Advertisement
1280px Flag of Kansas svg

[BREAKING] Kansas Senate Passes Constitutional Carry

Advertisement

The Kansas Senate has passed SB 45, the bill that moves Kansas into the constitutional carry status of Arkansas, Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, and Vermont.  If the bill passes the house and is signed by Governor Brownback, a person who can legally own a firearm and who is 21 or over will be able to carry a firearm concealed without fear of prosecution.   The bill, SB 45 had 26 cosponsors and was introduced by the Majority leader, Terry Bruce, of Hutchinson.  The bill passed with an overwhelming, veto proof, bi-partisan margin of 31 to 7.

The seven members that voted against the bill were: Faust-Goudeau (D), Francisco(D), Hawk(D), Hensley(D), Holland(D), Pettey(D), and Kay Wolf(R).

Two Senators McGinn(R) and Schmidt(R) were present but did not vote.

Two Democrat Senators Haley and Kelly, voted for the bill.

Kansas has been in the forefront of restoring second amendment rights for a several years.  In 2010, the state voted to provide greater protection of the right to keep and bear arms in its constitution, with 88% of the vote.  in 2013, Kansas counties were required to do away with gun free zones in public buildings, unless they actually enforced them with metal detectors and armed guards.  In 2013, Kansas reformed their antiquated knife laws.  In 2014, Kansas strengthened its firearms preemption statute, which reinforced open carry rights in the state, and included broad knife preemption law.  The legislature also required that Chief law enforcement officers sign the required forms when people applied to pay the federal tax on short barrelled rifles, shotguns, and gun mufflers.

All of this is quite appropriate, as Kansas is the state where the whole mythology that the second amendment is only a “collective right” that applies to a militia, started.  The Kansas supreme court created the concept out of thin air in1905, as the “Progressive” movement gained cultural power and clout.

Advertisement

Here is what Courthouse News says about SB45:

Senate Bill 45 repeals the permit requirement to carry a concealed handgun but “leaves all other regulations and the permitting process intact,” Stoneking said. “In essence, this bill simply allows for law-abiding citizens, aged 21 and over, to carry a concealed handgun without having to pay the government for permission.”
S.B. 45 is sponsored by a majority of the Republican-controlled Senate and House.

Here is what the  NRAILA has to say about bill:

 Authored by Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce (R-34), SB 45 recognizes Kansans’ freedom to legally carry a concealed firearm without the burdensome requirement of acquiring a Kansas concealed carry handgun license (CCHL).  This is a necessary update to concealed carry in Kansas, allowing law-abiding gun owners the ability to better protect themselves and their loved ones.  In Kansas, it is already legal to carry a firearm openly, as long as the individual is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.  However, under current law, if a firearm becomes covered by a coat or if a woman prefers to carry a firearm for self-protection in her purse, he or she would need to possess a CCHL.

The bill is expected to pass the House, which is in recess until March 4th.  Governor Brownback has not said whether he will sign the bill,  but the senate votes are far more than necessary for a veto override.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Advertisement
Advertisement
Categories: General, Politics
Advertisement
Advertisement
About Dean Weingarten | View all posts by Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in…

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Posts – Below Author – Small Square 1 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 2 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 3 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 4 (150×150)Advertisement
  • gdad

    Of course it’s not allowed.

    • Steve A. Cobb

      You are the epitome of stupidity.

      • gdad

        Brilliant commentary, Steve.

        • Steve A. Cobb

          I thought so, thanks.

        • Guest

          Settle down Nancy. We all know you are near tears because you precious Killary is now doomed as a presidential candidate. Have fun with Shotgun Biden or sleeveless ‘concrete surface area tax’ Omoron on the ticket.

          • gdad

            Man, I’m sure glad this family had gun to protect themselves against those gangsta 18-month-olds showing up at the door. Now I can see what you’re wetting your panties about 1911.

            “An 18-month-old Coffee County boy is recovering after being struck by
            a bullet fired by his 3-year-old brother at a home in Hillsboro.

            Coffee County Sheriff Steve Graves said Wednesday that investigators
            were interviewing family members at Vanderbilt University Medical Center
            in Nashville, where the child is being treated.”

          • Guest

            Blah blah blah puss. Keep whining. Your a pathtic lib loser, everyone here knows it and you know it too. Go suck a tail pipe.

          • Guest

            BTW tool – your kind like kill them even after they are born so why do you care. It’s ok with you if a doctor does it with a scalpel I guess. What’s the cut off? Once they have a name? If you don’t name em’ just call the fetuses and whack em all you want. Go pound sand. You amoral piece of trash.

