[Tee]

TO: Senator Tim Huelskamp, (from Tee)



As a recent concealed carry licensee, I am concerned with Dodge City's recent attempt to rewrite the states concealed carry laws. They have proposed, passed and enacted an ordinance forbidding a CCH licensee from exercising the rights given to us by the state in all public areas under the control of the city. Since CCH licensees are thoroughly trained in the laws, the safety and usage of a firearm, these restraints are targeting the wrong group. The only persons this ordinance will affect is the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.



I am opposed to local jurisdictions attempts to negate the right given to us by the states, and I hope you are too. Please stop the local interference and uphold the rights recently given to us by the state by joining Sen Phil Journey in enacting legislation that would prohibit cities from placing additional regulations on the states concealed carry law passed in 2006.



I am interested to know what your position on this is, and what you plan to do to fix it.

Tim,

Thank you for the e-mail. I just visited with Sen. Journey and am supportive of his legislation. We are working to pass it.

Additionally, a number of cities are already trying to enact clearly illegal limits on permit holders. I have included Sen. Journey’s letter in response. It should make clear what is permitted or not permitted!

Sincerely,
Tim

Kathleen Sexton
City Manager
City of Derby
611 N. Mulberry
Derby, KS 67037-3533

Dear Kathleen:

Thank you very much for your letter dated January 26, 2007. I too value the relationship and my representation of Derby and its interests.

I’m sure you’re aware of how important this issue is to me. Having reviewed the position paper of the League of Municipalities, I can understand how the circumstances came about. The Council believed that they were simply implementing through the city council vote the authority given to you in Senate Bill 418 based upon the Kansas League of Municipalities’ representations. I do not agree with the League of Municipalities’ position. When one reviews Section 17, it is quite clear that municipalities may not regulate permit holders in any way. Section 11 was intended to grant and recognize the authority of municipalities equal to that of any employer or property owner. However, Section 11 was never intended to grant municipalities a law-making authority to regulate permit holders. Of course, you’re aware that Derby’s police station/municipal court and Derby City Hall and library are exclusion zones as described in the statute. Every permit holder as a result of their education is made aware of this. Regarding other municipal property owned by the City of Derby, such as parks or maintenance facilities, the statute was drafted so as to require the city to post those facilities with the sign prohibiting permit holders from that location. Due to the variety of properties owned by municipalities, it was impossible to codify all possible municipal properties in the statute. I’m sure you appreciate the concern and the policy established in Senate Bill 418 that mandated that rules, regulations, and statutes be enforced in a consistent manner, and the best place to do that is in state district courts.

I would urge you to recommend the Derby City Council review Section 17 of Senate Bill 418 and act accordingly in repealing your ordinance. Should Derby choose to, I would suggest a resolution similar to that passed by the City of Lawrence empowering the city manager to post any property owned by the City of Derby with the appropriate signage should you so choose. Public right of ways such as streets, sidewalks, walking paths are not included in this resolution.

What is far more disturbing is the actions of other cities such as Wichita creating new crimes for permit holders. Also, other cities have listed city property simply by address that is not contemplated in the statute creating a new crime with a year in custody and a maximum $2500 fine for individuals who trespass on non-posted property that is not described in the statute. I hope you understand my concern in insuring that permit holders are not trapped in such legal inconsistencies.

Should the mayor or any of the city council members seek to discuss this matter, I would certainly be more than willing to do so on a mutually agreeable schedule.

Yours truly,


Senator Phillip B. Journey
State Senator 26th District