Archive for Thursday, April 4, 2013

Gun rights bills on target for final passage

April 4, 2013


— Two gun-rights measures were nearing final legislative passage on Thursday.

One bill would declare that federal law would have no authority over guns owned or manufactured in Kansas.

As the so-called Second Amendment Protection Act was approved in the House, it would have allowed local law enforcement to arrest any federal authority trying to enforce action against a Kansas-protected gun.

Some legislators said that could lead to dangerous standoffs between Kansas and federal authorities.

Both the Senate and House negotiators agreed to changing that provision to allow locals to serve federal authorities with charges but not physically arrest them.

Sen. Jay Emler, R-Louisburg, explained the difference as, "You can charge … but you can't handcuff them."

Supporters of the change said it was agreed to by the attorney general's office and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

The other bill would permit public schools and state colleges to arm employees with concealed guns.

In addition, schools, colleges and local governments couldn't ban concealed guns without security measures in place.

Gun rights advocates sought passage of the bills in reaction to calls from federal officials for more gun control laws following December's mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.


somebodynew 5 years ago

"Supporters of the change said it was agreed to by the attorney general's office and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach."

Just why the H*** does anyone care what KK thinks about this ???? This has nothing to do with an election or registering a business in the State of Kansas - It should make no difference if he "agrees" with it or not. I hope people are taking notice just how much he likes to get his nose into things he doesn't belong in - and really not care about the things he should.

This entire section of this law is unconstitutional and if anyone is stupid enough to try to enforce it, it will cost the State $$$$$$$. But I guess we have plenty of that since we are trying to give everybody (except the regular working people) tax breaks.

greatgatsby 5 years ago

That's a bit of an overstatement.

elliottaw 5 years ago

they certainly don't care about separation on church and state

greatgatsby 5 years ago

False, some don't care about the separation of church and state. Some don't care about gay marriage or don't support it. Some don't care about welfare, environmentalism, on and on and on and on. I'm just saying generalizing all of us under one common ideal is nonsense.

chootspa 5 years ago

True. They don't care about the well-regulated part.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"That's a bit of an overstatement."

A very small bit.

Liberty275 5 years ago

Why is the second amendment the first one democrats are willing to forfeit?

elliottaw 5 years ago

It's not the first Bush wiped out a lot while he was running crap

verity 5 years ago

I think the second amendment does not mean what the NRA and others against gun control say it means. I'm not sure they even believe what they say.

It is obviously not a choice between taking all guns away from civilians and having sensible laws concerning guns. There are no absolute rights and everybody knows that.

And yet, too many people try to make it into that choice. Just another way of twisting the truth and trying to intimidate. And it has been working for the NRA (that and campaign contributions). Sandy Hook may have changed that.

The NRA and other gun rights advocates who are opposed to reasonable laws risk having even more stringent gun control laws passed because people like Wayne LaPierre seem insane.

The pendulum always swings. The farther it swings one way, the farther it will swing back the other way.

In_God_we_trust 5 years ago

There are no sensible laws concerning guns. There are only sensible laws concerning people's actions (like do not murder, do not steal etc.). The 2nd amendment says that it shall not be infringed. (Make no laws, because the people have a Right to bear firearms; the Bill of Rights are a list of restrictions on the federal government from making laws in these areas, they are off limits).

verity 5 years ago

"I think the second amendment does not mean what the NRA and others against gun control say it means."

"There are no absolute rights and everybody knows that."

fiddleback 5 years ago

LJW really needs additional disclaimers next to these headlines before you click, something to the effect of "Warning: Story Contains Crushing Updates On Psychotic Nonsense Destined to Become State Law"...or, more classically, "Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here..."

That way I wouldn't further ruin my day by inadvertently forcing myself to acknowledge that this avalanche of stupidity will continue totally unobstructed until at least 2014.

elliottaw 5 years ago

This state is run by complete morons

Liberty275 5 years ago

It took you all that to prove the "fight against tyranny" bit is a ruse? All you needed to do was remind everyone that Americans make up most of our military most won't turn their weapons on fellow Americans. If Uncle Sam gave you a weapon, would you kill Americans?

We can have guns because the constitution say's so. That's the only reason needed.

Missingit 5 years ago

While most of my weapon systems seem to be on back order and I had to scale back some of my future purchases to buy healthcare. The Second Amendment still seems to have relevance to me. If a government can vote to abolish or significantly modify one of the amendments to the bill of rights, which amendment will next be changed for the benefit of others? The 1st Amendement? I believe this bill is ridiculous. But i was raised on the Constitution, I pledged allegiance to the flag. I believe in those rights. While guns kill people so do knives. Look at China for proof of people going into schools and stabbing children. If we are banning things that are harmful lets get rid of tobacco, alcohol, cars and Mizzouri as well.

elliottaw 5 years ago

So you must have been outraged by the Patriot Act because it basically took a dump on the bill of rights

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years ago

THAT's a FACT! What do we learn from that?

Missingit 5 years ago

We can hire Snake Plisken to go to Topeka for us as well

ThePilgrim 5 years ago

Passing these bills is no different than the Left passing their bills. If the Constitution is sacrosanct then why pass these bills?

And for a State worker to try to arrest a Fed? HA!

greatgatsby 5 years ago

I think it says they can't arrest, just charge.

uncleandyt 5 years ago

The problem is, there is no Left. Where is my promised-by-blowhards Socialism? When does Our seriousness about health and environment kick in?? Have the hungry been fed??? Does everyone got shoes???? Stop with the farce about "Both Sides". Tell us all about the Left bills passed.

Missingit 5 years ago

I was actually against some parts of the Patriot Act. Shockingly I was not against all the parts of ObamaCare either. Buts thanks for asking

elliottaw 5 years ago

So you are just playing favorites with the bill or rights than

Missingit 5 years ago

no, I just don't get all my info from

elliottaw 5 years ago

you can read the patriot act and see the violations for your self, I just did a quick google to make a point.

grandnanny 5 years ago

What about my right to go to a basketball game and not be surrounded by people with guns all caught up in the competition. What about the right of my daughter who is a teacher not to have a parent with a concealed weapon at parent teacher conferences?
Why does a gun get more rights than I do? Why does KK get to voice his opinion about anything? He is Sec of State - his only job is to oversee elections.

Brock Masters 5 years ago

I can point to the right to have a gun in the constitution. Can you show me where the right not to be around people with guns exists in the constitution?

voevoda 5 years ago

The right, fred_mertz, is for people not to encounter irresponsible gun owners. That is guaranteed in the Second Amendment. That is, gun ownership is permitted in the context of a "well regulated militia." Persons who are not "well regulated"--those who endanger others by carrying firearms--do not have any right to bear them.

In_God_we_trust 5 years ago

What a whooper! "Persons who are not "well regulated"--those who endanger others by carrying firearms--do not have any right to bear them."

"well regulated" means well equipped, not government controlling rules. People are not always in the militia, but only when the State needs help, sometimes you are simply a citizen, but retain your right to bear arms and self defense, so your definition could not possibly be correct.

You must remember, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was written as a list of RESTRICTIONS on the federal government, not restrictions on the people. The Bill of Rights are a list of freedoms for the people, and where the government is restricted from making law. Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. That is where the stated purpose of the Bill of Rights is located at.

skull 5 years ago

I think you need to research the definition of "regulated." Go on now, and not on the NRA website...

UneasyRider 5 years ago

Kansas, as dumb as rest of world thinks. Loved what Kansas once was, hate what Kansas has become. Thanks Brownback and Tea Party.

walkingtaco 5 years ago

You mean the state with a $500 Million surplus or lower than national average unemployment? How Dare those dirty conservatives have policies that encourage business and allow people to work!

walkingtaco 5 years ago

Or I couldn't get my twitter account to load for whatever reason.

