Skip to comments.Kansas Follows Principles and Texas on Concealed Guns in Statehouse
Posted on 06/22/2014 6:50:52 AM PDT by marktwain
Kansas legislators have decided to live by the same law and principles that they have required of communities around the State. They welcome armed people who have obtained concealed carry permits into the Statehouse. It is not as if there is any serious risk involved. People who go to the trouble of obtaining concealed carry permits have repeatedly shown themselves to be many times more law abiding than the general population. They commit murder at only a fraction of the rate that police officers do. If the legislature trusts armed police officers in their Statehouse, they certainly should trust armed people who have concealed carry permits. From cjonline.com:
There will be no one in the Capitol who doesn't have a license to carry, Wagle said. A license to carry requires a background check and education.
She said renovation of the domed structure resulted in security upgrades that should make employees and the public feel safer, but the new conceal-and-carry status should promote peace of mind.People opposed to an armed population have often accused legislators of hypocrisy. This comment is from the huffingtonpost, commenter Bob B:
The Statehouse shouldnt be viewed any differently than other state buildings, county courthouses or university facilities across the state in terms of concealed weapon law, she said.
"We can't be hypocritical," Wagle said. "We either believe that it increases safety and that anyone who has a license is a legitimate individual who seeks not to harm anyone else or you don't believe it."
This one is from insidehighered.com. Commenter NUFF SAID! writes:
Since the gun lobby and their politicians think its such a great idea to have guns in schools, restaurants etc, why dont they start by allowing people to bring guns into the senate, congress and federal buildings.
As an aside, among legislatures, parliaments, and even congress, when violence happens it is usually by members, not the public. And almost invariably, it is the leftist, the radical, and the tyrannical member who attacks another over his rhetoric, his spoken argument.
Well it is a good start.