Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Concerns mount over new gun law(KS)(Poll to freep)
ljworld.com ^ | 23 July, 2010 | Chad Lawhorn

Posted on 07/23/2010 6:33:05 AM PDT by marktwain

Drunken driving. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Attempted suicide.

Prior to July 1, all those situations were red flags for the Kansas Attorney General’s office when deciding whether to issue a permit for someone to carry a concealed handgun.

But now a new law, passed this spring by the state Legislature, largely has made those issues nonfactors. It also has left some state legislators concerned about where Kansas’ four-year-old concealed carry law is headed.

“What I’m seeing now is a slow erosion on a yearly basis of a lot of these exceptions that were originally written into the law for a good reason,” said Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence. “At the rate we’re going, we may have very few exceptions in the law. We may reach the point where we don’t have any.”

Some concealed carry advocates said that is the direction they would like to move because they believe many concealed carry laws unnecessarily restrict people who can legally own firearms.

“If you want to get down to the philosophical discussion about carrying guns, yeah, no one should even need a permit to do that,” said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, which lobbied for the changes. “That’s certainly the direction we want to go, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon in Kansas. But there are states that don’t require a permit to carry a gun.”

The changes

The latest changes — which were approved 103-15 in the House and 37-2 in the Senate and went into effect July 1 — open up who can receive a permit under the state law. The changes eliminated several categories under which the Attorney General could rule someone ineligible to receive a permit. They included:

• Individuals with two misdemeanor DUI convictions in the five years prior to applying for the permit.

• Individuals with misdemeanor drug convictions in the five years prior to the permit applications.

• People who have been convicted of carrying under the influence in another state within the last five years.

• People who have been declared in contempt of court for child support proceedings.

• Individuals who have attempted suicide in the five years prior to applying for a permit.

In addition, the law removed one step for a convicted felon to apply for a concealed carry permit. Most felons fall under state and federal laws that restrict them from owning firearms, sometimes for life. But depending on the crime, those restrictions can be lifted after five or 10 years. The previous law required felons whose restrictions had expired to go through a court process to have their conviction expunged before applying for a permit. That step is no longer necessary.

Stoneking said opening up who can apply for a permit made sense. She said there already are state and federal laws that address whether people can buy a gun based on their criminal history or mental health history. She said the concealed carry requirements should be no stricter than those.

But Davis said he believes there’s a difference between allowing someone to own a gun and allowing them to conceal it on their person and take it into public places.

“Everybody deserves a second chance, but I have a real concern about allowing people who already have demonstrated an inability to follow the law to possess a concealed carry license,” said Davis, who also is the House Minority Leader.

No to testing

The law also has created a new provision that has left some law enforcement leaders saying it will be more difficult to prosecute concealed carry permit holders who are carrying under the influence of alcohol.

Under the previous law, concealed carry permit holders were required to submit to testing if a law enforcement officer had reason to believe they were carrying a gun under the influence of alcohol. If the permit holder refused, they automatically lost their license for three years.

Now, permit holders have no obligation to take the test — unless they’ve actually shot someone. The Kansas Association of Police Chiefs came out against the changes.

“It is going to be tougher to make a case stick in court because I can’t imagine most people consenting to a test when there is no sanction for not doing so,” said Ed Klumpp, former Topeka Police Chief and current legislative liaison for the police chiefs association. “I think it just adds a lot more loopholes.”

Among the loopholes, Klumpp said, is new language stating permit holders have violated the law only when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol “to such a degree as to render such licensee incapable of safely operating a handgun.” Klumpp said that likely will be difficult to prove in court, especially if no breath test is given.

Stoneking, though, said the old law gave law enforcement too much leeway in determining when to question whether a person was carrying under the influence. Plus Stoneking — who owns a firearms training business — said there may be some situations where a person who has had some alcohol should be entitled to carry a gun.

“Why should I lose my right to defend myself from the big burly guy who grabs me in the parking lot because I’ve had two glasses of wine with my dinner?” Stoneking asked, although she said guns and alcohol generally are a bad combination.

In addition to the Kansas Rifle Association, the National Rifle Association also testified in favor of the changes during the legislative session. A spokeswoman with the NRA on Thursday wasn’t able to immediately answer questions about the NRA’s support for the changes.

It also was unclear just how much the Kansas Attorney General’s office supported the changes. The minutes for a hearing on a previously enrolled version of the bill stated the attorney general’s office supported the “underlying concept” of the new law.

