so Nebraska Unicam is in session.  make sure to check out the NFOA's Members Only forum where gun and hunting bills are being posted and discussed.

http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/

Just joined. Wanted to let you know as you suggested it! While I have not been in the members only area yet, I wanted to see if the Castle Doctrine is one of them? Also, what do you think of the national carry recipitory law that the GOA is also working on in a national level?

Thanks for joining up!

Nebraskans do have a Castle Doctrine of sorts.  there is a thread on it in the 2017 Legislature in Members Only Section.

We are working on State Preemption big this year.  Permit-less carry will have to wait another day, since the Legislature always seems to be filled with Rhinos or Dems.

As for national carry, it'd be nice.  but do i really have to be on another list?

Castle Doctrine of sorts? I have not been totally approved yet for the site yet so I can't see that thread yet. What is the State Preemption? I don't think that I have heard that yet.

In regards to the national carry, more info can be found here. The beauty about it is that it is not another list ! It works a lot like a driver's license. If you can legally carry concealed in your state, then the other states must recognize that license as well! So if you can conceal in Nebraska, then if you are traveling through New York or New Jearsy, they have to recognize your state's rights! Please let me know if the link doesn't work and I can try to get it put up again! But I love the fact that you don't have another list or order to be part of!

State Preemption is where the cities cannot make any laws more strict than whats at state level.  Omaha, Lincoln and other cities have gun registrations or other things.  That would all be erased if State Preemption is passed.  43 states already have some form of Preemption.

Here's NE statute on Self Defense:
28-1409.
Use of force in self-protection.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(2) The use of such force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful.

(3) The use of such force is not justifiable under this section to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(a) The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(b) The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recapture justified by section 28-1411; or

(c) The actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

(4) The use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, nor is it justifiable if:

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i) The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

(ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape shall not be obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(5) Except as required by subsections (3) and (4) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action.

(6) The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can do so, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.



there is a whopping 21 bills that deal with gun and/or knives.  lots of stuff to testify for!  also, Senator Brewer has introduced some awesome bills today.

That looks really good. I am glad to see that then. Thanks for the info.