Archive for Friday, December 21, 2012

Regents chair predicts heated debate over expansion of concealed carry

December 21, 2012


— The chairman of the Kansas Board of Regents says he expects a full-throttle debate during the next legislative session over whether to allow concealed guns on campuses of state universities.

"Definitely it will be back," said Tim Emert of Independence.

Noting the recent mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut, Emert said, "There is a lot of support, because of recent incidents, for stricter gun control, but then by the same token, there is growth among folks who believe that everybody should be armed."

He said the nine-member regents will continue to oppose concealed carry on campuses. "It's going to be real interesting with all those new legislators," he said. When the 2013 session starts Jan. 14, there will be 50 members in the 125-member House who have never served there before.

State Sen.-elect Forrest Knox, R-Altoona, has said he will push for a bill that would allow concealed-carry permit holders to take their weapons into public buildings. Knox, who was a House member in the 2012 session, got a similar bill passed in the House last session, but it included a provision that would have allowed universities and hospitals to exempt themselves. He said he would re-introduce his bill in the Senate in the same form it was when it left the House. But it could always been amended again.

Knox has argued that preventing law-abiding concealed-carry permit-holders from bringing their weapons into public buildings is an invitation to criminals. In an email from last month, Knox said, "We can trust the average Kansan to carry a deadly weapon. It is not the weapon that is evil, it is criminals that misuse the weapon."

Knox has not responded to a recent email seeking comment following last week's deadly rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman killed 20 students and six staff members.

Higher education officials have said increasing the number of guns on campuses would produce greater risk and confusion in the event of an emergency situation.


Brian Laird 5 years, 4 months ago

"...there is growth among folks who believe that everybody should be armed."

Wow, that is messed up. What about the freedom for people to not have to live in a society where everyone has to be armed to be safe?

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

The NRA and these pro-gun folks have moved beyond free and open access to firearms to an ideological struggle to force firearms into every aspect of American life. In Kansas, they may very well be successful.

I generally support access to firearms for sport and protection, but this is bordering on crazy. More guns means more accidents with guns, and even the best trained and most well-intentioned CCer is subject to accidents and misjudgements.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 4 months ago

But you'll snivel that this warrants expanding the prevalence of guns in this society (with no shame whatsoever-- more probably just barely veiled threats.)

kawrivercrow 5 years, 4 months ago

Puh-LEEZE! Spare us the nazi references. It just makes you look like a histrionic loon. Nobody wants to abolish the 2nd amendment. Most of the US citizenry just wants limits on large-capacity magazines and assault weapons. That includes many Republicans. Very, very, very few people have any notion of entirely disarming America.

As of now, neither you nor I can own a full-automatic rifle or even a sawed-off shotgun without participating in proper legal licensing procedures. Are you contending that this is a violation of our constitutional rights? Do you concede there should be limits on what kind of firepower the general citizenry should be allowed to own, or do you believe there should be no limits?

voevoda 5 years, 4 months ago

Some facts about German gun control, sierraclub:

Germany enacted its first gun control law in 1928. The Weimar government, never very stable, was being threatened by the growth of armed radical groups, such as the Nazis. The laws were not particularly stringent, and the Nazi party continued to develop its own paramilitary organization. When the 1933 election awarded a plurality to the Nazi party, the Nazi paramilitary organization grew vastly. Armed Nazi brownshirts intimidated dissenters, including members of rival political parties (Catholic Party, socialists, liberals, etc.), Jews and minorities, in the name of "protecting Germany" from "criminal." By the time the Nazi government collected firearms from the population in 1938, it had already established complete power, and it was collecting weapons from its own one-time backers.

So what's the historical lesson here? We can't allow self-appointed people to go around armed and intimidating people whom they deem to be "enemies" in the name of "protecting freedom."

elliottaw 5 years, 4 months ago

Sounds like the Republican Party of today

voevoda 5 years, 4 months ago

Nobody is talking about "banning guns." There is discussion about limiting access to firearms on the part of people who are unbalanced, unskilled, and irresponsible. This kind of discussion is long overdue. This is still our world, too, biggunz, and you do need to refrain from your bullying attitude. It makes readers think that you ought not to be entrusted with a weapon.

voevoda 5 years, 4 months ago

You just proved my point, biggunz. Examples of bullying: "This is our world." "liberal whack jobs" "are u [sic] drunk?" A person who uses this sort of rhetoric in a public forum is clearly too unrestrained to be entrusted with a weapon.

voevoda 5 years, 4 months ago

More bullying, biggunz. "a babbling bs?"

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

Yet another example of the extreme gun fetishists trying to force guns into every aspect of society.

This goes beyond free access. This is bordering on forced gun presence and coercion to arm every aspect of society.

The gun fetishists view common sense restriction on military style arms as a slippery slope to dictatorship (or even dictatorship itself) and coffins full of dead children as the price we pay for this "freedom", burnt offerings to their fetish the gun god.

lawslady 5 years, 4 months ago

I enjoy using a gun for target practice and support hunting and 2nd amendment rights. However, I am not so afraid of my government and other people that I believe it is a good idea to have automatic weapons in the hands of anyone who has gotten a little training and can afford one, nor do I think most people with common sense want to see armed students in their late teens and early teens at all their school functions, classes, and competitive games. Sadly, there will never be enough security nor guns in this world to 100% protect against all the criminals and mentally ill people around us. Anyone so fearful that they think all "law abiding" citizens should be allowed to carry any kind of weapon they want anywhere they want are cordially invited to (a) first allow that kind of rule in their own homes, which should be open to anyone off the street at any time and (b) live inside an armed camp at all times. There are simply not enough training nor enough guns to protect everyone from everything at all times. If you think more guns equals more safety, take a look at the crime and homicide statistics in those countries (like Australia) where the ban on assault weapons is pretty strict. The only people benefiting from an increase in the number of guns being carried in America will be those making and selling the weapons. Now who would that be?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.