Kansas gov signs "Constitutional carry" law saying you don't need govt permission to carry a gun

[Missourian]

"Kansas gov signs "Constitutional carry" law saying you don't need govt permission to carry a gun"

That's fine provided it's understood that it's not 'un-Constitutional' for a state or local jurisdiction to require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Actually, I think that's a good point. CCW isn't going away, even in Kansas...if they want to retain reciprocity. BUT, at least in Missouri, local jurisdiction are restricted by law from passing or enforcing conceal carry regulations. Only the state retains that power.

 

[defcon4]

Fine is less than a few years of permits and required re-education.

Unfortunately, they will confiscate your firearm and throw you in jail, then they have a liberal judges order to confiscate all your firearms in your home. So you are in deep shit especially when you have LE with the mindset of "us against them."

 

[RandallFlagg]

Does this mean mentally disturbed people can carry concealed guns? I am a strong proponent of the right to self defense but, without any limitations, couldn't this turn into the Wild West (not in a good way)?

Would a law against it STOP a mentally disturbed person from carrying a concealed gun?

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry for as long as I can remember...it's certainly not the wild west.

Constitutional carry - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Constitutional carry does necessarily mean concealed carry. Also, Vermont is sparsely populated with few big city crime problems.

nor does it mean that you can't.

I was merely asking if the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for everyone to carry a concealed weapon. Why the hostility?

Yes it does.

It also authorizes the states and local jurisdictions to enact regulatory measures considered necessary and proper, such as requiring a license to carry a concealed firearm.

The hostility is the consequence of the unwarranted extremism common to a tiny minority of 'gun rights' activists, who, as a consequence of their ignorance and extremism, do more to jeopardize the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than those whom they perceive as 'hostile' to those rights.

Here we go again with his bullshit of "we are a nation of laws" crap. Jesus guy, the rich in this country must LOVE your worthless ass......

 

[RandallFlagg]

"Kansas gov signs "Constitutional carry" law saying you don't need govt permission to carry a gun"

That's fine provided it's understood that it's not 'un-Constitutional' for a state or local jurisdiction to require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Actually, I think that's a good point. CCW isn't going away, even in Kansas...if they want to retain reciprocity. BUT, at least in Missouri, local jurisdiction are restricted by law from passing or enforcing conceal carry regulations. Only the state retains that power.

I have said from the beginning that this was a bogus snow job by the federal government. Gun rights have ALWAYS belonged to the individual states. That power was NEVER given to the feds - they took it FROM the states - in direct violation of the "law". Read the 10th Amendment. This monster called the federal government was NEVER intended to have to "power" that it is has stolen from the people.

 

[defcon4]

The hostility is the consequence of the unwarranted extremism common to a tiny minority of 'gun rights' activists,[/QUOTE
WOW! Where did you get this crap from?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Would a law against it STOP a mentally disturbed person from carrying a concealed gun?

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry for as long as I can remember...it's certainly not the wild west.

Constitutional carry - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Constitutional carry does necessarily mean concealed carry. Also, Vermont is sparsely populated with few big city crime problems.

nor does it mean that you can't.

I was merely asking if the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for everyone to carry a concealed weapon. Why the hostility?

Yes it does.

It also authorizes the states and local jurisdictions to enact regulatory measures considered necessary and proper, such as requiring a license to carry a concealed firearm.

The hostility is the consequence of the unwarranted extremism common to a tiny minority of 'gun rights' activists, who, as a consequence of their ignorance and extremism, do more to jeopardize the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than those whom they perceive as 'hostile' to those rights.

Sorry...but if it wasn't for those so called "gun rights activists" guns would already be banned in this country.....

Indeed. The leftists in this country are using the tried-and-true Homosexual gambit now - convincing the American public that gun owners are a small percentage of the public - just as they have all but successfully convinced the public that perverts are now the majority in this country. Bullshit is still bullshit. And the left is full of it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I wonder, will they respect the property rights of those who post this?

Probably not since they don't respect the rights of others...

I generally don't carry a gun on me unless I am going to the gun range, but yes, if I had it on me and went into a store that had a No Guns Allowed sign I would leave it in the car. In fact, the Vons near my house has a no guns sign posted in their entrance way.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Does this mean mentally disturbed people can carry concealed guns? I am a strong proponent of the right to self defense but, without any limitations, couldn't this turn into the Wild West (not in a good way)?

Look at the mass shootings in our recent past. All done by nut jobs who had been diagnosed at an early age as being "bat shit crazy".
It is not the gun. it is the total lack of mental health institutions in this country. we USED to lock away the criminally insane. Then came the ACLU.

