The City Wants to Pass its own Gun Laws

[Value Pack]

Originally Posted by TexKan

Is it cause your new CC law doesn't allow for the the old shoot em up Dodge of yesteryear?.......... what is it?

"The first shocking thing you learn when you start "mining’ for such information is that it was much safer to live in a place like Dodge City than in a place like New York City or Chicago – my how things change, right? If you look real hard at the record of Dodge City, Kansas from the time the cattle herds started shipping from there until the last year as a "cow town" – a span of about 15 years you can come up with approximately 15 people who died by violence. Yep that’s fifteen, not 150, in a period of 15 years. An average of 1 per year. However in the worst year, five people died so there were several years in that 15 in which no one was killed in Dodge City. A couple of those are famous incidents which get told and retold. One is the cowboy who was killed by the officers Earp and Masterson. One was Bat’s brother Ed who was mortally wounded by one of two cowboys named Walker and Wagner, who were in turn shot by Bat Masterson (both survived the shooting). Another, not so well known homicide was the accidental shooting of Dora Hand by a drunk on the street when the bullet went through several walls and hit her in the head as she slept.
Now everyone knows of the famous sign which orders all the visitors to Dodge City to check their guns. What you might not be aware of is that there were, in effect, actually two Dodge Cities adjacent to one another, split by a spur line of the railroad called the "deadline". The sign was there for mostly for the benefit of those who visited the saloons and brothels south of the deadline. While It was the denizens on the "other side of the tracks" who were required by law to disarm when they ventured into town. So, in this little microcosm of western society we have an excellent comparison of just how effective restrictive gun laws actually are. Now of the 15 people who perished by violence in Dodge City’s most violent years, just how many do you think fell victim North of the Deadline. If you guessed 0 you would be right! Now isn’t that amazing. You take a town and put all of the miscreants, rebel rousers, and assorted ne’er-do-wells in one area, forbid the carrying of weapons by those who frequent a certain part of town, and ALL of the homicide occurs there. "Gun Control" works just as well today as it did then. Dodge City is not the exception. Tombstone, where the Earps moved, enjoyed the same proscription on going armed, though it was truly a violent place, the violence was contained in the area near the controlled section of town. There are numerous other examples.
While the above may come as a surprise to you, it has not gone unnoticed by scholars. In his book The Western Peace Officer, Frank Prassel notes: "As a place of lawlessness the frontier’s spectacular reputation is, therefore, largely without substantiation. It is true that a band of daring outlaws, enraged over ‘land theft’ might sweep down from their mountain stronghold to terrorize an isolated village, take command of a courthouse, and shoot or capture local peace officers. But these events did not occur in the distant past, they tool place in 1967. While a passenger going through Nevada during the 1860s might certainly have been in some danger of hijacking, he probably enjoyed greater security than his counterpart flying over Florida in a jet airliner a century later…."
We’ve come a long way, haven’t we. Several thousand gun laws later we still aren’t as safe as the citizens of Dodge City." End of quote.

[Highwayman]

Someone pointed out that the city commissioner likely didn’t spend 5 minuets discussing this issue. I started studying gun issues 25 years ago when I fist became a licensed firearms dealer. I’ve watched concealed carry move through several states over the years and in every case the cries of shootouts over traffic disputes and blood running in the streets took the place of common sense. It’s a perception thing really. Folks are afraid of things that are unknown and most folks don’t read Gary Kleck or John Lott who studied the issue and published the benefits. They don’t see the trade papers that I did when I was in the business. Instead they hear the loud uneducated voices of objection. Wouldn’t a reasonable person look at other states like Florida where shall issue has been in place for 20 years and check the results? No state that adopted carry laws has repealed them because of too many problems.

If I was able to go to the meeting tonight and be given the opportunity to speak my plan would be to have a stack of documented cases of self defense success stories in hand and challenge the commissioners to give examples of real problems that occurred where the restrictions they propose aren’t in place and explain how the proposed restrictions will effectively solve those problems if they do in fact exist. My guess is they don’t have any examples.

Keep and Bear Arms - Postcard Center

[TexKan]

I personally don't care one way or the other - I let my CC lapse but I garuntee I would never hesitate to carry my gun if needed. It's in my car at all times. The question IS - is the debate a civil right argument or what???? I know Dodge was safer than portrayed and I knew about the woman that got shot while sleeping....... I really like history so have read lots of stories - not that I remember them all but used to know every plank at boot hill - cause I love the history side of it all.

