Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Fiery debate over expansion of concealed carry, assertion of state gun rights as Kansas House advances bills

March 13, 2013

Advertisement

— The Kansas House on Wednesday advanced gun bills that could produce a standoff between state and federal law officers, and open up campuses, classrooms and the Statehouse to concealed weapons.

Supporters said the bills would make Kansas safer and assert the constitutional right to bear arms. Opponents said the measures would endanger public safety and lead to costly litigation.

House BIll 2199, called the Second Amendment Protection Act, and House Bill 2055, expanding concealed carry, were approved on a voice vote. A record vote during final action is scheduled for Thursday.

The most heated debate surrounded HB 2199, which says that any personal firearm, accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured in Kansas and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law. And under the bill, federal authorities trying to enforce any kind of rule on such a firearm would face possible arrest and criminal charges.

Several legislators said pitting local law enforcement against federal officers would set up a dangerous situation and jeopardize the public.

State Rep. Virgil Weigle, D-Topeka, said he worked for 28 years in local, state and federal law enforcement.

"When I was a federal agent, I wanted to make sure the locals had my back," Weigle said. "What you are doing here is going to destroy that relationship."

State Rep. Diana Dierks, R-Salina, said, "I am appalled that we are even thinking of passing this bill. We still belong to the United States."

But state Rep. Brett Hildabrand, R-Shawnee, said Dierks was wrong. "The United States belongs to the citizens of Kansas, not the other way around," he said to a round of applause.

State Rep. Steven Becker, R-Buhler, a former judge, tried to amend the bill to remove the state authority over federal law and replace that with a provision that would direct the attorney general to defend Kansas gun rights in court.

State Rep. Blaine Finch, R-Ottawa, urged support of Becker's proposed change, saying, "Our beef is not with federal agents. Criminalizing their behavior is not the solution. Let's take the fight to the proper venue, the courts."

But opponents said Kansas needed to assert its sovereignty and that the federal government should be held in check.

State Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, R-Grandview Plaza, criticized federal authorities for their actions in deadly confrontations in Ruby Ridge in Idaho and the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. "They get a lot of things wrong," he said.

Becker's amendment failed 59-60.

On HB 2250, concealed carry license holders would be allowed to carry their weapons in city, county and state buildings that didn't have adequate security, such as metal detectors and guards.

"If you can't provide security, let us carry," said state Rep. Ken Corbet, R-Topeka.

But opponents said the bill was coercing local governments to bend to the will of the Legislature. "That is exactly the opposite of what I thought the best government was about," said state Rep. Tom Moxley, R-Council Grove.

Universities, state-owned hospitals, nursing homes, community mental health centers and safety net clinics would be exempt from the law for four years.

But under another provision, universities and schools could decide whether to allow employees to bring their weapons to work.

State Rep. John Wilson, D-Lawrence, said since supporters argued that expansion of concealed carry improved safety, even around grade-schoolers, he proposed an amendment to allow concealed carry in the Capitol. The amendment was approved.

Comments

Hooligan_016 1 year, 6 months ago

So how many state tax $$$ are they going to waste defending this idiotic bill in court? (HB2199)

7

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

Court? Do the courts have any say? If we don't like what they have to say, we just amend the constitution. Right? In fact the Kansas legislature should just amend the U.S. constitution because "the United States belongs to the citizens of Kansas, not the other way around." [Cheers!]

4

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

That was sarcasm. The question isn't whether I understand the Supremacy Clause. It seems to be the Kansas legislature which doesn't get it.

3

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

If you really want to be scared, read the part of the article I was referring to. One (Republican!) representative had to point out, "I am appalled that we are even thinking of passing this bill. We still belong to the United States."

Then another representative was applauded for replying that the first representative was wrong, because "the United States belongs to the citizens of Kansas, not the other way around."

I mean they're talking about arresting federal agents for trying to enforce federal law. Are they serious? Where does this lead? Where do we end up when KBI agents are hauling federal agents to jail for enforcing the law?

7

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

"But opponents said Kansas needed to assert its sovereignty and that the federal government should be held in check.

"State Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, R-Grandview Plaza, criticized federal authorities for their actions in deadly confrontations in Ruby Ridge in Idaho and the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. 'They get a lot of things wrong,' he said."

The Kansas legislature is going to hold the federal government in check, eh?

2

George_Braziller 1 year, 6 months ago

This is absurd. Doesn't matter if it's owned, or manufactured, and remains in the state, it's still subject to Federal law. I'd love to know how they plan to arrest an FBI agent and file criminal charges if he or she is enforcing Federal laws.

