Kansas bill voids local gun control laws

posted at 6:31 pm on April 6, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

I first caught wind of this news over at Townhall, and I confess it leaves me with a couple of questions. First, the apparently good news.

Kansas legislators gave final approval Saturday to a bill that would nullify city and county gun restrictions and ensure that it’s legal across the state to openly carry firearms, a measure the National Rifle Association sees as a nationwide model for stripping local officials of their gun-regulating power.

The House approved the legislation, 102-19, a day after the Senate passed it, 37-2. The measure goes next to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback. He hasn’t said whether he’ll sign it, but he’s a strong supporter of gun rights and has signed other measures backed by the NRA and the Kansas State Rifle Association.

Kansas law doesn’t expressly forbid the open carrying of firearms, and the attorney general’s office has in the past told local officials that some restrictions are allowed. The Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., has prohibited the practice, but the bill would sweep any such ban away, except to allow cities and counties to prevent openly carried weapons inside public buildings.

So you want to ensure that everyone has the right to open carry. Got it. And well done for you on that one.

But as I said, this raises some questions for the layman which we definitely will want some lawyers to weigh in on. This probably isn’t an excursion into a completely new field of law, but it’s got to be a comparatively obscure one. You see, I’ve always labored under the perhaps mistaken impression that in an organized societal legal system, everything is legal until you begin passing laws to prohibit particular actions. And in theory, you can pass a law against nearly any activity, providing that activity is not a protected right enshrined in either the federal or state constitution. With that preface stated, I can’t recall a previous case of a government body passing a law to expressly make something legal, seeking to overrule existing rules or prevent future ones at a lower level prohibiting said action.

It seems as if, in order to accomplish what Kansas is ostensibly doing here, you’d want to approve an expanded version of the Second Amendment to the state constitution, assuring the right of everyone to open carry except in public buildings. Of course, I’m probably missing something obvious here, but as I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not an attorney. Can they actually do this? And if so, how would one challenge this law in court, assuming you disagreed with it? It’s hard to imagine running this all the way up the chain to the Supreme Court and saying, hey… they can’t make that legal!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I am no attorney either, but it seems that every time our side does something like this, as in the Defense of Marriage Act, what we’re doing in reality is painting a target on the subject we hold dear so that a federal judge is Bodunk, Florida can strike it down and effectively end the “progress” we’ve made in specifying and keeping the rights God gave us.

…and Bishop!

DublOh7 on April 6, 2014 at 6:39 PM

It seems as if, in order to accomplish what Kansas is ostensibly doing here, you’d want to approve an expanded version of the Second Amendment to the state constitution, assuring the right of everyone to open carry except in public buildings. Of course, I’m probably missing something obvious here, but as I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not an attorney. Can they actually do this?

Can who do what?

It’s predicated on a state’s constitution (and they are all different), but generally cities and counties can put restrictions on all sorts of things absent a state preemption law. Plus then there are the cops who don’t like open carry and so will arrest you for “creating a disturbance.”

Good for Kansas.

rbj on April 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Not normally a big fan of taking power away from local jurisdictions, but you don’t really want people being arrested just because the crossed a city line without knowing it.

Count to 10 on April 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM

So you want to ensure that everyone has the right to open carry. Got it. And well done for you on that one.

…you can only depend on ‘you’ now days to protect you!…those who govern look on you as collateral damage if someone threatens your safety!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Jazz, I see this more as a the State passing a regulation for its subordinate levels of government that are getting uppity with their State-given powers.

Scopper on April 6, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Jazz – local governments don’t technically exist as far as the US constitution is concerned. Only state governments have sovereignty under our federal system – local governments are mere organs of / extensions of the state government (see Dillon’s Rule). So local governments can legislate as they see fit as long as the state government gives them the autonomy to do so – but that is always subject to revocation. And, essentially, that is what Kansas has done with this law. D.GOOCH

DGOOCH on April 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Now we need to get open carry restored in Florida. *Sigh

captnjoe on April 6, 2014 at 6:51 PM

I can’t recall a previous case of a government body passing a law to expressly make something legal, seeking to overrule existing rules or prevent future ones at a lower level prohibiting said action.

