Nebraska permitless constitutional carry
Nebraska Sen. Tom Brewer, of Gordon, talks to reporters in a Capitol hallway after lawmakers passed his bill to allow people to carry concealed guns in the state without a permit, Lincoln, Neb., Wednesday, April 19, 2023. The passage was a long-awaited victory for Brewer, who had introduced the bill every year for the past six years. (AP Photo/Margery Beck)
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

After fighting off a 14-hour filibuster by opponents, the Nebraska Senate voted yesterday to approve a permitless carry bill, LB 77, by a 33 to 14 vote. The Cornhusker State already has open carry on the books. Governor Jim Pillen is due to sign the bill into law next week making Nebraska the 27th state with constitutional carry on the books.

Gun rights opponents didn’t take the L well. From the AP . . .

The lawmaker most vocal in her opposition to the bill has been Lincoln Sen. Jane Raybould, who pleaded with lawmakers to block the measure. She noted Wednesday that Thursday will be the 24th anniversary of the Columbine High School mass shooting in Colorado that killed 13.

“We talk about gun rights,” Raybould said. “What about the rights of all those adults and children gunned down?”

The bill’s passage drew an emotional response from gun control advocates who filled the north balcony of the legislative chamber for Wednesday’s final debate. One woman stood and yelled “Shame!” several times at lawmakers until she was escorted out by security.

The bill also strengthens the state’s preemption law. As the bill’s sponsor, Senator Tom Brewer said . . .

“What we do in this body sometimes is trying to follow through with the will of the people and give them the rights that they have in the Constitution,” Brewer said. “And sometimes we go out of the way and twist those rights and keep people from having them, and I think (the concealed carry permit) is a case of that.”

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

97 COMMENTS

      • The “Lynch mob Gun Control drama queens’ are wearing blinders and definitely have tunnel vision for they see abortion as being ok but POTG in their views are bad. It’s one thing to be ignorant and quite another to be stupid. Oh, and thieir hearing is good, the problem is they don’t understand.

        • They are neither ignorant or stupid. They know exactly what they are doing and who the choir they are preaching to is. Who have been indoctrinated with their ideology from an early age. In the Liberal Progressive Educational Indoctrination System. Formally known as Public Education. They are treacherous and treasonous and as long as they and their Ideology of Tyranny are allowed to exist. They will always be a threat.

  4. This is simply a straight reply to the intricately monkeyed-up system that the starry-eye Utopian Leftists have dreamed up during their acid trip. Then illegally put in to replace the Constitutional protections of Real Americans.
    Leftist TACTICS are never prosecuted, so are de-facto seen as LEGAL.
    This psychotic PCP-laced Pot Dream isn’t holding America together. Time to heave ho the Communist/Socialist agenda.
    START HERE: X
    CONTINUE, WITH PREJUDICE.
    DON’T STOP, KEEP GOING!

  5. Do dead people have rights? I guess you’d be punished if your caught desecrating a corpse.

    • MaddMaxx,

      I will be utterly and completely shocked if Florida ever stops criminalizing open carry.

      Why do I say that? It boils down to simple money and influence as always. I forget the exact number for Florida’s tourism industry–something like $100 billion annually. That industry has decided that open carry will scare away countless tourists and thus billions of dollars annually. Needless to say, Florida’s Tourism Industrial Complex will not stand for that.

      • the beauty of that, though, is aside from the loss of revenue you really don’t want those panty skirts coming through…

        • These idiots will never understand. If I’m walking downtown anywhere USA and I see a gun on every hip I’m fine with that as long as I’m afforded the same opportunity.

      • “…that open carry will scare away countless tourists and thus billions of dollars annually…” Sure hope it does!!

  7. ” What about the rights of all those adults and children that have been gunned down ” ? Well, this gives the remaining citizens the right to carry a firearm to defend themselves and others ! A law will not stop a murderer , but a firearm in the right hands will.

  9. The Republicans are criminals that pander to the ignorance of the Far Right so they can get votes. They do not care that permit-less carry results in higher gun deaths because people then do not know the laws of their state in regards to when they can and cannot shoot someone and they do not know safe gun handling either which results in many accidental deaths. The Republicans regard human life as cheap and expendable.

    Years ago I took a concealed carry class which was mandatory in my state at that time and I was shocked and appalled at the ignorance of the average person seeking a carry permit so the Far Right Fanatics on this forum cannot bullshit me about the need for training before one can carry a deadly weapon.

    Permit-less carry is all about Republican filthy politics, not about gun safety, or saving lives.

    • They do not care that permit-less carry results in higher gun deaths

      I’d ask you to provide YOUR evidence to prove that statement, but I know you can’t since you are just parroting “progressive” gun-grabber talking points which have absolutely no basis in fact… And when did you become (dacianD)? Oh wait, you can’t be THE dacian, you said nothing about Hillbillies or Jethroes and you didn’t mention your superior intellect even once… Nope, fake daciand…

      • “I’d ask you to provide YOUR evidence to prove that statement,…”

        There is evidence available.(I’m told) However….

        The rise in gun related violence appears to cluster around Dim controlled towns and cities in “redish” states.

        • Committed by individuals ALREADY violating half a dozen felony laws BEFORE they decided to use a gun to commit another crime… NOT actually evidence to the argument that permit less carry is the cause for the rise in gun involved violence…

    • I don’t know if you’re the real dacian or not since you have the added d. Doesn’t matter much I guess since you both are fucking idiots.

    • Excellent fake dacian post to the point where not only was everything posted objectively wrong but perfectly inversed from the truth. High effort and well presented.

    • People need permits and training before they can use the internet. See dacian for proof.

      People need permits and training before they can vote.

      Just two examples of where the dacian style fascism can lead.

      • Well….those do sounds enticing now that you mention it. Have some standards for who can breed and I might be persuaded!

  10. Nice to know “we” are in the majority now.

    Don’t forget, it is mere legislation, based on the popular vote.

  11. When TN approved carry without a permit, it was for 21 and up. The state recently settled a lawsuit, allowing carry for 18 and up.

  13. “[Raybould] noted Wednesday that Thursday will be the 24th anniversary of the Columbine High School mass shooting in Colorado that killed 13.”

    You mean that mass shooting where two under aged psychos obtained their weapons through an already illegal straw purchase? And where there were zero “assault weapons” present? Where one of the primary weapons used in their bloody spree was a double-barred shotgun (that had been illegally modified per the NFA)?

    Not one existing gun law stopped that tragedy, and not one thing about the Nebraska law would have made Columbine easier to pull off.

    • There you go, confusing their “TRUTHS” with actual “FACTS”, typical conservative obfuscation…

    • “You mean that mass shooting where two under aged psychos obtained their weapons through an already illegal straw purchase?”

      Read, years ago, in some Colorado news release, the Columbine shooters violated over 12 felony laws, before the first shots were fired.

        • “And was the girlfriend who bought the guns ever prosecuted?”

          Don’t know. Ran across the article about 12 felonies while doing research on the magnitude of “mass shootings” as a probability, and proportion of the US population effected in any given year.

    • Had CO not had such lax concealed carry laws, they never would have shot up the school.

      Of course, had they not had guns, they probably would have taken greater care to ensure that their bombs actually worked, and probably more would have died, but at least the victims wouldn’t have been shot.

  14. “The passage was a long-awaited victory for Brewer, who had introduced the bill every year for the past six years.”
    All the more reason to keep fighting.

  15. All along Concealed Carry permits have been nothing more than a scheme where the state takes a right from you and sells it back to you.
    With that said…Owning a firearm can be like a double edged sword. One side can greatly benefit you and the other side could bite you if you fail ever to follow the rules. A newbee with a credit card firearm should purchase a safe to keep the firearm safe until they fully understand how to use and keep the firearm safe without a safe. Firearm rules are dead serious and have no margin of error.

  17. Can any of the anti gun, or pro permit crowd please explain how a permit is somehow going to prevent the next criminal from obtaining a weapon, or somehow stop the next nut case or broken or angry person from going on a rampage and trying to kill as many people as they can. Can you show us how or when a crime was prevented by any law? Laws only allow us to exact retribution or punish those who have acted in an unacceptable manner. Murder has been illegal for a very long time. In some cases punishable by death. Has either the fact of murder being prohibited by law, or the chance a murderer may forfeit their life as punishment ever actually stopped anyone who has chosen to commit the crime?
    Unfortunately, unless the person behind the firearm is dealt with, or the punk committing other violent acts isn’t dealt with, nothing will change.
    Permit/license schemes, bans, taxes, restrictions, and other so called gun control measures only affect the law abiding. The criminal or psychopath is not going to worry about trivial matters of legality.

