Now
Fair
78°
High
83°
Low
68°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Top Story
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Council rejects gun ban

Comments 85 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, Jul 25, 2006 - 11:20:44 am CDT

The Lincoln City Council shot down Mayor Coleen Seng’s proposal to ban concealed weapons in the city once a new state law takes effect next year.

BY MATT OLBERDING | Lincoln Journal Star

Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady spent much of the weekend preparing written testimony for what he thought was going to be a long, contentious hearing July 31 on Mayor Coleen Seng’s proposal to ban concealed weapons in the city once a new state law takes effect next year.

Story Photo

But Casady’s testimony was reduced to a media handout Monday when the City Council, in a surprise move, voted to kill the proposal.

“I’ve never seen anything like this happen before,” said a frustrated Casady during a hastily arranged press conference Monday afternoon.

Though the proposal was not on the council’s Monday agenda, it was on the list of pending items with a notation that it was to have a public hearing July 31.

At the end of the meeting Monday, Councilman Jon Camp made a motion to take the proposal off the pending list and not take it any further.

His motion passed 5-2, with only Democrats Dan Marvin and Jonathan Cook opposing it.

Neither Seng nor Casady knew about the vote before it happened.

Seng found out by watching the council meeting on television; Casady was informed by a reporter.

Camp said he had talked to other council members and “sensed enough support today to do it.”

But Seng and Casady both said the council’s vote cheated the public out of an opportunity to have their say on the issue.

Seng said that in her 20 years on the council and as mayor, she’s never seen a situation where “we’ve denied the public an opportunity to speak on an issue.

“I’m shocked that the council would do this,” she said.

Casady, who supports the mayor’s proposal, said he himself felt cheated out of the opportunity to be heard.

“I can’t understand for the life of me why at the 11th hour they pulled the rug out from under that opportunity,” he said.

Casady said he’s seen the council spend hours on minutiae in public hearings and can’t understand why they would not at least give people the chance to debate the issue.

“I’ve never seen the City Council do this before,” he said.

Neither Seng nor Casady would speculate as to whether Omaha’s recent decision to rescind its ban on  concealed weapons to be in line with state law had an effect on the council’s vote.

Camp denied that it did, but Marvin said he thought it had an impact.

Even though he voted against it, Marvin defended the council’s decision.

But he did agree that it was out of the norm for how the body operates.

“I would agree with (Seng and Casady) that it was very unusual,” he said.

The mayor’s proposal could be reintroduced or reconsidered if someone from the winning side asked that it be, but that seems unlikely.

Seng cannot veto the decision, according to City Attorney Dana Roper.

The state Legislature voted in March to allow Nebraskans to carry concealed weapons starting Jan.1.

Applicants must pass background checks and meet other criteria to obtain the $100 permits, which will have to be renewed every five years.

The bill was opposed by the Police Officers Association of Nebraska and 85 percent of Lincoln’s police officers, according to Casady.

Casady said he was also concerned by what he sees as loopholes in the law, such as the fact that it would not disqualify someone convicted of stalking from getting a concealed carry permit.

The law also does not prohibit people from carrying concealed weapons into government buildings other than courtrooms, jails and the Legislature.

Camp said he will support local legislation to reconcile that but otherwise thinks the city should follow the state’s lead.

“Since Day 1 I’ve advocated waiting a year and seeing how it unfolds,” he said.

“If I’m proven wrong, I’ll be the first to initiate legislation to change.”

Reach Matt Olberding at 473-2647 or molberding@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Top Story > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Doug wrote on July 24, 2006 6:12 pm:
" A great example of our city council trying to prevent our mayor and police chief from stomping all over the Constitution and our rights as Americans. This should never have been on the agenda. Bravo Jon Camp. Don't cry Mr. Casady, if you want to be a part of the vote, be a politician, not a police chief. "

 c.h. wrote on July 24, 2006 6:27 pm:
" If anyone is about to complain about Camp's tactics, just remember, they are the SAME tactics the mayor has used many times to circumvent the council. He learned from his leader. I'm sure the public hearings would have been fun. I was looking forward to them, but, let's face it, the votes were already there and the public wants the choice on whether or not to arm themselves. "

 JoeMerchant wrote on July 24, 2006 6:54 pm:
" Excellent work! Rather than be subjected to the terror tales and predictions of doom that have not materialized in any other state or city with concealed carry, the city council has decided that Lincolnites should be allowed to the same protections as the rest of the state. Maybe Chief Casady can get back to real police business now. "

 Bill wrote on July 24, 2006 7:06 pm:
" Carrying concealed weapons is about as ignorant as people can get. I would predict, police investigating crimes and someone makes a slight move, the police are going to shoot, which I could not blame them. Then it becomes the police's word or the person investigated. This is very very poor judgement on the part of the City Council and should be a WARNING the voting public if any run for the mayor's job. It would seem the public should have interjected their opinions. This whole city government scares the crap out of me, not to mention the deterioration of public opinion and future of our financial lives, and the irresponsible burden put on the police. "

