Topeka — Lawrence officials say they are worried about a bill that would prohibit cities from putting in their own restrictions on people's ability to carry concealed guns.
Scott Miller, a staff attorney for the city of Lawrence, said House Bill 2528 "would limit our City Commission from crafting local solutions to local problems."
But sponsors of the bill said Wednesday it has been amended to allow cities to adopt ordinances regulating the carrying of firearms.
"Cities will still be able to regulate individuals who are not licensed" to carry a concealed weapon, said Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville. "The bill has gone through a lot of adjustments."
Journey was the main sponsor of legislation enacted last year that allows Kansans to obtain permits for concealed guns.
Miller said Lawrence's concern dealt with its ordinance prohibiting guns within 200 feet of drinking establishments. The ordinance already exempts those with a concealed carry permit.
But Miller said the new bill would restrict cities' ability to transport or possess firearms.
Rep. Candy Ruff, D-Leavenworth, said the measure restricts cities only when it comes to concealed carry. "That's not going to prevent them (cities) from passing ordinances when it comes to open carry," she said.
The bill has been approved by a House committee and is expected to soon be considered by the full House.
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.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Sorry, Lawrence. State Laws allowing citizens to conceal carry trumps your ordinance. But feel free to to enact additional penalties for those who, without a permit, conceal carry or openly carry firearms. I don't get it, why is this even a concern?
Oh, now I get it "But Miller said the new bill would restrict cities' ability to transport or possess firearms." Miller is apparently worried that the City can't conceal carry! WTF?
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
Kansas is an open carry, shall issue concealed carry State.
Local municipalities are free to regulate open carry, up to the point allowed by Kansas Senate Bill 195.
Senate Bill 195 which went into effect on July 1, 2005 does not allow local municipalities to enact more stringent firearms transport regulations than the State of Kansas regulations. It does allow municipalities to allow less restrictive requirements. The most stringent transportation regulation allowed is an unloaded firearm in an enclosed container (zip lock baggie). Unloaded means loose amunition. SB195 also includes provisions for confiscation of firearms in possession of delinquent taxpayers.
House Bill 2528 would not allow local municipalities to place more restrictions than the state on where legal concealled carry firearms are not allowed.
The proposed city ordinance deals with illegal concealed carry, exempts legal concealed carry, and would not have any effect on a firearm transported in accordance to the regulations set forth in SB195.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Lawrence seems to be a regulation-crazy city and Miller's comment on HB 2528 is quite telling, "...would limit our City Commission from crafting local solutions to local problems". I know of no firearms' problems that are endemic to Lawrence, yet Commissioners continue to quickly enact Lawrence-specific rules in response to local crimes as if they are trying to regulate crime outside the city. Legal carriers of concealed weapons are NOT the problem. Don't worry about them. The States' blanket bill is a great idea for law-abiding carriers. Concentrate on illegal carriers. That seems to be the focus of HB 2528. Hooray Topeka!
cg22165 (anonymous) says…
I'm not against guns in general, but I can see where there would be times and places where having guns around, concealed or not, would carry few benefits and potentially large problems. I'd prefer to see local officials have some say in the matter. For instance, the Wakarusa Festival, there is no good reason to bring a gun to that, concealed or not, and having guns there could turn a minor distrubance into a big problem. Not sure if that is a perfect example because there already may be superceding rules regarding the park, but you get the idea. Sure, you couldn't stop all people from bringing them any more than you can stop all traffic of illegal drugs, but having the ability to make it illegal would cut down on the danger of normallly smart people doing dumb things after a few drinks.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
cg22165,
Not the perfect example...
1.) State Park regulations (excluding hunting areas) currently do not allow concealed carry.
2.) The Wakarusa Music Festival would be deemed a habitual "common nuisance" area making concealed carry a violation of concealed carry regulations.
3.) CUI (Carrying Under the Influence) is a violation of concealed carry regulations.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
cg22165 - If Kansas legal carriers suddenly begin doing REALLY stupid things with firearms, then we will have the distinction of being the first rogue state in ALL the history of ALL the states that permit concealed carry. If Kansans prove too irresponsible to legally carry, then maybe we should have our Statehood revoked too...you know, confine Statehood to the states with smart citizens....
roger_o_thornhill (anonymous) says…
You've always been allowed to do things "wild west" style, right? I mean with your six-shooter on your hip kind of thing. Didn't crazy ol' bill burroughs do that when he was around?
