Kansas Residents Get To Vote On Gun Rights Issue

[melensdad]

Well the bill still has passed both House & Senate, it brings a choice to the citizens of Kansas and will grant them the right to vote on the issue of gun rights and if they want to strengthen the 'individual' rights of citizens. Apparently the state does NOT currently grant an individual right to keep and bear arms under the current wording of the Kansas state constitution.

The voters will be allowed to vote on a wording change that will very clearly instill an individual right to the citizens of Kansas.

Kansans to vote on gun ownership amendment - Kansas City Star

Kansans to vote on gun ownership amendment
By JEANNINE KORANDA
The Wichita Eagle
. . .
“It is the law of the land today in every state. They (supporters) would like to make sure it stays that way in Kansas,” said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, an Independence Republican. Supporters of a resolution that passed the House and Senate say the move is needed in case the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun ownership.
. . .
Sen. Mike Petersen, a Wichita Republican and one of the resolution’s top supporters, said he was surprised to learn that Kansas did not protect individual gun owner rights.

“I think a lot of voters thought that they already had this right, but they don’t,” he said.
​

If the voters choose to pass the change, the wording of the Kansas Constitution would replace the phrase:

“the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security”

with the wording

“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.”

The interesting part of all of this is that this is one of the very few chances that voters, on a state wide basis, in modern times, will be voting on gun rights. Most gun right votes, be they anti-rights or pro-rights, take place inside the respective House/Senate chambers in the states, but this is going out to the people for a vote. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this, it may well set a tone, one way or the other, for the rest of the nation to follow with regards to gun rights. I would have to guess that if there is not strong support for this among the people then anti-gun politicians will be bolder in their attempts to ban/restrict weapons, but if there is strong support then quite the opposite may occur.

 

[CulpeperMM]

thanks for posting this.

 

[singlesix]

I like the wording to include defensive of State.

 

[jedi]

Good find! Keep up posted on how this turns out.
I'm sure the Brady campaign is getting some sleepless nights over this.

 

[melensdad]

I like the wording to include defensive of State.

What I don't like is the repeated "lawful use" wording in their proposed wording. For example it says that you can own your gun for a lawful recreational use or lawful hunting but it then does not protect hunting or recreational shooting sports.

Seems to me they opened a can of worms by adding in 'lawful use/purpose'

I'd rather have it read: “a person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for hunting and recreation.”

A wording like this is more open and does not limit things. Afterall once you put in wording like 'lawful use" then the liberals can simply change what is lawful and outlaw various types of recreation, hunting, etc.

 

[Bill of Rights]

What I don't like is the repeated "lawful use" wording in their proposed wording. For example it says that you can own your gun for a lawful recreational use or lawful hunting but it then does not protect hunting or recreational shooting sports.

Seems to me they opened a can of worms by adding in 'lawful use/purpose'

I'd rather have it read: “a person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for hunting and recreation.”

A wording like this is more open and does not limit things. Afterall once you put in wording like 'lawful use" then the liberals can simply change what is lawful and outlaw various types of recreation, hunting, etc.

I don't read it that way. I think it's saying that they have the RKBA for defense, the RKBA for hunting, the RKBA for recreation, and the RKBA for "other lawful purposes". To have there be no other lawful purposes does not negate the prior reasons for RKBA.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[melensdad]

We have to agree to disagree then.

The current wording says "for lawful hunting and recreational uses" but nothing will stop the anti-gunners from changing the laws on what constitutes lawful recreational uses. What if they change the law so that it is unlawful to use a gun for recreation within 1 mile of a building or structure? That would outlaw 90+% of all shooting land. There are dozens of other ways that I can see them restrict 'lawful' use.

 

[antsi]

“the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security”

This original wording seems perfectly adequate to me. Apparently they had an Idiot Court come up with some kind of "collective rights" nonsense ruling, and now they have to Idiot-proof their constitution.

Seems to me they opened a can of worms by adding in 'lawful use/purpose'

This wording should be OK, too, but I agree this is a potential Idiot Vulnerability. An Idiot Court could easily uphold a law banning all guns, by simply saying, "You have a right to keep and bear lawful arms, but since all firearms are illegal, you can't own one."

If we didn't have Idiot Courts, we wouldn't have to worry about this stuff.

 

[Bill of Rights]

We have to agree to disagree then.

The current wording says "for lawful hunting and recreational uses" but nothing will stop the anti-gunners from changing the laws on what constitutes lawful recreational uses. What if they change the law so that it is unlawful to use a gun for recreation within 1 mile of a building or structure? That would outlaw 90+% of all shooting land. There are dozens of other ways that I can see them restrict 'lawful' use.

With the current wording, I would agree with you; it's far too easy for those laws to be changed. When the Constitution specifically protects the RKBA for specific reasons, those reasons become (theoretically) untouchable. By that I mean that the phrasing “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.”
allows for changes in what hunting and recreational uses are lawful, but there is no "wiggle (or weasel) room" in the protection of the RKBA for defense of self, family, home, and state. I would worry if it said "a person has the right to keep and bear arms for the lawful defense of..."

Make no mistake; that any weasel room exists at all is too much for my tastes, personally, but as state Constitutional amendments go, the one they've written could be a hell of a lot worse. Or better.

Blessings,
Bill