 Ben wrote on July 24, 2006 7:21 pm:
" Thanks to everyone who contacted their councilman regarding this issue. I made several phone calls and sent a few emails as well and I gotta say, it is nice to be heard. Maybe Grandma and the chief will think twice the next time they want to shove something down our throats. Now if we could just get them to reevaluate this ridiculous city employee pension plan... "

 johnLNK wrote on July 24, 2006 7:24 pm:
" Why would be be surprised? The council does not listen to anyone. And, besides that, what does the police chief, the police union and the State Patrol know about gun violence...they all testified in favor of the ban. But, the council knows all. I am ashamed of them!! "

 Leroy penlerick wrote on July 24, 2006 7:33 pm:
" It's refreshing to see that 4 on the city council voted on the conceal weapons ban by facts and not emotions. They are to be congradulated on standing up for the law abiding citizens of both Lincoln and Nebraska. "

 Darren wrote on July 24, 2006 8:16 pm:
" Thank you city council! I am tired of hearing Casady trying to impose his view of the way the world should be ran on us. I have emailed Casady before asking him questions about the legality of filming officers arresting people and officers telling people to turn their cameras off. He emails back saying that it would be disobeying a lawful order by a police officer. I don't trust Casady and when he whines about nobody listening to him, I laugh as he never listens to anyone. He thinks he's God. Why are the police scared of law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves? Why are they scared of people filming them in action from an unhindering distance? They need to get off of their soapboxes and protect our rights, not try and subvert them. "

 Phil wrote on July 24, 2006 8:20 pm:
" Great news. Now maybe the Mayor and the Chief of Police can spend all that "weekend" time, working on real issues that threaten the citizens of Lincoln. How about keeping your nose to the anti-terror planning Chief? How about trying to figure us a way out of these strangle-hold property taxes Mayor? For Pete's Sake! Geeze... first all the nasty smokers were walking around killing people with the deadly second-hand smoke. As if every car in town wasn't spewing 10,000 carcinogenic compounds every second that it runs on city roads. Then the police are scared of law abiding citizens, who want to be armed just in case the unthinkable happens. No... the boogie man citizen is too much a threat to tough police officers. The rapist or violent thug who would prey on helpless citizens... knowing for sure that the citizen isn't armed, because of a stupid city law. Way to go council. You got this one right. "

 Andy wrote on July 24, 2006 8:39 pm:
" Thank you city council for following the will of the people of Nebraska who fought long and hard for a RTC bill. I too was making plans to attend the July 31 hearing. Now it won't be needed. The only ones crying about it are the fascists who believe that we should all depend on the government for everything. Now if we could only do the same for casino gambling..... "

 Kenneth H. Zike wrote on July 24, 2006 8:48 pm:
" I salute the council for their recent decision on side stepping the Mayors efforts to block the carrying of concealed weapons. . They are not in lock step with the wrong thinking Mayor. Its time to vote the Mayor out of office. The next Mayor should seriously consider replacing the Chief of Police. He took an oath to obey and enforce the laws. His job description does not include playing politics. "

 dan w wrote on July 24, 2006 9:09 pm:
" Thanks to Jon Camp, freedom prevails once more. I commend the council for getting past the rhetoric to the truth "

 Trent wrote on July 24, 2006 9:13 pm:
" Wow, finally the city council doesn't draw an issue out for weeks just because the Journal Star needs something to write about. "

 JAS wrote on July 24, 2006 9:24 pm:
" Thankyou, City Counsel for not fixing what isn't broke. Our Amendments are a strong foundation of freedom, proven over time. Good work. "

 evp wrote on July 24, 2006 9:35 pm:
" So THIS explains all the pre-emptive articles I was reading today that ran against the usual print media stories on this issue --- their 'startling' revelation that fewer people than anticipated will be getting permits. The point is now being made that perhaps there wasn't as much to be afraid of as we were being made to believe, if print media was all that we read. Perhaps someone else knew today's decision was coming and wanted to soft-pedal the issue for us? Now hopefully all those lemmings over in Kearney will swim along with the same tide since it is turning toward reality now... "

 Ron wrote on July 24, 2006 9:45 pm:
" CONGRATS!! Finally the council did something right. We won't have to listen to the mayor and council fight back and forth over a STATE LAW already passed. We are one day closer to the election and voting this "do nothing" mayor OUT! She is on the WRONG side of about everything, including "foregiving" thousands of dollars over fire trucks. "

 Trisha wrote on July 24, 2006 9:47 pm:
" I do not contest the ability of the Council to strike down the proposed ban. However, I do contest the timing with which it occurred. A public hearing on this item had been scheduled. At that time, any person wishing to do so may have provided public testimony in support of, or opposition to, the item being heard. Only after such a hearing should the Council act, taking into consideration not the public input provided by the community, at public hearing and elsewhere, but also the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents with whom they have been elected to serve. The action of Mr. Camp, it could be argued, circumvented the substantive due process rights of both those persons supporting the ban and those in opposition. Although I find no argument with the decisions of Council, I would rather have hoped that the Council would seek to engage the public in a conversation of great debate, and make a representative decision thereafter. "

