Weight of attorney general’s opinion on open carry debate

kansascity.com ^ | 6 October, 2012 | Hurst Laviana

[marktwain]

The wording of the law seems clear.

“Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city or county from regulating the manner of openly carrying a loaded firearm” on public property.

Tell that to the lawyers.

From the Kansas Attorney General’s Office: “A city may not completely prohibit the open carry of a loaded firearm on one’s person.”

From the Kansas League of Municipalities: “Logically, if the city can regulate, it can prohibit. … The attorney general’s reasoning is erroneous.”

The attorney general’s opinion that was released Dec. 29 prompted city councils in Wichita and Overland Park to rewrite their firearms ordinances, and both cities now allow residents to openly carry firearms on public property.

But is the opinion legally binding? Could Wichita city officials thumb their noses at the opinion and keep their old law? The answer may depend on which lawyer you ask.

[marktwain]

So what could cities regulate, and how could they do it? Could they require a flashing led light on the holster of every open carried firearm? The legislature should simply have preempted the whole field of firearms law. That is what most states have done.

[yldstrk]

Attorney General opinions do carry weight, but like the judge said, THE COURT is not BOUND. So, the field of law is like a picket fence, there are spaces where there is no law that applies and lawyers are CONSTANTLY having to deal with the open areas. Where an issue comes up again and again, the legislature might deal with it, or not. A referral to the AG’s office for an opinion is a good way to go. At least you can show someone has dealt with the question. It has more weight than nothing.

[William Tell]

How can a city "regulate" a right without "infringing" it.

Anti-gunners are stuck with the reality that the history of gun control shows that concealed carry of firearms was often considered a devious act consistent with criminal intent.

Honest people carried their arms openly.

With the growing acceptance of "the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms", the anti-gunners have tried to turn the issue on its head and claim that honest people should carry their arms concealed. Openly carrying arms was considered the act of a person who wished to alarm the public and has been treated as disorderly conduct, an unlawful act.

We are fortunate that the anti-gunners have painted themselves into several corners, resulting in a situation in which the courts should recognize that banning open carry and banning concealed carry are both infringements of the right.