Advertisement

Archive for Friday, July 23, 2010

Concerns mount over new gun law

File photo of gun, bullets and Kansas concealed carry permit.

File photo of gun, bullets and Kansas concealed carry permit.

July 23, 2010

Advertisement

Drunken driving.

Reader poll
Should those with a license to carry a concealed weapon be allowed to posses the gun if they have been drinking alcohol?

or See the results without voting

Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Attempted suicide.

Prior to July 1, all those situations were red flags for the Kansas Attorney General’s office when deciding whether to issue a permit for someone to carry a concealed handgun.

But now a new law, passed this spring by the state Legislature, largely has made those issues nonfactors. It also has left some state legislators concerned about where Kansas’ four-year-old concealed carry law is headed.

“What I’m seeing now is a slow erosion on a yearly basis of a lot of these exceptions that were originally written into the law for a good reason,” said Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence. “At the rate we’re going, we may have very few exceptions in the law. We may reach the point where we don’t have any.”

Some concealed carry advocates said that is the direction they would like to move because they believe many concealed carry laws unnecessarily restrict people who can legally own firearms.

“If you want to get down to the philosophical discussion about carrying guns, yeah, no one should even need a permit to do that,” said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, which lobbied for the changes. “That’s certainly the direction we want to go, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon in Kansas. But there are states that don’t require a permit to carry a gun.”

Lawmakers concerned with new gun laws

Kansas lawmakers are voicing concerns about new laws that change the requirements necessary for getting a concealed carry permit. The new rules went into effect July 1. Enlarge video

The changes

The latest changes — which were approved 103-15 in the House and 37-2 in the Senate and went into effect July 1 — open up who can receive a permit under the state law. The changes eliminated several categories under which the Attorney General could rule someone ineligible to receive a permit. They included:

• Individuals with two misdemeanor DUI convictions in the five years prior to applying for the permit.

• Individuals with misdemeanor drug convictions in the five years prior to the permit applications.

• People who have been convicted of carrying under the influence in another state within the last five years.

• People who have been declared in contempt of court for child support proceedings.

• Individuals who have attempted suicide in the five years prior to applying for a permit.

In addition, the law removed one step for a convicted felon to apply for a concealed carry permit. Most felons fall under state and federal laws that restrict them from owning firearms, sometimes for life. But depending on the crime, those restrictions can be lifted after five or 10 years. The previous law required felons whose restrictions had expired to go through a court process to have their conviction expunged before applying for a permit. That step is no longer necessary.

Stoneking said opening up who can apply for a permit made sense. She said there already are state and federal laws that address whether people can buy a gun based on their criminal history or mental health history. She said the concealed carry requirements should be no stricter than those.

But Davis said he believes there’s a difference between allowing someone to own a gun and allowing them to conceal it on their person and take it into public places.

“Everybody deserves a second chance, but I have a real concern about allowing people who already have demonstrated an inability to follow the law to possess a concealed carry license,” said Davis, who also is the House Minority Leader.

No to testing

The law also has created a new provision that has left some law enforcement leaders saying it will be more difficult to prosecute concealed carry permit holders who are carrying under the influence of alcohol.

Under the previous law, concealed carry permit holders were required to submit to testing if a law enforcement officer had reason to believe they were carrying a gun under the influence of alcohol. If the permit holder refused, they automatically lost their license for three years.

Now, permit holders have no obligation to take the test — unless they’ve actually shot someone. The Kansas Association of Police Chiefs came out against the changes.

“It is going to be tougher to make a case stick in court because I can’t imagine most people consenting to a test when there is no sanction for not doing so,” said Ed Klumpp, former Topeka Police Chief and current legislative liaison for the police chiefs association. “I think it just adds a lot more loopholes.”

Among the loopholes, Klumpp said, is new language stating permit holders have violated the law only when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol “to such a degree as to render such licensee incapable of safely operating a handgun.” Klumpp said that likely will be difficult to prove in court, especially if no breath test is given.

Stoneking, though, said the old law gave law enforcement too much leeway in determining when to question whether a person was carrying under the influence. Plus Stoneking — who owns a firearms training business — said there may be some situations where a person who has had some alcohol should be entitled to carry a gun.

“Why should I lose my right to defend myself from the big burly guy who grabs me in the parking lot because I’ve had two glasses of wine with my dinner?” Stoneking asked, although she said guns and alcohol generally are a bad combination.

In addition to the Kansas Rifle Association, the National Rifle Association also testified in favor of the changes during the legislative session. A spokeswoman with the NRA on Thursday wasn’t able to immediately answer questions about the NRA’s support for the changes.

It also was unclear just how much the Kansas Attorney General’s office supported the changes. The minutes for a hearing on a previously enrolled version of the bill stated the attorney general’s office supported the “underlying concept” of the new law.

C.W. Klebe, an assistant attorney general who oversees concealed carry laws, said the office did share some of the same thoughts as the Kansas Rifle Association.

“It is I guess the balancing of a potentially intoxicated person with a gun versus the state taking away their ability to protect themselves if they are put in a position where they might need that gun,” Klebe said.

An attempt to receive further comment from the office of Attorney General Steve Six, D-Lawrence, wasn’t successful on Thursday.

Comments

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 months ago

The real issue relates to trust.

There has been a tendency for the American people to get screwed when they allow politiicians to determine the limits to our freedoms.

So when a group that wants to give government that power refers to my gun as a penis, the trust is gone out the window.

0

Armored_One 3 years, 8 months ago

And everyone has missed the key point in all of this.

Last I knew, for a C&C permit, you have to register your firearm.

0

MolonLabe 3 years, 8 months ago

Should any of you deign to take a little trip next door to the Show Me state, you'll find that most of their laws have been like this for years. Ignoring for a moment certain parts of KCMO (which could well be in any city in the US), have any of you run into a bunch of drunken felons running around with concealed weapons?

Hmmmmm?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

It appears that Mr. Personality got disappeareded. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

0

retardicanfodder 3 years, 8 months ago

Snap Crackhead Pop, you come off looking like the jackalope you appear to be.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

Machi, why don't you think first and then post all your edicts at one time? Saves more little "1"s and "0"s and you come off looking less obsessed.

0

Machiavelli_mania 3 years, 8 months ago

Allow people to kill themselves. Drug manufactures kill people all the time. Why can't people do it for themselves?

Guns don't stop drunk driving. Heavily taxing alcohol, especially that served at bars, will certainly slow it.

0

Machiavelli_mania 3 years, 8 months ago

The answer is to outlaw alcohol. ... or to make it so expensive that it is hard, hard, hard to buy. Tax the living daylights out of alcohol.

0

Machiavelli_mania 3 years, 8 months ago

Open that law up. Keep it wide. Allow guns in court rooms, and Congressional floors.

Let's allow the people, those elected too, to separate the Wheat from the Chaff, since the law isn't doing it.

Come on, now, surely you know about all the recent declines in the numbers of police on the job throughout this country. They are getting laid off.

Let's thank Bush for all those declining numbers, shall we? We are living Bush's economy.

0

kernal 3 years, 9 months ago

So, are tasers still illegal for the general populace?

0

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

DIST, the problem with responsible drinking is that few people actually know their limits. I'll bet (and this is all just an assumption with zero proof) that a large percentage of people who get a DUI probably thought they were sober enough to drive and not actually over the limit. That is the problem with drinking, it impaires one's judgment.

H9 - right back at ya on the civil discourse. Always appreciated and reciprocated. I have a feeling we have more in common on this issue than you realize. I too believe strongly in training for gun owners (I'd make it mandatory if I could) and in stiff laws against those who use guns in committing crimes (mandatory multi-years in prison if using a gun while committing a crime, and at least 10 years mandatory if firing a gun while committing a crime). I think gun laws should be uniform across all states, without the band-aid type laws that vary depending on where you live. Many of these laws have proven not to work and this is why I actually feel the past couple of major decisions by the Supreme Court have been the correct decisions. Basically, what I would like to see if it was my call is make everyone who owns go through the type of training now required of CC permit holders, then all legal gun owners can carry when and where they desire -- the movies, to work, to see their elected officials. Just not when they are drinking.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 9 months ago

FYI - Saturday mornings 9:30 on Spike - "Conceal and Carry School" . Very informative whatever side of the issue you take.

