Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, March 14, 2013

Bill would allow open carry of firearms in the Kansas Statehouse, according to a Lawrence legislator; measures now go to Senate

March 14, 2013

Advertisement

— The House approved bills on Thursday that aim to prevent federal regulation of guns made in Kansas and may allow people to openly carry firearms in the Statehouse.

Passage of the measures was expected, but the surprise came when a Lawrence legislator said his amendment to one of the bills had an error that would allow the open carry of firearms in the Capitol.

"This is not an insignificant mistake," said state Rep. John Wilson, a Democrat.

On Wednesday, during debate on House Bill 2055, which expands the concealed carry of firearms, Wilson had an amendment that he said would allow concealed carry license holders to carry their weapons concealed in the Capitol.

Wilson, an opponent of the bill, argued that since supporters of the legislation were expanding the possibility of concealed weapons in other public buildings, it should be allowed in the Statehouse.

The amendment was approved.

On Thursday, as the House took final action on the measure, Wilson said a technical error in the amendment would allow the open carry of firearms in the Capitol.

The House went ahead and approved the bill, 84-38. Wilson voted against it.

Under the bill, concealed carry license holders would be allowed to carry their weapons in city, county and state buildings that don't have adequate security, such as metal detectors and guards.

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.

The most heated debate came on the so-called Second Amendment Protection Act, House Bill 2199, which was approved 94-29.

The bill 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. Bob Grant, D-Frontenac, said the bill had nothing to do with protecting the Second Amendment but was a "postcard vote" that would be used in the next election.

"This bill is not constitutional. You can't trump federal law. Let the postcards come. I vote no," Grant said.

Both measures now go to the Senate for consideration.

Comments

oldexbeat 1 year, 1 month ago

Given the fact that more guns equals more shootings -- hope the good guys don't get hit in the state house.

0

JayhawkFan1985 1 year, 1 month ago

Government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the afraid...

0

tomatogrower 1 year, 1 month ago

Hey if they are going to allow guns in school, they better allow guns at the state house.

I wonder where our founding fathers would stand on the second amendment if they had to deal with the same guns we have now? I'll bet there would be more details in that amendment.

1

optimist 1 year, 1 month ago

"This bill is not constitutional. You can't trump federal law. Let the postcards come. I vote no," Grant said.

To be accurate, federal law is supreme whereby the federal government is acting in accordance with its Constitutional authority and does not infringe on the 10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Realizing that the courts have greatly ignored this amendment for decades and much precedence has been established to that end it is important that we understand that while it is customary to respect prior decisions for the sake of consistency in administration of the law it is not acceptable to allow bad judicial decisions to stand on that basis. All decisions must first adhere to the Constitution even before consideration for precedence is made.

0

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 1 month ago

The gun debate illustrates what is wrong with our political system today and what is wrong with Americans in general.

We are being pressured to draw a line in the sand and step on one side or the other. The sides being suggested are "Gun Haters" vs "Gun Fanatics".

Politicians are just baiting us with these arguments while at the same time, they are doing an absolutely lousy job.

We are not going to be able to manage anything in this country if people don't stop taking the bait and getting hooked on the rhetoric.

Personally, I find a lot of things disturbing in what is said by both sides. They seem very extreme to me.

2

fuel_for_the_fire 1 year, 1 month ago

My thoughts exactly, voevoda. Let's all walk around with guns slung over our shoulder. Somebody call LaPierre and get him to demand open carry for all.

0

voevoda 1 year, 1 month ago

Why should the State Legislature oppose open carry of firearms in their building? If they believe that concealed carry makes people safer, because criminals won't try to attack lest they encounter an armed person, wouldn't open carry be an even better deterrent? Legislators can carry weapons and be accompanied by openly-armed aides, and that would certainly deter anyone from approaching them with unwelcome advocacy of, say, union rights or environmental sustainability or women's health care. It's surprising that the so-called "conservative" (radical right-wing) majority in the State Legislature didn't thinkup this move themselves.

2

Joe Hyde 1 year, 1 month ago

Armed lawmakers in the statehouse....

Is there still time to modify this bill so that it mandates concealed carry by conservative Republicans only, but requires open carry by moderate Republicans, Democrats and Independents?

That arrangement would give your average statehouse visitor a better sense of which legislators are honest enough to be trusted.

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 1 month ago

Dumb and reckless legislation that is wasting Kansas tax dollars.

0

fiddleback 1 year, 1 month ago

Rough day at the office for John-- trying to ensure these dimwits aren't total hypocrites and are willing to apply their principles to their own place of work, but then some clerk's error turns it into one of those national "Kansas: new frontiers in idiocy" stories...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/kansas-open-carry-capitol_n_2879387.html

3

eugunieum 1 year, 1 month ago

You have a right to despise guns. I have a right to own and shoot them. And yes I would like to see an SRO at my granddaughter's school. In the absence of an SRO, I would like to see one or two staff members with a cch + additional training, in the school armed. Not just anyone with a cch.

1

Lenette Hamm 1 year, 1 month ago

I'll likely come under fire (no pun intended) for this - but I despise guns of all kinds. I know there are people who NEED them in their jobs, but casual carriers "just because"...? My question is this - if you have children in school (for example), and their school isn't equipped with a metal detector, do you really want someone (aside from law enforcement) coming into that school with a gun in their pocket or on their hip??? Geezus.

2

Uhlrick_Hetfield_III 1 year, 1 month ago

Why would you submit an amendment when you don't even understand what's in your own amendment.? It's rather hard to oppose something when you help them actually expand their demands.

0

kernal 1 year, 1 month ago

The amoral, ignorant and paranoia induced thinking of some of our elected state legislative representatives never ceases to amaze me. If this passes,it will be costly in so many ways for Kansas.

3

toe 1 year, 1 month ago

Great job, Kansas. Mature adults live in Kansas. Weak scared adults live in Colorado.

0

Ceallach 1 year, 1 month ago

The inmates have taken control of the asylum!

4

avarom 1 year, 1 month ago

I'm not worried..... I'll just wear my bullet proof vest, skirt and army helmet to the State House.....

2

ksjayhawk74 1 year, 1 month ago

Criminals, the State of Kansas will protect you from Federal prosecution of any gun crimes you my commit. So if you're going to commit a crime with guns; do it in Kansas.

1

elliottaw 1 year, 1 month ago

You would think they last thing this group of legislators would want in there would be people with guns, lets admit they are not really doing a stealer job.

3

2xhawk 1 year, 1 month ago

ok, now they're just f***ing with us...

0

Lynn731 1 year, 1 month ago

Are you sure that the bill allowed open carry of firearms in the statehouse? I understood it allowed concealed carry, by concealed carry permit holders. I have no problem going unarmed in the statehouse. Many retired deputies, that I worked with, work in the statehouse and other state buildings armed, but in plain clothes. They are employed by the Capitol Police. I feel safe under their watchful eyes. I do not like going into buildings with no gun signs, not able to carry under the law, and the security is minimal if there is any at all. Most of these are medical buildings owned by either hospital in Topeka. I do not frequent private businesses with a no gun sign.

1

guavablues 1 year, 1 month ago

More people carrying concealed weapons in more places does not make me feel safer. Quite the opposite.

8

Commenting has been disabled for this item.