Kansas to allow residents to carry concealed guns without permit

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: olaru12

Crime will nose dive, the politics will continue to dennigrate guns and LEOs will have to suck it up.

I hope that is the case. Should DUI laws also apply to Guns?

DUI laws should be repealed.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

If you recall, you put it out there as news. I guess coherence might be another experiment worth looking into. You prefer 10 or 15 paces?

One step in the right direction I say!

Been a really long experiment since 1787 and all......

originally posted by: SpongeBeard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Why do citizens need armor penetrating ammo? let me explain
Say one day a bunch of teenagers go out into the forest and put Kevlar on a bear. Now you've got invincible bears. Do you want a god damn invincible bear rampaging around, raping our churches and burning our women? No, so we need armor penetrating ammo.

HAHAHA funny enough this thing out there called body armor can not only be bought by average civilians but since it is a thing which has been invented and is out there no matter what laws are in place if it's a known thing someone will make it and sell it. Simple as that. So using the obvious logic I may encounter a bad person trying to do harmful things wearing said body armor. I would like to know I can handle this situation. However there are many types of rounds out there just like many types of cars. You don't take a Honda Civic off roading in the mountains you take a truck or some 4x4 vehicle. Just like you don't defend an apartment with ammo designed to penetrate. I have no problem that that type of ammo is available I have a problem with idiots who don't use it for it's intended purpose as with any tool.

Every time someone blames a tool I can't help but think how broken your logic is and how dumb you make yourself seem no matter your actual intelligence.

I just love that the original thought process behind this that is it time restrictive and costly to get the permit.

When people us that thought process for other things it is considered petty.

Kansas has no law requiring a background check on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer. Kansas does, however, prohibit any person from knowingly selling, giving or otherwise transferring any firearm to any person:

Wonder how this will factor into this.

Sounds like cops are gonna have a field day checking people

a reply to: Sremmos80

Again…it's not like the criminals were taking part in any of those checks and certainly weren't notifying officers of their firearms anyway. So what difference does it make other than making it easier for us (the good people) to defend from them (the bad people)?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
I just love that the original thought process behind this that is it time restrictive and costly to get the permit.

When people us that thought process for other things it is considered petty.

Kansas has no law requiring a background check on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer. Kansas does, however, prohibit any person from knowingly selling, giving or otherwise transferring any firearm to any person:

Wonder how this will factor into this.

Sounds like cops are gonna have a field day checking people

The reason (besides the constitutional right as indicated by the second amendment in the bill of rights) is that there should not be a central registry of gun ownership which is the inevitable result of permitting.

a reply to: RickyD

Ya and now they can just buy it off someone that did do the checks and carry it around no problem since you don't need a permit to carry.
This swings the door open for those bad guys to carry much easier as well.

Though, really, it shouldn't matter what you have done. Your right can't be infringed right?

Again, I just find it amusing that this all comes from it being to time restrictive and costly to obtain a license.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If you recall, you put it out there as news. I guess coherence might be another experiment worth looking into. You prefer 10 or 15 paces?

One step in the right direction I say!

Been a really long experiment since 1787 and all......

I'd say a constitutional right being upheld by a politician is pretty big news.

And yeah, with those trying to take these rights away, I'd say this is one step forward...

Are you saying upholding the constitution is one step back?

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Watch the pendulum swing the other way when some important politician's kid gets shot or collateral damage invokes a boat load of law suits.

I wonder how LEOs feel about this?

I doubt the first point..
The Cops I've known have given guns to people for protection saying they won't be there to save you.. I've seen it happen about 4 times after someone got mugged or whatever else..

What would you rather hunt on foot, a Deer or a Tiger? Which human's are the tigers?? A bit too risky for most criminals to guess I think. Human predators are just like animals.. You go for the weak ones.. But which ones are those??

I'm not someone who personally would carry a gun around in the current state of affairs, but I wouldn't mind you doing it. I don't have fears like this.. Criminals already conceal carry... So Laws evening the playing field are a GIANT plus.

And while I have 0 plans of ever being in Kansas, and disagree on most things right wing, besides spending/size of gov... Good job on you.

these are the kind of events that make me proud that some representatives are out there still doing there job the right way.

“We’re saying that if you want to do that in this state, then you don’t have to get the permission slip from the government,” Brownback said. “It is a constitutional right, and we’re removing a barrier to that right.”

Amen to that. You get a better response with a kind word and a gun, than just a kind word.

I Imagine the situation in Kenya recently would not have been nearly as devastating if citizens could just have the right to carry. I need to visit Kansas some time now to see if it has what I like to become a home. Criteria #1 has already been met.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Well not all states are Shall Issue…some places are even more ass backwards. Those are known as May Issue states and it is totally up to who ever is in charge ( usually Chief LEO ). Those places are very restrictive and most law abiding citizens still can't get one. Also as was said before the licensing and checks end up opening the door for databases which isn't a good thing. Also it seems you've danced around the question so lemme restate it.

So what difference does it make other than making it easier for us (the good people) to defend from them (the bad people)?

If they don't observe the laws already and the only ones doing so are the ones who need to defend rather than be offensive why hinder them at all? It's already easy for criminals to get guns. If you don't believe that we can be done debating the issue, but if you can accept that then lets follow that line of logic because it is the fact of the matter.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If you recall, you put it out there as news. I guess coherence might be another experiment worth looking into. You prefer 10 or 15 paces?

You are incoherent. The experiment referred to since 1787 or whatever he wrote is not the same thing as the NEWS that I just read, about Kansas changing it's law, in 2015..

I grew up hippie.. TRUE hippie not this over liberal weird fascist #... Freedom.. True hippies are libertarians. As much as republicans get on my nerves sometimes, you guys on the other side are just as bad.. Both trying to control people, both thinking they are trying for more freedom.. Just different brands of freedom. Neither will ever be as free as me.

Government stepping back.. One less law.. YES. Sign me the # up. NOW.


Think about it, Laws preventing people from doing things only affect non criminals.. Don't be afraid man. People are the real currency. Work on them. They are the predators, the prey, and the friends. This is where all the focus should be. Criminals don't come from families like mine. That's the trick. Banning guns so that only bad people have guns is not the move..

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Watch the pendulum swing the other way when some important politician's kid gets shot or collateral damage invokes a boat load of law suits. The attorneys are doing a happy dance about now....

I wonder how LEOs feel about this?

It will be so cool to watch some drunk sports fan open up on a ref. after a disputed call. Or just drunks in general in a "thin the herd fest" at a Darius Rucker concert!
Good times!!

Just playing Devils advocate...this could go either way, time will tell.

Kansas is already a open carry state. Or do you presume all these things going to happen because people are now allowed to put a coat over their gun ?

a reply to: RickyD

I don't doubt they can get the gun easy, but they will also have to hide it more since if you get seen with a gun by a LEO, chances are he/she is going to ask to see your license to carry it.

I just see an unintended consequence of people that should not be carrying concealed weapons now being able to do so even more unmolested.
But hey it is their right too, cause their right to carry should never have been infringed anyway by laws saying they can't carry cause they did x.

This makes it easier for everyone to conceal their weapon, both good and bad.
I don't see that as a win for everyone, just for those that want to carry.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: RickyD

I don't doubt they can get the gun easy, but they will also have to hide it more since if you get seen with a gun by a LEO, chances are he/she is going to ask to see your license to carry it.

I just see an unintended consequence of people that should not be carrying concealed weapons now being able to do so even more unmolested.
But hey it is their right too, cause their right to carry should never have been infringed anyway by laws saying they can't carry cause they did x.

This makes it easier for everyone to conceal their weapon, both good and bad.
I don't see that as a win for everyone, just for those that want to carry.

So, criminals who possess firearms illegally in an open carry state will not conceal because they would feel obliged to follow the law?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: RickyD

I don't doubt they can get the gun easy, but they will also have to hide it more since if you get seen with a gun by a LEO, chances are he/she is going to ask to see your license to carry it.

I just see an unintended consequence of people that should not be carrying concealed weapons now being able to do so even more unmolested.
But hey it is their right too, cause their right to carry should never have been infringed anyway by laws saying they can't carry cause they did x.

This makes it easier for everyone to conceal their weapon, both good and bad.
I don't see that as a win for everyone, just for those that want to carry.

They don't have to have a license in an open carry state. Where I live in GA, even without a license, I could open carry. Kansas is the same, so LEO seeing someone open carrying a gun doesn't really mean anything.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Watch the pendulum swing the other way when some important politician's kid gets shot or collateral damage invokes a boat load of law suits. The attorneys are doing a happy dance about now....

I wonder how LEOs feel about this?

It will be so cool to watch some drunk sports fan open up on a ref. after a disputed call. Or just drunks in general in a "thin the herd fest" at a Darius Rucker concert!
Good times!!

Just playing Devils advocate...this could go either way, time will tell.

I believe, in the hypothetical case that you suggest, that person would be considered a criminal having committed a crime.

Ha..yes...I love it when anti-gunners use a criminal act to say that carrying guns are bad....not the criminal act....

If I am going to a sports game, I know I will have some beers, I don't carry and I don't drive. Pretty simple concept for those that like to stick within the laws. Not sure how so many on the other side don't get this.

It's because they don't want to get it! People are scared of what they can't control. I love they passed this bill, I've always felt this takes the power away from the true criminals and gives it back to the law abiding citizens.

a reply to: greencmp

No they would totally.

I am not saying that criminals are going to follow the law, just that his makes it easier for them to have a gun and conceal it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

No they would totally.

I am not saying that criminals are going to follow the law, just that his makes it easier for them to have a gun and conceal it.

Criminals acquire firearms illegally and conceal them illegally. The only change in the dynamic offered by the universal potential for everybody to be armed is to discourage them.

It is an equalization in favor of law abiding citizens though, you are right that it doesn't directly influence the mode of carry by criminals.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

No they would totally.

I am not saying that criminals are going to follow the law, just that his makes it easier for them to have a gun and conceal it.

But it doesn't make it any easier. if they are going to a store to buy it they still have to have a background check.

Criminals don't do that, and they typically conceal. What this DOES change is that those who legally purchase a weapon are able to now not broadcast to everyone that they are carrying that weapon...I consider this civilized carry. I could carry open, but I choose to carry concealed because I know guns make some people uneasy and I am a pretty easy going person. I know plenty of others who have a different mindset and to each their own...they would rather it be a deterrent from what may happen and I can agree with that too.

At least the law abiding citizens have the choice now. The criminals never cared either way.