Advertisement

Archive for Monday, February 25, 2013

Duel begins over concealed carry in public buildings

February 25, 2013

Advertisement

— Gun enthusiasts on Monday pushed for legislation that would allow concealed carry of a gun in public buildings and prohibit local governments from regulations on carrying firearms.

Currently, state, county and city governments can prevent concealed carry of guns in their buildings if they post a gun-free sign.

Under House Bill 2055, people with concealed carry licenses could bring their weapons into public buildings if the building didn't have adequate security measures, such as metal detectors and security personnel.

"Posting the no-carry sign is tantamount to placing a bulls-eye on that facility," said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association.

"It only provides a risk-free, victim-rich environment for criminals," she told the House Federal and State Affairs Committee.

Al Terwelp, state chair of the Kansas Libertarian Party, said the measure was needed "to help protect law enforcement and law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights in Kansas."

But cities, counties and other groups opposed the measure.

"It is a massive unfunded mandate on local governments and the citizens they represent," said Mike Taylor, a spokesman for the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City. "The bill crushes local control and nullifies decision making by locally elected officials," he said.

Taylor said the cost of installing metal detectors and security personnel at the Unified Government's municipal buildings would be more than $2 million.

"The requirements of the bill are so burdensome and costly, many cities and counties will have no choice but to allowing the carrying of concealed weapons into City Hall, recreation centers and other public buildings because they can't afford to do otherwise," he said.

Several groups asked to be exempted from the bill.

That included the Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas. "If an individual who is in crisis walks through our door carrying a concealed weapon, that situation presents a dangerous scenario, not only to our staff, but also for other patients seeking treatment," said Michael Hammond, executive director of the mental health association.

The Kansas Board of Regents has stated its opposition to concealed carry on university campuses. But on this bill, Andy Tompkins, chief executive officer and president of the regents, said the board was neutral because of a section that authorizes the governing board of a university to decide whether to be exempted from the legislation.

"This local control provision allows the governing board to debate and make the appropriate decision for that particular campus," Tompkins said.

Last year, a similar bill passed in the House but died in the Senate. Proponents believe they will be able to get Senate approval this year.

Comments

fearsadness14 1 year, 8 months ago

I'm so happy to be moving away from this state next month.

2

Mike Hoffmann 1 year, 8 months ago

It isn't as if this issue is only going on in Kansas or a handful of states.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 8 months ago

I think they should be more worried about a bullet in the head on the way out.

2

kawrivercrow 1 year, 7 months ago

I hope you are going to Chicago or DC. You can make your self useful by throwing your body in front of women and children at the right time and place.

0

mdlund0 1 year, 8 months ago

Lots of people have concealed carry permits and lots of those people legally carry firearms lots of places... if they've proven anything by the overwhelming lack of incidents, it's that they're safe and responsible. Permit holders (people who have been extensively trained and background checked) are not the problem. If a municipality thinks that they'll have to post guards with metal detectors because they're having to take down a sign that only stops the good guys, then they probably need to think about posting guards anyway.

8

Orwell 1 year, 8 months ago

"Lots of people have concealed carry permits and lots of those people legally carry firearms lots of places... if they've proven anything by the overwhelming lack of incidents, it's that they're safe and responsible."

By that logic, the "overwhelming lack of incidents" in no-gun public buildings should mean no change is needed.

5

NotAGolfer 1 year, 7 months ago

Every mass murder (over 4 deaths) in the last few decades, except one, has occurred in a gun free zone.

"In fact, in the last 50 years every mass shooting with more than four deaths has taken place in a Gun Free Zone but one. That was the incident in which a nutcase severely wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and killed several others in her home state of Arizona, a state with very liberal gun control laws." http://nsbnews.net/content/410986-newtown-massacre-gun-free-zones-and-other-such-measures-ineffective-stopping-mass-mur

0

kawrivercrow 1 year, 7 months ago

Loughner (Giffords' shooter) was a paranoid schizophrenic in Tucson, where buying a gun from the Mexican illegal alien criminal subculture is as easy as getting a gram of high-grade black tar heroin for $20...a phone call and a 20 minute wait. The liberalness of AZ's gun laws play absolutely no role in that...except as an incentive for law-abiding citizens to pass liberal gun control laws.

I lived there for 4 years...it is a different world down there...very different. Phoenix is even worse.

0

JayhawkFan1985 1 year, 8 months ago

Given that 30 people die in the US every day by gun violence, I'd say there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, not a lack of it...

1

SinoHawk 1 year, 8 months ago

Well, a lot more than 30 people die per day because of firearms in the States. By all causes, though, around 6,700 people die per day in this country (2,468,435 died in 2010). In all, 0.45% of deaths are the result or homocide by firearm. Around 0.5% is the result of suicide by firearm. Compare this to 1.6% of deaths resulting from drug use, 1% resulting from alcohol related causes, and a whopping 4.9% resulting from all accidents (not all numbers are cumulative, as some overlap).

Hep B and HIV (combined) kill more than firearms.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 8 months ago

So, does that mean we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of deaths from hepatitis B and HIV?

