Sylvan-Forge
Member
Anyone know when the bill will reach the senate?
Kansas CCW bill to Senate?
- Thread starter Sylvan-Forge
- Start date
- Status
Vermont Guy
Member
Been and gone!
Senate approved the change made by the house.
And according to the Capital-Journal
"Sebelius has 10 days from when she receives the bill to decide what to do with it. It is clear she doesn't like it."
Senate approved the change made by the house.
And according to the Capital-Journal
"Sebelius has 10 days from when she receives the bill to decide what to do with it. It is clear she doesn't like it."
Sylvan-Forge
Member
Thank You Vermont Guy
Maybe her email box will fill to the brim
...Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) toll-free at (877) 579-6757, local at (785) 296-6240, via email at www.ksgovernor.org/comment.html, or fax (785) 368-8788
Maybe her email box will fill to the brim
...Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) toll-free at (877) 579-6757, local at (785) 296-6240, via email at www.ksgovernor.org/comment.html, or fax (785) 368-8788
DonP
Member
Veto proof margins too
The article I read said that they had more than enough votes to over ride her veto in both houses of the legislature.
She could pull a "Doyle", like Wisconsin, and buy off some fence sitters with appointments, but it looks like more than a vote or two margin.
She's faced with either signing a bill she doesn't like or having the legislature make her look totally irrelevant.
I'm sure the brady attorneys are already getting their legal team ready to attack and have the lefty/anti judges already lined up to issue an injunction the minute it passes.
Either way it looks like we'll be adding one more to the the CCW state list pretty soon.
The article I read said that they had more than enough votes to over ride her veto in both houses of the legislature.
She could pull a "Doyle", like Wisconsin, and buy off some fence sitters with appointments, but it looks like more than a vote or two margin.
She's faced with either signing a bill she doesn't like or having the legislature make her look totally irrelevant.
I'm sure the brady attorneys are already getting their legal team ready to attack and have the lefty/anti judges already lined up to issue an injunction the minute it passes.
Either way it looks like we'll be adding one more to the the CCW state list pretty soon.
Moondoggie
Member
I read a post on another forum saying that Sibelius is "considering" signing the bill, which is a change from her previous statements saying that she would veto it if it reached her desk. I'll bet she's looking at the overwhelming votes in the legislature and wondering how a veto override will look for her in the next election cycle.
Nebraska's CCW seems headed to our Governer, who has said that he will sign it.
Next year we get to work on reciprocity...things are looking up! I live on the border with KS and travel there frequently.
Nebraska's CCW seems headed to our Governer, who has said that he will sign it.
Next year we get to work on reciprocity...things are looking up! I live on the border with KS and travel there frequently.
proud2deviate
Member
Hoping the best for the Kansas populace on this one. Y'all have had to wait too long already.
Robert J McElwain
Member
I hope you all are right in that she either signs it or sits on it.
Unfortunately, both my Representative and my senator were on the wrong side of this issue, which will make my voting this fall easy.
Got to go start cranking out the emails to Sebelius.
bob
DonP
Member
Two words for Ms. Sebelius ...
Ann Richards.
Think about it as the next election cycle rolls around.
Ann Richards.
Think about it as the next election cycle rolls around.
Steve 48
Member
I wouldn't say that Kansas will have a CCW law yet. These politicians have 9 lives like a cat. The Governor is in a pickle but not one she can't get out of. I would continue "hounding her and the rest of the politicians until this bill is law. Its been a long time coming and its not over yet. Call, write or e-mail your legislater's until their blue in the face. I do hear that there has been more uproar this year than in years past. I drove 440 miles just to talk for 3 minutes at the House Federal and State Affairs Committee in favor for the bill. I wouldn't say its in the bag yet. Steve 48
Robert J McElwain
Member
Steve,
I agree. And, today, I took advantage of the NRA web site's feature that allows one to email a Letter to the Editor to several Kansas newspapers at once. I think we need all the publicity we can get.
Bob
I agree. And, today, I took advantage of the NRA web site's feature that allows one to email a Letter to the Editor to several Kansas newspapers at once. I think we need all the publicity we can get.
Bob
Monkeyleg
Member.
From what we've experienced in Wisconsin, here are some warning signs:
1. A legislator who won't talk to the NRA
2. A legislator who won't talk to constituents
3. A legislator who voted for the bill, but expresses any doubts or reservations to the media.
4. A legislator who says he/she hasn't decided on a veto override vote.
Don't take anything for granted.
1. A legislator who won't talk to the NRA
2. A legislator who won't talk to constituents
3. A legislator who voted for the bill, but expresses any doubts or reservations to the media.
4. A legislator who says he/she hasn't decided on a veto override vote.
Don't take anything for granted.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
She's been totally irrelevant all along.
Don P;
I hope you realize the only reason W is prez is because Ann was stupid enough to veto the CCW bill that passed in her term.
If she had signed it, she would have beat W hands down and there is no telling who would be Prez now, as W would still be counting gate receipts for the Rangers.
I doubt we would be in Iraq either, the only reason W went in was to show HW how he should have done it the first time.
I hope you realize the only reason W is prez is because Ann was stupid enough to veto the CCW bill that passed in her term.
If she had signed it, she would have beat W hands down and there is no telling who would be Prez now, as W would still be counting gate receipts for the Rangers.
I doubt we would be in Iraq either, the only reason W went in was to show HW how he should have done it the first time.
beerslurpy
member
Well that is the stuff revolutions are made of. Someone fails to see which way the wind is blowing and next thing you know some dumbass from the other party is doing their job.
DonP
Member
Not stupid, arrogant
"Ann was stupid enough to veto the CCW bill"
I don't think old Ann ever thought they would really throw her out of office for such a "stupid" idea as concealed carry. It was arrogance, and not being in touch with her constituency that got her in the end.
And of course if Lincoln had ignored his advisors and fired Mclellan a year or so earlier, and replaced him with Grant, Gettysburg might just be another Pennsylvania subdivision now.
And if Saddam had abided by any of the 14 UN resolutions he'd still be able to run his rape rooms and murder his citizens as he and his sons saw fit.
But Ann, Lincoln and Saddam didn't see the writing on the wall in time and hsitory wrote the next chapter.
"Ann was stupid enough to veto the CCW bill"
I don't think old Ann ever thought they would really throw her out of office for such a "stupid" idea as concealed carry. It was arrogance, and not being in touch with her constituency that got her in the end.
And of course if Lincoln had ignored his advisors and fired Mclellan a year or so earlier, and replaced him with Grant, Gettysburg might just be another Pennsylvania subdivision now.
And if Saddam had abided by any of the 14 UN resolutions he'd still be able to run his rape rooms and murder his citizens as he and his sons saw fit.
But Ann, Lincoln and Saddam didn't see the writing on the wall in time and hsitory wrote the next chapter.
texascarl
Member
From today's Kansas City Star.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/columnists/barbara_shelly/14117068.htm
A veto override makes a governor look bad, and pro-gun legislators might have the votes to override you on concealed carry. If they don’t this year, they’ll try next year.
To: Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
Subject: Unsolicited advice
Dear Gov. Sebelius:
Don’t take a bullet on concealed carry.
This is more than a little strange, me telling a governor not to veto a bill allowing people to walk around with handguns in their pockets and purses. I don’t like guns and don’t care for groups that think it’s their God- and Constitution-given duty to defend irresponsible gun sales and oppose trigger-lock laws.
But there’s something else I don’t like: seeing good leaders squander political capital on concealed carry. It’s a principled stand but ultimately a loser. You can veto the bill, but sooner or later Kansans will legally pack hidden weapons. The advocates and the gun lobby won’t rest until they do.
I know this, because I live in Missouri, home of the first and probably the only statewide referendum on concealed carry. You may recall that in 1999, slightly more than half of us said we wanted it to remain unlawful. Four years later the Missouri legislature made it law anyway.
Some prominent Democrats were mortally wounded in the battle. Then-Gov. Bob Holden vetoed the legislation and watched members of his own party join Republicans to override the veto. Then-U.S. Sen. Jean Carnahan went skeet-shooting in the campaign season but never convinced gun-loving rural voters she was one of them. Some observers think Al Gore’s opposition to concealed carry cost him Missouri’s electoral vote in the 2000 election, when every state counted.
And you know what? It wasn’t worth it.
Like many city dwellers, I think packing guns in public places is bad policy. But I must agree with my gun-backing friends and correspondents that the sky hasn’t fallen since Missouri made it lawful.
You won’t get much help from statistics. Both sides use them to make their case and shoot down assertions made by the other side.
Missouri’s experience with concealed carry is too new to draw any conclusions, anyway. And it would be wrong to connect Kansas City’s spike in homicides last year with concealed carry by law-abiding citizens. Virtually all of the people charged with the murders had criminal records and couldn’t legally possess guns.
Sooner or later one of those worst-case scenarios we opponents imagined will become reality in a public way. A child will pull a loaded gun from a distracted dad’s pocket. A thief will wrestle a handgun from an intended victim. The result will be catastrophe.
But it will be the exception. And government can’t operate on a foundation of anecdotes, exceptions and rarely realized fears.
You, Gov. Sebelius, are in an elite but lonely club. Only four governors can say their states don’t allow concealed carry. But keeping up your membership is a heck of a lot of work.
A veto override makes a governor look bad, and pro-gun legislators might have the votes to override you on concealed carry. If they don’t this year, they’ll try next year. They’ll keep trying until they get it, because gun folks are more vociferous and tenacious about wanting concealed carry than opponents are about wanting to keep it banned. Plus, they’ve got deep pockets.
How much political capital will you expend on concealed carry? Might it not be better to get it out of the way and work on other things, such as boosting the Kansas economy, reaching an agreement on school financing and getting re-elected?
Some of my gun-fearing pals will say I’ve abandoned my principles. I prefer to think I’ve discovered pragmatism. Let’s off-load concealed carry and work on keeping college tuition affordable for immigrant students who are working on becoming U.S. citizens.
Besides, as we anti-gun Missourians can tell you, there’s more than one way to object to a policy. Given a choice, we favor businesses that prohibit concealed guns on their premises.
Just a little food for thought. You don’t have to like the concealed-carry bill. You don’t even have to sign it. Let it become law without your signature and save your ammunition for a winnable cause.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/columnists/barbara_shelly/14117068.htm
A veto override makes a governor look bad, and pro-gun legislators might have the votes to override you on concealed carry. If they don’t this year, they’ll try next year.
To: Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius
Subject: Unsolicited advice
Dear Gov. Sebelius:
Don’t take a bullet on concealed carry.
This is more than a little strange, me telling a governor not to veto a bill allowing people to walk around with handguns in their pockets and purses. I don’t like guns and don’t care for groups that think it’s their God- and Constitution-given duty to defend irresponsible gun sales and oppose trigger-lock laws.
But there’s something else I don’t like: seeing good leaders squander political capital on concealed carry. It’s a principled stand but ultimately a loser. You can veto the bill, but sooner or later Kansans will legally pack hidden weapons. The advocates and the gun lobby won’t rest until they do.
I know this, because I live in Missouri, home of the first and probably the only statewide referendum on concealed carry. You may recall that in 1999, slightly more than half of us said we wanted it to remain unlawful. Four years later the Missouri legislature made it law anyway.
Some prominent Democrats were mortally wounded in the battle. Then-Gov. Bob Holden vetoed the legislation and watched members of his own party join Republicans to override the veto. Then-U.S. Sen. Jean Carnahan went skeet-shooting in the campaign season but never convinced gun-loving rural voters she was one of them. Some observers think Al Gore’s opposition to concealed carry cost him Missouri’s electoral vote in the 2000 election, when every state counted.
And you know what? It wasn’t worth it.
Like many city dwellers, I think packing guns in public places is bad policy. But I must agree with my gun-backing friends and correspondents that the sky hasn’t fallen since Missouri made it lawful.
You won’t get much help from statistics. Both sides use them to make their case and shoot down assertions made by the other side.
Missouri’s experience with concealed carry is too new to draw any conclusions, anyway. And it would be wrong to connect Kansas City’s spike in homicides last year with concealed carry by law-abiding citizens. Virtually all of the people charged with the murders had criminal records and couldn’t legally possess guns.
Sooner or later one of those worst-case scenarios we opponents imagined will become reality in a public way. A child will pull a loaded gun from a distracted dad’s pocket. A thief will wrestle a handgun from an intended victim. The result will be catastrophe.
But it will be the exception. And government can’t operate on a foundation of anecdotes, exceptions and rarely realized fears.
You, Gov. Sebelius, are in an elite but lonely club. Only four governors can say their states don’t allow concealed carry. But keeping up your membership is a heck of a lot of work.
A veto override makes a governor look bad, and pro-gun legislators might have the votes to override you on concealed carry. If they don’t this year, they’ll try next year. They’ll keep trying until they get it, because gun folks are more vociferous and tenacious about wanting concealed carry than opponents are about wanting to keep it banned. Plus, they’ve got deep pockets.
How much political capital will you expend on concealed carry? Might it not be better to get it out of the way and work on other things, such as boosting the Kansas economy, reaching an agreement on school financing and getting re-elected?
Some of my gun-fearing pals will say I’ve abandoned my principles. I prefer to think I’ve discovered pragmatism. Let’s off-load concealed carry and work on keeping college tuition affordable for immigrant students who are working on becoming U.S. citizens.
Besides, as we anti-gun Missourians can tell you, there’s more than one way to object to a policy. Given a choice, we favor businesses that prohibit concealed guns on their premises.
Just a little food for thought. You don’t have to like the concealed-carry bill. You don’t even have to sign it. Let it become law without your signature and save your ammunition for a winnable cause.
Steve 48
Member
Good advise to a very stubborn Governor. I don't she will listen to anyone except her liberal friends. Steve 48
DKSuddeth
Member
does anyone know if dennys in california has a 'no guns' policy? If so, how well did that work out for them?
I loved the op-ed letter from the "pragmatic" anti-gunner. Everything she wrote was pretty much spot-on.
Except that last part in the qote from her editorial.
Boy, how much I bet that Monkeleg wishes that were true here in WI...
Quote: "My Senator and Rep are both on the wrong side........."
Robert McElwain, which Senator are you describing? I never heard of Pat Roberts being anti, and if Brownback is thinking of running for president, that would be the kiss of death for him. Brownback is "strange", but I never heard of him being anti, maybe "on the fence" but not anti. But, "on the fence" may be enough.
Robert McElwain, which Senator are you describing? I never heard of Pat Roberts being anti, and if Brownback is thinking of running for president, that would be the kiss of death for him. Brownback is "strange", but I never heard of him being anti, maybe "on the fence" but not anti. But, "on the fence" may be enough.
Robert J McElwain
Member
We're talking about a State issue, and you're thinking Federal. Beside Pat Roberts and Brownback, I also have a State Senator and a State Representative in Topeka.
And you're right, Brownback is strange.
Bob
Sylvan-Forge
Member
Looks like Rep. Carlson has a related bill (Stand and Defend HB2577-sim to FL?) that passed the house and is in the senate, though it may not make it out this year.
Looking good!
Looking good!
"Quote: "And you're right Brownback is strange"....
I wrote him a letter of protest when the Army specialist was given a choice of wearing the United Nations identification or facing punishment. He answered and said he backed the prosecution of the specialist 100% and said he deserved a charge of disobeying orders. If he would get the nomination and runs against the smartest woman on earth it should be a shoo-in. For Hillary.
I wrote him a letter of protest when the Army specialist was given a choice of wearing the United Nations identification or facing punishment. He answered and said he backed the prosecution of the specialist 100% and said he deserved a charge of disobeying orders. If he would get the nomination and runs against the smartest woman on earth it should be a shoo-in. For Hillary.
Monkeyleg
Member.
That columnist was spot-on. Governor Sebelius is either going to lose and look bad, or she's going to force some Dem's to flip. And that's throwing them to the wolves.
AJ Dual, she's definitely wrong about the "deep pockets." Gun owners tend to be real penny-pinchers, with a few exceptions. Trap shooters in particular will shell out lots of dollars.
AJ Dual, she's definitely wrong about the "deep pockets." Gun owners tend to be real penny-pinchers, with a few exceptions. Trap shooters in particular will shell out lots of dollars.
- Status