Guns at polling places?

kobach (AP) — Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has asked Attorney General Derek Schmidt for a ruling on whether a new state law allowing concealed carry in most public buildings includes polling places.

Polling sites in Kansas are often found in places where guns aren’t allowed, such as churches and schools.

But Kobach says there’s “some ambiguity in the law” over whether Kansas polling places would be considered “leased” property under the concealed-carry law. If they are, the law says licensed gun owners must be allowed to carry their weapons on the premises, unless the county files a detailed security plan for each site and provides protective measures.



Commenting Disclaimer
  • Be respectful. 
  • Do not use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Do not make accusations or personal attacks
  • Comments considered to be 'trolling' or for the sole purpose of angering others will be removed.

21 Comments for “Guns at polling places?”

  1. Yes, let’s take a place where conflicts can easily arise and allow people to carry guns there. If you can’t vote without your gun on you, you probably shouldn’t be voting.

    • Hate to break it to you but nothing in the law prohibits licensed concealed carry in any of the places mentioned in the article, and that is nothing new. Wouldn’t preventing the legally armed population from entering a polling place be just as disenfranchising as having to show ID?

      • To clarify Schools, Churches, etc. are not explicitly off limits, but they could still post signage to prohibit concealed carry making them no different than any other building.

      • Your example is bogus. Voting is just as an important right as the right to carry. However, there are currently more restrictions in place to stop people from voting than there are to prevent people from buying firearms. Also, you do not need a gun to vote, so how is that disenfranchising concealed carriers? You can’t leave your gun in the car for five minutes?

        • I agree that all rights are equally important, including the right to vote. My comparison to voter ID was in jest, pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about voter ID inconveniencing people but being OK with any other rules that might inconvenience another group? (I knew you didn’t say that, it was more in general). If voting rights are just as important as the right to carry as you say (and you’re right), then why shouldn’t we vote if we are armed?

          If you’ve voted in the last several years, there is a fair chance you’ve voted next to someone who was carrying a concealed handgun already. The new laws change nothing in this regard, unless the polling place is a state/municipal building with metal detectors at the entrance (or a plan on file to install them). That is my point.

          • Where in the second amendment does it say we can carry a weapon on us at all times? “Keep and bear arms” does not mean we can walk around at all times with a hidden gun. It doesn’t even imply that. I still haven’t received and answer on how taking your gun off your person and locking it in your glove box for 10 minutes infringes on your rights. You do not need a gun to vote. Yes, in this last election I saw a man carrying at my polling station. I rolled my eyes and went on. I do not understand the people who are so explicit in shouting out I have my rights and you can’t do anything about it. It’s stupid. I have nothing against people owning firearms, but in this day and age, if you think you have to carry a gun at all times in Hays, KS, then you have some serious issues with either your sense of worth, or paranoia. A gun really won’t help either of those issues. Probably actually make them worse.

          • Leaving my gun in my car doesn’t stop me from voting. But why should I have to disarm? What changes when I walk into the polling place? You’ve supposedly seen others vote while armed…it clearly didn’t affect your ability to vote. So what’s the problem?

            I’m not arguing what the constitution says. I’m just telling you what the KS laws currently say. You may not find it necessary to carry a gun, so don’t carry one. I’ve chosen to legally carry a gun everywhere I go and its not stipulated on whether or not someone else deems it necessary. I don’t carry because I have a need to…I do it because I can’t think of a good reason NOT to. If I find a reason not to, I might stop carrying. Until then I’ll keep carrying where ever I am that it is legal to do so. Why wouldn’t I?

          • A_citizen_patriot

            By voting dosent that shout I have my rights?

  2. People who carry guns legally are not the criminals. They are not the people who go around shooting up schools, post offices, etc. Let them carry their concealed weapons.

  3. A_citizen_patriot

    Why do the millions of responsible gun owners get punished for the actions of a few?

    • I fail to see the punishment here. Telling gun owners they can’t carry their weapons into a certain pace on a certain day is not a punishment. Where did our forefathers say you can carry “arms” with you whenever you want? I don’t take that from any part of the second amendment.

      • A_citizen_patriot

        Well if they took the time to get the conceal carry permit. Why shouldnt they be able to carry anywhere? Alot of people have the mentality that if there is a gun somewhere, it will get used.

        • A lot of people have the mentality that they have to have a gun on them at all times, because you never know when there will be a “bad guy with a gun” and you have to become Buck Rogers. How often does it actually happen that someone carrying a gun stops an armed criminal? That list is pretty short compared to the one listing people who are armed and are still killed by armed criminals.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            So it is better to not have a gun and be killed by a criminal, then to have one and at least have a chance of defending yourself? Does it matter how many armed citizens stopped a armed criminal? Even if one person defended themselves I think it was worth it. Do you have a list of people killed, I doubt it. Just like no one has a list of people saved by armed citizens. Go to the kansas attorney general site and you can at least look at the ammount of conceal carry holders that have lost their liscense and for what reason. The last time I looked there were only two people that lost their liscense for a crime with a firearm.

          • “Does it matter how many armed citizens stopped a armed criminal? Even if one person defended themselves I think it was worth it.”

            There lies the hypocrisy of gun owners. When gun limiting legislation is proposed, proponents of it always say that even if one child is saved, then it is worth it. The gun nuts then respond with, “nope, my rights, blah, blah, blah”. If stricter gun laws are not worth saving one child, then why is a free-for-all for concealed carriers worth it?

            If it is truly about self preservation/defense, then I would assume each of these concealed carriers stays indoors and doesn’t leave the house when there is a chance for thunderstorms. Better protect yourself from those “Bad storms with lightning”.

          • Also, on a side note, I enjoy the debates I have with you on here. Most people don’t support their opinions with anything, but you do. Just because we both totally disagree with each doesn’t mean we can’t have good discourse. I wish congress would learn that.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            Wouldnt that be nice. I hate having a conversation where people throw bs stats out to make a point.

      • there is that part of the 2nd that says “shall not be infringed” that does seem pretty cut and dried to me

Leave a Reply