Advertisement

Kansas legislature

Kansas Legislature

Concealed guns approved

House joins Senate in overriding veto; permits expected to be issued in January

March 24, 2006

Advertisement

— "Lock and load," joked Rep. Paul Davis, a Democrat from Lawrence.

Qualified Kansans will be able to carry concealed guns as early as January under a bill put into law Thursday despite Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' veto.

The quick draw by the Legislature took only moments and came with no debate as the Senate overrode Sebelius 30-10 on Wednesday evening, and the House piled on 91-33 Thursday morning. Both votes surpassed the two-thirds majorities needed to overcome a veto.

"In some ways it's anticlimactic after 14 years of work," said Senate sponsor Phil Journey, R-Haysville.

Leaning against a rail outside the House chamber, Journey, wearing a National Rifle Assn. pin and gun-shaped tie clasp, said: "I'm elated at the same time. I think it's good public policy. Kansans are going to be safer."

Opponents of the bill, including Davis, disagreed.

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


Autumn Graber, of Wakefield, looks at a handgun with her husband, Rob Graber, and their 7-month-old son Brett on Thursday afternoon at Cabela's in Kansas City, Kan. On Thursday morning, House legislators passed the concealed carry bill by a vote of 91-33, enough to override a veto by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

Autumn Graber, of Wakefield, looks at a handgun with her husband, Rob Graber, and their 7-month-old son Brett on Thursday afternoon at Cabela's in Kansas City, Kan. On Thursday morning, House legislators passed the concealed carry bill by a vote of 91-33, enough to override a veto by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

The override ended years of political wrangling. Gov. Bill Graves vetoed concealed carry in 1997, and Sebelius in 2004.

This time, however, the veto didn't stick.

Journey said he thought that was because concealed carry had a track record of working in nearly every other state in the nation. Only Illinois, Nebraska and Wisconsin won't allow residents to carry hidden guns.

Under the bill, Kansas residents 21 or older with no criminal background or history of mental illness or drug abuse could obtain a four-year permit after completing an eight-hour training course.

The law takes effect July 1, but it will take several months to ramp up the administrative process to grant permits. The first permits are expected to be issued in January 2007. Those receiving permits must pay a $150 fee.

Sebelius vetoed the measure Tuesday, saying it would endanger the public and law enforcement.

Rep. Candy Ruff, D-Leavenworth, the House sponsor, said Sebelius was wrong.

"It doesn't make Kansas any less safe now. That's kind of an insult to law-abiding Kansans," Ruff said.

After the House vote, Ruff said she had three telephone calls to make: the first to her husband, and the others to two constituents who were raped and wanted to be able to carry a gun.

Ruff said the law gives Kansans a choice.

"If somebody feels a need or is compelled for their own individual reasons to carry a concealed firearm, now they can do so, if they are law-abiding citizens," she said.

She said she doubted it would have an effect one way or the other on the crime rate.


Douglas County Sheriff's Office corrections officer Dennis Talley operates the metal detector at the entrance to the Douglas County District Court. On Thursday, the concealed carry bill became law, which may increase the demand for metal detectors.

Douglas County Sheriff's Office corrections officer Dennis Talley operates the metal detector at the entrance to the Douglas County District Court. On Thursday, the concealed carry bill became law, which may increase the demand for metal detectors.

But Journey said it would.

"Many criminals are rational human beings, and when they realize there is a good chance that they could get shot committing a violent crime, they'll probably decide to do something else," he said.

One aspect of the law that didn't get much notice is that it will pre-empt hundreds of local ordinances regulating guns.

"Cities have been regulating firearms in Kansas before the state became a state," said Kim Winn, director of policy development and communications for the League of Kansas Municipalities. "The earliest one we found on the books is from 1863 in the city of Lawrence."

But Winn said cities would have to repeal those ordinances.

Journey said it wouldn't be difficult to comply.

"The sky is falling for Chicken Little and the league," he said.

Interim City Manager David Corliss said Lawrence would have to get its ordinances in compliance with the impending state law.

"We're going to need to look at it," he said.

Sebelius urged legislators to put the issue behind them now that it has been resolved.

"Now I'm hopeful the Legislature turns its attention to its most important work, which is making sure all Kansas children attend quality schools," she said.

























Where people with guns won't be allowed to go

People with permits will not be able to carry concealed weapons into: ¢ A place in which a common nuisance activity is maintained (illegal gambling, promotion of obscenity, promotion of prostitution, and violations of drug, alcohol and tobacco laws). ¢ A police, sheriff or Kansas Highway Patrol station. ¢ A detention facility, prison or jail. ¢ A courthouse. ¢ A polling place on election day. ¢ A meeting of the governing body of a county, city or other subdivision. ¢ Any city hall. ¢ A courtroom (unless the licensee is a judge or unless authorized by the judge). ¢ A school, community college, college, university or professional athletic event not related to firearms. ¢ Any portion of a drinking establishment, although restaurants are not included. ¢ The Kansas State Fairgrounds in Hutchinson. ¢ Any state office building. ¢ Any community college, college or university facility. ¢ Any elementary or secondary school building or structure used for student instruction or attendance. ¢ Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by state or federal law. ¢ Any public library operated by the state or any political subdivision. ¢ Any day care home or any group day care home as defined in state law. ¢ Any church or temple. ¢ Any child care center or preschool. ¢ Any child exchange and visitation center. ¢ Any community mental health center or state hospital. The bill would not prevent public or private employers or businesses open to the public from prohibiting licensees from carrying concealed weapons while on the premises of the business or while engaging in duties of employment. Businesses that are open to the public would have to post signs stating that carrying a concealed weapon on the premises is prohibited. Property owners would be authorized to restrict or prohibit concealed weapons by posting notices.

Comments

geophysics 8 years ago

"Children in the five states with the highest rate of gun ownership (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia) were 16 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the decade studied than children in the five states with the lowest rate of gun ownership (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware)".

