Posted on 01/07/2004 6:18:05 PM PST by Mulder
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' opposition to a bill allowing Kansans to carry concealed handguns may not matter, according to a northeast Kansas legislator who is pushing for the law.
Rep. Candy Ruff, a Democrat from Leavenworth, said she hoped the legislation would win by such large margins in the Legislature that it would survive a veto by Sebelius. Overturning a veto would require two-thirds votes in the House and Senate.
"My whole take on this is to work to make it veto-proof in order not to involve the governor," Ruff said.
Kansas is one of only a handful of states that doesn't allow its residents to carry concealed guns. Proposals to allow concealed carry were vetoed in 1997 by then-Gov. Bill Graves, and died in the Senate in 1999.
But this is the year for passage, Ruff said.
"It's ridiculous that we don't have this," she said. "Its time has come regardless of who the governor is. A strong majority of Kansas citizens are interested."
Sebelius, a Democrat, has said she would support a bill limited to allowing retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed guns because "they have the special training and the street smarts to deal with it."
But she said she opposed a broader bill because law enforcement officials have told her that it would not reduce crime, and major employers, such as Hallmark Cards, "feel it is a dangerous proposition."
Ruff dismissed Sebelius' comments, saying the record was clear from other states that concealed-carry laws have not jeopardized safety in the workplace.
Ruff, who is married to a Leavenworth police officer, said most law enforcement officials supported allowing law-abiding citizens to have concealed weapons.
She said safeguards would be built into the bill that would require Kansans to receive training and undergo background checks before they could be eligible for a gunholders' permit.
Ruff said she had no desire to carry a weapon and was not a member of the NRA. She said her support was based on what she said was the constitutional right to carry a gun and protect oneself.
The bill hasn't been drafted yet, Ruff said, but it would be similar to one proposed in 1999. Under that measure, people eligible to receive a concealed-carry permit would have to be 21 or older, complete a safety and training course and have no history of mental illness or substance abuse in the previous five years. In addition, applicants could not have any felony convictions or be under a court restraining order.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Arizona | 285.00 |
8 |
35.62 |
346 |
0.82 |
95.00 |
9 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
More and more democrats are realizing that opposing CCW is a good way to lose an election.
It will mean that only two states will still be in the red and without a CCW law. Nebraska and Illinois.
Nebraska Lawmakers To Face Many Criminal Justice Issues
Responding to another crime-related question, 25 lawmakers said they support allowing Nebraskans to carry concealed weapons, while four were leaning that way.
Nine were against the idea and two were leaning that way.
Nine senators did not answer the question.
A bill (LB265) legalizing the carrying of concealed weapons cleared the first round of debate last session. Senators began second-round debate on the measure but did not vote on the bill.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Gene Tyson of Norfolk, said he is hopeful it will pass in the new session. Gov. Mike Johanns has said he will sign the bill into law if it clears all three rounds of debate.
There's a move afoot to pass CHL/CCW in Nebraska as well. Main opposition in the state's Unicameral legislature is one Senator Ernie Chambers. He's an old line "barricades" type liberal. A professional black as well. By trade he's a barber, IIRC. He's been in the Unicameral since I was in college . . . in the 1960s. He surely can't hold on much longer. I guess he'd rather the law abiding amoung his Omaha consitutients continue to be defenseless against the gang bangers and petty thugs that infest that city.
It's even harder to understand given that the the language of the state consititutional provision was changed, by vote of the people, in 1986. What was added was "for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes,".
I don't live in Nebraska (not since 1977), so I don't understand the problem either. I did a little checking and found only one state Supreme Court case addressing the issue since the changes were made. The Court basically ignored the changes. However it was "bad case" as the defendent was not a "nice person", but rather a penny ante criminal. AFAIK, the laws, including the requirement to have a FOID to purchase a handgun, which was passed about the same time (can't recall if before or after) the constitutional amendment, have otherwise not been tested at the State Supreme Court level.
With that constitutional provision, Nebraskan's shouldn't *need* a CHL to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise.
As I said, I don't live there, but my parents, brother and in-laws do. I did get stopped for speeding once in the mid to late 1980s on the way from my in-laws farm to their house in town. I had enough guns in the trunk to start a revolution in a small central Amercian country, because we'd had a family picnic and shoot that afternoon and I had everybody's guns) But the subject never came up with the county mountie. (Who my father in law said is a known Cylmer :) )
Similar language was recently added to Wisconsin's constitution IIRC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.