Let's just turn the Kansas clock back to 1875. It seems like that has been the agenda on multiple fronts for the legislature this session.

"The most heated debate surrounded HB 2199, which says that any personal firearm, accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured in Kansas and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law. And under the bill, federal authorities trying to enforce any kind of rule on such a firearm would face possible arrest and criminal charges."

7

Richard Payton 1 year, 6 months ago

Does HB2199 cover all handmade saturday night specials made in Kansas?

0

arch007bak 1 year, 6 months ago

Everyone else click on a few of those embedded links and see if you can spot just how valid the above article might be

0

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

Nanny state like banning strip clubs because of "crime statistics?" Nanny state like not being able to buy beer before the football game starts on GOD'S Sunday? Not being able to WALK around with an alcoholic beverage...that's a dangerous one.

2

oldexbeat 1 year, 6 months ago

Since a few of the message posters might want guns in every classroom, I am confused about a few points and would like to ask questions.

When we have those guns in our schools with the well trained and no doubt regulated militia of non-"union thug" teachers -- questions:

Will gun safes be in each classroom with touch pads ? Or open carry ? Will the guns be pretty colors, like those new fun toy like Ruger pink ones? If the gun falls out, will show-and-tell sessions start right away? Will cleaning the teachers' guns become the skill set of the 2nd grade ? If a teacher's gun in a classroom hurts a student -- totally by accident -- will the entire USD Board be criminally involved, or just the teacher and local principal?

Just asking.

0

M. Lindeman 1 year, 6 months ago

Didn't take long for the idiotic posts to start.

4

M. Lindeman 1 year, 6 months ago

You all spend more time and energy being concerned about CCW holders. Maybe redirecting some of that time and energy on thoses who use guns illegally.

9

globehead 1 year, 6 months ago

Actually, I spend time and energy on both. About a month ago, we had some duffus here in KC who shot his wife at a Hereford Steak House because he kept a pistol in his pants pocket, left the safety off, and was fumbling for change or playing pocket pool or whatever. The thing went off....the gun... and his wife got shot in the leg. He was CCW holder had had been drinking . He was of legal age to drink too. Licensed to drink, licensed to be a CCW, wasn't licensed to shoot his wife in the leg but did so anyway.

Then, there was the guy down South somewhere, don't know he was CCW but believe he was a legal gun owner & left his firearm on the floor of his truck. So, he's driving down the road like a goober, the dog gets frisky and kicks the trigger. Safety off! BOOM! Shoots his owner right there.

You gotta love these geniuses that are gonna protect us from the bad guys. Seems like Darwin had it right.

9

JJE007 1 year, 6 months ago

This guy was in violation of the law. He will be punished. His violation does not nullify the law, any more than robbing people at gunpoint nullifies the law. One fool does not justify the assumption that everyone is a fool. Are you foolish enough to believe and insist upon that?

Do you WANT "the least common denominator" to rule our lives? If so, I'd call that foolish.

6

elliottaw 1 year, 6 months ago

more guns does not equal more safety, if anything it means more mistakes

Brownback is running this state into the ground

3

JJE007 1 year, 6 months ago

I'm totally fine with there being fewer guns out there, but take them away from the criminals before taking them away from your peace-loving neighbors.

I agree 100% that Brownback is running this state into the ground. He's and arrogant jerk who insists upon imposing his beliefs on his neighbors...kinda like people who have an obsessive fear of firearms. tee hee...

0

KSManimal 1 year, 6 months ago

Globehead, you keep mentioning "safety off" as if all guns have such a thing. Makes me suspect you don't know much about them.

The guy in KC violated the CCW law by carrying while under the influence. Like people who drive under the influence violate the law.... And yet some do. Should we ban drivers' licenses as well as CCW licenses?

3

globehead 1 year, 6 months ago

His had a safety. It was not on. It was pointed out in the article about his adventure. No, we shouldn't ban drivers licences nor CCW permits. Quite simply, we should not trust that because someone has a CCW permit or a driver's license that that solves everything or anything for that matter. I assume most people who get run over get that way by properly licensed drivers. Therefore, I continue to look both ways before I cross the street. CCW permits provide me no more comfort whatsoever than a lame brained driver who is properly licensed.

3

grimpeur 1 year, 6 months ago

"Should we ban drivers' licenses as well as CCW licenses?"

No, we shouldn't ban them. But they should be harder to get than a Cracker Jack prize. And there should be better controls and stricter regulations on both.

2

Fred Mertz 1 year, 6 months ago

Where do you get the notion that ccw holders are going to protect you from bad guys? I and all the ccw holders I know didn't get it to protect you - we got it to protect ourselves and our families.

You're on your own.

9

Carol Bowen 1 year, 6 months ago

Thank you. I worry about CCW vigilantes.

0

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

I have no notion that you're going to protect me from bad guys. I didn't ask you to, and I don't want you to. I can take care of myself, thanks. I'm 51 years old, and I've never yet been in a situation where a gun would have improved things.

I just want to be allowed to go about my business without fear that I or my loved ones might be shot by some paranoid nut who's either careless or who's decided he needs to 'protect' himself by shooing a 'bad guy.' I just don't want to be caught in the crossfire between you and your boogie man.

12

Fred Mertz 1 year, 6 months ago

There are lots of things we all want but we live in a country with freedoms and that brings risk. I want to be safe from inattentive or drunk drivers but it isn't going to happen.

So, while the risk that you could get caught in the crossfire is extremely low (name an instance of it happening) you can't eliminate all risk in a free society. So just suck it up and deal with it. It is the price you pay for living in a free society that has a Constitution that allows use to protect ourselves.

4

JJE007 1 year, 6 months ago

Way to sound like murdering scum, dude!

0

hedshrinker 1 year, 6 months ago

yeah, just what we need...to enhance the outside world's belief that KS is reverting to 1800's Wild West. we'll show that big gov't they can't boss us Kansans around ....heard more mature discourse on the pre-school playground.

4

oldexbeat 1 year, 6 months ago

please: the Old Wild West -- facts are -- most people didn't have guns, or many of them, and they were illegal to carry in my home town of Dodge City, Kansas, north of the railroad tracks. Yup. Illegal. No right to carry in the Old Wild West. And very very few people were killed by guns. Most cowboys drowned -- that was the danger of cattle drives.

0

mom_of_three 1 year, 6 months ago

If only the old wild west was limited to dodge city.

0

Mark Currie 1 year, 6 months ago

The idiot that shot his wife knew he was not allowed to drink while carrying. I hope they pull his cch & charge him with a crime, the more serious the better. I am going to pass on this argument. But please remember my story about a local law enforcement officer who shot himself in the buttocks while re holstering his glock with finger in trigger guard. This happened at the FOP range several years ago. I don't think it made the news, but even the pros can make a mistake. Guns are an evil being, I know the other day my safe was open and one of my guns jumped out and started chasing me around the house saying clean me, clean me. Oh wait, I am lying. I hate it when that happens. Have a great debate in here. I am going to sit back and watch. ;)

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 6 months ago

It does seem like secession would be next up for these idjits. Maybe they'll all go lay siege to Ft. Riley to foment a civil war?

1

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

At least when the civil war starts the Obamers can't get us with those drones now...the legislators banned them.

1

repaste 1 year, 6 months ago

It is a strange twist when the pro-gun crowd moves the argument from personal protection towards protection from the Government, There is a fine line between 1775 and Timothy McVeigh. Is this general public really ready for a revolution, or treason trials?

3

Jeff Rice 1 year, 6 months ago

Bravo, Kansas House, Bravo ("slow clap" ) Its about time we stand up for our rights from the kommunist's currently in control of the federal government. I'm proud to be a Kansan today!

2

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

Glad to know SOMEBODY is being represented.

1

Alceste 1 year, 6 months ago

This stuff is actually rather amusing. We have to admit we've got some real first class rubes in our state legislature. We put them there, too.

4

jjt 1 year, 6 months ago

If this goes through will I be able to stop folk with (or with out) a permit coming into my restaurant by having a no gun sign on the door? What is my liability if their weapon goes off and hurts someone?

1

Jean1183 1 year, 6 months ago

I always chuckle when I see those signs.

0

Scott Bonnet 1 year, 6 months ago

Most embarassing state government in America.

6

webmocker 1 year, 6 months ago

Bullets don't kill people. Internal injuries do.

1

bad_dog 1 year, 6 months ago

Internal injuries don't kill people. Cardiac arrest does.

0

georgiahawk 1 year, 6 months ago

Let them have all the constitutionally protected guns they can afford, it is their constitutional right. But there is no constitutional right to ammunition!

0

Fred Mertz 1 year, 6 months ago

Right and let people vote - just don't give them a ballot.

Let people have the right to an abortion just don't license any abortion clinics.

Stupid.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 6 months ago

He merely proposed that they be consistent in their idiocy.

3

Fred Mertz 1 year, 6 months ago

Not only did it backfire he apparently wrote it wrong.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 6 months ago

"Goodbye Kansas; I'm off to Texas..................."

