Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Law loosening restrictions on concealed carry renewals remains unchanged

John Geery shows a gun to a customer at Jayhawk Pawn and Jewelry, 1804 W. Sixth St., Monday, June 6, 2011.

John Geery shows a gun to a customer at Jayhawk Pawn and Jewelry, 1804 W. Sixth St., Monday, June 6, 2011.

June 7, 2011

Advertisement

A Kansas law that allows the blind and others with serious physical infirmities to carry concealed firearms in public places remains on the state’s books following the 2011 legislative session.

And now the state’s elected official responsible for overseeing the concealed carry program is declining to answer questions about the provision.

In February, the Journal-World reported that changes to the concealed carry law had removed the state’s ability to deny a license based on a person’s physical condition and had removed all requirements that people seeking to renew their license pass a test where they hit at least 18 of 25 targets with a firearm.

At the time, a spokesman with Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who oversees the concealed carry program, expressed surprise that the state no longer had such legal authority but said the issue would be researched further.

This week, the attorney general’s office confirmed that the state no longer has the ability to deny renewal applications based on concerns that the applicant can’t safely handle a firearm. The office also could not point to any efforts that Schmidt made to get the law changed during the recent legislative session.

“The state’s lawmakers have balanced various public policy interests in crafting the concealed carry law, and the attorney general will administer it as it is written — now and in the future,” Jeff Wagaman, deputy chief of staff for Schmidt, said in a written statement.

Schmidt — through Wagaman — declined to comment on why he did not seek a change in the law and declined to answer whether he thinks the lack of testing has weakened the law.

The top Democratic lawmaker in the Kansas House, however, said he thought lawmakers needed to conduct a more thorough review of the state’s concealed carry law, which has been modified several times since its passage in 2006.

“You certainly hope it doesn’t take some kind of tragedy to get people’s attention to see that we perhaps have made some mistakes in how we’ve changed this law,” said House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence. “I think we do need to look at the law in a comprehensive way.”

Fewer denials

The changes, which took effect in 2010, removed a phrase from the law that gave the state the right to deny applicants a license if they “suffer from a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a weapon.” The original law also required people applying for a renewal of their license to take a test that required them to hit at least 18 of 25 targets from distances ranging from 3 yards to 10 yards. But the new law removed that requirement as well. People applying for a license for the first time still are required to take the test.

Rep. Richard Carlson, R-St. Marys and a leading concealed carry proponent, defended the changes this week.

“I think it should be up to the individual,” Carlson said. “If they are a law-abiding citizen, then I think it should be self-determination of whether or not they are capable of it.”

But Carlson conceded that his approach could lead to people holding a license who could no longer pass the basic firearms test. He said that did not concern him.

“We tend to look for all the reasons why someone should not be qualified to carry concealed, but actually I think we should look for the reasons why they should be qualified,” Carlson said.

Loosened restrictions

Carlson said he expects future legislation to push for removal of the requirement that new applicants take the shooting test. Davis said he expects proposals to loosen the concealed carry law — or perhaps go to an Arizona-style system that allows anyone who can legally own a gun to carry concealed — to be introduced in the future.

Several changes to the law have been made since its passage in 2006. They include:

• A law change that allows concealed carry permit holders to carry their weapons into bars, schools, churches and libraries, unless the establishments post a no guns sign. In the original law, those places were automatically prohibited, regardless of whether a sign was posted.

• Changes that no longer require license holders to submit to a Breathalyzer test when a law enforcement officer has reason to believe the license holder is intoxicated. Previously, a refusal to take such a test resulted in the automatic suspension of the concealed carry license for three years.

• Removal of several offenses that prohibited a person from receiving a concealed carry license. People who originally were prohibited from receiving a license who now are eligible include: people with two misdemeanor DUI convictions in the past five years; people with misdemeanor drug convictions; people who have been convicted of carrying under the influence in another state; and individuals who have been declared in contempt of court for child support proceedings.

Comments

H_Lecter 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm thinking a pair of sunglasses and a visit to the gun shop is in order.