0

John Kyle 1 year, 8 months ago

"Posting the no-carry sign is tantamount to placing a bulls-eye on that facility," said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association.

"It only provides a risk-free, victim-rich environment for criminals," she told the House Federal and State Affairs Committee.


What a scary outlook on the world she has.

9

mom_of_three 1 year, 8 months ago

exactly right. Holmes didn't pick the theatre because it was no gun zone- but because he was nuts (and maybe a batman nut). The VT shooter chose it because he was also mentally ill, as was Adam Lanza. and why does she think having a concealed carry permit makes everyone safer? It doesn't guarantee anything...

3

mdlund0 1 year, 8 months ago

Are you a psychiatrist and did you examine Holmes, Lanza, and Seung-Hui Cho (VT)? Otherwise, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that they were/are all mentally ill, unless conducting a mass shooting itself comprises a mental illness that I'm not aware of in the DSM-IV. We cannot know for certain the reasons that these people chose the locations for their horrors, but if you don't think they chose places where they knew people would be unarmed for the softness of the target instead of, say, a police station or a gun range, then you're giving mental illness a bit too much credit.

0

mom_of_three 1 year, 8 months ago

How about that they were claiming they were mentally ill or that they are being checked for being mentally ill? Or that their professors were concerned about their mental health? Or did you not watch the news?

3

frankfussman 1 year, 8 months ago

I'm still always waiting for a shootout among several concealed carry gun proponents. One man who was in a shop near the Gabby Giffords shootout two years ago in Tucson, AZ, said he was about to enter the fray with his concealed weapon, but was afraid that the police might see him and think he was the shooter.

4

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 8 months ago

A police officer acting on limited information and needing to make a decision quickly would be entirely justified in thinking a second gunman was part of the attack, not a gun-packing samaritan.

0

Peacemaker452 1 year, 8 months ago

What are you trying to imply? Are you suggesting that a cop would be justified in shooting the individual simply because they had a firearm? He would be justified in detaining the person until it was clear that the person was not involved in the attack, but applying deadly force with “limited information” just so you can make a “decision quickly” is not justified, even for a cop.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 8 months ago

In the middle of a firefight, any cop is going to shoot first, and make arrests when the shooting has stopped, and in the heat of that firefight, there may not be any way for them to know the difference between the nut with a gun, and a concealed carrier with a gun.

1

Peacemaker452 1 year, 8 months ago

Any cop who shoots first, without having sufficient knowledge of the situation to determine who is breaking the law and who is not, needs to be prosecuted for reckless endangerment/assault with a deadly weapon/manslaughter as the results of the shooting dictates. Being a cop doesn’t relieve a person of the duty to properly apply deadly force. If anything, it should increase the burden, since cops supposedly have so much more training and experience.

0

NotAGolfer 1 year, 7 months ago

A pretty accurate outlook: "In fact, in the last 50 years every mass shooting with more than four deaths has taken place in a Gun Free Zone but one. That was the incident in which a nutcase severely wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and killed several others in her home state of Arizona, a state with very liberal gun control laws."

http://nsbnews.net/content/410986-newtown-massacre-gun-free-zones-and-other-such-measures-ineffective-stopping-mass-mur

0

Jeremiah Jefferson 1 year, 8 months ago

Kind of Ironic that they used the term "duel" in the title lol..

2

Joe Hyde 1 year, 8 months ago

Ms. Stoneking's characterization of public buildings as having bulls-eyes painted on them, as being victim-rich environments for criminals, paints an image of the permit-holding concealed carrier assuming the role of a duly sworn public protector ready to intercede and exchange fire with anyone causing a problem in those buildings, all of which are severely at-risk.

Her inference with such comments is that the CC permit holder is a force of armed readiness ready to do battle inside public buildings, in the public's behalf. Such drivel encourages a "hobby cop" attitude that runs counter to the training given concealed weapon permit holders; permit applicants are taught to NOT think of themselves as law enforcement officers, or to conduct themselves as such. Their permit is for self-protection, the defense of self, home and family.

What Ms. Stoneking should be espousing instead is for permit holders to leave their weapons at home or locked in their parked car if they plan on entering a public building. Particularly in buildings having security checkpoints at the entrances, do their part as good citizens to help reduce the stress level of the security guards, by not bringing the concealed gun into the building at all.

6

Fred Mertz 1 year, 8 months ago

Homeland Security believes strongly enough that people are at risk in public buildings to put out a video teaching people how to defend themselves against an "active shooter." HS recommends grabbing my weapon you can find including a pair so scissors to defend yourself. Hmmmm, I think I'd rather have my pistol, not to defend anyone else but myself.

4

Fred Mertz 1 year, 8 months ago

Paul any public building that has security is excluded.

1

Fred Mertz 1 year, 8 months ago

No, metal detectors and security are the primary source to provide protection for everyone in the building. Lacking security for the building and everyone in it, the next best thing is to let individuals protect themselves or at least have the opportunity to do so.