A few more beers and I might understand your premise. The legislature is passing a law to offset local laws that contravened the 2nd Amendment and State law. Local laws have been passed that do not support open carry at the State level or Federal level in the 2nd Amendment. The State is saying everyone has a right to open carry regardless of local law. Or, is that completely wrong?

Outside the open carry issue, the judiciary is a government body – so isn’t legalizing homosexual marriage, by a judge, overruling existing rules in many cases? What about overruling The Defense Of Marriage Act?

Ruckus_Tom on April 6, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Still good news. And I’m not even a lawyer:)

bernzright777 on April 6, 2014 at 6:55 PM

You see, I’ve always labored under the perhaps mistaken impression that in an organized societal legal system, everything is legal until you begin passing laws to prohibit particular actions. And in theory, you can pass a law against nearly any activity, providing that activity is not a protected right enshrined in either the federal or state constitution.

All true.

With that preface stated, I can’t recall a previous case of a government body passing a law to expressly make something legal, seeking to overrule existing rules or prevent future ones at a lower level prohibiting said action.

Local jurisdictions have made something illegal, and so the state is expressly overriding them and making it legal in the event that SCOTUS were to uphold local ordinances per a 2nd amendment challenge.

It seems as if, in order to accomplish what Kansas is ostensibly doing here, you’d want to approve an expanded version of the Second Amendment to the state constitution, assuring the right of everyone to open carry except in public buildings. Of course, I’m probably missing something obvious here, but as I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not an attorney. Can they actually do this?

Yeah, a state constitutional amendment would probably be more solid, but a statute can still do the trick. They probably opted for the statute since amending state constitutions tends to be fairly onerous.

Stoic Patriot on April 6, 2014 at 6:56 PM

OT:
Jeb Bush: Sneaking into US can be ‘act of love’

No comment.

Bush said that most people who sneak across the border do it “because they couldn’t come legally,” adding that they often do it to keep their families intact while seeking opportunity in the United States.

“Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love,” Bush told Fox News host Shannon Bream at a town hall-style event at the George Bush Presidential Library Center.

kcewa on April 6, 2014 at 6:58 PM

kcewa on April 6, 2014 at 6:58 PM

You don’t need to comment. What an idiot. Nevermind the original person to come here was breaking the law.

crankyoldlady on April 6, 2014 at 7:07 PM

In Ohio you can carry a gun but certain places such as libraries and schools can put up a sign prohibiting guns. There’s a no turn on red law but if there is a dangerous intersection a municipality can put up signs prohibiting a turn on red.

crankyoldlady on April 6, 2014 at 7:12 PM

guess I am confused as to why Jazz is confused. you mention specifically in the article how some counties had made this illegal so this bill nullifies that.

dmacleo on April 6, 2014 at 7:18 PM

I can’t recall a previous case of a government body passing a law to expressly make something legal, seeking to overrule existing rules or prevent future ones at a lower level prohibiting said action.

I’m a resident of Kansas City and Wyandotte County, KS., and I like this law.

It’s not making it legal for people to carry openly; it’s limiting the power of the local governments, which are creations of the state, expressly forbidding them from making a local ordinance against open carry.

Perhaps you find this a distinction of no difference, but there is definitely a difference. The Legislature is saying that it will make uniform firearm laws, rather than allowing 105 counties and hundreds of municipalities to enact a crazy quilt of laws that could technically make criminals out of people for a few minutes as they drive across one of them. If there are to be any restrictions on how people may carry firearms, the Legisature is going to apply them uniformly throughout the state.

The Monster on April 6, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Plus then there are the cops who don’t like open carry and so will arrest you for “creating a disturbance.”

Good for Kansas.

rbj on April 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM

When we lived in Connecticut it was called creating a public disturbance, same thing I think.

CT was an open carry State then and Cops in some Cities/Towns would harass people for open carry which was legal and the Cops knew it, but they harassed people to the point of arresting them, making them put up bail to get out of jail and finally dropping all charges when the person got a lawyer to fight the charge.

Oh and that arrest will stay on a persons record for a long time even though you were never convicted of anything and the charge was dropped. It does show up when someone runs a background check on you for a job or something similar.

This law pretty much puts and end to that nonsense.

Johnnyreb on April 6, 2014 at 7:37 PM

I’m a resident of Kansas City and Wyandotte County, KS., and I like this law.

It’s not making it legal for people to carry openly; it’s limiting the power of the local governments, which are creations of the state, expressly forbidding them from making a local ordinance against open carry.

The Monster on April 6, 2014 at 7:23 PM

I gotta ask, how big a problem is it that local jurisdictions would impose limits on open carry? I can think of a handful of urban areas where this might matter but as a pressing state issue??? Not so much.

Happy Nomad on April 6, 2014 at 7:39 PM

With that preface stated, I can’t recall a previous case of a government body passing a law to expressly make something legal, seeking to overrule existing rules or prevent future ones at a lower level prohibiting said action.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

unclesmrgol on April 6, 2014 at 7:45 PM

I can’t recall a previous case of a government body passing a law to expressly make something legal, seeking to overrule existing rules or prevent future ones at a lower level prohibiting said action.

Roe v. Wade?

Akzed on April 6, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Hopefully Brownback will sign it. But here’s the thing: watch the kooky liberal states copy this to nullify any pro-constitution municipalities in their otherwise doofus-lib states, i.e., New York, California, Washington, etc.

Jaibones on April 6, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Bush said that most people who sneak across the border do it “because they couldn’t come legally,” adding that they often do it to keep their families intact while seeking opportunity in the United States.

“Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love,” Bush told Fox News host Shannon Bream at a town hall-style event at the George Bush Presidential Library Center.

kcewa on April 6, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Thanks for the reminder — Jeb Bush is an idiot, and a liberal…(altogether now…) but I repeat myself.

Jaibones on April 6, 2014 at 7:52 PM

The point of the law is to stop the cities and counties, particularly the liberal ones, from passing death by a thousand papercut laws that make it virtually impossible to actually open carry. We have the same problem here in NC, and the legislature passed a similar law. It’s rather problematic if you have to plan your trip to the grocery store to make sure you are in compliance with all the laws. When you need to read and memorize a large manual to know where you can exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, that’s a problem.

William Teach on April 6, 2014 at 7:53 PM

I think Matt Dillon would run afoul of this Kansas law. Didn’t he make the cowboys hand their guns over while in Dodge City?

Buddahpundit on April 6, 2014 at 7:57 PM

What you are raising is fundamentally the argument that was raised against the necessity for including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution at all. That was the same question: Why do we need to prohibit the government from doing what it is not empowered to do in the first place?

Very simply, if the government wants to do something badly enough, it will find the foundation to do it. That’s why the Bill of Rights is written in negatives: actions expressly prohibited to the Federal government. But that hasn’t stopped them from trying, has it?

ss396 on April 6, 2014 at 8:14 PM

I’m no lawyer either, but I think what is being done in Kansas is something that has already been done in other states and it’s called preemption. It is simply codifying the fact that local governments can’t pass local laws that are in conflict with state law.

climbnjump on April 6, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Now we need to get open carry restored in Florida. *Sigh

captnjoe on April 6, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Yeah, I’m kind of confused by that too. I used to live in Florida, and it’s generally pretty gun-friendly. Do you know when they took away that right and why? I’ve also been surprised that places like Texas and Georgia don’t have full rights in that area.

The bottom line is that any restriction on arms is plainly un-Constitutional.

But even in places that now technically allow for open carry (like Virginia where I live now) the cops will harass you if you try to do it.

We live in an un-Constitutional police state.

WhatSlushfund on April 6, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Why are cops allowed free reign? They are basically city employees, just rent-a-cops really. And yet they have qualified immunity which allows them to murder people with very little cost to themselves. Sometimes they get a paid vacation, sometimes they don’t even miss a day at a desk. In the event that the police department is found liable, the citizens of the town are robbed to pay for the murder committed by one of these city employees.