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.

 

[jwoodie]

Does this mean mentally disturbed people can carry concealed guns? I am a strong proponent of the right to self defense but, without any limitations, couldn't this turn into the Wild West (not in a good way)?

Would a law against it STOP a mentally disturbed person from carrying a concealed gun?

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry for as long as I can remember...it's certainly not the wild west.

Constitutional carry - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Constitutional carry does necessarily mean concealed carry. Also, Vermont is sparsely populated with few big city crime problems.

nor does it mean that you can't.

I was merely asking if the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for everyone to carry a concealed weapon. Why the hostility?

If you live in the STATE that passes this law it does. there is still background checks, training for carrying a weapon, and such. so it's not going to be a wild west if that's what you think

So is it your understanding that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government and that States are free to restrict or prohibit firearms as they see fit?

 

[jwoodie]

Does this mean mentally disturbed people can carry concealed guns? I am a strong proponent of the right to self defense but, without any limitations, couldn't this turn into the Wild West (not in a good way)?

Hey Jwoodie : Who is mentally ill , do you know who they are ??

How about someone with diagnosed schizophrenia who is functional as long as he takes his medication?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does this mean mentally disturbed people can carry concealed guns? I am a strong proponent of the right to self defense but, without any limitations, couldn't this turn into the Wild West (not in a good way)?

Hey Jwoodie : Who is mentally ill , do you know who they are ??

How about someone with diagnosed schizophrenia who is functional as long as he takes his medication?

Again, as already noted, a Kansas resident would still be subject to the NICS background check in the context of a new firearm purchase, where any mental illness issues rendering him a prohibited person wouldn't be mitigated by the new law, and he wouldn't take possession of the new firearm.

 

[Flash]

That should be the law all over the land. Too bad Liberals have taken our Constitutional rights away from us.

 

[Missourian]

Does this mean mentally disturbed people can carry concealed guns? I am a strong proponent of the right to self defense but, without any limitations, couldn't this turn into the Wild West (not in a good way)?

Look at the mass shootings in our recent past. All done by nut jobs who had been diagnosed at an early age as being "bat shit crazy".
It is not the gun. it is the total lack of mental health institutions in this country. we USED to lock away the criminally insane. Then came the ACLU.

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.

Liberals, can't force the mentally ill to a mental health facility against their will...but champion forcing a Christian photographer or caterer to attend a gay wedding.

 

[Flash]

Bill Clinton’s failure on terrorism

The Clinton foreign policy was to get re-elected. Therefore, anything that might be controversial had to be avoided. So, from the beginning to the end of the administration, the Clintons “demanded absolute proof before acting against terrorists.” This high bar guaranteed inaction. At the beginning of his term, after the attack of Feb. 26, 1993, Mr. Clinton refused to admit that the World Trade Center had been bombed. Later, he referred to it only as “regrettable” and “treated the disaster… like a twister in Arkansas.” Earlier, he had “urged the public not to ‘overreact’ to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”


Bill Clinton s failure on terrorism - Washington Times

 

[RandallFlagg]

Does this mean mentally disturbed people can carry concealed guns? I am a strong proponent of the right to self defense but, without any limitations, couldn't this turn into the Wild West (not in a good way)?

Would a law against it STOP a mentally disturbed person from carrying a concealed gun?

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry for as long as I can remember...it's certainly not the wild west.

Constitutional carry - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Constitutional carry does necessarily mean concealed carry. Also, Vermont is sparsely populated with few big city crime problems.

nor does it mean that you can't.

I was merely asking if the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for everyone to carry a concealed weapon. Why the hostility?

And I merely answered your question. No "hostility". Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that you may not carry a concealed weapon. Nor does it say that you need the State or the Federal Government to "grant" you permission to do so. It does, however, say that "Will Not be infringed upon".

Sounds like a simple statement to me.....

 

[RandallFlagg]

Does this mean mentally disturbed people can carry concealed guns? I am a strong proponent of the right to self defense but, without any limitations, couldn't this turn into the Wild West (not in a good way)?

Look at the mass shootings in our recent past. All done by nut jobs who had been diagnosed at an early age as being "bat shit crazy".
It is not the gun. it is the total lack of mental health institutions in this country. we USED to lock away the criminally insane. Then came the ACLU.

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.

Liberals, can't force the mentally ill to a mental health facility against their will...but champion forcing a Christian photographer or caterer to attend a gay wedding.

Just goes to show you how screwed up and upside down this country has become.