    • “Can you show us how or when a crime was prevented by any law?”

      Uuuuhhhh, uuuummmm, like, you know, if it saves only one, even only one we don’t know about.

    • “Can any of the anti gun, or pro permit crowd please explain how a permit is somehow going to prevent … ‘

      No — no, they cannot. Which is why they never discuss that part of their “solution.”

      • It’s why their reactions to such events are summed up as collective punishments. Gun owners are the modern equivalent of Stalin’s favorite class enemy the kulaks (rich farmers).

    • The permit does not any in way prevent bad things from being done by bad people. That isn’t it’s purpose.

      It’s a defense to prosecution with certain side effects. Not only does it provide a way to purchase firearms without dealing with NICS, it is also as close as person can get to a state certified good guy card. This is something I completely believe.

      The downside of it though is that rather than registering your guns, YOU are what gets registered.

      • Not only does it provide a way to purchase firearms without dealing with NICS,

        FL still requires an NICS bgc with each purchase event but waives the waiting period for CCP holders… If you choose to carry without a permit you will still wait three days to take your new firearm home… Hoping they might lower the cost of the permit but I will continue to renew mine no matter, makes purchase simpler and covers me in other states when I travel…

    • “…that open carry will scare away countless tourists and thus billions of dollars annually…” Sure hope it does!!

    • Here are very recent instances:

      A 16-year-old was shot in Kansas City when he went to the wrong house to pick up his younger brothers.

      Two cheerleaders in Texas were shot after one tried getting into the wrong car after practice.

      And a 6-year-old girl and her parents were shot in North Carolina as they tried to retrieve a basketball that went into a neighbor’s yard.

      “In a nation where strangers are all too often seen as threats and fear has been politicized, honest mistakes and simple acts like going to the wrong address or car in a parking lot, or even just ringing the wrong doorbell, can seem like a fateful question of trust,” reports The Associated Press, which takes a deep dive into what may be behind this wave of shootings. [AP]

  18. @MADDMAXX
    “NOT actually evidence to the argument that permit less carry is the cause for the rise in gun involved violence…”

    Wish you hadn’t gone there.

    “Evidence” regarding seemingly related events/actions, are usually, at best, correlation. Thus it is we cannot declare evidence :

    that GFZs don’t work at all;

    that the number of legally armed persons influences criminal actions, one way or another;

    that releasing criminals on promises results in greater crime than would have happened if the criminals had not been arrested at all;

    that criminals and gangers can read and know they are more likely everyday to face increasing threat of armed response to attack;

    that deaths by instrument other than firearm are/are not due to availability of a firearm;

    the true number of successful DGUs;

    And so on.

    • So, what’s your point? I never claimed any of those were true… Although there is “evidence” available that CAN show that at least SOME mass shooters were influenced by the security available at a particular location (Nashville shooters own words being the latest)…

      • My “point” is a reminder that “evidence” in the form of statistics is popular for any side of an argument, even POTG. The intention of my comment was for a larger audience than just we two.

        When someone says there is no proof that a law ever stopped a crime, such a “validation”/”proof”/”evidence” is not only absent, but impossible to create.

        We love to proclaim that signs prohibiting the possession of firearms don’t stop determined killers (and we have examples of killers ignoring signs), but we cannot know that such signs did not stop a huge number of potential killers from from carrying out their intentions; those deterred are never identified, much less interviewed about the effectiveness of the signs.

        The rise/decline in crime, in any location, cannot be reduced to a single cause. Sometimes our favorite talking points are no better than, “If it saves only one”; we should be aware of that.

        • I’m sure there might be criminals that see the sign and then turn around and walk away. I’m equally certain that the number in question is insignificantly low. A gun toting bad guy about to hold up the local gas station isn’t going to be a person of particularly high IQ and isn’t likely to care much about any kind of law. Otherwise they wouldn’t be doing such things. This has been discussed on TTAG all too often. Spending time dwelling on this just isn’t profitable.

