Kansas Does It Again... - Page 2

Kansas Does It Again...

This is a discussion on Kansas Does It Again... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; This one contained some very good changes. Hoooray ! It also made renewals more amenable....

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53

Thread: Kansas Does It Again...

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,874
    This one contained some very good changes. Hoooray ! It also made renewals more amenable.


  2. #17
    Member Array xd9mmsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    37
    This is good news!!! I'll be waiting for the fees to drop to apply for my permit! I know it's just a few bucks, but for now it's a big difference for me. I'm more excited about the new law changes and requirements for signage. Not to mention the lesser offense for accidently going past one!

  3. #18
    New Member Array wjjeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7
    So will non resident permits be recognized?

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,108
    Good for Kansas. Wish more states would follow suit...

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksthumper View Post
    Major revisions of the Kansas CHL law of note to non-residents are:

    1) changing the reciprocity language from "equal" to "reasonably similar" means that Kansas will recognize more CCW Permits/Licenses from other States,

    2) there is one and only one 'Approved' gun buster sign which must be conspicuously posted at the entry into a building.



    With the exception of Federal property, ONLY buildings [not parking lots, parking garages, public parks or sports playing fields] may be posted and CCW is allowed in any building or place of business IS NOT posted.
    Got it....No Berettas allowed....It's a good thing I carry a SIG I guess revolvers are ok also?
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    Got it....No Berettas allowed....It's a good thing I carry a SIG I guess revolvers are ok also?
    We have a

    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array sigmanluke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,209
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    Got it....No Berettas allowed....It's a good thing I carry a SIG I guess revolvers are ok also?
    That was my thought as well.

    Way to go Kansas! Let's keep the good changes coming in many more states.
    Last edited by sigmanluke; May 18th, 2010 at 11:08 AM. Reason: spelling
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array joker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by doctruptwn View Post
    Signed by Govenor TODAY. Will go into effect when published in the Kansas Register, About 1-2 weeks.

    NRA Life Member


    With great power comes great responsibility.-Stan Lee

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array joker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    Got it....No Berettas allowed....It's a good thing I carry a SIG I guess revolvers are ok also?
    I see several no revolver signs around town, now they will be double non compliant. I will be interested to see if these places ever get the correct sign, hopefully not.
    NRA Life Member


    With great power comes great responsibility.-Stan Lee

  10. #25
    Member Array sammage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    186
    Great changes to the law...when a place is improperly posted, I figure it's either a) ignorance of the law (ignorance in general for posting) or b) they know it's doesn't hold water, but want to calm the sheep.

  11. #26
    Distinguished Member Array BlueNinjaGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,226
    Quote Originally Posted by doctruptwn View Post
    Signed by Govenor TODAY. Will go into effect when published in the Kansas Register, About 1-2 weeks.
    Congrats! Good to see some states going in the right direction.

  12. #27
    GM
    GM is offline
    VIP Member Array GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,866
    A lot of things at the same time! Congrats Kansas!
    "The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"

  13. #28
    Member Array Skippys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksthumper View Post
    With the exception of Federal property, ONLY buildings [not parking lots, parking garages, public parks or sports playing fields] may be posted and CCW is allowed in any building or place of business IS NOT posted.
    I thought it was illegal in Kansas to carry in a church, temple, Synagogue, or any other place of worship, whether posted or not.

    Correct or not?

  14. #29
    Member Array subcool20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Skippys View Post
    I thought it was illegal in Kansas to carry in a church, temple, Synagogue, or any other place of worship, whether posted or not.

    Correct or not?
    Incorrect. The only places in Kansas you are not allowed to carry are places clearly marked by the "Rob Me" sign.
    Even federal buildings have to be marked.
    If a church decides they don't want guns they still have to comply with state regs and post the sign. The only correct sign is the one posted earlier in this thread.
    Most churches that I've seen don't have em but there are a few.

    Oh, and those signs are becoming fewer and fewer. A lot of places I have seen with this sign have even started removing them.
    There was a flood of em when Kansas first passed the law, out of panic and ignorance I think. But once people started realizing this wasn't going to be old west Dodge City all over again the public calmed down.

  15. #30
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by subcool20 View Post
    Even federal buildings have to be marked.
    You might want to dbl ck that.

    As earlier posted:

    See:38 CFR 1.218 - Security and law enforcement at VA facilities. - Code of Federal Regulations - Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief - vLex

    38 CFR 1.218 1.218 (13)


    Quote:
    (13) Weapons and explosives. No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.

    *********************************
    My take:

    Remember is that 18 USC 930 is just one general statute governing federal facilities.

    Nearly all the various agency regulations are far more stringent than the statutory Section 930 (regulations generally applying beyond statutorily defined facilities to land of the agency, etc). These "regulations" may not be statutes, however that can have criminal penalties.

    So just like VCDL and others (mostly State or local based RKBA organizations, at first) took on NPS Reg. 2.4 and eventually got it repealed, all these other little agency regulations remain valid until repealed by Congress or the agency itself.

    Statutorily, generally a Federal "facility" is a building, etc., not including the real estate surrounding it. However, this issue is not settled in the eyes of the government. The recent post office conviction (for a postal regulation violation, not the false title 18 signs they tend to post) for firearm in the "secured" parking lot, as well as the Wolf Trap Filene center/lawn seating determination shows that the feds intends to fight RKBA every step of the way, IMHO.

