Nebraska is the kind of state you just know has to be pro-gun. However, like many other states, they’ve got cities that disagree. Omaha is just such a place.
In fact, places like Omaha and Lincoln have actually prevented the state from being as pro-gun as it might otherwise have been.
That doesn’t matter, though, because not only did constitutional carry pass there, but the bill in question also wiped out local gun control ordinances.
Yet Omaha seems to believe that the law still allows them to pass new ones. As a result, the state is getting ready to fight the city in court.
Details are surfacing regarding the state’s likely court challenge to recent gun control moves by the City of Omaha.
News Channel Nebraska has obtained a copy of a key state memo outlining the legal arguments, which include plans to stop the mayor’s attempt to keep guns out of city parks.
As we have reported, top Omaha politicians and police are convinced a new state gun law, making it easier to carry a concealed weapon, makes Omaha less safe.
Chief Todd Schmaderer, Omaha Police Department: “What works in Kimball, Nebraska does not necessarily work in the large population area like Omaha.”
Omaha has put three main targets on the table: Ghost guns, firearms without serial numbers; Bump-stocks that turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns; and a move to keep weapons out of city owned buildings and parks.
Do you know what’s funny about Schmaderer’s comments there? It’s how that’s always a one-way street with gun control advocates.
See, I wouldn’t mind the argument so much if they recognized that what might work in Omaha regarding guns won’t necessarily work in Kimball, Nebraska. They lament preemption such as here, claiming that local governments are better equipped to know what they need as opposed to the state legislature, but they don’t blink at passing sweeping gun control measures that put rural communities in a bad spot.
It’s hypocrisy at its finest, and with this bunch, that’s saying something.
As for the proposals, the state is basically arguing that preemption prevents the “ghost gun” ban as well as the bump stock ban–especially since bump stocks are banned at the federal level at the moment–and they’re prepared to point out the difficulty in meeting state requirements for banning guns in parks.
It seems you can do so, but you need copious and obvious signage at entry points. Parks are open air places where people can come and go from pretty much anywhere. How are you going to post sufficient signage?
Regardless, Omaha is preparing for a fight that it’s likely to lose. Preemption laws have been upheld in pretty much every other state and they’ll be upheld here. Even if they’re not, any victory is likely to be short-lived as the legislature will simply adjust the law in the next legislative session.
And this is a good thing. Preemption prevents unneeded legal patchwork that can cause good, law-abiding people to be arrested for breaking a law they didn’t know exists. Omaha doesn’t get a pass because they really, really want one.