You know...I wonder what the ownership ratio is between "high ownership" and "low ownership" states. Could it be 16????? I do not know, the person or entity that wrote the passage obviously wanted me to have an uninformed emotional reaction. Funny how they just omit little tidbits of information that might help a rational person put information (I don't use the word "fact" because I did not read the article and do not know is sources) into perspective. If the ratio is relative to the statement is it not saying "yes, sometimes there are unfortunate accidents involving children?"

Remember...there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.

0

tnuC 8 years ago

tanzer

Now someone is catching on. Our society's solution to every bump is the road is the prescription of a happy pill. There must be a diagnosis that accompanies that Rx even if it's buried in some doctor's notes which simply says "anxious, prescrcibed Zoloft".

Irrespective, the person is now "mentally ill" in some circles per the K.S.A. noted already. This is rich!

0

The_Twelve 8 years ago

No guns in churches or temples. What about mosques? I knew the legislature was just aching to justify the killing of Muslims.

But then again, maybe it's just an oversight from a bunch of narrow-minded bigots.

0

Bubarubu 8 years ago

Citizen-- From the report you linked: "Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack."

Further, "For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.[14]"

You should actually read the stuff before you link it. The report is a pretty convincing indictment of the Kleck study and the National Survey on Private Ownership of Firearms. Both wildly overestimated the number of defensive gun uses, and thus the impact of concealed/carried weapons on public safety. So, per the BJS states that holygrailale linked to, stronger gun control laws reduce the use of guns in crime, while the report Citizen linked to tells us that the public arming themselves does not have the significant impact on crime rates that CCW advocates would like us to believe.

0

small_fish_in_small_pond 8 years ago

Good luck enforcing this stupid law...

0

Citizen 8 years ago

holygrailale cited facts -- something quite rare in this comment section.

Here are some facts, with citations:

According to the CDC ( http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html ), in 2003, there were 102 kids killed in firearm accidents. That puts gun accidents behind bicycles, fire, poison, falls and especially motor vehicles as a leading cause of accidental death in kids.

As for defensive gun uses, there are a number of studies:

"here are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. "

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

My friend David is a registered nurse. On the way to the hospital a couple of years ago, David, who has a carry permit, fended off an armed carjacker.

Good thing Minnesota had a carry law, or he might have been dead.

0

Silence_Dogood 8 years ago

Wy won't anyone interpret the photo?

0

Jackie Jackasserson 8 years ago

i am wondering about the mental health issue here - despite the acrimonious tone to tnuC's post - there is a point. is the state going to disqualify every mental illness - given that some are not as severe or as risky to self or others and that within a diagnosis there are different levels of severity - which wouldn't necesarily mean more risk.. it just seems that we may be over pathologizing some folks and denying them a right based on some legal definition of mental illness rather than a professional's opinion. also - if one decides to deny the state the right to look into thier mental health records - would they automatically be blocked from obtaining a gun permit?? this just doesn't seem well thought out is all.

0

Arminius 8 years ago

yourworstnightmare:

"Armi-man, and there are no statistics that show how many times I have prevented hippopotami from overtaking Lawrence by reading the pledge of allegiance backwards."

Yes, but Google turns up hundreds of cases in which violent crimes were prevented by when would-be victims were armed. Here's the first of many that popped up. http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021015arrest1015p1.asp

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

Oh Conservativeman, you're so dreamy...

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

Armi-man, and there are no statistics that show how many times I have prevented hippopotami from overtaking Lawrence by reading the pledge of allegiance backwards.

You should be thankful to me for this great service.

0

conservativeman 8 years ago

This entire thread is mute!!

Sign me up for my license, retired law enforcement that can prove firearms and use of force training need only apply, thank you.

If you see a tall good looking man carrying an M1911 with Ivory handles (real African elephant ivory) then say hello to Conservativeman. Private citizens prepared to battle injustice and liberal criminal elements.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

Are you concealed-carrying, or are you just glad to see me?

0

Arminius 8 years ago

tnuC:

That's an obvious problem with the statistics. As you note, there is no tally of the number of times someone actually used a "peace keeper" to prevent a violent crime. I would note that there are far more stories about someone using a gun to prevent a crime than stories about someone with a concealed-weapon permit shooting someone after a road-rage incident.

0

tnuC 8 years ago

As well, Arminius, the statistic cited does not speak to how many deaths were prevented due to the use of personal protection devices (peace keepers) allowable by law. in place.

I dare say the States cited, (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia) ALL had many, many instances where, were it not for the fact a citizen had his/her own peace keeper handy, yet another unnecessary death would have occurred. Funny how the haters never quote the stats which support the personal possession due to the documentation of their effectiveness in preventing death.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

derf, you wouldn't say that if you thought that I might have a 9mm stuck in one of my bright green boots, now would you?

0

derf 8 years ago

I find your big pink hat and bright green boots silly looking and ridiculous as well. So what. Go ahead and wear them, with my blessing. You got a right.

0

Arminius 8 years ago

BabysMomma:

"Children in the five states with the highest rate of gun ownership (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia) were 16 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the decade studied than children in the five states with the lowest rate of gun ownership (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware)."

I wonder if children are morely likely to die in car accidents in states with higher rates of auto ownership. I would be willing to bet that American children are much more likely to die in car accidents than Chinese children.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

armi-man is back to exercise his Fist Amendment rights.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

Are ya gonna shoot me if I don't shut up?

0

Arminius 8 years ago

00jester:

"Facts say that you are more the 10 times more likely to die by your own gun."

More likely than what? Your statement is meaningless.

"The list goes on, but i know i won't convience any opponents so it's a mute point."

Mute point? I think we heard it.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

OMB: I just find the idea of toting around a loaded gun under one's coat to be silly. I also find silly those who think that this is going to protect themselves and others from crime. I also find it to be extremely egotistical and megalomaniacal to think that a gun-toting elite will protect society from crime, like superheroes or something. The words "paranoid fantasy" come to mind.

Have your fun toting around your weapon. I just find the thought of it ludicrous.

0

unite2revolt 8 years ago

Just a note on the Mental Illness clause: It clearly states that you have to be currently suffering from the illness and require treatment. It does not state that you cannot have a permit if were previously treated.