        • Sam,

          In terms of evaluating actual evidence, I agree with you. “Correlation is not causation,” along with “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. In a criminal court context, that is (and should be) the standard, at least theoretically. But what is the “standard of proof” for legislation? If you require PROOF that the legislation will actually achieve its stated goal, there wouldn’t be one heck of a lot of legislation getting passed . . . like, maybe, NONE.

          Humans make judgements on incomplete or “gut feel” correlations all the time. Otherwise, you could never make a decision. I actually like that our system requires that we prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If you required that standard of yourself on a day to day basis, I suggest that you wouldn’t get much done.

          We need to be careful not to conflate the two standards, or the reason for them.

      • Texas already had open carry but what was done was Permitless carry…not constitutional carry. This whole thing with open carry means nothing at all. Texas law still has restrictions that make it NOT ‘constitutional carry’.

        • This is what I was trying to get at. Too often what’s passed off as “Constitutional Carry” is actually merely permitless carry that’s loaded down with poison-pills that infringe other Constitutional matters.

        • You are NEVER going to get completely “unrestricted” carry anywhere, this is not the 1800s and the people have waived way too much of their authority to the government and allowed “appointed” agencies to regulate too much of their lives…

        • @MADDMAXX
          I completely agree. Yet everyone throws around the phrase ‘Constitutional Carry’ as we ARE getting completely unrestricted carry. It confuses people and makes everyone think things that are not true. Just like ‘organic food’. This is why the world thinks that email is private.

  21. Constitutional Carry is crossing state lines with a gunm and not having a permission slip.
    National Reciprocity, with a majority of states having so called constitutional carry I do not see why not.

      • Prndll,

        How do you achieve more pointlessness than those fascist idiots have already achieved. My first example was going to be, “that would be like having ‘negative intelligence'” . . . and then I reminded myself of MajorLiar and dacian the demented. Apparently, negative intelligence, like negative usefulness, IS possible for the truly stupid and fascistic.

  22. I see that Nebraska Senator Megan Hunt, the sexually liberated atheist, still, doesn’t believe that humans are born with the right of armed self-defense.
    Congratulations to the people of Nebraska who overcame this Woman’s atheistic objections to Liberty.

    From 2022

    “Nebraska State Senator: ‘Owning a Gun Isn’t a ‘God-given right.’ It’s a Slave-Owning, Misogynistic Founding Father-Given Right.”

    https://dev.thetruthaboutguns.com/nebraska-state-senator-owning-a-gun-isnt-a-god-given-right-its-a-slave-owning-misogynistic-founding-father-given-right/

    • This is part of something I was saying earlier. Owning guns is NOT a God given right. What actually IS a God given right is SELF DEFENSE. Firearms are simply one of the best ways to do that in certain circumstances. This is one of those ‘words and phrases’ I comment about so very often on TTAG. People find it so easy to twist the language around to fit whatever point is desired. One of the reasons it takes so long to deal with things is a combination of lack-of-desire and varying degrees of confusion. I absolutely DO have the human right to my own defense. It is not upto the federal government how I do that. THAT is my choice.

      The whole ‘god-given-right’ thing is being used by the right in an argument against people that do not even believe in him but would be more likely to laugh at him. When this is said, there really NEEDS to be consideration given to the audience.

      • to Prndll

        The Atheist countries such as the USSR banned the ownership of weapons in civilian hands. As did other atheist countries. And I think a lot of atheists just can’t bring themselves to admit that the Christian United States, is the only country on planet Earth with a second amendment for the ordinary citizen. I believe that makes atheists intellectually dishonest.

        They have the free will to believe in God or say there is no God. That’s up to them. They have the freedom to choose what they want religion or no religion.

        And I have said this before on t-tag. There are a lot of atheists who all of a sudden are saying They would rather live in a Christian Society, than an atheist one. And the question is, what is suddenly motivating them to publicly state, they would rather be around Believers than non-believers???

        I know the atheists do a lot of reading. Can anyone tell me what “old dead white European males or females” for that matter, supported the idea of the ordinary citizen, owning and bearing arms??? Prior to the founding of the United States.

        I don’t know of any. If anyone knows please tell me. Give me the reference and I’m not trying to be a jerk here. I’m genuinely curious.

