| Gun ordinance may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but... By Jesse Truesdale, Reporter
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Bonner Springs City Manager Jack Helin may have believed a common-sense-sounding ordinance he brought to the City Council would meet with little discussion Monday night. The ordinance in question was meant, he told the Council in its workshop session before the regular meeting, to close gaps left open in the state's concealed-carry handgun bill which became effective Jan 1.
The law allows citizens who have passed a background check, taken an eight-hour training course and paid a fee to carry concealed handguns. The law specifies that concealed handguns would not be allowed in schools, libraries, churches and City Hall buildings.
The ordinance crafted with the help of Dan Trent, assistant city attorney, would prohibit weapons -- not only handguns, but "non-powder-propelling weapons" and Tasers, among others -- from being carried in city parks and buildings.
What Helin hadn't contended with in assuming a breezy passage of the ordinance were the libertarian leanings and the skepticism of some Council members.
"I see this," Rory Kuhn said, "and I think what about Opie with his slingshot?"
Helin then read the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, stressing its first four words, "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."
Everyone forgets the "well-regulated militia" part when quoting the Second Amendment, Helin said.
Council member Jeff Harrington said he was concerned women wouldn't be able to carry pepper spray at while running on city trails.
"There's also the issue of knowing there are people carrying" guns, Kuhn said, which he said deters crime.
"If I follow your line of reasoning," Helin offered, "we should arm everyone."
Mayor Clausie Smith tossed in an educational digression, saying Dodge City had passed the first gun control law. (What a 100 years ago or are they referring to what was tabled?
The discussion went on without resolution until the regular meeting began.
When the item came up for public discussion, Bonner Springs resident Bob Stoneking argued against the ordinance, saying the Kansas Legislature was considering bills that, if passed, could render the handgun provisions of the proposed ordinance void.
"Why spend taxpayers' money?" Stoneking asked, when the ordinance might just end up nullified.
Stoneking didn't explain how the ordinance would cost taxpayers' money.
Still, enough Council members -- four out of six -- were convinced to wait that a motion was approved to table the ordinance until the Legislature decides on Senate Bill 185 and House Bill 2528.
Both bills would limit the ability of cities and counties to regulate conceal-carry handguns beyond what the state law already has in effect. Of the two, the House bill is much lengthier and much more restrictive of cities' powers to ban guns on their property.
Bonner Springs Police Chief John Haley said he opposed the House bill, which is scheduled for a committee hearing today.
"I would certainly share the opinion that the Kansas Association of Chiefs have," Haley said. "They're lobbying against that particular passage," which forbids cities from regulating concealed handgun possession.
The police chiefs union, Haley said, believes "that to limit the cities' authority to define areas where carry-conceal is prohibited would certainly limit cities' authority to provide to provide safe places for citizens.
"I would think there are certain places where, in individual cities, we just don't want individuals carrying," Haley said.
Haley said he hadn't seen any incidents involving conceal-carry handguns since the law took effect.
Assistant city attorney and city prosecutor Dan Trent said after looking at HB 2528, "the House bill is much more restrictive. They're simply trying to say the state has occupied the field as to concealed carry," and that cities and counties can't regulate concealed carry in any way, Trent said.
"I think it's overly broad. We can't do any zoning or transportation" regulations, he said. "I'm a little troubled by the language ... What it's saying is the state is pre-empting regulation of concealed carry handguns," and if a place isn't listed in the statute, "you can carry, period."
That passage in the House bill, Trent said, is "really troubling to me because it takes out the language of public employer," in the Senate version, which would allow cities to prohibit their employees from packing heat.
Still, Trent said he wasn't worried because, he figures, "it's not going to be either of the two bills" that will pass. In order for either to pass, he reasoned, there will have to be some kind of compromise.
The fickleness of the Legislature is another reason for Trent's peace of mind.
"Until the Legislature decides what do, they'll change their mind five times," Trent said.
"My attitude is, when April rolls around and the Legislature is out of session, then we'll look and see what changes have been made."
Until then, there's not much he can do about the issue, he said.
Still, Trent said, it's probably a good thing the Council voted against the ordinance on its agenda Monday night, because if the Council had passed it, and then the Legislature were to pass a bill resembling HB 2528, the ordinance "would be null and void and it would be a waste of time."
That's not counting, of course, the time spent in deciding not to pass the ordinance.  |