0

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

Hardnok9, it is funny how different people react to things. I was actually surprised the number was as high as it was. No kidding. I just had never heard any of the CC folks getting in trouble, which is why I have always (well, mostly always -- I am a liberal after all) supported CC laws.

Regarding how loose the law should be, if the right shall not be infringed you don't mind if I care my anti-aircraft gun into Wal-Mart with me, do you? Sorry for the gross exaggeration, but just as you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless it is on fire), there are limits on other rights as well. Drunken Carry just might be one of those lines we don't want to cross.

Of course, if the laws become too liberal and anyone can carry at any time with few infringments and no need of CC permits or training, the number of deaths and injuries will natural go way up. Once people start getting killed, the pendulum will swing back the other way. It is just human nature.

0

HaRDNoK9 3 years, 9 months ago

182 killings in three years? Put that in contrast with 9000 deaths EVERY YEAR in America from drownings. According to your data, you are many hundreds of times more likely to drown in your swimming pool than you are to die by the hand of a gun owner with a concealed carry license. Here's the link: http://www.blurtit.com/q435503.html

The number is astonishingly high. I like the statistics from the CDC better: "In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents." Here's the link: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

Whichever set of data that you pull from, I don't see anyone so eager to tighten regulation on boating or swimming. Or look at some statistics for a more current local event: Cycling. 784 cyclists died in 2005 Here's the link: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html Nobody pushing for stiffer regs there, either. Just public outcry for us all to get along.

Statistically speaking, I think that Concealed Carry holders are a pretty responsible demographic. Our time would be better served by not vilifying responsible gun owners. Go wave a flag for responsible recreational transportation instead. The gun argument is well played out and all but the ignorant are tired by it.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

Speaking of the state of MA, how's about that John Kerry moving his yacht to RI to escape paying taxes in his home state. What a champ he is!

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

Why is it always a Democrat that speaks out for more gun control?

I would like to see a Democrat show that they don't necessarily follow the same agenda that an inner city (Chicago or New York) politician might be following.

But that is not to be because these guys make promises and they toe the line. They have taken a loyalty pledge to run on one of two tickets, either Republican or Democrat. They represent the party line, not the American people.

On the other hand, why do so many people on these blogs tend to sharply follow the party line. That by itself ought to be cause of alarm and a prime reason for the poltical log jam we always see.

Folks, there are more than two sides to every issue and they don't neatly fall into Republican or Democrat. Think about it.

0

BlackVelvet 3 years, 9 months ago

I do not think anyone should carry a weapon, concealed or othwerwise, if they have been drinking as their judgment is possibly impaired regardless of the quantity of alcohol consumed. However, why is it that anytime any article about concealed carry is published here, all the anti-gun/anti-ccw folks come out of the woodwork. Those who spoke out against CCW while under the influence, I have no problem with. Those who live for any opportunity to tell CCW proponents how small our PENI are, get over it already. We know how you feel, okay?

0

RATM 3 years, 9 months ago

I agree civil disobedience.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

I think people are being misled by the rhetoric being used to scare people about guns. It is an easy tool to use, almost like a formula from a book distributed by left wing extremists.

You've got to know when your buttons are being pushed. It has gotten too easy for us to give up our freedoms.

0

gogoplata 3 years, 9 months ago

I think it is stupid that you even have to get a license to carry.

Skip getting the license. The state does not need to know you have a gun on you.

I like to break laws I think are stupid that don't hurt other people.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

The Q-ship approach has its own advantages. Sometimes I wear a t-shirt that proclaims "Unarmed, please don't hurt me!"

0

bruno2 3 years, 9 months ago

I am opposed to concealed carry. I think anyone who is carrying should have to do so openly. That way I can cross the street and try to stay out of the line of fire. I also have the right to protect myself!

0

Frightwig 3 years, 9 months ago

Guns don't kill people.

Drunks with guns kill people.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

"If you were worried about prevention you'd walk around with your plastic 9mm or your cheap 1911 knock off out in the open." Open carry is against the law in Kansas, isn't it?

