State may strike local gun restrictions
Bill would allow concealed carry at fairgrounds
By Scott Rochat
Saturday, March 24, 2007
When the Kansas Legislature passed a “concealed carry” laws in 2007, it included 21 kinds of places where a carrying hidden gun would not be permitted. That wasn’t quite enough for Emporia, which added two more: the Lyon County Fairgrounds and William Lindsay White Auditorium.
Now those two may soon be struck down. On Thursday, the Kansas Senate took up House Bill 2528, which would keep cities from adding gun-free areas that aren’t already covered by state law. The House passed the bill Wednesday by a vote of 107 to 17.
It’s an unusual step for a Legislature where “local control” is often an effective battle cry. But many who voted for the bill said they wanted to avoid having a patchwork of laws. Otherwise, they said, a concealed-permit holder could unintentionally break the law.
“It doesn’t make sense if you can’t keep track of who bans concealed weapons and who doesn’t,” said Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia.
It still doesn’t make sense to City Attorney Blaise Plummer. The county fairgrounds were added, he said, because the Legislature had put the state fairgrounds on the no-carry list. As for White Auditorium, it’s already illegal under state law to concealed carry at a sporting event -- this would just cover the building’s other activities.
“We are just trying to adjust to our local conditions and now they’re going to take that away,” Plummer said. “It’s not one size fits all.”
Are there other options? Maybe. Businesses already have the ability to forbid concealed weapons on their property by posting a sign. Under the proposed bill, cities would be able to do the same thing “within a building or buildings of such entity.” If that portion survives, it could help White but not all of the fairgrounds, where many activities take place outdoors.
The bill came up in response to Johnson County communities that adopted much tighter restrictions than the state. For example, Leawood banned concealed weapons from public parks, open spaces and public buildings. That went much too far for Rep. L. Candy Ruff, D-Leavenworth, who handled the bill.
“The cities took concealed carry beyond what our legislative intent was,” Ruff told The Topeka Capitol-Journal.
The bill was referred to the Senate State and Federal Affairs Committee on Thursday. Emporia Sen. Jim Barnett, who sits on the committee, said he hadn’t studied the bill closely but that he believed uniform regulations were probably called for here.
“At this point, I think it’s best to have it standard across the state,” said Barnett, a Republican. “Local control on some issues has been felt to be less desirable than having a uniform law across the state.”
Rep. Don Hill, R-Emporia, agreed. Hill said he normally votes on the side of local control but that he didn’t have strong feelings on this issue, especially since he originally opposed concealed carry. Several constituents told him they wanted uniformity, he said, so that’s how he voted.
“My bias is toward local control, but it’s only a bias, not a conviction,” Hill said.
Plummer said the Kansas League of Municipalities was opposed to the bill and would probably lobby against it. He noted that, even in its earliest days, some Kansas towns had tougher gun laws than others.
“Dodge City, back in the days of the Wild West, had an ordinance that you had to park your gun before entering the city limits,” Plummer said. “They had to do it to keep the peace inside the city limits.”
emporian (anonymous) says...
Here's a report you probably wont see in the news. It goes to show that not only does gun control fail to decrease violent crimes, in many cases it actually encourages it. Something we at the Fuge have been knowing all along.
15 Myths about Gun Control: A report by the NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis).
Executive Summary
Firearms are used to commit as many as 650,000 crimes each year. But firearms are also used to prevent crimes as many as one million times each year. In fact, criminals are three times more likely to be killed by armed victims who resist them than by the police. Would tougher gun control laws make our lives safer? Fair appraisal of the issue requires us to put aside some common myths.
* Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A careful review of 18 academic studies shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. International evidence tells a similar story.
* Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. The nation already has 20,000 gun control laws, and the police arrest 220,000 people a year on weapons violations. Yet the violent crime rate is at an all-time high. Moreover, considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't. For example, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., experienced sharp murder-rate increases after passing tough gun control laws. Canada, Taiwan and Jamaica reported similar experiences.
* Myth No. 3: Guns are of little help in defending against criminals. In fact, guns are a big help. Each year, potential victims kill from 2,000 to 3,000 criminals and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. And mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only 30 times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time.
* Myth No. 4: Killing someone is the only reason to buy a handgun. The vast majority of gun owners cite protection from crime as one of the main reasons they own a gun. And for good reason. Americans use guns for self-protection about one million times a year. In 98 percent of the cases, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.
* Myth No. 5: People who buy guns are more prone to violence and crime than are other people. Violence and crime are higher among black than white, lower-income than middle- or upper-income, young than middle-aged, single than married, and urban than rural individuals - all contrary to the pattern of gun ownership.
March 26, 2007 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian (anonymous) says...
* Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes. The number one reason criminals acquire guns is for self-protection against other criminals. Fewer than half of felons think handguns are important for use in committing crimes.
* Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the Old West because guns were so plentiful. Much of the violence on the frontier involved clashes with Indians, bandits and foreigners. Even so, the frontier was a lot safer than America is today. There was very little ordinary crime - less than in most cities in the East.
* Myth No. 8: Gun controls keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority said that prior to imprisonment they had owned a handgun. But fewer than one in six guns had been purchased from a retail dealer. Three-fourths of the felons said they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions.
* Myth No. 9: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. If the Brady bill were law, it would not have saved Jim Brady. Nor would it have prevented the Killeen, Texas, massacre or the slaughter at McDonald's in Stockton, Calif. However, an instant records check (to identify felons when they try to purchase guns from retail dealers) and better enforcement of existing laws (to turn criminals into convicted felons) might well prevent some vicious crimes.
* Myth No. 10: Most murders are committed by people killing friends or family members. The actual number is about one out of five. Most in-household killings are not crimes of passion. They're the culmination of years of abusive behavior, and often it is the abuser who is killed.
* Myth No. 11: The availability of guns contributes to crimes of passion. In about 90 percent of "crime-of-passion" domestic homicides, the police had been called in previously to break up violence. In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. There is no evidence that a significant number of homicides occur simply because a lethal weapon is handy.
* Myth No. 12: Automatic rifles and so-called assault weapons are too dangerous to be left in private hands. Over the past 50 years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on "Miami Vice" and in the movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer. Even gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime.
March 26, 2007 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
Good Post Emporian!
1)A criminal is going to get a gun legal or not. 2)A criminal is more likely to commit a crime if he knows their in a location where guns are not allowed because there is no one besides them with a gun to shoot at him. 3) Personally I think our children would be safer in the schools if the teachers could carry a gun, any crazy person can walk into a school and start killiing kids and know he is not going to be shot at because guns are not allowed in schools. Cities with laws allowing concealed weapons have less crime because the criminals know someone else could be packing one too. Gun laws HURT law abiding citizens not the criminals because they are going to do what they are going to do in spite of what ever the laws say.
March 27, 2007 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slight9 (anonymous) says...
I don't understand. If we can be trusted to carry a concealed weapon in most places, why not them all? Why does the personal and family protection act not extend to schools? Do the legislatures not care about protecting schools? If concealed weapons carried by trained, law-abiding citizens detour crime (it has been proven), why do legislators not want to detour crime at schools, parks, or public buildings? Either conceal carry is good, or it is not. And if it is good, why is it not good everywhere?
March 28, 2007 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )