One of Kansas's new gun related laws...... HB 2052

One of Kansas's new gun related laws...... HB 2052

This is a discussion on One of Kansas's new gun related laws...... HB 2052 within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This all takes effect July 1. Below is a press release by one of the Representatives who were key in drafting and pushing this legislation.... ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: One of Kansas's new gun related laws...... HB 2052

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,846

    One of Kansas's new gun related laws...... HB 2052

    This all takes effect July 1. Below is a press release by one of the Representatives who were key in drafting and pushing this legislation.... with some of the key elements of the law. It does several things, which includes making it legal to carry in any public building unless they have "adequate security measures" in place to prevent "anyone" from entering who might have a gun (including bad guys) ..... security, metal detectors, limited / protected entrances, etc. . It also makes it legal for public employee who have cc licenses to carry at work. It makes carrying past a "posted" building .... no longer a crime of any kind, not even a misdemeanor, unless they have metal detectors, etc. Someone can only 'ask ' you to leave. This applies to businesses as well. The 'list' of prohibited places to carry, is gone. Kansas (in another bill) will also start recognizing the CC licenses of all states. This DOES include all Universities and schools, and even if security measures in schools are installed --- to allow employees of the school to carry. And ... NO EMPLOYER may have a "POLICY" which would punish any CC licensed employee from having a gun in their car in the employer's parking lot(s).

    This is the one of the ones that Obama and Biden are so "upset" about Kansas passing .....


    Senator Forrest Knox
    Kansas Senate, District 14

    IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information:
    June 20, 2013 Senator Knox:

    Concealed Carry of Handguns in Public Buildings

    Senator Forrest Knox (R-Altoona) and many other members of the Kansas legislature have worked for several years to address security in public buildings. These efforts have culminated with the passage of Senate Substitute for HB 2052, which becomes law on July 1, 2013. Currently much discussion and action is being taken across the state by municipalities with regard to security in their buildings. Please find below clarification of the intent and content of the new law.

    Following passage of concealed carry in Kansas many buildings were posted prohibiting concealed carry even though no security was provided. Some municipalities across the state have recently discovered that this was done arbitrarily and without proper authority. Authorities are taking steps to decide which buildings require security and which do not. They are taking the signs down in buildings that they determine do not require the necessary investment in security measures. These authorities are allowing law abiding, licensed citizens to provide for their own protection where security is not in place.

    The recent prevalence of mass shootings in public places, many of which have been posted “no concealed carry” and are often referred to as “gun free zones,” has shown such places to be attractive sites for criminals. Elected officials are realizing that there are liability concerns in posting unsecured buildings.

    The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting is an example of such an event. A jury found the school liable in a civil law suit and awarded family members of victims large cash settlements. In this case the judge instructed the jury that a special relationship did exist between university officials and the victims, and that the relationship required officials to provide for their safety and security. The jury found that Virginia Tech's actions contributed to the deaths of the students.

    In hearings conducted over the last few years in the capitol, as more categories of people are being allowed to carry concealed handguns into public buildings, chief judges requested that authorities be allowed to restrict the weapons that enter court facilities when “adequate security measures” are taken. This became the impetus for the present legislation. Publicly owned buildings should only restrict licensed concealed carry when “adequate security measures” are present.

    “In America our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed and we must not allow this to be denied any place that we have a right to be,” stated Senator Knox. “The only exception to this is in the rare instances when special security is provided to the general public as a whole. Elected officials and Kansas citizens are figuring out, a sign is not adequate security.”


    Senator Knox also clarified several points regarding HB 2052:

    1) This legislation is not a knee-jerk reaction to recent events but rather the product of many years of work which has encompassed many public hearings with passionate testimony on both sides. This is the product of the legislative process at its best.

    2) This legislation passed both houses of the legislature in a strong, 80% favorable, bipartisan show of support and reflects the profound support of the citizens of Kansas for the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    3) The heart of this legislation is that in publicly owned buildings, in which the public has a right and often the necessity to be, law abiding citizens shall not be denied the right to provide for their own security unless security for the general public is provided.

    4) Publicly owned buildings that do not have open access to the public, having only controlled access entrances, are not specifically covered by this legislation. Buildings which are given blanket exemptions in this law are such buildings, that are intrinsically not open to the public at large or could be such. Specifically exempted are public primary and secondary schools as well as the Kansas school for the deaf and for the blind.