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

I see no valid arguments to justify taking away a citizen's right to carry or a valid argument toward ignoring immigration laws for political purposes and suing a State for trying to control it's border with a foreign county.

It is certainly reasonable to not want crime and drugs and unknown individuals and undocumented aliens from coming across your border anytime they want while the federal government sits on its butt and watches.

If anything, I think people in Arizona should have more incentive to protect themselves. Particularly since the federal government would rather play politics than do their job.

0

Jaminrawk 3 years, 9 months ago

I think another relevant point, living in Lawrence, KS, is why do people around here need to conceal a gun? Have you seen our crime rate? It's not like we live in Detroit, or LA.

0

Jaminrawk 3 years, 9 months ago

“If you want to get down to the philosophical discussion about carrying guns, yeah, no one should even need a permit to do that,”

Seriously? No one? I've seen quite a few people that shouldn't even own one not to mention conceal one in public.

0

RATM 3 years, 9 months ago

Good point, just make murder, robbery and assault illegal whether drunk or sober. Oh wait it already is. There goes my election platform.

0

itwasthedukes 3 years, 9 months ago

I have a plan, lets make murder illegal and then no one will murder anyone. Then there will be no need for guns! It's so simple...

As if all of these criminals are just waiting for the law to allow them to carry.

0

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm curious, for those asking about crimes committed by CC folks, how many crimes in which the perpetrator was also using a gun have been stopped by those with a CC permit?

Not starting a fight -- just curious if that has been accurately traced.

0

true_patriot 3 years, 9 months ago

“It is I guess the balancing of a potentially intoxicated person with a gun versus the state taking away their ability to protect themselves if they are put in a position where they might need that gun,” Klebe said.

I don't buy that argument at all. Someone is exponentially more likely to put themselves in a situation where they feel they need to use their gun when they are drunk. Any fool can see that someone who is drunk has greatly diminished capacity to make good decisions. That person loses the right to drive any vehicle while in that state, so of course that person should not be allowed to have a gun at their disposal while in that state, so much more so.

And not that the quoted sentence said "they might need that gun", not that they felt like they needed it, which seems to be a more accurate benchmark in the way a lot of this is headed. Again, not only decision-making but perception and emotional restraint go out the window when intoxicated.

0

bondmen 3 years, 9 months ago

Did everybody notice just how much murder and mayhem has resulted across the country from the burgeoning abundance of lessened restrictions on citizens carrying concealed weapons? I mean it's a virtual blood bath out there in the concealed carry community, isn't it?

At some point we will be forced to admit to the fact that the liberalization of hidden guns is a plague on our people of violent, epidemic proportions.

Thankfully President Barack Obama is moving in concert with the UN to eventually ban, then confiscate, firearms in the hands of the American public. When this move is completed our streets will once again be totally safe for gang bangers, carjackers and doped up thugs.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

LJW should pay Chad more so he can afford to upgrade to a center-fire sidearm.

0

Mari Aubuchon 3 years, 9 months ago

All of the killings I noted are listed and described here:

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

0

The_Original_Bob 3 years, 9 months ago

"182 people have been killed in the US by concealed carriers of firearms since May 2007.

Concealed carriers have been responsible for 16 mass shootings and 19 murder-suicides."

Link?

0

sputum 3 years, 9 months ago

Is there a limit to how many guns you can carry?

0

Mari Aubuchon 3 years, 9 months ago

182 people have been killed in the US by concealed carriers of firearms since May 2007.

Concealed carriers have been responsible for 16 mass shootings and 19 murder-suicides.

0

The_Original_Bob 3 years, 9 months ago

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

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

You have to ask yourself what is really going on when these issues come up because the Democrats certainly have a national agenda just as the Republicans do.

Right now, the Federal government is suing the State of AZ saying only the federal government has the right to enforce immigration laws. I lived in Arizona and California. Anybody living in those places and not just living in the ritzy areas knows what kind of problems are going on with our borders.

The federal government is way out of line. This looks very bad for the Democrats. Very bad.

The problem in our country comes down to the fact that both political parties and not doing a very good job right now for the American people.

0

Shardwurm 3 years, 9 months ago

“What I’m seeing now is a slow erosion on a yearly basis of a lot of these exceptions that were originally written into the law for a good reason,” said Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence.