C.W. Klebe, an assistant attorney general who oversees concealed carry laws, said the office did share some of the same thoughts as the Kansas Rifle Association.

“It is I guess the balancing of a potentially intoxicated person with a gun versus the state taking away their ability to protect themselves if they are put in a position where they might need that gun,” Klebe said.

An attempt to receive further comment from the office of Attorney General Steve Six, D-Lawrence, wasn’t successful on Thursday.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: banglist; ccw; gun; ks
The poll is on the left hand side of the article. On general principles, I would vote yes. You shouldn't lose your right to self defense because you had a glass of wine with dinner.

"Should those with a license to carry a concealed weapon be allowed to posses the gun if they have been drinking alcohol?"

Yes No Not sure

1 posted on 07/23/2010 6:33:09 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Typical LIBERAL Straw man Argument.

I answered YES due to the Principle. that wording is one of those “So you LIKE dirty air and water???”


2 posted on 07/23/2010 6:38:44 AM PDT by gwilhelm56 (I'm so Right Wing, my symbol is not the Elephant ...it is the ... WOOLLY MAMMOTH!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Typical libbie BS:

“IF you’re drinking you shouldn’t defend yourself!!”

What about texting?

Reading?

Upset about world events?

Too pathetic.


3 posted on 07/23/2010 6:50:09 AM PDT by bayouranger (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayouranger

So I guess this means that crime in the state is skyrocketing due to all them there drunks with their carry permits?

Betcha the exact opposite.


4 posted on 07/23/2010 7:06:30 AM PDT by Flintlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56
A typical, Hollywood inspired, idea - don't mix guns with ... because....

I find it very interesting that a cowboy, who typically had no money, could walk into a strange saloons and get drunk every night.

I find it very interesting that even felons are totally law abiding when it comes to gun issues.

I find it interesting that the entire article is based on subjective (I think) opinions with no supporting facts. Where have we seen the logical outcome of that kind of reporting recently?

I agree that I could agree with some of the complaints about removing restrictions. But the article failed to mention any objective criteria. With all of the hysteria in the society I can easily see cases where a “reasonable restriction” would be used to restrict our rights (Schools putting OTC head medication in the same class as crack for just one example).

5 posted on 07/23/2010 7:16:51 AM PDT by Nip (Arizona Immigration Law - the case heard around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bayouranger

How about drunk dialing? It should definately be banned!


6 posted on 07/23/2010 7:16:59 AM PDT by east1234 (Cut, Kill, Dig and Drill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

They forgot to include “Female Individuals Having PMS Symptoms” on the list.


7 posted on 07/23/2010 7:32:36 AM PDT by rhoda_penmark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
You shouldn't lose your right to self defense because you had a glass of wine with dinner.

You don't get arrested for driving drunk if you have a glass of wine with dinner. Two DUI convictions indicate a pattern of behavior. If someone has demonstrated that they lack the responsibility to know when they've had too much to drink then why should be believe they'll be any more responsible with a hand gun? For the most part I don't think that the restrictions are that onerous. I might dispute the contempt of court for child support restriction, since there can be explanations for that and it doesn't indicate a lack of concern for safety, or the attempted suicide. But I can see the justification for the other ones.

8 posted on 07/23/2010 7:39:13 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56
Gimmee a break, if the guy shows up with an application for a cc permit then send him home until he sobers up. I am against any law that allows government officials deciding if I can carry a concealed gun.

Besides I believe that the second amendment is my CWC and I see no where in the constitution where it says the sherriff or Atty gen can Deny me one.

9 posted on 07/23/2010 7:39:51 AM PDT by Americanexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

I too noticed the “When did you stop beating your wife and kids” wording, but went with “yes” as well.


10 posted on 07/23/2010 7:44:52 AM PDT by Don W (I keep some folks' numbers in my 'phone just so I know NOT to answer when they call...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat
I am against any law that allows government officials deciding if I can carry a concealed gun.

No restrictions at all? Anyone of any age can carry a concealed weapon to any place they want to?

11 posted on 07/23/2010 7:49:06 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I think there should be some restrictions on gun ownership, as we have today under some recognized standards, but that these restrictions must be based in “obvious logic”, and should also be appealable to a judge for discretionary waiver.

1) Felons. The discretion here is first whether or not they were violent felons. Second, whether they are repeat offenders or first offense felons.

