Lawmakers reasserted their authority over concealed-carry this week, sending Gov. Kathleen Sebelius a bill barring cities from putting their own restrictions on where permit holders can carry their concealed handguns. Numerous cities, including Wichita, had extended the 2006 bill’s list of 22 exceptions to concealed-carry to include city properties such as parks. Proponents said a patchwork of municipal restrictions was too onerous for permit holders. That argument has some merit, but home rule, usually so prized at the Statehouse, shouldn’t be so casually shoved aside.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Chas on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Jed on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Public was correct to be concerned about Kline
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Fairness Doctrine baloney
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/22
47 Comments
I am a LIBERAL except on those few issues on which I am a conservative. This is one. I am of the opinion that the right to have and carry a firearm pretty much applies to everybody everywhere and that only a few exceptions should be carved out of that right. People have a fundamental right to self protection.
It would be absolutely ludicrous for the state of Kansas to allow local community imposed ‘home rule’ laws to be written, overriding state law, where there could be no way for Kansas citizens, let alone visitors, to be aware when exceptions to the state’s CCW laws were put in place.What is so hard to understand about the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.Why isn’t the Eagle equally questioning, and supporting, the placing of restrictions on the 1st Amendment’s, “Congress shall make no law……abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, by the inacting of ‘home rule’ law?
How is it that the the whole sentence is not usually shown for the II admendment? The whole admendment is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Is it that they don’t want to have to be part of the Militia?
Cheri
The version of the 2A that was in the Congressional Journals at the time of ratification is such-
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
One comma, following the word “state” spelled with lower case, denoting a generic meaning.
It matters.
Notice how the 2nd Amendment does NOT say, ‘the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’, but instead the ‘people’. The militia consisted of the general population, and the writing of the times clearly indicate a individual, personal right.
Heckler,
I just went and looked at the document, and it is just as I quoted it.
http://stlplaces.com/constitution/images_bill_of_rights.html
I still think the Militia piece is as important to the admendment as the rest of the sentence. It is what they use to justify the bearing of arms.
Also, there were orgainized Militias at the time this was written. I also realize that any physically capable male citizen could be called to duty in the Militia in cases of emergency. The point of the admendment was to protect the “state”.
Cheri,
I respectfully disagree. Each of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution enumerate rights that belong to individuals. They don’t protect the state - they protect us *from* the state.
It’s called the “Bill of Rights.” Not “Bill of Things You Can’t Have.” The only amendment that grants states power (NOT “rights”) is 10, and that protects states *and people* from the Federal government.
Cheri
Different copies of the BOR are punctuated differently. Chalk it up to all the hand transcription that was done.
According to the American Law Division of the Library of Congress, the version adopted by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the States contained only one comma, after the word state which, by the way, was not uppercased in the original, indicating a generic political entity as opposed to the particular States of the Union.
1) As to the “militia” argument; read Parker v. DC (Ct. of Appeals, DC Circuit, 2007). It’s hard to argue that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right with a straight face. The founders knew how to protect rights reserved the states, and to the people. Read the 10th Amendment; the founders differentiated between the states and the people in the same sentence. For the 2nd Amendment, they chose the language “the people,” just as in the 1st and 4th Amendment. No one argues that the rights protected there are collective rights - does the 1st Am. protect only the state’s printing press? Of course not.
2) This bill would not have been necessary had cities, like Wichita, simply followed the law in the first place. The original bill - SB418 - included clear preemption language, stating specifically that the State law “occupied the field” and that “Any city ordinance or county resolution that regulates, restricts or prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons shall not be applicable to any person licensed in accordance with the provisions of this act.”Nonetheless, some cities, egged on by the League of Kansas Municipalities, latched on to the ‘property owner’ provisions, pretending that a city as public municipal property holder is the same as a private property owner, to create a minefield of traps for otherwise law-abiding citizens.All this statute really does is tell the cities, and LOKM, that the law meant what it said.
BTW - it’s veto-proof.
Kansas law on this subject should be Kansas law, not a crazy-quilt patchwork of ordinances. A solid step in the right direction.
blah blah blah
I just think it is incredibly ironic that those who ostensibly favor small government and local government are whining about local governments actually GOVERNING and are in FAVOR of big brother state government usurping the local powers?
I see that happening on the gaming issue, where localities want casinos but the cons go whining to big brother state government to get their way.
I see that happening on taxes. Governor leadership was just fine giving out business tax breaks that are paid into LOCAL governments and the cons couldnt kiss her ass fast enough on that issue. They had no problem letting the STATE stop a revenue stream into local coffers.
I am sure if you look further, you will find more examples of these so called small government republicans and libertarians ditiching their ideology and running to the NANNY state when they dont get their way at the local level.
What happened to the conservative principle that the government closest to the people, i.e. LOCAL government, was better than the ham handed STATE rule?
I see they change their ideology more often than rudy changes wives…
Oh yeah, and did I mention that the NANNY STATE, in the form of one very conservative bible thumpin’ lance kinzer, wanted to forbid Lawrence from having a working domestic partnership registry.
Sure. The NANNY STATE ALWAYS KNOWS BEST!!!! According to the reich wingers in the GOP anyway.
KFG
We’re not talking about taxes, gaming, or domestic partnership. We’re talking about the natural right to self preservation. It’s a little different.
Well heckie, I dont see the POLITICAL principle being different, no matter how desperate the issue.
Either you believe in local government or you dont. Either you accept the rule of local government or you dont.
Either you support the intervention of big brother nanny state to over rule local government or you dont.
I dont think that is a position, if sincerely held, would change depending on the subject at hand.
Nope. I think like most wingers, you want it both ways. You wanna whine to SCOTUS about abortion, but let them send out a positive ruling on gay marriage, and then they are ac-tee-vist judges.
You want the NANNY state to intervene on gay marriage, gambling, taxes, and judges.
And you want local rule on… um… what? I cant see ANYTHING that the wingnuts want the local leaders to decide. If the local decision doesnt go their way, they rally the faithful and go whining to big brother nanny state government to protect them from the big bad local government.
If you cant see the hyocrisy in that, you are just willfully not seeing.
And isnt it YOUR bible that says “none are so blind as those who will not see”?
Or does that just apply on a selective basis as well.
Ksfarmgirl- So it would be okay for local governments to refuse to allow the recognition of gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or interage marriages, or whateveer they felt like? So it would be okay to refuse to allow any abortions in it’s community? So it would be okay for local governments to refuse to prosecute hate crimes law violations? Give me a break. You know better.
The reason the so-called “Nanny” states intervenes in gay marriage is that the laws of Kansas as it applies to marriage for tax, insurance, property and other legal purposes would be directly affected.
If each and every locality had their own interpretation of the marriage law, it would be total chaos.
For instance, a gay couple gets married in Topeka under local ordinance allowing such. They move to Hutchinson which denies gay marriage. The couple signs a real estate contract as a married couple. The Mortgage company comes back and says “Sorry, you’re not married in accordance to the City of Hutchinson law, we cannot use both of your incomes to consider you for this mortgage.”
I imagine they would be a might peeved that local law was used as a standard for marriage or union license.
The people of Kansas have been allowed to exercize their 2nd Amendment rights since last January and I have yet to see “blood running in the streets” as was predicted by some on these boards. If Wichita had it’s way, it would in effect ban CCW through onerous ordanince. Having to abide by different ordinances in every town in Kansas is just plain stupid.
Folks, get used to it; CCW is law now and it’s not going to change. There haven’t been any wild west shoot-outs.
Get over it.
A question:What about interstate commerce? Should it be regulated by the fed or the States (or town by town).
Why or why not?
Just be glad that Wyatt Earp is no longer in law enforcement in Wichita or he’d be pistol whipping those refusing to giving up their firearms as they arrive in town. :)
Oh - and I notice that the Eagle, which supposedly had “taken no position” on CCW (even as it filled its pages with fear-mongering and visions of blood in the streets) is beating it’s oh so neutral drum again.
Neutral. Uh-huh.
XXX: Interstate commerce is to be regulated by the federal government under the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution; sorry, I don’t have the precise cite for you.
I agree with GMC that the intent of what is now KSA 75-7c01 et seq was to preempt home rule on the issue of CCW; I find the argument of LOKM, and the cities, concerning regulation of CCW on public property to have been supported by the original language of the statute (now to be amended after the Governor signs the same). As GMC notes, there should not be a crazy-quilt patchwork of local ordinances, regulations, etc. on this subject, thus the amendment by HB 2528. However, the question that I had, which is now made moot, was did not the original statutory language require the posting of public property upon which CCW was prohibited? As I read it, posting was required, which would have put the CCW individual “on notice”. As I say, this is now moot and the ramblings of someone who just pulled his head out of a consideration of sec. 988 gain under the IRC. :-)
Uh littlejohn, you know better too.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING THE NANNY STATE.
YOU ARE!!!!
That same line of thinking would lead to what you are talking about. An unworkable patchwork. It’s just that the republicans here are always whining about the state usurping the rights of local government.