Hey Paul - a lot of laws were originally written 'for a good reason.' I'm sure if you could talk to the lawmakers who implemented Kansas' absurd liquor laws they could list one good reason after another. The problem is that not all laws that had 'good reason' at the time are still viable. Maybe they are...but maybe they aren't. Just because someone else wrote the law for what they perceived as a 'good reason' doesn't mean it's true.

So relying on the argument that: "Well, that's the way it's been so it must be good" is very weak. It used to be lawful to deny service to minorites, and the people who made those decisions had what they perceived to be 'good reason' as well.

But while we're at it...please - bring Kansas out of the 1960s and re-write the 'good reason' liquor laws.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

Personally, I don't like all the positions the NRA takes and some of these guys definitely rub me the wrong way, but we have something in common when it comes to not trusting the liberals on gun laws. As much as I hate the Republicans, the gun issue and the immigration issue (not being able to enforce our laws and protect our borders) has me debating who I will end up voting for.

These two issues are important enough for me to consider voting for people I can't stand.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 9 months ago

Most people that freak out about guns have never been around them. I grew up with guns and it was no big deal at all. You learn a lot about life and responsibility hunting with your Dad and learning how to safely handle guns.

This is something that most anti-gun people have no clue about which makes them quite scary.

Citizens should have the right to own guns. In states where they allowed the anti-gun liberals to enact gun restrictions, the gun laws have become so tight it is difficult to own a gun. These people know how to make your life difficult if you want to own and gun and that is their strategy. That is the slippery slope the NRA does not want to go down because they know it will mean the loss of all gun rights.

So this article about Paul Davis which gives examples about certain individuals who should not own a gun is just a publicity stunt to fool the public into believing that a lot of bad and unstable people are arming themselves and we have to get tough on gun laws. It is a political stunt to drum up negativity against all guns.

That is the problem in this debate. Logic says there should be a compromise somewhere but the politics makes it dfficult to do so. In the meantime, I am glad to have my little semi-auto in my pocket when I need it out in the country, isolated and nobody around by my daughters to take care of. I feel a lot safer.

0

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 9 months ago

I took classes with Stoneking and I disagree with her here in practice. Philosophically, I agree - but I think when one chooses to carry, one also must make other life choices. I, for example, do not drink (at all) and if I did drink, I would not carry. In her example, she should skip the wine and enjoy her dinner.

0

mkozak12 3 years, 9 months ago

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

0

Bill Lee 3 years, 9 months ago

Rifles and shotguns are difficult to conceal.

0

RogueThrill 3 years, 9 months ago

I want to live in a world where the guy concealing a weapon is the bad guy every time. I don't want to live in a world where the guy concealing a weapon is given the benefit of the doubt.

Good guys wear their guns on the outside. You wear your gun in the open because you want to deter violence. You conceal your gun because you get an erection thinking about some crim who thinks he's home free.

0

Michael Capra 3 years, 9 months ago

chads little p shooter in pic I love it

0

nschmi04 3 years, 9 months ago

As long as Zealot Shewmon and its ilk are not allowed to carry, this world should be fine.

0

beatrice 3 years, 9 months ago

"The latest changes — which were approved 103-15 in the House and 37-2 in the Senate ..."

Although not a fan of guns myself, the numbers are pretty overwhelmingly in favor of allowing greater access. It is what people want, and this trend will continue for some time. The Supreme Court has ruled and Democrats are (or should be) wise not to fight it, which is why you will never see Obama fighting to take away guns, not this term and not in his next term, should he get one. Us liberals have lost this battle and it is time to move on. (big sigh) In all seriousness, congrats gun lovers. May you shoot straight and always find your intended targets.

I'm just glad the 2nd doesn't make gun ownership mandatory. Too many killings, accidental and otherwise, happen in homes with guns as far as I'm concerned.

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 9 months ago

"Why do you need the ACLU when you have the NRA, one of the largest lobbying firms in Washington, on your side? " -beatrice

How many nights has Wayne LaPierre spent in this white house?

Andy Stern? About 24.

0

The_Original_Bob 3 years, 9 months ago

'Also, what is the plural of penis? Is it penises or peni? My wife preferred peni and I had no opinion."

Jesus, that sounds horrible. It was a rhetorical question.

0

The_Original_Bob 3 years, 9 months ago

Can someone provide the link that shows instances of gun violence by C&C permit holders? Thank you in advance for your hours long search.

Also, what is the plural of penis? Is it penises or peni? My wife preferred peni and I had no opinion.

0

jfcm77 3 years, 9 months ago

This is the third penis reference.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

9:35 first penis reference on this thread!

0

Orwell 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm always amazed by the argument that the solution to threats from guns is more guns. I've been through more decades than I care to think about, and about the only time I've had to fear for my physical safety (from a human source, anyway) was when I was threatened by someone who had a legal right to possess the weapon used to threaten me.

That said, I suspect the only long-term solution is to let all the fanatics have their insecurity-compensating phallic symbols. I can take comfort in the knowledge that (1) they tend to congregate with one another, and (2) the ones who are first to resort to guns are most likely the first ones to be blown away. Herd thinned, problem solved.

0

Jock Navels 3 years, 9 months ago

so, somebody help me out here....do i need a permit to strap on a holster and carry my 44 in the open? are there some places like schools, bars and federal buildings where i can't go unconcealed?

0

puddleglum 3 years, 9 months ago

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

0

RATM 3 years, 9 months ago

The right to protect ones self and family is god given. It is criminal that citizens are made to jump through hoops to attain their god given and constitutional rights.

0

jfcm77 3 years, 9 months ago

This is just going to lead to CC permits for dogs and cats.

0

itwasthedukes 3 years, 9 months ago

Would you want an intoxicated felon to have a concealed weapon with no permit right next to you? Because they can do that now.

0

hitme 3 years, 9 months ago

I took the CC class from Stoneking. She's very good at what she does, but I disagree w/her here. We don't need the fringe carrying carrying guns. I'm guessing that half the people in the class don't carry, because they're normal. The other half do carry because they're paranoid.
Honestly, what kind of dope wants to carry around two pounds of metal and ammo in anticipation of some event that will probably never, in their whole life, happen. Legally toting a gun is inconvenient and a hassle.

0

notsobright 3 years, 9 months ago

Eride- That does not even make sense. The intoxicated felon already has one! Do you really think they care about the law?

All gun restrictions do is place a burden and limitations on law abiding people.

Israel demands that their young people carry guns. Look at a their campuses! Guns everywhere. . . and they have no nut cases shooting up classrooms.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 3 years, 9 months ago

Where's the ACLU defending the 2nd Amendment? Where's the ACLU defending the rights of the formerly incarcerated?

(Crickets chirping)

0

buzzjd45 3 years, 9 months ago

Another issue needed to meet is proper handling and safety of a firearm, should not even have a gun if you know nothing about it, or proper use and dangers of carring a firearm " I never knew it was loaded, sorry ." Draw up a gun safety course that each person regusting a gun carring permit must complete first, if I'm going to get shot, I want the person to know what they are doing.

0

Jeteras 3 years, 9 months ago

Those who want to carry are going to do it reguardless of the law so who cares.. You think a criminal is going to go get a permit for his 9,,, gimme a break its around $300 to get the permit by the time you get finished with it.. gimme a break.

0

Eride 3 years, 9 months ago

I know I would want an intoxicated felon with a concealed gun permit near me.....

Lame Kansas, Lame.

0

MacHeath 3 years, 9 months ago

Alarm over this is a bunch of hooey. "The sky is falling!!"

0

geekin_topekan 3 years, 9 months ago

Woohoo

Where's HWSNBN when I need him? WHat kind shall I buy? Which is best for my stature?

WHatever you do, don;t let convicted felons mow that lawn at KU. They might be dangerous. But let them carry guns in public!!

0

grimpeur 3 years, 9 months ago

I wonder how long the KRA had to troll for a spokesperson who couldn't (or pretended not to) understand this simple fact of civilization: when people have clearly demonstrated a complete lack of concern and wanton disregard for their own safety and that of others, you don't allow them to carry guns around. Pretty simple, but Stoneking doesn't get it. You're sorry, Stoneking.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.