Topeka — The Kansas Senate on Friday overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' veto of a bill preventing local governments from imposing additional restrictions on the law that allows licensed Kansans to carrying concealed guns.
The 30-10 vote was three more than the two-thirds majority required. On Thursday, the House voted 98-26 to override, which was 14 more than the required two-thirds majority.
It was the second time in two years a veto by the Democratic governor has been overridden by the Republican-controlled Legislature, each time over legislation dealing with concealed guns.
Last year, the Legislature overturned her veto of the bill allowing law-abiding Kansans who meet state requirements to get a four-year permit to carry a concealed gun. Since January, the attorney general's office has issued some 6,500 permits.
The new bill also would require information - including date of birth, gender and race - be "immediately forwarded" to the FBI when a court finds a person be a danger to themselves or others. It also would prohibit the issuing of permits to those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
When she vetoed the bill April 13, Sebelius said cited the same safety concerns as Lawrence officials had discussed.
For example, Sebelius said, "concealed weapons currently may be banned at professional and school sporting events. However, this bill would prevent communities from banning them at similar such events at city or county sports fields.
"If it is in the interest of public safety to not have weapons at school-sponsored sporting events, it makes little sense to then prohibit local officials from banning guns at other sporting events, as this bill would propose."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Told Ya!
EXks (anonymous) says…
Of course, they have their reputation to uphold.
prioress (anonymous) says…
I feel much safer already.
Colt45 (anonymous) says…
The legislators of Kansas have done the right thing, the new law has closed loopholes left in the KPFPA that was passed last year and provided more tools for law enforcement.
grimpeur (anonymous) says…
OK, then let's carry in the statehouse. I mean, is it a good idea or not? There's nothing to worry about, right? If it makes our playgrounds and ballfields safer for law-abiding citizens, then it must make our statehouse offices and chambers safer, too, right?
Remember, if you're not breaking the law, and you feel that someone is threatening you with deadly force (a knife, a car, a criminal threat or assault), then you can open fire (meet force with force) without fear of prosecution.
Why are we denying our representatives this important protection?
craigers (anonymous) says…
Do courthouses and other state buildings have security with armed guards? That could be a difference.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
This is a great victory for supporters of the 2nd Amendment and for those who believe in the civil right of self defense.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
KSA 21-3211 as amended by SB 366 addresses the issue of when deadly force is justified. Sebelius signed that bill into law last May, IIRC.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
As grimpeur noted, why are the state house and other government buildings off limits for firearms, CC or not?
Oddly, bars and churches are included as well.
I guess all of these could be considered places where people are not in their right minds and not thinking clearly (or at all).
sinedie (anonymous) says…
This was framed as a question of legality and jurisdiction rather than a debate on guns. That is somewhat evidenced by the fact that the bill originally passed the Senate 29-11, and the veto was overridden by a wider margin, 30-10.
Best,
http://cansus.blogspot.com
RonaldWilson (anonymous) says…
Unfortunately the ban on CCH on college campuses still exists. Did we learn nothing from the VT ambush?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Looks as if a Utah University now do allow CC on the University grounds. Statement "The Government Cannot protect you 24/7, that is your responsibility."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/a...
DaREEKKU (anonymous) says…
What a bunch of garbage. I can't believe any of you would advocate taking guns around small children at sporting events, or on campuses, or anywhere in fact! More guns don't make us safer, they just make more opportunities for rash spur of the moment mistakes to be made by more people. Sale on aisle five......break out the Nine Betty!