And I still dont have an answer from the cons about WHAT local government they do support over state control.
It isnt ME that is whining about the nanny state. It’s the CONS here who whine about it.
Consistancy boys, consitancy.
VT -
You know I disagree with you as to the effect of the original language; I think that pre-emption was the result then. As you say, however, that disagreement is moot now.
And yes, the original bill did not require posting in statutorily barred areas (courthouses, etc.). The new bill does, so there is no question about notice. It’s a minor point; if you got a CC permit, you knew (or should have known) the rules anyway.
Given time, the private posters barring carry will mostly fade away, as the fears promoted by the Eagle and opponents do not come to pass.
You are right, I do know better. However, I don’t beleive I have advocated a nanny state. In fact, if you are interested, while basically a Republican by affiliation, I am more of a libertarian or constitutionalist. The federal government is way too involved in things that are more rightly held to be in the power of the states. The interstate commerce clause has been so bent and broken to allow this that it is almost unrecognizable. The states however, are allowed such leeway in both the federal and many state constitutions. ALso, home rule laws only apply to those state laws that apply to some cities and not others.While I agree that it sometimes is nebulous as to when people (of all philosophical definitions) want home rule and when they want redress by the state or federal governments and courts, it cuts both ways. That was my point.
…and my point as well, little john. So why try to twist it?
KFG
” It’s just that the republicans here are always whining about the state usurping the rights of local government.”
Show me where I’ve done this please.
You’re wielding that Broad Brush pretty indiscriminately again.
Ms. Holman, I agree with you on this issue regarding homerule. Are you prepared to maintain this stance on homerule when another issue comes up?
KFG,
I was only trying to point out that most of us seem to be for the Nanny state for our particular causes, and not for our “opponents” causes. Still, you were the one that twisted my postings into something that I did not say, that I was for the Nanny state.If I have read you wrong, I apologize. If we agree, great. If we do not, thankfully we can do so in a country that allows free thought and free speech
The gun related deaths in this country will never decrease with CCW, the more guns are available, the more gun deaths, and that’s a fact. We have the highest gun death rate of any industrialized country in the world, including 5,000 children each year…all due to the easy access to guns.But in this country we worry more about the freedom to own and carry weapons than we care about people getting killed by them…it’s absolutely pathetic.
“more guns are available, the more gun deaths, and that’s a fact”
True, but without guns, people find other ways to kill each other, and that’s a fact.
Mary, the freedom of an individual to own and carry weapons in the United States is the subject of debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. As has been posted upthread, the Parker case, recently decided by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia squarely comes down on the side of the “individual right” argument versus the “collective right” argument. I think this is correct, after much reflection and changes of opinion over the years. I do not think, however, this establishes a constitutional guarantee of the right to concealed carry, but it surely does not bar a State from allowing such.
I’m not a Comparative Laws scholar by any means, but as I recall, this provision of our Constitution, if not unique, is a relatively rare one. Thus, the position of the United States in the world concerning firearm deaths.
Littlejohn, you are also correct in your assertion concerning the use of different methods of killing. It would be interesting to know (and I do know how to Google, but don’t have the time right now) the positions of various Nation-States in the number of homocides per capita (not related to “war”) in the population, and the various methods of accomplishing the task.
The murder rate in otner industrialized countries is much lower than ours, because it’s harder to kill someone if you don’t have a gun…do you ever hear of drive by stabbings, or children accidently stabbing themselves to death with a knife? The availibility of guns drive up both the murder rate and the accidental deaths by gun. You can kill someone without having to struggle or get too close to them, it’a too easy.
look, to each his own on concealed carry - personally i don’t like it because I don’t like guns (for very personal reasons of my own) but that is just me- i am also not a doomsday predictor and i don’t see this leading to “uncontrolled bloodshed”. HOWEVER - i do believe that a public park should not allow it. Why, you may ask? Because let’s say on the SLIGHT chance that some kind of a gun fight erupts at said park around all kinds of small children who are out playing - who becomes responsible for a death from a stray bullet when they are legally authorized to brandish said weapon? Sorry, but that is a slight chance I simply am not willing to take with my sons life - i do not see the problem with regulating ccw at places where large numbers of small children are present (i.e. the zoo, the park, etc)
VT
Here’s some interesting data, don’t know if it’s what you’re looking for.
