Guy I work with just bit the dust as far as possessing a firearm for the next 10 years. Gotta sell his house and move out of Lincoln or be a felon. Lincoln City Ordinance. Busted for DUI. .11 had his purchase permit revoked, hunting license cancelled. Listed as prohibited. Real Bummer.

http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti09/ch936.pdf

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any firearm within the corporate limits or
on any property of the City of Lincoln outside the corporate limits when that person has been
convicted of two or more of the following offenses within the last ten years: Driving under the
influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. � 60-6,196; Driving under the
influence of alcoholic liquor or drugs in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code � 10.16.030; Implied
consent to submit to chemical test, refusal in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. � 60-6-197; Chemical test,
refusal in violation of Lincoln Municipal Code �10.16.040; or any conviction under a law of another
state or municipality if at the time of the conviction under said law the offence for which the person
was convicted would have been a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. �� 60-6,196 or 60-6,197.

Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.

I wonder how long it will be before getting a speeding ticket results in the same.

.11 is a felony charge in most places. Traffic violations aren't even misdemeanors.

It says he has to have been busted for 2 offenses before he loses his right to possess a firearm, DUI is one, what is the other?

Not real sympathetic for drunk drivers as the typical recipient of a DUI has driven drunk 100 times before they get popped.

The real bummer is the guy isn't responsible enough to operate an automobile while sober.

Assuming he did it twice to be sure he got it right.

Sorry no sympathy here.

After watching my wife suffer from long term effects of being in an auto accident caused by a drunk driver , I have NO sympathy for him. If he can't drink at home or have someone else drive, don't f*&^%$ drink. And if he's not responsible enough to NOT drink and drive, he's NOT responsible enough to have a gun.
And like the above poster asked: what's the other felony?????

Amen!

Is it a felony DUI? 2nd offense? If it is, he can't buy or possess guns now anyway.....anywhere.

i think a more fitting punishment would be to be put into a room with a couple of real hardasses who beat the piss out of him for a few hours. that and a $1000 fine would suffice for the 1st offense.

Drink that gooberment control kool aid is good for you boys, drink your freedoms away.

It has to do with judgement. If he can't avoid drinking and driving and doesn't realize he is a danger to the public, well........

No letting him buy firearms won't keep him from drinking and driving again either. Just sayin...

You, are a [bleep]' idiot.

Felonies have ALWAYS negated certain freedoms. If you can't keep your azz sober to drive what in the Hell makes you think you'd be sober enough to have/possess/CCW a firearm?

A Constitutionally guaranteed right cannot lawfully be taken away.

Yeah, it can. Check the "social contract" theory by both Locke and Hobbes, common law from England and the US, and essentially any theory of criminal justice.

I wasn't aware of a right given by the constitution, that should not be affected by various crimes.

Should a murder still be able to buy/possess if paroled?

As to the solution, moving out of town seems to answer it. I dont know why folks want to live in towns anyway, but I'm damn glad most do. That way the country stays country.

No sympathy for anyone who drinks and drives. I lost a girlfriend to a drunk driver many years ago. He's alive and well today, and probably still on the streets, while my lovely girlfriend is dead. You drink and drive, you pay the price. No level of dumphuckitude should ever be tolerated, especially when it jeopardizes innocent people's lives.

Pretty much on the money here 700LH. I don't believe anyone should drive drunk or above the legal limit either. Seems to me though a lot of emphasis is put on DUI and spd tickets compared to more important issues but these are the big money makers for the LEO's and justice depts. in this country I'd rather share the road with a guy who had 1 beer over the legal limit than his wife or kids talking on their cell phones or texting while driving. 30 million illegal yahoos over the border not getting more than a wrist slap while our AIC looks the other way or encourages it plus giving them a free ride on all the rest of our backs. Yup, got to hear some more about what laws need to prosecuted to the max and which ones the rest of us are supposed to look the other way on. You know you can murder,drive drunk,use illegal drugs and any other crime you can think of and be innocent of it all if you aren't caught and convicted of it according to the libs. No morals necessary or illegal behavior be considered as long as you don't get caught and convicted, only then your guilty. Never mind what you do until caught and convicted. DUI people 1 beer over the limit aren't the problem in this country our government is. Mag Man

I'm not aware of any rights "given" by the constitution. God given or natural rights exist with or without the constitution as that document merely enumerates them.

Or just doesn't care that he is a danger to the public.