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
roger,
Dodge City was the first municipality to ban open carry, though just on the north side of the deadline (railroad tracks). The south side where "anything went" was wide open. This was in the 1870's. At that time Dodge City had 19 bars serving drinks to 1200 people.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Roger 0 T......and I believe crazy W.B. shot his wife while they were in Mexico, not around here.
compmd (anonymous) says…
numerous municipalities in illinois have banned handgun ownership, even if the owner is registered. couple years ago someone broke into a guy's house for the second time in two days, homeowner pulled his gun out when he saw the robber had a knife and shot him. homeowner was cited for the ordinance violation and his guns (turns out he had a couple, including some he didn't have licenses for) were all confiscated and sent to the smelter.
just something to think about.
fletch (anonymous) says…
Good old conservatives once again stomping all over home rule.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Why does someone ALWAYS bring up the conserv. vs lib. question? I don't think either group wants to be the victim of a crime. Remember, the police are there to clean up afterward, not prevent crimes. If you are unenlightened enough to believe that crimes don't happen to nice, innocent people minding their own business on the street, or even at home, watch the morning news for a few minutes. Pick any morning. Your personal defense is just that, up to you. If you don't care, so be it, others do.
kmat (anonymous) says…
There should be restrictions on concealed carry laws when dealing with bars. I don't care how a person acts when sober, but we all know those that drink and turn into complete idiots. Now lets allow those idiots to be armed in bars while getting tanked. Real smart idea. I've seen nice looking businessmen get tanked and start fighting.
With all the trouble with weapons around Last Call, why the hell would anyone want concealed weapons allowed near a bar? Not everyone they have busted down there with a weapon had a rap sheet, therefore they could apply and get a concealed carry permit. Only those with criminal records can't legally carry, but all criminals start out with a clean record.
To point out just how absurd the conceal carry laws are - banks have to now put up signs that guns are not permitted inside, or else it is legal to bring them into a bank. Considering the fact that my husband was held up at gun point years back while working as a teller at a local bank, I can tell you that banks are not happy with this stupid law.
The only solution when it comes to guns is to only allow shotguns to be legal. Not easy to hide (so everyone knows who's packing heat) and you shouldn't need anything more than a shot gun for hunting or "protecting" your home.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
" Now lets allow those idiots to be armed in bars while getting tanked."
kmat, you should read the law. Kansas doesn't allow legal concealed carry in bars.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
kmat, you wrote "To point out just how absurd the conceal carry laws are - banks have to now put up signs that guns are not permitted inside, or else it is legal to bring them into a bank. Considering the fact that my husband was held up at gun point years back while working as a teller at a local bank, I can tell you that banks are not happy with this stupid law."
I gotta tell ya, this kind of logic makes me feel like I'm in a circular loop in an Excel spreadsheet. Do you honestly believe that banks have to fear a carrier of a legally concealed handgun? And furthermore, do you honestly believe that crimnals will pay attention to these signs, other than to be reassured that they are the only ones with a handgun in the bank?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Never let reality get in the way of a good hissy-fit.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Kansans with legally concealed carry permits are an identifiable group. So, let's put them over here in the corner folks and let's not worry about them.
Let's worry about the illegal carriers, the felons, burglars, violent punks, rapists, sex offenders, home invaders, vandals, gang bangers and generally bad people.
We have such a smorgasboard of criminals with whom we can be concerned, yet we concentrate on those who choose to legally obtain a concealed carry permit. I just don't get it.
cg22165 (anonymous) says…
Well, I think kneejerkreaction is earning his name; I never claimed Kansans would go wild or were inherently not smart. Plus, I don't think that the local officials being concerned about the nature of the law is an attempt to specifically target those who have CCLs.
I don't think the concern is over concealed carry in general; it seems to be in the realm of state rights/authority versus local rights. Someone who knows law please clarify, but the pattern than seems to apply elsewhere is that freedoms and rights seem to forbid local restrictions - local laws are not allowed to restrict voting rights and that kind of thing. And, rules regarding the safety of the population tend to be more restrictive at the local level - cities and towns can reduce the speed limit on a highway which passes through them. So, I guess whether you consider this a more of a freedom or a safety issue determines which side you take.
I was thinking of all the times I or someone else looked back and said, "I wish I hadn't done that.", in particular after having a few drinks. When I was young I had a good friend who was generally smart, but one time we were at a party and he got ticked off about some guy and a girl and started flashing his .44. It was a bit tricky to get him to cool off and put it away. If the law had allowed, very likely he would have gotten a license to carry it concealed, and under most circumstances, that would have been fine. I think allowing CC in places where trouble often happens increases the chances that something like the above or worse will happen. Local officials tend to know where and when those are than state officials. How many people go to a bar planning to drive home drunk versus those that find that they've had a couple too many when it's time to go?
While those that get a license to carry are most likely a knotch above the average Joe in terms of being responsible and safety minded, I wouldn't put them in a separate category just because they filled out some paperwork or took a course. With the Kansas law in a position to make it easier for the general population to get a CC license, it lessons the distinction between those with a CC license and the general population and so it makes sense for local officials to be concerned about loosening the measures of safety that are currently in place.
However, Reticent provided some good info. I think points 2) and 3) cover the areas I had concerns about. All our council needs to do is label the local bars as habitual nuisance areas.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
cg22165,
"When I was young I had a good friend who was generally smart, but one time we were at a party and he got ticked off about some guy and a girl and started flashing his .44."
Your good friend was guilty of assault and making an aggravated criminal threat.
He should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.
yellowhouse (anonymous) says…
+
+
+
GUN law or just making corruption easier to for government officials out of control?
http://www.forums.larryville.com/view...
+
+
+
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Got an axe to grind there, yellowhouse?
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
cg22165,
Your gun waving friend should have been prosecuted and he would not have been a candidate for concealed carry or a lot of other rights that non-felons enjoy.
Individuals convicted of DUI are also not candidates. Plus, a CCL can always be revoked for various infractions.
A CCL doesn't make a person a saint. It also doesn't make them a public nuisance. A person with a CCW is not a person to be feared or unnecessarily regulated ipso facto. But you're right about one thing, I need to change my screen name.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
cg22165,
Your gun waving friend should have been prosecuted even if he would have had a CCH permit at the time.
"A CCH license doesn't make a person a saint.
A person with a CCH is not a person to be feared or unnecessarily regulated" - kneejerkreaction
Both of kneejerkreaction's statements are true.
A CCH permit holder would never brandish or wave their CCH firearm.
A CCH permit holder knows that doing that would subject them to prosecution for assault, battery, criminal threat, kidnapping and other issues, not to mention civil liabilites.
A firearm is a last means effort of protecting you or your family's life/lives. You would have made all possible efforts to disengage yourself from the situation, before using your CCH firearm in personal/family protection.
If a CCH does use their firearm to protect their person and or family, they still will be subject to a criminal investigation, and regardless of that outcome, would still be subject to civil lawsuits.
A decision to carry a CCH firearm is not to be taken lightly, and I do not think that any CCH permit holder would or has made this decision lightly.
jafs (anonymous) says…
I hope you're right, RI, but I fear that all CCH permit holders may not be as calm and thoughtful as your post suggests.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
jafs, you wrote "I hope you're right, RI, but I fear that all CCH permit holders may not be as calm and thoughtful as your post suggests."
All things put on a scale, a CCH has more of a chance to be calm & thoughtful than a person who cannot legally carry, i.e. cannot pass the required background check. A CCH has a lifetime record of obeying the law. The chances of a wigout are slim once someone obtains their permit.
James_Macklin (anonymous) says…
It seems that many of the people who are against "concealed weapons" have never actually read the law.
Legal concealed carry is not allowed in bars, except for police and detectives. The Personal and Family Protection Act does not allow carrying weapons in bars or any place that makes more than 50% of its revenue from alcohol sales consumed on the premises.
Every place that is "off limits" should have a sign that says
"honest citizens, trained and qualified are not welcome here! We hope armed robbers and murderers won't consider us to be a source of unarmed victims."
The point of citizens getting fingerprinted, photograohed, trained and licensed is to reduce crime by making every person a more difficult traget of criminals. The more places that weapons for lawful self-defense are not allowed, the more places where you really are less safe.
You can find the laws or links to them on this web site...
www.geocities.com/ks2ndamendmentsociety
The sky is not falling, just some preconcieved notions.
elevenbravo (anonymous) says…
The law states 30% or more food is considered a resturant, 50% food or more for a private club.
Any less and the establishment is a bar.
This is based on the liquor laws for taxation.