The place that these folks so badly want to become? That doesn't make much sense.

2

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 6 months ago

@New... The United States was formed by the power of the citizens (we the people). Perhaps when you go to Texas, you can learn more about the Constitution and what power originally formed the Federal government.

0

jimmyjms 1 year, 6 months ago

"But state Rep. Brett Hildabrand, R-Shawnee, said Dierks was wrong. "The United States belongs to the citizens of Kansas, not the other way around," he said to a round of applause."

So much stupid in such a short statement. Thanks, K-State!

1

Mary Alexander 1 year, 6 months ago

jjt, yes you will be able to use your sign. If it is posted a ccw person will not bring their gun into the restaurant. That is the law. If someone does bring a gun into a restaurant with a sign and something happens it will be the person with the gun that will be jailed and will be held responsable etc... You will find most people who has a CCW will not break the law. I can said this because I am a holder of a CCW and I follow the law.

1

Fred Mertz 1 year, 6 months ago

I always follow the law too even if it means having to walk back to my car to secure my gun before entering an establishment with a no gun sign.

0

Jeff Rice 1 year, 6 months ago

I simply do not patronize establishments that display the sign. I prefer to give my business to people who respect the Constitution.

0

bad_dog 1 year, 6 months ago

Exactly what is Constitutionally disrespectful about posting a sign that you are legally permitted to display? The right to display a sign is as Constitutionally fundamental an exercise of personal rights as CCW.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror while searching for those who respect the Constitution.

1

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 6 months ago

Looks like the people who respect the Bill of Rights in the Constitution aren't going to stand by and let the anti-gun extremists destroy them.

3

mom_of_three 1 year, 6 months ago

I have yet to read about any anti gun extremists. Very, very few people are anti gun... they just want better gun control laws to close the loopholes...

0

voevoda 1 year, 6 months ago

No, they are going to let the pro-gun extremists destroy the Bill of Rights and the Constitution instead.

0

voevoda 1 year, 6 months ago

There's a word for House Bill 2199: Treason.

1

Jeff Rice 1 year, 6 months ago

There's a reply to people who claim that "There's a word for House Bill 2199: Treason": LOL

0

naturalist 1 year, 6 months ago

I suggest that the people here who believe that "The United States belongs to the citizens of Kansas, not the other way around," can just secede from the union. Good riddance.

1

gogoplata 1 year, 6 months ago

Leftys - Pro Choice unless in involves guns, taxes for things like welfare etc.

Righties - Pro Choice unless it involves gays getting married, smoking weed, taxes for things like war etc.

I believe in freedom. If gay people want to smoke weed and get married, while carrying a gun it should not be against the law. Just because I may not agree with something does not mean there needs to be a law against it.

The people on here who only see the world through a "conservative" or "liberal" point of view seem hypocritical and childish.

0

mom_of_three 1 year, 6 months ago

and then there are those who label everyone conservative or liberal.
Generalizations like liberal and conservative are dangerous. I may have liberal views, but I don't care if you want to legally carry a gun...just do so responsibly and understand that we need to close the loopholes and make some changes because the current laws dont work. And yes, some cch people scare me, because of the attitudes that they need to protect themselves. And yet, I live in the same city, but don't feel as threatened, so yes, it worries me. But I don't think all cch people are conservative or crazy or any of the other labels.

0

gogoplata 1 year, 6 months ago

I shouldn't even need the governments permission to carry a gun, get married to whoever I want, smoke weed or cigarettes, drive with out a seatbelt, etc. There are to many fools making to many rules. Both sides want to tell the other guy how to live. I wish people would quit trying to use government force to rule the lives of others.

0

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 6 months ago

"understand that we need to close the loopholes and make some changes because the current laws dont work."

There are some things that can't be fixed with more laws. Infringement of the second amendment is not a loophole and is short sighted and dangerous. The second amendment has existed for over 200 years without "closing the loopholes". Loopholes and laws are not the problem. Guns and gun owners are not the problem. People that come to the conclusion and think that someone else is the problem, or that everyone else is their problem, instead of closely looking at themselves with individual accountability (to God), is the problem. Psychology teaches this corrupted concept model that the reason you feel bad is because someone else mistreated you, and it's their fault, so these people think they can be self-justified in reacting selfishly and violently without it ever being "their problem".