I am not saying "Brownstain" as you call him is the end all, be all with governors, but I also think it's a little absurd to act like the guy has never done anything good, either. Combining the KTA and KDOT is a logical thing to do. Will it actually work? Who knows, it depends on the implementation. But you can't honestly tell me that it makes sense to have two entities in charge of the same highway system, can you? Time will tell whether or not it actually works, either way.

Missingit 5 years ago

KK should only be allowed to speak when spoken too and never on television, radio or internet. I have been to numerous basketball games and no one has shot at the other team or their players. The rest of your argument I don't follow? If you don't like being around guns then when a person does not like being around cars we should ban cars? Perhaps if someone hates vegetables we should ban those?

UneasyRider 5 years ago

Don't have a problem with guns, have problem with gun fanatics. There is a difference.

greatgatsby 5 years ago

If I were to say I was a KU basketball fanatic would that be a bad thing? I suppose I would not consider myself a gun fanatic but I enjoy them. But because of that fact, I also know a lot about them, the damage they can do, and the consequences of what could happen. Because I know so much I have gained great respect and understanding of them which makes me more safe than most of the people who have no clue about them. Perhaps you have more problem with the lunatics. Guess what, we do too.

bbohning 5 years ago

The first law referenced would not be ruled unconstitutional out of hand. The law has been narrowly written as to provide the State with an argument that would be consistent with the federal coercion ruling that was part of the overall NFIB v. Sebelius ruling last June.

On an editorial note: I will never understand people who whine and complain about a legislative body's policy choices being against their will as if they were expecting something different to happen. This is Kansas and you're a liberal. It's never going to match up for you, so why work yourself into a frenzy? Enjoy your liberal oasis of the Oread where just about everyone thinks like you do, diversity of opinion is dormant, and capitalism can never shed its training wheels. Stop worrying about what the Legislature with a Senate that has 8 Democrats in a 40 person body and and a House of Representatives with 33 Democrats in a 125 person body is doing or not doing. Your blood pressure and crocodile tear ducts will thank you for the break you'll be giving them.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"I will never understand"

Some people are smart enough to recognize that Lawrence is in Kansas, and the idiocy being perpetrated in Topeka will be inflicted on Lawrence just like it will on the rest of the state.

uncleandyt 5 years ago

OK,....... this'll work. We'll tell our guns that they are in charge. We're gonna need a new flag. Something cool ! I've got all kinds of ideas ! We can still claim to love America a little bit. Let's eat. I'm hungry. Are you hungry? Freedom !!! Turns out , Guns aren't stupid. I am. Wanting peace and safety and truth and justice, I'm in the way of the way. Sorry. Let's all write some fat checks to ALEC so that they can get to work on more of our goodly needs.

KS 5 years ago

The LJW needs to start charging for access to make comments and all these dumb remarks would go away.

KS 5 years ago

You would not have to pay much. I just hear so much sarcasm coming from so many folks as LJW readers. Don't you folks ever have anything nice to say?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"all these dumb remarks"

That's not a very nice thing to say, is it?

Kathy Theis-Getto 5 years ago

Cap Journal charges 10$ a month to post. Not a bad idea.

oldexbeat 5 years ago

guns can be held, rubbed, and stroked. Sorta like other body part. People understand touching stuff. People clearly don't understand freedom of speech or separation of church and state. They just understand Things. Not Ideas. The terriorist have won. The rest is going to be stupid people running around with their steel toys.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years ago

You have disgusting visions in your head. Get thee to a nunnery!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"In addition, schools, colleges and local governments couldn't ban concealed guns without security measures in place."

I believe that's what is known as an unfunded mandate.

JohnBrown 5 years ago

What we need are some strict constructionist supreme court justices that will interpret the 2nd amendment the way it was supposed to be: NOBODY can take your flintlocks; and anybody that owns one can get drafted!!!


oldexbeat 5 years ago

milita -- used to hunt down run away slaves. Hmmm. Maybe combine strict 2nd amendment approach with youth crime -- run away teen agers broought to ground.

