This is an editorial for class
On January 15, 2009, the Attorney General of Nebraska began an effort to get Kearney, Nebraska to change its 51-year old concealed weapons law. The law states that no person can conceal and carry a weapon. This is not a state law; this is a Kearney, NE City statute. The Attorney General continues to fight this issue saying that the law is costing the state too much money. The state law in Nebraska allows for concealing and carrying a weapon as long as the person has obtained a state certified permit. The problem lies in certain cases when a person is carrying a permit, yet is concealing a weapon in a city that bans concealed weapons. While this may not seem like a difficult issue to work around, it is causing quite a stir because the state is doing everything in their power to turn Kearney’s laws around.
Why? What is the point in having local government if the decisions are overturned by the state? Every city is different from the next in one way or another, and to generalize an entire state in lawmaking is foolish. In the way of guns, a concealed weapon in Chadron, Nebraska is much different from a concealed weapon in East Omaha. The people who live in the community should help to decide the laws because they are the people who have to live with them and abide by them. There is nowhere in the Nebraska statute that says a city must abide by state law. The statutes say that cities can make and pass laws as they see fit, as long as they don’t contradict state or federal laws.
A smoking ban has been in effect in Lincoln, Nebraska since October of 2006. The city voted to enact one and it passed. While this was not a state law, it was still enforced in the city limits of Lincoln. Now, this law did not catch any grief because it didn’t cost anybody at the state level money. Had someone objected to this law, would the state have urged Lincoln to overturn the ban?
Consistency is key in a democratic government. This country is different from anywhere else in the world because everyone has a voice, and everyone has an elected official helping to make that voice heard. If the highest government in the state is just going to take away that voice, then there is no point in having a city council or a mayor. The state as a whole is only complete when the individual cities are complete. If a city wants to keep guns out of their community, the state must respect that right. If a city wants to permit smoking, the state must respect that right. Every state in the U.S. is different, and therefore, they have different laws. Cities are no different. Each city must deal with their own problems as they come without having to fear the state overriding, and eventually making the decisions for them.
On January 15, 2009, the Attorney General of Nebraska began an effort to get Kearney, Nebraska to change its 51-year old concealed weapons law. The law states that no person can conceal and carry a weapon. This is not a state law; this is a Kearney, NE City statute. The Attorney General continues to fight this issue saying that the law is costing the state too much money. The state law in Nebraska allows for concealing and carrying a weapon as long as the person has obtained a state certified permit. The problem lies in certain cases when a person is carrying a permit, yet is concealing a weapon in a city that bans concealed weapons. While this may not seem like a difficult issue to work around, it is causing quite a stir because the state is doing everything in their power to turn Kearney’s laws around.
Why? What is the point in having local government if the decisions are overturned by the state? Every city is different from the next in one way or another, and to generalize an entire state in lawmaking is foolish. In the way of guns, a concealed weapon in Chadron, Nebraska is much different from a concealed weapon in East Omaha. The people who live in the community should help to decide the laws because they are the people who have to live with them and abide by them. There is nowhere in the Nebraska statute that says a city must abide by state law. The statutes say that cities can make and pass laws as they see fit, as long as they don’t contradict state or federal laws.
A smoking ban has been in effect in Lincoln, Nebraska since October of 2006. The city voted to enact one and it passed. While this was not a state law, it was still enforced in the city limits of Lincoln. Now, this law did not catch any grief because it didn’t cost anybody at the state level money. Had someone objected to this law, would the state have urged Lincoln to overturn the ban?
Consistency is key in a democratic government. This country is different from anywhere else in the world because everyone has a voice, and everyone has an elected official helping to make that voice heard. If the highest government in the state is just going to take away that voice, then there is no point in having a city council or a mayor. The state as a whole is only complete when the individual cities are complete. If a city wants to keep guns out of their community, the state must respect that right. If a city wants to permit smoking, the state must respect that right. Every state in the U.S. is different, and therefore, they have different laws. Cities are no different. Each city must deal with their own problems as they come without having to fear the state overriding, and eventually making the decisions for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment