It is my 48th birthday this week.
  2. I have been busy with the Unicameral trying to make a silk purse out of the sows ear they call a CCW law (LB454)
  3. I had to travel out of town Tuesday
  4. And in General I have just been to busy to do most of my daily reading let alone write to my own Blog.
  5. I am trying to get a post out today or tomorrow, but there is a really good gunshow in town this weekend and I am trying to put together my shopping list. (Don't expect much over the weekend ..hehehe)
  6. I appreciate everyone that keeps stopping by to check if anything new has been posted, if there are days you don't find anything new click through the links on my Blogroll. Those folks have good things on their sites.

All for now. Be safe & Keep the faith.


Monday, January 24, 2005

To what do we owe the honer??

Long time readers and residents of Nebraska are familiar with Matt Connealy. Matt, a Democrat, recently lost the election for the 1st District United States Congressional Seat vacated by retiring RINO Doug Beureter and now held by republican Jeff Fortenberry.

Concealed Carry legislation has as usual been introduced in the Unicameral and was given the designation LB454. Introduced by Jeanne Combs and co-sponsored by 23 other Senators the bill now boasts 25 sponsors.

Connealy is on Board
It seems that in the last week Matt Connealy has officially added his name as a co-sponsor of LB454.

After one of the Congressional debates last fall I had the occassion to ask the Senator why he opposed the previous bill LB256. His response was that it did not mandate training. Anyone remotely familiar with LB256 knows that there was a training requirement as part of that bill.

What ever the reason that brought Matt to the light is moot at this point and the bill has one more vote than I would have counted last week.

I could change my mind. It has been known to happen
In previous posts I have avered that I could not support this bill in it's current form, even before any attempt to attach agregious amendments that usually come from the floor.

I have spent this morning in meetings and negotiations with several Senators and their aides, some of whom are on the Judiciary Committee that will hear public comments on LB454. For the most part they were receptive to the concerns that were expressed about the bill and these items will be addressed when the bill is discussed in committee.

Many of the concerns can be fixed or changed with amendments that add or take away a few words here and there or simply line through ommissions.

In theory this could shape up to something I could support.

The Judiciary Committee
There are 8 Senators on the Judiciary Committee. There are definately 2 no votes to advance it to the floor, those being Chambers and Bourne. There are 6 yes votes that include the person that introduced the bill Combs, 2 co-sponsors Flood, Friend and one Senator who has co-sponsored the bill in the past Aguilar. Pedersen and Foley have said that they support the bill.

Lb454 will make it to the floor, it is there that the real work begins; Preventing the scurolous amendments that Senators like Chambers, Bourne and Schimek will attempt to attach to it.

I didn't think I would ever be saying this but it seems that there is a faint glimmer of hope that it could be a reality this time.

Senator Chambers promised to filibuster LB454
Lastly count on a Chambers filibuster. I spoke with him personally and asked him directly if he intends to do so.

From his own lips;

"I have to. They are counting on me, they need me to do it. It would suprise you the number of Senators that don't want it, that tell their constituency that they are for it to get votes, knowing that I will filibuster it. It makes me the scapegoat when they go back home and tell their voters hey I tried but that darn Ernie did it to you again."

Tell me you haven't heard that from me several times in the past.

Know thine enemy. It is not the Honorable Senator Ernie Chambers (D-Oma)

Friday, January 21, 2005

Movies you won't see in a theater near you review

It has been a while since our movie critic elaborated on those movies that are only shown on the backside of his eye lids. So without further fan fare here is the Bar Wars Saga avaiable in the Special Collectors imaginary box set;

1. Bar wars: Liberal menace
After a drunken car crash left his pregnant padowan learner, Bubbles Pfatt (Mary Jo Kopechne) dead, a drunken Senator Palpitation (Teddy Kennedy) realizes he will never be elected High Council. Turning deeper to the Democrat side the Senator schemes to oust the leaders of the Republican led High Councel, Spaced Window (Gerald Ford) and Yodel (Nelson Rockefeller). The Senator backs Count DooDu (Jimmy Carter) and Boss Mess (Walter Mondale) intending to control them from behind the scenes.

2. Bar wars: Attack of the Clowns
A troubled Senator Palpitation (Kennedy) has sucessfully installed Count DooDu as High Council. Much to the Senators dismay DooDu (Carter) and Mess (Mondale) bumble their way through a four year administration seemly immune from the effects of Palpitations influence. Selling everything the Empire stands for down the river DooDu and Mess, will stop at nothing to ensure that Empire credits buy them another election

3. Bar wars: Return of the GOP
When all of the shinanagans of DooDu (Carter) and Mess (Mondale) come to light they are ousted at general election by Qui-Ray-Gun (Ronald Reagan) and his padowan apprentice Obi-Brush-Kanobi (George Bush Sr.). A comfortable period of security reins over the Empire as Qui-Ray-Gun holds steadfast to the principles that the Empire was founded on. Qui-Ray-Gun's leadership is so enspiring that the citizens elect Obi-Brush-Kanobi to replace him on the High Council. While not the leader that his predecesor was Brush-Kanobi maintains the peace for a four year term.

4. Bar wars: Bubbas from Hope
After his dibilitating defeat at the hands of the Republicans years before Senator Palpitation crawled further into the bottle rueing his defeat and plotting revenge. Sobering up long enough to locate a suitable padowan puppet to run the Council, Senator Palpitation finds a new apprentice that has already gone to the Democratic side. Bubba Klingon (Bill Clinton) aided by his trusty sidekick Har Har Blinks (Al Gore) are swept onto the High Council on a madate for change.

5. Bar wars: The GOP Fights back
Two years into Bubba's (Bill Clinton) leadership, Jabber-the Butt (Newt Geingrich) is thoroughly disgusted with the scandals that plague the Bubba Administration. Representive Jabber seeks to change the policies and lower taxes that were forced upon the people by Bubba. He forms alliances and establishes a 100 day contract with the Empire. This effort succeeds in Jabber-the Butt's gaining control of the necessary seats to effect the needed changes, even though it was not supported in the Senate by leader Opie Bob Kanope (Bob Dole). Discontent with the eight year leadership of Bubba Klingon the citizens of the Empire, in a closely contested election deny Har Har Blinks his assention to the highest seat in the Empire, by electing Scrub Brushwalker (George Bush Jr.) in his place.

6. Bar wars: Return of the GW
In this episode, said to be the final, in the Bar Wars saga, coming from almost relative obscurity Scrub Brushwalker (George Bush Jr.), the reletively unknown son of Obi-Brush-Kanobi ( George Bush sr.), takes the helm of a troubled Empire. The economy is in a downward spiral and within months of his election the Empire is visciously attacked by the Nemuslidians lead by Nuetered-Gun-Ray (Osama bin Laden). Scrub Brushwalker calls in all of his markers and on all of his Generals to throw back the opressive Nemuslidians and hunt down the evil Gun-Ray. Will Brushwalkers efforts be successfull? The Empire again trusts the helm of power to him, for a second term, as he continues his quest to eliminate the the threat of the Nemuslidians? Surely the audiance won't be left hanging on this point, there must be an episode seven being written.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Michael Moron's Gun Bearer Busted

Duped by Fox news; As with most things that seem to good to be true, alas so apparently is this one. The actual truth of the arrest appears here. Pat Burk was not a body Guard for Michael Moore at the time of his arrest, but had apparently peformed that service in the past. The former Marine in question has also peformed protection service for a number of public figures as well.