    I believe that the VA regulation (and most other agency Regs) is/are overreaching. However, I suspect that a court will support the government in any challenge to it. IMHO, the USPS regulation has a much better chance of falling due to the vague wording, misleading signs and the like.

    By that, I mean that an effort to topple the USPS regulation seem to me to be more likely to secede in -- as we're just seeking to conduct our "official" business with the PO while exercising our rights as citizens.

    OTOH, the VA properties will carry with it a major anti-gun press imprinted stigma "<insert derogatory hoplophobic term here> of us wanting to pack heat at funerals" and other inflammatory language that they tried while opposing the NPS repeal.

    One of the down sides to addressing this issue at this time is that Heller only addressed the keep arms issue, w/ nothing on bearing arms, yet . So, we don't have any hard and fast way to know how a court will rule on the issue of bearing arms -- i.e., carry. There are some cases in the lower courts, which might give us a better footing to address infringement of bearing arms, before long.
    and

    Good writeup from Buckeye Firearms Association

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conce...rude-awakening


    Quote:
    This confusion mostly centers around the wording on the signs posted at the post office. The signs quote two sections of federal regulation - 18 USC 930 and 39 CFR 232.1.

    Looking at 18 USC 930, it would appear, at first blush, that carrying firearms is prohibited. That section provides:

    930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

    Release date: 2004-08-06

    a. Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

    So part of the confusion is rooted in the wording of this section. The prohibition applies to "Federal facilit(ies)" except as provide for in subsection (d). Subsection (d) provides:

    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to-

    (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    Many people have seized upon (d)(3) with the argument that they have a CHL, so their carrying of a firearm is an "other lawful purpose" and therefore they are exempt from the sign. This is problematic for several reasons. First, 39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:

    410. Application of other laws

    Release date: 2003-06-24

    (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.

    (b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:

    (1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;

    (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;

    Thus it would appear, by operation of 39 USC 410, that 18 USC 930, a law that deals generally with Federal property, does not apply to the Powers of the Postal Service. Rather, the only provisions of 18 USC that would apply are those specific to the post office e.g. Theft of Mail, Robbing Post Offices, Stealing Postal Money Orders etc. Further evidence of the proposition that 18 USC 930 does not apply to post offices is in the numbering of the aforementioned 39 CFR 232.1. As we will later examine, 39 CFR 232.1 clearly prohibits carrying firearms. CFR sections typically draw their numbering from the underlying laws that they are promulgated under, although there are numerous exceptions. The numbering of 39 CFR would be further evidence that 39 USC controls the situation, and not 18 USC.

    The second problem with relying on 18 USC 930(d)(3) is that this section in no way EMPOWERS anyone to carry a gun; rather, that section simply states that 18 USC 930 does not apply to someone is lawfully carrying a gun incident to some lawful purpose. In Ohio's law, there is a big difference between something NOT BEING PROHIBITED and something BEING SPECIFICALLY LICENSED. Just because a statute says that certain conduct is not prohibited by that particular statute does not automatically equate into authority to engage in the conduct.

    This is an important distinction, because the other part of the post office sign cites 39 CFR 232.1, which clearly does prohibit guns in post offices. In pertinent part, it states:

    (l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
    The argument advanced against 39 CFR 232.1 is that a regulation cannot conflict with a statute, and indeed, a later portion, 39 CFR 232.1(p), states "Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit a CHL from carrying at the post office? It does not appear that this would be the case.

    First, as we previously examined, 18 USC 930 does not apply to a post office. Second, as we previously examined, even if 18 USC 930 DID apply to post offices, remember that 18 USC 930(d) merely states that the lawful carrying of a firearm is not prohibited by 18 USC 930(a), not that the lawful carrying of a firearm is allowed. This being the case, what is 39 CFR 232.1 in conflict with? I think it is difficult to argue it is in conflict with anything.

    This being the case, at a minimum, we have a situation where there is a valid RULE prohibiting the carrying of firearms, and properly posted signs evidencing this fact. That being the case, an Ohio CHL is prohibited from carrying at the post office by Ohio's criminal trespass. If an expansive reading is given to 39 CFR 232.1 and it is considered a FEDERAL LAW, and/or there is a federal law that makes it a crime to violate a provision of the CFR, then carrying at a post office would be prohibited by 2923.126(B)(10), meaning that the Ohio CHL would be committing a felony by carrying at the post office.

    I do not want to be right about the answer to this question, because I personally see no problem with a CHL carrying in a post office. However, I think some of the information/discussion going on in forums has the potential to expose the Ohio CHL to a rude awakening.
    BTW -- many PO around here do not have signs -- however see 39 CFR 232.1 which clearly prohibits carrying firearms and does not require them to be posted to be enforced.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Hello from Kansas
    By ryanmac45 in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: April 17th, 2009, 09:10 PM
  2. Greetings from Kansas.
    By ks glocker in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: April 20th, 2008, 09:58 AM
  3. Hi from Kansas
    By ICTsnub in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: June 17th, 2007, 08:24 PM
  4. Kansas House Overrode Veto Today! Kansas Now CC! (Merged Threads)
    By rwmorrisonjr in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 09:01 PM
  5. Kansas House Overrode Veto Today! Kansas Now CC! (Merged Threads)
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 08:00 PM

Search tags for this page

buster sign

,
chl laws in kansas
,

gun buster sign

,
gunbuster sign
,
kansas ccw laws
,
kansas ccw renewal
,
kansas chl
,
kansas chl law
,

kansas chl laws

,
kansas chl rules
,
legal kansas gun buster signs
,
not parking
Click on a term to search for related topics.