0

Pete_Schweti 3 years, 4 months ago

Why is his finger on the trigger?! Does Jayhawk Pawn & Jewelry not train their own employees on safe gun handling?

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, you can only hope this is either his finger in motion, or his finger is raised and away from the trigger. That being said, I've been into Jayhawk pawn a couple of times and found the employees had very poor muzzle control practices. I noticed they continuously swept themselves, myself, and the entire store; sometimes not even doing a safety check on the firearm before passing it on.

0

50YearResident 3 years, 4 months ago

Unless this guy has an extra digit on his finger, his finger is not on the trigger because you can see the entire finger.

0

puddleglum 3 years, 4 months ago

finger is not on the trigger. Look closely. The seller has probably forgotten more about firearm safety than you will ever know. Take a class from him, and you'll get the idea.

I want that DESERT EAGLE! I already have one, but look at that tactical rail! you can put an aircraft carrier on that thing!

0

manfred 3 years, 4 months ago

"The seller has probably forgotten more about firearm safety than you will ever know." -- sounds like you're a little hotheaded, jumping down pete's throat like that. oh, great - you also have a desert eagle.

0

Pete_Schweti 3 years, 4 months ago

Assuming an awful lot, aren't we, puddlegum? As a range officer, I can tell you that holding a gun that way (muzzle pointing to the right, not up or down, finger PRECARIOUSLY CLOSE TO or ONn the trigger, depending on who you ask) will get you talked to. Well, unless you shoot somewhere like The Bullet Hole where pretty much anything goes. Finger placement should be away from the trigger guard entirely, preferably against the slide of the gun. See:

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

http://reynosawatch.org/minstrel/2009/07/14/index/

http://arizonaccwpermit.wordpress.com/beginner-handgun-safety-marksmanship/

for better ways to handle a gun safely.

The fact is, the way he is handling that firearm is ambiguous at best and under no circumstances considered safe, nor would it be at any decent shooting range. The way he is handling that firearm indicates to me that he has probably forgotten more safety than he has ever learned himself.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 4 months ago

The voice of reason - Thanks Pete

0

puddleglum 3 years, 4 months ago

pete, manfred & roe, please go back to playing with your barbie dolls.

Or just go back to topeka, whichever is easier

0

puddleglum 3 years, 4 months ago

pete, manfred & roe, please go back to playing with your barbie dolls.

Or just go back to topeka, whichever is easier

0

oldvet 3 years, 4 months ago

LJW has an article on concealed carry and they put a picture of a guy looking at a Desert Eagle... not exactly your cc handgun. Dirty Harry on steroids.

0

jjt 3 years, 4 months ago

Does this mean that someone can literally walk down Mass street with a loaded sidearm in a holster on their belt as long as the gun and holster are in plain sight?

0

50YearResident 3 years, 4 months ago

That has been "legal" in Lawrence for over 50 years. However that is not what this article is about if you can read. This is about renewing concealed carry permits. Now go back and read the story one more time.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 4 months ago

There really only need to be a couple of additional restrictions-- CC license holders must be registered Republicans and confirmed as born-again Christians. After all, isn't that how God wants it?

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 4 months ago

I thought democrats and atheists didn't own guns?

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 4 months ago

Bozo - You asked for a specific example of the intolerance of the left. You just answered your own question.

0

drake 3 years, 4 months ago

The ATF actually ruled that our concealed carry laws in Kansas are stringent enough to exempt cc licensees from having to submit to the instant background check when purchasing firearms from dealers. Finally a case of the Feds getting out of the way of States' rights.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

So, three times in the psych ward and you're still good to go?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 4 months ago

Just making stuff up to fit his narrative, that's our bozo!

0

somedude20 3 years, 4 months ago

So blind people can carry guns and shoot at will but the state wants strippers to keep their clothes on? Huh. So blind people can have their driver's license revoked by the state but they can still have a loaded handgun to blindly fire at will? Wow! I am all for people having firearms if they want but this nuts

0

tolawdjk 3 years, 4 months ago

While I personally don't have a handgun, I do have several rifles and shotguns (I've not seen much luck in hitting quail with a glock).

