Nebraska Approves Right-to-Carry; Governor Heineman Pledges Signature

Today, the Nebraska legislature gave final approval to a measure granting law-abiding Nebraska citizens the right to carry a firearm for personal protection. Legislative Bill 454 now heads to Governor Dave Heineman’s desk, where he is expected to sign it into law. Last week, legislators in Kansas overrode Governor Sebelius’ veto of the Right-to-Carry measure in that state.

LB 454 met with overwhelming, bi-partisan support, as Nebraska senators voted 33-12 in favor of the measure. The bill allows law-abiding Nebraskans to undergo a background check and apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm for self-protection.

Now of all the 50 states, only Wisconsin and Illinois flatly refuse to recognize the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-protection against criminal attack.



More RTC (and guns), less crime. The violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991, to a 30-year low. (Meanwhile, 21 states adopted RTC and the number of guns rose by over 60 million.) And on average, RTC states have 21% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 43% lower robbery, and 13% lower aggravated assault. Nine of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime and murder rates have RTC.1

RTC and crime trends. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent."2

** Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public--127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.

** Licensees were 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public--386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.

** Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees, and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.

Rick you have it backwards.

A CCW is a permit to carry, meaning the gubmit thinks they can give and take away the right to carry, so its not in the constitution. I think your interpretation is that you don't need the gubmits permission.

I could also mention that in Texas, looking at DPS statistics for CHL (CCW) license holders and non license holders, in my age group, a man who has a CHL is statistically 7 times LESS likely to commit a violent crime than a non CHL holder.

Statistically, CCW holders are more law abiding, and that's a proven fact.

Now, the above posters are referring to CCW holders not committing violent crimes or firearm violations. I've seen stats that some antis tried to cook up showing that a few CCW holders did break laws... but the laws had nothing to do with their CCW, and were mostly misdemeanors.

So better not to know who has a weapon illegally, right? Feel safer knowing one or three people in that movie audience are packing without a permit? Along with that permit comes a certain amount of sacrifice and accountabilty. If the weapon is found (and perhaps the shell or projectile) it will be traced very easily. This to me is in itself a deterrent.

Rick,

You are correct. Just did some research and found out that there have been some CCW holders convicted of a crime.

If you read my post above you will see that any CCW holder is much more likely to be a law abiding citizen than anyone in the general public.

Do not see what Slak is scared of. People carry dangerous weapons on a daily basis. I had a pocket knife in my pants the entire time in Vegas, and he was sitting next to me. I could have gone crazy and killed him, yet did not. This argument will not wash and this is a good thing for the state and its people.

If you were scared before, this is not going to help...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1143754984.jpg

RickM, there's no doubt that some CCW holders have gotten in trouble with the law on non-gun-related issues. But I've never heard of one getting in trouble for a gun-related crime. One poor guy on SIGforum did brandish a SIG (lifted his jacket and put his hand on it) when a homeless guy ran at him with a knife. The CCW holder was arrested and put through the legal wringer for it, but eventually all charges were dropped. And of course, there's a DUI here and there that might be grounds for revoking a permit. But I highly doubt any CCW holder has committed a gun crime while packing.

Slakjaw, why would you want to stay away from someone who was packing? I'd want to be near them. If carrying openly, that's the first person a criminal would target. If concealed, that's the person who has the greatest chance of saving your life in a situation.

Joe, We are in total agreement on the subject....at least now we are :)

I recall a relatively high profile incident where a jeweler was cutoff in NYC while in his F308. He confronted the other driver and shot/killed him. It was reported that he had a CCW as he regularly transported large amounts of cash.

Joe, I am not scared of criminals or "law abiding" citizens.

I am cautious of all people I do not know however.

Just because someone is a law abiding citizen is not a good reason for me to trust them.

It is my opinion though. I am not trying to change any minds. Just was in the mood for a healthy arguement.


PS, A swift kick to the nuts may work a little better than a pocket knife.

The map is wrong. Even before today you could CCW if you had $10,000.00 or more on you in cash.

The shooter in the recent Seattle incident DID NOT have a CCW permit, and they're pretty damn easy to get here in WA.

I think you'll be fine.

You referring to what I posted?

My senator, Diane Feinstein has a CCW, but she feels no one else can be trusted except her. Correction, she's not "My" senator, I meant to say the senator from Cali.

Conviction rates: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Texas info: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm

Demographic info: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

Good facts RedBeard. Does show that statistically, CCW holders are more law abiding, but there are and will be bad apples. Actually abusing their CCW resulting in death or injury of another person is not actually reflected. Some of those 'assault' charges could have been fistfights, or shoving matches.

I coined the phrase a while ago, and offer it again:

No free society will ever be completely safe. No completely safe society will ever be free.

No, I'm referring to THIS.

Just curious, how was this constitutional right infringed before the CCW passage?

Disclaimer, not arguing, not inciting, not anything, just a simple question....take it as face value because that's all it is.

Just want to add that, I carry a Leatherman on mt belt most days. No criminal has ever screwed with me.

It's time to familiarize yourself with the 23 foot rule.