Archive for Friday, February 10, 2006

Senate passes concealed-carry bill

Votes may be enough to override governor’s veto

February 10, 2006


— Law-abiding Kansans could carry concealed guns under a bill that passed the Senate by enough votes Thursday to override a veto by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who spiked a similar measure two years ago.

The 29-11 vote - two more than needed to override the Democratic governor - includes six senators from her party. The question is how many will go against her should she veto the measure.

The bill now goes to the House, where Speaker Doug Mays predicted passage. He said overriding a veto is "always difficult" because "the votes tend to evaporate."

Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, said, "If there is a veto, they will be under tremendous pressure to support the governor. I would be surprised if anybody who voted no on the bill will vote to override."

But sponsoring Sen. Phil Journey sees it differently.

"It's either go against the governor or go against their district," said Journey, R-Haysville.

One Democrat, Sen. Jim Barone of Frontenac, said he would go against the governor.

"I have on this issue before and I will again," he said.

Sebelius rejected a nearly identical bill in 2004, saying she didn't believe the measure would make residents safer. Spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said the governor wanted to see the bill before deciding, but noted vetoed bills returning in much the same form can expect the same fate.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, left little doubt about what the governor will do.

"Are we going through an exercise in futility? The real question is whether there are 27 and 84 votes to override a veto because that's a certainty," he said, referring to the two-thirds majority needed by both chambers to void a veto.

Journey, R-Haysville, said that by joining 46 other states that allow concealed guns, Kansans will be safer. He said more than 2 million Americans have concealed-gun permits and predicted about 48,000 permits would be issued in Kansas in the first four years.

"The reality is this isn't a vote about the governor or the elections. It's a vote about freedom," Journey said. "It's about the freedom of Kansans to protect themselves and their families."

Not everyone agreed.

Sen. Roger Reitz, R-Manhattan, said the bill would result in accidental injuries and deaths.

"I reject his arguments out of hand," Reitz said. "Handguns are for killing people."

The bill lists 17 areas where a concealed gun can't be carried, including law enforcement offices, courthouses, state or local government buildings and schools. Efforts to add churches, veterans hospitals and libraries to that list failed.

Journey said the bill allows such places to post a sign banning firearms from their premises. Violators would face a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

"Who are we to tell churches what they can or can't do?" Barone said. "It would take away the right of a church's self-determination on this issue."

Under the proposal, Kansans who are 21 or older and U.S. citizens could obtain a four-year permit by filling out an application with the local sheriff and paying a fee of up to $150.

The attorney general's office would issue the permits after conducting background checks to eliminate those with a felony record, a history of mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, or a physical infirmity that would prevent the safe handling of a weapon.

Once past that hurdle, the person would be required to complete an eight-hour safety and training course by a firearms instructor certified by the attorney general or the National Rifle Assn.

The bill would make Kansas among the 36 "shall issue" states, meaning if a person clears the hurdles, the state must issue the permit. Eight other states have "may issue" laws, giving officials latitude. Two states - Alaska and Vermont - have no prohibitions for carrying a concealed weapon.


mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago

Why would anyone need to carry a gun into church? My Gosh, what are you people so terrified of? It must really suck having to go through life so scared out of your wits that the only way you'll feel better is armed to the teeth. Maybe that makes YOU feel better, but for me...not the case.

Just take the downtown murder case. Before shooting the victim, the perpetrator showed him (the victim) that he had a gun. If the victim had also had a gun, there would've been a shoot out downtown, with heaven knows how many victims. And, is shooting someone because they showed you their gun considered self defense? I wouldn't think so because even though the act is threatening, you could leave the area, which is what the victim did originally.

You know your society is in trouble when the only solution you can come up with involves firearms (include bombs and missiles). We're either not smart enough to tackle the roots of the problems we face as Americans or we just don't have the will or the RESOLVE. Just brandish your gun and let the sun shine bright on Kansas and the good ol' US of A.

magnificentbastard 12 years, 3 months ago

They do know that if this passes Black people will be able to carry guns too right? You would think that would give them pause.

Todd 12 years, 3 months ago

People of Kansas have been pushing for concealed carry for years. (myself included) I really hope there's enough votes to overturn the veto. I STILL can't believe Kansas has a democrat governor.

badger 12 years, 3 months ago

We have a Democrat saying he'll go against the governor, and a Republican opposed because 'handguns are for killing people.'

Nice to see both sides stepping outside the Party rhetoric on an issue. I always like it when they do that.

No average citizen going about his daily business 'needs' to carry a concealed handgun. There are other choices you can make to be safe. Some of them might choose to carry a gun, and some might not. Mefirst, you might dial back the froth a little bit and recognize that it's not about whether someone needs to take a gun to church to feel safe, but rather about whether that person chooses to carry a handgun about his daily business. There are a lot of reasons someone might choose to do that.

If I were the night-deposit clerk for a grocery store, taking thousands of dollars to the bank at midnight, I might like to have a gun. If I got the permit, I'd want to be sure that I was really used to and comfortable with that gun, and with wearing it (so I remembered to take it with me when I went to the bank), and so I might take to wearing it whenever I left the house.

If my kid sister got a job as a pharmaceutical rep, driving long hours out into Western Kansas to talk to doctors, I might spring for a gift certificate for range time and the concealed carry class for her, provided she was comfortable with firearms - because admitting that the world can be dangerous and there are sometimes steps worth taking to protect yourself, even if it means admitting you're being guided by fear, is a heck of a lot better than ending up dead or missing because you caught someone's eye the last time you stopped for coffee.

The more legally mandated places that a gun can't go, the more often a gun ends up stored in the trunk of a car where it could be stolen. Bars, it makes sense to keep guns out of because some people just show bad judgment when they drink. Church isn't likely to incite that sort of temper + bad judgment combination, and neither are the other places that didn't make it onto the list. For example, I don't see any problem with guns being allowed in libraries, as long as you use a silencer.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago

What froth? No froth, just common sense. SOrry if it offends you, Badger. Perhaps you'd like to show me your weapon to shut me up.

The thought of a congregation of churchgoers packing heat makes me ill.

In all the scenarios you provided above...mace would more than suffice. But, like mace, a gun is useless if you don't access it on time. And heaven forbid your attacker manage to take your gun away from you and shoot you with it.

All you wanna-be Quick Draw McGraws need to grow up. This isn't cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians. Why not take a few Karate lessons or something? There are other solutions to these problems. Increasing the potential for violence and death isn't an option.

VETO that BILL, Governor.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago

OMB--And how would you characterize a fear of absolutely EVERYTHING? You gun nuts are so afraid, you want to carry guns with you to CHURCH! Next thing you know, you'll be advocating that your kids take guns to school to protect themselves against the school yard bully. Where does it end with you people? YOU"RE SCARED TO DEATH!

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

FYI--I don't fear the weapon, I fear the paranoid morons who think they have to carry them everywhere they go to protect themselves against the Boogeyman.

It must really suck to be you.

rayikeo 12 years, 3 months ago

What this Law is really for, "Self Defense", not helping out the Police when a roberry takes place. 99.9 percent of the times a permit holder would draw his gun is when he is needing to defend himself. This usually happens when no one else is present and is a matter of life or severe body injury. Stray bullets are not a problem as nobody is present except the aggressor and the victim.

With border states already having this law in place, people from KC. MO. are comming to Kansas to commit thier crimes because they feel safer knowing we are now defenseless. Making the playing fields even is what this is all about

wonderhorse 12 years, 3 months ago


Did you really advocate taking a gun to church? I missed that part. Could you repeat it? Or is this another example of someone reading something that was written and drawing their own, false conclusions? I'm curious, as there seems to be a lot of that going on, especially recently. I've found that if people look REALLY hard, they can find something to be offended by, especially if they manage to read into what is written, rather than actually read what is written.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago

Well Ray, your ability to see into the future and assure me that no innocent bystander will ever become a victim and predict the exact way in which all attacks will play out makes me feel a whole lot better. Thanks for connecting those dots for me and helping me to see that, yes, everyone should have a gun. It just makes sense. You've done your good deed for the day...ensuring our safety by giving everyone license to carry a weapon. Thank you, Jesus!

Oh, using your logic Ray, I'm guessing KC, MO is now crime free? How many murders in that city to date?

Utterly and undeniably STUPID!

Todd 12 years, 3 months ago

I really hope there are enough votes to overturn the veto. It's sad to see that people are so afraid of each other. It's also a shame that extreme conditions are used against concealed carry. Either the gun carrying person is an idiot or their opponent is an adept assassin.

I want my 2nd amendment back. There's no reason why I can't enjoy the freedom of concealed carry if it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago

Wonderhorse--perhaps if you'd read the article you'd know what I was referring to.