How to get screwed in Nebraska.

A bucket of slop and some rubber boots?

One foggy night a drunk decided to take a nap. He said he thought he was in a parking lot, he was parked across both lanes of a two lane road, lights out, in a dark gray car. My youngest daughter did not see him until it was two late. Basalt bluff on one side of the road, river on the other. IT WAS HIS SIXTH CONVICTION and that did not count the times he skated.

Thankfully the good folks at Ford designed the Sable to self destruct while protecting the passengers. She was fine, car was dead, drunk was still passed out when police arrived and did not know he had been hit until they woke him up.

If it were up to me first offence would be a felony and minimum five years behind bars with hard labor. Second offenders would get the needle.

The guy blew an .11 he should never drive again let alone hunt or fish.

Sorry to see there are guys on this board that will stick up for a drunk driver.

Drunk drivers suck, but we are also talking about the loss of 2nd amendment rights over a non-felony. Where do you draw the line at losing those rights? It was drawn at a felony but not any more, at least in Lincoln.

Hang the Bastid.

You think a guy with 6 DUIs that's so wasted he can't tell the middle of the road from a parking lot is blowing a .11?

Yeah. 2 drinks at a Christmas party will blow a .11, yet we let 20'year olds with 4 kids from Mexico run over folks all day with a f250 and give them welfare dough to buy it, not counting the jokers from the Middle East and Mozambique.

It's not just misdemeanor DUI. Beat up your wife or girlfriend and misdemeanor domestic assault will separate you from your guns just as fast. Conduct your life in a civilized manor and your civil rights will remain intact.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." In other words, stop complaining.

Drunk drivers should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Don't come in here and try to take this argument off track... LOL.

Folks dulled on emotion will quiet freedoms ring.

Misdemeanor convictions should not affect your gun rights, or any other rights. Felonies are a different matter.

Mark

I believe in the death penalty for the first DUI offense!

We should exact the death penalty for anyone walking around with a loaded gun
They might just happen to kill someone.

PS. Folks who get caught doing 5!or more mph over the speed limit, too.

The guy in the OP blew the .11. The drunk napping across both lanes was a lot worse.

Still, a .11 should not drive again. Drink at home, have a designated driver or take a cab.

Totally agree. Too bad for him, but he is a danger to others. some folks just cannot control themselves and so penalties are the only solution.

Heck, I like a drink too. Here in Japan, the deterrents are very strong, since social drinking is such a part of the culture and locals have such low tolerance for alcohol that getting blotto is common. Drinkers are inured to using public transportation, taxis or designated drivers. After company outings, I've seen folks so drunk they literally could not stand up to get off the train. Coworkers seem very tolerant, though.

Since the trains typically stop running at around midnight, some elect to stay up all night. They are not going to take a chance on driving and getting caught because the authorities are, well, authoritarian.

First... idiot for living in Lincoln. Second... idiot for DUI. Loss of firearms for 10 years is a lot less inconveniencing than what the DUI could have done to somebody else.

But SERIOUSLY... Who the <bleep> would live in Lincoln? Anybody read that link that was posted? Give your 17 year old a shotgun to defend against the meth-heads that just moved in next door and become a criminal. Don't report to the city (for their gun registry) that you sold your AR or handgun to somebody and become a criminal. Leave a firearm unattended in a vehicle for 24 hours and 1 minute - become a criminal. Etc, etc.. Lincoln police chief and mayors hate gun owners and always have. They even have a history of scanning their gun registry when they add a new gun-ban misdemeanor looking for people convicted that misdemeanor and then raiding gun owners who now fall under the ban.

He'll be better off outside of Lincoln or Omaha. Now get him to AA and work on the drinking.

That's why I posted the link Calhoun. For all those that didn't read it the key words are in any jurisdiction.
Visitors beware. If you have a ccw and 1 beer and get caught you are done. 0 tolerance.
Carry openly in the city, get a ticket for disturbing the peace with a firearm. Done
Get caught shooting a BB gun in your back yard. Illegal discharge of a dangerous weapon. Done. And it goes on and on.
I don't drink and drive, I don't feel sorry for him on that, but it's a sad day when a low misdemeanor or even allowing a kid to have a BB gun or slingshot inside the city gets you on the prohibited list.

The drunk napping across both lanes was likely in the .20 plus, probably way plus range. What does that have to do with someone who had four or five beers to hit .11? Why even bring it up?