William Weissbeck 5 years ago

Are we really paying these guys to sit around in Topeka to think this stuff up? Seems to me they'd come up with the same ideas over a weekend at a survivalist camp at their own expense. I'd take them much more seriously if their argument was that militarily Kansas doesn't have defensible borders and therefore needs more guns, than say Colorado (now the land of pot and gun laws).

Biscayne 5 years ago

Thank goodness we don't have a bunch of idiots running this state, like DC does trying to destroy this country!

skull 5 years ago

Sarcasm? Or do you really think background checks and bans on assault weapons and 30 round clips are what is going to "destroy this country?"

globehead 5 years ago

I've been to D.C...been to Kansas. D.C. looks a whole lot better than Kansas.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 5 years ago

Looks can be deceiving. Some of the greatest evils in the world have originated in that dystopian land of plutocrats and carpet bombing bagmen.

Kansas does not have the power to be that evil, and it never will.

Anthony Mall 5 years ago

Why is the discussion only about guns? I am all in favor of background checks, psych evaluation, longer waiting periods, and trigger locks on all weapons not being used... The facts are that registered gun owners are not committing these crimes!!! It is the dealers, theft, and a FEW owners that fail to insure that the guns they own are secure... To attack all gun owners is ignorant and irresponsible... My guns have never hurt anyone and I hope they never do, that being said I will protect my home and I will fire my weapons for hunting and recreational purposes... Kansas is not the only state doing this, in fact Colorado is losing business and jobs because of recent laws passed there... People on both sides need to be educated about guns and the % of registered owners who commit crimes before throwing all gun owners into one group...

HermanBubbert 5 years ago

Every time I'm tempted to consider moving back to Kansas to live on our family land, an article like this shows up to remind me of the idiocy of such a move. The Kansas legislature certainly is making our future plans easier to make!

verity 5 years ago

Mr Bubbert, I see that all rumors of your disappearance are unfounded :-)

Anthony Mall 5 years ago

Kansas has always had guns... Always had a low crime rate compared to other states... Always been a red state... I fail to see how this one act is the tipping point of your decision...

William Weissbeck 5 years ago

Kansas went for Bryan in '96 (farmers don't trust banks or railroads), FDR in '32 and '36 (farmers don't trust banks or Hoover), and for LBJ in '64 (yes, Goldwater was that crazy). Starting with George Docking, there has been a string of Democratic governors and a Democratic House with Jon Carlin as Speaker. The death penalty was abolished. Up until the pro-lifers gained even greater influence when partnered with the Kochs and Chamber money, Kansas was red, but not the crazy red it is today. Kansans owned shotguns for pheasant and quail (until the land was all turned over to corn), and a 22 for squirrels and rabbits. The occasional "big gun" was for coyotes. Only the scared in the cities owned hand guns "to prevent" crime.

Anthony Mall 5 years ago

My guns are for my home and recreational use... So the only gun owners were in cities or hunting pheasant and coyote??Registered owners are not the issue here...

walkingtaco 5 years ago

You must not know many farmers if you don't think they don't have handguns...

Jason Johnson 5 years ago

The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment that protects the rest of them. I will just leave this here:

John Kyle 5 years ago

no it doesn't. This is just another gun nut myth.

Clark Coan 5 years ago

Some more unconstitutional wingnut legislation. So glad they are going home today until the wrap-up session in May.

msezdsit 5 years ago

And they huffed and the puffed and they blew the federal government down. Or rather, they hope to have enough guns to take out the feds. Kobach approved so thats all that matters. Next, you will have to show proof of your arsenal to be able to vote. These radical right wing fringe lunatics know that they will eventually need all these guns to protect themselves against all the people they are trampling on and ripping off and their stupid enough to think they can pull it off. wackos.

The countries petri dish of lunatics: Kansas.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.