Kansas Concealed Weapons Bill

[Bono]

About time the black sopts in the heartland would start to fade away. Now we only need to take care of Nebraska.

That shouldn't be too difficult.  And why do you exclude Wisconsin? 

I forgot about it. XD

[nclib]

No (D)

[Republican Michigander]

Absolutely!!

[WalterMitty]

no (r)

[MasterJedi]

Idiot Doyle vetoed ours that would have allowed it and there wasn't enough votes to get an override.

[A18]

Yes. The right of self-defense is not restricted to one's home; it applies in public as well. Moreover, the right to conceal and carry weapons is protected by the Second Amendment.

The right to carry weapons is. The right to conceal weapons is not.

[Nym90]

I don't think that guns which have no legitimate hunting or self-defense purpose should be legal, but when it comes to reducing crime, there are far more important issues to face than gun control.

[Emsworth]

The right to carry weapons is. The right to conceal weapons is not.

It could be argued that the right to bear arms encompasses the right to bear them openly as well as secretly, as one pleases. The decisions of a few state supreme courts (e.g., Kentucky) from the early 19th century appear to confirm this view.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

This is a great step in protecting the second amendment, and also in letting the citizens protect themselves and their families.

I am glad to see that the Kansas Legislature managed to exercise the kind of leadership their Governor could not.

[Frodo]

A foregone conclusion, but still worth mentioning:

Nebraska Approves Right-to-Carry; Governor Heineman Pledges Signature

Thursday, March 30, 2006
Fairfax, VA-

Today, the Nebraska legislature gave final approval to a measure granting law-abiding Nebraska citizens the right to carry a firearm for personal protection. Legislative Bill 454 now heads to Governor Dave Heineman’s desk, where he is expected to sign it into law. Last week, legislators in Kansas overrode Governor Sebelius’ veto of the Right-to-Carry measure in that state.

"NRA has worked patiently and diligently with the state legislature for more than a decade to bring Right-to-Carry to Nebraska, and I want to thank Governor Heineman and the bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. Jeanne Combs (Milligan) for their steadfast support. Their involvement was instrumental in the passage of this pro-Second Amendment legislation for all law-abiding citizens in their great state," NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox declared.

LB 454 met with overwhelming, bi-partisan support, as Nebraska senators voted 33-12 in favor of the measure. The bill allows law-abiding Nebraskans to undergo a background check and apply for a permit to carry a concealed firearm for self-protection.

Now of all the 50 states, only Wisconsin and Illinois flatly refuse to recognize the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-protection against criminal attack.

"On behalf of all NRA members in Nebraska, I want to thank all the legislators who voted for LB 454," concluded Cox. "And as always, we appreciate the commitment and participation of our members in Nebraska for encouraging their legislators to pass Right-to-Carry."

[Speed of Sound]

A foregone conclusion, but still worth mentioning:

Nebraska Approves Right-to-Carry; Governor Heineman Pledges Signature

-_-

[AkSaber]

Hey they updated the map for Nebraska! That was kinda fast....

Good for them!!

[Speed of Sound]

No, I dont think its necessary for people to be carrying around weapons.

[MasterJedi]

That map just makes me want to get Doyle out of there even more than I already do.

[Bono]

I predict the next one to pass it will be either Wisconsin or Delaware.

[MasterJedi]

I predict the next one to pass it will be either Wisconsin or Delaware.

Only way to get it to pass in Wisconsin is to get rid of Doyle and get in Green or get more Senate seats to override his veto.

[Frodo]

Study supports concealed carry law

MADISON, Wis.

A study to be released today says concealed weapons laws in other states have not affected crime rates.

The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute found states with the same concealed carry training requirements as proposed in Wisconsin had few permit revocations or suspensions.

State legislators have twice passed concealed carry laws in the past four years. Governor Doyle has vetoed both. Doyle recent criticized Republicans for wasting time and energy passing concealed carry legislation they knew he would veto.

Study author David Dodenhoff says he found less chance of property loss or physical injury exists when a potential crime victim resists with a gun. He says criminals in states with concealed weapons laws are afraid of the possibility of confronting an armed victim.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[MODU]

A study to be released today says concealed weapons laws in other states have not affected crime rates.

----

Study author David Dodenhoff says he found less chance of property loss or physical injury exists when a potential crime victim resists with a gun. He says criminals in states with concealed weapons laws are afraid of the possibility of confronting an armed victim.

Well?  Which is it?

The right to carry weapons is. The right to conceal weapons is not.

It could be argued that the right to bear arms encompasses the right to bear them openly as well as secretly, as one pleases. The decisions of a few state supreme courts (e.g., Kentucky) from the early 19th century appear to confirm this view.

Talk about reading too much into the second amendment.  We go from allowing citizens to own guns to provide for national defense, to thinking all citizens can own guns just for fun, to thinking that citizens can carry concealed weapons?  Sheesh . . . no wonder our nation is getting so screwed up.

[Emsworth]

Talk about reading too much into the second amendment.  We go from allowing citizens to own guns to provide for national defense, to thinking all citizens can own guns just for fun, to thinking that citizens can carry concealed weapons? 

The Second Amendment does not state that citizens can only own guns for self-defense. A person may keep and bear arms for any reason whatsoever, as the plain text quite clearly states. And the manner of keeping and bearing those arms is also up to the individual, as the text implies.

[Alcon]

A study to be released today says concealed weapons laws in other states have not affected crime rates.

----

Study author David Dodenhoff says he found less chance of property loss or physical injury exists when a potential crime victim resists with a gun. He says criminals in states with concealed weapons laws are afraid of the possibility of confronting an armed victim.

Well?  Which is it?

It could balance out, overall not affecting the crime rate.

[MasterJedi]

Study supports concealed carry law

MADISON, Wis.

A study to be released today says concealed weapons laws in other states have not affected crime rates.

The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute found states with the same concealed carry training requirements as proposed in Wisconsin had few permit revocations or suspensions.

State legislators have twice passed concealed carry laws in the past four years. Governor Doyle has vetoed both. Doyle recent criticized Republicans for wasting time and energy passing concealed carry legislation they knew he would veto.

Study author David Dodenhoff says he found less chance of property loss or physical injury exists when a potential crime victim resists with a gun. He says criminals in states with concealed weapons laws are afraid of the possibility of confronting an armed victim.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

And Doyle continues to be a horrible person. He really needs to be defeated in November.

[MODU]

Talk about reading too much into the second amendment.  We go from allowing citizens to own guns to provide for national defense, to thinking all citizens can own guns just for fun, to thinking that citizens can carry concealed weapons? 

The Second Amendment does not state that citizens can only own guns for self-defense. A person may keep and bear arms for any reason whatsoever, as the plain text quite clearly states. And the manner of keeping and bearing those arms is also up to the individual, as the text implies.

I'm not going to restart the debate again, but I never said that the second amendment states citizens can only own guns for self defense.  I said that the second amendment says citizens can own guns to provide for national defense (and yes, that is all it says).  It doesn't say anything about big game hunting, clay pigeon shooting, owning 50 Ak-47s because you think they're cool, carrying a pistol in your purse to hopefully scare away a bad guy, etc... 

[Emsworth]

I'm not going to restart the debate again, but I never said that the second amendment states citizens can only own guns for self defense.  I said that the second amendment says citizens can own guns to provide for national defense (and yes, that is all it says).

The Second Amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It refers to the absolute right to keep and bear arms, not to the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of national defense.

[MODU]

The Second Amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It refers to the absolute right to keep and bear arms, not to the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of national defense.

And you're suppose to be one of the smarter ones on the forum. 

You are intentionally cutting out half of the text of the sentence, which explains why the right exists.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."   That's like me saying the eight amendment only says "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed," and freely beat the crap out of the inmate since I chose to ignore the second half of the sentence saying "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

But hey, feel free to be a revisionist on this issue.  Like I said, I'm not going to get back into that debate again.

[Emsworth]

You are intentionally cutting out half of the text of the sentence, which explains why the right exists.

Of course I am ignoring the first half of the text, because it is irrelevant to our present discussion. It is unquestionably true that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms. That it exists matters; why it exists does not (at least in the context of this debate).

The first part of the Second Amendment is, in this respect, similar to the Preamble of the Constitution: it declares a purpose, but has no substantive effect.

Thus, we have established that the people have the right to "keep and bear Arms" (whatever the reason for that right may be). Clearly, the right to "keep and bear Arms" includes the right to determine how those arms are to be kept and borne. It is each individual's right to determine how he shall bear his arms. Thus, he may decide whether to bear them openly, or whether to conceal them: the government has no power to interpose.

I will also observe that the Kentucky Court of Appeals declared in Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) that a statute against concealed carry violated the right to bear arms. If I am not mistaken, the Supreme Courts of Tennessee and Mississippi also held this to be the case during the nineteenth century (but I do not recall the cases). I think that Indiana, on the other hand, maintained the contrary doctrine (State v. Mitchell).