Although this erronious report should probably have been more deeply researched before Fox News published it. (If you can't trust Fox who can you trust?)

I apologize to Pat Burk for reporting such inaccurate information.

The Fact still remains that Michael Moore does avail himself of paid personal protection while, publically calling for the prevention of private individuals to do the same. In that regard I stand by the comments I made concerning the Slothen One.

It seems that one of Sleaze Bag Moore's gun toters has been slammed in a New York Jail for illegal possession of a firearm. If nothing else this ought to show what a two-faced hypocrite the pompous blow hard really is.

This is just another example of a self made publicity rat spouting off the tired old mantra of; Do as I say not as I do.

Of course this low life scum bag has people around him with guns, he can afford to pay for someone else to carry them for him.

There in lies the hypocracy; People like this can afford bodyguards and security people to protect them with guns, but you the commoner since you can't afford that you can't or don't need the protection.


That is the message that the likes of Moore, Clinton, Schumer, Boxer, Fienstien, Chambers, Schimek and a host of others are sending you.

What is really is;

A proclamation that our lives are more important than yours is, we are your leaders (self appointed or otherwise and we need to be protected. You of the common class are expendable. In fact there is an acceptable number of you that MUST die in a violent manner so we can use your deaths to further enact the restrictive laws that we envision for your future.

For those of you that seek to fall down in the presence of the gargantuan one and worship the sweat that runs off his fat ass, you should really know that Michael Moore couldn't give two hoots of a train whistle for you as an individual. Mikie Moron has an agenda, that agenda is to make money, your money.

If most people could see past what ever infatuation they have for the fat guy they would see the truth.

Moore does what he does for your money. If the eronious liberal crap that he espouses didn't sell he would be making Conservative documentaries instead. The only thing in it for him is relieving you of as much of your hard earned money as he can get you to part with.

I had already seen this and was going to write about it, but I saw that Head who penns Head's Bunker Blog beat me to it. I have been reading his blog for a few days and will surely be adding Head's Bunker Blog to the Blogroll in the near future.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Neal Knox June 20th, 1936 - January 17th, 2005

Rest in Peace Neal

Neal Knox, former vice president of the National Rifle Association and long-time leader of the gun rights movement, died at his home on January 17, 2005 following a year-long battle with colon cancer. He was sixty-nine. He is survived by his wife, Jay Janen Knox (Shirley) and his four children; Christopher, Shan, Jeffrey, Stacey, and seven grandchildren.

The last time I saw Neal, my wife and I had the pleasure of spending a most relaxing evening of dinner and conversation with him and his son Chris.

Neal was a wonderfull human being and a genuine American that stood up for what he so strongly believed in.

That he will be missed is without question.

Chris if you read this and Pam and I can't get in touch with you please know that our thoughts are with you and our heartfelt condolences and prayers go out to you and your family in your hour of grief.

Respectfully Yours,


Note: For those that read this and either knew or respected Neal Knox, I received an e-mail from Chris that I'll excerpt here only changing my real name to that of Gun;

Friend Gun --

Thanks for your kind words and your friendship. This is a difficult
time, but it has been tempered by the support of so many good people....
I am sure I'll see you again in the times to come.


Neal had a year long battle with colon cancer, that his passing was not unexpected given the circumstances, does little to squelch the grief of the Knox family and those that knew him.

It is asked that contributions be made to the Rainbow Childrens Home

Monday, January 17, 2005

For Anyone that doesn't know who Claire Wolfe is

Claire Wolfe, writer and professional troublemaker. .... The focus of the blog is freedom (what they're doing to it and how to grab some of it back). But on any given day you can eavesdrop as I (and occasionally a guest commentator or two) ramble, maunder, ruminate, fulminate, babble, grouse, or exclaim about Beauty, Truth, self-sufficiency, Really Stupid People Tricks, government (speaking of Really Stupid People Tricks), justice, Attitude, life, privacy, books, monkeywreching, gun rights, things that make me laugh, and dogs.

Claire's writing is witty and to the point. If you haven't ever read any of her writings, there is no time like the present to start. She has her own Blog entitled WolfesBlog and is a regular columnist at Backwoods Home Magazine.

For an introduction and a good dose of common sense check out The Law in Hardyville.

Claire has been added to the Blogroll as well.

Gun Show Alert; February 5th & 6th (Yes another one)

Yes it is my pleasure to purvey information concerning another Gun Show if the Lincoln area.

Sponsored by the Optimists the show is held annually at the Gage County Fairgrounds in Beatrice, (pronounced Bee - at - riss) Nebraska.Admission is $3.00.

This is the show I wait for every year. It is held in much smaller confines than any of the shows in Lincoln, but that does not detract one iota from the quality. I think the close proximity add to the atmosphere and experience.

There are so many great exhibitors with a large variety of merchandise that it is a must attend for any gun aficionado.

I won't bore you with any great deals I managed to facilitate in past years, except to say;

If you pass or miss this one your genuine interest in firearms could seriously be called into question.

Tidbits From Around the part of the Blogosphere that I read

Gunner at No Quarters has a piece up about legislation in Washington (the state) that makes it a crime to have a water barrel without a license. It seems that Paull Shin (sponsor) believes that the govenrment OWNS all forms of hydrogen-twice-oxygen no matter where it comes from. Translation; You can not collect OUR government OWNED rain, snow or sleet without our permission and/or before you pay the requiset Tax permit fees on it.

Kevin at The Smallest Minority waxes eloquent has an indepth and much more detailed piece on the fallicies of "ballistic fingerprinting" than I wrote a few days ago. Get a 2 liter bottle of something and a big bowl of popcorn and prepare to learn something. It is not as lengthly as Tolstoys "War and Peace", but by the time you get done reading it and all of the associated links you will truely understand why "ballistic fingerprinting" does not work.

Just a snippet of what Kevin covers;

Jed at Freedom Sight is considering re-implimenting the Weekly Fusillade.

Excerpted from Jed's original presentation;

So, it seems an opportune time for me to launch an idea I've had in my head for a while. I call it The Weekly Fusillade. It's yet another sort of a Carnival of the Vanities clone, except it's focused on firearms and the right to keep and bear arms.......... This will be a weekly feature, published on Saturdays. I'll probably just host it here most weeks, unless there's some reason I won't be able to be online on Saturday.

