The Wichita Eagle reports that the Kansas State Senate this afternoon successfully voted to over-ride Governor Kathleen Sebelius' veto of a preemption law for concealed handgun carrying. The House over-rode the veto yesterday.
Last year, Kansas enacted a "shall issue" law for the licensed carrying of handguns for lawful protection. The new bill specifies that local governments may not create pretend "gun free zones" which exclude licensed carry.
Under the bill, public or private entities may still ban guns in buildings or enclosed fenced areas (but not in parking lots, parks, or other open public spaces). If the place is open to the public, the business/government must post a notice. The bill also preempts local laws on transportation or storage of firearms, to the extent that they are inconsistent with state law. In addition, the bill requires that relevant mental health adjutications from Kansas courts be reported to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.
Congratulations to Kansas State Senator Phil Journey, the leader of the pro-rights forces in the legislature.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
[DK: Only places which are open to the public. I'll clarify my post.]
Think of it another way: at least in theory, we don't permit local or state governments to pass laws that violate First Amendment free speech rights, even if local community sensibilities might oppose exercising those rights.
a nation-wide movement of citizen
pledging not to vote for the candidates
for the national office (like the presdincy)
if they are not residing in the shall-issue state.
A small fraction of one percent of eligible places posted initially, when carry reform passed; most of those signs have come down since.
By your statement, I assume you oppose the use of the 101st airborne to integrate schools?
Just wanted to clarify that. :-)
Private houses are not open to the public. Nobody comes into your house unless you let them in. So you can tell them to leave their guns at home if you want to. Proper manners would require that anyone with a carry permit would not bring his gun into someone's home without first making sure there is no objection.
As to local gun laws, the way to think about this is that some things are matters of statewide concern and some are purely local concern. Matters of statewide concern should be uniform throughout the state. Those of purely local concern can vary from place to place. Most gun regulation is a matter of statewide concern, it seems to me.
More than manners, it's required by the law in some (maybe all) states that the gun owner do just that.
"'Pro-rights' seems like another in a silly line of contrived names that mean nothing"
"rights" are specified in the law, as in "the right of the people...." "pro-" means in favor of. What's silly or contrived about it?
"higher level of government is keeping local communities from setting their own standards. Isn't that normally a bad thing?"
Normally, yes, but not always. What if Boston tried to mandate a particular religion and fined people who didn't attend Mass?
From a federalism perspective, there are many reasons to allow local governments to develop local laws that work best for the local situation (e.g. states have greater expertise in certain areas of law enforcement, states should be able to experiment with social policy, states have different policy needs). Indeed, it is because one-size-fits-all policies rarely work, that I am a big proponent of states rights. However, the point of having standardized policies is to limit the economic burden associated with complying with too many different local standards. In this case, allowing local towns to impose their own CCW restrictions makes it close to impossible for a state citizen to know where he/she may or may not carry their weapon. The idea that a KS citizen driving from one end of the state to a business meeting on the other end of the state might have to drive way out of his/her way to get to the meeting just to drive through CCW-friendly towns is absurd. Imagine if each town could regulate what size tire an 18-wheeler had to use and the laws were different in each town, causing a truck driver to have to stop and change his tires to comply with each local law as he drove through the state. Thus, this policy makes a good deal of sense in terms of providing a single clear standard for everyone in that state to follow. Remember too, local control is great unless you begin getting so local that every man becomes a law unto himself. The bottom-line is that CCW laws are one of the areas of law that makes sense for a state to preempt local laws.
Sorry? Are you seriously suggesting that the politically correct are defending 'rights'? Via speech codes, for instance, or affirmative action programs?
How so? And what other objects would that rule apply to? Should somebody who wears a cross or a Magen David ask permission before bringing it into a home of somebody who is of a different faith? How about credit cards -- some people object to them, too. Cigarettes? (It's obviously improper to smoke in somebody's home if they object to it -- but should one ask at the door if the pack of Marlboro in the pocket is offensive to the homeowner?)
There is genuine disagreement as to whether more guns = less crime. Personaly, I take an agnostic view of the question. However, the position that more guns = more crime has been thoroughly debunked since Florida passed their "shall issue" law. The idea that fewer guns = less crime isn't looking terribly robust these day, either.
I'm suggesting nothing about the views of the "politically correct." What I am saying is that those who assail "political correctness" would be hypocritical if they were so willing to rename "pro-gun" as "pro-rights." There is literally no political view that couldn't be renamed pro-rights.
I'm a Democrat and, henceforth, would like to be called nothing other than "pro-better-safer-wonderful-country."
If you show up in my house with a gun, I will tell you to get out. If yuu don't, I will call the police. Hopefully you won't shoot me.
Actually, it hasn't. No one has ever shown that all these ccw laws you fight so desperately for change people's behavior one whit. That is, there is no evidence there are more guns, either on the street or in homes, after the laws are passed than before. What they probably do is make "law abiding" citizens stop breaking the law and get a permit to carry the gun they were already carrying.
thatif I carried a gun illegally, in my restrictive jurisdiction. Even gun ownership rates can only be guessed at in the USA.No? Somebody couldn't strangle you to death with the chain from which they hang their religious emblem? Do you worry about that? In point of fact, rather more people have been strangled than killed -- or, for that matter, injured -- with any of my firearms. As long as a firearm stays in its holster, it can't "cause the immediate death" of you or others in your family; relax. In fact, many tools can be used to "cause the immediate death" of people, but don't seem to generate the kind of preemptive hysteria you seem to be demonstrating. Do you worry about those of your guests who routinely carry a pocket knife? When you're serving your guests dinner, do you nervously eye the forks? Since you're apparently concerned about tools that can be caused to "cause the immediate death" of yourself or your family, have you purged your home of all knives, baseball bats, brooms, canes, pencils, etc?
"If you show up in my house with a gun, I will tell you to get out."
Well, I'll be happy to promise never to "show up at your house" (please email me your address so I can be sure) -- is this something you worry about? But if somebody did "show up at your house with a gun," how would you know that they were carrying? Do you habitually frisk people who you've invited into your home? Do you invariably inquire of your guests as to whether or not they are armed?
Minnesota law, quite reasonably, (and quite typically) prohibits permit holders from carrying in someone else's home if the homeowner has told them not to. The issue here is whether or not somebody lawfully carrying a firearm is under some obligation to ask permission before bringing it into another's home under normal sorts of circumstances -- say, when invited in. Somebody -- you, perhaps -- asserted that there was some sort of affirmative moral or social obligation, and that's what I'm questioning.
As to the requirement for carry permits, I'm against them; they're an unfortunate compromise. Alaska, I think, has the best sort of carry permit law; permits are not required in order to lawfully carry a handgun in most public places, but are available. Vermont is almost as good; they don't have permits at all, but permit carry almost anywhere.
I know that some folks seem to worry about permit holders, and am surprised that all of those don't flock to those permit-free oases like, say, DC and Chicago.
What color is the falling sky in your world?