I can Hear the Backlash now; You favor criminals owning guns

It actually took some intelligence to think up the travesty that Mayor Seng, Councilmen Cook, Marvin, Svoboda and Police Chief Casady are cooking up now.

Any opposition to the proposed ordinance that bans firearms posession or aquisition of a concealed carry permit will be met with the following;

"If you don't support this then you must be in favor of letting criminals have guns."

Let me get this up front and perfectly clear so that there is no misunderstanding;

I am not in favor of persons convicted of crimes that preclude firearms ownership from owning firearms or aquiring a concealed carry permit.

Firearms ownership is not the issue here. The Constitution is.

It is not legal for Public Officials, no matter their reason, in crafting ordinances to do so when that law is in clear violation of the Constitution.

I can cite several statutes and the associated case law that prove what the above named individuals are attempting to do in unconstitutional according to the Constitution of the State of Nebraska. But then I have done all that already on previos pages of this Blog.

All one really has to do is read Article 1 Section 1 of the State Constitution to realize that what these Public Officials are attempting is in direct contridiction to the rule of law and the will of the people.

Article I-1
Statement of rights.

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

What part of "shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any political subdivision there of" do they not understand?

Let me make this perfectly clear nowhere in the State Constitution or the State Statutes does it give the City of Lincoln any authority or power to decide who or who should not posess a firearm.

In fact Article 1 Section 26 is quite specific in regards to the exercise of power;

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people, and all powers not herein delegated, remain with the people.

Nowhere in the State Constitution does it give the State nor any Political Subdivision the power to regulate firearms. Many will claim that it is in the inherent police power of a political entity, but that is negated by case law;

A state agency may not, by invoking the doctrine of police power, exercise powers not granted it by and inconsistent with provisions of the state Constitution. First Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Smith, 134 Neb. 84, 277 N.W. 762 (1938).

This section is characteristic of republican form of government and distinguishes such government from monarchy or oligarchy. State ex rel. Harte v. Moorhead, 99 Neb. 527, 156 N.W. 1067 (1916).

Police power is one of the powers which has been reserved by the people of the state, and which cannot be surrendered. Chicago, B. &Q. R. R. Co. v. State ex rel. City of Omaha, 47 Neb. 549, 66 N.W. 624 (1896)

Nowhere in the statute that was created by LB454 does it give power to Political Subdivisions to decide who or who is not eligable for a Concealed Carry Permit. That criteria is specifically spelled out in Section 7 of that statute.

And there is no language in that law that gives power to Political Subdivisions to modify it.

Chief Casady has been publically articulate about certain Lincoln Citizens that have amassed a conviction record or misdemeanor crimes and that they would still be eligable for a concealed carry permit.

While I highly doubt that any of these miscreants would actually apply for a permit one has to wonder how many of the misdemeanor crimes that they have been convicted of started out as felonies and were plea bargined down for the sake of expediancy.

If that is the case then the blame for these "blights on society" still being able to own firearms rests squarely on the backs of Gary Lacy (Lancaster County District Attorney) and Dana Roper (City Attorney) himself.

That they have been derilect in not vigorously prosecuting the offenders that the hard working men and women on the Lincoln Police Force and the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department have brought before them is not a valid reason for the Mayor and certain members of the City Council to violate articles of the Constitution.

This is not a crime issue it is a Constitutional issue wrapped in an emotional blanket sewn by those that should have been more rigorously enforcing the law all along.

The fact is that Dana Roper and company are now having to cover up their past derilictions of letting potential felons skate with misdemeanor convictions by crafting unconstitutional ordinances.

I do know that the Peace Officers employed by the City and County do an outstanding job of bringing solid cases to the Prosecutors Offices. I also know of the frustration involved in presenting such a case only to have Roper or Lacy's Office plea it down to a simple misdemeanor for the sake of expediancy or clearing the docket for "more important cases".

Again this is not a criminal issue, this is an attempt to cover up shoddy prosecutorial work on the part of the very person who is crafting this unconstitutional law.

So I ask what part of "they do not have the power to do this and if they do it will be in violation of the State Constitution and an affront to their oath of office does Seng, Roper, Marvin, Cook, Svoboda and Casady not understand"?