0

rayikeo 8 years ago

Kansas has over one million legal hunters in the state. They carry High Powered rifles, shotguns and hand guns. Do you know how many hunting accidents there were in Kansas last year? The answer is none! How many hunters shot each other from road rage or temper tantroms? The answer is none! How does this impact concealed carry? These same people are going to be the the majority of concealed permit holders. Why do any of you think these friends and neighbors that you all know will now become a danger to the people who do not carry guns.

0

BabysMomma 8 years ago

Let me make sure I understand your question, wonderhorse. Do you feel the CC legislation will, in fact, DECREASE gun ownership then?

Sounds like a winner.

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

nightmare, for somebody that says, " I am really not opposed to this legislation", you are putting a lot of energy into going off about it.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

wonderhorse is right again. This is a general issue of gun ownership and use that has been invoked by the CC legislation, which in fact has little to do with gun fatality statistics.

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

"Children in the five states with the highest rate of gun ownership (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia) were 16 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the decade studied than children in the five states with the lowest rate of gun ownership (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware). Children in the "high-gun states" were also seven times more likely to die from a gun suicide and three times more likely to die from a gun homicide."

Understand. But what does concealed carry have to do with this? Or more accurately, what does this have to do with concealed carry? It sounds to me that this is a rant against guns, period, but has nothing to do with concealed carry.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

BabysMomma,

Of course you are correct. Facts and statistics cut no ice with idealogues, who believe in absolute right to gun use and ownership.

And I bet that if they answered from their heart of hearts, they would tell you that the accidental death of innocents is a small price to pay for the freedom to own and carry firearms.

0

BabysMomma 8 years ago

All-righty then! Glad we cleared the whole thing up. i feel better. The issue isn't that important, sure.

Ever seen photographs of what a bullet exit wound looks like in a small child? It can't be pretty.

ALL parents think their children are "different" and "smarter" than other people's children. Nobody wants to admit that no matter how many times you tell a kid not to touch a gun, their brains aren't fully developed enough to understand the true danger.

**Before an American child reaches 15, he or she is 12 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds than a child anywhere else in the industrialised world.**

Simple common sense: More guns in circulation=more chances for accidents to happen. More guns in circulation=more chances for "legally" owned guns to be stolen and used in crimes. Duh.

FROM THE ECONOMIST: THE gun lobby argues that guns don't kill people; people do. Yet a study by scholars at the Harvard School of Public Health, published in February's Journal of Trauma,finds that, when it comes to killing children, guns do help.*

Firearms kill more children in the United States than any other cause except motor-vehicle crashes and cancer. Over the period studied, 1988-97, nearly 7,000 children aged between five and 14 were killed with firearms. Before an American child reaches 15, he or she is 12 times more likely to die of gunshot wounds than a child anywhere else in the industrialised world.

But is it the guns that matter, or the kind of people who own them? The study's authors, Mathew Miller, Deborah Azrael and David Hemenway, find that states with a lot of guns have higher rates of gun suicide, homicide and deadly accidents among children aged between five and 14, even after allowing for factors such as poverty, education level and urbanisation. Yet those states do not have a higher rate of suicide by means other than guns.

Children in the five states with the highest rate of gun ownership (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia) were 16 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the decade studied than children in the five states with the lowest rate of gun ownership (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware). Children in the "high-gun states" were also seven times more likely to die from a gun suicide and three times more likely to die from a gun homicide.

It is possible, as the authors point out, that people who live in states with high rates of child homicide may buy guns to protect themselves. But that cannot explain the relationship between guns and suicide and accidents. The lesson is simple. More guns kill more children.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

dum da da dum da da dum da da da da da dum dum...

pew, pew, pew, bang, bang, crack, p-tooooeeewww

I'm the l'il sheriff here to protect this town from criminals. See my silver star? I know what you're thinking, did he fire five shots or six? I guess you have to ask yourself, do ya feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?

Pew, pew, pew, yeeeee-haw!

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

Use a good holster. Keep everything safe & secure.

0

jfgibson 8 years ago

I think a lot of people are over reacting here. I can't see that everyone who now does not own a gun is going to go out and buy one just becuase you can carry one legally now. I myself do not own a gun becuase I don't want to. I know several people who own guns (they are hunters) and they have their guns in a safe where children cannot get to them. Their children have been educated by their parents on gun safety. They have taken courses and classes that they are required to take every year. It all goes back to gasp taking responsibility for yourself and your family. People are going to carry guns, people are going to die from gunshots, self inflicted or not whether CC is around or not.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

This CC is really a non-issue that does in fact divert resources as derf points out. While I think that firearm abundance is generally an unproductive thing, I am really not opposed to this legislation. It is regulated and controlled to the point of ridiculousness, but it still makes gun-toters happy, so where's the harm (except for a few accidental deaths of children and bystanders).

Doesn't mean we can't poke fun at gun nuts, though. Look at me! I'm the Lone Ranger! Yee-haw!

0

BabysMomma 8 years ago

Can't wait to stroll downtown Lawrence and see the signs that are all over KCMO:

handguns with a circle through them. Classy.

Excuse me sir, here's your order...I think you dropped your firearm.

0

DaREEKKU 8 years ago

tnuC-"watcha think now"? Is that all you have? I'm merely pointing out people's paranoia that anybody taking anything is mentally ill. I am not seeking an argument and I acknowledged that certain people that are mentally ill should not own guns. Not EVERYBODY taking certain medications are "mental." Read my post it's self explanitory. I'm merely adressing the general population's misconceptions about mentally ill people. By the way, taking low shots at people accomplishes nothing :-)....just another thought.....

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

"Facts say that you are more the 10 times more likely to die by your own gun"

And how does/will concealed carry have any impact on this?

0

derf 8 years ago

Leftist, for lack of a better term, minded people have only a quite limited reserve of motivation, enthusiasm, dedication, and committment and should not needlessly expend it on a non-issue. Because it springs from compassion and concern for others and altruistic causes which are good things, but are merely baubles to be taken out and admired or toys to be taken out and played with when the mood strikes, not part of a genuine core identity. Rightist minded people, on the other hand, have a limitless supply of energy because it is fueled by anger and internalized core beliefs and it is relentless. They will usually win out because what they do is who they are. Leftist types should probably expend their limited energy on things that really matter and that will make a genuine difference. Like governmental abuse of power, the destruction of the middle-class in America, universal health care, environmental issues, and the neo-con and corporate agenda which is all about the looting of the government and the citizens of this country. They shouldn't waste their limited energy on this issue which is a distraction and a diversion and in reality is unimportant.

