POLITICS - new laws in Kansas

brucew44guns · Post by **brucew44guns** » Sun May 11, 2008 2:03 pm

I got an e-mail from my son-in-law this morning, telling me something I had not heard yet. Appears our Kansas House of Reps voted 121 to 0 in favor, and the State Senate voted 30 to 2 in favor also, of passing a law that prohibits the governor or any law agency to come into an area in the wake of tornados or any disaster and start grabbing guns. Unless the gun is part of a criminal investigation, they have to leave your guns alone here in Kansas, no New Orleans allowed here. Wonderful, I hope no disasters come though, wind has been bad lately as it is.

Rexster · Post by **Rexster** » Sun May 11, 2008 2:31 pm

Texas passed such a law a seesion or two ago. The debacle in Louisiana moved people to act. That LEO who tackled that elderly woman on national TV has done more for firearms owner's right that any person in recent history.

horsesoldier03 · Post by **horsesoldier03** » Sun May 11, 2008 2:33 pm

I think they initiated that law because of what happened down in Greensburg. I have heard tell that there was some weapons confiscation going on but that everyone pretty much ended up getting their guns back. It is nice not to have that looming over our shoulder though isnt it!

Pete44ru · Post by **Pete44ru** » Sun May 11, 2008 8:21 pm

[wind has been bad lately as it is.]

Politicians are often the source of thet, Bruce.

piller · Post by **piller** » Sun May 11, 2008 8:27 pm

I am proud to see that the large majority of the Kansas Legislature is doing what their citizens want and need. Way to go. (Ok, maybe the 2 who voted against it are are doing what their constituents want)

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Sun May 11, 2008 8:28 pm

Believe it or not Arnie signed that law here in CA as well.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sun May 11, 2008 8:30 pm

Unless the gun is part of a criminal investigation...

Excellent news for the citizens of Kansas, but in defensive terms, this qualifier is a breach in the wall.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Sun May 11, 2008 9:22 pm

SC passed the same thing after NO's disasterous example. Kinda put the kibosh on the "oh, that can't happen here" mentality.

I don't have a problem with the qualifier. Yes, any qualifier invites abuse, but that is simply reality. I can't see - after the Katrina example - any LE branch having the gall to go around after a storm or other disaster and claiming the need to enter every home looking for guns used in crimes. Sounds like the qualifier just allows LEO's to continue to sieze weapons from crime scenes and those found on the persons of people in the act of breaking the law.

I know - I know, same "can't happen here" mentality. I'm just saying it is unlikely given the nationwide attention on this matter...

piller · Post by **piller** » Sun May 11, 2008 10:03 pm

Ysabel, I agree that the LEOs need to be able to continue to enforce laws during this time, and I also agree that we need protection from overzealous individuals. Compromise is never perfect, but humans aren't perfect either. I do think that laws should have some way for sense to be used so that enforcement is not to the detriment of all.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Sun May 11, 2008 10:57 pm

In a "state of emergency" I hope those will hold up. The Bill of Rights sure didn't.

I'm sure this will go a long way to ensuring people are able to defend themselves
during emergencies. Also, it will allow people a solid platform to stand on if
and when any confiscations take place.

Jaguarundi · Post by **Jaguarundi** » Sun May 11, 2008 11:08 pm

brucew44guns that is great news for Kansas residents

!

oldmax · Post by **oldmax** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:31 am

I think it is great, The more pro gun laws passed, the more difficult it
is to reverse a pro gun movement.

JimT · Post by **JimT** » Mon May 12, 2008 7:58 am

FWiedner wrote:
Unless the gun is part of a criminal investigation...
Excellent news for the citizens of Kansas, but in defensive terms, this qualifier is a breach in the wall.

I hope your smiley means you are only half serious. I know you desire to be a strict Constitutionalist, but sometimes these objections are just silly.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Mon May 12, 2008 12:06 pm

JimT wrote:
FWiedner wrote:
Unless the gun is part of a criminal investigation...
Excellent news for the citizens of Kansas, but in defensive terms, this qualifier is a breach in the wall.
I hope your smiley means you are only half serious. I know you desire to be a strict Constitutionalist, but sometimes these objections are just silly.

What do they mean by "criminal investigation"? If there was a shooting after
a tornado on the east side of town could everyone who lives in that part of
town be subject to a confiscation to determine the weapon used?

Or does the "investigation" have to, with no doubt, be pointing towards a single
firearm for it to be confiscated?

I have to admit to paranoia about how people can read into things and twist
them for their own ends. Our system is rife with such things.

kimwcook · Post by **kimwcook** » Mon May 12, 2008 12:56 pm

I know Jim doesn't need my support to speak his own mind, but +1 anyway.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:23 pm

JimT wrote:
FWiedner wrote:
Unless the gun is part of a criminal investigation...
Excellent news for the citizens of Kansas, but in defensive terms, this qualifier is a breach in the wall.
I hope your smiley means you are only half serious. I know you desire to be a strict Constitutionalist, but sometimes these objections are just silly.

I'm not so sure that's too farfetched......DV is often an excuse to bring a person in, or Child Protection, too.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Mon May 12, 2008 5:11 pm

JimT wrote:I hope your smiley means you are only half serious. I know you desire to be a strict Constitutionalist, but sometimes these objections are just silly.

I don't view rights as a toy to be handled like a yo-yo at some goverment pinhead's whim.

They aren't something to be rolled out when the government needs a bit of favorable PR, and then reeled back in when nobody is looking.

Since the government both makes and interprets the law, "Unless the gun is part of a criminal investigation" can mean anything from it may have been used in a murder, to do you own one or know anyone who does?

People should not be subjected to "rubber" law.

CowboyTutt · Post by **CowboyTutt** » Mon May 12, 2008 10:10 pm

Jim T. +2

Kansas is a very conservative state as they were until recently still arguing over creationism vs. Darwinism in the classroom!

Nothing wrong with that, and its refreshing to revisit such an important item. But I suspect they will be conservative in how they interpret this new law. JMHO.

-Tutt