 Bill wrote on July 24, 2006 10:03 pm:
" I agree with previous posters, it is now the time for a new mayor, and with that a new Chief of Police. The Chief of Police is responsible for enforcing the law, not creating the law. And "Failure to Obey a Lawful Order"; just as long as what they say isn't specific illegal, you have to do what they say. They tell you to go home; does that mean if you go to Village Inn you are breaking the law? That's a City Ordiance that needs to be removed. If Lincoln Police cannot do their job without the use of a catchall ordinance, then they are concentrating their efforts in the wrong areas. If a police officer is doing is job properly, it should make no difference if someone is videotaping them. It would just be another form of evidence to support the officer's actions. "

 Rob wrote on July 24, 2006 10:37 pm:
" A big thanks to the City Council for their vote on this. Nice to see the Mayor doesn't make all the decisions around here. "

 JAC wrote on July 24, 2006 10:41 pm:
" Can't believe the "do nothing" city council finally did something and did it right. Maybe they're distancing themselves from a lame duck mayor who has basically done nothing but cur ribbons and attend arranged photo ops sinc taking office. Will still vote against any of them running in next election and no one from the city will get my vote for mayor if running. Throw the bums out and lets get people in office who have Lincoln's best interests at heart not their own agendas. "

 SFC Stu wrote on July 24, 2006 10:56 pm:
" The Council made the right decision. It's time the Mayor and Police chief were replaced. I thought that the Mayor and Police Chief wanted a better City. They have a strange way of showing it. "

 Gary B wrote on July 24, 2006 11:04 pm:
" Trisha, what you fail to recognize is the fact that MANY people have been contacting the city councilmen and councilwomen for the last few MONTHS to express their opinion, and public opinion would probably have little, if any, impact on the council's decision, as most of the council members have spent the last few months educating themselves on the subject, and listening to public input. Today, they voted in accordance with the facts they had dug up for themselves, and in accordance with the majority of Lincoln citizens, who are both smart and responsible enough to handle concealed weapons. A 'great debate' is just for show, an opportunity for grandstanding on both sides, the council did the right thing, avoided the hooplah, and took care of the issue in a just and efficient manner, leaving the council to address more pressing issues. "

 Tom wrote on July 24, 2006 11:05 pm:
" I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to hearing what the police had to say about the issue, since they are the ones most likely to interface with concealed weapons, and the ones in the best position to know about weapons and their use. "

 Sylvia wrote on July 24, 2006 11:07 pm:
" If I can't carry a concealed hand gun to church, no one should be able to carry a concealed hand gun anywhere. "

 Former? Nite taxi driver. wrote on July 25, 2006 12:18 am:
" Hey Lincolniters. Your creepy acting enough after 9 pm (when your loaded)But now that you may be "locked and loaded"... I don't know... I'm getting edgy. Oh well, I'm sure you'll just "whip out" your best manners for me and leave your heater in your pocket... now won't you. hmmm... Maybe , this would be a good time to shrink Lincoln's supply of nite cab drivers by one guy. "

 Jed wrote on July 25, 2006 2:01 am:
" I find it funny that the chief is whining about "not getting a chance to be heard". He could care less what anyone who supports concealed carry thinks, as long as he gets his way that's all that matters. That is the ONLY reason he is so upset about not being able to speak. Last time I checked chief, police do not make the laws, they simply enforce them. obviously the council members got enough contact from their citizens to decide this was the best way to go. It's funny, you don't trust the citizens of your city enough to carry a gun, yet we're suppose to trust the police to keep us safe when they know they can't be there to protect us? You may feel "cheated", but how do you think the whole city would feel if YOU are the only one getting your way on the deal? But that's perfectly fine, you're the "chief", you get what you want all the time, right? Wrong! Not in a country run by the PEOPLE thru our elected officials. Hopefully the chief didn't spend too much money on his rubber boots he bought to use come January. He won't need them, because there won't be pools of blood in the streets for him to walk thru. "

 no to guns wrote on July 25, 2006 4:19 am:
" You have a constitutional right to carry arms but no where in the consititution says that you have the right carry it concealed. "

 Terrance wrote on July 25, 2006 4:34 am:
" Congratulations to the city counicil members for not letting our Mayor and Chief of Police bully them to act against the citizens of Lincoln. What's not to understand Chief about allowing the citizens of Lincoln to exercise their right to carry concealed firearms for protection under state law, a law you are to uphold not uproot. It's obvious that concerened citizens of Lincoln have been voicing their concern to our council members that the Mayor was about to blindside the citizens with the Chief at her side. All Lincolnites win. "

 Jason wrote on July 25, 2006 7:02 am:
" Bravo to the City Council taking back the legislative power of government. Perhaps this is a response to a Mayor who seems to be unaware of her role as an executive, not a legislator, and to the city's agencies such as police and fire who are there to SERVE the people not govern them. "

 Scott wrote on July 25, 2006 7:48 am:
" Hurray for the City Counsel. The Mayor whines about them not listening to the people. I recently heard her on KLIN and almost every caller disagreed with her on the concealed weapons ban, but she simply dismissed what they had to say and wouldn't listen. Hey Mayor . . . how does it fee? "

 Shawn wrote on July 25, 2006 7:57 am:
" Great! The Council got it right. The Legislature has already acted on the will of the people. Period! The Mayor has demostrated her imcompetence via several useless fire engines. The Chief of the Lincoln Doughnut Patrol would be better occupied investigating such things as drive by shootings and garage robberies instead of hoping the public does his departments job for him with Crime Stoppers. Hang in there folks....election times acomin! "

 chubs peterson wrote on July 25, 2006 8:06 am:
" Congratulations to the City Council, you got it right. I found it odd that the Chief was so appalled and at the point of tears that he did not get a chance to let his position be known. The chief has been very public and had plenty of press time on his views. What could he possibly say differently then we have already heard. As for the Mayor, she is so far removed from this issue and most other issues it’s not worth taking up any more space here. See you in the permit line. "

 Gary B wrote on July 25, 2006 8:33 am:
" The Constitution does not tell me that I should not drive 100 mph on the interstate, it does not tell me that I should stop at a stoplight, and it does not tell me that I should pay for my food at my favorite restaurant. If the Constitution doesn't tell me these things...then why in the world would I ever do them?!? Simple, LAWS. In this case, the state of Nebraska passed a law saying it was okay to carry a concealed weapon. Their decision, much like the city council's, was based on the wide array of facts available on the subject. "

 Michelle wrote on July 25, 2006 8:34 am:
" For once, I feel like Mayor Seng and Chief Cassady have gotten their just desserts. Here is my message to them: "Lincoln is part of Nebraska! Stop pretending to be better than the rest of us, and abide by the same laws! Quit trying to override state laws to appease your own personal agendas!" "

 Mark wrote on July 25, 2006 8:41 am:
" Thank you city council :) although I will not be arming my self I am glad that you allowed citizens of Lincoln to have the same rights as everyone else in the state and to stop Lincoln from turning into an "Island" in the prairie. If I could I'd send all of you at a council a big thank you banner for protecting us from a police chief who has to much influence in our state\city laws and our very own mayor who seems to think that its a good impression to send to state visitors that Lincoln is totally backwards from the rest of the state. "

 Jed wrote on July 25, 2006 8:50 am:
" If the chief is so concerned that he has to say he's a member of the public too, then why does he always have to go on the record as "chief casady"? He is only speaking from the police point of view every time he talks about it. So sorry chief, you are NOT a member of the public on this issue, you are a member of the government. And as far as our right to carry under the constitution, tell me ONE place where it says we DON'T have the right to carry concealed? I see no mention of it anywhere. Do you realise that concealed weapons bans weren't always in place? Funny thing isn't it? Constitution simply says we have the right to carry, with no distinction of whether it be open or concealed. If concealed weapons bans come 200 years later, one would think from the start that concealed was OK. Otherwise it would have been explicitly forbidden. As someone has pointed out to me, concealed weapons bans came about to silence african americans back during our most racist period. It was a way to control them, to keep power out of their hands so they had no way to defend themselves. If you'd want to keep our laws which started out like that, I feel sorry for you. I for one, would rather get back to the true meaning of the law. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That means nobody should say anything at all about me carrying a gun, because you have no right to. Until you magically make the words "should not be concealed" show up in that 2nd amendment, find something else to waste your time trying to lie about. "

 V wrote on July 25, 2006 8:58 am:
" It's about time our elected officials take the time to listen to the people who elected them into office and vote for them not for their own agenda -- Mayor Seng take note "

 Tom wrote on July 25, 2006 9:13 am:
" I should have expected this one! The morning news is full of the mayor and chief "crying." I haven't seen this happen in twenty years of service. Well it's time mayor you saw some new things. Business as usual, for "once" wasn't business as usual. I'm so sorry to hear the chief worked on the weekend getting ready to say something. Everytime I hear the mayor speak, I become even more angry. How did she ever get into the mayor's office the first time? "

 malkore wrote on July 25, 2006 9:13 am:
" I commend our city council members on a job well done. Rather than be stonewalled into a hasty decision by an inept mayor and a paranoid police chief, they saw through the thin veil of misinformation and chose to trust our state lawmakers. Who will legally carry concealed? Logically thinking, law-abiding citizens, who pass several tests and background checks. How has been illegally carrying concealed, and would have continued to do so if Lincoln banned it? Criminals...rapists..."gang bangers" (wannabe's at least). CCW does nothing but swing the balance of power against crime in favor of the good guys...your friends, relatives and neighbors. If we could choose to be assaulted when a police officer is within earshot, the world would be a better place. But you can't choose when, where, whom, or how...all you can do is try to be prepared to defend yourself or a loved one. "

 PAC wrote on July 25, 2006 9:14 am:
" Sounds like to me the City Council couldn't be bothered by hearing the opinions of the people who elected them into office, whether for or against the ban. May God be watching over our police officers, as they are going to need all the protection they can get come October 1. "