Cops really don’t do very much to contribute to our natural peace and good order. These days, they are just bullies who chip away at it. And now that city governments are strapped for cash, they are using police as auxiliary tax collectors, and passing ridiculous laws to steal money from people.

We need a minimum of police, just as we need a minimum of government. Maybe we could start by disbanding these corrupt little municipalities, and see where there leads. Maybe that would be the start of unraveling Leviathan.

Another Libertarian on April 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM

…certain places such as libraries and schools …

crankyoldlady on April 6, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Otherwise known as “gun-free” zones and are soft targets for evil-doers intent on malice.

freedomfirst on April 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM

I think Matt Dillon would run afoul of this Kansas law. Didn’t he make the cowboys hand their guns over while in Dodge City?

Buddahpundit on April 6, 2014 at 7:57 PM

That would have been Wyatt Earp there Buddahpundit! He later came out to Tombstone,AZ and did the same thing. Like KS that went away when the Legislature passed Preemption.

Old Dog on April 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Say what you may like about Blue State Oregon, state law pre-empts counties and municipalities from enacting ordinances to regulate firearms.

It’s a good thing, or we down-staters would be at risk in Ultra-Blue Portland.

Oregon is an open carry state, though not many do. I open-carry only east of the Cascades so that I don’t offend the sensibilities of Valley People.

Oregon also is a shall-issue CHL state. The Sheriff of urban-blue Lane County is very pro CH licensees and has refused media requests to publish the names and addresses of CH licensees.

foxymike on April 6, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Firearms Preemption Laws

novaculus on April 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Texas has had CHL for almost 20 years now. At first, many county and city (even state!) entities pissed themselves, and posted the required legal language on their doors stating that CHL was not allowed inside. The legislature added language to the law to make these local prohibitions invalid, but only very recently gave the AG the ability to go after them and make them quit. This seems very on point.

Even when you know the posting is invalid, it’s hard for a law abiding citizen to ignore the prohibition.

bbhack on April 6, 2014 at 10:28 PM

But as I said, this raises some questions for the layman which we definitely will want some lawyers to weigh in on.

Jazz, no. Just no. We have enough Democrats out there to do that without so called allies like you to join them.

This is why Republicans lose.

FrankT on April 6, 2014 at 10:28 PM

Jailbones – When you say “Washington”, I assume you mean D.C. The State of Washington is both Shall Issue and Open Carry. Although, to be fair, that’s due to the clear words in the state constitution and not the politicians.

IcePilot on April 6, 2014 at 11:08 PM

assuring the right of everyone to open carry except in public buildings.

Jazz, I’m confused on this. What’s wrong with “public buildings”? Jails, mental hospitals or court houses, yes.

Mike Morrissey on April 6, 2014 at 11:34 PM

Hopefully Brownback will sign it. But here’s the thing: watch the kooky liberal states copy this to nullify any pro-constitution municipalities in their otherwise doofus-lib states, i.e., New York, California, Washington, etc.

Washington State laws already prohibit this. This state has been a Shall Issue state for concealed carry since 1961. No training required and it has to be issued within 30 days.

Mike Morrissey on April 6, 2014 at 11:39 PM

Now if only Nebraska would do that.

I live in Omaha and they don’t have open carry within city limits.

KirknBurker on April 6, 2014 at 11:52 PM

Our civil rights are protected by the bill of rights. No state or local government can restrict those rights beyond what the constitution says. They cannot impose restrictions on free speech, the practice of free association, freedom of religion etc, etc. State law cannot abrogate the 4th or 5th Amendments. Why do you think they can restrict a right that says “the right of the people to _____ ___ ____ ____ shall not be infringed”. I think that it is pretty clear the intent was to protect the right of the people as it would not have been written the way it was had some other idea been in their thoughts. One does not need a law degree to understand what the bill of rights says.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on April 6, 2014 at 11:54 PM

Now we need to get open carry restored in Florida. *Sigh

captnjoe on April 6, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Yeah…

While you can carry openly on your way to/from hunting,fishing, camping that’s about it in Florida. Was some sort of “compromise” for CCW.