Today, right now, felons can appear before a judge to request restoration of their gun rights, after they have served their time and are no longer on probation or parole. Many felons go to this effort, because they truly appreciate the need for self-defense, especially now that they more limited in how they can get employment and live their lives. Judges often restore this right, because they agree. But not if they were violent felons or repeat offenders who would be aided by having a gun.

2) Restraining orders. These are usually against ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands at the request of their ex-partners. Such orders are usually only made if the man has already made himself obnoxious.

Importantly, this does *not* mean that guns should automatically be surrendered when a restraining order is made, but that judges should have the discretion to do so, as part of the restraining order, by State law. In effect saying, “You are dangerous to her, so I am ordering you to keep away from her, and to both surrender any guns you have, and be enjoined against getting new guns for the duration of this order.”

Granted, restraining orders do not always work. For this reason, judges should also consider ordering the woman to be armed when in public.

3) *Graduated* misdemeanor offenses. Now this is a tricky one. In most States, first time DUI offenders are treated progressively harsher with each subsequent DUI offense, eventually leading to jail or even prison. At some point, the punishment is so great that offenders will *sometimes* try to evade capture, leading to a dangerous police chase.

This is made worse, and more frequent, because alcohol abuse is known to damage the judgment center of the brain. The drunk driver, who would normally never do something so stupid as try to outrun the police, does so, because their judgment is handicapped.

So the question becomes, “If their judgment is so awful as to try and outrun the police, if they are armed, is their judgment so awful that they might actually shoot their gun at the police?”

Again, this is not a question of common sense, but of brain damage.

4) Gun confiscation at the time of felony arrest. This would be a change in the law permitting an arrest warrant to include securing weapons during the arrest, for several reasons.

First, to “leave the guns where they lie” would create a hazardous situation or strong potential for theft. Second, that the nature of the arrest was such the continued presence of guns could create a hazardous situation on the release or release on bail of the person arrested.

For example, someone arrested then held for psychiatric evaluation could be quickly released, even though demonstrably suicidal or menacing. A judge could put a hold on their gun ownership until they had gone through more comprehensive evaluation.

In the final analysis, while our gun rights should be strong, there is a frequent temporary need for judges to be able to suspend gun ownership for obvious and pressing reasons.


12 posted on 07/23/2010 7:58:35 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The Founders created the proper 3 exceptions to gun ownership and they should apply to carrying, whether concealed or open, as well—no criminals, no mentally deficient and no traitors. Naturally this means that very few in DC would be permitted to own a gun.


13 posted on 07/23/2010 8:03:15 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I voted “Yes” just to keep the bunched-panty crowd in a dither...


14 posted on 07/23/2010 8:06:03 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Does a drunk lose his right to defend himself against criminals?

President Bush had a misdemeanor drunk driving conviction - should he be banned?


15 posted on 07/23/2010 8:12:03 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

What indication do you have that judges are any smarter, wiser or show better judgment than anyone else in the world?


16 posted on 07/23/2010 8:14:19 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Does a drunk lose his right to defend himself against criminals?

Does a paroled felon lose his right to defend himself? How about a mentally ill person? How about a 5 year old? To say that the right to carry is absolute ignores the fact that there are some people who should not be trusted with the right to carry a concealed weapon. The restrictions proposed are an attempt to define this in a manner that doesn't impact those who practice responsible behavior.

President Bush had a misdemeanor drunk driving conviction - should he be banned?

If you read the article you'd see it required two convictions to lose the right to carry. Once can be an accident. Twice indicates a careless pattern of behavior. And if a person shows that they aren't capable of handling the responsibility for driving a car then why should be believe they'd be any more responsible with a hand gun?

17 posted on 07/23/2010 8:18:08 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56; All

In PA not only can you carry while drinking, there is no limit as to the amount of alcohol.

And guess what??????

THERE ARE NO SHOOTINGS BY LEGAL GUN OWNERS BECAUSE OF THIS!

Straw men is all the left offer.


18 posted on 07/23/2010 8:18:54 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Anti-Gunners suffer from Factose Intolerance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
The Founders created the proper 3 exceptions to gun ownership and they should apply to carrying, whether concealed or open, as well—no criminals, no mentally deficient and no traitors.

Where did they do that?

19 posted on 07/23/2010 8:19:19 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
“Restraining orders. These are usually against ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands at the request of their ex-partners. Such orders are usually only made if the man has already made himself obnoxious.”