 EX-FED wrote on July 25, 2006 9:17 am:
" If the Chief of Police doesn't have the integrity to stand by the truth that all those other states that do have concealed carry are NOT having "high noon/OK Corral" scenarios, then he has no business enforcing the law. When the police get to approve/dissprove laws, then that is called a "police state". If he is unhappy, then he should quit. "

 Troy wrote on July 25, 2006 9:17 am:
" I can't take much more of Colleen Seng's left-wing "protect honest people from themselves" politics. Finally the City Council has begun to realize that their loyalties belong with the citizens, not to other members (past and present). But remember, the Council can reopen this debate at any time, so we still need to work on getting the Unicameral to change Revised Statute 15-255. It is this law which allows organized communities to "prohibit carrying of concealed weapons." Contact your Nebraska Legislatures and have them change the wording (I already have contacted mine). And remember to vote out Colleen Seng in May 2007! "

 Joe Taxpayer wrote on July 25, 2006 9:17 am:
" While I respect Cassidy, I also respect our State. I could see the councils point to not go against the state. If you are right Cassidy and some blood gets spilled in the street. Then the state and the city can go back reevaluate the law. I do not own guns and never will. If someone wants to own and carry so what? If they go and do something stupid with that gun I trust LPD to go and clean up the mess because that is what they are paid to do. The majority of the people choose to allow to carry, then we go with it, until we change public sentiment about this issue then we with have to live with what the majority rules. I respect Cassidy to try and educate us on the dangers. Today Cassidy fought the law and the law won. "

 Adam wrote on July 25, 2006 9:30 am:
" For those of you who have never carried a concealed weapon and have a "hollywood" view of how it really works, I congratulate you on arming your attacker, because that is what will likely happen as you are fumbling to get your pistol out from inside your pants. "

 Bill S wrote on July 25, 2006 9:31 am:
" Congratulations to the Lincoln City Council. Commen Sense prevails. Freedom wins.. "

 Common Sense wrote on July 25, 2006 9:33 am:
" The concealed weapon law is a proposed law that does not take into account common sense. Guns and weapons injure innocent people, kill children, and even misfire. Thus, carrying deadly weapons on the street of NE is a terrible idea. I can't wait to have a deadly shoot out in downtown lincoln when several people are injured because some drunk had a gun in his hand. Common sense should be used when making judgments like this. Unfortunately, common sense is seemingly out the window for many on this issue. THERE IS NO PLACE LIKE NE....CAUSE WE CAN CARRY GUNS. Sounds like a terrible idea to me. "

 Future Permit Holder wrote on July 25, 2006 9:49 am:
" I would like to hear the Mayor's opinion in the form of testimony. I would like to hear Chief Casady's input into the matter as well. I would also like to know that they have heard the opinion of the people of this State and that, as public office holders, they will yield to the will of the intelligent citizens of this and 47 other states. I plan to apply for a permit because I want to receive the training and education that seems to otherwise been unavailable, even for those carrying in the open. A positive, constructive approach to this issue by all parties involved should be our goal. We finally have a law on the books that brings about a long overdue clarity to carrying in any situation and that is good for any and all communities. "

 ab wrote on July 25, 2006 10:02 am:
" Concealed weapons will so nothing but kill more innocent people and arm more criminals. This is a sad day for Lincoln. "

 JP wrote on July 25, 2006 10:32 am:
" Thank you City Council for giving us a basic right... "

 Bob S. wrote on July 25, 2006 10:40 am:
" The next positive step: The NE Legislature will pass "Castle Doctrine Legislation," as NE law. Already implemented in Fl, TX, MI, and many other states. "

 JT wrote on July 25, 2006 10:46 am:
" Get ready for "no guns signs" on private businesses. That should look really nice to visitors to our city. I'm disappointed. "

 Susan wrote on July 25, 2006 10:49 am:
" Wow...looks like I know now who I'll be voting for in the next council elections. Silly me, thinking the PEOPLE of the city have a right to be heard. Maybe the "5" would like to tell us how to run the rest of our lives?? "

 Caprus Montanus wrote on July 25, 2006 11:03 am:
" If the council had used the same procedure to come to the opposite conclusion I would have really been upset. Since the result was the one I prefer, I don't mind the process this time. Is there any chance the Chief will resign in protest? Oh, happy day! "

 DLM wrote on July 25, 2006 11:07 am:
" The city Council finally stood up and didn't let Cassidy and Seng have there own way, Congratulations Jon Camp, Ken Svoboda, Patte Newman, Annette McRoy and Robin Eschliman. "

 Thanks wrote on July 25, 2006 11:19 am:
" Although I see an extremely vocal group of folks on line here who are pleased with the circumventing of a valid process, my opinion is it's just four more folks who've buckled. There are valid concerns with carrying concealed that impact a municipality like ours more extensively than non-urban areas (like most the rest of the state). I suppose if they were going to follow Omaha's lead regardless, it's probably just as well they did it now rather than later... and save the time and energy of those of us who had valid concerns we wanted to express (like our Chief of Police)... as they clearly weren't really going to listen anyway. There is, however, a more quiet majority of citizens out here who I beleive think this is wrong based on an official poll I've taken today. Simultaneously, I see that it's crucial in the future that we not be silent, and that we must take pre-emptive strikes with our City Council and not wait until we are scheduled to be heard! "

