|

Kan. House panel vote on gun rights measure delayed

Handgun 001

11:30 a.m. UPDATE   TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas House committee has delayed a vote on gun-rights legislation so members have more time to consider changes that include provisions punishing possession of a firearm under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee reviewed proposed changes Friday and plans to take the bill up again next week.

The bill would void existing local gun ordinances throughout Kansas. It would ensure that the open carrying of firearms is allowed statewide and bar cities and counties from regulating gun and ammunition sales.

State Rep. and Derby Republican Jim Howell proposed additional language designed to clarify that it’s illegal to possess a firearm while drunk or under the influence of drugs.

But supporters of the bill also wanted to protect a person’s right to self-defense.

 

 

5:29 a.m. TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas House committee is preparing to vote on legislation stripping cities and counties of any power to regulate guns or block the open carrying of firearms.

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee is expected to approve the measure Friday and send it to the full chamber for debate. National and state gun-rights groups are pushing it.

The bill would void existing local gun ordinances throughout Kansas. It would ensure that the open carrying of firearms is allowed statewide and bar cities and counties from regulating gun and ammunition sales.

The measure would also bar counties and cities from using tax revenue to administer gun buyback programs, and prohibit local governments from regulating knives.

Local government groups oppose the bill, saying city and county officials know their communities best.

 

KSKOLLoct
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.
  • A_citizen_patriot

    illegal to possess a firearm while drunk? So if im drunk at home and there is a gun in the corner im breaking the law?

    • Chief59

      I would guess it is intended for possession while in public, not your own home. On that note, I would hope that proposed language gets added. Taking any type of weapon into any establishment where alcohol is served should be expressly prohibited.

      • Packin Not Drinkin

        You do realize, don’t you, that I may be in Applebee’s or Jalisco’s, etc. and not be under the influence, right? They do also serve tea and a number of other non-alcoholic beverages at those places you know. Should everyone who goes into any establishment that serves alcohol, and then drives get a DUI? By the way, I’m fine with adding the under the influence verbiage to the law. In fact that verbiage is already in the concealed carry law. I’m not defending those who would carry under the influence at all. And by the way, shooting someone without a _really_ good reason has been illegal for a _really_ long time. I understand that the penalty is quite severe.

        • Chief59

          Yeah, I do realize that you don’t HAVE to drink at these establishments. However, the option is there. Rationality goes out the window when drinking. It goes out the window for most of us even while sober. So why introduce a weapon into the mix? I dislike your drunk driving analogy because someone sober can kill someone while driving just as well as someone who is inebriated. Someone sober can also make a poor decision and pull the trigger, but it is more likely while drinking, just as it is with cars.
          Actually, you don’t even have to be the one drinking. Have you ever been to a place that over served someone who became obnoxious and tried to pick a fight with you for no good reason? Hypothetically, what if someone reacted with deadly force to someone drunkenly attacking them? When people get drunk, they get out of hand and do stupid things. That doesn’t mean they should be shot for starting a drunken fight.

          Look at the recent Florida theater shooting. There was no alcohol involved, but someone with a CC permit completely overreacted and murdered a man in cold blood. Why? The man was texting and then threw popcorn in his face. Seems like a rational reason to shoot someone, right? The guy with the gun was a former cop and Navy veteran. That sounds like someone who should be able to keep his cool. However, in the heat of the moment he pulled his gun and shot a man. Guns don’t belong in every situation you find yourself in throughout the day. Is it your right? Sure, but that doesn’t mean you have to carry it.

          My question to you is, why do you feel the need to carry a firearm into a restaurant to eat with your family?

          • A_citizen_patriot

            I carry my concealed weapon every where I go. I dont think Packin was arguing that you should be able to have a gun in a bar.

          • Chief59

            We’ve had this conversation about ten times patriot. Yet, I still can’t understand the rational behind ALWAYS having a gun on you, even in a family restaurant. I know Packin never mentioned a bar, which is why I used the restaurant as an example. You don’t have to be in a bar to have to much to drink and make a bad decision.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            Then make bad decisions illegal.

          • Chief59

            People will always make bad decisions. Alcohol makes for even more and worse bad decisions. Limiting collateral damage said decisions should be the priority. Guns and alcohol don’t mix. I really don’t get the push back on this subject.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            I don’t get the push back either, I agree that guns and alcohol don’t mix. That’s why I’m not drinking at Applebee’s.
            My option is a potential solution to a catastrophic situation, yours is a “hope it’s not my turn” solution. No offence, but I’m going with my way.

          • Chief59

            Just because you aren’t drinking there doesn’t mean another cc holder isn’t. You are there, and another holder drinks too much and pulls his gun in anger. You have your gun and put him down. Now you have acted in self defense to a legitimate threat, but it could have been avoided by not allowing guns into a place that serves alcohol. That is my argument.