Jed initially started the Fusillade about the time I began Blogging and it was extremely beneficial to me that Jed accepted several of my dissertaions on Firearms issues in Nebraska for inclusion to his project. (as long time readers will note I have on numorous occassions profusely noted my appreciation to Jed for that)

Jed if my humble opinion counts for anything;


Jeff at Alphecca has an article that I can really identify with concerning remakes of movies and television shows. He aptly points out that a show should only be remade IF it can be done better.

Bad acting can not make a movie repleat with the latest in special effects a good movie, how ever good acting can make, amovie lacking special effects a great movie.

Well that is some of what I have been reading lately, check out any of it you find interesting.

Saturday, January 15, 2005

ACLU deliberately re-writing the Constitution or least intentionally misquoting it?

Kevin at The Smallest Minority and several of the people he has linked seem to think so.

Their contention and one that I agree with is that the ACLU is selectively defining what they see as a right or civil liberty.

In explaining that the freedom of speech is the first right enumerated in the First Amendment the ACLU legal geniuses provide the following on their web site;

“Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Ellipsis are those little dots after "Congress shall make no law". Ellipsis means that there is something not deemed germaine to the subject that has been dliberately omitted out by the author/s.

Here is an unedited version of the First Amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The part that was INTENTIONALLY omitted by the brilliant legal minds of the ACLU is highlighted in bold.

Is the ACLU is dilerately lying to the people of the united states and the world?

Clearly the first right enumerated is the "Free exercise of Religion".

Even if one does not believe in a creator how can the First Amendment be read any other way?

If the scholarly minds ACLU are being intentionally deliberate in their deceit one has to wonder why.

That the ACLU is conducting and/or capable of this tactic is no suprise to many that have been conciously aware of that organization over the years.

That they are now becoming so publically blatant about it should make that many more people sit up and take notice at what the ACLU is really about.

Flaws in LB-454

As promised here are a few of the reasons why I am not getting all googley eyed with excitement over the Currently introduced CCW legislation known as LB454.

Sec 4 (3) (page 4 line 3) The Sheriff has five days to issue the permit AFTER the completion of the criminal history check.

Turning in your App does not start the clock. The Clock only starts when someone tells the Sheriff you check out. If the Sheriff being of the anti persuasion wants to take a year to do a throrough background check what in this bill will stop him/her.

Sec 6 (1) (page 4 line 22) The Nebraska State Patrol shall prepare and publish minimum training and safety standards and adopt rules governing training, safety courses an instructors.

Since the legislature has not specified a minimum number of hours, the truely safety minded personel in the Patrol have the authority to insure that any one with a CCW is well trained. Say as in a 40 hour training course taught at the Law Enforcement Training Center in Grand Island once a year to 40 people on a lottery basis at a cost of $2000. Or perhaps they allow instructors as they do in other states and mandate that the training only be a minimum of 25 hours.

Addittionally any new administrator of the Patrol can change any of those requirements at anytime. It is my understanding that the person that would now be responsible for these rules is a very fair minded individual that IS NOT against the citizens excercising their desire to go armed and would I believe set up a very impartial and fair system based on models in existance in other states. What happens when that person retires? The next administrator, who may not be as reasonable or Constitutionally minded, has the authority WITHOUT legislative approval to revamp the entire system.

Granted Sec 6 (2) (page 5 line 17) authorizes the patrol to approve a person or entity.

How many permits will be issued if the only people approved where Senior Patrol Officers or for entities any one of the state certified Police training academies. (THINK IOWA HERE FOLKS)

Sec 7 (l) (page 7 line 8) At the time of application you can not be under investigation for any offense that would prohibit you from receiving the permit.

Oh gee how hard is this one to figure out? How would you know whether you are under investigation or not at the time you fill out the app.

NEWSFLASH: With or without your knowledge you can be under investigation for anything at any time. How about that off-duty cop you ticked off cause he was hitting on your wife in the bar News Years Eve. You have applied for a CCW and suddenly he informs the Sheriff that he has you under investigation for an as yet specified crime that could effect issuance of you Permit.

Think that is far fetched? How about the cop that stopped you last week and wanted to search your vehicle and legally you prevented him from doing so? Or how about the one that gave a citation that yougot dismissed in court?

Ok Maybe that is a bit extreme I'll grant you that, but cases like that have occurred

Consider something more simple in that the same cop sees you at the local "watering hole" two weeks in a row. He/She could than use that information to make a reasonable case and articulate that you HABITUALLY use intoxicants and meet the requirement to have your permit revoked.

Are there cops like that out there? Your damn right there are.

Are most cops like that? YOUR DAMN RIGHT THEY ARE NOT. As I have always maintained there are but a degenerate few that make the rest look bad. When a Public Servant messes up it makes news and we hear about it. When a Public Servant does their job to the best of their ability and a little beyond we seldom hear about it. That is truely shamefull.

Sec 13 (1) (page 8 line 24) Any Peace Officer having probable cause that a permitholder is no longer in compliance with the requirements with one or more requirements of section 7 of this act SHALL BRING an application for revocation....

Sec 13 (2) (page 9 line 1) It is the Duty of the County attorney to prosecute a revocation case. If he/she refuses then the duty SHALL be upon the Attorney General.

Sec 13 (3) page 9 line 8) It SHALL be prosecuted as a civil case and the permit SHALL be revoked for violation of the requirements in section 6.

"Well your honor I Officer Bigcity had the occassion to ask the accused what the federal law was for the lowest degree of assault. At that time I also questioned the permitholder on the legalities of transporting a firearm into and through the various states. That said Permitholder could not articulate an immediate answer to these questions caused me to suspect that permitholder is in violation of Section 6 (e) and (f) of the Concealed Handgun Permit Act and immediatelly filed this action to have her permit revoke on those grounds your honor."

Tell me HONESTLY do you think there isn't an anti-gun cop or several that would not pull a stunt like that? By you possibly not knowing all of the most obscure laws that MIGHT apply to your continued possession of a permit any cop in the state can have your permit revoked, or at the very least have you hauled before the judge to justify why it should not be revoked. (Can you say lost time from work etc...? Don't worry the cop will be paid to be there, possibly even on overtime.)

How many anti-gun judges are there in Nebraska that just enjoy legislating from the bench and would just be tickled to slap down a commoner by revoking their permit?

If you can convince me that there is NOT ONE SINGLE cop, District Attorney or Judge in Nebraska that would not try or succeed at this I will quit writing and delete this blog.

That they have been ignoring the tenents of Initiative Measure no.403 for the last 16 years, what makes anyone think that they will go easy on this?

Where in this bill does it prevent municipalities from enacting ordinances that mandate their own training requirements and or local permits for carry in addittion to the statewide permit? This bill does not indicate that concealed permits are of a Statewide concern and that the Unicameral shall have exclusive power over the subject.

Oh wait I know it says so in CI-1. Oops my bad they have been ignoring that for years as it is.

Think it can't happen? Under the statutes that created home rule and charters the legislature has granted power to it's political sub division TO BAN THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED WEAPONS. ( I have covered that in previous post folks)

So now you have a permit issued by a a very pro-gun Sheriff in a rural county, but you are forbidden from carrying in the places you would likely need it most, because the cities of Lincoln, York, Grand Island and Omaha have enacted local ordinances (past or present) that ban Concealed carry within the Corparate limits.