But time for it to return. Life would be so much easier, though there would be a drop in CCW holsters, etc. And an increase in some nice open carry holsters.

Would even be able to carry a full size (and hence, more accurate) firearm, with a couple of mags as well.

Wearing CCW in the summer in Florida ….

ProfShadow on April 6, 2014 at 11:59 PM

Kansas Constitution, Bill of Rights, Paragraph 4:

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; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

SouthernRoots on April 7, 2014 at 12:13 AM

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on April 6, 2014 at 11:54 PM

The 2nd Amendment is a passive voice Amendment, which makes it far more powerful than the active voice ones. In a Subject Verb Object language like English, when the Verb and Object are clear and the Subject is not identified then it becomes universal within the context it is given in.

The Constitution is clearly able within the Body of it to address different federal branches and explicitly identifies State equivalent branches to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. The 2nd Amendment, by not addressing this to any branch of any government, but by being within the governing organization document then is addressing ALL branches of ALL governments in the United States.

The 2nd Amendment needs no 13th Amendment incorporation apparatus as that apparatus is built into the Amendment for the right to keep and bear arms by the citizenry. While the 1st Amendment addresses Congress, the 2nd Amendment is addressing ALL the branches of all the governments of the United States without exception. It is an Amendment written in clear English that has antecedents going back to Henry I in the way that it addresses the power of government.

For the Left it is even worse, because even if it was a ‘communitarian’ reading, the passivity of the clause would STILL protect all of the people from having their government infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Even if it was JUST for the Militia and ‘communitarian’ the restriction would still be in force. There is no way to change a passive clause into an active one, and thereby make it amenable to lawyering. Not that they haven’t tried and pushed through all sorts of nonsense by appealing to emotions, first, instead of utilizing reason.

My criticism of the SCOTUS isn’t that they depend too much on previous decisions: it is that they don’t know how to handle ENGLISH AS A LANGUAGE. They seek to weasel out of making hard decisions when the language is clear and succinct, with brevity being its strong suit. Instead of depending on just what is written in the Constitution FIRST they try to ignore it and go by prior decisions by prior Courts that did their best NOT TO READ THE LANGUAGE in the context of the Constitution and rule on that basis. I’ve had it with Thesaurus toting judges making rulings. When the language is clear, brief and universal within the scope of the context of the document, then SAY SO and rule ACCORDING TO IT. The Thesaurus weasels can go to hell.

ajacksonian on April 7, 2014 at 7:46 AM

Please sign the the bill Gov Brownback! Would rather open carry than go concealed when I move back to Kansas next month.

Doomsday on April 7, 2014 at 8:36 AM

I’m not sure the point of this. I like not having a million separate local laws all over a state (like NY).

But that doesn’t change one major problem with this:

… OPEN carry is dumb.

I carry all the time… but always concealed.

if you have a gun readily displayed on your hip, you will be the first guy shot by a criminal (or he will just shoot you first and take your stuff).

The only time I want someone who is threatening my life (or my family’s) to know I am carrying a firearm is when I am shooting them and ending the threat.

BadBrad on April 7, 2014 at 8:45 AM

The sad thing is that is everyone still respected, defnded, and upheld the Constitution this new Kansas Bill would not have been necessary.

What part of “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” do Liberals NOT understand? It doesn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed…EXCEPT for ‘this‘ restriction and ‘this‘ restriction…”.

It says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.” PERIOD!

easyt65 on April 7, 2014 at 8:46 AM


certain places such as libraries and schools …

crankyoldlady on April 6, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Otherwise known as “gun-free” zones and are soft targets for evil-doers intent on malice.

freedomfirst on April 6, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Don’t forget military installations….

BadBrad on April 7, 2014 at 8:49 AM

ProfShadow on April 6, 2014 at 11:59 PM

As a Florida native/resident, I already conceal carry full size (M&P 40), with those “illegal in New York and other liberal bastions because it holds more than 10 rounds” magazines. Don’t have to wait for open carry to use full size.

raz0r on April 7, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Plus then there are the cops who don’t like open carry and so will arrest you for “creating a disturbance.”