  • gdad

    I live in a city. I’ve nver needed a gun. You gun nuts are the ones with little weenies.

  • gdad

    Nice spelling. I hope you know how to handle your gun better than you do the alphabet.

    • Guest

      You realize you show yourself to be at the very high of douche-baggery when your only argument is to point to typos and grammatical errors. You don’t care though because it is a source of pride for you. One of only a few as you type away from mommy’s basement.

      • gdad

        Come on, 1911, why are you lying now? I’ve had a LOT more arguments than pointing out errors (and to my credit I resisted pointing out several more of your writing problems). You’re the douche using brainless terms like f-tard and p**sy

        • Guest

          I am just trying to get through to your libtard brain. Those words do the trick, as I have shown. Go troll somewhere else now. We’re done abusing you here.

          • gdad

            IOW, I’ve beaten you down so badly you had to give up.

          • Guest

            You’ve beaten nothing jackass. You have no intellect and no common sense, you have liberal talking points.

          • gdad

            Better than NRA talking points.

      • gdad

        BTW, 1911, if you and your delusional buddies start shooting people en masse due to some hallucination about your rights being taken away, you’ll simply be slaughtered by our armed forces. Bye, bye.

        • Guest

          Sorry pal, but your libtard Gayboy wet dream of crazy gun owners is all wrong first of all. Second of all, the US military is on the side of the American People, and the Constitution not you limp wristed p^ssies.

        • PavePusher

          You know nothing about “asymmetrical warfare” or “guerilla warfare”.

          P.S. Your psychological projection is noted.

  • gdad

    My point, of course, is that there are restrictions on free speech. Just as there can be restrictions on firearms without violating the 2nd. Anybody who claims otherwise has been sucked in by gun nutter claptrap.

    • PavePusher

      There is NO restriction on yelling “Fire!” in a theater.

      There ARE punishments if there is no fire and/or you merely had malicious intent.

      Your knowledge and application of the law is…. faulty.

    • Fred Marsico

      There are NO restrictions on speech, the crime for yelling “Fire!” in a crowd is reckless endangerment, it’s not about the First Amendment. Restriction on arms violates the rights of the People, without any other crimes associated with arms.

      I really find that it is sad that so many of you rely on interpretation rather than definition. Maybe a lesson in constitutional history?

      1. The Constitution for the united States of America – NOT RATIFIED
      2. The Constitution of the United States of America including the revised version of the Virginia Bill of Rights was RATIFIED by the delegates representing the People and the States (1797).
      3. The United States Constitution – a document created by a corporate State, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (, Inc.) established a new government after the Civil War in 1871 via the Organic Act.

      Regarding being ‘sucked in’ it does appear the socialist ideology is what you were sucked into.

    • Michael R

      “Congress shall make no law… Or abridging the Freedom of Speech. There is no reference in there about state governments, which is why child pornography is illegal at the state level.

    • Fred Marsico

      ALL laws regarding arms violate the Constitution. It’s really that simple.

      • gdad

        Of course it isn’t that simple, Fred. And it’s not true. You’ve simply swallowed the line pushed by fringe gun licker groups.

        • Fred Marsico

          Don’t know what a ‘fringe gun licker group’ is, but the Constitution makes it plain and simple: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

          Which part of that upsets you so much?

          • gdad

            As we all know, some “infringement” is indeed legal. Except in the minds of some nutty gun worshippers who spend every waking moment drooling over the latest in ways to kill and maim other folk.

          • Fred Marsico

            I see. Just which ‘legal’ infringements do you see in your mind? The purpose of the Second Amendment is to PREVENT laws regarding arms. How does that relate to the wild claims you make regarding “nutty gun worshippers who spend every waking moment drooling over the latest in ways to kill and main other folk’? BTW it’s ‘worshipers’. Education is important to an intelligent debate.

            I own a few guns. How many I have is of no concern of anyone, especially a government that has demonstrated its total disregard of the Constitution and the rule of law. Laws are passed to provide justice for those who fall victim to crime. Laws that create criminals out of good People who are exercising their rights are not laws, they are acts of tyranny.

            If you want to keep criminals from obtaining weapons, stop placing criminals back on the streets. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate restricting rights to keep and bear arms has any positive effect on deterring or reducing crime.

            Maybe if punishment for violent crimes were severe enough to deter criminals, that may have more beneficial outcomes.

            America was born out of People who wanted to be free and not restricted by an overbearing government. Some of us still feel that way.

          • Fred Marsico

            No ‘infringement’ is ‘legal’, lawful, or acceptable.

            Next.