The same people who want to give power to the people (in the form of guns) are the same people who didn't want Blacks carrying around weapons. Remember back, to the 1960s in California...the Black Panthers began carrying weapons and following police around to ensure they weren't brutalizing people. Couldn't have that...Blacks with guns, so the CA legislature and CA Governor, your beloved Ronnie, moved to make guns illegal IN THE CITY LIMITS only.

Guess who they were targeting with that legislation? Sure Bubba out in rural California could keep his gun. That's your definition of freedom.

The same logic you use...that you have to have a gun to protect yourself, is the same logic used by gangbangers. It just perpetuates violence.

wonderhorse 12 years, 3 months ago


I did read the article. Why are addressing omb as a "gun nut" who wants to take his gun to church? I don't believe I have seen anything to indicate that omb will even carry. I actually support the bill, but have no intention of carrying myself. There was a time, when I was a bar manager and had to make midnight+ deposits when I wish I could have, but those days have passed.

By the way, Black Panthers, armed, following police around to make sure they didn't brutalize people? That's a joke, considering that the movement was self-admittedly dedicated to violence, and sponsered by governments whose aim was to overthrow the US.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago

Bob, you missed the point of my last post. Why am I not surprised? Anyway, you'll never convince me that the more guns, the merrier.

You can find statistics to back up whatever side you support; therefore, I don't trust the stats. ANd I certainly don't trust the gun lobby.

I have no doubt that there are people who could carry guns and be responsible. My dad always had guns, and he was smart about them, but as a kid, knowing they were in the house made me feel less safe. Even as a child I understood that even with the best of intentions, havin those guns could lead to tragic, unintended consequences.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago

Wonderhorse, you're incredibly ill informed about the nature of the Black Panthers. I guess you get your information from a different source than I do. Believe what you want.

The U.S. does the "overthrowing" around here.

Linda Endicott 12 years, 3 months ago

Sigmund Freud was a fruit loop. Who cares what he thought? He was obsessed with sex, and everything he believed about psychology was all twisted up around that. That being said, I hope all of the proponents of concealed guns know that if you have EVER been prescribed a psychotropic medication, for anything, even something as inocuous as helping you sleep at night, you could very well be banned from having a gun because taking those meds could be considered "having a mental illness."

Or do they plan on only defining people with mental illness as those who have been hospitalized? Kind of vague there...but again, even someone who was hospitalized for a short time, once, during a stressful time of their lives, could be termed as being "mentally ill."

Do I fear guns? Hell, yes...I also fear those pesky bullets...I especially fear the thought that any idiot out there could possibly have a gun, and a concealed one, and that in a moment of blind panic could overreact about something and start blasting away.

wonderhorse 12 years, 3 months ago

mefirst--Do you mean to tell me that you don't believe that the old USSR did not want to overthrow the US? Or that the Black Panthers weren't accpeting funds from agents of the USSR?

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago


It's called the Mulford Act. It passed in 1967...look it up.

Todd 12 years, 3 months ago

We are talking about the freedom to carry a concealed weapon not the freedom to use it. Deadly force in self defense is already on the books.

ImpactWinter 12 years, 3 months ago

I'm a Kansas liberal, and by liberal, i pretty much mean socialist. But i am overwhelmingly in favor of concealed carry for precisely the reason's listed above by conservativeman, Violent crime drops demonstrably with the inception of a citizen's right to carry concealed. People with the intent to commit crime aren't going to blink about breaking one more law by carrying concealed. Its only illegal if you get caught!

I think that testing should be stringent and required. You have to pass, albiet basic, tests to operate a vehicle that can kill many people much more quickly if used improperly than any civilian-legal weapon. I'm very pro 2nd amendment, and I think that ownership should be an unassailable right, but I do agree that CCW permitholders should be checked out before the government entrusts them with the right and responsibility to carry a weapon on their person whenever they feel is neccessary.

Using a firearm in self defense is already very heavily legislated, it isn't as if permit holders are being licensed to kill! Strict policies exist to separate lawful use of weapons in self defense, and murder.

I think many opponents to CCW legislation fail to understand that people who are likely to do you harm aren't law abiding citizen's in any case. And Citizens who seek CCW permits are probably going to be people you would trust inany other circumstance.

I think the knife of Fear is cutting both ways here.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.