After Nebraska lawmakers approved a permitless carry law in 2023, politicians in Omaha and Lincoln pitched a fit and enacted new measures prohibiting firearms on all city property, as well as banning bump stocks and "ghost guns." While a lawsuit filed by the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association against Lincoln is ongoing, the city of Omaha has thrown in the towel and retracted the executive order banning carry on city property that sparked similar litigation.
The revocation is somewhat symbolic, since the city had already repealed the executive order a year ago, leading to the dismissal of the lawsuit against Omaha on the grounds that it was now moot. But the same judge who declared that lawsuit moot actually sided with the city over its ban on bump stocks and "ghost guns", despite the clear language of state statute that prohibits political subdivisions from regulating the "ownership, possession, storage, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms or other weapons.'
[Judge LeAnne] Srb ruled the city’s prohibition on bump stocks, which allow semiautomatic firearms to act as automatic weapons, passed via ordinance, was legally sound since LB 77 did not address bump stocks. The firearms association and the five gun owners argued in the lawsuit that the ordinance violated state law because, Srb noted in her ruling, bump stocks “fall within the meaning of firearms because they are essential components to the operation of a firearm.”
Srb, under similar logic, also upheld the city’s ordinance on prohibiting untraceable guns, also known as ghost guns. The firearms association and gun owners argued the city’s ban violated the law since such guns could be turned into firearms as defined by LB 77. That argument did not convince Srb.
“... the Court cannot say that incomplete firearms without their integral parts meet the statutory definition of a firearm,” as defined by LB 77, the judge wrote, adding the city’s ordinance is not preempted by LB 77.
Srb's ruling also appears to ignore another statute that only allows "cities of the metropolitan class" like Omaha to "punish and prevent the discharge of firearms, fireworks, or explosives of any description within the city, other than the discharge of firearms at a shooting range pursuant to the Nebraska Shooting Range Protection Act."
Honestly, that language probably should be cleared up by the legislature since it would appear to allow Omaha to ban the discharge of firearms in self-defense. But the statute, which lays out a number of things that cities of Omaha's size can do without the need for legislative approval, is clearly absent any mention of regulating firearms themselves.
Under Srb's myopic reading of the state's preemption law, Omaha could regulate (and prohibit) virtually every gun part besides a finished frame or receiver, at least if they're not already attached to a firearm when they're brought into the city.
The Omaha World-Herald reports that Srb's decision brings the lawsuit to a close, but I'm hoping that her decision can still be appealed to the state Supreme Court. If not, the legislature needs to go back and revise its preemption statute once again and explicitly state that it is the sole body in Nebraska with the authority to regulate the ownership, possession, storage, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, firearm parts, firearm accessories, or other weapons... as well as making it crystal clear that the discharge of a firearm in self-defense cannot be regulated or prohibited by any political subdivision either.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member