    5) Municipalities are allowed a limited exemption for six months in order for security plans to be developed. Thereafter, one four year exemption is allowed. To obtain this exemption they must:
    a) Adopt a resolution or draft a letter listing the buildings being exempted and listing the reasons for the exemption.
    b) This statement must include the following sentence: ‘‘A security plan has been developed for the building being exempted which supplies adequate security to the occupants of the building and merits the prohibition of the carrying of a concealed handgun as authorized by the personal and family protection act.’’
    c) A copy of the security plan must be maintained on file and must be made available to the Attorney General and local law enforcement.
    d) Notice of the exemption must be sent to the Attorney General and local law enforcement.

    6) Certain publicly owned institutions can receive one limited four year exemption simply by notifying the Attorney General and stating the reasons for the exemption. These institutions include a state or municipal owned:
    a) medical care facility.
    b) adult care home.
    c) community mental health center.
    d) indigent health care clinic.
    e) postsecondary educational institution.

    7) After this four year period, beyond December 31, 2017, no further exemption is allowed and any posted building will require “adequate security measures” to prohibit licensed concealed carry.

    8) In exempting such buildings, liability issues should be a concern of those in authority and such issues are specifically included in this legislation.
    a) Where “adequate security measures” are provided and a sign is posted prohibiting concealed carry liability protections are given.
    b) Where security is not provided and concealed carry is allowed the same liability protections are given.
    c) These protections are provided for both public and private buildings, but private buildings are specifically deemed protected from any increase in liability due to this legislation. Public buildings receive no such protection from increased liability due to this legislation.
    d) Exempted buildings receive none of these liability protections.

    9) Related liability insurance issues are arising as the company that insures most school districts and community colleges in the state, and many of the municipalities, is apparently objecting to this legislation. However, as there is no statistical basis for increased liability in allowing concealed carry where no security now exists, several entities in the state have found alternate insurers who will provide the same service while allowing concealed carry and are charging less for the service. It is apparently time to end this insurance monopoly and let free markets work.

    10) In keeping with this legislation, chief judges of judicial districts are given specific authority to limit the presence of weapons in their courtrooms and ancillary courtrooms, provided that security “such as armed law enforcement” is in place. However, judges across the state are trying to require that the entire building which houses their court facilities be posted and to require security. This is in direct contrast to the legislation and to their current practice in many rural areas. In the past some county commissioners have complied with such requests of chief judges and others have not. In many rural areas only the judicial areas of the buildings have been made restricted access or provided security measures. On the occasions when security is needed for the general public entering a courtroom, an officer with a wand is adequate. The public areas of such buildings must have “adequate security measures” in order to prohibit licensed concealed carry in those areas.

    11) In similar fashion corrections and jail facilities as well as law enforcement agencies are not impeded from prohibiting weapons from entering the secure areas of their buildings. However, they cannot prohibit licensed concealed carry in the public areas unless “adequate security measures” are provided.

    12) Licensed employees in buildings which lack ‘adequate security measures” cannot be denied the right to carry concealed handguns.

    13) Any licensed person who has authority to enter a restricted access entrance in buildings which provide ‘adequate security measures” is not in violation of the law when carrying a concealed handgun within the building.

    14) Certain publicly owned institutions are given authority to allow licensed employees to carry within their buildings even if the buildings are posted. These institutions, which may set their own policy requirements for allowing employees to carry, include a state or municipal owned:
    a) unified school district.
    b) medical care facility.
    c) adult care home.
    d) community mental health center.
    e) indigent health care clinic.
    f) postsecondary educational institution.

    15) Several changes have been made which affect the capitol building and capitol complex.
    a) Any person may carry a firearm on the grounds of the state capitol.
    b) It is not unlawful for anyone licensed to carry a concealed handgun within these buildings, including the governor’s residence and grounds.
    c) Concealed carry will be allowed within the state capitol after July 1, 2014 unless specific action is taken by the Legislative Coordinating Council prior to that date and it is determined that “adequate security measures” exist in the capitol.

    16) There is no longer a list of buildings in which concealed carry is prohibited.

    17) There is no longer a criminal penalty for a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun that carries in a posted building. He may only be denied access or removed from such premises.

