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.
"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
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???”
Typical libbie BS:
“IF you’re drinking you shouldn’t defend yourself!!”
What about texting?
Reading?
Upset about world events?
Too pathetic.
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.
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).
How about drunk dialing? It should definately be banned!
They forgot to include “Female Individuals Having PMS Symptoms” on the list.
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.
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.
I too noticed the “When did you stop beating your wife and kids” wording, but went with “yes” as well.
No restrictions at all? Anyone of any age can carry a concealed weapon to any place they want to?
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.
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.
I voted “Yes” just to keep the bunched-panty crowd in a dither...
Does a drunk lose his right to defend himself against criminals?
President Bush had a misdemeanor drunk driving conviction - should he be banned?
What indication do you have that judges are any smarter, wiser or show better judgment than anyone else in the world?
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?
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.
Where did they do that?
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.
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.