Archive for Monday, February 27, 2012

Concealed-carry changes

Legislators should take the time to review and explain any expansion of state laws governing concealed firearms.

February 27, 2012


Concealed carry in Kansas isn’t going away. That much is certain. About 40,000 Kansans have been licensed by the state to carry a concealed firearm on their person.

Opponents of the Kansas law that began six years ago should ponder that for a moment. A group roughly as large as the population of Salina has been licensed to carry hidden weapons, yet terrible acts of violence or even gun-related accidents by concealed-carry holders, aren’t widespread. Granted, you also don’t hear much about concealed-carry holders thwarting crime or using a concealed weapon to defend themselves.

Now, however, the concealed-carry program is entering interesting new territory, and it would be wise for lawmakers to pause and complete a thorough review before expanding the program.

Several lawmakers have been pushing to allow concealed-carry permit holders to bring their weapons into public buildings, such as university classrooms, city halls and other such structures if those buildings do not have devices like metal detectors designed to detect illegal weapons.

The Kansas Board of Regents, the League of Kansas Municipalities and others have expressed concerns about the proposal. Lawmakers owe it to their partners in local government to take those concerns seriously. If state lawmakers believe concealed carry in those locations is vital, then their first step should be public education to convince citizens that such a law really will not diminish their safety or cause other problems.

The state’s concealed-carry law has been changed several times by lawmakers, often for the worse. Several legislators have expressed surprise about the changes made to the law, and some changes have even caught the Kansas Attorney General’s Office unaware. Some examples include:

• Applicants are no longer required to take a shooting test when renewing their license. In addition, a provision allowing the state to deny a renewal based on evidence a person has a physical infirmity that makes it impossible to safely handle a weapon was removed. Lawmakers have created a situation where applicants can renew their licenses for the next 40 or 50 years without ever demonstrating they still can safely handle a weapon.

• Permit holders no longer are required to submit to a Breathalyzer test when a police officer suspects the individual is under the influence of alcohol. Previously, permit holders who denied such a request automatically had their licenses suspended for three years. Now, that’s no longer the case. It was an irresponsible change that makes the of job law enforcement more difficult.

• Several offenses that prohibited a person from receiving a concealed-carry license have been removed, including: people with two misdemeanor DUI convictions in the past five years, people with misdemeanor drug convictions, people convicted of carrying under the influence in another state and individuals who have been declared in contempt of court for child support proceedings.

If lawmakers want to expand the state’s concealed-carry law, it seems they first should do a better job of explaining the rationale of some of the changes they’ve already made.


Gandalf 5 years, 12 months ago

Laws concerning concealed carry are largely crap anyway you look at it. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear (carry) arms guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. And no, I am not including felons in that statement. They lost that right with conviction.

But really people shouldn't be suprised at these laws being passed to CC on public property and state institutions. I would be willing to bet most legislator's have CC licenses and don't want to disarm themselves at public functions and on state business.

George_Braziller 5 years, 11 months ago

The constitutional right to keep and bear arms and concealed carry laws are completely different issues.

DillonBarnes 5 years, 11 months ago

How so?

The second amendment doesn't say: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms only in their homes, shall not be infringed.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 11 months ago

Would you please explain your thoughts on how they are “completely different issues”?

George_Braziller 5 years, 11 months ago

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You can have your guns though I really doubt you'll need them under your coat in the event that Iowa decides to attack Kansas.

Brock Masters 5 years, 11 months ago

George you should keep in mind that the SCOTUS just affirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

The states of Vermont and Alaska would differ with you on that point.

chucky93 5 years, 11 months ago

George is absolutely correct.

The people who think that Heller gives them the right to carry "whenever and however" they want are just as blind as those who think it is the guns that do the killing.

An excerpt from Heller...notice the first prohibition they speak of:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." (Internal citations omitted). In a footnote the Court added that their list of restrictions did not purport to be exhaustive.

So yes, the Second Amendment does acknowledge an individual right to "keep and bear" arms. But all Heller did, outside of documenting that point, was to say that such a right cannot be infringed in one's home to the extent that DC was doing so. Saying Heller goes beyond those two points - especially to the extent some of you suggest - is ignorance and unsupported.

begin60 5 years, 12 months ago

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

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

A well regulated militia, being necessary ...

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

Everyone likes to emphasize the "right to bear arms" part while de-emphasizing the "well regulated" part.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 11 months ago

You seem to be missing the point of what “well regulated” means. It certainly does not mean that the government should stack on laws (regulations) to control the militia. Instead, let’s see what one of the founders had to say about “well regulated”. From Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 29: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

And this is from a Federalist who wanted more power concentrated in the hands of the new federal government.

As far as registration goes; as soon as each and every branch and division of the federal, state and local governments admit that they have absolutely no right or power to regulate firearms in any manner what so ever, I will happily register my firearms so they will know who can be called upon for the militia.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Why such an extreme position?

All of the rights in the bill of rights aren't absolute, as far as I can tell.

We have freedom of speech, yet also libel/slander/defamation/etc. laws.

Our courts seem to have held that various regulations about guns don't "infringe" on the right.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 11 months ago

I would prefer the term impassioned to extreme.

To answer your question, I do not agree with any law or interpretation of the Constitution that attempts to give government control of what I consider a natural right unless it specifically prevents infringement of another person’s rights. If we had anything that resembled an independent judiciary it might be a little different, but our courts have become nothing but an extension of the other two overly corrupt branches.

All of the evils that human beings do to each other with firearms are already illegal (unless you are the government) so what is the true purpose of laws that limit the right to keep and bear arms?

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

I'll take a guess at the last question.

Like drunk driving laws, I believe that the intent of gun control laws are to prevent people from being hurt/killed.

Drunk driving is against the law, even if the driver hasn't hurt anybody yet - the idea is to prevent the harm.

We could of course change that, and just wait until they hurt/kill somebody instead, but there's a natural desire to prevent those sorts of tragedies, I think.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 11 months ago

A couple of issues with that line of thought:

1) Drunk driving is not a Constitutionally protected right. 2) All drunk drivers, whether they think so or not, are a danger to others. Millions of gun owners are not. 3) There is medical and judicial evidence that drunk driving laws reduce harm to others; there is no convincing evidence that gun laws reduce crime.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Well, I know you're pretty set on this one, so it's unlikely my arguments will affect your view.

So, you believe that all citizens, regardless of mental health, maturity, skill level, or commission of a felony have the right to buy a gun, without any sorts of regulations at all, is that right?

Peacemaker452 5 years, 11 months ago

I believe that anyone who society cannot trust to own a firearm because they are a threat to others should not be walking about freely among us, with a gun or without.

Yes, I know that many will find that harsh and unfeeling, but if the person is dangerous with a gun, he will be dangerous without one.

Why should our rights suffer because on one of these people.

And yes, I am an unfeeling @@$, because I also believe that if someone’s mental capacity makes them dangerous to others, they should not be walking around either.

Guns do not make criminals or the mentally unstable commit crimes, they do that. Too many people want to blame an inanimate object for human actions.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Well, that is a bit different than I would have thought.

The problem, is, of course, that locking people up because they might be dangerous isn't really feasible.

Unless you want to lock up huge segments of the population.

That would include many college students who are likely to drink and drive, for example.

And, of course, somebody who gets drunk and gets into a fistfight can't do the same amount of damage as somebody who gets drunk and shoots somebody - that's one of the classic arguments for gun control.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

But the difference in your analogy is that the DUI laws don't prevent the drunk driver from driving. Or more importantly, the sober driver. They punish the sober driver if they do drive drunk. The driver drives because he gets a license to drive.

So in that same vein then, gun laws should punish those who abuse the right. But they should not overly restrict the right to keep and bear. But if you are law abiding in your right to carry, you satisfy the requirements to carry, then you should be able to do so without undo restrictions.

Don't punish or restrict merely on the assumption that you are going to break the law. If that is your logic then most people should not be issued a drivers license because the vast majority will have a few drinks and drive at some point in their life.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

In the same vein, good gun regulations attempt to prevent harm by preventing those who aren't a good risk from buying guns.

You assume that certain regulations are acceptable when you use the language of "law abiding", "requirements to carry", etc.

Peacemaker has argued that there should be no regulations whatsoever, which would disqualify those very attempts you mention.

And, you have to pass certain tests to get a driver's license as well, to try to ensure that most folks on the road have a certain capacity to drive well/safely.

Peacemaker's argument is analogous to arguing that one shouldn't have to pass any tests to get a driver's license (he wouldn't argue that, because driving isn't a constitutional right).

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

But none of the bills that are being discussed are about requirements to get a permit. They are just about restricting places you can carry.

If you could write the requirements to get a permit would you be ok with unrestricted carry then?

Just curious.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

I'd be a bit more ok with it, for sure.

Especially if we implemented all of the regulations comprehensively, without all of the loopholes that currently exist, so that everybody who bought a gun was screened, and passed the requirements.

My general argument was just that reasonable regulations don't "infringe" the 2nd amendment right, as our courts have concluded.

It's interesting that in order to maintain his belief in no regulation, Peacemaker has to hold a rather extreme belief in locking up anybody who might be dangerous, which isn't really feasible.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 11 months ago

Please don’t put words in my mouth to further your own agenda.

I did not say that we should lock up anyone who might be dangerous; I said people so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with firearms should not be walking around freely among us.

I do not believe in proactively locking people away, that would violate the non-aggression principle, but I do believe in their removal from society if they do initiate force against someone else.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

That's different from what you originally said, which is closer to what I said. "I believe that anyone who society can't trust to own a firearm...should not be walking about freely among us."

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand what you say, and the consequences of it.

People who are immature were one of the categories I listed - that doesn't mean they've committed any acts of violence yet.

The problem with your line of thinking is that it seems to be a simplistic "good guy, bad buy" way of thinking, which doesn't fit very well with reality, in my view.

There are many people who haven't committed any overt acts of violence who may be ill-suited to carrying a gun, for a variety of reasons.

Your statement that we should "lock them up" so as to preserve your unregulated right to carry a gun doesn't work, unless we're willing to lock up huge segments of the population.

Determining who we can and can't trust to own a firearm is exactly the purpose of gun regulations - it makes a lot more sense to me to implement those.

And, of course, anybody who is sane, hasn't been convicted of a felony, etc. will still have the right to own a gun, so it shouldn't affect those people negatively.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 11 months ago

Once again, you are modifying what I wrote to your own end.

You quoted: “I believe that anyone who society can’t trust to own a firearm…should not be walking about freely among us.” The actual statement was: “I believe that anyone who society can’t trust to own a firearm because they are threat to others should not be walking about freely among us.”

Why did you intentionally leave out the words “because they are a threat to others”? I have been around long enough on LJW to know you are not an unintelligent person, so I can only guess it was done purposefully, probably because it changed the whole meaning of the statement to better fit your view that I am being extreme.

I also never used the phrase “lock them up”, so please quit stating that I did.

The problem with your “sane, hasn’t been convicted of a felony, etc.” is that sanity is relative, many would have said that George Washington was not sane for leading the Continental Army against the world’s strongest military. Also, there a plenty of felons (I would guess in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds) who committed no violent crime. I believe that you have indicated support for ending the “war on drugs” in the past. How many people have been convicted of felony possession of a substance the government should not be controlling anyway?

You are certainly correct about one thing, you and I will likely never agree on this issue.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago


But that's the very point - how do we determine that?

Many people might be dangerous to others if they had a gun without the proper training, even if they hadn't committed any violent acts in the past.

They might not be, if they had proper training, as part of the regulations for gun possession.


How else would you prevent people from "walking freely among us" other than locking them up?

I completely agree that non-violent crimes shouldn't be felonies, and shouldn't result in the loss of various rights, like voting or gun possession.

See, we can agree on something :-)

And, my apologies for misstating your comments - you didn't explicitly say we should "lock them up". But, of course, that's the only way to stop them from "walking freely" among us, unless you think we should kill them instead - surely that's not what you meant, is it?

I do find your argument extreme, in that you advocate for no regulations whatsoever on gun ownership.

And, that your corollary seems to lead to a strange idea - determining who is a threat to others, even if they haven't committed any violence yet, and preventing them from "walking freely among us".

The only certain way to do that would be to wait until somebody has committed violence, and then conclude that they're dangerous to others, but there are problems with that as well. Somebody gets a gun, gets drunk and kills somebody - we can conclude they're dangerous then, but somebody's been killed already, which is terrible.

How long should we incarcerate them, to prevent a recurrence? The only certain way would be to incarcerate them for life, right?

Also, it's too static - people change, and situations change. Some people might be dangerous under certain circumstances, but not others. A college student who drinks and drives, and injures somebody certainly posed some danger there. Should we incarcerate them for life because of it? Are they a continuing danger if they learned from the experience and stopped drinking and driving? Etc.

It seems much more sensible, and feasible, to institute reasonable regulations on gun possession, to me.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

By the way, what do you think of the changes mentioned in this editorial, all of which remove some checks and balances on CC rights?

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

I'll get back to you on this. But part of the problem is the changes mentioned in this editorial are not entirely accurate so I can't really address them. If you would ask me specifically about a change I would be more than happy to give you my opinion. I don't have a problem with legitimate checks and balances but they need to really be applicable. Not just a bunch of "hoops" designed to discourage or hinder.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

Editorial statement: Applicants are no longer required to take a shooting test when renewing their license. Response: To my knowledge, it was never a requirement for renewing. Editorial statement: In addition, a provision allowing the state to deny a renewal based on evidence a person has a physical infirmity that makes it impossible to safely handle a weapon was removed. Response: 75-7c04(3) That statement is still in the regulation. The editors statement is incorrect. Editorial statement: Permit holders no longer are required to submit to a Breathalyzer test when a police officer suspects the individual is under the influence of alcohol. Response: 75-7c12 (e)(4) states refusal to submit will result in a three year suspension. The editors statement is incorrect.

This is for starters. I don't have time right now to add any of the others but as you can see, the editor is spewing false information only to stir up and/or inflame the public by misleading information.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Then you should write a clear letter to the editor correcting it, with appropriate sources.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of cc regulations, since I don't have any personal interest in the subject.

For example, I don't know whether the numbers you cite are current or previous laws.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

My point exactly! I do have a vested interest in the CC laws. People who choose to exercise their right to carry become very aware of the laws and how to be responsible and safe, generally speaking.

You are entitled to you opinions of course. I don't diminish them in any way and I don't blame you for not being up on all the regulations.

I do wish that if people have questions or concerns they try to find out some answers. What seems to happen though is there are snap decissions made out of fear and ignorance, not just about CC but a lot of topics.

Campus carry is a great example because the general public thinks that if this is permitted there will be all sorts of gun related violence on campus. The truth is, since 2010 it has been perfectly legal to carry on college, and K-12 campuses and there has be zero incidents of violence that can be attributed to the 2010 change in the regulation.

I can't say it has helped in lowering the crime rate, but by the same token you can't say it has hurt either. And it has been around long enough that we should be able to tell.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

So I expect to see your lte in the paper with corrections soon.

If the paper is in fact misinforming readers, that's a huge problem, and one that should be corrected.

Or, at the very least, you should call someone there and correct them, if you don't want your name revealed.

If your numbers refer to previous laws that have been changed, though, then you may be incorrect as well.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

My references are very good and I stand behind them. A LTE is pretty much a waste of time. It never results in anything.

These boards are moderated and I'm sure the author is aware that their facts and statements have been challenged. I have yet to ever see one of them corrected by a retraction.

I think the legislators are doing a pretty good job of interpreting the bills and all their ramifications. My posting here, I hope, clears up some of the misconceptions being tossed about.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

They don't monitor that closely, and not for that sort of content.

You should, at the very least, call the paper, correct them, and ask them to print a correction.

However, I looked up both of your numbers quoted above, and they appear to refer to a 2009 KS statute.

It's entirely possible that those portions have been changed in the last several years.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

K.S.A. 75-7c01 through 75-7c27 is the entire Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act. It was last updated on the Attorney Generals website on February 2012 so I think it is up to date. The AG has posted opinions related to the statute as well.

HB 2353 is the bill being debated which involves the requirement to provide detection and storage for firearms in government buildings.

chucky93 5 years, 11 months ago

With the exception of your correct statement that there was never a shooting test for renewal of a are citing old law bud...get the updated statutes.

Physical infirmity is no longer a question or requirement; and a licensee may only loose their license if they submit to and fail the blood-alcohol test (and that is only for a year).

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

Can you provide links to where you are getting your information? I would think the AG website should be up to date or have up to date links. If I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. Statutes can be quite difficult to stay on top of.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

If this is not current, show me where it is different. This is taken from

75-7c12: Carrying concealed weapon while under influence of alcohol or drugs prohibited; evidence; testing; revocation of license, when. (e) Before a test or tests are administered under this section, the person shall be given oral and written notice that: (4) if the person refuses to submit to and complete any test of breath, blood or urine hereafter requested by a law enforcement officer, the person's license to carry a concealed weapon will be revoked for a minimum of three years;

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

That website says in the blue portion, that it is a searchable list of 2009 KS Statutes.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

I apologize. After chucky's statement I did some more researching and uncovered SB 306, which did go into effect in 2010, did in fact make many of the changes cited. But I would recommend reading the AG FAQ on the subject before dismissing the changes as "bad". Some were stricken because they either conflicted or were redundant with other state statutes. Others were modified because overly zealous local PD's were abusing the CUI testing. Also there were no numeric limits specified in the original statute which implied any reading over 0.000 would result in suspension. I could go on but if you are really interested in this at all I suggest reading it for yourself. Happy to chat more whenever...

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Ah - so the paper isn't wrong then.

I might do a bit more research, but from my reading of the changes, they seem like a bad idea to me.

It's certainly possible that there were some changes that should be made, for example, the level of alcohol use that resulted in suspension, but to throw out the whole idea seems wrong to me.

I'm glad to be able to discuss this calmly and reasonably as well, and would be glad to continue in the future.

RoeDapple 5 years, 11 months ago

"Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There are actually two statements being made here, seperated by the second comma. Agree with it or not, it calls for a well regulated militia AND protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes, I understand your rationale as well as the rulings of the Supreme Court. However, I'm not as convinced by the arguments being made. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. The English language is also a living, changing entity. Words and phrases used two plus centuries ago have changed their meanings. It was understood in the very early U.S. that a militia was any man who could be counted on to pick up a weapon and defend the new country. It had less to do with something like The National Guard and more to do with a farmer who could come to the defense of country. In that case, the militia being well regulated and the individual were one and the same.

RoeDapple 5 years, 11 months ago

And in that regard, those "farmers" would go to battle with the arms they had. The regulations would come into play when they were called.

RoeDapple 5 years, 11 months ago

I do like where you are taking this argument though. By your reasoning us good old boy, "farmer" types should be well stocked in case the militia calls .

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

I certainly have no problem with you farmer types having guns. I also have no problem with those guns being registered. And just like I don't think a very large gun attached to a vehicle (tank) would be permitted, neither do I think a fully automatic assault weapon be permitted.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 11 months ago

Well, perhaps we should limit what type of books you can have, and when you can have them. You certainly don’t need books that are over 200 pages; that seems like a reasonable restriction, doesn’t it? Surely the author can get his idea across in that amount of space; anything longer would have no “sporting purpose”. Who cares if longer books could be more effective, it’s for the children, after all. Less weight in their backpacks, could be a public health issue. Make sure that you turn in your monthly reading list to the government; they have to know what everyone is reading so they can identify anyone who might need to be added to the “suspicious book” watch list.

Brock Masters 5 years, 11 months ago

jhawkinsf so you're saying you're right and the SCOTUS is wrong?

The Constitution is not a living breathing document in the sense that it can change over time by itself.. it is what it is until the people change it through amendments.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 11 months ago

Sometimes the Supreme Court does change it's mind. Think Dred Scott.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

And yet it requires understanding and interpretation.

At the time it was written, "arms" meant one thing, and today it seems that we have many weapons they never knew of. Strictly following the original document and the meanings of it would imply that people have the right to muskets and other weapons that existed then.

RoeDapple 5 years, 11 months ago

They would have been considered "assault" weapons in a war setting at the time, when being used for the purpose of "assault". Just as the hunting rifle of today could be considered a "sniper" rifle if used in that capacity. The modern bolt action hunting rifle was originally concieved as a rapid fire weapon for military use.

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

Could be.

On the other hand, they might feel rather differently about modern day weapons - we just don't know.