Exactly because a man loses his right to own firearms if a restraining order is given, asking for a restraining order has become a favorite ploy of divorce lawyers to put the man on defensive, take resources and deprive him of rights. It is commonly used with no validity on the advise of lawyers.

20 posted on 07/23/2010 8:56:56 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

None, but it’s their job. At least some of them try.

In fact, I threw in a bit about a judge I heard about who was both wise and ingenious.

He got a lot of abused women in front of him, multiple times, who despite restraining orders were still being beaten up. Like a lot of judges, this ticked him off.

So he got the idea to issue bench orders requiring that they be armed when in public, as well as to carry a signed copy of the order to present to police if they needed to.

He was such a good guy, that if the woman was poor, he personally chipped in to buy them a handgun and ammo. And when the police found out, they took up a collection to help him do this.

And it worked. Soon the number of women before him twice or more dropped to zero. He also noted that none of them actually shot anyone, because they didn’t need to. Just being able to was enough.

I found out about the judge from a retired Army Command Sergeant Major, who through circumstances had some bad guys after him, but needed to work where guns were discouraged. So the judge gave him a bench order as well, after telling him the background. Worked like a charm.

The SGM actually liked to show people the bench order, bragging a little bit.


21 posted on 07/23/2010 9:07:57 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Does a paroled felon lose his right to defend himself?”

A paroled felon is still technically in custody and therefore forfeits not only the right to self defense, but his 4th amendment rights and usually freedom of association as well.

For a felon who has completed parole to the satisfaction of the state, there is no more constitutional warrant for denying his second amendment right than there is his first, third, fourth etc.

As far as mental illness goes, the problem lies in the definition. If we were talking about chronic psychosis, then yes. However if you consider the broadness of the diagnostic criteria for things like ADHD, depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD & personality disorders, its easy to see how nearly anyone could be so labelled.


22 posted on 07/23/2010 9:16:07 AM PDT by UK_Jeffersonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Your point is a good one. However, that gets into the utter cesspit that are divorce cases. I watched several and was both horrified and nauseated. The perjury was blatant and ignored. The greed, pettiness, spite, and willingness to abuse children was overpowering.

But this is far ahead of that, and before guns are taken, the testimony of police is far more important than the demands of a lawyer. If an officer says that abuse has happened, and someone is beaten up, a judge should be able to intervene if things might turn murderous.


23 posted on 07/23/2010 9:18:44 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

“2) Restraining orders. These are usually against ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands at the request of their ex-partners. Such orders are usually only made if the man has already made himself obnoxious.”

I wonder how much experience you actually have with these things? Restraining orders are often handed out like candy to any woman who has been advised by counsel or a “womens center” to say a few magic words in front of a judge. They are commonly used, as has been noted previously, as offensive weapons in contentious custody battles.

Taking any rights away as the result of a restraining order is a direct a violation of the constitutions prohibition on restraint of liberty without due process.


24 posted on 07/23/2010 9:23:46 AM PDT by UK_Jeffersonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
“I think it just adds a lot more loopholes.”

Loopholes = the GOVERNMENT has to do what the PEOPLE say. Nice.

25 posted on 07/23/2010 10:59:14 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

A paroled felon SHOULD retain the right to self defense. He’s done his time. If he is going straight, he might NEED a gun for self defense.

A mentally ill person cannot make judgments, and like a 5 year old, should not be allowed a gun...just as a blind person should not be allowed to drive.

“And if a person shows that they aren’t capable of handling the responsibility for driving a car then why should be believe they’d be any more responsible with a hand gun?”

Because they are different. I had room mates who drove drunk a number of times (and eventually outgrew it). They were very careful around guns, and NEVER touched a gun while drunk. My son has terrible judgment on finances, but is completely trustworthy working on aircraft or handling guns. Bad judgment in one area doesn’t mean bad judgment in another.

Arizona stops requiring a CCW permit on 29 July. I don’t think we will see a huge increase in shootings, but I guess we’ll find out shortly. Don’t think Alaska or Vermont have had any problems, though.

Bottom line - is there ANY evidence that restricting the carrying of guns decreases crime or gun accidents? Some states have very loose CCW laws - are they more dangerous than NYC?


26 posted on 07/23/2010 11:05:40 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nip

>>I find it very interesting that a cowboy, who typically had no money, could walk into a strange saloons and get drunk every night.<<

Most cowboys kept their sidearms in their saddle bags. Cows aren’t impressed if you’re carrying a sixgun, not even the calves.