Anyway, maybe those of you with more experience than me can answer something that has me curious.

Looking over the seller's shoulder there appears to be a couple pistols displayed barrel out, head high. Now, I know I wouldn't store my weapons at home that way, but is this an acceptable method for a vendor to display a firearm? With the business end at the customer? How do I know the thing isn't loaded, chambered, and ready to fire like that? If space is an issue, wouldn't it be better to do a 180 on all of those and display it that way?

Am I going to have to strap on body armor to go into Jayhawk Pawn?

0

Armored_One 3 years, 4 months ago

None, and I repeat, none of the firearms in that store are ever loaded. The instant that you ask for handle one of them, the employee removes the clip or opens the barrel and the weapon is present to you on their open hand, never just handed over.

I'd trust any of the people working at Jayhawk Pawn to properly handle a firearm than I would 75% of the populace of this state. The ammunition is not even stored in the same racks as the firearms, just to prevent a customer from loading a weapon should an employee get distracted.

"How do I know the thing isn't loaded, chambered, and ready to fire like that?"

There are times that I truly wonder about people and how little thought they put into the things that they post online. You might have been using sarcasm, but the texture of your post tends to rule it out.

0

tolawdjk 3 years, 4 months ago

Sorry, don't know personally of Jayhawk Pawn's firearm discipline. I don't know where they store their ammo, their mother's maiden name, or the color of their morning constitutional.

What I see is a weapon pointed at me. Yes, it is on a display rack. It could also just as easily be on a display rack pointed the other way. I do know that in my home, weapons on display aren't pointed at my guest's head.

But at least we know you think thier pile doesn't stink.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 4 months ago

Armored_One - I personally have fired tens of thousands of rounds from many, many different firearms. No matter what I always check the gun when I pick it up to verify loaded or not, even if I am the only one shooting. Safety for myself and others demand this. I have attended gun shows where every firearm is checked at the door and still there was an "accidental" discharge at one. "Empty" guns have killed and injured countless men, women, children and pets over the years. Think those guns aren't loaded? Would you bet your life on it? No man is infallible, and nothing prevents someone from walking in the door with a pocket full of ammo

0

Armored_One 3 years, 4 months ago

Roe.

  1. An empty gun cannot discharge ammunition.

  2. Firearms at Jayhawk pawn are never loaded with anything other than than empty magazine, normally the one that comes from the manufacturer, since their handguns, almost without exception, are brand spanking new.

  3. Yes, I would bet my llife that any randon firearm in that store can be taken out of the case, pointed at my head and the trigger pulled. Other than a click, nothing will happen. That is because whatever employee takes the weapon out of the case stays with that weapon, under 5 feet normally, and never allows it out of their line of sight.

As for "walking in the door with a pocket full of ammo", that is a screwball argument. I could walk through the door with a molotov cocktail and a lit match. I could walk in the door with a stereo to sell them.

Nothing prevents that from happening at Bass Pro Shops, or Cabela's, either.

I carry a blade on me at all times. Does that automatically mean I'm a danger to everyone around because it might "accidently" open and stab someone of it's own accord?

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 4 months ago

I still argue that no gun I pick up or am handed by others is guaranteed safe and free of ammunition until I have inspected it myself. Of course the ammo can be carried in anywhere, that was my point. As far as your friends at JP&J are concerned, I stopped going there five years ago because of the sloppy handling of a firearm by an employee who may or may not still be there. My standards are extreme on this matter, but you can keep on doing it your way. I won't be there

0

Armored_One 3 years, 4 months ago

Never seen anyone be less than professional there, Roe.

Oh, by the way, after checking with the store, it is company policy that ALL firearms are to be checked before a potential customer is handed a firearm and after it is returned to the employee to be returned to whichever case it came from, or display, in the case of the rifles and shotguns.

I personally think you are a damned fool, but like you said, you do things your way, and I'll do mine. But I'd be willing to wager that you and I could go in there together, have a third person choose a random firearm or any type, it will not be loaded. I'll take it one step further. I have enough faith in the fact that the weapon would not be loaded that you could point it at any part of my body you wanted when you pull the trigger.

0

manfred 3 years, 4 months ago

isn't the first rule of firearms safety to 'treat every gun as if it were loaded?'

i know you're going to say 'no,' so check out rule #1 (the first rule, if you're not mathematically inclined) here: http://www.thegunzone.com/therules.html

remember, just because you REALLY believe something doesn't mean it's true.

0

50YearResident 3 years, 4 months ago

If you look closer at the picture, at the pistols you are talking about, they are in a locked glass case. Now I ask you as you are a firearms owner as you stated, when was the last time you have witnessed or even heard of a gun (any gun) that has fired by itself while in a locked glass case? You sir/madam, are an idiot.

0

tolawdjk 3 years, 4 months ago

Sorry, I don't have the powers of insight that you do to tell that glass case is locked.

I also have personal experience of a gun falling from rest and discharging upon hitting the floor with the only disturbance in the house being his girlfriend coming home and slamming the front door. Admittedly, the owner in question was a moron and known to "tinker" with his weapons. The pistol was on his bookshelf. He thought it was unloaded. Thankfully it discharged straight up and away from all of us.

0

getreal 3 years, 4 months ago

If there are any businesses considering a move to Kansas and they have read the local news in the last few weeks, I'm betting they are looking elsewhere. Blind people allowed to conceal and carry, abolishment of the Arts Commission, and gutting of public school funding. I can't imagine anyone choosing this environment to relocate their business. After 45 years in Kansas we are considering where we might like to live, and we aren't looking at what the tax rate is, we are looking for places that value the arts and education. That used to be Kansas, but not any more.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 4 months ago

"Am I going to have to strap on body armor to go into Jayhawk Pawn?"

Nope! Although I have made purchases there in the past I too noticed many handling and display issues concerning firearms. I no longer go there, although they are adding square footage to the building. Looks like they don't need my business anyway.

0

Getaroom 3 years, 4 months ago

tolawdjk. Better not go to Cabela's or Bass Pro Shop without your body armor either. Guns in shops allowed to sell such firearms typically are displayed barrel toward the front of the case or the side of the gun slightly diagonal for good viewing. No ammo is allowed to be chambered in those guns. Removing the requirement to pass a shooting performance test, no matter how minimal, is insane. In fact anyone purchasing a hand gun should be required to show functional and practical abilities to handle a weapon of any caliber, perhaps other than a BB gun since you can buy those at any Walmart, etc. Since this nation has had firearms from it's beginnings and will likely continue to do so and in spite of all the fear generated by Obama haters, conceal carry laws should at minimum require an individual to show their ability to handle the weapon before being allowed to carry either openly or concealed. I just think its too bad the world condition is such that we feel the need to do so period.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

This is hardly really news anyway. What does this article say? Nothing has changed since last time we did a story on this, but here's a chance to get riled up about it.

0

somedude20 3 years, 4 months ago

That deaf, dumb, and blind kid sure shoots a mean bullet

0

Paula Kissinger 3 years, 4 months ago

"Changes that no longer require license holders to submit to a Breathalyzer test when a law enforcement officer has reason to believe the license holder is intoxicated. Previously, a refusal to take such a test resulted in the automatic suspension of the concealed carry license for three years."

Excuse me...but that is crap. The law is that if you are stopped by a LEO and he/she believes you are intoxicated and you are asked to submit to an intox and you refuse you go to jail, you do not pass go. You can have guns, knives, handgrenades or anything else...that is the law. Concealed carry has nothing to do with it. This is so stupid.

0

3 years, 4 months ago

That may be the case if you are a driving a vehicle. But that's not what this article is talking about. Here's the article we did on the Breathalyzer issue, if you care to read it.

Chad Lawhorn Journal-World

0

Paula Kissinger 3 years, 4 months ago

I know the law, thank you. As far as not what the article was talking about, why, then, did you include the quoted statements I was talking about ?

