The City Wants to Pass its own Gun Laws

[Tee]

Ok,

After reading this thread, it is obvious some education is needed- on many different levels. Not only regarding the intention of the gun laws as it pertains to CCH, but mostly on the cities powers and it's place in the role of making laws.

Forgive me if I get too elementary but here goes.....

We have three branches of government. One of those branches is responsible for making laws. We call this the legislative branch. The legislative branch exists at different levels; Federal, State and local. At the Federal Legislative level, they decide such items as Constitution issues, Amendments (such as abortion, discrimination and yes, the right to bear arms). AT the state level, they decide such issues as state speed limits, marriage laws and sometimes minor constitutional issues when those powers have been granted to them by the federal level (such as the CCH law). Now we have the local level...They really can't pass laws, they enact ordinances. Things like permits for outdoor bands, firelane locations, and even some local speeding zones, where they are not regulated but the state level, because the local government cannot trump state laws (or add to them). Now, lets realize that where the right to bear arms is granted to us by the constitution, this issue is and can only be decided at the federal and state level. Local interference in this issue would be akin to our commissioners weighing in on abortion by setting additional requirements or stipulations on the abortion laws. Another analogy would be for the local gvt to further define our discrimination laws. In other words, they simply do not have the power to do this. If they did, there would be chaos and no uniformity throughout the states, anywhere. This is why they are precluded from defining state or federal law.

Another misconception I have read on here is that "the city is just furthering their interest by naming exempted locations like the states and the feds did" ( I think that is the way TexKan Put it). Here is why that is incorrect; While the states wrote the law, they took into consideration exempted locations at the federal, state, local and even private level. They further deemed these locations exempt from the requirement of posting no-gun signs. Some examples are post office (federal), Courtrooms (State and Municipal), Schools (state), Police Departments (Municipal), Banks (private), Daycare facilities (private). So..you see, the state did it's homework, covering all levels of government and clearly listing who would be exempted from the notification requirements of posting a no-gun sign. Now....here is the clincher....ya ready? The local government wants to further refine the state law (and in this case a law that grants us certain rights as opposed to limiting our right as most laws do) that is on a constitutional level, no less. And they want to basically force an addendum to that law by further listing items or places that are exempt from the notification requirements set forth by the state law. Basically, what they are saying is that the state must have forgotten a bunch of places that our commissioners, in their infinite wisdom, have realized and that "should have been" in the law.

Hopefully, I haven't lost anyone with this long drawn out post... In short, our commissioners think they are at the same level as our legislators, and further they believe they are the sole vote, the house, and the senate all rolled into one. This speaks volumes to their arrogance and their contempt for the rule of law and due process at higher levels than themselves. They have no power to decide such an issue...an issue that was drafted into law and duly and properly defined and outlined by the state in regards to the exceptions as it pertains to the notification requirement. They can't just simply change or add to the state law with the drop of a gable. It's ludicrous, and it's disgracefull to now see what they think they can get away with!

Well, it is not going to stop here, thank GOD! The states will eventually slap them down, in due time....

[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

[Tee]

I wanted to be at the meeting tonite but unfortunately, didn't make it back to Dodge in time.

Furthermore.....if there is one thinkg I have learned in the many times I have attended a city commision meeting, it is this: They will make their decisions without us...no input from us lowly citizens will have any affect upon their decisions, ever. This has been apparent in the several past terms. They know what is best for us, not us.

Fortunately, the state will have to clean up this mess. Not with diplomacy, but with legal muscle. We peon constituents must go over their heads to our senators.


Just out of curiousity, what was their take at the commision meeting?

This is my guess, tell me if I am right....

...they acted concerned and decided to table the matter or take it under advisement and act at a later date....<translation> We'll do what we want, we'll just wait until nobody is looking...

[TexKan]

Well thanks so much for the history lessons - after the smoke has cleared - and the law suits are settled - let me know where the guns are - in the mean time - if I feel the need I'll carry my own - to protect me - like I already do - I rely on the police - I haven't been let down yet - If they are too slow I rely on me -

All I can say is - after awhile of carrian tho you will find you don't think so much about it - whats even better is that you become content with just knowin you can protect yourself and your property - everyone views the purpose fo the CC differently I can see. I guess down here we are real passionate bout our carrian but we aren't used to askin permission. That was the big joke when the CC passed - everyone carried anyhow - the passing of the law just allowwed the state to collect money off the law abidin folks, cause we were the only gun tottin ones that were gonna take the class and pay up - so think what ya want - it won't matter later on - I can see that perhaps ya'll really ain't been packin till ya got the licesne!................ uhhhhhhh OK................ I just have never been that scared of gettin caught - would rather be caught than dead but then to not get caught - ya gotta be descreet.............. good luck cowboys!

[Highwayman]

What we don’t want is a patchwork of different rules from one local area to another. That’s why we don’t want local politicians tinkering with this. A CC permit is a state license just like a drivers license. Imagine the chaos if the city decided that your drivers license wasn’t valid on some streets and didn’t tell you which ones but would fine you if caught on the wrong one.

While it is common for a city to enact mirror ordnances of a state law so they could charge you in municipal court, mirror ordnances are just that, a reflection of the state law. What is proposed is not the same as state and that’s were the problem comes in.

A permit isn’t issued for Joe Blow to protect others but the reality is that it happens sometimes.

It’s true that the idea is that your weapon is concealed so just go ahead and carry and keep your mouth shut. Remember that an officer can ask to see your ID just about any time he sees appropriate. He might be looking for a suspect that happens to match your description and that’s reason enough to ask for your ID. If you’re carrying it’s in your best interest for your own safety to inform him. If he runs your ID he will likely find out anyway. If you’re in the wrong place and don’t know it, tuff stuff, your busted and fined. Folks don’t take the time and money to get a permit to get fined for carrying.

If you rely on the police for protection remember that the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to protect you as an individual. Their job is to protect society as a whole. That’s because if you call 911 and the cops don’t show up for 10 hours because they’re busy elsewhere they can’t be sued. Bottom line is you are responsible for your own safety. The police will help you if they can and take a report after the fact but that’s all you can reasonably expect.

[Detector]

Sadly, this thread is another perfect example of the real problem we face here in Dodge City.

Any successful campaign requires two things. 1. A leader(s) willing to step up and rally the troops. 2. Troops willing to step up and answer the call to rally.

Dodge City has never had a problem with a leader willing to step up and rally the troops for their particular campaign, Dodge City has a major problem with troops willing to answer the rally call. It's who we are. Lets face the facts our families moved to western Kansas because we didn't fit in to the competitiveness of the eastern troops. We are more of a "live and let live" or "It's not my fight" type of troops.

We are not willing to commit to a battle that is not our own even knowing it's loss may bring the battle to our own front door in the future.

We see a leaders call to rally and realize it's a worthy cause but unless it impacts us directly we tend to take a no big deal response. For this reason we are destine to be run over by our government and others willing to wage a campaign against us.

Can this issue be forced to public vote? If so, whats it take to force it to a public vote? This seems to be where we have our problems.

[lurker]

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southerner?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around
the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah,
raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal 40,
and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you
and your family. What do you do?

.................................................. ...............

Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?



What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of
his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does
this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to
wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a
happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for
few days and try to come to a consensus.

.................................................. .............

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

.................................................. ...............

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click.....

(Sounds of reloading) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! Click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips
or Hollow Points?"

Son: "Can I shoot the next one!"

Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"

ATTENTION LIBERALS: it's just a joke.

[Value Pack]

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.

Interestingly, there is another side to this story. Given a choice of targets, I do believe the Islamic Terrorist would pick the Democrat as Democrats are everything that they hate about America.

Hardly seems fair. What democrats hold near and dear to the heart, Islam hates.

[wordsmythe]

Remember when this thread was useful?

Back when people were discussing the actual law and how it impacts real people in real situations.

yeah Good times... good times.

[lurker]

Thanks for korrekting us wierdy.

Your Pal,

lurker