0

BabysMomma 8 years ago

Incidentally, I'd be curious to know where the police officers and their union stand on this issue. What's the scoop on that?

0

gl0ck0wnr 8 years ago

Those places are exempted because anti-rights legislators demanded those exemptions and, in the long run, it's better to win the war and lose a few battles. It's not because the legislators think CC is good or bad, it's because the pro-rights legislators realized they had to make some deals with the irrational anti-rights folks in order to get it done. Eventually those restrictions will be knocked down, but for now something is better than nothing.

Regarding: "Posted by zzgoeb (anonymous) on March 24, 2006 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, the country is just like it was in 1780...almost! Let's see, firearms consisted of muzzleloading flintlocks...oh, and if you had a pistol, you were either a duelist or a highwayman.

As for the votes on this, deny that the NRA isn't the most powerful lobby in the country. And the leadership seems so rational..."

Part 1 of your silly statement has already been debunked - I doubt you want to revert to quill and ink for all communications

Part 2 of your statement is simply factually inaccurate. In the 2006 election cycle, the NRA's PAC took in about $5 million and donated about $4 million to federal candidates, which puts it behind organizations like:

Volunteer PAC ($4.2) UAW ($4.4) American Fed of St/Cnt/Munic Emp ($5.1) American Fed of Teachers ($5.1) Laborers Union ($5.6) Electrical Workers ($5.7) Teamsters ($6.4) Service Employees ($7.9) Moveon.org ($9.3) America Coming Together ($13.9) Emily's list ($15.03)

I'll let you do the math and make some guesses on who donated to which parties.

0

Gabe Hoffman 8 years ago

Facts say that you are more the 10 times more likely to die by your own gun

Women are not made safer by carrying guns, in fact, women are more likely to be killed by a gun then men are.

The list goes on, but i know i won't convience any opponents so it's a mute point.

I hope you enjoy getting shot!

0

BabysMomma 8 years ago

More than 400 children killed every year in the US due to accidental shootings that didn't involve an adult.

So let's hope that those people just itching to drag a gun around with them everywhere at least lock them up when they're at home.

If you think about the day-to-day mechanics of having a concealed weapon, how heavy it is, dealing with where to keep it as you schlepp it around -- what a complete bore. And what subtle, nuanced changes occur for the person carrying that weapon? I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have a don't-eff-with-me-pal attitude. A chip on their shoulder.

Better watch out next time someone cuts you off and traffic and you tell them about themselves. You might just get blown away.

The whole thing just invites trouble and promotes more negativity.

See the link below.

Oh and it's so CLASSIC: to a person, all the folks on here extolling the virtues of this idiotic piece of legislation or the same ones who were so up in arms (excuse the pun) about the Granada shooting. Let me guess, if some randomm Clint Eastwood with his concealed weapon had been standing by, that wouldn't have happened?

More guns = less safety.

article on for size:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/parenting/06/04/boys.guns/index.html

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

"Unlike the media, the firearms industry has NEVER been regulated, and is exempt from product liability...find another industry like that...take away that protection, and the courts and the average citizen will test all of this, as they should..." Complete and total BS. The firearms industry is heavily regulated. The firearms industry is NOT exempt from product liability.

0

bangaranggerg 8 years ago

guns don't kill people, no wait, maybe that's "guns don't kill trees" I can't remember...

0

zzgoeb 8 years ago

Unlike the media, the firearms industry has NEVER been regulated, and is exempt from product liability...find another industry like that...take away that protection, and the courts and the average citizen will test all of this, as they should.

Any citing of statistics should include links to primary sources, not a stealth think-tank funded by Olin...before the current federal administration that would have included the FBI, as they track all gunshot wounds.

As for everyone defending themselves with guns, that was my point in my first post. This generally leads to accidental injury or death, or shooting the wrong person. Almost unanimously police chiefs around the country fought CCW legislation, but lost to the gun lobby. Ultimately this has become another wedge issue in our culture wars. Thanks RR...

Most of the developed nations in the world live peacefully with almost no firearms(see Japan, northern Europe)...

Peace!

0

Linda Endicott 8 years ago

Will businesses and employers who allow concealed guns on their property have to post signs as well? Or do we just assume that if they don't have a sign specifically banning guns that they're allowed there?

Arminius, I'm sorry about your friend.

Would she still be alive today if there had been a concealed carry law in Florida before then?

There's no way to know. Speaking for myself, if I had a gun in my pocket, and somebody accosted me, probably from behind, and the adrenalin was rushing instantly, I don't know if I'd remember I had a gun, or even how to use it. If I did remember I had a gun, and how to use it, there's still no guarantee that there would be time to do so, or that it would change the outcome of the crime. There's the possibility that the criminal would discover the gun before I had a chance to reach it, and make things worse.

I really don't know how I feel about the new law. I don't know how it will change much of anything, if there are so many places you can't take guns. I don't think it will change my life personally at all, as I don't plan to get one.

But again, as some of the people have posted here, they were already carrying concealed guns, even though it wasn't legal. How will things be different?

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

We'll be out there, nightmare, exercising our rights under the law, anywhere it is legal.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

Let's ask ourselves one question: If CC is such a great thing, why are all of the above exempt, including the State Capitol, bars, and churches? Hmmm....

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

The list from above of where guns will not be allowed:

"People with permits will not be able to carry concealed weapons into: ¢ A place in which a common nuisance activity is maintained (illegal gambling, promotion of obscenity, promotion of prostitution, and violations of drug, alcohol and tobacco laws). ¢ A police, sheriff or Kansas Highway Patrol station. ¢ A detention facility, prison or jail. ¢ A courthouse. ¢ A polling place on election day. ¢ A meeting of the governing body of a county, city or other subdivision. ¢ Any city hall. ¢ A courtroom (unless the licensee is a judge or unless authorized by the judge). ¢ A school, community college, college, university or professional athletic event not related to firearms. ¢ Any portion of a drinking establishment, although restaurants are not included. ¢ The Kansas State Fairgrounds in Hutchinson. ¢ Any state office building. ¢ Any community college, college or university facility. ¢ Any elementary or secondary school building or structure used for student instruction or attendance. ¢ Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by state or federal law. ¢ Any public library operated by the state or any political subdivision. ¢ Any day care home or any group day care home as defined in state law. ¢ Any church or temple. ¢ Any child care center or preschool. ¢ Any child exchange and visitation center. ¢ Any community mental health center or state hospital. The bill would not prevent public or private employers or businesses open to the public from prohibiting licensees from carrying concealed weapons while on the premises of the business or while engaging in duties of employment. Businesses that are open to the public would have to post signs stating that carrying a concealed weapon on the premises is prohibited. Property owners would be authorized to restrict or prohibit concealed weapons by posting notices."

Some freedom. Where, exactly, will one be able to carry a weapon? On the street, in a restaurant, and in any grocery or department store. Woo-hoo. Freedom!

0

Bubarubu 8 years ago

I'm just intrigued by the people who have said that they already carry concealed weapons even though it's not presently a legal activity. So much for the argument that now law-abiding citizens will get to carry, as opposed to "thugs". From the comments on the board, it seems that more than a few are already. But hey, since they're not from Topeka or KCK, they would never use a concealed firearm except to defend themselves, right? I mean, its OK for certain people to carry, just not those people.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

Armi-man, I've never heard of the "fist" amendment. Pretty kinky and forward-thinking of our founding fathers.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

"It must really suck to be a Liberal right now."

Actually, it really sucks to be a true conservative right now. This activist legislature is trying to change things left and right.

0

concerned_citizen 8 years ago

Don't like concealed firearms? Don't get one! Now...can y'all go back to catterwauling about evolution being taught in the public schools or something? It must really suck to be a Liberal right now.

0

Arminius 8 years ago

zzgoeb:

"Yeah, the country is just like it was in 1780...almost! Let's see, firearms consisted of muzzleloading flintlocks...oh, and if you had a pistol, you were either a duelist or a highwayman."

You could make a similar argument regarding the Fist Amendment. Our founders could never have imagined television, the Internet, and even radio. Should we toss out that amendment because of technology our founders did not forsee?

I haven't look at statistics for some time and don't have time today, however those statistics are available.

Back in 1997, then Sen. Sandy Praeger told schoolchildren in Eudora, "Many people think they ought to be able to carry a gun for protection. Statistics show that the national crime rate is on a decline, while accidents related to guns, particularly those involving chidren, have increased."

That was a false statement. According to the National Safety Council, there were 64 percent fewer firearm accidents among children in 1995 than in 1975. In addition, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 1994 fatal firearms accidents fell to the lowest anual number since record-keeping began in 1903."

Also, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement found that between 1987 (the year Florida enacted concealed carry) and 1992, Florida's homicide rate dropped from 37 percent above the national average to 3 percent below the national average. During those same years rape increased nationally by 14.4 percent. However, in Florida it increased just 2.9 percent, and in 1993 rape in Florida decreased .2 percent.

A high school classmate of mine was raped and murdered in Florida before 1987. If she had been armed, would she be alive today?

We have much more data concerning concealed carry in 2006 than we did in 1997, yet Ballard, Davis, and Holland repeat the same lies Praeger told a decade ago.

0

Hoots 8 years ago

Touringdriver wrote "who needs to carry a gun. little wanta be thugs!"

If you haven't noticed the wanta be thugs already carry. Do you remember the guy from Topeka that was gunned down on Mass and all the guns that have been confiscated near a certain bar close to Borbers? Our friends from the KC and Topeka come into this town locked and loaded all the time. Even your local wanta be carries.

The guns are already on the street with you day and night. This is really nothing new. Do I think it's a great idea? That is a time will tell question.

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

Just checking in, hmmm, same stuff.

0

zzgoeb 8 years ago

Yeah, the country is just like it was in 1780...almost! Let's see, firearms consisted of muzzleloading flintlocks...oh, and if you had a pistol, you were either a duelist or a highwayman.

As for the votes on this, deny that the NRA isn't the most powerful lobby in the country. And the leadership seems so rational...

I say we all get one long and one short gun, and they ARE muzzleloading flintlocks...

And tell me when the numbers have gone down from firearms related injuries and deaths.

0

Liberty 8 years ago

Just think about this... If you get a permission slip from the government when you already have a right, you acknowledge their jurisdiction over you because you volunteered to sign up for a 'government benefit'. You also are essentially registering your firearm with the State of Kansas government, which is the federal government extended. I would not reccommend revealing this info unless you plan on making yourself a future known target of a gun confiscation.

0

DubbleDukes 8 years ago

"Posted by geekin_topekan (anonymous) on March 24, 2006 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Arm the Pizza Shuttle guys!!"

Oh thats just what i need to worry about now!! ordering a pizza from pizza shuttle and have it delivered at gunpoint!! "pay me dang it or i'll shoot ya!" great....just great...dont think i'll be ordering anytime soon...

0

grimpeur 8 years ago

Ah, yes, the old K.S.A. 8-1567. Thanks, prospector! I hadn't read closely enough.

0

Arminius 8 years ago

mom_of_three:

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. That's not why it was included in the Bill of Rights.

0

badger 8 years ago

MacHeath said:

"Why is it that the anti-gun crowd make the most condesending, and foolish remarks? I thought liberals were supposed to open-minded."

I disagree. The condescension and foolishness on this issue, as on most of them, is generally pretty evident from both groups. The condescension and foolish remarks do not necessarily fall across party lines, though they are today.

However, blanket statements, it seems, are alive and universally applied.

0

mom_of_three 8 years ago

oh, and a gun to protect his country from invaders.
That was an important reason.

0

prospector 8 years ago

o-m-b

Take your gun to put a hole in them ;0).