RoeDapple 5 years, 11 months ago

"On the other hand, they might feel rather differently about modern day weapons"

Yeah. I'm guessing (too) that if they had a few M-60's, a couple of hundred M-16's and a dozen or so 700 Remingtons in .338 Lapua they would have most certainly used 'em! ;-)

Brock Masters 5 years, 11 months ago

jafs and today we have many different means of communication that were not envisioned by the writers of the constitution. Should speech be limited to verbal and ink and quill as opposed to email, blogs, websites, tv, radio and so on....?

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

I never said that.

I simply pointed out that the original document requires interpretation, and that the original culture was very limited compared to today's culture.

So, our challenge is to take those principles, and try to understand them in context, and interpret/apply them today.

It's not an easy thing to do.

classclown 5 years, 11 months ago

Permit holders no longer are required to submit to a Breathalyzer test when a police officer suspects the individual is under the influence of alcohol. Previously, permit holders who denied such a request automatically had their licenses suspended for three years. Now, that’s no longer the case. It was an irresponsible change that makes the of job law enforcement more difficult.


I see this as a good change. It's no secret that the police were/are against cc permits to begin with. Allowing them to test those they suspect of drinking only allows them to harass people. The rule as it was allowed the cops to 'suspect' inebriation of a permit holder the same way they 'smell pot' during a traffic stop. This change removes that.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

Yes that must be it. Our legislators are so stupid they just sign things without understanding what they are signing. I think they consider a bill a lot more than you give them credit for and I would venture to say they don't really have concerns about this because none of the fears have been realized. If you can cite data to support why the CC laws have been bad for the state please do so.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

Number of people who lost their concealed carry license last year for aggravated assault with a firearm -- 7

Number who lost their license for carrying while under the influence of alcohol -- 5

Number of incidents of gun violence on college campuses last year -- 0

Adding concealed carry to a college campus would, according to the statistics, make the campus less safe. It is a solution that will create a bigger problem.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

Hmmm. Lets see 7 is what percentage of 40,000? 0.0175% This is a college town. What is the statistical significance there?

Of the 5 who loss due to alcohol, how many actually committed a crime that involved the improper use of said firearm? Zero

Incidences of gun violence on campus. Zero? If true, then maybe that is because it is legal to carry on campus right now! You just can't carry into a posted building. That is what is so frustrating to me. People don't realize that it is already legal to carry on campus and I bet the bad guys know that too.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

Me thinks I am right... (7 / 40,000 ) x 100 = 0.0175 %

e.g. 5 is what percent of 10 (5 / 10 ) x 100 = 50%

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

Show your math. All you are doing is dividing 40,000 into 7. You have to multiply that by 100 to get percentage. 7 / 40,000 = 0.000175 then x's 100 gives you 0.0175 percent

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

FORMULA TO CALCULATE PERCENTAGE: x / 100 = a / b x= unknown percentage a=subset (in this case 7) b=total quantity (in this case 40,000) INSERT VALUES INTO FORMULA: x / 100 = 7 / 40000 STEP 1: DO THE MATH ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EQUAL SIGN x / 100 = 0.000175 STEP 2: GET X BY ITSELF BY CROSS MULTIPLYING ( x / 100 ) * 100 = 0.000175 * 100 SO: x = 0.000175 * 100 THEREFORE: unknown percentage = 0.0175 percent

What you are doing is displaying the ratio of 7 to 40,000 as a decimal result, not a percentage.

Enough math already. The topic is concealed carry:)

wdl 5 years, 11 months ago

For the most part all of this discussion has never, and will never go any where or change anyones mind on where they are regarding concealed carry or guns period. Why don't we get some bad guys opinion on this topic. You know the ones who bust into your homes, rape women, hold up stores and people, defend their drug turf, car jack, and just shoot the hell out of things because someone disrespected them, or so they think. Their take on it is real simple, they pack 24/7 and really don't care what the law says.