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/publications.php
Mary Caruso
Here’ something you might find to be of interest.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden%20DeathBJC.pdf#search=‘Did%20the%20Australian%20Firearms%20Legislation%20of%201996%20Make%20a%20Difference%3F’
“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.” –Kansas Bill of RIchts, Article 4
Does anyone besides me still think it is funny that in all this debate, the kansas legislature STILL forbids guns there? WTF?
That’s because they have better protection by armed guards than the rest of us. Kinda like some of the celebrities against concealed carry. They don’t, but their bodyguards do
That’s because they have better protection by armed guards than the rest of us. Kinda like some of the celebrities against concealed carry. They don’t, but their bodyguards do
heckler, I didnt call you out by name, but if the shoe doesnt fit, dont wear it.
I have heard the republicans, or maybe I should say the cons here, whine about the nanny state endlessly.
And when they dont like the decision a locality makes, like say, oh, guns or domestic partner registries, they cant run to the state legislature fast enough for relief.
And werent the republicans going over Nola’s head to philllll kline when she refused to file nonsense against tiller just to appease the wingers? Isnt she the local government “decider” on that?
And when it comes to gambling, the wingnuts apparantly cant control themselves and their own finances, so they want the nanny state to forbid local option votes on gambling?
Do I need to go on? I think that “broad brush” may not apply to all individuals posting here, but it CERTAINLY applies to republicans in general.
“The murder rate in otner industrialized countries is much lower than ours, because it’s harder to kill someone if you don’t have a gun”
That’s simply not true. The firearms homicide/manslaughter rate is fairly high in the U.S., but the overall manslaughter/homicide rate per capita is NOT. For overall homicide/manslaughter, eastern Europe and Russia kick our butts. As do Italy and South Korea and Thailand. That’s without looking to lesser-industrialized nations such as South Africa and Colombia and Mexico, who rule the charts in homicide/manslaughter.
On the flip side, the rape rate in both Canada and Australia is MUCH higher than in the U.S. Hmmm….
Are you sure of your stats? I’d look at your sources if I were you.
Australian Gun Law UpdateHere’s a thought to warm some of your hearts…
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
“Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forcedby a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed byour own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in “successfully ridding Australian society of guns.” You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
PS: The comment and question directed at Ms Holman above by ‘Mark A.’ are not from this contributor or the previous Mark or Mark Aberle.
hehehehehe Mary. I guess that is what passes for “source” these days. An anonymous letter or blog.
Statistics please from verifiable sources.
Is it that they don’t want to have to be part of the Militia?
A “militia” is part of that which defends the property, safety and freedoms of the peoples so in effect we ARE the militia just as when the Sheriff had to raise a “militia” (posse) to saddle up and go after criminals.
NationMaster.http://www.nationmaster.com/
Best cross-national stats available at a single source. Real simple. Combine the murder and manslaughter rates per capita to get comparable figures, as the US reports “manslaughter” as “homicide,” so you have to combine the two rates to get true homicide comparisons. (This is why the US does not appear on the manslaughter list at all.) Murder/manslaughter is FIVE TIMES as common in Russia as in the US. Eastern Europe isn’t much better. Mexico pretty much bans private gun ownership completely–and has a murder/manslaughter rate more than SEVEN TIMES that of America.
You are more than twice as likely to be raped in Australia or Canada as in America. Robbery? Spain rules the roost by leaps and bounds, but you’re more likely to be robbed in the UK than in the US. Burglary? THREE TIMES as likely to be burgled in Australia than in the US, TWICE as likely in Denmark and Finland and New Zealand and the UK than in the US. Car theft per capita? We come in 9th, behind Australia, Denmark, UK, New Zealand, Norway, France, Canada, and Italy.
Take gang killings out of the mix and we’re actually a pretty peacable and law-abiding bunch. Hell, for fraud we barely make the top twenty. (Germany #1!) And for suicides–which is self-homicide, I note–America trails way back behind the Europeans and the Japanese. If not for drug crimes skewing the total crime figures somewhat, we’d lag way back in overall crime as well. As is we’re about tied with the Netherands, and trailing behind such backward third-world nations as New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, and the UK, with only a slight lead over Canada. Australia doesn’t report “total crime.” One might think they’re almost embarrassed.
We here in Georgia have the right to carry guns. You may carry a gun in your car with no permit and on your person- concealed or open- with a permit. You may also “shoot first and ask questions later” if you feel a threat. And there is not blood flowing in the streets except for a few stalkers that approached their victims once too many times. In fact some of you may have heard about the mad gunman in the CNN center here yesterday. He shot a lady and then was dropped by an armed security guard. It was pointed out that, in many states, such guards would not be allowed to be armed unless they worked for a bank.