Lynn731 (anonymous) says…
Had a trained law abiding citizen been armed at VT, Columbine, Kilgore, etc. the death toll could have been much less. This in addition to school police or resource officers. That is the reasoning behind concealed carry for law abiding citizens, retired, & active law enforcement officers. I happen to believe in it. I have carried a firearm since I turned 21, I am 60 now. I have never shot anyone. In the course of my job I had to unholster it a few times, but I never shot it except on the range. Research has shown that states with concealed carry have less violent crime. Personally, I would make changes in the concealed carry law. I would require 16 hours of training, yearly range qualification, and make the list of where concealed firearms cannot be carried, much shorter. As an answer to a previous question. The Shawnee County Courthouse has about 8-10 deputies assigned to courthouse security. They man metal detectors at both entrances, as well as x-ray machines. I know the federal courthouse in Topeka has a similar security force of retired law enforcement officers sworn as deputy u.s. marshals. The Supreme Court building in Topeka is similarly protected by retired law officers. I am sure other public buildings are protected by some type of security. Thank you, Lynn
RABdad (Richard Boyd) says…
I remembered another incident at a Virginia college, I remember, "well this won't get any play" (the suspect only shot two, wounded three more and a firearm was used in apprehending him without the suspect being killed).
This incident happened at the Appalachian School of Law (ASL) is a fully-accredited private law school on a four building campus in Grundy, Virginia, a small town near the convergence of Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia.
"Police said Peter Odighizuwa, 42, stormed into Sutin's office at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., Wednesday and shot him once with a .380-caliber pistol. He then shot and killed another professor and a student and wounded three others before being restrained by students, according to police. Odighizuwa faces three counts of capital murder and related weapons charges."
The part they did not play up was that the student who restrained this shooter was an off duty police officer, Tracy Bridges, who had a firearm immediately accessible in his car. I wonder if there were "no firearm" signs posted? Ironic isn't it. There is no record whether Officer Bridges was disciplined for this or any policy breach.
The account of the shooting speaks for itself:
Mr. bridges: "i went back to the classroom and told the students to get out, that there was a shooter in the building. We herded them out thethe back stairwell. At that time, me [sic] and Ted Besen went down the back stairwell, and my vehicle was parked in a parking spot between the shooter and the back stairwell. We seen the shooter, started to approach him, stopped at my vehicle, and got out my handgun, and started to approach Peter [shooter]. At that time, Peter throwed [sic] up his hands and throwed [sic] his weapon down. Ted [untrained student] was first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face. So there was a little bit of a struggle there. After that, Ted pushed him back, me, Ted and another student, Todd Ross, took Peter to the ground and subdued him until we had some handcuffs to put him in."
Also interesting that Katie Couric tried to put the best (anti-gun) spin on this as possible, indicating that it was the "police training" that made the difference. In spite of the fact that officer Bridges caused the surrender of the suspect by the mere brandishing of his service weapon! Anyone with weapons training, especially orientation in the use of deadly force, as what is required for the concealed weapons permit, could have affected this arrest
couric: i should mention, Tracy, that you are a police officer, a trained police officer. You were one inin North Carolina. And another student, I understand, who was able to help, Michael Gross, he handed you a pair of handcuffs so you could handcuff the suspect. Must have been incredibly fortuitous that you all had police training and a police background that you were able toto act in such aa quick and appropriate way.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
asbestos (Anonymous) says:
Looks as if a Utah University now do allow CC on the University grounds. Statement "The Government Cannot protect you 24/7, that is your responsibility."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/a...
******************************************************************************************
Hhhhhmmmmm. Gee, that's funny. When I read the article, I read this:
-------------------------------------------------
As states and colleges across the country review their gun policies in light of the tragedy, many in Utah are proud to have the nation's only state law that expressly allows the carrying of concealed weapons at public colleges.
"If government can't protect you, you should have the right to protect yourself," said Republican state Sen. Michael Waddoups.
-------------------------------------------------
Maybe you weren't expecting me (or anyone else) to actually read the article...???
Don't know about you, asbestos, but I think Sen. Waddoups' words carry enough weight on their own, *without* your (well-intended?)...................................................... "embellishments."
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
http://uptotheminute.mytimesdispatch....
