Advertisement

Archive for Friday, March 24, 2006

Area legislators comment on concealed carry law

March 24, 2006

Advertisement

Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, voted for concealed carry.

"I believe that honest, law-abiding citizens should pretty much be able to do anything so long as it doesn't impact on their neighbors.

"The folks we have to worry about are already carrying. Realistically, the threat to the public is not from folks who can pass the standards of that bill, but the folks who are carrying and will continue to carry and engage in other illegal actions."

Rep. Lee Tafanelli, R-Ozawkie, voted for concealed carry.

"I have always been a strong proponent of individuals to be able to protect themselves. I believe there are adequate measures in this bill that allow for adequate training, background investigation, to ensure that individuals have the right to protect themselves. I've never had a problem with concealed carry.

"That (eight hours training) is sufficient for basic firearms training. Most of these people who are going to be doing this have had previous experience.

"In looking at the other states, there has not been a significant problem with concealed carry. In fact, the overall crime rates, for violent crimes, have reduced in a majority of those states, and I would have to believe that is a contributing factor to that."

Rep. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, voted for concealed carry.

"I ran on that two years ago as a supporter of concealed carry with some licensure or permit requirements. I'm just fulfilling a campaign issue that I ran on.

"For those people who want that permission to carry, it is a big deal. I'm happy to provide them that freedom today."

Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, voted against concealed carry

"Kansas laws on guns are very lenient. My constituents have let me know they are not impressed by concealed carry. We don't need more guns in the community.

"How do you handle this in behavioral kinds of stages, when people are angry or enraged? My basic reason, and my constituents' reason, is that we don't need more guns in the community and we cannot rely on just guns to keep people safe.

"I guess now that it has passed, what worries me the most is will people have to be fearful of guns being all around them? Now you have to go through putting up signs - they don't belong there, they can't be here. How are you going to enforce that? But the main issue is you are less safe with more guns around you."

Rep. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin, voted against concealed carry.

"I was personally mixed on it, but the initial reaction I got from the district, especially from Lawrence, I mean my phones ring off the hook. The Lawrence Journal-World ran a story on a Friday, and Saturday morning I had people getting me out of bed on this issue. My district is mixed on it, but up in the south part of Lawrence people were overwhelmingly against the concealed carry. So I felt that being representative I represent my district's needs, and that's what my folks were telling me."

Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, voted against concealed carry.

"I don't think putting more guns in the hands of people in public places is going to lead to greater public safety."











Who can carry

In order to qualify for a concealed carry permit in Kansas, a person must: ¢ Be a U.S. citizen, a resident of the county where the application is filed and a Kansas resident for at least six months. ¢ Be at least 21 years of age. ¢ Be free from any infirmity that prevents safe handling of a weapon. ¢ Complete a "weapons safety and training course" approved by the attorney general, a law enforcement agency or the National Rifle Assn. Applicants must pay for their training. ¢ Concealed carry permits issued by another state or the District of Columbia will be valid in Kansas if the attorney general determines that other standards for issuance are equal to or greater than Kansas' standards.

The bill disqualifies anyone: ¢ Who has been convicted, placed on diversion or adjudicated for a felony as an adult or juvenile in any jurisdiction. ¢ Subject to a restraining order under the Protection from Abuse Act or the Protection from Stalking Act. ¢ Who is in contempt of court in a child support proceeding. ¢ Who has been dishonorably discharged from military service. ¢ Who has a criminal record.

Comments

Richard Heckler 8 years, 9 months ago

What studies prove that concealed weapon laws actually deter crime? If this were a fact why would law enforcement consistently oppose such legislation?

coldandhot 8 years, 9 months ago

Tommy blows a lot of smoke. That is why no one in Topeka listens to him.

Paul and Barb are just trying to continue feeding from the governor's trough.

dirkleisure 8 years, 9 months ago

YOUR LESS SAFE WITH GUNS ALL AROUND YOU

What about my "less safe with guns all around you"?

Grammar is a wonderful thing. Learn some.

Also, let's all go to church together on Sunday, and I'll bring my 12 gauge, carry it about during the service.

Let me know if that makes you feel safer.

Personally, I'm not worried about ole truthinlawrence getting a weapon. This person obviously has an infirmary that prevents safe handling of a weapon. Stupidity and blind allegiance to the herd qualify, right?

Confrontation 8 years, 9 months ago

"I believe that honest, law-abiding citizens should pretty much be able to do anything so long as it doesn't impact on their neighbors."

Anything?

aeroscout17 8 years, 9 months ago

"The Lawrence law banning firearms from within 200 yards of a bar just got canceled for permit holders."

As I stated before (when the proposal came up), that law would already be illegal due to state law from about a year ago. State law already overides any city or county laws regarding firearms. I am guessing they figured that out and that is why we haven't heard more about it.

Janet Lowther 8 years, 9 months ago

In many areas the law enforcement community has supported concealed carry. In Missouri, as I understand it, the main opposition to concealed carry from law enforcement was from the Kansas City and St. Louis police departments.