27 posted on 07/23/2010 11:13:39 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Remember, guys, the enemy is to the left and the middle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Americanexpat

>> I am against any law that allows government officials deciding if I can carry a concealed gun.<<

>No restrictions at all? Anyone of any age can carry a concealed weapon to any place they want to?<

Try to picture a situation that it would NOT be very hazardous for someone to misuse a handgun IF they were surrounded by an unknown number of others who were also equally armed.

A ten year old punk kid walks into a store pulls out a sixgun and demands the cash. The old lady waiting behind him says, “Sonny, put that thing away before I shoot you in the head and tell your mother what you are doing!”

One of the other men in the store says, “Kid, you had better listen to her because Tom hasn’t shot anyone all week long and is just irking to shoot you of being so stupid.

Would the adults in the store actually have to show their guns to the kid or do you think he would put it away?


28 posted on 07/23/2010 11:24:21 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Remember, guys, the enemy is to the left and the middle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

“Yes”, just to mess with them.


29 posted on 07/23/2010 11:25:19 AM PDT by Redcloak (What's your zombie plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

So if the right to carry a gun is absolute then shouldn’t the right to carry it anywhere you want also be absolute?


30 posted on 07/23/2010 12:29:59 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Voted yes, just because of the “Have you stopped beating your wife” phrasing of the question.


31 posted on 07/23/2010 1:07:33 PM PDT by gwilhelm56 (I'm so Right Wing, my symbol is not the Elephant ...it is the ... WOOLLY MAMMOTH!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Why not? If you act stupid with it then you’ll be the one who gets grossly aerated for your behavior..


32 posted on 07/23/2010 1:34:27 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Remember, guys, the enemy is to the left and the middle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I live in AZ. We have concealed carry with no permit required coming into effect 7/29. I got mine, as did Mrs. Liberty. We are a cranky bunch down here...we don’t believe in that DST crap, either.

We have many weapons, but we just bought teeny weeny his ‘n’ her .380s this morning. Hers is hot pink. Hitting the range with a couple hundred rounds of ammo this weekend.

:^)


33 posted on 07/23/2010 3:08:40 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Build a man a fire; he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire; he'll be warm the rest of his life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No restrictions at all? Anyone of any age can carry a concealed weapon to any place they want to?

In AZ, you have to be 21, and if the property owner objects, you can't carry. That's as libertarian as I can imagine.

34 posted on 07/23/2010 3:10:43 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Build a man a fire; he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire; he'll be warm the rest of his life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Where did they do that?

I searched my handy copy of the constitution and amendments. I think you know the answer to your question. :^)

35 posted on 07/23/2010 3:12:59 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Build a man a fire; he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire; he'll be warm the rest of his life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So if the right to carry a gun is absolute then shouldn’t the right to carry it anywhere you want also be absolute?

As long as it doesn't come into conflict with the property rights of any merchants you may patronize. Then you can't.

36 posted on 07/23/2010 3:16:17 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Build a man a fire; he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire; he'll be warm the rest of his life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
If you act stupid with it then you’ll be the one who gets grossly aerated for your behavior.

Like that poor guy at the Las Vegas Costco?

37 posted on 07/23/2010 3:28:09 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

His mistake was not reaching high enuf into the sky when the cops first said, “Get down.”


38 posted on 07/23/2010 4:41:10 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Remember, guys, the enemy is to the left and the middle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bayouranger
Drunken driving. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Attempted suicide.

Prior to July 1, all those situations were red flags for the Kansas Attorney General’s office when deciding whether to issue a permit for someone to carry a concealed handgun.

Typical libbie BS:

“IF you’re drinking you shouldn’t defend yourself!!” Nah. Just apply it evenly, and across the board:

Drunken driving. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Attempted suicide.

Prior to July 1, all those situations were red flags for the Kansas Attorney General’s office when deciding whether to issue a permit for someone to vote

Drunken driving. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Attempted suicide.

Prior to July 1, all those situations were red flags for the Kansas Attorney General’s office when deciding whether to issue a permit for someone to buy a newspaper.

Drunken driving. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Attempted suicide.

Prior to July 1, all those situations were red flags for the Kansas Attorney General’s office when deciding whether to issue a permit for someone to attend church services.

Drunken driving. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Attempted suicide.

Prior to July 1, all those situations were red flags for the Kansas Attorney General’s office when deciding whether to issue a permit for someone to run for public office....

39 posted on 07/23/2010 6:08:15 PM PDT by archy (Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson