Archive for Friday, September 7, 2012

Kansas files friend-of-court in concealed carry case

September 7, 2012


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.


Charles L Bloss Jr 2 years, 10 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.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 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.

verity 2 years, 10 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?

BlackVelvet 2 years, 10 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.

Brock Masters 2 years, 10 months ago

Good for you for standing up to the bureaucrats. Of course, it would have been fun to say she is planning on running for president and wants to be able to prove she was born her.

Or she is getting ready to register to vote and need it.

verity 2 years, 10 months ago

Odd. Nobody asked me why I wanted a copy of my birth certificate. Kathleen Sebelius was governor then. Maybe that's why nobody tried to interfere with my rights.

BlackVelvet 2 years, 10 months ago

Wrong! Kathleen was the governor when this happened to me.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 10 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.

verity 2 years, 10 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.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 10 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...

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 10 months ago

My point is looney people who want to carry concealed weapons out of some warped sense of fear does not constitute a well regulated militia. The SCOTUS ignored the phrase in their latest set of decisions undermining decades of jurisprudence.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 10 months ago

Were the branch davidians in Waco a well regulated militia within the meaning of the constitution? I think not.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 10 months ago

You should research what the term "well regulated" meant to the writers of the Constitution bdfore you try to use it in an argument.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 10 months ago

I would say "good point" but you haven't made one...

Peacemaker452 2 years, 10 months ago

Since you choose not to enlighten yourself on the term "well regulated" I will help you out.

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.

Jim Phillips 2 years, 10 months ago

85, The answer to your question lies in the history books. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1788. The Militia Act, which allows for a standing militia rather than a hodge-podge of every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45, was not passed until 1792. Therefore, the Second Amendment was not written for a standing, full-time militia.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 10 months ago

I believe the founding fathers were thinking of the "minute men" and the role they played in the American Revolution when they included that phrase in the US Constitution. Acts passed by Congress later had nothing to do with it. The point is every able bodied man who lived in every town was expected to be part of that town's militia. That is the role the national guard plays now. You gun toting nuts have a really warped sense of history, the US Constitution and what it means to be an American.

Jim Phillips 2 years, 10 months ago

Then I guess my question to you is why do you even bother to ask questions if you refuse to listen to answers?

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 9 months ago

I'm not talking about everyone who owns guns...just nuts like you.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 10 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.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 10 months ago

California, all the time in areas such a LA and San Francisco. In fact, anti-gun senator Barbara Boxer has one of the few CC permits issued in San Francisco County.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 10 months ago

Did Boxer bribe someone to get it? Were others denied a permit unjustly? Neither of you have said hooey...

Peacemaker452 2 years, 10 months ago

If you include using her considerable influence to provide benifit to the people who gave her the permit, then yes she did.

Yes, others were unjustly denied permits, having met all of the legal requirements but were determined to not have a good enough reason. Boxer gets her's even though she has a security detail.

verity 2 years, 10 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.

DillonBarnes 2 years, 10 months ago

Hi Verity :) Since no one else has replied, I'll at least address you.

To be honest, I was some what surprised to see this, too. I wasn't aware states would do this, I'm not sure how common it is. I would, however, debate your use of the term "interfering" from earlier. Saying your state supports a certain issue probably has very little actual bearing on the court's decision.

I would challenge you to ask yourself how you would react if this was an issue you supported. I don't want to make any assumptions of your stance on other issues, so won't get specific, but what if another state pledged it's support to Kansas for a right you also supported? Would you question why that state cared or would you say, "that's right, look at the support from these other states?"

verity 2 years, 10 months ago

Thank you for your reply. Actually the reason I asked the question is because it seemed that the people who generally support less government interference and more states rights suddenly are supporting our state government interfering in another state's laws and I wanted to know the justification for that. So far, I've been given no reason.

You question my use of the word "interfering"---I would say that whether it has an effect or not, it is an attempt to interfere. Why else bother?

Whether it will have any effect, I have no way of knowing, but I'm supposing it does cost us something, even if it's only time spent. It's also the principle of the matter.

So to answer your question, it doesn't matter whether I support something or not. I see no reason for another state to issue an opinion on something that doesn't affect them. I realize that leaves a lot of room, but in this case I don't see a substantial effect.

DillonBarnes 2 years, 10 months ago

Honestly, I can't argue with you, I had the same feeling when I read the story. The hypocrisy among politics is amazing, just look at our own Kris Kobach, enough said I think.

verity 2 years, 10 months ago

O M G ! No argument? Will you marry me?

; P

DillonBarnes 2 years, 10 months ago

Ha! Although we may differ on the issue of "will-carry/may-carry," that's not really the issue at hand. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, and in this case, I completely understand you.

meggers 2 years, 10 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?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.