0

Nikonman 1 year, 8 months ago

Holmes and Lanza picked the theater and school because they were 99% sure there was no one there to stop them. Holmes didn't know much about guns (his high capacity magazine jammed and he did not know how to clear it) and Lanza had to break a window in the door to get in. While most would agree they were mentally ill, they still were sane enough to carry out their deadly mission. They would be truely crazy if they went into a police station or large gathering of cops and started shooting. If I were a techer in that school I would have a gun and no one would ever know it. And when the shooting started at least I would have a chance to save my students and my own life instead of crouching in a corner and waiting to die.

0

UneasyRider 1 year, 8 months ago

Mr macho. By the way most teachers can spell teacher

1

voevoda 1 year, 8 months ago

Nikonman, did you interview Holmes and Lanza in order to learn that they chose their sites for mass murder "because they were 99% sure there was no one there to stop them"? If not, maybe you're just speculating in order to try to bolster your radical, pro-gun position.

In my book, anybody who shoots innocent people at a movie theater and in an elementary school is "truely [sic!] crazy."

And if you were a "techer" and carried a gun, you could be sure that the kids would know it. And, if you were unlucky, one of them would take it and use it on others of his classmates. That is a much more likely scenario than you acting the hero and saving your class from a random shooter.

I don't feel safer knowing that you're carrying a weapon out in public.

3

mom_of_three 1 year, 8 months ago

You dont know any of that for sure. Lanza picked the school because it had meaning. And there is no guarantee that a regular citizen with a gun could stop anyone as they are not trained for those situations.

1

chootspa 1 year, 8 months ago

If Holmes wasn't expecting resistance, why did he wear body armor?

3

Peacemaker452 1 year, 8 months ago

He didn't, he was wearing a load bearing vest that had no ballistic protection.

1

Mark Currie 1 year, 8 months ago

I am not so sure about people knowing it. If you don't tell anyone & have the right gun & carrying equipment, no one will know. Kansas permit holders are allowed to intervene in 3rd party disputes, but are cautioned to know what is going on before doing anything. To the poster above who said something about worrying security guards, CCH people would not be allowed to carry there. I like how Douglas County courthouse is set up for security. As to the signs, I obey them. If it says no guns and I don't have to go there, I don't. If I have to, I have a safe in my car that the gun goes into. I will also say that Patty Stoneking is one of the best firearms instructors I know. She and her team offer classes beyond the CCH class. I wholeheartedly recommend additional training. You don't hear of very many CCH people shooting people either. Thanks

1

Dan Eyler 1 year, 8 months ago

Hey eugunieum, your comments are right on the money. I agree with the new rules being proposed. I was instructed by an ex county prosecutor who went into great detail on safety and the areas of the law that can get you in trouble. I listened very closely to his words. I can tell by your comments you had the same level initial training.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 8 months ago

Way to ignore the main point of the argument-- if they don't want to remove the sticker (and the prohibition of firearms) they'd need to install extremely expensive detection equipment in all facilities.

1

juma 1 year, 8 months ago

I own many guns but do NOT approve of this latest stupidity of allowing cc on campus, etc.. Was it not just a month,or so, ago that some CC A..hole shot his wife at a restaurant??!! I live by the rule 'that if it can go wrong it will go wrong'. The thought of many people walking around with guns if very very scary. If not, then ask the wife of the above mentioned idiot.

3

gccs14r 1 year, 8 months ago

"I live by the rule 'that if it can go wrong it will go wrong'."

Especially if you're practicing your "quick draw" while sitting. And keeping your spurs from catching in the carpet can be tricky, too.

2

gccs14r 1 year, 8 months ago

The trouble isn't concealed carry, it's the people who want to.

2

Jason Johnson 1 year, 8 months ago

Finally we get some common sense in this state! Conceal carry should have been allowed like this a long time ago.

4

JayhawkFan1985 1 year, 8 months ago

Dunning Kruger effect is all I have to say. These people are not gun enthusiasts...they are so stupid, they don't know they're stupid...

0

JayhawkFan1985 1 year, 8 months ago

We are banning cigarettes from public places, but allowing guns? I must be in Kansas...

1

Fred Mertz 1 year, 8 months ago

Actually smoking has not been banned from public places. It has only be banned from private establishments open to the public. People are still free to smoke on the sidewalk spewing their toxins into the air and into my air as I walk by.

And the ban is not enforced in Lawrence. People continue to smoke near the entrances of businesses

1

lcarol 1 year, 8 months ago

Anyone remember the rumble at the Burge between the basketball and football team a few years ago? Let's throw a few pistols in the mix and things could get real dicey. I can't smoke a cigarette in a restaurant beside you but you can have a loaded pistol in your pocket, accidentally discharge it and shoot your wife or maybe shoot me.....I love the "freedom" of Kansas. My freedom of choice now involves not going to a restaurants. I am not nearly as fearful of the "bad" guys as I am of all you good guys carrying guns.

3

Fatty_McButterpants 1 year, 7 months ago

Virtually every gun advocate talks about how guns should not be withheld from law-abiding citizens because, then, only the criminals would have guns. The comments by Ms. Stoneking epitomize what is wrong with this argument: the criminals aren't shooting the law-abiding citizens, they are shooting each other, and it is the law-abiding citizen that has carried out these mass shootings.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.