Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Overland Park approves carrying weapons in public

September 25, 2012

Advertisement

— Overland Park residents will be able to carry their guns in public, with certain restrictions.

The Overland Park City Council on Monday approved an ordinance allowing legal gun owners to openly carry their weapons, if they are in holsters with the safety engaged.

The council passed the ordinance after the Kansas attorney general said cities may not completely prohibit open carry of a loaded firearm while on public property. Some Overland Park officials said they were concerned the city could be sued if it didn't allow open carry.

Gun owners will be allowed to carry weapons on sidewalks, parks and buildings that don't have signs prohibiting firearms. Business owners will be able to post signs refusing to allow guns in their businesses. Guns will not be allowed inside city-owned buildings.

Comments

atiopatioo 1 year, 6 months ago

The Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage

Making sense of spin in the news

http://www.gunlaws.com/HowGunSpinIsDone.htm

0

Benjamin Roberts 1 year, 6 months ago

"Business owners will be able to post signs refusing to allow guns in their businesses."

For such businesses, I have a business card:

No Right to Protect = No Sale (Front)

No Right to Protect = No Sale (Front) by Benjamin Roberts

No Right to Protect = No Sale (Back)

No Right to Protect = No Sale (Back) by Benjamin Roberts

3

Klumma 1 year, 6 months ago

Not sure why this is big news. It has never been against the law, as far as I know, to have an open/carry firearm. City ordinances are one thing, but they are not laws. Ergo, very easily challenged and beaten by state or federal law.

Remember the days when you would see a truck with a gun rack sometime holding up to three shotguns/rifles hanging from the back window from inside the truck? It wasn't laws or city ordinances that prevented you from seeing this today. It was theft. Thanks, Topeka.

0

uncleandyt 1 year, 6 months ago

So business owners will be free to opt out of allowing gun enjoyers the freedom to freely display their freedom props in the shops. The radical Left is coming to take our guns and gun rights away. It all makes sense.

1

Flap Doodle 1 year, 6 months ago

I prefer to let the bad guys guess if I'm packing heat or not.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 6 months ago

I'd give our founding fathers an A-. 90%. Of the Ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, they messed up with #2. The other nine, I'm fine with.

1

SouthWestKs 1 year, 6 months ago

For KansasLiberal, Carrying a gun either openly or concealed is a lot easier than carrying a cop.. If you have a Glock with there safe-fire system or a revolver that has a transfer-bar they are on safe until you pull the trigger.. The old Rugers & some old S & W's with the hammer that has a point have no safety, should be carried with the hammer over a empty chamber.. Also the judges now can carry in there court rooms.. If you have a unloaded gun in a zip-lock ( closed container ) bag you can take it any where you want to in Kansas..

0

KansasLiberal 1 year, 6 months ago

Why would anyone need to openly carry a gun in Overland Park? Unless you have to make late-night cash deposits at the bank, doing that is just asking to be robbed.

0

oldbaldguy 1 year, 6 months ago

why would you want to? concealed carry makes more sense. i prefer a small revolver in .38 special. it has no safety except the transfer bar.

0

time2kill 1 year, 6 months ago

I think some people misunderstand this event. Overland Park is not granting anyone a new right. They are RESTRICTING the existing right to openly carry in Kansas, by requiring that the gun be in a holster and have a safety engaged. In most places in Kansas (including most of Lawrence), you can openly carry a gun, without the requirements of a holster or safety.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 1 year, 6 months ago

Lawrence has always allowed open carry .

3

time2kill 1 year, 6 months ago

Does anyone know more about the details of this law than is reported in the article? My primary question is whether or not the transfer bar on a revolver or the trigger safety on a Glock or similar gun, or any other passive safety mechanism, meets the requirement for an "engaged safety" under the law. Or is this an anti-polymer-frame conspiracy to restrict open carry in Overland Park to 1911s?

0

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 6 months ago

You must have an old Ruger, before they put in the "transfer bar", great pistols----

1

bliddel 1 year, 6 months ago

My revolver has no "safety". I can leave it so that a single pull of the trigger will drop the hammer on an empty chamber, but there is no lever to prevent the firing pin from reaching the primer. Will my revolver be excluded on this basis?

0

kernal 1 year, 6 months ago

If we allow guns in government buildings then we also have to allow them in court rooms. That requires no further explanation.

0

Jock Navels 1 year, 6 months ago

look no further than the Republican National Convention a few weeks back, at which firearms were prohibited. how's that again? So, Matt Dillon was infringing on the constitutional rights of all those bad dude cowboys when he made them check their guns at the city limits?

2

junkcrap 1 year, 6 months ago

Is a liqueur store clerk allowed to level a shotgun (with the safety engaged of course) on someone walking into the store with a gun strapped to them or do they have to wait until the customer draw's on the clerk?

2

SageonPage 1 year, 6 months ago

I agree, either it is a right or it is not. I think our current government is fudging the law by trying to regulate them anywhere.

3

purpletentacle 1 year, 6 months ago

I've never understood why all the gun rights folks say its our constitutional right to carry firearms, and yet have no problem with it being prohibited in government buildings. It seems that if you feel firearms are a constitutional right you should also feel that you should be able to carry them in any public place.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.