        • Fred Marsico

          NO, you have bought into the idea that rights are negotiable. I have arms and nobody has the right to take them. The government (or its agents) can only use force and that is why we remain armed.

        • Fred Marsico

          No, I read the Constitution. And if you think otherwise you are a problem that will need to be corrected. Molon Labe.

          Just for the sake of debate, just which gun laws do you see that are not a violation of the Constitution and individual rights?

    • Fred Marsico

      Perhaps you didn’t understand, so I will say it again.

      There are NO exceptions to the Bill of rights. They are RIGHTS and not privileges. If you yell, “Fire!” anywhere other than on a battlefield or firearms range, when there is no fire, and if others are harmed by that exercise of rights, you may be charged with a crime such as reckless endangerment, but it has nothing to do with restrictions on free speech.

      Regarding you using terms like ‘gun nutter’ only demonstrates your ignorance of freedom and just what limits placed on the system of governance have abrogated freedom by overreach.

      Gun laws never stopped a crime, nor have they deterred those criminals intent on obtaining arms from acquiring them. That is a fact of EVERY nation, not just ‘gun nutter’ propaganda. The real propaganda is being funded by global elitists like Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, and George Soros.

      Let me make it clear for the entire world: YOU CANNOT TAKE OUR ARMS WITH LAWS. And if you try there will be resistance.

  • benanov

    Most networks voluntarily censor due to the backlash from their audience. Certain networks (usually premium ones, such as HBO or Showtime) don’t censor. There is some regulation from the FCC, yes, but that doesn’t apply to a person – only the network.

  • Nineteen11

    Way to go Kay Wolf. Loser Rino!

  • Guest

    As stated by head clown in the liberal moron circus of mental illness.

    • gdad

      It’s mental illness to avoid being around guns? Sorry, I’m the sane one.

      • Guest

        No, dope. It’s mental illness to try to paint people who want this country protected by the Constitution as ‘extremists’.

        • gdad

          The 2nd A doesn’t call for totally unfettered and unregulated possession of weapons. You’re to dolt who’s been taken in by the NRA money machine.

          • Guest

            There you go. Scream NRA like that has any bearing on anything. Look moron, you’re afraid of guns. I get it. Your a wuss. But leave the rest of us out of your scared little boy issues. We can handle our freedoms, unlike you lefty p^ssies.

          • gdad

            Yep, another right-wing misogynistic homophobe with tiny equipment who pees in his pants at the scary thought of leaving his house without a gun.

          • Guest

            Nice try douche boy but you forgot racist. You’ve got to get the stupid liberal attacks right.

          • gdad

            Interesting that while more guns have been sold in recent years, the percentage of American households that have a gun is a a 40-year low. IOW, it’s only the terminally hardcore paranoid who are driving up sales.

          • Guest

            Yet gun sales were an all time high in 2014 and crime an all time low. The scared, and timid like you can go cower and hide and beg for your family’s life when the criminals come banging down the door. Me, I’ll put a bullet in their head. And when you f-tard liberal progressives try to take our freedoms, all of the armed patriots will be here to put a stop to your kind. Frankly I’m looking forward to it.

          • gdad

            And yet fewer and fewer people actually own guns, 1911. Tell me how that proves that more guns being sold (actually, gun sales are now declining; the gun makers are frantic to find new ways to dupe you into buying more) is reducing crime.

            Anyway, poor 1911, the sniveling wimp constantly afraid of the big, bad wolf at your door. As you pointed out, crime is down, so why do you sit around every day shaking in your boots about the criminals who almost without question will NEVER show up at your door? Hey, but at least you can console yourself with your sad, warped fantasies of one day blowing away fellow countrymen simply because they don’t agree with you. Probably gives you a hard-on just thinking about it.

          • SaulOhio

            Maybe fewer gun owners are willing to admit it to nosy busybodies asking questions.

            Actually, gun ownership is at a 13 year high. And there is a sharp spike upwards in the last couple of years.

          • gdad

            Not the percentage of people who own guns.

          • SaulOhio

            Yes, the percentage of HOUSEHOLEDS that have guns. The percentage has increased in the last couple years. Maybe you have old data that doesn’t include anything after 2010.

          • gdad

            The numbers I gave came from 2014.

            “WASHINGTON — The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it’s ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

            According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That’s a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

            The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.

            Data from the 2014 survey were released last week, and an analysis of its findings on gun ownership and attitudes toward gun permits was conducted by General Social Survey staff.”

          • Michael R

            That’s a very scientific survey… After all, we all know that gun owners are going to write down that they own a gun.

            I prefer to look at the industry news. In 2013 there was a record 30% surge in new gun owners. This comes from the actual industry.

