Posted on 10/17/2010 4:48:22 AM PDT by marktwain
JOPLIN, Mo. — The rights of gun owners and people with mental illnesses will be decided by Kansas voters next month.
Two amendments seeking to clarify language in the state constitution are on the Nov. 2 ballot, referred to voters by state legislators. One amendment would establish that Kansas residents have an individual right to own a gun; the other would take away legislators’ authority to deny voting rights to the mentally ill.
State Rep. Doug Gatewood, a Democrat from Columbus who approved both measures when they went through the Kansas Legislature, said the amendments, if approved by voters, wouldn’t necessarily change anything. They would instead provide constitutional protection of gun ownership and voting rights, which are already part of Kansans’ everyday life.
The amendments seem to have garnered mostly support over the past few months. Because their approval would have no real effect, opposition seems to be scarce.
The guns issue can be traced to a 1905 Kansas Supreme Court ruling in the case of City of Salina v. Blakesly, where justices upheld that a man convicted of possessing a firearm did not have the individual right to own a gun. The court ruled that “the people’s right” to bear arms was a collective right. Only standing militias were entitled to have firearms and only to be used in defense of the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at joplinglobe.com ...
“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.”
Here is some background on the 1905 Kansas supreme court decision, which is the case where the whole spurious idea of "collective rights" came from:
The notion that the Second Amendment is a power of the government, rather than a right of people, was invented in 1905. In the town of Salina, Kan., James Blaksley was convicted of carrying a pistol while intoxicated. When he appealed his conviction, neither Blaksley nor the prosecutor argued that the Second Amendment did not pertain to individuals, and the matter was therefore never briefed. The government attorney had simply argued that the local law was a reasonable gun control. Nevertheless, the Kansas Supreme Court chose to issue a decision announcing that the Second Amendment, and the right to arms in the Kansas state constitution, did not belong to citizens. (Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 [Kan. 1905].)
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Guns-in-the-Dock.htm
“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.”
This seems pretty straightforward to me. I see a lot of consequences. This makes local ordinance against the open carry of arms unconstitutional. It calls into question the requirement to pay a fee to have a concealed carry license. It invalidates ordinances forbidding the carrying of knives or swords.
Here is the link to the article about how the “Progressive” judges, in 1905, took it upon themselves to destroy a Constitutional right. It has taken us over a hundred years to recover from their illegitimate and unethical power grab.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Guns-in-the-Dock.htm
That does sound like a reasonable restriction.
Not to me.
That does sound like a reasonable restriction.”
Not that the Kansas Supreme Court of 1905 did *not* find that it was a reasonable restriction. The went way out of their way to avoid all precedent, to find a completely new meaning to the words of the right to keep and bear arms in order to destroy it as an individual right. They should have been impeached. Their names should be on a list of traitors. Their decedents should hang their heads in shame when they are brought up in polite conversation.
That does sound like a reasonable restriction.”
Note that the Kansas Supreme Court of 1905 did *not* find that it was a reasonable restriction. The went way out of their way to avoid all precedent, to find a completely new meaning to the words of the right to keep and bear arms in order to destroy it as an individual right. They should have been impeached. Their names should be on a list of traitors. Their decedents should hang their heads in shame when they are brought up in polite conversation.
Wrong charge, based on spurious, progressive definition making possession of a firearm by a class of people an offense. The offense should have been “misuse of a firearm” where it would be a jury question to determine if Mr. Blakesly was acting in a harmful manner.
The difference is not subtle. The government is not forbidden from restricting how we use firearms, but is restricted from prohibiting our ability to keep and even bear firearms. Possession of a firearm while intoxicated can be interpreted far too broadly. Using or displaying a firearm while intoxicated is akin to shooting across a highway. The emphasis is on an unsafe behavior rather than mere possession without regard to location or behavior.
What’s the threshold? Who enforces it? Where is the “blood in the streets” now where there is no such restriction?
Don’t disagree. Merely pointing out that “carrying a pistol while intoxicated” is nonot dissimilar to “operating a vehicle while intoxicated.” Which I suppose most will agree is a reasonable restriction.
Note that in many states one need not be actually driving the vehicle while intoxicated to be charged. Just being in the front seat of a parked vehicle, even in the passenger seat, is enough.
BTW, if you want to blow your mind, look up the municipal restrictions on carrying a firearm in the Wild West towns like Dodge City. Quite similar to those of NYC today. Attempts by the LEOs to enforce these led to a lot of the famous gunfights of the time.
I’m not sure what your question is. I believe carrying a firearm while legally intoxicated should be subject to somewhat the same limitations as operating a motor vehicle while in the same condition. And for pretty much the same reasons.
Perhaps a party going out on the town could have both a “designated driver” and a “designated shooter.” Unless of course they could combine the roles in one person. :)
No one has addressed the other part of the law. The right for the mentally ill to vote. Seems to be a mute point - given Obama supporters have always had the right to vote!
It IS dissimilar. A better analogy would be "owning a vehicle while intoxicated" or "sitting in a parked vehicle while intoxicated".
Note that in many states one need not be actually driving the vehicle while intoxicated to be charged. Just being in the front seat of a parked vehicle, even in the passenger seat, is enough.
Ah, I see you made the same connection, but I still disagree with your conclusion. I conclude that the vehicle laws are also wrong and need to be aligned with logic, not that they justify equally overreaching laws about firearms.
“carrying a pistol while intoxicated” is more akin to “carrying the keys to the car while intoxicated”. A separate and distinct action beyond possession must logically (if not lawfully) take place in order for there to be “operation of (either) while intoxicated”.
I heard of a case where a guy had a house on acreage, with a long winding drive so you couldn't see the house from the road. Well a cop come by, looking for a certain address and heads down the drive to ask about it or something. So the homeowner is working on his car with a popped can of beer on the fender and the cop charges him with open container or DUI, I forget which, because he's "in control of the vehicle" on his own property, not even within visual distance of a road, and not driving (and the car may not even have been able to be made drivable within a matter of seconds, depending on what maintenance he was doing). Contrary to Sherman's line of argument, this absurdity doesn't justify equally absurd regulations on carrying guns, but merely condemns itself and shames those who wrote it.
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.