0

3 years, 4 months ago

This is about what concealed carry permit holders are required to do under the law as it relates to submitting to a Breathalyzer test. The requirements for someone with a concealed carry license are different than the requirements for a driver of a vehicle. I included it in the article because it is an example of how Kansas' concealed carry laws have been changed in recent years. If you are asserting that a concealed carry permit holder has to submit to a Breathalyzer test when asked to by an LEO, you are mistaken. That's what the story that I linked to is about.

Chad Lawhorn Journal-World

0

Fred Mertz 3 years, 4 months ago

Keep in mind there are different degress of blindness. A person can be legally blind but still see well enough to shoot an attacker especially at close range. And considering their disability I'd like to give them every opportunity to survive an attack and not become a victim.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 4 months ago

I have enrolled in the class and will be getting my concealed carry license soon.

I worked in the gun industry and have associated with manufacturers of gun parts for many years. In my experience, the people that make the effort to achieve this license are the kind of neighbors I want to have around for a long time.

This is a citizens right and I am glad this right has not been taken away from us.

There are people who just naturally fear firearms and the people who own and use them.

There is a big difference between criminals and good citizens and you hope the latter will be armed if you need them.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

"the concealed carry law had removed the state’s ability to deny a license based on a person’s physical condition"

So, a bit of trouble with schizophrenia is not a problem?

Must not be, since it's considered to be a physical condition of the brain.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

You should read up on the law before spouting dumb assumptions out.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

I read this much:

"the attorney general’s office confirmed that the state no longer has the ability to deny renewal applications based on concerns that the applicant can’t safely handle a firearm."

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

Other than that, that particular situation was not addressed in the article. What was said was this:

Removal of several offenses that prohibited a person from receiving a concealed carry license. People who originally were prohibited from receiving a license who now are eligible include: people with two misdemeanor DUI convictions in the past five years; people with misdemeanor drug convictions; people who have been convicted of carrying under the influence in another state; and individuals who have been declared in contempt of court for child support proceedings.

Note that "mental illness" is not mentioned at all.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

But, it would be very easy to get an assault rifle if I wanted one. That's the only gun I know how to use, due to military training.

I think that gun laws are simply to lenient.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

Just as easy to get a rifle, whether it's bolt or semi-automatic as it is a handgun if you're over 21, that's not the issue at all though.

0

Fred Mertz 3 years, 4 months ago

Ron - what exactly is an "assault" rifle? I'd like to know how you define one.

And, since you think the gun laws are too lenient, please share what law will keep a gun out the hands of a criminal? There are thousands of laws now, what law would you add that a criminal will suddenly obey?

0

drake 3 years, 4 months ago

You have to have military training to know what an assault rifle is Fred.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

Tough call. Most psychiatrists say it's a physical disorder of the brain, but it seems that psychiatric opinion is changing all the time.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

A psychical disorder of the brain is a mental disorder. Also, you can't base all your information on the law based on what this article says. Go to http://www.ksag.org/page/concealed-carry for all the information you need regarding this law.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

It really doesn't matter to me, I don't have schizophrenia, and I have no desire to ever own a gun anyway.

It just struck me that the laws here are so lenient!

And, after working in the gun store, it sure seemed to me that the "background checks" were a joke.

0

kujayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

There is something about a blind person firing a weapon that is really disturbing.