There seems to be a sinister element within the law enforcement community which enjoys abusing the extraordinary powers which we grant them. They understand that getting their jollies by abusing citizens becomes riskier when the citizens are on a more nearly even footing with them.

purfektly_trubbled 8 years, 9 months ago

does anyone realize we're still in kansas? do they really want a bunch of beer guzzling hicks carrying around concealed weapons. as soon as they start fighting over who's truck is bigger.. the guns will no longer be "concealed".

snwis 8 years, 8 months ago

Im from Wisconsin. This should not be a partisian issue. It's a human right issue. I already have permits from the state of Maine, and Minnesota. This allows me to ccw in about 13 other states. As an Eagle Scout from the Boy Scouts of America. One of our mottos to live by is "BE PREPARED." The problem is, in order to do so under current Wisconsin law, is to break the law. Opponents say Wisconsin already has a low crime rate and there is no need to legalize gun carry. The problem with that, is victims won't have any concern over numbers, info stastistics or comparisons while being stabbed, robbed, or raped. Police will only be there to write a nice report after the crime has happened. They might even take some nice photographs. Opponents say CCW will harm public safety. The only harm to public safety is from the criminals. Bank guards can carry guns to protect his employers money, but a mother can't to protect her children's lives outside the home? We are told permit applicants won't have the amount of training police have. Well,permit holders are not chasing criminals five days a week in squad cars either. We are told most citizens don't want carry. What do others opinions have to do with my safety? Having gun permits to carry has been called dangerous and irresponsible. I would bet 100% of permit holders would not be or feel dangerous or irresponsible. How can we take or show responsibility if we are never allowed to assume responsibility? Opponents want our state free of concealed guns. How can victims practice freedom from a hospital bed or the morgue? When they could have had the tools to protect themselves or loved ones? Most of this fear seems to be coming from the opposition to carry. What are they afraid of? Good people with good intentions? Will not having permits avaliable stop criminals from doing bad things with guns? I just got back from MN using my MN carry permit. AND guess what. NOTHING HAPPENED. I thought guns caused people to do bad things?

So do we make our vote based on logic and facts, or emotion and politics? People in other countries often view the risk of victimization as something beyond their control. Medieval Europeans had the same view of the plague. Yet neither the plague nor criminal trespasses against lawful humans are totally inevitable. Proper defensive tools and prudent behavior can help stop human predators, just as better hygiene and medical advancements conquered the plague. State law in Wis. now gives us no choice but to hand fight the knife holding drug user trying to rob us. Would you expect your mother, daughter, or spouse to do such a thing? I bet the answer is NO.
Crime goes on because the law abiding are forced to submit to it. Many law enforcement groups are FOR CCW. Flies don't cause garbage. Gun permits don't cause crime. Here is a web page I found for self defence. www.a-human-right.com sn2112@aol.com

snwis 8 years, 8 months ago

Some say that by the mere ability to resist evil we become the same evil we fight. That view equates initiation of aggression with defense of self and family. In my humble opinion, the two are not equal. Protection of innocents is a noble cause. Failure to plan or failure to act when necessary is not noble, merely irresponsible. It leads to extinction and encourages predators to victimize others besides us.

Being safe does not mean that we should all string barbed wire around our homes, mine the front lawn and sit behind sandbagged windows in anticipation of hostile hordes. Leading righteous, peaceful lives, being good to others, working to improve ourselves and the world would do much to improve our safety. Yet, just as good health doesn't depend on plenty of excercise or a good diet, safety does not depend only on being armed or on being a decent human. Each is an essential component of the whole.

Being armed doesn't mean that we fear our environment. Simply put, being prepared reduces criminal predation to a solved problem. After all, having soap in a bathroom doesn't indicate a paranoid fear of germs, only the recognition of a problem and a ready solution to it. Similarly, carrying a handgun just in case is reasonable. Towing cannon behind your car would be excessive effort relative to the moderate risks we face.

In some minds, guns are linked to murder and other unlawful uses. Yet, they seldom view gasoline, matches, wire, kitchen knives or hobnailed boots as tools of violence. People are familiar with those everyday objects and know that they are not evil magic. The will to kill is the paramount ingredient in homicides. Absent that will, no weapon would lift itself to harm a human.

Conditioning by television or newspapers makes some view every gun as a tragedy in the making. Evening news often show a picture of a gun even when talking about a beating which involved feet and fists. Without a real-world basis for comparison, it is easy to assume that firearms are possessed of supernatural powers. After all, if our understanding of computers was based on Hollywood, wouldn't we all live in fear of killer robots and rogue mainframes?

disarmed_cheesehead 8 years, 8 months ago

Congratulations on getting your CCW law. Here in Wisconsin, we're still battling a cradle-to-grave socialist governor to get ours.

It's amusing how opponents of these laws refuse to acknowledge that only law-abiding citizens are applying for the permits. Minnesota, like FL, OH, IN, MI, etc, etc, hasn't fallen apart due to their recent CCW law. Now it's down to Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Illinois with absolutely no CCW (plus the District of Columbia - murder capital of the United States).

Historians will tell you that the the state laws banning concealed carry were enacted shortly after the Civil War. Southern states were alarmed that ex-slave negros were carrying weapons to defend themselves against pre-klan crackers who were attacking them as they moved around looking for jobs.

They passed the laws, fully expecting local sheriffs and cops to only enforce them againsts blacks (surprise, surprise... take note of that, Patriot Act wiretapping supporters). Northern states just followed the southern lead - after all, "them" people were migrating north looking for work.

I suspect the most violence we'll see in Kansas now is on Sunday when TVLAND runs old Gunsmoke episodes.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.