No guns in parks? violate our state consitution?

[jednp]

Since i can't post in the political forum in my thread, I'm going to put this here.

Here is the section of our state constitution for our right to keep and bear arms.

CI-1 All persons are by nature free and independent,
and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are
life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep
and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and
others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use,
and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be
denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To
secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments
are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed.

Does a city have the right to violate that, and say no firearms shall be carried in any way at all.. in their parks, pathways, or recreation facilities? Specifically the park and pathways.

That is effectively denying you your right to bear arms.. private property owners have control over weapons.. but under our constitution.. it clearly says that no subdivision of the state cannot deny or infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

In Ohio, they just ruled that the ban in parks was illegal... I suspect that the law in my hometown that I just referred to about the ban in parks and pathways.. would be ruled illegal too.. if challenged. My question is.. how the hell do you challenge it if you don't have the money? Why aren't there groups out there who challenge these laws.. who can afford to do so? Why don't our state NRA people get involved in stuff like this?

I know the mayor of our hometown.. he's decent friends with my parents.. I'm tempted to give him a call or write him a letter.

Nebraska does not have preemption with its firearms laws.. but.. that simply means places can ban concealed carry, places can have registration if they want.. places can regulate the sale of firearms differently than others.

The constitution clearly says they cannot deny you your right to bear arms.

[mattjohnston87]

Unless your state has FULL pre-emption at a STATE level, yes, cities can do that.

Matt

[mattjohnston87]

After re-reading your post carefully, I'm confused as well.

It's also late, and I'm tired, but that's another story.

I know it is the same way here in Montana. Cities can enact bans on carrying in parks, but I don't know offhand of any that do.

Matt

[jednp]

But... even without preemption, they cannot trump the constitution.. they can only enact laws that do not violate the constitution.. ie: Omaha has mandatory handgun registration, and also to be able to open carry here.. you have to take a safety course and get a permit.. but.. they don't deny you carrying.. that's why they get away with it. IF they flat out denied you the right to be able to carry.. they'd be violating the constitution.

Every other city you can open carry without a permit. That is just how Omaha uses its home rule laws.

But saying you can't have a firearm in a city park, violates the constitution. The cities are a subdivision of the state and they cannot deny you bearing arms.

They can regulate concealed carry all they want... but they cannot tell you that you can't open carry.. if they wanted to say no concealed carry in the parks, that's one thing.. but they aren't suppose to be able to tell you that you can't have a firearm in any way at all in the parks. IF the parks were privately owned.. that's one thing.. but they aren't.

And the path ways.. I'm sorry.. the freaking bike/walk pathway runs along the river for the most part.. it runs through trees sometimes where bums camp out.. and under the bridge where the bums hang out.. saying I can't carry on the pathway is just crazy. I do think they are violating the law by having this law.