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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
Loopholes = the GOVERNMENT has to do what the PEOPLE say. Nice.
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?
>>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.
>> 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?
“Yes”, just to mess with them.
So if the right to carry a gun is absolute then shouldn’t the right to carry it anywhere you want also be absolute?
Voted yes, just because of the “Have you stopped beating your wife” phrasing of the question.
Why not? If you act stupid with it then you’ll be the one who gets grossly aerated for your behavior..
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.
:^)
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.
I searched my handy copy of the constitution and amendments. I think you know the answer to your question. :^)
As long as it doesn't come into conflict with the property rights of any merchants you may patronize. Then you can't.
Like that poor guy at the Las Vegas Costco?
His mistake was not reaching high enuf into the sky when the cops first said, “Get down.”
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....
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.