There are just a few things that I find repugnant about this bill.

And there is much more but that will be in a future entry.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Nebraska CCW Legislation Officially Labeled LB 454

The long awaited introduction of CCW legislation by By Senator Combs has been introduced in the Unicameral as LB 454. (ed... pdf file)

As expected this is nothing but a mirror of previous bills tendered by Senator Tyson, that have typically been loaded down with so many constrictive amendments that it would be meaningless if it were ever made law.

I have been withholding comment on the Combs bill until I had a chance to read it.

The truth that too many people that favor CCW in Nebraska fail to see is that the proposed legislation in it's unaltered form is already to restrictive to be of any use.

At this time without changes to the original bill, that I will try to address in the next weeks, I do not support this bill.

One very minor observation; The original of this bill requires the disclosure of an individuals Social Security number. That can simply be change with anamendment that mandates a line through the words Social Security.

Several of the other contentions I have with the bill can be addressed in the same manner. In that those considerations are addressed and there are not any amendments that further restrict the Act I could at some future date change my mind.

But don't hold your breath. I'm not. It is not good now and it will only get worse. If this passes it will, as has always been, be worse than the staus quo.

There are those that profess that something is better than nothing and/or this is a good start. In this case nothing should be the prefered choice to this bill and it's anticipated amendments.

The thought that what ever is wrong with it can be fixed in succeeding years is wishfull thinking. Consider that if it passes this year nothing can realistically be introduced to "fix" anything until 2007

The next session of the Unicameral (2006) will be a short session primarilay dedicated to cleaning up what ever is not completed this session. There is generally no new bills allowed to be introduced during a short session unless they are virtually assured of passage.

Remember anything the Unicameral passes this year you will have to live with for the better part of two years.

Maryland State Police want the Ballisitic Fingerprinting law repealed

In a News release from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Alan Gotlieb reports that Maryland State Police;

In its progress report on the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS), the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division recommends that "this program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the program be transferred to the DNA database unit." So far, Maryland has spent $2.5 million over the past four years, with nothing to show for it. The report admitted, "Guns found to be used in the commission of crime...are not the ones being entered into" the system.
The original intent of the IBIS was to identify firearms used in crimes by having the firearms manufacturers provide a fired cartridge case for every firearm sold in Maryland.

As I have reported in the past, at this point in time it is an ineffective and scientifically unsound feel good measure that was doomed to failure from it's inception.

The gun grabbing populace that insist that schemes like this be adopted through out the states and at the federal level do not have a grasp on the physical aspects of basic metalurgy. Unlike human finger or retinal prints that never change, the simple fact that metal exists in an oxygenated atmosphere dictates that it will change. (Corosion)

In addition the actual use of the metalic object will change the structure of its existance.

Why ballistic finger printing does not work;
Firearms are metalic, Cartidge Cases are metalic, Projectiles are metalic.

Buy the time a new firearm is usually stolen, sold trough numorous hands and eventually used in a crime/s it has been fired and cleaned so much that it cannot be matched to a spent cartridge case provided to a Law enforcement Organization by the manufacturer.

Cartridge Cases and Chambers
When a firearm is discharged the softer brass metalic case swells in the harder steel metalic chamber. It is true that the harder machine marks of the steel chamber are embossed into the softer brass case and these markings can be immediately atributed to a specific firearm. However the constant insertion and removal of a soft brass case into and out of a hard steel chamber causes both metals to undergo changes. Over a period of time the machine marks in a steel chamber will be altered beyond recognition of the original cartridge case provided by the manufacturer.

Projectiles and Barrels
When a firearm is fired the softer metalic lead or copper jacket of the projectile is embossed with the lands, grooves and machine marks of the harder steel metalic barrel. Again it is true that the harder marks of the lands grooves and machine marks on a non deformed projectile can be immediately atributed to a specific firearm. The constant travel of projectiles through a barrel will over time will wear on the lands, grooves and machine marks making it impossible even after as few as fifty rounds to render indentification to a specific firearm possible.

Regular Maintance and Cleaning
The responsible and proper maintance and cleaning of a firearm will also change the microscopic structure of the chamber, bolt face, lands and grooves of a firearm. The fact that wire brushes are used to clean the various parts of a firearm that provide the ballistic fingerprints often negates matching a firearm with projectiles that were in fact fired from it.

People initially buy Firearms to Shoot Them
Individuals buy a new firearm to use it for a variety of activities such as hunting, target shooting, practice for personal or home protection. That the buyers use these firearms often discharging several hundred to several thousand rounds of ammunition there is no way that a fired cartridge case from a new firearm provided to IBIS can be matched to a firearm that has had an amount of ammunition fired through it.

This is why Maryland has nothing to show for the 2.5 million expended over a four year period and they admit it. How much more money has been wasted enacting scientifically unsound or unreliable laws at the behest of the Brady Bunch that could have been used in other areas to really make a difference in fighting crime?

Why Ballistic Comparison can and does work.
When a crime is commited forensic evidence in the form of spent projectiles and cartridge cases is often times recovered. Markings on the projectile, because of the different types of rifling and twists, may be identified as coming from a specific make of firearm or a narrow variety of firearms. It is possible to say that a projectile recovered from a crime scene was specifically fired from a Glock or Marlin.

This evidence, cases and projectiles, is microscopically examined and recorded and can be compared to and identified with evidence of the same type that has come or will come from other crime scenes.

The basic reason this verifiable comparison is possible is simply, that criminals gernerally do not expend a great deal of ammunition from their firearms.

Cartridge cases and/or projectiles discovered and typed at a crime scene can be attributed to a firearm used in a crime two years later mostly likely because those were the only two times that gun was fired in that two year time period.

Had that firearm been fired a few hundred times during that two year period it is highly unlikely or virtually impossible that a match could be made beyong the fact that the two firearms used were made by the same company.

I own a few firearms of the collectable variety that I have not shot in years. If you possessed a cartridge case from the last time I used that firearm I have no doubt that you could compare and match it to the very next round I expend from it.
Conversely I have a few that I use at the range with a certain regularity. I do not believe that you could match a cartridge case fired last week to a cartridge case fired from that firearm today. Scientific evidence provided by IBIS and in a California report of several years ago that the Attorney General sought to squelch prove that fact.

Ballistic Fingerprinting is a panacea whose time has not come. Will it? Maybe someday, but as long as cartridge cases, projectiles and firearms are manufactured using porous metalic compounds it is highly unlikely that it ever will.

Gunner at No Quarters has someting on this as well.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Sumatran Coffee Update

A few days ago I posted an article about buying coffee as a good way to help out the victims of the tidal wave.
In the Lincoln area there are at least two places that sell Sumatran Coffee, both of them located on P Street. I have patronized both places in years passed and experienced pleasurable experiences all around.