 Praise wrote on July 25, 2006 11:59 am:
" Thanks to the city council for getting something right and not just being a puppet for a police chief who has to much influence in our lifes already. "

 PO wrote on July 25, 2006 12:03 pm:
" Just another fine example of that three ring circus we call a city council. The only thing that's a bigger joke than them is the US congress. "

 Skip C. wrote on July 25, 2006 12:32 pm:
" I live in Michigan and have been a CCW holder for 5 years. The police told us in 2000 that there would be "Blood in the Streets" if the CCW bill was made law. The police were wrong. Michigan is at least as safe as it always was, and we don't have shootouts in public. All you Nebraskans can relax, because everything is going to be fine, just like it was in the 37 other shall-issue states. "

 LR wrote on July 25, 2006 12:33 pm:
" According to my Bible, God teaches us to love one another. How do you do that and stick a gun in someones face?? Not letting the public decide the matter is pretty selfish. Nebraskans seem to have the mentallity of, its all about me me me. Like the article today about a crash on I 80. The first thing in the article was the poor poor concrete dividers that will have to be replaced. Then the last apparently second thought line, nobody was hurt or killed. Goes to show where Nebraskans hearts are, greed greed and materiallist greed, I want, I want, I want. If anybody saw the news about the sniper(s) in Indiana on both sides of Indy, one person killed, and could see the huge amount of guns for sale by the police once a year that were confiscated, you might think twice. I lived there, the reason I moved partly, because safety was a concern. From Jan to June they had about 3,000 bank robberies, it never stops. Theres no one on that city council I would vote for, if thats the kind of judgement and thoughtfullness they have. Its kind of a minature showdown between the council and mayor and police, what will it be after they can carry their concealed weapons??? Its just more of Lincoln on its way down the drain, mighty fast. Peoples caring and concern for one another in this town is next to NIL!!! Its already, you pay these outlandish property and state taxes or you've got a gun in your back. Next, those who shoot and end up in court not able to afford a lawyer, guess who is going to pay for this in the end?? "

 'Bout time wrote on July 25, 2006 12:36 pm:
" It's about time some people in Nebraska came to terms with the fact that they're part of the United States and not the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia or Massachusetts. Having this law on the book will not further enbolden the criminal element. All one has to do is look to your neighbors in SD and WY to see what their crime rate is like. By perusing some of the comments on this, I can see the Chicken Little syndrome has started to kick in. More guns on the street for the criminals? Police officers getting shot because of wrong moves? Oh and the one that really caught my eye: Only innocent people and kids will be killed or injured. Just remember, that if left to they're own devices, posters like these would have you sacrifice your safety and that of your families upon the altar of "dial 911" (and die), where YOU could be arrested for defending yourself and your family from harm, not the criminal. "

 Uncle Sam wrote on July 25, 2006 12:57 pm:
" Nebraska was one of only a handfull of state that had block this most basic right. We need to thank the city counsel for their swift action in granting states rights to all residents of nebraska. "

 Mike J wrote on July 25, 2006 1:03 pm:
" New idea, if this is such a hot issue, maybe we should put it to a vote of the people? I did not think debating this issue to the council would really accomplish much anyway. AND I would hate to see the mayor and council members voted in or out of office based on their view of this one minor issue. I could really care less either way; I just want the issue resolved. If this issue could some how lower my property taxes (high permit fees), I would vote yes, otherwise no. "

 KellyJo wrote on July 25, 2006 1:04 pm:
" I wonder how those of you who think this was such a great and wonderful thing would feel if the council voted the other way but in the same manner. I have no problem with concealed carry in Lincoln. I won't be one of the carriers, but because the state passed the law, I don't think it's up to the city of Lincoln to take that right away. Plus, the fact that 47 other states allow its citizens to carry concealed weapons and those states have not turned into the wild west, I think says a lot. So it's not the result of the vote I have a problem with. I have a problem with the fact that the council didn't wait until the public hearing. As much as I dislike the job the mayor is doing, what the council has done is no better. The ends do NOT justify the means. "

 Carlton wrote on July 25, 2006 1:10 pm:
" Sweet! Now I can apply to carry a concealed gun anywhere but the following places: police stations, courtrooms, polling places, government meetings, banks, athletic events, school property, hospitals, churches, political events, places that serve alcohol, and where private businesses prohibit it. "

 CLM wrote on July 25, 2006 1:19 pm:
" Thanks to Dan Marvin and Jonathan Cook for staying strong. "

 WES wrote on July 25, 2006 1:27 pm:
" The US Constitution is the law of the land, which includes all of it's amendments. In this case the 2nd amendment. It's not flexible, it's the law. And, also now NE state law. Congratulations to the Lincoln City Council for upholding the law of the land. We defend the Constitution, live by it, and die by it. Anyone who doesn't fully believe in the U.S. Constitution just as well belong to a sub-culture terrorist organization. "

 tim wrote on July 25, 2006 1:51 pm:
" the issue should have never been brought up to begin with. its a state law voted upon by the representative WE put in office. therefore, the people HAVE spoken. for a change conservative minded people are awarded a freedom by the state which was already stated by our federal government. kudo's to those five city counsel members that voted to kill this stupid proposal. "

