ThatIsAFact
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 44
As many of you know, Kansas has joined the concealed carry states with a law that went into effect January 1. Among other things, the law provides for recognition of a permit "issued by" any state that qualifies to be placed on a list of states that have issuance standards "equal to or greater than" those of Kansas (except that Kansas residents can only carry on Kansas-issued permits). The outgoing attorney general, Phill Kline, applied that language in a straightforward way to produce a list of states that he determined met the "equal to or greater than" standard, and made it clear that any permit "issued by" a state on the list would be recognized -- including permits issued those who are not residents of the issuing states.
Today the brand new Kansas attorney general, Paul Morrison (a Democrat), in one of his first official actions, and in flagrant disregard of the plain language of the statute, re-affirmed the same list of states, but at the same time said that only a permit held by a resident of the issuing state will be recognized. In other words, he decided to discriminate against tens of thousands of nonresident permit holders who have met the same issuance standards as (or stronger standards than) the holders of permits issued by the same states to residents. The Morrison document is here:
http://www.ksag.org/Divisions/CCU/License Recognition.PDF
According to a poster on www.packing.org, an attorney in the AG's office named C.J. today said that since the law provides for recognition of permits issued by states that have similar requirements, and since the law provides that Kansans need a permit from Kansas, everyone else also must have a resident permit.
This reasoning is so shoddy -- indeed, nonsensical -- that it would earn a student an F in Fundamentals of Statutory Construction. Here is the actual language of the law (italics added for emphasis):
"A valid license, issued by any other state or the District of Columbia, to carry concealed weapons shall be recognized as valid in this state, but only while the holder is not a resident of Kansas, if the attorney general determines that standards for issuance of such license or permit by such state or district are equal to or greater than the standards imposed by this act. The attorney general shall maintain and publish a list of such states and districts which the attorney general determines have standards equal to or greater than the standards imposed by this act. The provisions of this subsection shall take effect and be in force from and after January 1, 2007."
So, the statute explicitly says that a license "issued by" a recognized state is valid in Kansas (except when held by a Kansas resident). If Mr. Morrison really thinks that the mere fact that a state issues permits to nonresidents means its permit-issuance standards are less than Kansas' standards, then under the statute he may not put that state on the recognized-state list! But, if he determines that a state's standards are equal to or greater than Kansas' standards, then he is obligated to put that state on the list. Clearly, the statute does NOT given him a third option of saying that a state has "equal or greater" standards than Kansas and therefore goes on the list, but then refusing to recognize a valid permit "issued by" that state.
(While it is not really legally relevant to this analysis, it should also be noted that states that issue residents to non-residents require the nonresident applicants to meet the same standards as resident applications. Or in a few cases, stricter standards -- for example, Virginia does not require fingerprints for resident applicants, but for nonresident applicants they do.)
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, but I have little doubt that any prosecution of a person holding a valid permit issued by a state on that list would be tossed by the first competent judge to consider the issue.
Today the brand new Kansas attorney general, Paul Morrison (a Democrat), in one of his first official actions, and in flagrant disregard of the plain language of the statute, re-affirmed the same list of states, but at the same time said that only a permit held by a resident of the issuing state will be recognized. In other words, he decided to discriminate against tens of thousands of nonresident permit holders who have met the same issuance standards as (or stronger standards than) the holders of permits issued by the same states to residents. The Morrison document is here:
http://www.ksag.org/Divisions/CCU/License Recognition.PDF
According to a poster on www.packing.org, an attorney in the AG's office named C.J. today said that since the law provides for recognition of permits issued by states that have similar requirements, and since the law provides that Kansans need a permit from Kansas, everyone else also must have a resident permit.
This reasoning is so shoddy -- indeed, nonsensical -- that it would earn a student an F in Fundamentals of Statutory Construction. Here is the actual language of the law (italics added for emphasis):
"A valid license, issued by any other state or the District of Columbia, to carry concealed weapons shall be recognized as valid in this state, but only while the holder is not a resident of Kansas, if the attorney general determines that standards for issuance of such license or permit by such state or district are equal to or greater than the standards imposed by this act. The attorney general shall maintain and publish a list of such states and districts which the attorney general determines have standards equal to or greater than the standards imposed by this act. The provisions of this subsection shall take effect and be in force from and after January 1, 2007."
So, the statute explicitly says that a license "issued by" a recognized state is valid in Kansas (except when held by a Kansas resident). If Mr. Morrison really thinks that the mere fact that a state issues permits to nonresidents means its permit-issuance standards are less than Kansas' standards, then under the statute he may not put that state on the recognized-state list! But, if he determines that a state's standards are equal to or greater than Kansas' standards, then he is obligated to put that state on the list. Clearly, the statute does NOT given him a third option of saying that a state has "equal or greater" standards than Kansas and therefore goes on the list, but then refusing to recognize a valid permit "issued by" that state.
(While it is not really legally relevant to this analysis, it should also be noted that states that issue residents to non-residents require the nonresident applicants to meet the same standards as resident applications. Or in a few cases, stricter standards -- for example, Virginia does not require fingerprints for resident applicants, but for nonresident applicants they do.)
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, but I have little doubt that any prosecution of a person holding a valid permit issued by a state on that list would be tossed by the first competent judge to consider the issue.