0

kscountryboy 3 years, 4 months ago

I have been blessed to be a native of this great state. I've lived here almost all of my life. I love the warm and caring people that I am surrounded by in these great Kansas communities. I love Kansas sunsets and the countryside. I love the hard working farmers and ranchers that invest blood and sweat to keep our state economy running. And I love Lawrence KS and the University of Kansas from where I left the farm to attend and graduate. But if there is one thing I can't stomach is the hippie liberal sentiment that festers in Lawrence. Where did this little pocket of hippie liberals come from? It is like nowhere else in the enire state. It's like a little black spot on this great state of conservatism. Small towns with hard working, God fearing people blanket the entire State. People who just want the gov't to stop taxing them so they can keep more of their hard earned dollars in their pockets. People can have different views, that's what makes the US great, but the Mass. Street Hippies of Lawrence have to understand that the entire State of Kansas has spoken through elections to bring us to this point. I dont want to pay for abortions, I dont want to pay for arts when we have such a shortfall, I don't want to pay for people who won't work because their unemployment benefits are "too good", I don't want to pay for people to buy Red Bull and doughnuts with their WIC Card. And finally I sure as heck don't care what Hippie Liberal Lawrence thinks about any law abiding US Citizen's right to carry a firearm.

0

Kyle Chandler 3 years, 4 months ago

Whats the matter with Kansas?

Just read the comment above.

0

Laura Wilson 3 years, 4 months ago

Heh good one.

And where did the hippie liberal Lawrence come from? Pretty much its founding by abolitionists, social rights advocates, Unitarians and liberal Congregationalists.

Born and bred here and proud to be a liberal Lawrencian.

0

Mr_B9 3 years, 4 months ago

kscountry boy, you have hit the nail square on the head.

0

Randall Barnes 3 years, 4 months ago

ever seen d blind person shoot at a beeping target ? they are probably more accurate than you.

0

Kontum1972 3 years, 4 months ago

i want a M-79..grenade launcher with a 12 gauge drop-in for close combat....POOF,,your vapor

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

A few years back, I worked in a store that sold a lot of guns. I never felt comfortable holding or carrying one, for reasons that had best be left out of this forum.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

Fair enough, but no one is forcing you to handle or deal with guns now.

0

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 4 months ago

Yes, that's true. But I'm stuck with the memories.

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 4 months ago

Just as your computer keyboard doesn't cause spelling errors...guns don't kill people. In BOTH cases people are the ones responsible.

(Lkie me!)

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 4 months ago

Look what this stupid keyboard did!!

"like me"

I need to go buy a keyboard that diesn't spell wrong!!

0

Shelley Bock 3 years, 4 months ago

I'm sure the statistics are out there, so could someone answwer them:

  1. How many holders of a concealed weapon permit have used the weapon in self-defense?

  2. How many holders of a concealed weapon permit have used the weapon without just cause such as a murder or robbery?

  3. How many times has a weapon owned by a holder of a concealed weapon permit been used by another in a murder, robbery or other manner that is illegal?

For your information, I am not a supporter of concealed carry laws, but I wonder what the practical usage or misusage is. I don't want stories of such occurances, but actual stats should they exist. And, I don't want hypotheticals such as "concealed carry laws have prevented x number of crimes." Specifics from any governmental source or recognized entity. I would not consider NRA stats as being appropriate since: 1. It is an advocacy agency; and 2. I would question NRA willingness to recognize inappropriate weapon usage.

If the stats don't exist, so be it.

0

Fred Mertz 3 years, 4 months ago

So you don't consider stats from the anti-gun groups like the Brady Institute or other advocacy groups like MADD, Planned Parenthood, etc.? Just checking to see if you're consistent or just biased against the NRA.

0

Shelley Bock 3 years, 4 months ago

At least DillonBarnes knew how to answer the questions I asked with answers instead of more questions. Not enough space to list all parties with an agenda.

0

Mr_B9 3 years, 4 months ago

Fred's questions are relevant. Are you consistent or not?

0

Shelley Bock 3 years, 4 months ago

Now there you go again, firing before determining your target. Far more consistent than you'll ever know Mr_B9. Guess you didn't have time to read the comment listed immediately below.

0

Shelley Bock 3 years, 4 months ago

The more I have thought about your answer, the more I realize that it is evidence of how understanding and compromise aren't accomplished. I assumed correctly that those that don't want to give answers, attack the questions. DillonBarnes found a credible source of information and put some thought into his evaluation.

I don't like conceal and carry. I think it puts guns on the street where they don't need to be..No amount of argument will convince me otherwise. However, DillonBarnes come up with FACTS which convince me that so far, this may be something that isn't worth arguing about.

