So, when they egregiously violate the trust placed in them and move against the wishes of their voters, they deserve to be called on it. And they were, as city leaders were forced to withdraw their controversial new ordinance.
In early October, Kearney’s city council adopted a resolution which in effect gave it blanket authority to ban possession of firearms on city-owned property. Leaders also reminded private businesses that they were within their rights to do the same if their intent was clearly expressed on posted signs.
Carry rights on city property were effectively banished, no matter the legal status of the gun owners. This move was rooted in a memo originating from City Attorney Micheal Tye and Police Chief Bryan Waugh.
The two advised the council that “establishing a policy restricting weapons and handguns concealed or open with or without a permit, on all managed, leased and owned property together with signage reflecting this policy, would be appropriate.”
Clearly the intent was to infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
But on Tuesday, Nov. 28, the Kearney City Council with a 3-2 vote rescinded the contentious measure that established “gun-free” zones on city property.
The council heard from many Second Amendment advocates who spent more than an hour expressing their dissatisfaction with having their constitutional rights infringed upon. Some on the council attempted to push through another measure to merely clarify language in Resolution 2023-149, but that was also rejected.
The result of the meeting and subsequent vote was the total removal of gun-free zones on municipal property except for those mandated by federal and state law.
This proved that a mistake may be reversed, and Kearney’s ban on lawful firearms on city property was absolutely a mistake. It was also motivated merely by a desire to defy state lawmakers.
Back in early September, Legislative Bill 77 from the Nebraska Legislature took effect. It both covered the state in its reach and invalidated multiple local gun ordinances. Residents aged 21 or older are now able to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Permission from the state is no longer required.
This constitutional carry statute erased the previous requirement of passing a criminal background check, forking over a $100 fee and taking an eight- to 16-hour gun safety course.
State Sen. Tom Brewer (R) of Gordon spent six years working toward the passage of LB 77. After its success, he noted that residents “will no longer have to ask the government for permission to carry a concealed handgun.”
Brewer added that its passage meant Nebraska’s laws “more closely resemble our Nebraska values. Let’s show the world what we can do with an extra measure of liberty.”
Kearney is obviously pushing back at the new state law, and it is not alone. On the same day that LB 77 took effect, an executive order from Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert also went into effect banning firearms on city-owned property.
Lincoln political leaders also set up a showdown with state authorities when they enacted a measure like that of Omaha. But the success in Kearney proved that there is a path to pushing back against lawmakers overreaching and violating state law.
As states move to preempt local ordinances and prevent a confusing patchwork quilt of laws, the courts consistently ruled in favor of the states. It is important that law-abiding residents do not suddenly become criminals simply by traveling into a different jurisdiction.
Kearney listened to its residents and did the sensible thing. Now it is up to other Nebraska municipalities to respect the rights of their citizens and do the same.