The Coffee House
1324 "P" Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402) 477-6611

The Mill
800 P Street
Lincoln, NE 68508

I am sure there are other places in Lincoln and this is not meant as a slight to any of those places that they are not listed. These two are simply places that I have been to, recommend and explained that I would be mentioning them on-line in a positive way.

If your into great coffeee you are probably familiar with these fine establishments and if your not and you enjoy a good cup of coffee why not broaden your horizens a bit and live a little.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Gunshow Alert: January 29 & 30

Sponsor: The Rock Creek Renegades Muzzleloading Rifle Gun Club and Trade Fair
Location: Agricultural Hall State Fair Park Lincoln, Nebraska

Now a Word about the Sponsors
No I am not a member of the Rock Creek Renegades Muzzleloading Rifle Gun Club. As much as I like shooting black powder I probably should be, but I just can't afford the time or money to belong to every club whose theme is of interest to me. If you are interested in the club there will be plenty of people there willing to sign you up and I have heard nothing but good things about the Rock Creek Organization.

A Family Affair
Having said that, in my opinion, they put on the best Gunshow in the Lincoln area. This yearly event is truely a family affair in more ways than one. Besides noting that the Rock Creek members seem to have innumerable family in attendance, it is the one show all of the male (ed.. and any female that wants to go too) members of Clan Gunscribe attend as a family unit.

Pre Show Preparation
The morning usually starts with a gathering at a local restaurant for caffine and cholesteral. Between slugs of coffee and forkfulls of eggs, taters and some form of fried pork, we get down to the business of comparing notes. Going over our prespective wants and needs lists we endeavor to provide a heads up for what we're each looking for.

In the case of ammo it is every clansman for himself, but if a couple of us have the same ... ohhh say ... set of dies or bullet mold on our respective list then it's sorta ... well ok you get this and I'll get that .. cause we know we can always borrow what ever it is when we need it. And hey if'n they want it back it'll give them a perfect excuse to drop by and help you do what ever it was you borrowed it for in the first place and never got to.

On Maneuvers
After arriving at the gunshow, paying the requisite entry fee and getting the hand stamp we each have our own method of canvasing the floor. Speaking strictly for myself I'll let you in on my way of properly working a gunshow.

I start at the nearest table and wind my way through the entire setup, in the manner of a good recon, just to see what all is there and to see if there are any carefully laid ambushes. (More on ambushes below)

Once this intitial run through is complete I have a good idea of whats where and what kind of prices I'm dealing with.

HINT: It is useful, for hagglin' purposes to know if what your looking for is present in more than one location.

At this point two or more of us are generally in the vicinity of the snack bar thus availing our selves a place to sit, await the rest of the squad ... er uhh ... family and compare notes.

The second pass through is methodical and sometimes intense. This time through I'll pause here and there testing the waters a bit with tenative offers and minimal hagglin'. A few of the more minor purchases are secured on this trip through, along with a better understanding of what it will take to render the dollar amount on the remaining price tags meaningless.

At this point I/we are generally back at the entrance. A quick trip out to the truck to stash the already gotten gains and I/we are back at table one.

Let the Hagglin' Begin
At this point I have narrowed the assault my buying down to a select few tables that hold the higher priced items on my list. If more than one table has something I want I generally start at the table with the best sample.

Tip for Hagglin'
Most vendors are good about dickering, hey that's what a show is all about. If they got it marked for $200 and you know it is worth that don't insult them by offering $100, that just ticks them off. (ed .. it does me) If I wanted that item and I knew it was worth the $200 I also know good and well they don't have that in it. But yuh got to let them make a profit, that's why they are there. I'll generally start at ..say $160-165 and end up paying somewhere between $170 & $182.50, although I have had the rare and elusive occassion where my first offer was accepted.

Failing to convince the proprietor that it would be in my own best interest if he would accept my offer I will move on to the next available item.

Now would be a perfect time to point out one of Gunscribes laws of gunshow patronage;

If I can't get it for a price I deem resaonable I will pass on it no matter how badly I want or need it. The key is to be reasonable though.

Aside: I went almost three years looking for another .22 rifle at a price I wanted to pay for one. Ultimately I bought an older Ruger 10/22 with a brand new barrel for $120.00. (ed ... to that point, and it didn't have to be a Ruger, $135 was my top price and yes it is a shooter too)

Seriously I have had vendors hunt me down after passing on something and have them offer it to me for a paultry few bucks more than my last offer. I got a Star BM that way last fall.

How to Win the Battle.
The main thing is that I respect them and why they are there. I am not trying to rip them off, if they are savy they won't let me anyway and only be insulted at the attempt. (ed .. in other words don't try to pay $85 for a gun you know is worth every bit of $300) I will pay a fair price for what I want, but I won't pay "sticker price". I enjoy hagglin', I know what I'm looking for and I know what it is worth. If I don't I will do a little pre-show research, but I will know the worth of what I am looking for and what i expect to pay BEFORE I assualt the objective pay my entry fee.

Look out for the Occassional Ambush
Occassionally there will be something at a show that is not on my list that is just too good to pass up. If that is the case I have usually found the best thing to do is pass it up. As every rule has its exception so does this one, but if ... AND ONLY IF ... I am knowledgeable about the article in question. If I am not I will pass on it.

Aside: The main reasons we go to the gunshow on Saturday morning;
A) Most of the best stuff won't be sold yet,
B) If there is an ambush I can can go home research the best defense and go back on Sunday for round two,
C) Sometimes you can also get a vendor to see things your way a little more clearly on Sunday afternoon, especially if it has been a slow show for them and the item in question has been in their inventory awhile and your the only one that has really expressed an interest in it or they just don't feel like lugging all that stuff out to the truck for the trip home.

The most important thing is to make a budget and stick to it. Know what your looking for, know what it is worth and be willing to pass on it.

Gunscribe Gunshow Tip
I seldom buy a gun at every show. I generally do not have more than $25 or $30 in my pocket when I walk in the door even though my budget may be as much as $500. The reason for this is that there is generally not an ATM machine close and I then have to consider whether the purchase is really worth the trip to the nearest machine and back. That is sort of the last test of how badly I want or need that particular Item. And if it is more than the daily card limit I can leave a deposit and pick it up Sunday (ed .. read excuse to go back to show) or if it is before a certain time I can still get to my bank before it closes on Saturday.

After the Hagglin is over
Now we are again back in the vicinity of the snack bar and the success or failure of the mission generally calls for something like an overpriced soft drink and a serving of nachos. Done right a guy can work up quite an appetite hagglin'. (ed ... maybe there's an idea for a diet book)

After the pleasantries of merriment or dissappointment I head for the exit in a rather zig zag fashion, crusing for one last deal that will eat up the last few dollars, and I mean few dollars, of my hopefully as yet unspent budget.

Note: That is when I will generally be ambushed. (see above)

Then it's home to face the music I mean confront the wife ..ahhh I mean to show her all of the good deals I got.

Seriously I have a wonderful wife whom I met almost 29 years ago (Feb. 4th). She has an interest in the shooting sports as well and knows what I have budgeted before I go to a show and is as delighted as I am when I get "it all" and still come home with money left over.