If your friend was a law enforcement officer in Lincoln he would be exempt from the city's "special rules" for prohibited persons, I read the link. I'm glad I don't live in Lincoln.

Yep

Not at all

Snake

Yep, I know. Just didn't want to get into LEO bashing just because the rules don't apply to the privledged special few who are always put up on a pedestal, but routinely fall off of it.

I have reason for not liking people who drive impaired. A reading of .11 is impaired.

I suffer for a disease contracted on active duty. It went dormant for years and then came back. It includes sudden onset attacks of vertigo. When it came back I retired and turned in my CDL. I no longer drive because I don't want drivers on the road who are like me. I don't care what the cause is, drinking, drugs, or illness, if you are impaired stay the hell away from the driver's seat.

Boozers are losers, particularly when they drive drunk. I have no sympathy for the punishment they receive, with the clear and personally unwavering exception of loss of Constitutionally protected rights.

Lincoln's "law" is clearly unconstitutional. Such illegal laws are designed to weaken 2A and all our protected rights. I'm surprised some of you don't understand that.

Hmmm, I think that making possession,operation and/or ownership of ANY motor vehicle after a DWI should be a felony. Owning MV's is NOT a protected right,driving one even less. In factI believe that if someone uses a MV during the commission of ANY crime,misdemeanor or felony, the car should be confiscated and the above conditions apply.

I don't disagree but the law in Lincoln affects his gun rights.

While I don't want drunk drivers on the road.... and I don't even drink and haven't for going on 30 years, when laws like this can be passed.... not only is it aimed at DUI people, there are other offenses that can "take away" someone's right to bear arms...

its a bureaucratic divide and conquer mentality... and they use it subtly, coming up with reasons that the rest of the public will have no sympathy for the person who lost their gun rights...

make no mistake, the real target is ALL Gun Owners.. its just bureaucrats marking their time, and taking gun ownership away from citizens one at a time if need be....

while I have little sympathy for Drunk Drivers.. this isn't the way to try and solve the problem....

We should shoot them while we still are able.

Apples to donuts.

Good friend lost his rights in the process of a manslaughter charge which also took all the other guys rights away. It was only a simple DUI. My friend is a really good guy, a stellar citizen, and an upright member of society these days. The other fellow is neither a citizen nor upright any longer.....sucks for both of them I guess. Looks to me like the fellow from Lincoln could just move out and carry on as ever with no change in possession or ownership - at least in the City of Lincoln's eyes; doesn't seem so bad.

I don't believe convicted felons should be denied their 2nd Amendment right.



Travis

Its all going to hell. Guy I know was pizzing of a jet ski. Lake patrol saw him from the bank. Nobody else around. If his charges stick he will have to resistor as a sex offender.

Sorry, cry on someone else's shoulder......his choice, pay the consequence.

The 2nd Amendment clearly forbids it.

UBER forbids.



Travis

You must be the evil skywalker.



Travis

Bummer.
He should have got in an pizzed in the water, like me.

How do I go about getting franchise rights to open gun stores in the state and fed penitentiaries?

Those that prefer safety over freedom, deserve neither

If you're deemed safe enough to be out of prison, you should be able to own a firearm.



Travis

Man, this country is [bleep].



Travis

Travis,
You are a true born numbnuts.

Naww, he naturalized.

While I disagree on his statement on this subject he is anything but a numbnuts.

So you have personally felt his nuts and he said he could feel it??

Am I?

Type out the reasons a man that is deemed safe enough to live amongst the rest of us, shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

Go.


Travis

Void the guy's DL.

Prosecute for DUI.

Confiscate his vehicle.

Incarcerate him for DUI.




These thing relate to driving under the influence. Gun ownership has zero bearing, if only obviously.

The world is full of weapons thinking because they can't pass a background check will do ANY good is naive liberal logic.

Lots of criminals own firearms....why should he obey the law as it is written? That's exactly the reason I'm against more laws against law-abiding citizens owning guns. Criminals will always have guns.

Take a cab. Problem solved. We lost a neighbor (pregnant 30 year old woman - and a mom already at the time) to a drunk (he was, as they are almost always, unhurt).

I have no sympathy or tolerance for people who cannot take responsibility for themselves.

This is where I reside

And this is where I reside...even tho this [bleep] say's i can't come to Montana...

