When the Nebraska Legislature passed a law in 2023 legalizing concealed carry of firearms without a permit, mayors in the state's most populated cities passed bans that forbid guns on or in city-owned buildings and properties. A non-profit gun-owners association filed lawsuits against Lincoln and Omaha in response.
The case involving the city of Lincoln was tossed in lower court over lack of standing before ending up before the state Supreme Court. A court issued a temporary injunction for a similar case in Omaha, blocking enforcement of the ban while the matter is settled in the legal system. The plaintiffs in both cases are members of the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association.
What's in My Pocket?
Wyoming is a close second, but Nebraska claims the top spot when it comes to the highest percentage of households with at least one firearm. As of 2025, almost 2/3rds of homes in the state have a gun under the roof.
Given those firearm possession numbers, it's not surprising that Nebraska has relatively permissible gun ownership laws. For example, the state has not passed laws regarding background checks, licensing for ownership, or a waiting period. The permissive approach was increased with the passage of the Constitutional Carry Law by the unicameral Nebraska state legislature in 2023. It allows the permitless concealed carry of firearms.
Opposition to the new law came from Nebraska's largest cities. The mayors of Lincoln and Omaha — one a Democrat, the other a Republican — issued orders banning all firearms, concealed or otherwise, from city-owned buildings, parks, and trails.
Soon after, the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association filed suits on behalf of several of its members in each city. A Douglas County district judge issued a temporary injunction against Omaha, reasoning that the Constitutional Carry Law likely preempts the order.
The suit against Lincoln was tossed by a Lancaster County district judge when he ruled that the plaintiffs couldn't prove the ordinance had caused an injury. The decision made no judgment on the merits of the case.
No Interpretation Without Confrontation?
Attorneys for the plaintiff questioned the hypothetical that their clients would need to get arrested for their case to have standing, something they didn't want to do. They claimed that seeking relief from Lincoln's order shouldn't require a confrontation with law enforcement.
The attorney for the city of Lincoln countered that the only issue the Nebraska Supreme Court should be concerned with was whether the plaintiffs had standing. Under state law, standing requires the plaintiff to show they suffered an injury-in-fact due to the law.
While federal courts allow standing for the threat of injury, Nebraska requires actual injury-in-fact. The Nebraska Supreme Court must decide if, by the letter of the law, this means that the plaintiffs need to be denied the ability to bring their firearms onto city-owned property in Lincoln and refuse to obey orders from law enforcement to have standing.
A Walk in the Park
If standing is granted and Omaha or Lincoln prevails, the unicameral legislators will likely amend state law to overrule municipal orders. Until then, the parks, trails, and city-owned buildings of Lincoln remain firearm-free.
Related Resources
- What Is Standing to Sue? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Federal vs. State Courts: Key Differences (FindLaw's Legal System)
- State Gun Control Laws (FindLaw's State Criminal Laws)