 Ben wrote on July 25, 2006 1:53 pm:
" I hope Marvin and Cook have a good time celebrating their "moral victory." Especially since they lost. "

 InTexas wrote on July 25, 2006 1:56 pm:
" Good job city council! Now if Lincoln and Nebraska could just address the horrible taxes, I may move back. Then again, Texas has had concealed carry for a decade now and the doomsday predictions haven't materialized. Maybe Texans are safer and more responsible than Nebraskans. "

 InTexas wrote on July 25, 2006 2:06 pm:
" Good job city council! Now if Lincoln and Nebraska could just address the horrible taxes, I may move back. Then again, Texas has had concealed carry for a decade now and the doomsday predictions haven't materialized. Maybe Texans are safer and more responsible than Nebraskans. "

 SQ wrote on July 25, 2006 2:15 pm:
" I'm appalled at the way the council behaved. If it was Lincoln's wishes to have concealed weapons, so be it. But at least allow the public hearing. It was just a week away. What a joke! To everyone "commending" the council for doing something right...what would've been wrong with letting the city have a hearing? If it still worked out in your favor...at least it would've been handled appropriately. "

 Gary B wrote on July 25, 2006 2:15 pm:
" Kelly Jo, I would have been angry at the outcome, for sure, but I would also know that my testimony at the scheduled meeting would have fallen on deaf ears. They had their minds made up...end of story. "

 BackBoned wrote on July 25, 2006 2:16 pm:
" It is interesting how one council member lacked courage to stand up for a cause and instead caved in, that was the most interesting positioning. Was there coercive diplomacy and did peer pressure rather than ideals yield compromised values? "

 Crash wrote on July 25, 2006 2:29 pm:
" Wow, I just got back to Montana after leaving Omaha, and I knew that Omaha did the right thing, and it's nice to know that some poeple in Lincoln are still common sense people where it counts. Way to go Lincoln!!!!! Hope my friends down there heard the good news. "

 Esther wrote on July 25, 2006 2:37 pm:
" If you can't carry your gun outside of your pants, you are a coward. The cowards have won. I can't smoke indoors in Lincoln establishments, but I can have a smoking gun. "

 Jolene wrote on July 25, 2006 2:41 pm:
" Perhaps our city council finally started listening to it's constituency, rather than the narrow minded, one-tracked mind mayor we have-keeping Lincoln in the 20th century. The city council would be wise to begin distancing themselves from the current city administration, if they want to be re-elected. Down with Seng!!!!! Up with the future of Lincoln. "

 Two War Vet wrote on July 25, 2006 2:50 pm:
" I was prepared to come to the public hearing next week to gain an understanding of why our Mayor and Police Chief feel that Lincoln needs a "local exception" to legislation, already voted on and passed by our elected representatives. This is why we vote. I would be interested in seeing data from other concealed-carry states, especially if there is a demonstrated reduction in crime, and seeing what percentage of supposed "mishaps and accidents" legitimate gun owners bring to crime control. My belief is that criminals will always acquire firearms through illegal methods, and that people have the proactive Constitutional right to defend themselves, their families, and their property against violent criminals, rather than just relying on the reactive, investigative role of law enforcement. You can bet I'm gonna put in for a permit, just for the opportunity to go shop for a new gun! Be careful out there, bad guys. "

 Sherry wrote on July 25, 2006 3:00 pm:
" Seng and Casidy were a little shocked by the vote on concealed weapons, said it was underhanded. But they sure didn't think it was underhanded when they passed the smoking bill did they? A little taste of their own medicine I'd say! It's about time!! "

 unbelievable wrote on July 25, 2006 3:08 pm:
" I guess the city council doesn't need a public hearing on our budget, or smoking ban, or anything for that matter. Your opinion as a citizen is not wanted or needed or appreciated in this town. Maybe you are happy with this issue's outcome. But how about the next issue that may mean something to you. Now that the council has the "don't waste your time" policy in effect, your voice will not be heard anymore. "

 J.B. wrote on July 25, 2006 3:14 pm:
" I would also like to thank the city council for killing this proposed ban. For those here who complain about not being heard, I feel I have. I didn't wait for a public grandstanding, hoping I could get my face on the news. I contacted the council with my concerns, and it appears they did what I asked - to look at the facts of the issue, and decide based on the facts and not on a knee jerk reaction. Susan - "Maybe the "5" would like to tell us how to run the rest of our lives?" - It's better than the "2" (Mayor and Chief)that usually tell us how to run them. And while I'm sorry Chief Casady "wasted" his week-end preparing, I hardly think he was "cheated" out of an opportunity to be heard. I've heard him on the radio. I read his thoughts in this newspaper. Who DIDN'T know he was going to get up in support of this ban? Common Sense, you arguement is like saying "Cars injure innocent people, kill children, and even catch on fire. Thus driving cars on the streets of Nebraska is a terrible idea. I can't wait to have a deadly crash out in downtown lincoln when several people are injured because some drunk got behind the wheel." No, common sense would say "lets look at all the other states with CCW laws." How many drunken blood baths have occured at the hands of a permit holder? Despite the doom and gloom predictions, there won't be Wild West shoot-outs, unless you truly believe the citizens of Lincoln are less civil and less law abiding than the citizens in the other states with CCW laws. "

