The City Wants to Pass its own Gun Laws

[Bubba]

I wasn't getting testy! If I was I would have cussed more and left out the wink.

My point is, which you missed again so I will put it in bold letters, 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.

If the state senator says the law needs protecting from the cities and is proposing a bill that would make it illegal for cities to do so, AND void all city regulations that have already been passed, then I would definitly say....NO, that is NOT the way the state law is supposed to work.

Furthermore, I wasn't insulting you, I was answering your question with a post that has already been posted in this thread. I would say that you are the one getting testy and insulting.

[TexKan]

Well hell - I hate it when you are right!! I didn't see the wink and I didn't read what you were harpin about till you bolded it!! Must be the nicotine withdrawl!!............. I'm sorry!!

I still don't see the problem with cities protecting thier own property(sports complexes, parks, etc) like the feds and state does - I guess I'm just blind to the issue........... Doesn't Phil Journey have other issues that aare perhaps more pressing - like imigration??? Is kansas so worried bout thier right to carry that they will get all in a dither bout this? Welllllll maybe so - ain't no big deal as far as I can see - but then I live with those type restrictions so I'm used to it - oh well - again........... SORRY!!!! I have now been properly bitrch slapped for the day!

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by TexKan

I still don't see the problem with cities protecting thier own property(sports complexes, parks, etc) like the feds and state does - I guess I'm just blind to the issue.......

They have that opportunity now...under state law all they have to do is post a "no guns allowed" sign on their property.

What they are trying to do is set a trap for permit holders. By putting it in a city statute they will say they are covered and not put up a sign. If you don't know the property is on the city statute as a designated "do not carry" address then you can be ticketed.

If you were from out of town, or out of state, how would you know that any of the St. Mary's property was city owned, how about the race track, how about All-4-Fun? If you weren't from here, you wouldn't realize that all these things are city run.

If the city doesn't want guns on their property, all they have to do is post a sign like any other property owner in the state.

[TexKan]

Well if they post a sign - can they prosecute if they catch ya with a gun? Maybe the ordinances are so they can prosecute with coverage - who said they weren't gonna post signs....... or is that just something folks "think" - ?? I have never seen anyplace that didn't post signs - I was under the impression if it's not posted - carry away............ did the city say it wasn't gonna post signs???

[JohnWayne]

Here is a link to today's Glode article-

DodgeCity.com: Dodge Globe: Local News: Stories

What really stuck out to me was the quote from the city manager---
"Dodge City's proposed ordinance is designed to reassure both city employees and the public that they will be safe in city-owned building, facilities and parks," City Manager Jeff Pederson said Friday.

So, I guess the rationale is that if the City disarms permitted CCH of their personal protection, then it will be safer to walk through St. Mary's or have a picnic in Wright park with the family?

Guess, I'm in the dark.

Duke

[TexKan]

Citizens have a police force to be the bearer of arms - I don't want to rely on some joe blow citizen for my protection - that's not what the CC is for - I will be happy if joe blow wants to carry a gun - but they aren't paid to protect me - I just don't see the big deal here - none of it matters - if ya get caught it's a small fine - big deal - aren't there more pressing issues that law makers should be lookin into?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by JohnWayne

Here is a link to today's Glode article-

DodgeCity.com: Dodge Globe: Local News: Stories

What really stuck out to me was the quote from the city manager---
"Dodge City's proposed ordinance is designed to reassure both city employees and the public that they will be safe in city-owned building, facilities and parks," City Manager Jeff Pederson said Friday.

So, I guess the rational is that if the City disarms permitted CCH of their personal protection, then it will be safer to walk through St. Mary' or have a picnic in Wright park with the family?

Guess, I'm in the dark.

Duke

I saw that and thought the same thing. The ones they need to worry about aren't going to pay attention to a city ordinance or a sign anyway. So, that just leaves the law abiding CCH permit holders that they are aiming at.

The police aren't going to be everywhere all the time and if I don't have a CCH permit and I'm someplace that a hoodlum with a gun is and the police aren't, I would hope that there is somebody there with a CCH permit that will protect me as well as themselves.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by TexKan

Citizens have a police force to be the bearer of arms - I don't want to rely on some joe blow citizen for my protection - that's not what the CC is for - I will be happy if joe blow wants to carry a gun - but they aren't paid to protect me - I just don't see the big deal here - none of it matters - if ya get caught it's a small fine - big deal - aren't there more pressing issues that law makers should be lookin into?

But citizen's have the constitutional right to bear arms.

Also, the Police are not Gods of Protection.

I hang out in places where the police are seldom at, I would much rather count on a joe blow citizen with a CCH permit to protect others than to wait 5-30 minutes for the police to show up to do the protecting.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Bubba

But citizen's have the constitutional right to bear arms.

Also, the Police are not Gods of Protection.

I hang out in places where the police are seldom at, I would much rather count on a joe blow citizen with a CCH permit to protect others than to wait 5-30 minutes for the police to show up to do the protecting.

Someone else's permit isn't there to protect YOU. If you want that level of protection you better take the class, apply for your liscense and carry your own gun.

[lurker]

Yell-pers. It appears that some haven't been reading the pertinent information.

Carrying a concealed firearm into any of these areas is a Class A misdemeanor and
may be prosecuted in district court or municipal court. It may only be prosecuted in
municipal court if your city has adopted a corresponding local ordinance. If you have
adopted the 2006 version of the Uniform Public Offense Code, it includes the necessary
language to prosecute this in municipal court and you do not need a separate
ordinance. While it is not required by the statute, it is recommended that you post a
sign at entrances to such locations in order to give individuals appropriate warning that
they are about to enter a prohibited area.

It's a MONEY DEAL. C-C violators pay much better and more quickly than Picasso.... Write a ticket, collect the money ..... and no juvie work required.