It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kansas to allow residents to carry concealed guns without permit

page: 11
49
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Actually in MO you aren't required to possess a ccw if you are on your property, someone else property with permission or if you are in your car.




posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Not to be rude, but I thought NOT being on my property was kind of implied... Why would I need a CCW to walk around my yard ?

As to the car issue, I believe it is unlawful to have a gun that is loaded, and within reach without a CCW. /shrug but I could confusing that with a city ordinance.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos


I was explaining how the law worked and where it applied.

City ordinance can't trump state law. Its lawful to carry a gun on your person while driving your car.

Its RSMo 571.107.1 if your interested.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That statute says it's lawful IF you have a CCW. I was stating without it, I don't believe it's lawful. That's not really here nor there I guess...



edit on 10-4-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: poncho1982

In short it lets law enforcement know a fire arm is possibly present.



It's none of their business, unless I'm causing trouble (which I do not)

It's just an excuse for Illinois State Troopers, or local law enforcement to harass me when I drive through their state.

If criminal's guns are unknown, mine should be too.
edit on 10-4-2015 by poncho1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

I didn't say it was their business.. just telling you the rationale behind it. State ccws are not valid in all other states unless a compact is present. Even for law enforcement there are certain restrictions. Until congresses passes a federal law that applies to all states you are subject to the laws of the state you are traveling thru and by federal peaceable travel laws.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It looks like the 2013 law changed the requirement for a vehicle. Prior to 2013 it was not required for your vehicle.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

It's complete. 2 clear lanes both ways now.


Yes, it is, but did you notice the large amount of stone and whatnot removed from underground in a field, where nothing rests now, save a small building about large enough for an elevator, with a very large pipe for underground air ventilation? Or the bridge that does not align at all with the airport, and aligns with an area with virtually nothing there on the other side? They did a lot of work off the road, in areas where there is seemingly nothing, for a long time.

Besides, it was to lanes, both ways, before the work started as well. The drastic changes to the highway merge near Ogden seem very unneeded, as do the various exits for roads that didn't really have a traffic problem before. Traveled that road quite a lot well before the work began, and that includes in busy hours. The differences in traffic flow are minimal at best. A lot of work, for a LOT of money, and very little visible result save some ramps that weren't needed, and that odd little building.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
This is completely insane.

Whomever passed this law wouldn't be considered sane enough to carry a license themselves in almost any other state.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

No it isn't.

People open carry here all the time.

What makes it different? Someone throws a coat over it and we have to freak out now?



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

If anything it makes things safer…my reasoning is when people don't see them openly they don't think about them and don't get all up in arms (see what I did there
). I think at least here in the US it's safer just to assume everyone is armed and act accordingly. That's the exact sentiment people like Thomas Jefferson meant when he said things like "An armed society is a polite society.". My reasoning says people would let a lot more go and target people for harm a whole lot less when the price is that steep. Will there still be evil and or mentally unstable people…sure. With the myriad of laws already out there that can't stop that fundamental problem already I think it's safe to say it will always be around. No laws can stop this fundamental problem better that we all just make ourselves equal and go from there.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I'm not against concealed carry or even open carry (although I'll admit that seeing anyone openly carrying a gun in public makes me nervous). What I don't get is why shouldn't those carrying these weapons be required to pass some sort of a safety and marksmanship course to do so? The 2nd amendment guarantees rights to gun owners, but those rights need to be balenced with the rights if those people that come into contact with said gun owner while they are carrying.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
i wish Chris Christie would follow kansas's lead a reply to: Vasa Croe



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mavra81

Where is it written or stated that one has the right to be free of citizens who carry arms? You make it out as if people who carry...even more so people who openly carry are gonna fly off the handle at any moment. Now I know I haven't been around for too terribly long but in my 29 years I have encountered quite a few people openly carrying and not once has any of them ever even so much as touched it. Sure the sight at first got my attention...but after a few seconds each time it faded and I carried on doing my thing. I mean statistically you probably have better odds of getting hit by a car...or abused by a cop. I just don't understand all the fear. 9 of 10 times that guy would save your life should it come to a crime being committed nearby.

The thing is most of you will go through your lives and never see a gun fired at a human ever. Sure it seems like they're big news all day all the time but remember if 50 incidents happen in a country of 310 million...hell even 1,000 events per day the chances of ever being one of them is akin to a lottery win odds wise.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

Please tell me where I said that I wanted to be free of citizens carrying arms? Or where I said that those that carry guns are ready to fly off the handle at any moment? Yes, an openly carried gun in the grocery store would make me nervous (not terrified, just nervous), but then again an openly carried machete would make me feel the same way, and I own and have used a machete.

I have family, friends, and co-workers who frequently conceal carry. I live in Indiana, which is a fairly gun friendly state. If I was terrified of anyone who could be carrying a gun, I'd never go out. What I said was that I want citizens carrying arms to have to prove that they can operate said arms safely and accurately. We also are all endowed with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and uneducated and unsafe gun handling out in pubic threatens those rights.
edit on 14-4-2015 by mavra81 because: editing



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: mavra81
I'm not against concealed carry or even open carry (although I'll admit that seeing anyone openly carrying a gun in public makes me nervous). What I don't get is why shouldn't those carrying these weapons be required to pass some sort of a safety and marksmanship course to do so? The 2nd amendment guarantees rights to gun owners, but those rights need to be balenced with the rights if those people that come into contact with said gun owner while they are carrying.


Reread what you said and think about what it would mean if implemented...




The 2nd amendment guarantees rights to gun owners, but those rights need to be balenced with the rights if those people that come into contact with said gun owner while they are carrying.


See what I'm getting at...what right does anyone have to be free from armed citizens anywhere except private property. Private property who's owner has decided they don't want guns there.


Just want to add...I'm not against safety and if you look at my post history I always advocate gun safety and knowledge, but when it comes to balancing rights its black and white to me. I either have the right or I don't. Anything less is a slippery slope to losing more and more pieces of the right till all of a sudden we are having these discussions and there are many interests trying to take that right from us.
edit on 14-4-2015 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I do get what you are saying about slippery slopes.

However, why do gun rights have to be an absolute? For example, if my religion is down with polygamy I cannot practice my faith with absolute freedom if it involves marrying a man with two other wives. If freedom of religion isn't a black or white deal, why must the right to bear arms be?

I'm really not asking for freedom from armed citizens. I'm asking that said armed citizens be required to learn how to properly handle the weapon and be able to shoot straight, in order to increase the chances that those around them don't have their right to keep breathing infringed upon.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mavra81

I believe in the wording of the constitution and I believe that if you would like to practice a religion that allows you to marry 2 women and they're down good for you. That's your right. I think we have gone way to far down the road of telling people what's good for them and what's not. Too far down the path of you must conform to what we feel is OK. This country was supposed to be one where as long as you didn't hurt others or their property do as you please. I truly believe that should be the focus. The hill is slippery I'd rather stand up top then slide down.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson


isnt kansas a failed state already?

Yep.

We residents are hurting. (And it's not about 'gun laws' - it's about governance and ridiculous theocratic autocracy.)

edit on 4/20/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join