          • Potato_Masher

            I agree. I know that you cannot use individual cases to represent the whole, but I know several cc holders who brag about carrying in bars. One of them even brandished their gun while drunk at the Golden Q. The odds of something going wrong is minimal, but it is just foolish to pretend mixing the environment of a bar and firearms is a good idea. If you feel the threat of going to the bar at night is so high you need a gun to protect yourself…stay home.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            I know I said I was done, but I can’t let that go without comment.
            Did you call law enforcement to report a drunk brandishing a firearm? If not then you share some of the responsibility. That kind of behavior would get a CC permit revoked in a heartbeat. And you need to choose your friends more carefully. And just so you know, the Q is not a bar by definition.
            Strangely there was no comment at all to my point of Luby’s Cafeteria, Columbine, the grade school in Connecticut, Virginia Tech, etc. Were those dangerous places? They were all gun free zones. Should those victims have just stayed home?

          • A_citizen_patriot

            I understand where you are coming from with wanting to protect yourself in a bar. My issue with carry in a bar is I would worry that some one may bump into me and realize I have it and may try to grab it. I would make the same argument if police had to go into a bar. I think it would be expected for them to leave there firearm in their car.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            But we’re kind of drifting off topic with all the talk about going to a bar at night. I jumped into this with regard to the comment about “anyplace that serves alcohol”. That would cover having lunch at just about any restaurant in town except fast food. The concealed carry law is already written. The law being discussed in this article is about certain municipalities writing laws that are counter to state law with regard to open carry, which I have mixed feelings about anyway. And I would hope if things went real bad, that the responding officers had their guns on them, not left in their car. Look up retention holsters.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            And I forgot to mention that if someone tries to grab an officers gun, where he would be going doesn’t serve alcohol. And here we are back to that consequences thing.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            Yeah, well when people drink they dont always think about the consequences.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            I have a retention holster. I am well aware of them. My point was that a gun around a drunk can be a bad thing. I am glad that KS is going to do this. Cities being able to change the law to limit a right is wrong.

          • Sooo…

            Then it shouldn’t be OK for a state to change and limit federal law either, correct?

          • A_citizen_patriot

            No, not as long as the federal government has the authority to enact the law.

          • Sooo…

            Can you provide an example of where they do not have the authority?

          • A_citizen_patriot

            The ACA, and before you tell me that the supreme court looked at it. The only part that they looked at was the individual mandate. That part they ruled was constitutional as a tax, but they never looked at the whole law.

          • Sooo…

            I am trying to understand why you believe state rights trump federal rights AND local rights. If the argument is that states would know better than the feds what is best for the state, why would that not hold true for local govts as it relates to state powers?

          • A_citizen_patriot

            I think you misunderstood me. Federal law always tumps state law. The only time that is a issue is when the Federal government passes a law that they do not have the constitutional authority for. ie the ACA. That falls under the 10th amendment. So no state law never trumps federal law. Hopefully that cleared it up.

          • Chief59

            In all of the instances involving schools, you having your cc permit would have done no good, as you wouldn’t have been in school holding your childs hand. However, at both Columbine and Va Tech, there were armed guards. In the case of Columbine, the guard had a couple of opportunities to stop the shooters, but failed to hit either of them. The argument that shooters attack gun free zones simply due to the fact that they “gun free” is false. Nearly every incident of a school shooting is someone who wants to attack that particular place out of revenge, hate, etc. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have guns there. In the case of the cafeteria shooting, yes, a cc holder may have been able to stop the crime. However, considering trained police officers regularly hit innocent bystanders in a shootout, why would a regular cc holder have any better luck of hitting the shooter without killing an innocent? Between the fear and adrenaline pumping through the body in a situation that is new to you, I can see a cc holder returning fire as just as much a threat as the gunman. I’m not saying it’s impossible to stop a killer, but it’s just as possible you accidently become one yourself.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            Your hypotheticals are hypothetical, and so are mine. Your plan is if things go horribly bad we should do… what? Call someone with a gun and wait until they get there? Calmly wait for our turn to die? Do like the brave teachers at Sandy Hook who threw their bodies in the path of flying lead? (that hurt just to type that) Run away, and hope you’re are faster than the other guy? It turns out that those places you mentioned were not in fact, gun free, regardless of the laws and signs. Neither of us are going to change our minds, so I’ll try to make this my last word on the subject, but thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

          • Don’tCryChief59

            Chief talks about straw men when he should be talking about the vacuum in his head where most people have brains.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            I never drink when I carry, and I carry because I am responsible for my families safety.

          • Chief59

            As am I, but I can’t imagine a situation where I need a gun to protect them outside of the home. Even if one would arise, the odds say I’m not going to do any good by carrying the gun anyways. I know you are saying you just want the chance to be able to protect yourself, and I respect that. I just don’t see the need to have a gun on your hip all day. We’ve disagreed enough on this, and neither of us will ever change each other’s mind. I appreciate you keeping it civil all these discussions thigh.