It is at that point where she tells me inquires where we will de dining out that evening. Of course I take her out. It gives us a chance to be alone so that I can regale bore her with all of the marvalous hagglin' I did.

Just so you know she ain't no slouch either, the last gun show we went to she walked out the door with a brand new in the box 3.5" Walther P22 AND fobus holster for $135 plus tax.

Monday, January 10, 2005

Pocket Carry at The Shooters Carnival

Nine (mm that is) in the front right pocket
James Rummel has a post up at the Shooters Carnival in regards to Pocket Carry of a concealed firearm. This is an excellent piece for those that live in Free America and are recognized to have the right (ed... alibet with a government permission slip) to possess personal protection devices.

For those of you that live in infamous four forbidden states, file this information away for a future date when you can use it. If you live in one of those states now and have non-resident permission slips from other states to travel safely by all means consider the information Mr. Runnel offers.

As an aside: It has been my experience that lint tends accumulate in the business end of a magazine carried loose in a pocket, but then that may just be me.

I have added Mr. Rummels blog Hell In A Handbasket to the blogroll as well. He has been kind enough to link my contributions to The Shooters Carnival on his site and I am only too happy to return the favor. Besides that his site is a good read.

Buying Coffee a good way to help flood victims

For a lot of years there has been speculation as to how much of the money we actually donate ends up in the hands of those that it was intended for. For that reason some do not donate at a level they would genuinely consider.

Allow me to make a suggestion

I got this from Zendo Deb who got it from The Truth Laid Bear. It isn't something your likely to hear in the Mainstream Media, because it makes too much sense.

Instead of or in addition too donating to a charitable organization the suggestion is to buy products produced in the region. This will result in money going directly to those effected. I have no idea what other products are produced in that region, but coffee (ed... and I do drink my share and at least someone elses too.) is a good place to start.

Take a look at Deb's blog and Laid Bear, if you need a pound or two of coffee consider something from the list. Even if you don't drink coffee, buy a pound for someone you know who does.

I know I will. If possible I will try to update this with a few places in the Lincoln area that sells Sumatran Coffee. If anyone does know comment on it.

Pregnant woman denied a divorce

Judge says no to divorce until baby is born

Since the soon to be ex-husband is currently encarcerated in Montana, with what appears to to be slim hope of freedom for a while and the wife has one of those "magical bullet proof paper protection orders" the Judge not granting the divorce is not the most disturbing thing about this story.

Yes, I know the guy has been violent in the past and all that and I think she should get her divorce based on domestic violence grounds. But just because she will be a legal ex wife won't stop him from hunting her down if and when he is ever freed if he sets his mind to that.

Consider this though, the husband is currently in Jail in Montana awaiting trial on Federal drug charges.

Carlos Hughes is in jail in Montana awaiting trial on federal drug charges and Bastine noted that Shawnna Hughes has a restraining order that prevents her husband from contacting her, even if they remain married. But women's advocates worry the ruling sets an unsettling precedent.

The wife who has, apparently been separated from the husband for some time insists that hubby is not the daddy and she should get a divorce. The Judge says until it can be scientifically proven that the man in the Big Sky lockup is not the father he will not grant a divorce.

The wife has stated that the father is in fact a person who has been a friend since childhood;

She says she became romantically involved with a childhood friend, Chauncey Jacques, and that he is the father. Jacques is now in the Spokane County Jail awaiting trial on a federal drug charge.

Somebody help me here; Mrs. Hughes obviously has some intellegence. After all it does take at least an average IQ to be educated enough to be a Medical Assistant. Heck it is even a 2 yr degree program here at the local college. Hughes now has 2.75 children and all three of them are fathered by not one but two men who are both currently locked up, in two different states, on suspicion of federal drug violations? And she fully intends to marry the father of the baby currently jailed in Washington as soon as she is divorced from the husband who is currently jailed in Montana?

Further muddying the waters is Shawnna Hughes' reliance on public assistance. The state of Washington objected to the divorce because it might leave the state unable to identify a father and pursue him for repayment of welfare money used to support the child.

I'm not sure what the State of Washington is trying to say there, unless they are implying that if paternaty can not be determined then the husband will be responsible by default since he had the misfortune to be married to the woman when she got knocked up.

Personally I think the womans choice in bed partners is more disturbing than the fact that the judge won't grant her the divorce. He didn't say she wasn't going to get it, he just said it would have to wait until the baby is born.
I can understand her wanting the divorce, I'm just not sure in this case time is of the essence. It seems like the husband will be away for a long time anyway and the state has ensured her safety by giving her a "triple bullet proof guaranteed to ward off all evil protection order."

More to the point this woman needs to seriously re-examine what it is that makes a good husband or father. She made some mistakes, we all do, but maturity is recognizing a mistake before you make it again and again ad infinitem.

Friday, January 07, 2005

I have been waiting for this one

Bill would limit cell phone use in cars to emergencies

Jim Cudaback never had a problem with people talking on cell phones while driving until he nearly got hit by someone doing just that in Kearney. Now the state senator from Riverdale wants Nebraska to join the list of states that restrict cell phone usage while driving.

Is this a good thing? Yea probably, but I think it misses the whole point of why people have trouble with cell phones and driving, especially when it makes an exception for handsfree setups;

Cudaback's bill (LB213) would allow handsfree phones to be used at any time and cell phone use during an emergency. Violators could be fined up to $100.

I have no doubt that people using cell phones have and will continue to cause accidents or near misses.

Cell phone use is blamed for distracting drivers and leading to accidents. Eight years ago the New England Journal of Medicine said cell phones pose the same risk to driving performance as drunken driving.

Given that previous cite how can using a handsfree unit be any more safe than holding a phone to ones ear?

Holding a hand to your ear while driving is not in and of itsself going to cause an accident. Most people drive with one hand anyway. Admit it how many of you drive with both hands on the steering all the time? Everytime?

It is not the mechanics of cell phone use that causes an accident, the cause is when the driver becomes distracted by the conversation.

The problem with cell phones is the same problem as driving while applying make up, trying to eat a burger, light a cigarette or read a map.

The problem is not the driver motoring about town with one hand glued to an ear, applying make up, or lighting a cigarette, the problem is drivers getting so engrossed in the chosen activity that they are not paying attention to their driving.

Just because the driver is using a handsfree set will not aliviate becoming engrossed to the point of distraction.

Enacting a law that bans the use of cell phones makes as much sense as making laws that; forbid women from applying make up, eating or smoking while operating a motor car.

When operating a Motor vehicle it is everyones primary responsibility to drive safely. There are already innumerable laws on the books that penalize unsafe driving. Those laws are the avenues that are used to prosecute drivers that, while applying make up, putting out a cigarette or eating, cause accidents.

What is wrong with applying those same penalties to cell phones users that cause accidents? What is the justification for a special law for cell phones?