I must agree with Travis, if you are not locked up, you should be able to own a firearm.. This crap is just another step to create laws to prevent all from having weapons..
This crap with the DUI laws is totally out of control.. You are guilty until you prove otherwise.. That is not how the law is to work in this country..

Montana sucks.

So I hear from the family in Havre...grins

I take it you don't have statewide preemption to prevent local gov't from passing their own gun laws? We have it in Pa., keeps Philthy, Harrisburg and others from doing to us what Lincoln appears to have done to Nebraska.

Bummer for you guys.

Dale

How to get screwed in Nebraska? I thought some sicko would have said With a corn cob? I do agree with Travis. Even if it is a gun felon, after paying his prison sentence he should be free to have a firearm. The problem is,,, there is hardly a sentence anymore.

That's an issue unto itself. Here we have lots of "cited and released" violations that other jurisdictions would count as crimes worthy of lockup.

I agree wholeheartedly with Travis/Dave that once your crime is paid for you should be free to own a firearm. If need be, change the laws for offenses committed later, but especially with first time offenders, release from prison should equal restored ownership rights.

I also agree with Seafire, this is all a one-at-a-time game to disarm the populace. The Constitution doesn't place limitations on ownership, does it?

If the man hasn't got enough sense to not drive after he has been drinking then in my opinion he doesn't have enough sense to own a firearm.

A gansta' dope dealer that shoots and kills whitey and whitey's family and cops a plea to stay out of the chair should be able to own a gun legally when he gets out of prison?? I hope he don't move to Lubbock, TX after he's released! At least he can't legally vote.

But the OP cited a section of the law that deals with 2nd offense. So we can assume that it's not his first offense.

If men do not have enough sense to stand up for their rights, they will lose them.

You have a point 257. But like I said there is no punishment anymore. Punishment for something like that iss well, death.

Maybe that was a little strong with multiple homicides. Let's say he JUST shoots and kills your daughter and serves 20 years. Legal gun ownership when he gets out?

Thank you Thomas Jefferson.

The point is he shouldn't get out.
If a person has "paid their debt" there should be no further sanctions. If they are safe to let out of prison, they should have their rights restored.
If they are not prepared to resume full citizenship, they should still be in prison.
Simple.

Yep, simple.

3 issues with that example.

1. He shouldn't be allowed out in public.
2. That guy wouldn't lose all ambitions to murder because he can't legally buy a gun.
3. It has nothing to do with a drunk driver losing his gun rights.

Let's not let bad policy (lenient sentencing, easy parole) force us into creating more bad policy (gun control).
Let's fix the core problem. Recidivist criminals on our streets.

So you're saying that's the way it works in the real world? That's a new one on me.

You must be an UBER conservative.



Travis

Of course that's not what i'm saying.
But fixing bad policy with more bad policy has never been the answer. Hell,that's democrat thinking, there.

That is it exactly. Have you completed your sentence or been paroled? Completed the conditions of that sentence/parole? If so, you have all the rights of any other free citizen. To pursue any other path is path down a slippery slope. The intent here is to put as many as possible on a "prohibited" list.

You should see what little "evidence" is required to have a PFA sworn out against someone here in PA. As soon as it's filed, the police show up and collect your firearms.

I understand the intent.

I sympathize with the people that genuinely need to be protected.

However, the measures do little to stop someone from actually hurting another person. It's just one more chip off the stone....

Basically it's us against the govt, ALL of us. When the SHTF, the more shooters we have the better the way I see it. Figuratively speaking of course.

I suspect the other offense was refusing to consent to the chemical test when he was stopped for suspicion of DUI. If so he may have been taking the advice of some lawyer, or of some bar-stool "lawyer," to refuse to consent in the hopes of beating the DUI in court and being found guilty of only the count of refusing to consent to the chemical test. That may be a legal strategy for mitigating the potential penalties in some jurisdictions, but it appears Lincoln, NE, is going after your guns if you try that strategy there.

I would be full on challenged to muster sympathy if they shot the guy.

I reserve my sympathy for their victims, who have been and are legion.

Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005�

About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.
Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders.
More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year.
Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release.
A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.
An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period
Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older.

Taken from a Bureau of Justice study on recidivism, bring your Sam Brown, vest and go bag for a week of graveyard shift where I work and you'll change your tune.

Not saying or even agreeing with the notion you're a numb nuts, just maybe a little naive as to some of the issues LEO's encounter outside the lovely state of MT. Last thing a parolee needs is lawful access to firearms.
Very few parolees are ever deemed truly reformed or as you have put it safe to live amongst us, truth of the matter is the justice system and the prison systems are completely overloaded and a lot of dirtbags get to walk long before they should be able to.