          • A_citizen_patriot

            Saying that carrying a gun wouldnt do any good is a bad argument. If that was true then cops should stop carrying them since it wouldnt do any good. The vast majority of times there are bystanders. If one of them has a gun it could change the outcome. I not going to argue that its a perfect system. But it has never really been tried. Multiple times the Supreme court has ruled that police have no duty to protect you. So why leave your safety to some one that has no legal obligation to come to your aid.

          • Some guy

            That’s like saying I’ll put on my seatbelt just before I crash.

          • Arthur Doyle

            Dangerous situations are not limited to your imagination Chief.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            Sorry to have to correct you, because I think we’re on the same side, but I think I should have every right to be carrying in a bar if I’m not drinking. Designated driver anyone? Self defense, and the defense of others should not be illegal whatever the setting.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            Wow, that went off the rails. So if I read that right, everyone is a murderer “if the option is there”, and we don’t need DUI laws, “because someone sober can kill someone while driving just as well as someone who is inebriated”. Got it.
            Anyway, to answer your question, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre (Cliff’s notes: A nutcase went into a cafeteria and shot 50 people, and killed 23) Likely? No. But we do have a precedent. A Connecticut grade school, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and others, were safe places to be too. Those were all “gun free” zones I might add.

            Now let me ask you a question: Do you have a spare tire in your car? Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house? I’m assuming you answered “yes”, as a reasonable person would… So, are you paranoid or something? Don’t imply there’s something wrong with me because I have the right, and choose to avoid being a victim should the occasion arise. And just because you have one cite (I’m sure there are more) about a lunatic with a gun, that does not indicate a normal human being’s reaction to an obnoxious drunk. And look at the consequences he is facing. As I indicated before, there are some seriously disturbed individuals out there. Maybe they have a gun, well so do I.
            But really, I get what you’re saying, guns are evil. Ban them.

          • Chief59

            Nope, my point was that anyone is capable of a bad decision that hurts/kills sometime. Alcohol multiplies that likelihood, regardless of the weapon. Do you crawl along the ground everywhere you go? You’re twice as likely to die in a simple fall than an assault by a firearm, so maybe you should.

            I HAVE NEVER advocated banning guns. Not once. However, allowing them into places that serve alcohol is asinine.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            Yes, anyone is capable of a bad decision, we agree on that. Some of them have guns, and some don’t. But, again, the consequences of making a bad decision can be severe. You seem to think there is no penalty for a bad decision. Best case is that you loose everything you ever had, and ever will have, to lawyers.
            And believe it or not, I’m fully bipedal. It took some practice though. I’ll try to be more careful, thanks for the heads up.
            “However, allowing them into places that serve alcohol is asinine” That’s not banning them at all. Nope, not at all.

          • Chief59

            There’s the difference between you and I. You say if someone makes a bad decision, they will be punished. That doesn’t help the person they killed. I’m about prevention, not punishment. Prohibiting guns from one type of establishment is not banning. It is a safety restriction. There are rules for everything, even the holy second amendment. Saying you can’t take a weapon to a place that bad decisions are known to happen isn’t banning, it’s being smart and proactive.

          • Packin Not Drinkin

            So you are advocating pro-active law enforcement? So if the potential is there for an illegal activity, we should make a law to prohibit it? That’s kind of circular reasoning don’t you think? To stick with the same example, DUI laws are all about punishment not prevention, no? So since speeding is illegal, we should ticket all cars that are capable of exceeding that limit. That’s known to happen while driving on public roads right?
            Seriously, I appreciate the civil discourse. Keep this up and I might just have to sign up here. But for now I’m done. Thanks.

          • Chief59

            Straw men should be used in gardens to keep pests away, not in debates.

        • A_citizen_patriot

          You cant conceal carry in a bar. But I believe that for it to be classified as a bar only, over half of their sales have to be alcohol.

  • passin_threw

    Nothin gets posts like gun control and gays…..imagine if the gays started carrying guns to keep the golf course from watering the greens, the comment section would be full!!!

  • Chief59

    I don’t believe in big government at all, but I believe government should be the only ones who can have guns, and that people in government should be able to tell everyone else what to do no matter what!

  • Robert Craig

    If you are responsible enough to have CC, then you understand that you cannot drink & carry. If you cant leave the booze alone that long, you have other issues.
    Secondly, the definition of a restaurant and a bar needs clear definition. I don’t consider Pizza Hut, Jalisco’s or Applebees to be a bar. If they meet the legal definition of being a bar, which, I believe, at current is defined as an establishment that derives 50% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol, Then it needs to be made clear to anyone entering that establishment.