Then there is the ever present exception for the societal elite;

Police, firefighters and operators of emergency vehicles, would be exempt while performing their official duties.

It is not the physical mechanics of using a cell phone that causes accidents, it is becoming so engrossed in the conversation that the driver foregoes their primary responsibility of safe motor vehicle operation. A handsfree set will not make a distracted driver safer.

Newly introduced legislation

Already on the docket for this session of the Unicameral are bills that would make breast feeding in public legal, do away with the helmet requirement for motorcycle riders, mandate seat belts for all passengers in a motor vehicle, Make voting easier and waiver tuition for members of the National Guard.

Breast Feeding
Personally I think this one ought to be a no brainer. Babies need to eat too and there is nothing more natural than a mother feeding an infant. There is nothing sexual about it and the many times that I have noticed it the mother in question was being as descreet as was humanly possible given the circumstances. Any one that thinks breast feeding should be relegated to the restroom ought to be made to take their meals there as well.

Helmet Law
I have heard all the arguements both for and against a mandatory brain bucket law. What it boils down to is that it should be a personal choice for anyone over the age of consent. If we should make bikers wear helmets, why should we allow people to jump out of pefectly good airplanes, jump from bridges with a rubber band tied to their ankles, slide down steep mountain slopes on toothpicks or jump off from cragy peaks with a kite on their backs.

I have jumped out of airplanes, skiied any number of the slopes in Vermont and occassionally rode without a helmet. The two things I have never done, and have no desire to, is hang glide and bunji jump.

As a side note I had met Berkeley Breathed, the creator of Opus, and was living in Albuquerque in 1986 when he crashed an ultra-light and broke his back. I still maintain and I think he does as well that to live life large and on the edge is a personal choice and not something that should be legislated in an effort to protect us from ourselves.

To do these things is and should remain a personal choice. In all honesty I do believe that helmets work and I wear one; because I choose to, even in states where I have the option. But I want the choice. It is a matter of personal freedom.

Seat Belts
Having been in a couple of serious motor vehicle crashes, One an off-road racing accident and the other a roll-over accident that involved a fatality, I recognize the value of seat belts. I was wearing them both times (ed.. and a helmet during the off-road wreck) and still do everytime I get in a vehicle. But again I have emphasize that I believe it is a personal choice. If a person is of an adult age and intellegence then it should be a matter of personal choice. It is not the job of the government or the public at large to protect me from me.

Easier Voting
Since Schimek didn't get the public votes she wanted for her "Bring gambling to Nebraska Scheme" she is at it again. This time she wants to enact a law that allows the same day registration to vote and change the ballot termenolgy from "Absentee Voting" to "Early Voting".

Now I don't have a problem with early voting, in fact I think it is a good idea. My problem with Schimeks proposal is the same day registration idea. There are just too many problems with this concept.

First and foremost I believe it takes reverence from the act of voting. It reduces it to an after thought. Voting is a sacred and solemn duty of all Americans, to allow same day registration cheapens it. An individual should know whether they are going to vote or not long before election day. In fact I thought the "Motor-Voter Laws" were suppose to solve that problem. Not that someone should know who they are going to vote for before they register, but they should be cognizant that there is an election and prepare themselves in advance for the responsible casting of their ballot.

Prior to any election Voter registration is available not only when a drivers license is renewed, but you can't swing a dead cat by the tail and not hit a registration booth set up at the mall or any other store in town. Voting is a serious responsibility and it must be held as such.

Tuition Waiver
To my mind another no-brainer. Give the Guard the free tuition, not only do they deserve it, these are men and women that have already made a home here and probably have every intention of staying in Nebraska. Since they already get a 75 percent reduction knocking off the last 25 percent is not going to hurt the budget that much and the extra money these people earn, through job promotions and better employment because of that education will result in more money, especially tax dollars staying right here in the Cornhusker State.

There you have it. Some of the newly introduced legislation and my take on it.

Term Limits a Nebraska Issue Again

A Brief History
Nebraska voters enacted term limits in 1992 and 1994. The Nebraska Supreme court vacated the first vote by the people because the requisit number of signatures had not been gathered on the initiative petitions. 1994 vote was nulified by the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis that states can not limit ferderal terms of office. After another attempt in 1996 a Federal Appeals Court again shot down Nebraska voters. In 2000 Nebraska voters enacted a term limit initiative that has so far stood the test of time.
Because of term limits 20 of Nebraska's 49 One House Senators will not be able to seek rel-election in 2006. Senator Chris Beutler is seeking to change that. Beutler is apparently proposing a question that will require the citizens of Nebraska to vote on it yet again.

Beutler wrote his repeal proposal to squelch any criticism that he's trying to save his own hide; The repeal would not take effect until 2010, after he is forced from office.

Mighty nice of you Chris, to be looking out for the staus quo long after your gone.

"Look ... I don't have any self interest in this any more, I just think it's bad policy," Beutler said. "Our institutional memory is lost" through term limits.

Bad Policy?
Think about that one for a minute. What Beutler is implying is that the voting population of Nebraska is too stupid to make the correct decisions for the benefit of their own state and he wants to provide another chance for them to get it right. The 5th time might be the charm I guess. You'd think that after four it is pretty well settled that Nebraskans know what they want.

"Our institutional memory is lost" through term limits.
You say that like it is a bad thing Senator. Just maybe some of that "institutional memory" needs to be lost. How can a whole slew of fresh faces and ideas in the Unicameral be a bad thing. As it stands now too many of the elected are entrenched in the belief that they, and only they know what is best for Nebraska or any other state for that matter.

Year after year the citizens of Nebraska are subject to the self-appointed aristocracy forcing legislation down their throats. Yes some of it is good and necessary, but so much of it is, as Gunner expressed in a recent comment, the inbread nanny nature of politicians to control the masses.
In some ways I can see the benefit of term limits. Because of the apathy of the voting public at large, many representives are returned to office election cycle after election cycle, despite how bad their legislation and voting record may be. It is just too easy to vote for the encumbant. Actually doing some individual research to determine the best candidate just seems to be more than many people want to do.

But then again, maybe the people do know what they are doing when they keep re-electing their public officials and that is their choice. And there's the rub; I personally do not favor term limits. I believe that at some point a term limit will deny me the right to vote for a candidate of my choice.

In that Senator Beutler and I are in agreement;

Said Beutler: "I still don't understand why people would want to give up their right to choose whoever they please."

The bottom line though, is that the Citizens of Nebraska have been adamant in voting for term limits four times in the last ten years. The people have spoken ... repeatedly. It now begs the question; Why can't the elected officials that have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution grasp that fact and get on with the business at hand.

Chris I agree with you, but a majority of the citizens of the great state of Nebraska do not, accept that, suck it up and move on, your just wasting the taxpayers money with this hissy fit and there are just too many more important issues that need to be addressed.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Lincoln has some great Places to eat

I must really be behind the times, a bit of a recluse or just set in my ways when it comes to eating out. Jeff Korbelik of the Lincoln Journal Star, just wrote an article recapping the 50 restaurants he previewed for "Ground Zero" this year past. Ground Zero is a Friday insert that puts in one place all of the happenings in Lincoln for the weekend and coming week.

