Advertisement

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

Advertisement

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.

Comments

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 1 month ago

I'll be packing a "crossbow".

Kansas: Senate Natural Resources Committee to Consider Crossbow Hunting Bill

A full-inclusion hunting bill is coming before the state Senate Committee on Natural Resources this Friday. Senate Bill 380 would allow all hunters the opportunity to use a crossbow during big game archery season.

(from a source)

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 1 month ago

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

0

Lane Signal 2 years, 1 month ago

Everyone seems to want to pick this issue into little pieces. This issue needs to be looked at in a comprehensive manner. It's not that those who apply for conceal and carry licenses are most likely to shoot people. It's the perpetuation of gun culture that scares me. The more people who carry legally, the more illegal guns will be carried. The more people carry legally, the more present in all of our minds guns will be. The more present guns are in our culture, the more often guns will be seen as solutions to problems. Petty criminals will see guns as required fashion accessories. Teens will see guns as status symbols. The more guns and people carrying, the more people will go postal, I think. Eventually, someone who is legally carrying a gun may shoot a crazed gunman and save people and this will be seen as vindication of the policy, but that misses the point that conceal and carry is part of creating this culture.

0

Gandalf 2 years, 1 month ago

You have to understand the teapub mind. In Texas if you have a defaulted student loan, you cannot get CC license. Is Texas "liberal"?

0

clubber1 2 years, 1 month 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.

0

Gandalf 2 years, 1 month ago

After reading the Heller vs Wash DC. SCOTUS did not examing the seperare issue of CC. Simply that DC police had to license people for home carry and not to require guns to disassembled and trigger locked.

0

wdl 2 years, 1 month 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.

0

Hedge 2 years, 1 month 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%

0

Hedge 2 years, 1 month 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.

0

Bob_Keeshan 2 years, 1 month 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.

0

its_just_math 2 years, 1 month ago

Why do liberal hate guns so much?

"From my cold dead hands"

0

Hedge 2 years, 1 month 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.

0

Gotland 2 years, 1 month ago

If you want to carry a gun carry a gun. Other human beings are not going to argue away my rights.

0

classclown 2 years, 1 month 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.

0

mustrun80 2 years, 1 month ago

These new laws are bad news man. I mean, clearly laws are the only thing stopping people from breaking laws.

Why would someone have the audacity to want to carry a gun? We have laws that stop people from shooting other people right?

Oh, those signs with the picture of a gun, circled and crossed out also stop people from bringing guns into buildings and shooting people.

Thank you government.

0

RoeDapple 2 years, 1 month 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.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 1 month ago

A well regulated militia, being necessary ...

0

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 1 month ago

The government (which btw, are people too) know what is best for you. They demand that you tell them where your firearm is. They only want the best for you.

0

begin60 2 years, 1 month ago

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

0

Gandalf 2 years, 1 month 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.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.