Kansas has a new law

Status
Not open for further replies.

ksnecktieman

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
1,152
Location
Junction City, Kansas
The NRA told us it was good. The NRA told us to write congressmen, and senators, and the governor, and push them to pass it. It will allow us to carry an unloaded, cased firearm any where in the state, legally. That is not very much freedom.

Would you consider this a fair trade for being able to carry a gun in your trunk?



"The new law allows law enforcement agencies to sell or trade seized firearms and allow sheriffs to execute warrants to seize firearms from delinquent taxpayers. It also sets the stage for retired law enforcement officers to qualify to carry concealed weapons.


http://legislature.cjonline.com/stories/041605/leg_gunbill.shtml

CJOnline : Legislature :
Published Saturday, April 16, 2005

Governor signs gun bill

The Associated Press
Gun-rights advocates scored a victory when Gov. Kathleen Sebelius made it easier for people to transport firearms in Kansas without fear of being arrested.
A new law the governor signed Friday makes it legal to carry a firearm anywhere in the state as long as it is unloaded and in an enclosed container. Taking effect July 1, the law says local governments can't impose more strict controls.

"Currently hunters and other law-abiding gun owners traveling across Kansas may unknowingly violate gun ordinances by simply driving through another town," Sebelius said in statement.

Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, a backer of the legislation, praised the governor. He and other gun rights advocates said the bill was needed to protect gun owners from unfair prosecution.

"It confirms my belief that this is good public policy for the state. It will enhance the economic engine the drives the rural economy, because out-of-state hunters now will know what the rules are," Journey said.

Local government still can prosecute people for carrying a concealed weapon. The new law also allows local governments to have less restrictive requirements. For instance, a county could allow people to carry firearms in the gun rack of a pickup.

Journey said there had been a lot of confusion about transporting firearms because of a patchwork of local ordinances.

Although local governments complained the legislation would cut into their power, Journey said there are several instances in which cities and counties still retain control.

For instance, cities and counties can say where gun dealers can locate and also have rules more stringent regarding who can own or possess firearms.

The new law also doesn't prohibit local governments from regulating what weapons their peace officers can carry, and it doesn't keep local governments from banning firearms at jails, city halls, courtrooms and courthouses.

The new law allows law enforcement agencies to sell or trade seized firearms and allow sheriffs to execute warrants to seize firearms from delinquent taxpayers. It also sets the stage for retired law enforcement officers to qualify to carry concealed weapons.

Local governments can't impose greater restrictions than those set by the federal government for purchasing or owning firearms, nor can cities or counties mandate how people store firearms in their homes.

Last year, the governor vetoed a bill allowing Kansans to carry concealed handguns, which upset gun-rights advocates.
 
Hell no...

Especially considering open carry of a loaded firearm is already legal in Kansas, and carrying an unloaded firearm is legal in any municipality I'm aware of. This is nothing more than a gun grab perfumed up with some minor changes like restrictions on municipalities ability further ban things like possession of an unloaded gun. Unless you are travelling with a loaded firearm through a municipality and you get stopped you aren't doing anything wrong under current law afaik. YMMV. IANAL.



I.C.
 
Not a whole lot gained.
Thought "peaceable journey" law was already federal. And thought retired LEO national CCW was federal too.
 
Oh gee,I feel so empowered....
What got me this year was that there is a "republican" majority in both houses in this state and the ,so called,pro-gun politicians did not want to go up against the governess with another carry law.And they had the nerve to inform us in the KSRA newsletter about it.Bunch of spineless free-range rinos....
Dang I miss Oklahoma...
 
The new law allows law enforcement agencies to sell or trade seized firearms and allow sheriffs to execute warrants to seize firearms from delinquent taxpayers.

And how is this supposed to work? KS doesn't do permit to acquire permits like MO does, so how would the county know a 'deliquent taxpayer' has guns? Sounds like a good underhanded way to get search and seizure warrants on anybody they want too...

This law was being pitched as the 'first step' to resubmitting a CCW bill.

I'm a bit miffed about it. It sure makes my MO CCW about worthless since I cross over into Kansas often... :fire:
 
And thought retired LEO national CCW was federal too.

It is. However the provision that allows retired officers to carry has created quite a stir among police adminstrators who fear someone will sue their department over a shooting by a retired officer. The federal law requires the retired officer to qualify annually or as often as his old agency requires. Many agencies have no policy for that.

As for the rest of the bill, it seems like it is a step towards a preemtion bill that would prohibit lesser government entities from making laws more restrictive then the state law. We didn't lose our second amendmet rights in one fell swoop (except in Illinois at the last constitutional convention :banghead: ) and we won't get them restored in one fell swoop either.

One step at a time....that's all it takes.

Jeff
 
Welcome to the Nation of Hawaii - retired LEO's DON'T have CCW rights here.

They become just like us "subjects" - NO CCW for anyone!

Do NOT bring a weapon to HI - if you're found with it - you won't take it home!

Ya should have seen the CoP when I threatened to work in Columbia - and get a FEDERAL CCW from DEA! He (edit) "bricks" - lot's of "bricks".

cr





edited due to language
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CR,
I don't think Hawaii is it's own country..;) They may think they are, like some other states, but I don't see how they can deny a retired officer CCW under the federal law. Perhaps the chief would rather face a lawsuit in federal court?

Believe me, here in Illinois many chiefs would like to do the same thing. But as we talk the Standards and Training Board is hammering out the necessary procedures. It'll come to Hawaii....


The provision allowing agencied to sell or trade seized firearms is a step forward too. The anti gunners made this a big issue after a high profile crime was committed with a surplus police issue firearm and there was a rush to forbid agencies from selling or trading these weapons. Now at least in Kansas firearms that would otherwise have been destroyed will get a new lease on life.

It looks like it also prohibits any kind of storage regulations. So no Kansas city or town can mandate you lock your guns up and prosecute you for not having them locked up after you confront an intruder and call the police and they find you holding the intruder at gunpoint.

All in all it seems like a good bill. All except the part about seizing firearms for unpaid taxes.

Jeff
 
So, is it just treating firearms like any other property that may be siezed when you are behind on taxes? I don't know how that works, but if an officer can sieze any property right now, for failure to pay, I don't see why firearms should be treated any differently than other property.
 
A hypothetical...

I knew a guy who was layed off from a $22 dollar an hour job. He and his wife ended up divorcing a little while later. He had to "declare" his guns during the divorce. At the end of the year he didn't have enough money to pax the tax on his unemployment.

In that scenario under the new law he'd lose his guns that the state now knows about. I don't like it.

The only thing that may possibly be of any value in this, and I say this without having read the actual law, is if this "preemption clause" in it prevents the city from "preempting" on all gun laws or maybe concealed carry. Of course if that were the case then open carry would be legitimized again here. I say legitimized because Kansas is one of a few states that specifically provides citizens the right to carry for their defense. Any 5 year-old could read the constitution and conclude that. Unfortunately the state supremes were only 3 years old when they made their ruling :cuss: . The fifth circuit even said they were stupid in Emerson, mentioning the KS case by name.


I.C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top