In Looking over Jeffs article I can truthfully say that we have only eaten at a grand total of two restaurants he has listed.

Ci Ci's Pizza - Fresh Taste at a Great Price
CiCi's pizza, located at 5100 N. 27th Street, is owned by Bret Tibbets. CiCi's features a complete salad bar, macaroni & cheese bar, a dozen or more different topped pizzas and a desert bar. For one price you can have as much or as little of what ever they have.

For this all-you-can-eat extravaganza it is only about four bucks per person. If you wish to drink more than water you can add an unlimited refill drink for a bit over a dollar more. In essence two people can dine at Ci Ci's and eat all they want to for under twelve bucks.

CiCi's has been around for quite awhile in other venues, but as of this past spring new to Lincoln. We have been eating there at least two or three times a month since they opened and have gotten to know Bret and some of the staff. With the success of the 27th Street store Bret, in the next few years, will be adding a location in south Lincoln and one on O street.

Certainly to those on a really tight budget Ci Ci's is appealing, but with the quality of the food and the service it is a must try for anyone that likes pizza. Addittionally if you don't see a pizza you would like on the counter, or you have some insane craving for an unusual combination of ingrediants, tell them what you want and they will make it for you.

If you like pizza I highly reccomend Ci Ci's. There is also an arcade room with games for all ages including an Air Hockey table.

King Kong
Having been to King Kongs only once and that was right before they closed one night last week I can say it is worth a trip back. We had been out running around and as it was getting into the evening we decided to grab a bite rather than go home and cook.

King Kong is also located on 27th Street, but is north of town near the I - 80 & 27th St. interchange.

King Kong has an extensive menu, but we confined our self to the burger meals. These meals are available with anything from a quarter pound hamburger all the way up to a two pound burger sandwich. (4- 8 ounce patties stacked)

It is definately a place we will eat at again.

Maybe we should get out more, or expand our horizens, there are several places on Jeff's list that people we know have eaten at and reccomend.

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Don't get your hopes up yet Nebraska

Well it is that time of year again. Already the rhetoric for CCW is being stacked like fresh cut cord wood in Nebraska. The latest is an article in the Omaha World-Herald.

Martha Stoddard thinks Jupiter is about to align with Mars and the numbers are in place for the best chance in years that Nebraskans have to pack heat.

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.

This means absolutely nothing except a lot of wishful thinking on Stoddards part. The numbers are what they have always been. It takes 25 votes to send a bill to the Governors desk. It takes 33 votes to bring cloture to a filibuster, and if there is one thing you can count on it will be a Senator Ernie Chambers filibuster. But then if Ernie is the next Lieutenant Governor, it may never get to the floor for a vote. (ed.. read humor into that)

Oh sure looking at the survey results you can get the magic 33, by adding the Yes and Yes with conditions catagories, but that is deceiving and it won't hold up under scrutiny. Several of the Senators in the yes with conditions catagory will offer amendments so restrictive that the only place a Nebraskan can legally carry a concealed weapon would be in their home, private means of conveance or business. If their restrictions are not attached to the bill they will not vote for it.
The other side of that coin is; with too many restricted amendments many of the yes crowd will vote no on final passage of the bill.

It should also suprise some of the more in the know people that Matt Connealy's name is in the yes with conditions catagory along with a few others. It was not to many years ago that Connealy stood with Chambers to defeat the CCW law. Just this past election cycle Connealy (then running for the First District Congressional seat) told this writer that he has voted against CCW because he "thinks there needs to be training requirements for license holders." Apparently Connealy and a few others have not read the bill they won't support because a training requirement has been in the last several bills.

Don't count on any of the did not participate crowd either, two of the staunchest anti CCW Senators the state has (Chambers and Schimek) are listed there. No there is no more hope this year than there has been every year for CCW in Nebraska. Several of the Sentors that put themselves in the yes with conditions catagory will never see the kind of restrictions they want attached to the bill (a few years ago one amendment would have changed the effective date from January 2001 to January 3001) and henceforth will never vote for it. They only put themselves in that "yes but" bracket to pander to their constituency.

Newly elected District one Senator Lavon Hiedemann responded himself into the "yes but" catagory, even though during his campaign when asked about the CCW issue;

Mr. Heidemann seems to be very anti gun. I attended a candidate forum before the primary and asked the question of whether or not the candidates would support or even propose Concealed Carry legislation.

Mr. Heidemanns response was something along the lines of: "There are too many guns and enough problems with them already, no I would not support concealed carry".
(Ed... the forgoing was provided curtousy of a reader)

If one takes the time actually look at the published positions on the Senators that answered their way into the "yes but" column, it will be rather apparent that the numbers are no different than they always have been, maybe even a little worse.

Then there are the Sentors that get it right or at least mostly so;

Sen. LeRoy Louden of Ellsworth, who took no position on the issue, noted that current state law allows people to carry concealed weapons in some circumstances.
Nebraskans can defend themselves against a concealed-weapons charge by showing that they were justified in carrying a concealed weapon to defend themselves, their property or family.
"I'm comfortable with what we have now," Louden said.

The law Louden is referring to is Statute 28-1202 which essentially states that if you can convince a judge or jury that you have a compelling reason to carry a concealed firearm you won't be prosecuted.

If one accepts that Nebraska Statute 28-1202 is in fact Constitutional then Louden has a point. Apparently though Louden is not familiar with the more populated areas of Nebraska. I have written on this subject in the past and the problem is that there are Cops, Prosecutors and Judges in this state that can see absolutely no reason what so ever for anyone to ever carry a weapon concealed or open.

Enforcement under 28-1202 is ambiguous at best. What constitutes a good reason in one county won't hold water in another, and addittionally what is acceptable to one judge is not acceptable to another. This means that it is just the luck of the draw whether you are convicted or not. Get one Judge - go free, Get another Judge- go to jail. Even in the same Courthouse in the same County.

The bottom line here is that this year is no different than any other year in Nebraska and it can't be spun any other way. There are three sides to this issue and only one of them wants CCW legislation in the Cornhusker state and there are not 33 votes to assure cloture to a filibuster. Even if there are the end result will be a bill that is so convuluted that there will be no place except a persons vehicle, home or business that will be legal for carry.

As I have stated before those sides are; pro-CCW legislation, anti-CCW legislation and the citizens that believe that CCW is and always has been legal in Nebraska and that the legislature is forbidden by the Constitution from enacting firearms laws. 2 against 1 are not nor they ever have been very good odds.

01/06 1345hrs UPDATE: I should have added this update as soon as I linked this article to the one I discovered SayUncle had already done on it. I plead being under the weather with what ever is going around, apologize for the oversight and herewith give Uncle the link he deserves.

01/06 1820hrs UPDATE: Jeff at Alphecca has written about this as well. I have been reading his Blog for quite some time and was in the process of adding him to the Blogroll when I happened across it.