NE State Senator Kills Military Spouse CCW Bill…Because Gay Marriage

As reported earlier, the Nebraska legislature was considering a measure sponsored by State Senator Dave Bloomfield that would exempt military spouses from the standard 180-day waiting period to ‘establish residency’ in the Cornhusker State before they could apply for a license to carry a concealed firearm. The legislature has now tabled the bill, though, due to concern on the part of Senator Bloomfield, that the bill might cause “uncertainty” because…the Supreme Court will be reviewing cases involving same sex marriage this summer . . .

A bill that surprisingly combined gay marriage and guns in the Nebraska Legislature appears done for the year.

Sen. Dave Bloomfield of Hoskins has asked that his concealed handgun bill be put on hold, meaning it won’t come up for second-round consideration this session. The senator said he wants to take up the bill again next year, after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage.
Legislative Bill 190 would have allowed the spouses of nonresident military personnel to apply for permits to carry concealed handguns. State law currently allows nonresident military members to obtain the permits without having to wait 180 days to establish residency….

Bloomfield said Monday he didn’t think the amendment undermined Nebraska’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. But he decided that with the Supreme Court planning to rule on the issue this summer, there was no reason to invite uncertainty by proceeding with his bill.

“How we got the whole issue of gay marriage combined with concealed carry is beyond me,” he said.
The bill advanced to the second-round of debate by a 37-4 vote. A solid majority of senators had signed on as co-sponsors before the bill was amended.

Of course, it became an issue because State Senator Paul Schumacher proposed an amendment that would protect everyone who met the military’s definition of “spouse.” That includes spouses of the same gender.

Senator Bloomfield reportedly earned an endorsement from the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund in 2012.

No matter; if Senators Bloomfield and Schumacher are interested in strengthening the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in Nebraska, perhaps they could jointly introduce a bill that would allow all non-residents a chance to apply for and obtain a license. That way, Senator Bloomfield wouldn’t have to worry unnecessarily about what married folk do with their nether regions.

Under that proposal, the relatively small number of same-sex spouses married to military personnel stationed in Nebraska would be able to obtain a license to carry a firearm, right along with the rest of the state’s law-abiding citizenry.


  1. avatar Ty King says:

    You know what would work better: get rid of the residency requirement. Such requirements shouldn’t even be constitutional, under the equal protection clause.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      …or federal reciprocity of state-issued resident permits. That way, the spouse can maintain home-state residency, and can carry using the resident permit issued by the home state.

    2. avatar Art Out West says:

      Exactly! Let anyone get one. Why should anyone have to wait 180 days? That is absurd!

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Appropriate that this is the first comment. But no… instead of getting rid of a stupid provision that helps no one they want to carve out little holes and make it more complicated.

      Typical lawmakers.

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Filed Under: Cutting Off One’s Nose to Spite One’s Face

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Exactly my thought.

      Way to let the Statists divide and conquer, NE Legislature.

      RKBA is paid a lot of lip service, but few are truly single-issue. I really wish more people (on our side) would recognize that NO other rights stand if RKBA falls…

      1. avatar Howard moore says:

        I Guess they are worried thAt same sex marriage is a mental defect, Dumb asses

  3. avatar Noishkel says:

    Is anyone surprised with this? The anti’s will use any excuse they can to go after the RKBA.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      This isn’t antis being afraid of guns, it’s about homophobes being afraid of armed gays.

      1. avatar Noishkel says:

        I haven’t said anything about homophobia here. Just that we’ve got another politician that’s trying to snag up the RKBA’s for his own ends. Although in this case it looks more like this guy is using the RKBA as a bargaining chip to tangle up marriage equality more than an attempt to trying to hold back the RKBA. Far as I’m concerned trying to use ANY right as a bargaining chip is 100% unacceptable.

        1. avatar Sledgecrowbar says:

          You’ve got your wires crossed. Bloomfield is pro-gun. He’s anti-gay, and that’s why he’s tabling HIS OWN BILL to let military spouses get their CCP without waiting. Because some of those spouses are now same-sex. He’s killing his own pro-gun bill to penalize a handful of gay people in his state.

          I’ve said this about politicians and televangelists before and I’ll never get tired of saying it: it must be hard to be both gay and homophobic at the same time, but you should not be in a decision-making position until you figure out your own shit, asshole.

        2. avatar Noishkel says:

          That’s pretty much what I said guy. He’s playing the RKBA like a poker chip in a game. Willing to toss it aside if it suits his larger agenda.

      2. avatar Swarf says:

        That’s exactly right. These assholes are so squeamish about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms– an area that is really and truly none of their damn business— that they will throw all of the other rights under the bus in order to prevent… what? State-sanctioned icky-ness?

        And yet some of you call Democrats statists…

        1. avatar Noishkel says:

          Oh they ARE my friend… they are. But so are the GOP. It’s just that the Dems institutionally against your rights in this matter. The GOP… not as much.

        2. avatar Christian says:

          “How we got the whole issue of gay marriage combined with concealed carry is beyond me,”

          It got mixed up because a Democratic senator tried to use the RKBA as an excuse to advance HIS agenda. Don’t blame the Republicans for refusing to legitimize a highly controversial and undecided issue.

          It’s not about what consenting adults do in their bedroom. It’s about them waving the freak flag high, screaming that they’re natural, totally normal, and that in order to be “accepted” they have to have special rights and privileges, special protections, and all of their proclivities need to be taught to children in school.

          So yeah. I don’t care about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. I do care if my kids have to read about how heather has two mommies. Attaching a poison pill to this bill was a great way to stop it’s passage, and I’m sure that was exactly that Democratic senator’s intent. If only conservatives would do the same thing.

      3. avatar Pg2 says:

        @Dave, misinfo post, try again.

  4. avatar JWM says:

    Gay marriege is a done deal. Get over it and move on. Since 2a is national law and applies regardless of your zip code or occupation I propose a national permit system. We can call it something like Constitutional Carry.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “I propose a national permit system. We can call it something like Constitutional Carry.”

      Perfect. Because citizenship is the permit.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Not quite right. Human DNA is the permit.

        (Or, for those who simply can’t stomach the thought of armed illegals, at least include US Permanent Residents; they have every right to be here.)

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Not quite right. Human DNA is the permit.”

          I will gladly concede that point. 😉

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        I’ll go with citizenship. Part of citizenship is supposed to include respect and understanding of the US Constituition. When I pay a whole lot more taxes than illegals, my enthusiasm towards their rights dims considerably.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          You do realize that there are other categories between “citizens” and “illegals”, right?

      3. avatar int19h says:

        That would be too restrictive, actually. 2A doesn’t say “the right of citizens”, it says “the right of people”.

    2. avatar Art Out West says:

      The loss of the 2nd ammendment is a done deal. Get over it and move on. The loss of personal property rights is a done deal. Grow up and move on. Deal with it. Socialized medicine is a done deal. Move on. The national police state is a done deal. Move on. Tyrranny is a done deal. It is 1984. Deal with it.

      Or we could actually choose to stand up for what we believe in, no matter what anyone says. If you want gay “marriage”, then stand for it. I don’t, so I will oppose it. I also believe in the absolute right of all people to keep and bear whatever arms they wish. All obviously includes gay, bi, Jew, Muslim, atheist, Christian, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, socialist, feminist, capitalist, etc.

      1. avatar JWM says:

        So you got no problem restricting anothers rights and fighting for your own? Kinda schizo. Or statist. Can’t decide which.

        1. avatar Art Out West says:

          We naturally have all the same rights. Gay people can do what they want. They shouldn’t have to beg the government for a slip of paper. Marriage isn’t even the government’s business. It is a covenant between people. No one should have to get a “liscense” to marry from the gov, like no one should need a liscense for a gun. The right to bear arms is more foundational than the gov. The right to form human relationships, covenants, and agreements is more fundamental than the state We all need to stop begging the gov. for that which is already ours. Gay folks already have the right to form a loving commitment if they want. They should have equal rights before the law. It is fine for them to have whatever legal rights marriage conveys. They can even call it “marriage” if they want. I will not call their relationship marriage. Marriage is something that the Creator instituted in the beginning. It is, and always will be be a covenant between a man and a woman only.

          I am not arguing against gay folks right to do what they choose. I am arguing for my right to speak freely about my own honest moral convictions.

        2. avatar Carson says:

          +1000 What Art said

        3. avatar karlb says:

          Art, this is wonderful in theory, but wrong in practice. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, and it brings with it a slew of rights that are not available to people who simply call themselves married. Marriage is, as far as how couples function in society is concerned, far more of a legal matter than a religious matter.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …and it brings with it a slew of rights that are not available to people who simply call themselves married.

          Which rights, specifically? Let’s address those. I am all for equal protection under the law.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        Complains about losing his liberty while thinking it’s okay to take away other people’s freedoms because he doesn’t like them. Seems about right.

      3. avatar Grindstone says:

        You stand for one freedom but not another? So you’re a hypocrite then.

        1. avatar Art Out West says:

          See my above comment to JWM. I recognize that gay people have all the same rights as everyone else. I deny them no legal right that anyone else has. You are the true hypocrite. You wish to use the power of the state to force me to personally recognize and bless that which I believe to be evil. You wish to use the force of the state to violate my religious and free speech liberties.

        2. avatar pg2 says:

          Grind, thanks for today’s lesson in politically correct duplicity.

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          I’m sorry, how exactly are you involved in any marriage other than your own? Do you recognize and bless my marriage? Are you forced to bless my marriage? Is my marriage a violation of your religion?

          This is a false dichotomy and it’s full of crap. Denying rights to others is NOT freedom of religion. Your religion has nothing to do with the marriage of other people.

        4. avatar pg2 says:

          “You wish to use the power of the state to force me to personally recognize and bless that which I believe to be evil. You wish to use the force of the state to violate my religious and free speech liberties.”-Well written Art. and unfortunately very true today as we see political correctness stifle out any real discussion on many topics.

        5. avatar JasonMfromSoDakota says:

          “Is my marriage a violation of your religion?” Grindstone–you know the answer to your question is Yes, but you are just trying goad Art to see if he has the conviction in his morals to stand up to your pointless accusation of Hypocrisy.. Art appears to be a moral Christian who wont be forced into accepting behaviors that he sees as immoral, and like many Christians Art is just tired of being forced to sacrifice their beliefs to accommodate others who are forcing immorality upon us.

          It is hard to be a Nation under God, when the very mention of Our Nation’s Christian God and the moral teachings are labeled offensive and not politically correct, in order to accommodate the people the bible warned us about.

        6. avatar Grindstone says:

          “Grindstone–you know the answer to your question is Yes,”

          Is it because my wife is not the same race as me or because our marriage involved no religion? Either way, it doesn’t matter because YOU are not part of MY marriage.

          Nobody is saying you have to be part of someone else’s marriage. But to claim that you stand for freedom yet you want to deny freedom to someone else because of your bigoted religion is pure and simple hypocrisy.

          “It is hard to be a Nation under God, when the very mention of Our Nation’s Christian God and the moral teachings are labeled offensive and not politically correct, in order to accommodate the people the bible warned us about.”

          The words “under God” weren’t added to the Pledge until 1954, and the motto “In God We Trust” wasn’t added until 1956. This is NOT a religious nation. Your bible is not the law of the land, the Constitution is. Your dreams theocracy are better suited for Iran.

        7. avatar Pg2 says:

          @grind, you are a liar. Exactly who’s rights are being infringed here?

        8. avatar Grindstone says:

          “@grind, you are a liar. Exactly who’s rights are being infringed here?”

          Are you being serious? Homosexuals are *whose* rights are being infringed. YOUR religion has NOTHING to do with anybody else’s marriage, union, partnership, or freedom to associate. YOUR religion has NOTHING to do with MY marriage. Forcing YOUR religion into the marriages of OTHER people is the very hypocrisy that I address. You are infringing on the rights of others on the basis that your religion can and should dictate the liberties of the people. If we were to follow that route, then there would be NO religious freedom *at all*, for anyone.

          Yet you have the AUDACITY to claim you’re “pro-freedom” because you support gun rights? While at the same time support injecting your religion into other people’s lives? Hypocrisy. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

          And if you think I’m a “liar” about the “Under God” part, then you really need to study more history.

        9. avatar JasonMfromSoDakota says:

          “Your bible is not the law of the land, the Constitution is. “–“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”-John Adams-who helped create a religious moral nation with his fellow righteous men by declaring independence from ties that no longer bonded them to immoral men trying to rule over them, like currently in the Divided States.

          “The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.” Sam Adams- Talking about sacrificing God for Greed as has been done.

          We in America are no longer a virtuous people and Christians who are white are realizing that we are everyone’s favorite scapegoat worldwide, which is dangerous as we Christians may just decide to not roll over and sacrifice our country and our children’s futures. It amazes me that people don’t think Christian Whites will fight to defend their country from being given away, when our Christian nation was founded in blood.

          Grindstone- you as a Blackman should realize and be ashamed that the Black’s failing subculture’s fate in this country is explicitly tied to the existence of a strong federal government forcing Christian White citizens to accommodate or be punished for freely trying to disassociate with a cultural subgroup, for the 3rd time in my nation’s history, which may not be such a charm for some folks. Any white person with 2 eyes and a functioning brain can see that we are being forced to pay reparations and that the government is being used as a tool of White Genocide. Breeding an indigenous race out of its own country is what is trying to be accomplished at the moment, since most whites wait to have a kid when they can provide a future for their children that is void of government dependency. If the Ferguson, protected classes would have went into White neighborhoods we would not be having a discussion about gays being good or bad or indifferent, as America would have become a nation of one moral Christian people, following the likes of Israel, not Iran.

    3. avatar Pg2 says:

      Permits = privilege, not rights, you are full of shit.

  5. avatar Accur81 says:

    Argh. I don’t see anything in the Constitution that bans gay marriage. Or firearms.

    1. avatar forrest says:

      I’m pretty sure the 10th amendment actually protects that right.

      It was used to overturn states’ bans on interracial marriage saying that if a white man had the right to marry a white woman, that a black man who has the same rights as a white man also had the right to marry a white woman. If that holds true then a man having the rights to marry a woman would also mean that a woman with the same rights as a man also has the rights to marry a woman.

      I may not like the idea of gay marriage. It’s not for me. But rights are rights and we can’t go stripping them from people just because we don’t like something. That would be like banning the right to keep and bare arms simply because we don’t like firearms. So even without wanting to see people exercise this right, I will stand and support it simply because the government has no place stripping rights from people.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “But rights are rights and we can’t go stripping them from people just because we don’t like something.”

        I really, really, really want to agree with that sentiment. I have one problem though. How do we respond to parents who claim that they have the right to abuse their children … or even mothers who claim a right to “post birth abortion”. (Yes, there is a movement to legalize “post birth abortion” which means “legally” murdering children after they are born.) Our courts have ruled over and over that children are basically chattel property of their parents. Children for example have no right to free speech or bear arms. And our courts state that they have no right to life while in the womb.

        I don’t see a good answer to any of this other than recognizing that all people (regardless of physical, mental, emotional development) have all rights unless abridged through due process of law.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Parents don’t have a right to abuse their children. “Post-birth” abortion is what we call homicide.

          Children are not, and have not for many years now, been the chattel property of their parents. THAT is what court precedent has actually established.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          A “movement”? How many people are in this “movement”? Four?

          Child abuse is and will always be illegal, same with unlawful homicide.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Actually, I thought of two much better examples. What about people that claim a right to be totally nude in public? It is their body after all. And how about people that claim a right to have sex openly in public? It is their bodies and they are two consenting adults after all.

          The sex in public thing really opens a can of worms. Lots of people would object on the grounds that it is harmful for children to see two people engaged in sex acts. How do we establish that it is harmful? What if there are no children around? Applying the same standard, people can (and do) object to open homosexual relationships on the grounds that it is harmful for children to see that. How do we establish whether that is harmful?

          This is the down side to relative rights which are not based on any concrete standard.

        4. avatar JasonMfromSoDakota says:

          @Excedrine-“Children are not, and have not for many years now, been the chattel property of their parents. THAT is what court precedent has actually established.” You are right about children not belonging to the parents, because precedence has established that children are property of the state. An example being state forced medical treatments and even in public schools with the zero-tolerance nonsense. The state can override the parents and even the minor child’s wishes if the state feels like it. The most important difference is the parents are responsible for the child’s well being out of a moral duty and guided out of love. While the state operates on Rational Choice Theory, and is only concerned about the child as being and end for a particular means, which is a tax credit or grants, while void of encouraging moral responsibility.

    2. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      My thoughts also. The focus should have been to pass the law anyway. SO now, the military spouses that live there still have to wait 180 days until they have the “privilege” to carry a firearm for defensive purposes.

    3. avatar Noishkel says:

      True enough. Nothing in the constitution can really be taken as a direct endorsement or denouncement of marriage of any kind of marriage. Let along marriage between same sex couples. Although the fact that marriage is usually seen as a religious ceremony they are lumped in with religious freedom. But at the same time the US is a secular government. Which does leave the state open to define the legal concept of marriage anyway it sees fit… for better or worse. As it sits now the legal definition includes people of any sex, at least on a federal level

      To me… this entire thing reads more like someone that’s using the RKBA as a bargaining chip more than anything else. And it’s unacceptable.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        ” Although the fact that marriage is usually seen as a religious ceremony they are lumped in with religious freedom.”

        And yet, there are plenty of non-religious marriages (IE: yours truly) that the religious folk don’t try to outlaw.

  6. avatar nynemillameetuh says:

    In 20 years Republicans will claim that they invented gay marriage to bring order and morality into the gay culture.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      **In 20 years Democrats will claim to have invented the right to keep and bear arms to bring order and morality to gay culture.

      FIXED that for you.

      1. avatar Noishkel says:

        Never liked the idea of putting words in peoples mouths like this. But given how the left has been trying to commandeer concepts that they originally stood against (IE how it was the southern democrats that stood against racial equality in the 60s) it works here.

        1. avatar Swarf says:

          That shit is so tired.

          The people who were racist assholes back then aligned themselves to the Democrats. These days, they choose the Republicans. Do you know why? Because both parties changed.

          Retroactively claiming victory because of the letter after your great great grandfather’s name is a chump move.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          Yeah and Fox News freed the slaves… what a joke.

          The republican party became the party of Strom “SEGREGATION FOREVER” Thurmond in 1964. STFU about being the party of Lincoln. That’s over.

        3. avatar Noishkel says:

          Bullsh*t. Utter Bullsh*t.

          And it’s not that he parties just reversed. The left has been playing that for years all without even a shred of credibility. Both partied just changed, of course. It’s just that the left has tried to paint themselves as the guardians of all things racial equality. All the while pushing policies that do absolutely nothing to actually promote honest racial equality. Have you actually looked at how destitute and awful most urban areas are? How many of these areas have been dominated by the politics of the left for decades? Are you going to next try to claim that this is all because the right is someone holding the back the people of these areas?

        4. avatar pg2 says:

          @swarf, what is really so tired is people parroting the false left vs. right paradigm.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          Back when Southern Democrats did that, they weren’t exactly “left”.

          (And, to remind, most of the Democratic party didn’t follow, and most of those southern Democrats have swapped sides to GOP.)

  7. avatar Roscoe says:

    I bet Bloomfield is worried about the scourge of Leprosy, too.

  8. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Can someone tell me what in the hell does one have to do with the other? And what if your bi?

    1. Then you can shoot your gun anywhere

  9. avatar a7ropos says:

    How ’bout this? Everyone gets to have a firearm on their person at all times, concealed or not. That’s what “bearing” means.

  10. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    You gotta love that the reasoning behind not extending civil liberties to one group of people is the legislator’s desire to continue unequal treatment under the law for another. Irony much?

  11. avatar racenutz says:

    I’m not happy with my state ATM

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      Never go ATM.

      1. avatar NZBOI says:

        Very true. Even if you’re gay I would caution against the ATM.

  12. avatar MontieR says:

    It makes me sick to hear all the JUVENILE excuses for infringing a God given right. It has been proven many times over that when armed you ARE safer.

  13. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    There shouldn’t be licenses in the first place, but insofar as there are, I can see a state’s reasoning in establishing residency requirements. Even then, though, there should be no special carve outs and exceptions for military, law enforcement, or their spouses of whatever flavor. Glad this bill failed.

  14. avatar Grindstone says:

    Classic Republicans. Freedom for some, but not for all.

    1. avatar Noishkel says:

      Yes the Democrat’s are ssoo much better with their attitude of some freedoms for all, but not all.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Did I say anything about the Democrats? Why should that be the only other alternative? Think a little more critically.

        1. avatar Noishkel says:

          Are you not paying attention fella? How many third party politicians do we current have in congress today? That would be exactly none. Which party is THE party of gun control… that would be the Democrats. No amount of ‘critical thinking’ is going to change facts.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          And which party is the party of bedroom control? The party of religion control? The party of increased militarization of police? Of invading foreign countries? Of creating more and more “security” agencies? You talk freedom out one side of your mouth yet keep voting in those who restrict it.

    2. avatar pg2 says:

      @Grind, really? One of these parties, blue or red, supports more rights over the other? Thanks for the laugh!

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Both parties support stripping the rights of the people, one way or another. They’re both the same end, just different means.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Agree, thanks for clarification.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          Funny, the states solidly controlled by Democrats have a whole lot more government, more taxes, and less freedom than the states controlled by Republicans. The parties aren’t the same – look at support for Obamacare and gun control. They’re pretty sharply split across party lines.

          There are certainly statists within the Republican party (Christie, for one), but there are also those vehemently arguing for smaller government, gun rights, and opposition to Obamacare (such as Rand Paul). And there are those fighting an epic battle against the lefty establishment such as unions and gun control, who also managed to balance the state budget shortly after taking office (Scott Walker). Compare them against the communists in the Democratic Party like Hillary, Feinstein, Bloomberg, Pelosi, Obama, etc. and the only political parties worth much of anything are Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians.

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          And yet the Republicans gave us the DHS, Patriot Act, unjustifiable war in Iraq, etc. Keep drinking that R kool-aide if you want, but the Republicans are just as anti-freedom as Democrats.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          >> less freedom than the states controlled by Republicans

          Well, that would depend on whether you’re gay or female or not.

  15. avatar JoshuaS says:

    The idea to allow shall issue for non-residents would solve the issue without touching upon other legal consequences, such as inadvertently recognizing gay so-called marriage.

    I wonder though. Nebraska is one of 14 states that requires a permit to purchase a handgun. Unlike say California, where the FFL himself generally gives it and it takes 15 minutes, Nebraska requires you to go to the Sheriff, apply for a permit, have a background check done, show proof of residency (to the sheriff), military ID has to have an address in that county, and you still need another proof of residency. And you need the permit to rent a gun at a range, purchase, lease, receive transfer, etc. $5 fee for this. CCW exempts you from this.

    Then if in Omaha you need to go to the PD, have another background check that can take up to 10 days, and register all handguns, and they charge you $15.

    Come to think of it, they would be better off getting stronger preemption, to end the Omaha nonsense, and get rid of their permit to purchase/rent/etc a handgun (you already have NICS), and then non-residential permits

    1. avatar Pro-Liberty says:

      Our state preemption bill, LB 289, will be up for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on March 19. See

    2. avatar BlueBronco says:

      No wonder Kansans call them Corn-whores.

  16. avatar Pro-Liberty says:

    I worked with Senator Bloomfield and his staff on this bill. People who are claiming that he is some radical zealot are mistaken. He has no problem with gay people having a shorter waiting period to get a concealed handgun permit, and if it had been up to his office this bill would have advanced. Other people, who are of the zealot stripe, pressured him to back off of his bill, and to avoid a big fight with people who are supposed to be his allies, he stepped back temporarily, figuring that SCOTUS will render their objections moot later this year.

    1. avatar Pro-Liberty says:

      “He has no problem with gay people having a shorter waiting period to get a concealed handgun permit”

      …than they do under current law.

      I’m not saying that Sen. Bloomfield supports a civil rights fast lane for anyone based on sexual orientation. 🙂

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        But he has a problem with gay people having *other* civil rights?

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Assuming that’s true, then the problem is with some OTHER asshat who is so unwilling to stomach gays that he will crap on gun rights.

      I’m irked at someone in the NE capitol. It’s just that now I don’t know whom.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Steve, your bias is showing. Gun rights should not be tied to marriage, gay marriage or whatever. That’s the stand the senator appears to be taking. Not sure where govt gets the legal power to regulate marriage, or fire-arms, but it seems he realizes that that he gives credibility to something he does not support so he chose not to support the bill.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Bias? It’s looking somewhat like we are on the same page here (I am glad my suspicion was wrong). No one SHOULD be tying the two issues together, yet this senator is having to pull this bill, because someone IS doing so. That “someone” is who I’m ticked at.

    3. avatar Pg2 says:

      So is it to be a “radical” or “zealot” to disagree with gay marriage?

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        These days it is.

    4. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      @Pro-Liberty – who backed the Senator into a corner?

      1. avatar Pro-Liberty says:

        Combination of pressure from cultural conservatives on the floor and near certainty about what an AG opinion on the amended bill would say.

        And FWIW, you don’t have to be “anti” anyone in order to be worried about passing an unconstitutional bill. That can be an expensive thing for the state when someone sues.

  17. avatar Pg2 says:

    The political correctness on this forum would make CNN or MSNBC blush.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      From your comment, it appears you think it’s pefectly OK the way this turned out. Maybe I misunderstand. But if I don’t, then if you think that it’s acceptable to crap all over people just because they are gay–to the extent that we deny them their 2A rights, you, sir, are part of the f*cking problem.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Steve, you’re full of shit. You cant say ‘maybe I misunderstand’, then throw out merit-less accusations.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          If you’ll read it again, you’ll note that the accusation only applies if my understanding of you was correct. It wasn’t, so it doesn’t. Nevertheless I apologize for the sloppy phrasing/thinking. (My only defense–no, an explanation, not really a defense–is that up til then all you had done was complain about how “PC” some people were being. I took it as meaning you were all right with sh!tting all over people who are gay. You’ve certainly clarified greatly where you are coming from since then. Like I said, I was wrong.)

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          No worries Steve, much of this digital communication can be easily misconstrued.

  18. avatar cigardog says:

    Why is the government involved in marriage in the first place? It’s a private arrangement between two individuals.

    1. avatar karlb says:

      Because marriage brings with it a bunch of rights and responsibilities that are protected and enforced by the government. Marriage has never been a simple agrEement between two people. Heck, it is not that long ago that the agreement was usually between the bride’s and groom’s fathers.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        This is true. “Traditional” marriage was never a marriage of romance, it was a marriage of politics and economics. Women had very few, if any, rights when it came to marriage, including pre and post. Until recent history, most women were treated as property transferred from one man (father) to another (husband).

  19. avatar Sean says:

    I don’t understand how the two issues are related. Nor can I understand a brain so damaged as to make the two things related.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      It’s because there are people out there who actually think the deity that created the entire universe and has been managing the whole thing for all time…considers it a matter of overwhelming concern what some nearly-hairless primates do with their clothes off. So overwhelming that we had better punish them.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Well, it may even be uglier than that.

        It’s really worrisome that someone…anyone…would claim it is ‘okay’ to limit the rights of everyone on chance it might grant some OTHER, separate right to a minority.

        That is, the conflation of RKBA with gay marriage is truly hideous.

        If someone chooses to believe their deity has a problem with gay marriage, I can certainly support their sticking to their convictions (in a warped way, I can also admire an anti-gunner for their zealotry while disagreeing with them and working to show them wrong). But to use that in a RKBA argument is to be willing to say the RKBA is less important.

        This is the issue we have: we are allowing the creation of a hierarchy of rights…allowing someone to create the false dichotomies of “either this OR that.” We got into a bit of a mini-blow-up here a few months back about ‘property rights’ vs RKBA, for example, which is ludicrous because they are orthogonal rights.

        RKBA is just that…orthogonal to other rights. The problem in this specific case is exactly that the State has empowered itself to issue permits in the first place. If 2A were given strict interpretation, that is “Shall Not Be Infringed” were given its proper weight, we would not be having this discussion.

        Constitutional Carry…for everyone. That’s the BEST answer to this. If Senator Bloomfield really supports 2A…just put forth a Constitutional Carry bill and be done with the permitting and who gets one and when.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          That would certainly be a lot cleaner than the current mess there in Nebraska.

          It’d be cleaner than any mess anywhere nearby, for that matter.

          It’s my belief that rights, when properly understood, don’t conflict with each other. Conflicts between supposed “rights” only becomes an issue when rights are misunderstood to be claims on other people.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Conflicts between supposed “rights” only becomes an issue when rights are misunderstood to be claims on other people.

          True, and only in limiting or attempt to limit rights. RKBA is a wonderful example…the “issues” of gun control are all on the “how much” side of the equation.

          Mag limits? Well, how many rounds? Where to set the limit?

          Permitted carry? Where to allow? Where to deny? What does the permit cover?

          Background checks? What is a prohibited person?

          Evil Black Rifles? What cosmetic features make them evil? What functional features do so?

          Getting the heck out the way is SO much simpler. But, for some reason, it’s also ‘harder’ … at least for those prepossessed to control others.

          It’s similar for all other natural and unalienable rights. The public face of the debate is always over how much infringement is okay and who can/should do the infringement.

        3. avatar pg2 says:

          “conflation of RKBA with gay marriage is truly hideous.” True statement, and that seems to be the strategy.

        4. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @JR Precisely right. Trying to “balance” “competing rights” forces an arbitrary line-draw between them. The supposed right of some twit to feel “safe” may or may not necessitate a 15 round mag limit. Wait. Maybe it’s 14. Or 13. Nay, I say it’s 18! (Which, even though it’s a pushback, could [depending on exactly how they say it] be ceding the principle that the right may be infringed.) Someone picks a number that will probably be somewhat round, but WILL be essentially a dart tossed at a dartboard. (Remember the “double nickel?” They looked at 65, 55, and 45 and just said, heck let’s pick the one in the middle.)

      2. avatar pg2 says:

        “So overwhelming that we had better punish them.” -Steve, don’t often see statements which require more explanation, but this one you should clarify.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Fair enough. There are some people who not only believe that the creator of the universe is hugely concerned with the sex acts of some creatures on a planet tucked away in an obscure corner of one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in his creation, they apparently think they are obligated to do something about it themselves because that creator has given them orders to and/or will rain fire down upon us if we don’t. (Incidentally the sex act in question might be homosexual, or it could be heterosexual but under the wrong circumstances.) Thus this need some people seem to feel, a need to refuse to pass a gun rights bill because it MIGHT actually be regarded as sanctioning some of these acts, which are in fact, no one else’s business.

          That’s what I was trying to get it in the sentence you quoted.

          That’s absurd. It’s absurd whether or not you believe in god.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          It seems that few people have a problem with homosexuality, and fewer seem to actually want to control them. The agenda creep I think that concerns more and more people is that you are now considered a bigot if you don’t bless or endorse homosexuality, being tolerant is no longer enough.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          It wasn’t all that long ago that certain homosexual acts were actually felonies (!) in some jurisdictions. At least we don’t see too much of that going on. Which is to say it may be “few” people wanting to control gays now, but it wasn’t always so.

          I can certainly understand that concern. But I also note that “endorse” seems to mean different things to different people. Gays are asking way too much of me if they think I am going to find their sex something I want to look at, but very few ask that. Allow people to form a partnership with the characteristics and privileges of marriage even if they are a same-sex couple, I have no problem with, because (being a legal matter) it’s a matter for the government to deal with, and the government should never be allowed to discriminate. I certainly do object when a business owner is forced to do business with people whose actions he disapproves of. He shouldn’t be allowed to stop them, they shouldn’t be allowed to force him.

          I sometimes get the feeling though that some of the people who complain about being forced to endorse are really just wanting to never, ever be exposed to evidence that gays and homosexual activity even exists. I haven’t caught that vibe here yet (though some have edged close to it), but I’ve certainly run into it IRL, at gun-related social events.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          Pretty much in agreement. A lot of people ere think I’m a conspiracy but and I won’t disappoint t here, I suspect homosexuals are being used by tptb to further an agenda which strengthens the tptb stranglehold on power.