We as citizens should not be required to have a permit as long as you are not a felon, and of course there are a couple more reason 4 sure. The bottom line is that 40k people in this state have permits to carry. What has the permit accomplished?? Who does the permit protect?? The bad guys don't care, their still packing, and banging. One thing that I see it does is generate some revenue for the counties and state, and not much of that. The whole constitutional argument is mute. If you need to protect yourself by all means and by any means do so. You folks can continue to explore your navels if you want, I prefer to be locked and loaded.

clubber1 5 years, 11 months ago

I can't believe the writer actually believes that a person who is behind on child support should not be allowed to have a CC permit. Just like a liberal to tie unrelated issues together in an attempt to win what they want...No one to have a CC permit in this case.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

Guns don't scare me. They have been a part of almost every culture since their invention. But you are trying to draw conclusions based on things like, "More legal carry will result in more illegal carry." I think just the opposite. I don't think the bad guys are going to "ramp it up" to keep pace with more CC. Quite the opposite. I think that as the bad guys find more and more instances where the average citizen will be able to defend themselves, they will be less inclined to engage in those types of crimes. I never envision a future where law abiding citizens turn to lethal force as a normal way to resolve differences with their neighbors. When I was in high school there were quite a few students that had some nice hardware hanging in the backs of their truck windows. But they were very responsible with them and never caused any problem. There was more than one fight out in the parking lot where both parties had guns in their vehicles and not once did they even remotely think about pulling one out to finish the fight. No, I think you are wrong. And no one is suggesting teens start CC'ing. By your logic you would say that if automobiles keep getting more and more attractive we will soon have 7 and 8 year olds driving. You can still have rules dude. Just because you carry you will go "postal"? I won't even attempt to make sense of that one. And as to your last statement, it happens all the time now. There are numerous instances where CC holders have saved themselves and/or their loved ones from criminals. The policy has already been vindicated time and time again. But with the liberal bias in the media you seldom hear about it.

I would much rather live in a gun conscious culture where individuals can and will take responsibility and have the resources to defend themselves in the absence of law enforcement. Your culture is one where criminals can pretty much do whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want because you have instructed everyone to, "Do what the bad guy says." "Go ahead and rob me, its only money. Go ahead and rape my wife, after all she isn't really physically hurt, is she."

No. I think responsible gun ownership and the right to self defense is a much better culture.

Hedge 5 years, 11 months ago

I won't say that guns are never used in a harmful way. Everyone knows it happens.

I would even go one step farther and not make the culture exclusive to guns. We have turned into a culture conditioned by violence. And I would agree that this is a bad thing. But the whole CC concept is not based on fear or violence. It is one of being able to defend one's self when you are in a life threatening situation. Carrying concealed doesn't fit with a macho mentality. I can see where open carry might be perceived that way in some circles.

I think the people and actions you are concerned with are going to occur with people that aren't going to bother with getting a permit in the first place. The people I'm talking about (CC) are taking the right very seriously and will act in a very responsible manner. There have been some recent instances where police officers have "gone postal" and shot fellow officers. I think this happens more often than with civilian CC holders. Do you think that we should take the guns away from the police because of this? No. You accept that things like this will happen no matter how well you screen them. Same with DUI's. You can't predict every person that may drive drunk. And of those you can't tell which ones are going to have an accident. There will always be ones that "slip through the cracks".

I will agree with you in that we have a violent culture. I disagree that preventing people from having the legal means to use a firearm as a defensive option will somehow lower the threat of violence. I think CC in a defensive use is a positive step in reducing violence. Newton has several laws. What you propose is more akin to Newton's first law. An object in motion (violence) tends to stay in motion. I think Newton's third law is a much better deterrent. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

There hasn't been a mad rush of people to get CC permits. In Kansas only about 40,000 since it became legal. And I'd venture to say a lot of the people that did get CC's already carried before. People who want to carry, for whatever reason, will carry. Those that don't, won't. I don't think the numbers will change much regardless of what bills get passed.

Getting rid of all guns is not very realistic so I would be interested in how you would propose we reduce the culture of violence in this country. Where do you think the root cause lies?

jafs 5 years, 11 months ago

That's a great question, without an easy answer, as far as I can tell. But, it's clearly true that ours is a violent culture, and more so than in the past, from my experience.

You know, it would be interesting to see if many more people want to get CC licenses if the requirements are weakened or removed for them.

I imagine that the regulations have deterred some people.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 11 months ago

Legally exercising one's rights in a responsible manner encourages others to act illegally and irresponsibly? dude, chill....

Commenting has been disabled for this item.