The Bill of Rights preamble states that it is an area for the Federal government to keep their hands off of. (This is why it is over 200 years old). Closing unconstitutional "loopholes", which is infringement of the second amendment, forms an illegal gun registry and then it becomes very easy to use Federal resources to attack the general population with gun confiscation. (The end of the second amendment freedoms and eventually, all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, which is the first 10 amendments). What if this happened while a Republican is in office, because of what the Democrats are trying to do now? This is a very dangerous game you play with the Constitution and violation of the Bill of Rights, and personal freedoms that I and any Constitutional thinking person would firmly reject. The Kansas bill simply seeks to support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights original intent.

0

mom_of_three 1 year, 6 months ago

But yet, the Supreme Court has stated that there are limits to the 2nd amendment. Shouldn't the loophole at gun shows and private sales be closed to keep us safer. The kansas bill doesn't support anything but their own crazy ideas... Funny, the bill of rights original intent.... was to keep the power hungry politicans from taking over the government and to protect the rights of the people. but hey, I think my rights are being infringed by these power hungry politicians that you seem to support. and when you bring god into it, then it becomes even crazier, because god and politics are two separate things...
No one is infringing upon your 2nd amendment rights, and the kansas legislature is just making us look stupid.

2

gogoplata 1 year, 6 months ago

No we don't need more laws. There are way too many already. Why do people see a problem and the first thought is "what law can we make to solve this problem?". The solution to every problem is not more laws.

1

mom_of_three 1 year, 6 months ago

well, SOMETHING has to change.... can we agree on that??? And not sure what other solution is to the problem of getting a gun without a background check at gun shows or by private sales, than that would be a loophole which should be closed.
Its too easy to buy tons of ammo without anyone raising a red flag... something HAS to be done.... if not a law, then what...

0

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 6 months ago

Clearly, the criminals aren't going to use a gun background check at all. It would be silly and useless to push the gun background check on gun owners any more, since criminals do not seek to be law abiding and wouldn't use it. They buy weapons from underground, off the street sources that you can't stop. You are not going to be able to control people by withholding things (like guns and ammo) from them, because then you hurt everyone and violate the Constitution. You need to change people's hearts and attitudes in how they treat each other and how they think and deal within themselves and about God. People need spiritual help to think in right ways again, because they don't get it from school. God is the best thinking one of all of us. He has the answers that you seek. May I suggest that you start by trying to listen to His Word and developing your relationship with Him for your answer. Then you can see clearly to help others.

0

hedshrinker 1 year, 6 months ago

oh, please!!!! while I don't disagree in general with the idea that we ultimately ALL need to integrate our actions with our values (of whatever stripe), millions of people can NOT live together under anarchy...no rules and just sing cubaya and hope for the best....we need clear structures and consequences...believe me I grew to maturity when all my groovy friends were raising their kids free of rules and many came to disastrous ends...Gorbachev or whoever had it right: Trust, but verify.

0

oldexbeat 1 year, 6 months ago

those well regulated milita were to keep slaves down. look it up.

Washington and Hamilton found out fast that puting down the anti-tax whisky folks was tough without an armed milita. They added those later. It was not against Geroge Washington that states were keeping militas. Think about it.

0

hedshrinker 1 year, 6 months ago

NO NO NO psychology does NOT teach the reason you feel bad is someone else's fault and that you therefor get a get out of jail free card for whatever selfish, violent thing you do. I call total BS on that and if that's what you got out of your Psych 101 class you need to get a refund. There is so much incorrect, muddled up stuff in what you are saying, I am dumbstruck. First off, it's generally a bad idea to conflate politics, religion and psychology, which of course is a BIG fault of our miserable excuse for a state government. Please please read thomas Franks "what's the matter with Kansas." if you dare.

1

hedshrinker 1 year, 6 months ago

directed to in God we trust...why does the LJW never put the reply following the comment when you hit the reply button following the comment? very irritating

1

SDTPlant 1 year, 6 months ago

"Return with me to the thrilling days of yesteryear!" Who elected these clowns? Oh, wait, we did. Or, at least every TeaPartyParanoidSchizophrenicBirtherCenterOfTheCrazyUniverse constituent did. If you are one of those people, could you be persuaded to move closer to the coastal regions of this country?

Once again, read "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Then, next time, reflect back on your reading whilst you are standing in the polling place getting ready to color in your choice.

1

oldbaldguy 1 year, 6 months ago

'too small for a republic, too large for an insane asylum" comment made about South Carolina by one of its atttorney generals in the past.

2

bad_dog 1 year, 6 months ago

Next up, KS legislators accidentally vote for new form of capital punishment; the circular firing squad...

2

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 5 months ago

The Democrats have really screwed up the chance to promote gun safety in America in the way they politicized this issue.

We are not going to resolve this for a long time. This issue could put a Republican in the White House.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.