        5. avatar Grindstone says:

          “The agenda creep I think that concerns more and more people is that you are now considered a bigot if you don’t bless or endorse homosexuality, being tolerant is no longer enough.”

          Could you cite some examples? Because as it is, it’s the denial of equal rights to homosexuals that is at issue.

      3. avatar Sean says:

        But the Flying Speghetti Monster says guns and sex are both ok!

  20. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Oh well…is this much ado about nothing? The guy above claimed a different reality than clickbait title.

  21. avatar George says:

    Would he be shocked to know that some of us married gay guys are strong 2A supporters?

    Naw, don’t let facts creep into your prejudice.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      It wasn’t him, it was other senators not wanting to vote for this.

      *I* am certainly not surprised there are married gay guys who are strong 2A supporters; more power to you, and talk to your friends. 2A is for everyone, or it’s for no one.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      The small minded need to sort people into very simplistic categories. The idea that people are complex is too much for them to handle.
      If you don’t like the Republicans, you must be a Democrat. If you don’t like guns, you must be anti-gun. If you’re not a far-right conservative, you must be a liberal. If you’re gay, you must be a crazed sexual pervert. If you want equal rights, you must be anti-Christian.

  22. avatar Claymore says:

    Just like all the gays I know, looking for a loophole to arm themselves.

  23. avatar SteveInCO says:


    Robert, the damn autoplay ads are slaughtering browser performance, leaking memory something awful, and eating keystrokes.

    I understand you need revenue to keep this site going but the autoplay ads seriously reduce its value to the reader (and it’s the same three fricking ads, over and over, the models, the surfer, the dog and cat…But I have to wait for the damn thing to start playing, scroll to the top (once I’m allowed to drag the scroll bar), then shut it off–assuming the button is more than one pixel tall–every time I start to type a reply. Then I get to scroll all the way to the bottom again and type.) Surely they can get by without those three ads; they can’t possibly be of any benefit to the advertiser when they are that annoying.

    Last time I griped, you assured me you were “on it” and lo and behold… the autoplay ad moved from the second square down on the right, to the third square down on the right. Unfortunately that wasn’t much of an improvement.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      I’ll tell the ad guys. Sorry for the delay.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Is it possible to just tell them, NO autoplay video?

  24. avatar Gearmoe says:

    Seems more like a dodge for having to work a little more. Laziness.

  25. avatar Mark says:

    >> I sometimes get the feeling though that some of the people who complain about being forced to endorse are really just wanting to never, ever be exposed to evidence that gays and homosexual activity even exists.

    Nothing to see here, move along. You’d never know from the folks here claiming bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and prudery that homosexual couples absolutely demand to be able to adopt children as a part of their rights. Our acceptance of the behavior, or legal union or marriage isn’t the issue, but our active support of them in every respect that gay unions mimic marriage . They demand our approval, and they require us to support them at pain of in this. It isn’t freedom for children to be given to gay couples, and it isn’t good to be raised without a father or mother. Homosexual unions can’t mimic marriage sufficient to fool children. Gays are worried about their own personal fulfillment, but good people know it is far more than that.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      I should clarify that I’m not opposing “good people” to homosexuality. We have to distinguish between homosexuals and the gay lobby. It is the political movement that is the gay lobby that will must have its way at full and total equality in every respect. Many homosexuals aren’t even a part of that political movement and don’t wish to force us all to pretend to respect their proclivities, any more than I wish to force anyone else to respect mine. Many homosexuals know full well that this isn’t the society they wish to live in.

      They know full well what the useful idiots can’t see, that this isn’t merely about the conflicting rights of adults, nor about freedom. How many of us would volunteer to go back in time as a baby and be brought up by two men in a homosexual “marriage”. Just like the “states rights” euphemism of the civil war era, here the “freedom” and “rights” spoken of refer ultimately a legal power to force others who have no say in the matter to conform to their will. And a generation of children will be given over for a social experiment in gay parenting that is already failing for obvious reasons. So SteveInCO, spare me the facile psychological analysis that has it that my opposition to gay “marriage” is because of my own sexual prudery. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Homosexuality isn’t anything new, and every state but three repealed their own sodomy laws, and all would have if SCOTUS hadn’t intervened as they always do just in time to make sure we all conformed to their will before their judgement became irrelevant.

  26. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Homosexual marriage is a smoke screen. The only open homosexual group that supports the entire US constitution are the pink pistols. Open homosexual politicians like Tom Ammiano in California are passing laws restricting the 2nd amendment. If you vote for a politician who supports homosexual marriage and is against the right to keep and bare arms then you are part of the problem. And I will say you are a racist with America’s racist gun control history.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email