          • SaulOhio

            I can believe that, because thats about when I bought my Glock 19, my first gun.
            Thats also one of the arguments about why the surveys that say defensive gun uses number around 2 million may UNDERreport the number of DGU’s. People may be reluctant to admit they own and used a gun in self-defense because of paranoid idiots like gdad in government might want to take the guns away.

          • gdad

            I’m sure the NRA would say different, but then their job is to scare people into buying guns and ammo.

          • SaulOhio

            I’m not getting this from the NRA, but Gallup. Go look it up.

          • gdad

            Hey, I’m just showing you the numbers from the General Society Survey, a highly respected survey of long standing. And the numbers are 2014.

          • Guest

            Incorrect. Their sales are down from an extreme high caused by Oslimo and other libnuts and their gun grabbing rhetoric.

          • gdad

            No, gun sales were up because the NRA and gun manufacturers sucked you scared-ass weenies into buying piles of guns. You actually believed their lies that Obama was going to confiscate guns. Your brainlessness is breathtaking.

          • Guest

            I bought no guns during the panic of others actually. I have all I need and then some already and so do millions of other law abiding, conservative, Constitution protecting Americans. And that scares you liberal sissies out of your bed wetting, limp wristed, boy loving minds. And that makes me happy.

          • gdad

            So it’s back to the standard homophobic mutterings of paranoid right-wing gun lickers.

          • Guest

            Better a gun licker than a d!ck licker like you.

          • gdad

            It’s always great to see the homophobes come out of the closet. And it always seems like they’re rampant among the gun fondlers. But then if my equipment were as tiny as yours, I’d probably have to compensate some way as well.

          • Michael R

            It’s adorable how ignorant you are. 2013 was the year of the new shooter, with a 30% surge in new gun owners.

          • SaulOhio

            The 2nd amendment says “…will not be infringed.” Any regulation is an infringement. The part about a well regulated militia only states ONE purpose for the right to keep and bear arms, and does not exclude other reasons, and does not imply that the right should be regulated, only the militia.

          • gdad

            Way to turn the whole amendment backasswards.

          • SaulOhio

            I have turned it backasswards only from the perspective of someone who has himself already turned it backasswards.
            “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.”
            In what way have I turned it backasswards?
            What do you think the word “infringed” means? Please define it, if you think it DOESN’T mean any regulation of keeping and bearing guns is an infringement.
            Please show me how the need for a “well regulated militia” is anything but an explanation for one, NON-exclusive reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

  • SaulOhio

    YES! Because the 2nd amendment says we have the right to keep and BEAR arms. Bearing arms means carrying them.
    And I like that they leave the permit process intact so Kansans can carry concealed in states with reciprocal agreements.

  • Boots Mason

    PLEASE SIGN THE BILL! OBAMA IS TRYING TO TAKE THIS RIGHT AWAY!

  • PavePusher

    Please explain exactly how things will turn out, using evidence from the states that already have this.

  • PavePusher

    “twisted and turned” how, exactly?

  • Michael R

    Sir, I am insulted. We’ve been leading the charge in the firearm rights community.

    • gdad

      Ah, so Kansas has been part of the gun nuttery parade for lo these many years.

      • Michael R

        since our inception into the United States dealing with racist, anti-gun Bushwhackers, the state of Kansas has supported the right of the law abiding citizen to defend themselves.

  • Michael R

    Speech is regulated by the State governments. “Congress shall make no law” prohibits the feds from getting involved. Child pornography is prohibited by all 50 states, but it MUST be done at the state level.

    “In some states.” Again, not federal cases.

  • jimbopeep

    Let it rip.

  • Fred Marsico

    YES! The violation has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

  • Michael R

    We have open carry since the inception of the state’s founding without any kind of permit. There hasn’t been any issue thus far.

  • Fred Marsico

    LOCAL militia is not the NATIONAL Guard. Militia are ordinary individuals who volunteer to train in defense of their homes and community. The National Guard is the Army, the military, and the former has nothing to do with the latter, except for the fact that the federal corporate government did not want the States to be capable of defending themselves against a tyrannical foreign corporate own government.

    You really need to learn real history and not the psychobabble taught in schools.

  • Michael

    If the 2nd Amendment says I have the right to bear arms (unless I have committed a crime resulting in losing that right) then I should be able to openly carry anywhere I go. But I can understand certain restrictions should be place on concealing a gun.

  • Fred Marsico

    Yes it is if there is a fire, but if not, you may face charges of reckless endangerment. You still have a RIGHT to speak your mind at anytime.