Now just so no one goes off on me and calls me some sort of anti American liberal commie puzzy, I'll say I'm a Highway Patrolman in a large state, worked major metro areas the first 8 years of my career, I've seen first hand the death and destruction wrought upon innocent citizens resulting from DUI drivers, and in no way do I believe what happened Lincoln is appropriate, DUI is a misdemeanor, and nobody's rights should be infringed upon for a minor mistake that almost everyone of us have possibly been guilty of at one time or another. Felons on the other hand are another issue all together, and I say once you're over that line there's no coming back.

It's a good thing we have laws in place that prevent those people from breaking the law after they're released.




Travis

Wrong country and century.

1) I don't want to pay to keep him locked up for the rest of his life.

2) They won't let me shoot him.

1.) If he needs to be locked up the rest of his life the illegality of owning a firearm isn't going to change a single decision the felon makes.

2.) You'll have more opportunity to legally shoot him if he is armed.



Travis

I haven't read all the responses so if this has been discussed or answered then my mistake.

What happens to the firearms he currently owns if he stays in Lincoln?

Will they be confiscated by LE?

Will they ever be returned?

Yes, they would be confiscated by LE and almost surely would never be returned without a long court battle. Don't know what Lincoln cops do with confiscated guns, have never heard of a LE gun auction so they probably destroy them or they.. umm.. disappear.

The article didnt mention any victims of his actions, did it?

The left would love to hang all US gum owners for all OUR victims also. Is that really where we want to go? I guess It must then be ok to sue Winchester away.

Not directed at you ...

What if a person had an extensive gun collection that was part of an investment and retirement plan?

It's easy enough to say that a person convicted of multiple DUIs has forfeited their right to keep and bear arms but it goes deeper and brings up other questions.

Confiscation is just the first.

I would guess that after paying a lawyer a few grand, you could likely get a judge to grant a court order transferring the firearms to a 3rd party trustee for purposes of selling or MAYBE holding for the 10 years (but I wouldn't bet on that one). I've heard of that happening in other locations, but it would probably take a court order since the cops can't transfer them back to the owner and they wouldn't transfer them to somebody else without a court order.

This actually isn't probably much different than for the average run of the mill gun owner charged and convicted of a felony.

Now, the smart thing would be to transfer all your firearms to a 3rd party yourself BEFORE the cops show up.

Yes LE can/ will/ have confiscated. Even if he moves it's going to be very expensive to get off the prohibited list since Lincoln will maintain the listing for the full 10 years. If he gives up all rights to the arms, they will be destroyed. He does have a brother out west who will take possession for now, that is if brother gets them picked up before they kick his door down as being prohibited he cannot transport them out of the city.

The 2nd offense was refusal to breath test, double whammy in one fell swoop.

It wouldn't be so bad if the court, upon conviction, gave somebody thirty or sixty days to remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of the weapons they own.

The confiscation part is what really troubles me. It's the camel's nose peeking under the tent.

I'd make a valiant effort to give them all my ammo first.

People who text and drive cause fatal accidents.

They should have their 2A rights violated too.

Not going to happen, the city judge would probably have ordered immediate confiscation if knowledge of said firearms were known. They don't respect the 2A anymore than the mayor or Casady and LPD.

People who text or talk and drive should be locked up. It's a serious problem here and it seems like everyone does it. The other day I got behind a stoopid bish doing 30 in a 40 MPH zone, oblivious to all, talking on a cell, and get this ...

TALKING WITH HER OTHER HAND !!!

She had the cell phone crooked in her neck, one hand on the steering wheel, and talking with the other.

Karma prevailed though. Right after I saw this schit and just as I was passing her I heard a floppity flop noise and low and behold her front tire was flat and riding on the rim.

I gotta add ...

Some of the people that text or talk and drive are worse than drunk drivers.

If anybody needs evidence of just how [bleep] stupid all forms of gun control are, just ask Mark Furhman if he can own a shotgun.



Travis

How can talking while you're driving make any possible difference? Except to .gov coffers.

It can't. They've just programmed people to think it can.


Travis

Programed, sadly that is the correct answer in so many instances.

And be castrated with a dull knife. Well, uh, women should be wounded. Yeah. Well, or at least violated.