        And I’m not talking about a serf. Because a serf in Europe was given weapons by the landowner that he worked for. He had absolutely no control on getting his own weapons. Or keeping them if the landowner disapproved.

  23. @Prndll

    Your certainty isn’t borne out by data, only a presumption that cannot be verified. No different that the unverifiable presumptions of the gun-grabbers. We look silly declaring that Leftist presumptions are invalid, while asserting our presumptions are certitude.

    We like to pump ourselves up with mantras, just as do the opposition. We should be honest with ourselves, and focus on what we can “prove” (if that is even possible in the war of statistics).

    OTOH, I take pleasure in accusing the anti-gunners of being responsible for every “gun death” that could have possibly been prevented if the victim had been armed. Lost some “friends” by pointing out that they have blood on their hands for every innocent, killed by an armed attacker, who was denied a defense with a firearm.

      • “I’m not sure what exactly you think I’m presuming.”

        You noted being”certain” about behavior regarding whether law creates a hidden, un-measurable deterrence. My observation is that you are presuming the lack of evidence of deterrence is evidence deterrence is not a significant factor. The Left loves presuming certitude, regardless of reality. There are some tactics we should shove back in the face of Leftists, unmerited certitude about our presumptions isn’t one of them.

        FWIW…I don’t do group think, platitudes, mantras, sound bites, echo chamber. I visit here to learn, debate, share, be entertained. Sloganeering self-congratulations, and name-calling are not interesting reading.

        • Perhaps that is a bit presumptuous. If real data can be had on that though, I would like to see it.

  24. I’m definitely pro shall issue CCW permit, assuming it’s not just a government money generator and the requirements are reasonable. I’m not against Constitutional carry, but I have been told by LEO’s that a CCW is one more indication that they’re interacting with a “certified good guy/gal”. In AZ the permit used to require some minimal “training” and familiarization with pertinent laws and a basic range qualification. Then it was watered down so much it’s almost worthless. It still keeps me on the good side of the federal gun free school zone law and we have reciprocity with a lot of states, so I will always renew mine.

    • Shall issue requirements are an infringement of the right to bear arms. Police opinion is irrelevant here.

  25. 26. Florida does not have constitutional carry. Openly carrying handgun is a 2nd degree misdemeanor, whether licensed or not.

    • FL is the 26th state to pass permit-less CONCEALED carry, Nebraska is number 27 to pass the same law… FL is only one of three states that punish open carry but a number of states still require a permit to carry open or concealed… The original subject was NOT about “constitutional” carry it was about permit-less concealed carry of which FL was the 26th state to pass… Do try to keep up…

      • Looks like you need some help with reading comprehension. The title indeed says Constitutional Carry and implies there are 27 constitutional carry states. Yes Florida was the 26th state with permitless concealed carry. 37 states have permitless open carry.

        • My bad, looks like your issue is with the “publisher” not the states that are trying to get it right. By your criteria NO state has true “Constitutional Carry” and most likely never will unless SCOTUS throws out the entire catalog of gun laws, disbands the ATF and requires Congress to pass national reciprocity… Hint: don’t hold your breath…

  26. Know Your Laws
    I was reading laws and here is what some parts say about carrying a handgunm in this state.
    “All handgunms must be holstered with a holster that fully encloses the trigger.”
    Some or actually most of my handgunm holsteins do not fully cover the trigger. I coulda got in trouble.

  27. @Prndll
    “If real data can be had on that though, I would like to see it.”

    As, indeed, would we all.

  28. @LampOfDiogenes

    I hold myself responsible for not being as clear as I wish.

    Essentially, we cannot claim to be objective, rational, fact-oriented, reasoned, statistically-driven, if we just “go with our gut”, as does the Left. Our feelings are not superior to the feelings of the Dimwitocrats. Where the statistics can be verified, we should speak. Where the statistics cannot be verified, we should hold our tongues.

    In the present instance, I cannot say signs (laws) do not prevent crime. What I can say is we have evidence that people determined to commit crime (mass murder) are not deterred by laws, or signs. Alongside, I can validly state that laws designed to prevent mass shootings should not be expected to be any more effective than laws against murder, period.

    • and another one gone…and another one gone…and another one bites the dust!….

Comments are closed.