Me, heading to Clinton to find a swine before they protect them. I don't have to conceal anything, yet.

0

mom_of_three 8 years ago

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago, when someone needed to carry a gun to provide food and safety for his family. We don't live in that type of civilization any more.
If someone wants a hunting rifle to go hunting, then fine, but I don't see a purpose of carrying a handgun, except now you can legally. I understand people carried guns illegally before this, but I don't see any purpose.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

"...personal insults and egregious stereotyping..."

In other words, comedy. Come on, lighten up L'il Pardner. You got your piece under your coat to make you feel better.

0

Arminius 8 years ago

zzgoeb:

"The only thing this means is we are all LESS safe..."

Kansas joined 40+ states that already have concealed carry. Some of the other states have had concealed carry for more than a decade. (In 1997, 31 states comprising more than half of the nation's population had concealed carry. None has rescinded their laws.) If concealed carry makes us less safe, we would have had data from the others states to demonstrate that. Instead, the data show that there has been less vilent crime.

And you would be hard pressed to find an example in which someone with a concealed-carry permit used his weapon in a road-rage incident. I'm sure a case can be found, but such cases would be a minute percentage of the total number of permit holders. Ballard, Holland, and Davis aren't idiots and they are aware of the statistics. Their votes were not based on reason.

0

prospector 8 years ago

Grimpeur, please reads closer. A DUI is grounds for denial or revocation of permit.

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

Let me know if the nay-sayers come up with anything better than personal insults and egregious stereotyping of those who plan to exercise their rights under this law. Got to go make the doughnuts.

0

wonderhorse 8 years ago

"...almost all handgun violence involves friends/relatives/spouses/coworkers."

True. How does the concealed carry law have any impact, positively or negatively, on this?

0

zzgoeb 8 years ago

The only thing this means is we are all LESS safe...almost all handgun violence involves friends/relatives/spouses/coworkers. They shoot by accident, on purpose or drunk/stoned. Look it up NRA dorks...

The appropriate caveat to the clowns at the legislature is this...if someone's loved one is killed this way, they need to sue EVERYONE that voted for it...

I own guns, always have...but we ain't in Dodge City with Wyatt and Wild Bill...

0

miker 8 years ago

Did you see the look on the baby's face in the J/W pic ? "I can't wait 'til I can crawl around & accidentally find it !"

0

Liberty 8 years ago

"Cities have been regulating firearms in Kansas before the state became a state," said Kim Winn, director of policy development and communications for the League of Kansas Municipalities. "The earliest one we found on the books is from 1863 in the city of Lawrence."

Just because they have been doing this since 1863, doesn't mean that it is legal for them to do this. The Constitution says (government rule book on what to keep their hands off of) that you already have a right (a place where government has no authority or jurisdiction) to bear arms.

0

grimpeur 8 years ago

A DUI should be cause to revoke or deny a CCW license. Don't see anything about that.

Demonstrably bad judgement and disregard for public safety, both hallmarks of DUI, should rule out any public possession of firearms.

These lawmakers want to restrict my gun from court, legislative sessions, schools, city hall? WTF? Do they think there's something dangerous about law-abiding citizens carrying? It's either safe or it's not. It's not safe on the street or in a restaurant AND unsafe at the commission meetings, people.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

I just can't help myself but to make fun of the "little sheriffs" who want to carry a concealed weapon. So here goes...

It is such a ridiculous worldview, that somehow these people carrying wepaons are going to change society. They must think of themselves as lawmen, somehow specially gifted to protect society. Little sheriffs. I think you get a Lone Ranger silver star to pin on your lapel when you get a license. Yee-haw. There is a tinge of megalomania to this view.

0

Silence_Dogood 8 years ago

Yes, there's all sorts of ways one could interpret the photograph. A Freudian reading might be a fun way to begin.

0

tnuC 8 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

tnuC 8 years ago

yourworstnightmare:

Thanks. It's poorly written...the new law....given they refer to another poorly written Kansas law....but what law in Kansas is well written?

The only way all the "happy pills" are being prescribed is with a diagnosis first and all of them have to be mental health related. If you're taking the new, trendy happy pill or even the old standby mother's helper, you've got a mental illness. It's as simple as that.....or so it seems.

0

Jayhawk226 8 years ago

Nothing sums up redneck more than the leading photograph--

--family and child in a gun store.

Hope that one goes into the baby album!

0

tnuC 8 years ago

jrlii:

This new Kansas law cites the Kansas Statute. I'm simply pointing a lawyer like problem those filling the paperwork are going to confront.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years ago

tnuC,

Thanks for posting this information about definitions of "mental illness" in Kansas.

In their fervor for a law that allows concealed-carry, those in favor overlooked the fact that this is the beginning of regulations on gun use and possibly ownership. These are some of the tightest regulations on gun use that I have ever read.

With Philllll Kline as gatekeeper, it will be interesting to see how this policy is implemented.

I imagine that there might be some constitutional issues about denying some a license, issues of equal protection and privacy.

We shall see.

0

jrlii 8 years ago

As I understand it, at least for Federal firearms law purposes, "Mentally Ill" means adjudicated mentally ill: IE a court has ruled that a person is a "danger to him/herself or others."

0

Silence_Dogood 8 years ago

I like the symbolism of the photograph.

0

justanothervoice 8 years ago

"This is a good Law and is for self protection. People on the street will never know if someone has a gun concealed or not. This is the the deterant to would be muggers & thiefs. They will not take the chance to carjack your car or take your purse if there is a chance it will put themselves in harms way. *Before the conceal law you were allowed to keep a weapon as long as it was not concealed, meaning, you could set it on your car seat, that didn't deter carjackings. Crime will be reduced, it has been proven in 48 other States. *Can you cite these findings, I was under the impression that it has not made a significant change? No one with a concealed carry permit will ever pull a gun on you unless you try to commit a crime on them first. * Wanna bet?If you are thinking of commiting a criminal act against someone from now on it may be benificial to your well being to think it over first." ***Typically, people who committ violent crimes, have no regard for others, or consequences.

0

tnuC 8 years ago

Here's another repost for you, mental health worker DaREEKKU. If ANYONE is prescribed the drugs below, it was for a mental reason. Hence, one can argue, per state law that they suffer from a mental illness. Even if they saw the dopey shrink one time and got the happy pill.....they were diagonosed with a mental illness in order to merit the prescription, right?

...and...and...and....let's not leave out all the nice ladies (men too!) who have been prescribed one of the Nation's currently trendy "happy pills" of Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, Luvox, and Celexa which are all the rage now, coming under the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) class of dope.

And of course we cannot leave out those mother's little helpers of yesteryear that are still oh so common...especially with the little ladies of the gun toting club: Valium, Xanax, Ativan, and all the other benzodiazepines.

And of course we cannot leave out Ambien, the new seconol.

I trust ALL the good people using these medications all understand that they've some sort of mental illness or else the "medicine" would not be being prescribed and, hence, they're mentally ill per the law (??!) and not eligible to obtain a permit. So it goes.

0

justanothervoice 8 years ago

"Many criminals are rational human beings, and when they realize there is a good chance that they could get shot committing a violent crime, they'll probably decide to do something else," he said.

*Ummmm, if someone is so unrational that they are willing to committ a violent crime, what makes people think they give a damn about "whos concealing a weapon." And what about the criminals who deal with people who carry guns illegally all the time anyway, you think they care? And what about people who have no regard for human life whatsoever? You think they care? I for one agree and disagree with this law. I think people have the right to protect themselves, however, there are people, in my opinion, that don't need a butterknife to butter their toast, let alone a 45 in their back pocket. It has been my own observation that a concealed weapon is a ticking time bomb for people who "feel" 10 foot tall and bullet proof simply because they have a handgun in their pants, "some" people do things they wouldn't normally do, or behave in a manner they wouldn't normally behave in, simply because they have a 45 in their pocket. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the scales are tipped, maybe I watch too much news, but, in my opinion, there are more "unstable" people than "stable". "Unstable" + concealed weapon = uh oh.

0

tnuC 8 years ago

DaREEKKU:

I guess you overlooked my three posts. Here is what the law of the State of Kansas proclaims:

(e) "Mentally ill person" means any person who is suffering from a mental disorder which is manifested by a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern and associated with either a painful symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning, and involving substantial behavioral, psychological or biological dysfunction, to the extent that the person is in need of treatment.

Hence, one could argue, ANYONE taking medication or has even visitied a "mental health person" is not eligible for the permit if they've seen the "person"....even if for one session....within the past FIVE years. ANYONE.

The state of Kansas KSA defines what a person with a mental illness and I've quoted it above. Watcha think now?

0

DaREEKKU 8 years ago

Confrontation- "All those who take any mental health meds (antidepressants, ritalin, etc.) should not be allowed to get weapons. This would eliminate at least half the population and all rich college brats."

As a "bleeding heart" liberal I was first opposed to the idea of weapons, but now find myself trying to be more open minded about the Constitutional Right to bear arms pending a proper background check, extensive training and education....however I do not find your ignorant comments towards people who are on "mental health meds" enlightening in any such manner. You obviously have never dealt with mentally ill people or anybody who's had any type of mental health problem. I'm not claiming to be a Psychiatrist, however working in Mental Health for three years gave me a better understanding of the different levels of mental illness. Not everybody who is on an antidepressant is a threat to people, nor are they necessarily on it because they are depressed or "mental." Granted, a lot of mentally ill people should not have guns....you really should think about what you are saying when you make a large generalization like that.....people who are mentally ill are not the plague!!!! I'll step off my soap box now, just thought I would put that out there.

0

Marion Lynn 8 years ago

An initeresting article which puts lie to the unfounded fears of the Left and their mythical "Dodge City" syndrome.

Thanks.

Marion.

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/nysun_9_24_04.cfm

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

"But, you better leave a good tip if you don't want a bullet put in the back of your head on the way out to your car." Confrontation, have you ever considered the possibility that everyone doesn't have the same anger issues that you seem to manifest?

0

rayikeo 8 years ago

This is a good Law and is for self protection. People on the street will never know if someone has a gun concealed or not. This is the the deterant to would be muggers & thiefs. They will not take the chance to carjack your car or take your purse if there is a chance it will put themselves in harms way. Crime will be reduced, it has been proven in 48 other States. No one with a concealed carry permit will ever pull a gun on you unless you try to commit a crime on them first. If you are thinking of commiting a criminal act against someone from now on it may be benificial to your well being to think it over first.

0

Confrontation 8 years ago

All those who take any mental health meds (antidepressants, ritalin, etc.) should not be allowed to get weapons. This would eliminate at least half the population and all rich college brats. Oh, and I believe this will lead to better restaurant service. The waitresses won't want to upset anyone with a gun. But, you better leave a good tip if you don't want a bullet put in the back of your head on the way out to your car.

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

"The only ones who will qualify will be right wing christian conservative anti-abortionists." No, this is a "shall-issue" law. Read it & see for yourself.

0

feeble 8 years ago

"I thought about the workplace also. I know that most workplaces have a policy prohibiting employees from carrying a weapon. However, doesn't state law trump workplace policy?"

go read the article again, particularly the last section titled "Where people with guns won't be allowed to go."

The passage in question, "The bill would not prevent public or private employers or businesses open to the public from prohibiting licensees from carrying concealed weapons while on the premises of the business or while engaging in duties of employment.

Businesses that are open to the public would have to post signs stating that carrying a concealed weapon on the premises is prohibited. Property owners would be authorized to restrict or prohibit concealed weapons by posting notices"

Voliation of that part constitutes a class B misdemeanor and the offender will most certainly lose their license to conceal carry.

0

craigers 8 years ago

I think this is great. Our reps finally stood up for something and over-rided the veto.

0

observer 8 years ago

Missed that, scariest thing ever. Kline responsible for issuing them. The only ones who will qualify will be right wing christian conservative anti-abortionists.

0

Agnostick 8 years ago

It's been reported that applications for a CCW permit will be handed in to local sheriffs' offices... but it's actually the state attorney general's office that will issue the permit, conduct the background checks, etc. Looks like Phillllllllll may not have as much time on his hands to stake out abortion clinics, or act as personal bodyguard to the theocrat extremists on the KBOE!