    18) Implied in this legislation is that the weapons themselves are not evil but rather it is the actions of criminals that are evil. We can trust the citizens of Kansas and should not limit their freedoms based on the illegal actions of a few. The knife legislation passed this year is a clear example of this.

    19) Local control starts with our citizens, by protecting their constitutionally guaranteed individual liberties. Kansas citizens who, by the way obey the signs, are not a threat to our security. We should not tread on their rights while at the same time taking no steps to prevent criminals from bringing illegal weapons into public buildings. Good Kansans with guns make all of Kansas safer.

    20) What does the future hold? The citizens of Kansas are in strong support of their individual right to keep and bear arms, as about 90% voted to make this very clear in the Kansas Constitution. Legislatively, look for support of state’s rights over federal overreach. Look for support for measures aiding the security of a free State. Look for less infringement on the constitutional rights of Kansans - a move toward constitutional carry. Look for tighter and tighter adherence to the 2nd Amendment, which elected officials are sworn to support,
    “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.”


    Forrest Knox
    Kansas Senate, 14th District
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array searcher 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    4,169
    One very good set of laws go Kansas!!!!!!!

    It concerns me when I am not allow to legally carry for my own protection in places here in Texas that post a 30.06 sign, yet provide no security at all other than maybe cameras to know who did what after the event happened.

    Texas needs copy this set of laws!!!!!!!
    NOT LIVING IN FEAR, JUST READY!!!
    I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness,
    nor the arrow for its swiftness,
    nor the warrior for his glory.
    I love only that which they defend.
    -J.R.R. Tolkien

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,398
    A nice step in the right direction.

    One problem, though: the adequacy of security measures. Who's to judge such adequacy? Some committee, no doubt. And what constitutes sufficient protection of a given person if/when a violent felon jumps off the rails and the person fails to have any effective means of withstanding such attack? (In a nation where SCOTUS acknowledges police/sheriffs have no specific duty or responsibility to do that, for an individual.) All the pretty language about adequacy then becomes most pointedly inadequate, but at that point it's too darned late. Seems to me if they're actually acknowledging the potential threat of unarmed citizens in the places they go, they would drop the pretenses and be done with it.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,846
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    A nice step in the right direction.

    One problem, though: the adequacy of security measures. Who's to judge such adequacy? Some committee, no doubt. And what constitutes sufficient protection of a given person if/when a violent felon jumps off the rails and the person fails to have any effective means of withstanding such attack? (In a nation where SCOTUS acknowledges police/sheriffs have no specific duty or responsibility to do that, for an individual.) All the pretty language about adequacy then becomes most pointedly inadequate, but at that point it's too darned late. Seems to me if they're actually acknowledging the potential threat of unarmed citizens in the places they go, they would drop the pretenses and be done with it.
    No .. it's all spelled out in the bill ... what "adequate security measures" are . It's metal detectors at all doors that are not locked & secured, hand scanning equipment is only supplemental to the walk-thru metal detection, security personnel (manned) at each location to check each person, etc. They have to have limited "access" entrances to the building, with security measures at each door.

    this also applies to all college campuses, schools, etc. as well as "businesses".

    they can ask for a 4 yr exemption in order to implement "security measures" , but they have to show they have a "detailed" plan and plan of implementation, and in the meantime..... if a CC licensed person carries past their signs, it is not against the law for them to do so. And in the meantime, they are not exempted from any liability.

    The part making it "legal " for public employees to carry if they have a cc license at work, is the one that really got some of the attention of the cities. Ironically, most Counties are saying .. OK, and unposting the buildings. It's the larger cities only who are making a big deal of employees, etc. carrying. They can pass a "policy' prohibiting it .... however, they then "assume ALL liability for their safety".

    there is no longer... a "prohibited list" of places you can't carry.

    Prisons, jails, and courtrooms (to the most part) , already are quite covered in terms of 'security measures' ... LOL. However, they still have to have them.....
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array Jaeger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO "The Most Dangerous City in America"
    Posts
    2,437
    What's the matter with Kansas?...nuthin'...expletive withheld.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    No .. it's all spelled out in the bill ... what "adequate security measures" are . It's metal detectors at all doors that are not locked & secured, hand scanning equipment is only supplemental to the walk-thru metal detection, security personnel at each location to check each person, etc. They have to have limited "access" entrances to the building, with security measures at each door.
    Quote Originally Posted by From the summary of the bill's provisions
    10) In keeping with this legislation, chief judges of judicial districts are given specific authority to limit the presence of weapons in their courtrooms and ancillary courtrooms, provided that security “such as armed law enforcement” is in place.
    As to adequacy, this doesn't demand security personnel be sufficient in either quantity or that they specifically be armed. All that #10 (above) says is that judges/courts are authorized to limit carry by citizens so long as security "such as" armed LE is in place. Doesn't require that. And it says nothing about armed LE being required anywhere else, as an adequate measure. If today's implementations of so-called "security" are any guide, unarmed guards are all too likely to be the norm. Or, does this bill specifically require armed LE or armed/trained guards if any guards are to be part of the security "solution" for a facility?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member
    Array oldnfat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,489
    I agree with searcher 45. Texas needs to copy the new Kansas gun laws. Wow! Way to go Kansans!
    I shoot with a pistol and a Canon. We must all hang together amigos, or we will all hang separately. NRA life member.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,846
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    As to adequacy, this doesn't demand security personnel be sufficient in either quantity or that they specifically be armed. All that #10 (above) says is that judges/courts are authorized to limit carry by citizens so long as security "such as" armed LE is in place. Doesn't require that. And it says nothing about armed LE being required anywhere else, as an adequate measure. If today's implementations of so-called "security" are any guide, unarmed guards are all too likely to be the norm. Or, does this bill specifically require armed LE or armed/trained guards if any guards are to be part of the security "solution" for a facility?
    Here is the bill, if you want to read it and study it : http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b201...52_03_0000.pdf

    Judges are giving a lot of latitude, because there are some very small towns where it would be absurd to require them to have to buy walk-thru metal detectors, etc..... so they gave Judges more latitude when it comes to courtrooms that some times are nothing more than a couple of rooms and an office in the County seat building. Some "judges" do NOT restrict nor prevent conceal carry in their courtrooms (although probably the minority). So, it gives them some latitude in those cases they do want to prevent conceal carry to use officers, etc and wands to check all people entering that area of the building, but it still has to be restricted access entry way. To larger counties, etc... it will require walk-thru metal detectors, etc. at all entrances.... And yes... those that man them are armed.....

    Some folks argued the "whole building " should be restricted and exempted from this if there was a courtroom in the building, the Legislature said NO .... only that portion of the building that contains the courtroom, and still requires security measures. If they want the 'whole building' to exclude conceal carry, they have to put 'adequate security measures ' in for the whole building, as defined by the bill.

    the "adequate security" ... also applies to "businesses", etc. If a business only puts up a sign, it really no longer will have any meaning... as it will NOT be illegal for any CC license holder to carry past the sign if there are not metal detectors, security personnel, etc. at the entrances. The "most" a business can do is , if they became aware you are armed and don't like it, is ask you to leave.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Yes it does, in the bill. You want to argue it, argue with someone else.....

    bottom line; you are putting into it things ... to try to stretch something into being something it's not. Maybe you just like to argue.
    Excuse me, but let's keep on track. I'm simply questioning the contents of that bill from the bill summary you posted. Nothing more. It says what it says.

    Now that you've provided a link to the bill, further digging can easily be done. Will do. Point was, though, the summary clearly pointed out only "armed" LE within the purvue of judges to dictate, but that no requirement for armed LE was apparent in that summary. That's all. Was just pointing out what clearly was a lack and potential hole, from this perspective.

    EDIT: In reviewing the actual bill text (from that PDF link), it also does not specify armed guards as part of any security measure that involves guards, other than that "judges" reference from the summary (which is the same reference in the text). So. Apparently, according to the bill's actual text, no armed guards are required as an adequate measure, which clearly seems to me to allow unarmed (even potentially fat, slow, untrained) "security" guards to be considered "adequate." (No reveling in arguing, here. Am simply pointing out the weakness of adequacies as judged from a pen from afar [ie, a legislator's comfy office], which is often quite different for the citizens on the ground who are weakly protected by the measures at a given facility.)
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,846
    With all of the States passing anti-gun bills... I'm not going to complain about Kansas.... passing numerous "pro-gun" bills. Someone can nitpick all of the bills if they want, but I'ld work on New York, California, Illiniois, Conn, and several others first.

    In Kansas , we still use "common sense" to the most part, if you are going to stop someone with a gun... you better bring one along with you and be capable of using it. I have not seen any "secure areas" anywhere, that the "security personnel" weren't 'armed'. We don't need a law to tell us to do that. LMAO.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,085
    Kansas, I'm impressed...
    pittypat21 likes this.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    This all takes effect July 1. Below is a press release by one of the Representatives who were key in drafting and pushing this legislation.... with some of the key elements of the law. (DELETED LOTS OF TEXT)

    This is the one of the ones that Obama and Biden are so "upset" about Kansas passing .....


    [I]Senator Forrest Knox
    Kansas Senate, District 14

    IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information:
    June 20, 2013 Senator Knox:

    Concealed Carry of Handguns in Public Buildings

    (Deleted some thing--see post 1)

    Senator Knox also clarified several points regarding HB 2052:

    1) This legislation is not a knee-jerk reaction to recent events but rather the product of many years of work which has encompassed many public hearings with passionate testimony on both sides. This is the product of the legislative process at its best.

    2) This legislation passed both houses of the legislature in a strong, 80% favorable, bipartisan show of support and reflects the profound support of the citizens of Kansas for the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    3) The heart of this legislation is that in publicly owned buildings, in which the public has a right and often the necessity to be, law abiding citizens shall not be denied the right to provide for their own security unless security for the general public is provided.

    4) Publicly owned buildings that do not have open access to the public, having only controlled access entrances, are not specifically covered by this legislation. Buildings which are given blanket exemptions in this law are such buildings, that are intrinsically not open to the public at large or could be such. Specifically exempted are public primary and secondary schools as well as the Kansas school for the deaf and for the blind.

    5) Municipalities are allowed a limited exemption for six months in order for security plans to be developed. Thereafter, one four year exemption is allowed. To obtain this exemption they must:
    a) Adopt a resolution or draft a letter listing the buildings being exempted and listing the reasons for the exemption.
    b) This statement must include the following sentence: ‘‘A security plan has been developed for the building being exempted which supplies adequate security to the occupants of the building and merits the prohibition of the carrying of a concealed handgun as authorized by the personal and family protection act.’’
    c) A copy of the security plan must be maintained on file and must be made available to the Attorney General and local law enforcement.
    d) Notice of the exemption must be sent to the Attorney General and local law enforcement.

    6) Certain publicly owned institutions can receive one limited four year exemption simply by notifying the Attorney General and stating the reasons for the exemption. These institutions include a state or municipal owned:
    a) medical care facility.
    b) adult care home.
    c) community mental health center.
    d) indigent health care clinic.
    e) postsecondary educational institution.

    7) After this four year period, beyond December 31, 2017, no further exemption is allowed and any posted building will require “adequate security measures” to prohibit licensed concealed carry.

    8) In exempting such buildings, liability issues should be a concern of those in authority and such issues are specifically included in this legislation.
    a) Where “adequate security measures” are provided and a sign is posted prohibiting concealed carry liability protections are given.
    b) Where security is not provided and concealed carry is allowed the same liability protections are given.
    c) These protections are provided for both public and private buildings, but private buildings are specifically deemed protected from any increase in liability due to this legislation. Public buildings receive no such protection from increased liability due to this legislation.
    d) Exempted buildings receive none of these liability protections.

    9) Related liability insurance issues are arising as the company that insures most school districts and community colleges in the state, and many of the municipalities, is apparently objecting to this legislation. However, as there is no statistical basis for increased liability in allowing concealed carry where no security now exists, several entities in the state have found alternate insurers who will provide the same service while allowing concealed carry and are charging less for the service. It is apparently time to end this insurance monopoly and let free markets work.

    10) In keeping with this legislation, chief judges of judicial districts are given specific authority to limit the presence of weapons in their courtrooms and ancillary courtrooms, provided that security “such as armed law enforcement” is in place. However, judges across the state are trying to require that the entire building which houses their court facilities be posted and to require security. This is in direct contrast to the legislation and to their current practice in many rural areas. In the past some county commissioners have complied with such requests of chief judges and others have not. In many rural areas only the judicial areas of the buildings have been made restricted access or provided security measures. On the occasions when security is needed for the general public entering a courtroom, an officer with a wand is adequate. The public areas of such buildings must have “adequate security measures” in order to prohibit licensed concealed carry in those areas.

    11) In similar fashion corrections and jail facilities as well as law enforcement agencies are not impeded from prohibiting weapons from entering the secure areas of their buildings. However, they cannot prohibit licensed concealed carry in the public areas unless “adequate security measures” are provided.

    12) Licensed employees in buildings which lack ‘adequate security measures” cannot be denied the right to carry concealed handguns.

    13) Any licensed person who has authority to enter a restricted access entrance in buildings which provide ‘adequate security measures” is not in violation of the law when carrying a concealed handgun within the building.

    14) Certain publicly owned institutions are given authority to allow licensed employees to carry within their buildings even if the buildings are posted. These institutions, which may set their own policy requirements for allowing employees to carry, include a state or municipal owned:
    a) unified school district.
    b) medical care facility.
    c) adult care home.
    d) community mental health center.
    e) indigent health care clinic.
    f) postsecondary educational institution.

    15) Several changes have been made which affect the capitol building and capitol complex.
    a) Any person may carry a firearm on the grounds of the state capitol.
    b) It is not unlawful for anyone licensed to carry a concealed handgun within these buildings, including the governor’s residence and grounds.
    c) Concealed carry will be allowed within the state capitol after July 1, 2014 unless specific action is taken by the Legislative Coordinating Council prior to that date and it is determined that “adequate security measures” exist in the capitol.

    16) There is no longer a list of buildings in which concealed carry is prohibited.

    17) There is no longer a criminal penalty for a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun that carries in a posted building. He may only be denied access or removed from such premises.

    18) Implied in this legislation is that the weapons themselves are not evil but rather it is the actions of criminals that are evil. We can trust the citizens of Kansas and should not limit their freedoms based on the illegal actions of a few. The knife legislation passed this year is a clear example of this.

    19) Local control starts with our citizens, by protecting their constitutionally guaranteed individual liberties. Kansas citizens who, by the way obey the signs, are not a threat to our security. We should not tread on their rights while at the same time taking no steps to prevent criminals from bringing illegal weapons into public buildings. Good Kansans with guns make all of Kansas safer.

    None of the enumerated thing above would be objectionable to any Federal authority. Your comment in bold
    concerning things Kansas has done which have upset the Administration involve a different set of legislation or legislative
    provisions which improperly (and unconstitutionally) attempt to criminalize the lawful acts of Federal Agents doing their
    jobs. Please don't mix the apples and oranges and mislead. I'm quite sure The administration couldn't care
    less what Kansas does with respect to places where license holders may carry-- which is what the above enumerated items
    are about.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array pittypat21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    None of the enumerated thing above would be objectionable to any Federal authority. Your comment in bold
    concerning things Kansas has done which have upset the Administration involve a different set of legislation or legislative
    provisions which improperly (and unconstitutionally) attempt to criminalize the lawful acts of Federal Agents doing their
    jobs. Please don't mix the apples and oranges and mislead. I'm quite sure The administration couldn't care
    less what Kansas does with respect to places where license holders may carry-- which is what the above enumerated items
    are about.
    Actually, the administration probably does care - since they're so concerned with removing peoples rights, any pro-gun legislation bothers them, I'm sure.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
    -General James Mattis, USMC

  14. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,721
    Quote Originally Posted by pittypat21 View Post
    Actually, the administration probably does care - since they're so concerned with removing peoples rights, any pro-gun legislation bothers them, I'm sure.
    What Eagleks put up in post 1 seems like solid sensible legislation. It is not however anything
    that needed the gratuitous political jab I put into bold. That was my only point in posting, to object to
    the partisan swipe.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #15
    Member Array KimBobTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    461
    A slap in the face while displaying the universal "you're number one" gesture to the regime. WTG KS !!!!!! It's refreshing to see a state with some stones for a change!
    Asked by a CNN reporter "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist"?, the Marine sniper simply shrugged & replied "recoil".

    Now more than ever, we are at war on our home soil ... WAKE UP & arm our troops when they are on home soil!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

hb 2052

,

hb 2052 kansas

,

hb 2052 kansas concealed carry

,
kansas concealed carry law hb 2052 private building
,
kansas firearms agency hb 2052
,

kansas gun laws july 1

,

kansas hb 2052

,

kansas hb 2052 concealed carry law

,

kansas house bill 2052

,

kansas self defense gun laws

,

kansas senate bill 2052

,

new kansas gun legislation

Click on a term to search for related topics.