Cops in many cities are irrelevant. As many police chiefs have said, “you’re on your own.”

Plus, modern police regimes are not prepared to handle the gansta society we now live in with teenage punks running rampant and threatening the taxpayer segment at will. Flash mobs and other insanity can come up at any time where the police can’t help.

Conservatives with guns are solution.

HopeHeFails on April 7, 2014 at 9:12 AM

I gotta ask, how big a problem is it that local jurisdictions would impose limits on open carry?

Take a look at a map the KC metro area, especially in the area where I live (near the Wyandotte-Johnson county line). When I go to the nearest grocery store, a half mile from my home, I cross the county line into another city, then make a left turn into a third city. I can easily drive through a dozen different county and city jurisdictions even when I don’t cross the state line into MO.

The hypothetical about a parking lot on the other side of the state line is a very real thing here, but the only example I can think of requires people to walk across State Line Road, the name of which ought to be your first clue. There are a few places where that road doesn’t exactly follow its namesake, but in general, you know which state you’re in.

The fact that different states will have different laws is built into our Constitutional federal (in the original sense of the word) system. But because the counties and cities are creations of the state, it is entirely appropriate for the state to decide that certain laws ought to be made in Topeka instead of the 105 counties and hundreds of municipalities.

The Monster on April 7, 2014 at 9:51 AM

I am a Kansas resident and a CCL holder. I can applaud this but it is bittersweet for me. You see the same Republican controlled house and Senate just passed a bill effectively shutting down all homeschooling in Kansas.
My oldest boy is 9 and has an I.Q. of around 130. He reads 230 wpm and as a 3rd grader, is working on 6th grade math and high school level science. By the age of 7 he had the entire periodic table memorized. Just last night I walked onto our four season porch where his “lab” is and found him electroplating nails with copper. He is 9 frigging years old and was doing this on his own volition not to mention he built all the equipment to do it with.
When we tried to send him to Public School as a kindergartner the school told us if we didn’t medicate him (because he is always active) they would have social services act for his own good. When at 5 years old we told him that we were going to have to get him medications to calm him down he said: but Dad if I take these pills I wont be Quinn anymore I will be someone else. As the tears started to well in my eyes I had an epiphany, we would home school. My wife quit her job and here we are. Since then we have had 2 other children one of which sustained a brain injury and is home schooled as well. He has made great strides learning at his own pace.
Aside from the state funding that pays for our school (which equates to a $6k year savings for the state and is taken from our property tax) we have asked for no help from anything or anyone. We would be eligible for generous state funds for raising our child with the injury but have never done so. My wife quit her career and we are a one income family that barely gets by. The sacrifices have been great and so have the rewards. But now Kansas has discarded my children and will force them into an environment where I fear my oldest will be a problem and even a failure. From 4.0 – >1.9.

This is Kansas to me. So you can all applaud open carry while I weep for my children. Who I might add are all taught firearm safety starting at age 5.
We are so frustrated.

vinceautmorire on April 7, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Jazz, I’m confused on this. What’s wrong with “public buildings”? Jails, mental hospitals or court houses, yes.

Mike Morrissey on April 6, 2014 at 11:34 PM

This passed in Kansas last year:

Reforms in House Bill 2052 require city, county and state buildings to eventually remove bans on concealed handguns unless metal detectors or security guards were put in place to bolster the safety of inhabitants.

http://cjonline.com/news/2013-04-17/brownback-signs-concealed-carry-reform

cptacek on April 7, 2014 at 11:29 AM

They’re passing a law making it illegal for localities to pass laws restricting something further.

I don’t see a problem here.

Asurea on April 7, 2014 at 3:39 PM

WhatSlushfund on April 6, 2014 at 9:02 PM

My understanding is that it’s a post-Civil War Yankee carpetbagger construct that hasn’t died the needed death yet.

Asurea on April 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM