Kansas: moving toward Vermont?

This is a discussion on Kansas: moving toward Vermont? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The current Kansas state constitution's second-amendment analogue states "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security". From http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/W...each.htm#_edn3 : "The ...

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Kansas: moving toward Vermont?

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO
    Posts
    1,790

    Kansas: moving toward Vermont?

    The current Kansas state constitution's second-amendment analogue states "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security".

    From http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/W...each.htm#_edn3 : "The Kansas approach to interpreting the Second Amendment was created in dicta from a 1905 Kansas Supreme Court decision, City of Salina v. Blaksley, interpreting the state constitution. [167] The case arose out of enforcement of an ordinance against carrying concealed weapons.[168] The government, on appeal, simply urged that the ordinance was a reasonable regulation of the right to arms, but the Kansas Supreme Court went much further, and declared that the right to arms protected the state government, not the individual citizen,[169] thereby adopting a "collective rights" theory, meaning the state was not bound to respect it."

    Kansas Senate Resolution 1611 has passed and will place a question on the 2010 state ballot for a popular vote. Kansans will vote on whether to replace the current language with "a person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose".

    Several states (including CO) have similar text, but with weaseling clauses that state, basically, "except for concealed carry". If KSR 1611 passes, Kansas could become like Vermont regarding the right to carry. Wow!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    It's sad that as much even needs to be stated never mind very specifically detailed. :|

    - The Continental Congress
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  4. #3
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis View Post
    The current Kansas state constitution's second-amendment analogue states "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security".

    From WHAT STATE CONSTITUTIONS TEACH ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT : "The Kansas approach to interpreting the Second Amendment was created in dicta from a 1905 Kansas Supreme Court decision, City of Salina v. Blaksley, interpreting the state constitution. [167] The case arose out of enforcement of an ordinance against carrying concealed weapons.[168] The government, on appeal, simply urged that the ordinance was a reasonable regulation of the right to arms, but the Kansas Supreme Court went much further, and declared that the right to arms protected the state government, not the individual citizen,[169] thereby adopting a "collective rights" theory, meaning the state was not bound to respect it."

    Kansas Senate Resolution 1611 has passed and will place a question on the 2010 state ballot for a popular vote. Kansans will vote on whether to replace the current language with "a person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose".

    Several states (including CO) have similar text, but with weaseling clauses that state, basically, "except for concealed carry". If KSR 1611 passes, Kansas could become like Vermont regarding the right to carry. Wow!
    As a Kansan, I am glad to see this moving forward. The only quibble I have is with the language, "for the defense of self, family, home and state...." I wish it included "others" between "family" and "home" to make crystal clear that the right extends to the defense of third parties, as well. However, the final bit, "other lawful purpose" probably suffices, since the KS statutes already make the use or threat of deadly force lawful in defense of others in the right circumstances.

    Nonetheless--I agree with Janq's sentiment: It's too bad that this is even necessary; our basic, God-given, human RKBA for whatever purpose is not subject to governmental approval, and we should not have to rely on such things as this to protect it.

    At least it's a step in the right direction!

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    As a current Kansan, I'm pretty happy too. Both of the legislators I talked to were in favor of it. One is a CHL holder.

    It's an unfortunate legacy for Kansas that this is the place where the "collective right" argument was first invented. Hopefully this will set the record straight.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,068
    Good luck Kansas!
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    They're adopting the "modern" wording of the 2A since weasels tried to interpret it as a "collective" rather than individual right.
    I don't see where it would turn Kansas into Vermont carry though, unless I missed something.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

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. (Important Pro-Gun Bill Moving Forward in Arizona!) AZ moving in the right direction
    By mi2az in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 9th, 2009, 01:04 AM
  2. Moving forward in Kansas
    By mech1369dlw in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 9th, 2007, 07:20 PM
  3. 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, 08:01 PM
  4. 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, 07:00 PM

Search tags for this page

defense of third parties vermont

Click on a term to search for related topics.