The City Wants to Pass its own Gun Laws

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

That's where it's handy to have a hi-cap magazine with some hollow points...

The class actually suggests you use hollow points when you CC.

[Bubba]

That would be so that the bullet breaks up on impact and the chances for a "through shot" are less so that innocent bystanders won't get hurt.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Bubba

That would be so that the bullet breaks up on impact and the chances for a "through shot" are less so that innocent bystanders won't get hurt.

It's also more likely to stop the attacker more quickly and the sooner it's over the better for all involved.

[Value Pack]

Bill blocks stricter local controls on concealed guns Story by The Associated Press

3:39 p.m. Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Local governments couldn't impose their own restrictions on people's ability to legally carry concealed guns under a bill that gained first-round approval Tuesday by the House.

The voice vote put the bill in position for a final vote Wednesday. If it passes then, it will go to the Senate.

Last year, lawmakers enacted the concealed carry law over the veto of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. This year's bill makes sure the state has the final word on how the law is applied.

"Absolutely, it takes away local control. The state occupies the field of concealed carry, period," said Rep. L. Candy Ruff, who handled the bill.

Nobody spoke against the bill, although House members generally are boosters of local control.

"Of course, I'm a backer of local control, but the cities took concealed carry beyond what our legislative intent was. This was our way of making sure that didn't occur again," said Ruff, D-Leavenworth.

Last year's law banned concealed guns in some locations, including bars, taverns, schools, courthouses, churches and day-care centers. Also, property owners can ban concealed guns by posting a sign.

Lawmakers complained that some Johnson County cities took it step further, banning concealed guns from public parks, open spaces and city buildings.

Speaker Melvin Neufeld said the bill makes clear who's in charge.

"You can't have a state law with different rules in different parts of the state," said Neufeld, R-Ingalls. "What the cities were doing was trying to make honest people into crooks."

Supporters of the bill say the patchwork process could mean someone following state statute could unknowingly break the law by walking into a city park where a local ordinance bans concealed guns.

"It represents a good compromise to get consistency and uniformity in concealed carry," said Rep. Richard Carlson, R-St. Marys.

Kansans can obtain concealed gun permits if they are U.S. citizens, 21 or older, and have completed eight hours of required training. The state bars people convicted of a felony or committed for a mental illness within the previous five years.

As of Monday, the attorney general's office received 7,413 applications and issued 5,199 licenses since the first of the year. A four-year permit costs $150.

The bill also allows the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to get more information from district courts and treatment facility records for background checks. It also would prohibit giving a license to anyone convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and would require all violations of the concealed gun law to be handled in district court rather than municipal court.

Kansas is among the 48 states allowing concealed guns, with Wisconsin and Illinois the two exceptions.

The National Rifle Association says Kansas is among 36 "shall issue" states, meaning if a person meets all requirements, they must be issued the permit. The NRA said that in the other states, the final decision on permits is left to law enforcement, except Vermont which doesn't require permits.

[wordsmythe]

getting closer

[Value Pack]

House passes Conceal and Carry legislation By DENNIS SHARKEY.
Published: Friday, March 23, 2007 8:45 AM CDT

Topeka— The decision on where conceal and carry card holders can lawfully carry their weapons was taken out of local lawmakers hands on Wednesday.

The House passed HB 2528 with only 17 representatives voting no.

The bill, if passed by the Senate and signed into law by the governor, would prohibit cities and counties from establishing ordinances that regulate, restrict or prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons.


The bill also would change the way public and private employers restrict the carrying of concealed weapons on their property.

Employers can develop restrictions through personnel policies, but such restrictions would not apply to parking facilities.

Concealed weapons would not be allowed at youth sporting events that do not involve firearms.

The bill also gives more teeth to background investigations.

The bill would allow the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to obtain district court and treatment facility records to determine eligibility to purchase and possess firearms.

Eber Phelps, the House Minority Whip, D-Hays, said he has been consistent on the issue since he arrived in the legislature in 1997.

Phelps said he voted “no” then and voted “no” Wednesday for the same reasons as he did 10 years ago.

Phelps said he was not in agreement with taking control out of the hands of local governing bodies. He also said that it hasn’t been proven to him that allowing concealed weapons has any correlation with reduced crime.

“I never understood the big push for conceal gun carry,” Phelps said. “I was quoted back then that I can’t believe in this day and age that we’re considering something like that. I don’t believe it has any affect on reducing crime that people say it does.”

Last year’s conceal carry legislation was vetoed by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, however, the House carried enough votes to override her veto.

The House had 107 “yes” votes on the bill Wednesday. The bill appears to have enough support to override another veto.


Eber Phelps, the minority Leader, must be either stupid or ignorant of the crime statistics of the 47 other states that allow citizens to defend themselves. Phelps doesn't cite even ONE report disputing the benefits of concealed carry. Instead, he relies on his idealistic utopian belief that in this day and age he does not need to allow citizens to protect themselves.

Does he think crime has been eliminated? Can he not read crime statistics? Does he promise that the police will be everywhere 100% of the time to protect us? Or does he simply not care if citizens get robbed, raped and murdered?

Does he have some fear that Kansas law abiding citizens cannot be trusted?

I don't get this article? Only 17 voted no, where's the majority opinions? I get the "feeling" that the article is slanted.

[Value Pack]

On Jan. 1, Kansas plans to permit judges and whomever they designate to carry concealed firearms in the courtroom. Phillip Journey, the state senator who authored the bill and a practicing attorney, said he spent a decade seeking to overturn a blanket prohibition on firearms in the courthouse.

"If I had a judge's permission, I'd do it every day," he said of bringing a gun into the courtroom. "Guns are like lawyers: Better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it."

[TexKan]

yep yep yep............ I would be willing to bet I sit way in the back if I'm ever in court in Kansas...........

[Value Pack]

Let's make America a 'sad-free zone'!

By Ann Coulter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 18, 2007
6:50 p.m. Eastern

From the attacks of 9-11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy – in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing – as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh, by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone – at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

[TexKan]

That's the truth! Willing to bet gun sales are up and holster sales are up as well. See all those signs don't really mean a thing.......... gotta do what ya feel you need to do. Sad thing is tho even if the school had allowed guns - more than likely few students would have been carrying. Ya just don't think a university is a place where ya need to do that. My guess is tho that some of the teachers would have been armed cause they are well aware of the risk......... kids just don't think in those terms.