On the other hand, Fred & Mr_B were unable to present anything of value. Fred & Mr_B make my blood boil because all they want is to do is to "dump" on those with whom they disagree. I don't know DillonBarnes, but at least that writer made an effort to answer the questions. For that, I thank the writer.

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

You're welcome, it can get lonely sometimes in the middle, where logic and civility wins over emotion. It's become the norm in political discussion to demonize the other side and group them all together and label them extremists. I can't say I'm not guilty of it myself now and then; more than once I've written a response on here only to just delete it before posting and I've absolutely had said and written things I regret.

To be honest, the low numbers actually surprised me a little. I didn't expect a lot of revoked licenses for improper use of firearms, but was still surprised it was that low. If you had asked me 5 years ago about concealed carry, I don't know what I would have told you. I had only shot a firearm once, never had lived in a place that was prone to violent crimes, and definitely found myself leaning to the left side of the aisle on many issues. Since then I bought many firearms (too many, it's an expensive hobby), and have fired tens of thousands of rounds.

Now I'm a strong proponent of concealed carry. I firmly believe in a person's right to defend themselves against a violent attack. I believe the criminals already have firearms, and will always have them. Laws only work on those who obey them, anything restricting concealed carry only restrict those who lawfully carry. But, you've probably heard all these arguments before.

We simply disagree, that doesn't make you a crazy lefty extremist and it doesn't make me a Christian Neo-Con (couldn't be further from the truth).

0

DillonBarnes 3 years, 4 months ago

The AGs information on CC doesn't answer all these questions, but it does some. Last year, it details how many and for what reasons licenses were revoked. There is one instance of Aggravated Assault with a firearm (though it doesn't specify if this was while carry concealed or not). In 2009, one license was revoked due to 2nd degree murder, but no specification if a firearm was involved.

Last I had heard, people had legally used a concealed carry firearm twice in the state of Kansas. That information is dated and I don't have any source for it so it's old and kind of useless, but I'm just working with what I've got.

In all, 32,962 licenses have been issued as of May 1st, 77 of them have been revoked for various reasons (ranging from DUI convictions, restraining orders, to assault and murder). That's 0.2% revoked.

http://www.ksag.org/page/concealed-carry

0

Shelley Bock 3 years, 4 months ago

Thank you for answering some of the questions I had.

I don't like concealed carry and would never support it. I don't like the easing of restrictions. I don't like the removal of competency requirements everytime a license is renewed.

However, it appears to be less of a problem than I thought it might be. I still have my questions regarding inappropriate usage, but if there aren't the facts, I could just be wrong.

I certainly hope there will never be a "shoot-out" amongst citizens on Massachusetts Street or in churches or in schools or the courthouse. I still think that's a possibility, but present statistics appear to prove me wrong.

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

How is a blind person carrying a gun into a bar supposed to see the "No guns allowed" sign at the entrance?

While I generally do not have a problem with C&C -- resonable laws require training and permits, which I favor -- this is taking it to the extreme. I really don't think a blind person should be shooting a gun in self defense while in public, or within range of where any bystanders might be. That is just asinine. The fact that an elected official is refusing to answer questions about his involvement in the softening of laws should upset everyone, including supporters.

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 4 months ago

"How is a blind person carrying a gun into a bar supposed to see the "No guns allowed" sign at the entrance? "

.....about as well as his aim would be at you. So your're safe. Sleep in peace.

(What, they can't put it in braille like drive-through ATMs??)

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 4 months ago

If I'm remembering my local history right (which admittedly I may not be) when Quantrill raided Lawrence a majority of this city was unarmed, there was no 'conceal & carry' back then. I believe a majority of the firearms in this city were in one centeral location though.

Think how much different history may have turned out had at least half this town been armed? Someone could have even done to Willie Q. what our Navy SEALS did to Bin Laden!

Innocent lives could have been saved and guilty ones taken.

Ah, well...what if, what if, what if.....

0

Shelley Bock 3 years, 4 months ago

Somehow, I thought we'd advanced as a society since the 1860's. Hadn't realized that present day Missourians are still as dangerous as Quantrill and his bunch. Need to strip search 'em when Tiger fans next come to Allen fieldhouse.

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

The law was changed to allow the blind to carry in 2010. Shouldn't the headline state that the law remains changed?

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 4 months ago

I guess I can get a conceal carry now. I have terrible depth perception, and never could shoot well. Better hurry.

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 4 months ago

I fear dying from being shot by a blind schizophrenic concealed carry weapons holder about as much as stage 4 hemorrhoids. No. Even less.

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

While we may not "fear" the bsccwh, do we really need a law allowing the possibility for the bsccwh to accidentally shoot us in our stage 4 backsides?

0

RoeDapple 3 years, 4 months ago

I can only speak for my backside bea! Lucky for me I don't . . . um, no we won't go into that here. TMI

;-)

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

I didn't want to say "your" stage 4 backside, so I gave it the polite, universal "we." It seemed the polite thing to do under such circumstances.

0

denak 3 years, 4 months ago

My mother is blind, my father is blind and my son is blind. So, naturally, I went to them and asked them what they thought of this. All three of them did the "that is the stupidest s**t" laugh that people do. But here are their responses:

Father: "No, that's ridiculous" But after a moments thought he added the following: "So does this mean I can get a sawed off shotgun. I may not be able to hit a target 5 feet away but I'll manage to hit something"

Son: "Hell Nah" He is now polling his friends on Facebook. So far, the most common response is laughter. (I think most visually impaired people recognize the lunacy of this legislation)

Mom: "Heck no. I almost killed your Uncle once. My father, you know your grandfather, tried to teach me to shoot once. I shot at a target 10 feet away, it missed and ricochet off the trailer and hit the outhouse. My brother, you know your uncle, came hopping out, pulling his pants up and said, "*&#^#(( Can't someone take a ST around here without almost getting killed" Needless to say, your grandfather never tried to teach me to shoot again." (To be fair, my mother is dangerous even with a shopping cart)

Granted my sample population is rather small, but there are simply certain realities one has to recognize and allowing someone who is visually impaired to use a gun, in a non-controlled manner, is idiotic. Thump the 2nd Amendment all you want but gun ownership should be RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and if you can not adequately see well enough to hit a target, then you should not be allowed to own a weapon. The same with driving. Contrary to what people like to say, guns are not harmless inanimate object anymore than a car is and if a person can not see well enough to drive, they can not see well enough to own a firearm.

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

Hey blue.

Voting is a right, and Kansas just put restrictions on that (ID now required). Same with Free Speech and yelling "theater" in a crowded fire house. Some rights simply have reasonable limitations, especially when safety of others is concerned. Not allowing blind conceal and carry seems to be one of those necessary limitations.

I'm not anti-conceal and carry. I'm anti "You can't see me, so stop pointing that gun in my direction." My right to life outweighs a blind person's right to conceal and carry.

To go shooting under supervised conditions, like a range? Sure. C&C? No. Common sense rules in this one.

0

Jim Phillips 3 years, 4 months ago

What you all are forgetting is that a person seeking a concealed carry license has to pass a proficiency test with a handgun. So, unless a vision impaired person can miraculously put 18 out of 25 rounds in a center of mass target from distances of 3, 7 and 10 yards, he will not pass the course and therefore not get a CCH license. Thus, this is a moot point folks. Here's your sign.

0

beatrice 3 years, 4 months ago

From the article: "The original law also required people applying for a renewal of their license to take a test that required them to hit at least 18 of 25 targets from distances ranging from 3 yards to 10 yards. But the new law removed that requirement as well."

If someone has a CCH license now and they go blind (or just develop really bad vision) they will be able to renew their license.

It likely won't happen too often, I'll agree. So more a minor point, perhaps, but it isn't moot. There just seems to be no reason to change the law in the first place.

The fact that the legislator who originated the changes won't talk about it is one thing that should get people upset. Legislators who don't answer questions from the people should be replaced.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.