Nebraska Supreme Court allows legal challenge to Lincoln gun regulations

LINCOLN, Neb. (KLKN) — The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a lawsuit challenging some Lincoln gun regulations can move forward.

The justices found that the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association did not have standing to bring the suit, but they said the individual members did.

“We are pleased that now we can challenge these laws on the merits,” Ryan Morrison, an attorney with the Liberty Justice Center, said in a press release. “Following this victory, we will show the local governments of Lincoln and Omaha, that their firearms regulations violate the Second Amendment and state law.”

SEE ALSO: Pair of lawsuits filed over firearm bans on city property in Lincoln, Omaha

The lawsuit stems from an executive order signed by Lincoln Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird in 2023.

Gaylor Baird’s order bans weapons from vehicles, buildings or facilities owned, leased, controlled or maintained by the city.

It says anyone who violates the prohibition will be considered a trespasser and could be banned from the premises.

SEE ALSO: Nebraska gun owners group criticizes Lincoln and Omaha executive orders

The firearms group argued that the order violated a new state law that authorized permitless concealed carry and prohibited “certain regulation of weapons” by local jurisdictions.

The group and some of its members filed a lawsuit challenging the executive order, as well as some ordinances that were already on the books in Lincoln.

One bans weapons in public parks, while another requires all firearm sales to be reported to law enforcement.

The gun rights group also took issue with ordinances banning switch-blade knives and devices like bump stocks.

The City of Lincoln argued that neither the association nor its members had legal standing, meaning they could not show that they would be harmed by the regulations.

A district court agreed and dismissed the suit, which was then appealed.

The state’s high court agreed that the association does not have standing, but it found that the individuals who sued do.

The city had argued that the members do not have standing because the ordinances had never been enforced against them.

But the justices said a law does not need to be enforced in order for it to be challenged.

The court noted that some of the individuals who were suing said they stopped visiting parks and trails out of fear of prosecution.

The justices said that’s enough to show standing.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that threatened enforcement of a law can be sufficient to create an injury in fact,” Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke wrote.

But the court said the members could not challenge an ordinance regulating guns in vehicles.

That’s because they did not claim that the rule affected their behavior, and the ordinance was similar to state law, so the justices said there was no apparent injury.

The lawsuit will now go back to Lancaster County District Court, where both sides will argue the merits of the case.