 D wrote on July 25, 2006 4:14 pm:
" When as a society are we going to stop shaping our identity/safety around a weapon? Reading all of the comments that people wrote just makes me sad for all of us as a society, and sad for Lincoln. I could even understand the vote if our city was under siege by a rogue band of criminals. But it's one of the safest cities in the US. WHY DO WE NEED THIS? Not allowing the public to speak is a travesty.....the only way as a citizen to fight this is with my vote, and I can guarantee you that every City Council member that voted to kill this proposal will not get my vote in the next election, Republican and Democrat alike. "

 Jed wrote on July 25, 2006 6:13 pm:
" Guns go off accidentally? Ummm, no they don't. have you ever shot a gun? For a gun to go off accidentally, something internal has to suddenly fail and there hasn't been a case of that happening in so long, if ever that I know of. Guns go off negligently, not accidentally. But what you fail to realise, is forcing people to disarm when they enter stores, makes guns handled more out in the streets where chances of a negligent misfire goes off. that is where something happens, say reholstering a gun and something catches the trigger, or their finger is on the trigger when it shouldn't be. But, with training, people will realise to keep their fingers off the trigger when handling their gun. And I don't see how "innocent women, children, nuns, priests, saints, newborn babies, people's pets" are going to be getting killed. Are you that bad of a person that those would be the ones you would shoot? Are they going to do something to harm my life and make me have to shoot them? And as far as "hollywood" views on concealed carry, your assumption that we are going to be like that, is simply that.. a "hollywood" view of yours. We're going to be fumbling around getting our gun out of our pants, and the bad guy is going to take it from us. Yeah, show me all the cases around the country where this happens again? I must have missed that one, wading thru your you know what trying to see it. Fact is, you will STILL get the door held open for you by me, you will still get a jump start if you need one because your car battery is dead, you will still get me helping you reach a product on the high shelf you cannot reach, and all with a smile on my face. You have no reason to fear me, unless you intend to threaten my life. I can simply ignore your childish anger over a parking spot, or getting cut off accientally in traffic, or whatever it may be. I'm way above getting upset over such things. And it's sad that you would hope to see a shootout where innocent people get killed in the streets of lincoln. You really want to go the extra mile to prove us wrong don't you? To see innocent people killed, to wish it to happen! That's pretty sad. It just shows a lot about your character, and why you are so against concealed weapons, because you cannot be trusted with them and you know it. And by the way, what's with October 1? The law doesn't go into effect until January 1. Get your facts straight, or don't post on this issue. "

 Jed wrote on July 25, 2006 6:54 pm:
" When are we as a society going to stop basing ourselves around a weapon? Hello? Have you even paid attention to why our country is what it is? Do you not realise we would not have the freedom we have continued to have all this time, if not for a weapon to insure our freedom from oppression? Like it or not, our founding fathers gave us the right to own guns. They know that was the only way to insure our freedom would last. The very fabric of our country rests on the gun. I really wish you would quit thinking gun owners are nuts, and militia-like. I enjoy going to the shooting range and having fun. I enjoy going to outdoor ranges with my rifle just to test my skill at hitting far away targets. I also happen to enjoy my life. And I want to continue living it. Me carrying a gun does not affect you. You won't even know I have one on me. I am not going to get a permit for the purpose of saving someone else's life. Should that situation ever present itself to me, I will have to evaluate my own safety first. This is about my safety, and only my safety. I do not care about reducing crime, or making criminals scared. Criminals will always do bad things. This is about me having a way to protect myself should I ever come face to face with society's worst. I've been close enough to situations before that it very easily could have been me in trouble. I don't care to ever let myself be in that position and be defenseless. And I could open carry my gun, but that would just scare you for no reason. I have enough respect for your concerns that I do not want to make you worry over nothing. I know I'm not out to hurt anyone, so I don't want to make you think that I am. Out of sight, out of mind. "

 Bob Wagner wrote on July 25, 2006 6:56 pm:
" take a good look at the rest of the country, the cities with the most gun laws have the highest crime rate. "

 Gunssavelife.com wrote on July 25, 2006 11:35 pm:
" Congratulations to the Nebraska Legislature, Governor and the Lincoln City Council. The people spoke at the state level. Typical gun grabber tactics. You lose the vote at one level move to a different level. Now 48 states with Illinois thanks to Chicago and Wisconsin have concealed carry and the murder rates continue to drop. This does not match what they have told us for the last 25 years if concealed carry was legal murder rates would dramatically increase . Concealed carry was not allowed in most states 20 years ago but it should have been since the 2nd Amendment says "Keep and Bear Arms" not "Keep and Store Arms" "

Ads by Yahoo!