Limit on # of ccw

B

bergie

New member
I have posted a couple of times on the pending legislation to allow concealed carry in Nebraska. Not much progress has been made. In some of my other posts, I had a link to the Unicameral homepage andinfo on the bill, LB454. At least a half dozen amendments to the bill have been proposed, most of which are minor corrections of wording and such, but Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha is once again trying to kill the bill. He and others (Omaha/Lincoln people mostly) have been successful in killing all previous attempts to pass concealed carry. Ernie's introduction this time is an amendment that at the same time attempts to ridicule all those with an interest in cc, make determining what you would be allowed to carry impossible to figure out, and applies a penalty of having your trigger finger shot off by the Senator that introduced the bill.
Going to try to attach a copy of the amendment so that you can try to figure out how many guns you can carry. This will be my first attempt at trying to attach a document to a post here, so I hope this works.

Hmmm? Evidently since I tried it out in the software test area, I cannot attach it to this post, so you will have to click
here

If this don't work would some kind moderator help me?
bergie
 
AMENDMENTS TO LB 454 (PDF)

Just do the math: :)
Number of guns licensee may carry = (((((year of licensee's birth) + 137.5)/ ((body weight of licensee) * (10 * licensee's admitted age))) + (2100 - licensee's height in inches)) * ((size of licensee's right shoe * 3 * girth of licensee measured by a professional tailor) - (sum of digits in the licensee's social security number))) / (3/5) * (value on Line 17 of licensee's previous federal income tax return)

If no federal tax return, use home address method:

If licensee's home address contains 4 or fewer digits:

Number of guns licensee may carry = (((((year of licensee's birth) + 137.5)/ ((body weight of licensee) * (10 * licensee's admitted age))) + (2100 - licensee's height in inches)) * ((size of licensee's right shoe * 3 * girth of licensee measured by a professional tailor) - (sum of digits in the licensee's social security number))) / (3/5) * (licensee's home address * 10)

If licensee's home address contains 5 or more digits:

Number of guns licensee may carry = (((((year of licensee's birth) + 137.5)/ ((body weight of licensee) * (10 * licensee's admitted age))) + (2100 - licensee's height in inches)) * ((size of licensee's right shoe * 3 * girth of licensee measured by a professional tailor) - (sum of digits in the licensee's social security number))) / (3/5) * (licensee's home address * 6.5)
Click to expand...

I'd like to see this actually approved. Should drive the nut cases even crazier.
 
Even though it's a tongue-in-cheek Amendment, designed to kill the bill, Chambers should be voted out of office simply for his cavalier attitude in offering up intentionally obtuse language to a State Bill.

He knows no one could possibly follow these requirements and offers them as a "solution". I'd love to see your State Critters approve the bill with his addition. I'd personally be willing to pay the Court challenge to have his language stricken from the bill as "vague, discriminatory to those of certain height or address digits, and unconstitutional".

Regardless, this guy's condescending attitude toward the "unwashed masses" in even wasting the taxpayer time on this "amendment" should be justly rewarded at the polls.
Rich
 
Unless someone screwed up somewhere, I could legally carry over 95 billion concealed weapons :rolleyes:

Heck, I like that amendment :D

Actually never mind, I got a math genius friend working on it. I don't think the above formula is close to correct. BTWE, this discriminates against people of certain height and weight, as well as anemic people (as they never eat a full meal), gives either way too much business to professional tailors, or doesn't provide the same requirements for the weight or height to be made offical by a professional doctor, nor the shoe size to be certified by a professional shoemaker.
 
Last edited:
we are still working on it, but I think that we have come to the consensus that the girth times 3 times shoe size doesn't actually plug in anywhere.

IZ, keep reading. You swap out the 3/5 * that line for wither 10* their up to four digit address, or 6.5 times their 5 or more digit address
 
Rich,
Ernie will never be voted out of office, however he will be removed in 3 more years thanks to term limits. (he believes that "white Nebraskans" implemented term limits just to remove him) He has served for 35 years and holds the record for being in office the longest. He has a law degree from Creighton University but never practiced because he doesn't think someone should have to belong to an organization (bar assoc.) and pay dues to work in their chosen field. I have heard that at one time he was arrested for carrying concealed, haven't taken the time to check it out. Anyway, his district (North Omaha) is the one part of the state that most people would want to be carrying in, actually most people wouldn't go there on a bet.
If you like this amendment you should see what he dreamed up for the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish, and trap. He has included hunting for bigfoot, Amelia Earhart's plane, the Holy Grail, etc.
Yeah, I would like to see them pass some of his amendments and then have them get thrown out, but even more I would like to see one of our other critters grow some balls and stand up to him. They are all afraid of him because at the first sign of conflict he starts yelling racism and they don't want to be labeled as such.


Hkmp5sd, are you sure you have the right number of parenthesis and order of operation? :confused: After all, if somebody else calculates it differently, you could have your trigger finger shot off with no anesthesia other than flavored malt liquor :barf:

bergie

jefnvk,
95 billion??? :eek: I think you missed the limit to the # of pockets + 25 other named hiding places.
 
OK, three college kids just did the calculations. Myself (a CS major), a Chem-Sci major, and a Math major.

All three of us came up with different equations. All three of us agree, however, that the girth*shoe size*3 in no way links to the equation, it is extra word garbage thrown in there.

Math Major:
(15:51:12) namehidden: Well, up until half-way through line 13, it is ABS( (birth year + 137.5) / (weight*10*age)+height-2100 )
(15:51:42) namehidden: and then after that, a new number is generated without listing any way of linking it to the first one. That number is:
(15:53:07) namehidden: (3*girth*shoe size - sum_of_social)/( 0.6*Line17 of taxes)
(15:53:32) namehidden: The way they wrote it, they're no way of knowing how they intended to combine the two

Chem Sci:
((birth_year+137.5)/(body_weight*(10*age))+absolute_value(21-round(height_in_inches))-sum_of_soc_sec_digits)/((3/5)*(line 17 of licensee's personal income tax return (federal) for the immediately preceding year)

Me:
(2100-((BirthYear+137.5)/(Weight*10*age))+heightInInches-sumOfSSN)/ (.6*Line 17))


(or replace the 3/5*tax stuff with housing stuff) - my note, they agree

So there, three college kids can't figure it out (one going into mathematics). I think the guy was pulling data and operands out of thin air, and throwing them together.

Yeah, missed the pocket limitation. If I can get 95 billion holsters on me though... (actually, the equation way above is not right, so scratch the 95 billion)
 
It is impossible to know what that amendment does because he didn't specify units for most of the measurements. You could come up with units that allow you to carry a widely varying number of firearms.

CCRKBA even put out an alert about this crap: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1398775/posts

Would someone kindly look at page 1, line 13? There are two sections (1 and 2 below) joined by "then"

1)
weight*10*age/(birthyear+137.5) + abs(2100-ceil(height_in))

2)
right_shoe_size * 3 * waist_girth_after_full_meal_certified_by_tailor -
sum_digits(ssn)

3)
divide grand total by ( 5/3 * line_17_of_federal_tax_return_for_prior_year
or by 10*(four_or_fewer_digit_address)
or by 6.5*(five_or_more_digit_address)

The language "grand total" might imply that the first two values (1 and 2) are to be added (a "total" in common language is most often the result of addition), then divided by the 3rd value, but it never explicitly states that 1 and 2 are to be added together. Therefore, Ernie should be returned to 5th grade where he belongs, and the amendment should be stricken for not properly specifying the limit it claims to create.
 
I would think that amendment would violate Nebraska’s state constitution.



Nebraska Constitution
Statement of Rights
Article I, Section 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​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top