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

When the facts are against you, go straight to hysteria.

0

MacHeath 8 years ago

Why is it that the anti-gun crowd make the most condesending, and foolish remarks? I thought liberals were supposed to open-minded. You have seen the results in other states; conceled carry doesn't make it dangerous for citizens..or reduce crime to much of an extent, for that matter. One thing law-abiding citizens soon realize, is that carring a gun is a huge responsibility. If i decide to get a permit, I doubt that I will carry a gun every time I go to Dillons...although an enraged woman weilding a bunch of grapes can be quite frightening.

0

warcraft1975 8 years ago

i for one am glad it passed!lawrence isnt as safe as it used to be anyways you guys make comments all day on here surely you read the paper once in a while right?as soon as it becomes time i will be getting my permit

0

Norma Jeane Baker 8 years ago

I thought about the workplace also. I know that most workplaces have a policy prohibiting employees from carrying a weapon. However, doesn't state law trump workplace policy?

Me? I've actually carried a gun at work 4 times over the course of 7 years with one company. Because of the job I had at the time, on those 4 occasions I knew I was going to be put into a situation that might escalate to the point where I wanted to be armed, if only to equalize the playing field and give me a chance to come out alive. On two of those occasions I even told my boss that I was doing it. Since one of the people I interacted with is currently in prison for murder, I feel I took the appropriate safety measure.

0

Rick Aldrich 8 years ago

what a crock of ----. why???? who needs to carry a gun. little wanta be thugs! kinda like going back in time to mid 1800"s shootem up bang bang days. i pitty some fools who"ll think it's cool to pull a gun on someone, when that fool gets cracked in the head with his own piece. can't imagine the fear on bussiness owners. who's good and who's bad. anyway what a BIG FAT JOKE.

0

kawryan 8 years ago

I can't bring a gun to church!?!?!

0

Reality_Check 8 years ago

Most Kansans have never experienced violent street crime. They barely know what it is compared to other states. So why this big effort to allow us to protect ourselves?

As for the list of places you can't carry: there's an important one missing....the WORKPLACE!. I can't wait to work with a bunch of gun toters, one of whom may be having a bad day, or may even get fired and "snap." Happens all the time. This will make it easier...he won't have to go out to his car or home to get his gun, he'll just pull it and start shootin'.

The Old West Is Back. And it's freakin' sad!

0

derf 8 years ago

The legislation is inconsequential and irrelevant. It is an attempt by government to control social behavior which already exists after the fact. It effects social behavioral change in only a minor way. It is an attempt to regulate and monitor and control gun ownership. Opposition to it is naive, demonstrates ignorance and blind fear, which are common characteristics of most comtemporary Americans, and is just plain silly. I, for one, choose not to be subject to any additional governmental scrutiny, regulation, and control. It is already far in excess. I choose to opt-out.

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

"When Oklahoma passed a similar law in the 1990s, some people there feared a return to the Wild West era, said Lt. Michael Metcalf of the Stillwater Police Department.

"There was a bunch of this, 'We're going to have people going back to the John Wayne, OK Corral days,'" Metcalf said. "None of that has happened."" http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/mar...

0

geekin_topekan 8 years ago

Arm the Pizza Shuttle guys!!

0

one_more_bob 8 years ago

xeno, move to Illinois. You'll be 'safe' there.

0

xenophonschild 8 years ago

The wannabee tough guys get to carry guns now. Whoopee. You have no idea how pathetic you are, but, fortunately, most of you will never get a chance to find out.

0

tnuC 8 years ago

...and...and...and....let's not leave out all the nice ladies (men too!) who have been prescribed one of the Nation's currently trendy "happy pills" of Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, Luvox, and Celexa which are all the rage now, coming under the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) class of dope.

And of course we cannot leave out those mother's little helpers of yesteryear that are still oh so common...especially with the little ladies of the gun toting club: Valium, Xanax, Ativan, and all the other benzodiazepines.

And of course we cannot leave out Ambien, the new seconol.

I trust ALL the good people using these medications all understand that they've some sort of mental illness or else the "medicine" would not be being prescribed and, hence, they're mentally ill per the law (??!) and not eligible to obtain a permit. So it goes.

0

tnuC 8 years ago

...further.....that includes those people who smoke tobacco as per the DSM-IVR:

Nicotine addiction is classified as a nicotine use disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV TR, 2000). The criteria for the diagnosis of 305.1 - Nicotine Dependence - include any 3 of the following within a 1-year time span: o Tolerance to nicotine with decreased effect and increasing dose to obtain same effect o Withdrawal symptoms after cessation o Smoking more than usual o Persistent desire to smoke despite efforts to decrease intake o Extensive time spent smoking or purchasing tobacco o Postponing work, social, or recreational events in order to smoke o Continuing to smoke despite health hazards

  1. Nearly all daily nicotine users are nicotine dependent (See Module A, Annotation E, for the DSM-IV dependence criteria [305.1]).

Doesn't Marion smoke tobacco? Mentally ill per the books; in need of treatment; and as such, no permit allowed! Good one!

0

tnuC 8 years ago

hmmmm....lots of words in that bill.

Does it mean that those people who see a counselor/psychologist/social worker/doctor/psychiatrist/et. all for personal problems; who go to marriage and family counseling; who contemplate their navel with their fancy private therapist person are "mentally ill" per the bill because they've all got to have a DSM-IVR "diagnosis" if they're using insurance and even if they're not, paying 100% out of the pocket they've got diagnosis of some sort....? These people are "mentally ill" under the K.S.A. cited in the bill?

I quote from the K.S.A. in question:

(e) "Mentally ill person" means any person who is suffering from a mental disorder which is manifested by a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern and associated with either a painful symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning, and involving substantial behavioral, psychological or biological dysfunction, to the extent that the person is in need of treatment.

0

truthlawrence 8 years ago

barbie,tommy and pauly its ok you can go hide in your corner now

0

truthlawrence 8 years ago

allready got the shoulder holster out and ready to go to free state

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.