RonaldWilson (anonymous) says…
Agnostick,
Help me out, are you argueing with asbestos or agreeing with him/her? You lost me, brother.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
I did not post anything about Sen. Waddoups. Have no clue, but Agno, probably looked to the TOP of post and not the bottom (poster). A mistake I make time to time.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Would've answered yesterday, but really felt I needed to "sleep on it." So, let's go back to the beginning...
27 April 2007 at 8:23 p.m.
asbestos (Anonymous) says:
Looks as if a Utah University now do allow CC on the University grounds. Statement "The Government Cannot protect you 24/7, that is your responsibility."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/ap_o...
***************
28 April 2007 at 6:18 p.m.
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says:
Agnostick,
Help me out, are you argueing with asbestos or agreeing with him/her? You lost me, brother.
***************
28 April 2007 at 6:30 p.m.
asbestos (Anonymous) says:
I did not post anything about Sen. Waddoups. Have no clue, but Agno, probably looked to the TOP of post and not the bottom (poster). A mistake I make time to time.
_____________________________________________________________________________
asbestos' post on Friday night has a quote. The quote (I refer to it as such because it is in quotation marks) is preceded by the word "Statement"... and then the quote is followed by a link to a news article. Within the news article is a quote (again, it's in quotation marks, placed there by the reporter who wrote the article) from Sen. Waddoups. Sen. Waddoups is quoted as saying:
"If government can't protect you, you should have the right to protect yourself," said Republican state Sen. Michael Waddoups.
That's what the article says. asbestos then says, utilizing quotation marks:
"The Government Cannot protect you 24/7, that is your responsibility."
So, whose words are those in quotation marks? Am I the only one here who thinks that looks funny?
That's what I was driving at... at 3:42pm Saturday April 28.
As to the issue itself, I have to agree with another regular poster here, jonas, who in another thread suggested that in the immediate wake of a tragedy like the Virginia Tech shooting, people often let emotions rule the day, rather than waiting a while to calm down, cool off, and look at the situation logically & rationally. however... the VT shooting is immaterial to this case, really. The bill was originally passed a number of days before Sebelius vetoed it on April 13; the VT shooting occurred three days *after* the veto, on April 16.
[more]
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
There was a time when I was very, very "anti-gun." I never walked the streets in protest or engaged in any other sort of activism, but I had the tendency to blame the gun, rather than the shooter (Columbine? I blame the parents!). I've now, after careful thought and consideration of things, come to realize that there are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who can carry concealed weapons for self-defense, and we'll never have any trouble from them. Me? I've never owned a gun of any kind, I don't hunt, I don't target shoot, I don't even own a Red Rider BB Gun. If I tried to bring one into the house, where my two-year-old daughter plays and sleeps, I'd probably lose my family. But other people choose to do this, they successfully invest the time and effort to teach their children to respect their guns... so be it.
This is not an easy issue. On the one hand, you have Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding, mentally-sound citizens to carry guns; on the other hand, you have local community standards. There are merits on both sides.
Finally, I still believe that the Second Amendment is in serious need of a "rewrite," as proposed here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constto...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
The people have spoken through their representatives, Marion. What with most of these "people" living in some of the same local communities that have now been "overridden" by this legislation... well, it'll be instructive to see how this impacts the '08 elections.
--Ag
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I hate guns and I think the gun manufacturers who control the gun lobby are doing terrible things to our country in the name of the Constitution. That said, however, the override of the veto tells me that our system of government is working. If the citizens who voted into office those who overrode the veto don't get up in arms over this (no pun intended), then it appears the legislators are, indeed, acting upon the will of the people. Being a liberal who is opposed to the proliferation of guns in this country (and the deaths that are caused by people using them) I clearly don't like the results of this veto, but I do support the system that allows it.
Now, why aren't all gun owners required to take a course on gun safety, like their concealed weapon brethren?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
beatrice, I might be mistaken, but isn't some sort of "safety certification" required when you get a hunting license for the first time...???
I mean, I know that's not the case in Texas, and/or if you're the VP... ;)
--Ag
RonaldWilson (anonymous) says…
Agno,
Thanks for the clarification.
Peace