Advertisement

Archive for Friday, September 7, 2012

Kansas files friend-of-court in concealed carry case

September 7, 2012

Advertisement

TOPEKA — Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt says the state has joined 13 other states supporting a lawsuit over Maryland's restrictions on concealed-carry permits.

Schmidt said Thursday that he added Kansas to a friend-of-the-court brief filed in an appeals court case being heard in Virginia. The court is reviewing a Maryland district court ruling that struck down a requirement that residents must give a reason for needing a concealed-carry permit.

Schmidt says the government does not have the right to ask citizens why they want a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Kansas is one of 39 states with a concealed-carry law that doesn't require a reason for needing the license.

The Wichita Eagle reports 10 states, including Maryland, have more restricted concealed-carry laws.

Comments

meggers 1 year, 7 months ago

Nice to know that our tax money is being spent challenging laws in other states.

Between Kobach and Schmidt, what's the tally?

0

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

Somebody? Anybody? Surely somebody can come up with a reason as to why, in this situation, we don't believe in state's rights.

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 7 months ago

The "may issue" concealed carry permit model lets the local law enforcement folks (in most states) decide who gets to exercise their Constitutional rights. People who make generous campaign contributions to the right candidate often can get permits. If you don't believe in bribery, forget it.

0

JayhawkFan1985 1 year, 7 months ago

What is a "well regulated militia"? The current US Supreme Court seems to want to ignore that clause which the founding fathers included in the second amendment. To me, that implies something other than an individual person's rights. The GOP seems to like activist judges when it suits their political agenda...

3

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

Nobody has yet answered why we are interfering with the laws of another state. Does this affect us in a substantial and negative way?

What would be our reaction if Maryland decided to interfere with our laws that had no bearing on them in any substantial way.

4

Flap Doodle 1 year, 7 months ago

The Vermont model is the way to go. If you can legally own a firearm, you can carry it openly or concealed. It seems like they get along very well doing it that way.

5

BlackVelvet 1 year, 7 months ago

Good for the AG for doing this. Yet, at the same time, when I went to get a copy of my daughter's birth certificate, the KANSAS Bureau of Vital Statistics, demanded to know why I wanted it. After they gave me grief for a bit, I asked for a supervisor and told them that it was none of their damned business why I wanted a copy of my infant daughter's birth certificate. They finally relented. But good for Derek Schmidt anyway.

0

tange 1 year, 7 months ago

Everyone knows the court is in need of concealed carrying friends.

2

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

Why is the party of less government spending time (and no doubt our money) interfering in what another state does? Does this affect the citizens of Kansas in some way?

6

FalseHopeNoChange 1 year, 7 months ago

The Intellectually complex 'should' have a reason and 'extensive' genetic medical tests before having, owning, touching or getting near a firearm.

DRD4 Genies are a 'frightful' organism that needs to be kept away from 'harmful' tools. For their, and others safety.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 7 months ago

"What I am completely opposed to is having to give the government a reason for exercising my right to keep and bear arms,"

But that's not what this is. It's a requirement that you give a reason for concealing that weapon, not for bearing it.

7

Lynn731 1 year, 7 months ago

Bravo, a very good decision. The second amendment does not require a reason to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms from the government. It is a right given by the constitution. I know that many people do not like to have a permit to exercise that right, but the permit requires training, proficiency with a firearm, and most importantly a background check to prevent felons from getting a permit. It is opposite to what the constitution says, but for the aforementioned reasons I am not completely opposed it. What I am completely opposed to is having to give the government a reason for exercising my right to keep and bear arms, and having them decide if I can or cannot do it. I do not like having to have a permit, but I rest easier knowing that permit holders are not criminals. Criminals, of course, carry firearms anyway. Which is why law abiding citizens have the right to, as well. It is obvious that I am ambiguous to having to have a permit, but I draw the line at having the government rule on my right by giving them a reason for exercising it.

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.