I was just wondering they the big ruckus over something like this.......... like I said - I'm used to the restrictions and I'm not so sure I agree that guns should be allowed at sports complex where there are kids - course I also see why that would be a place you might want a gun to protect the kids if need be - but in reality how many shootings have ya had on city property lately? The purpose of CC is to protect your property and life on your property - just a thought............

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by TexKan

...The purpose of CC is to protect your property and life on your property - just a thought............

No, the purpose of CC is to protect your life when you’re off of your property.

The purpose of fighting for fewer places to be restricted is because when there are too many restricted areas CC becomes worthless.

The point that seems to elude folks is that the people you need to worry about ain’t going to spend the money and jump through the hoops to get a CC.

[wordsmythe]

No worries, it'll get preempted,

Most of the people I know aren't too concerned with the posted signs because they are concealed so nobody should know they are carrying anyway. If they get caught, as I understand it, you have to be cited 3 times in a year before they take your permit. And the citation is a $50 fine at wosrt before that.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by TexKan

I was just wondering they the big ruckus over something like this........

To me, the big ruckus is about the state has already made the CCH law. We don't need cities trying to add to the law already passed by the state.

[TexKan]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

No, the purpose of CC is to protect your life when you’re off of your property.

The purpose of fighting for fewer places to be restricted is because when there are too many restricted areas CC becomes worthless.

The point that seems to elude folks is that the people you need to worry about ain’t going to spend the money and jump through the hoops to get a CC.

That's not exactly how I look at it - I think for me at least - I don't worry so much bout the details - but it seems that law enforcement is tasked with protecting me in public arenas....... like sports complexes, city hall, etc - you already know you can't carry where alcohhol is served so that's a no brainer - I really feel (and I don't know the fact) that the laws were sort of a protection when you are home and were being invaded and it took police too long to get there cause some parent wanted them to smack down thier kid for them........... Anyway - I'm not too concerned either way - if I feel the need I carry - if it's a known danger spot - I don't go..............

(To me, the big ruckus is about the state has already made the CCH law. We don't need cities trying to add to the law already passed by the state.)

I don't know how to do that multi quote thing - but - is the problem that the law only covers "state" property and buildings? Perhaps the law was written that way so the cities could write thier own - ya know ho folks hate to have the "state" make thier decisions for them! - So with that in mind the "state" passed the law with the knowldege that cities were responsible for designating thier own sites that are considered off limits. My question is - IF you are so concerned that you can't carry in city hall - why not the same concern for the state capitol????? What's the point?????? Why is it OK for the state and not the city???

[TexKan]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

No worries, it'll get preempted,

Most of the people I know aren't too concerned with the posted signs because they are concealed so nobody should know they are carrying anyway. If they get caught, as I understand it, you have to be cited 3 times in a year before they take your permit. And the citation is a $50 fine at wosrt before that.

Finally - me and Wordie keep sayin the same thing!!............... what a revelation!! Mark this day!!!

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by TexKan

I don't know how to do that multi quote thing - but - is the problem that the law only covers "state" property and buildings? Perhaps the law was written that way so the cities could write thier own - ya know ho folks hate to have the "state" make thier decisions for them! - So with that in mind the "state" passed the law with the knowldege that cities were responsible for designating thier own sites that are considered off limits. My question is - IF you are so concerned that you can't carry in city hall - why not the same concern for the state capitol????? What's the point?????? Why is it OK for the state and not the city???

I guess you haven't been reading other posts in the thread very good. This was the second time I posted this. Maybe third time is a charm.

Originally Posted by Bubba

That is why this is so important....

A law that gives Kansans the right to carry concealed weapons needs protection from local governments that are passing ordinances adding their own restrictions on gun owners, a state senator says.

A bill proposed by Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, would prohibit cities from placing additional regulations on the state's concealed carry law passed in 2006. The bill also would void any regulations already passed by cities regarding concealed carry within their jurisdictions.

Please email your senator and tell him you support the bill by the Sen. Journey.

[TexKan]

No need to get testy............ my point is..... which you missed............ perhaps THAT's the way the law is supposed to work............. States sometimes pass a law, then let the municipalities iron out the details. It's the overall intent of the law - doesn't mean that cities don't have the right and obligation to protect thier own lands from gun carrien......... just like federal and state buildings. AGAIN - why would it be OK for the state to say - not in my (your tax $$) building and NOT ok for the city to do the same? Now - if you would like to quit trying to insult me.............. perhaps you could address my question....................BUBBA............. for christs sake - it's only a question - not an inquisition!!!