imported post
6)Subsections 1(d), 1(e), 1 (f), and 1 (g) shall not apply to any person authorized to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to the Personal and Family Protection Act, K.S.A. 75-7c01 through K.S.A. 75-7c18, and amendments thereto.” It says these sections don’t apply because your CCL laws replace this section which, when you signed up for that license you agreed to follow its laws, and the states you are using its laws. In other words, if you were to walk down the street with your gun on your hip and loaded if you own a CCL license we would not charge you with section 5.88.010 (1) e but instead violating 5.88.010 (6) for violating your CCL which says “carry concealed” and would get your license revoked as well. Your license says "carry concealed" not "carry unconcealed".
So having said that, lets look at YOUR new laws seeing that sections 1d, 1e, 1f, & 1g don't apply because you got your CCL.
http://www.ksag.org/files/shared/75-7c-01.pdf
http://www.ksag.org/files/Brochure_08-09_8839_new_file_bleed_PLATE-NEW-2.pdf
After looking through this, I’m sure you already know that NO WHERE does is say that you can carry “unconcealed”. If your defense is that “well it doesn’t say I can’t”, well it doesn’t say that you can’t murder anyone either. All it is doing is telling you what you can do, which might in conflict with sections 1d thru 1g and to use this in instead of this section.
I'm not sure what WPD officers you have talked to because I have had conversations with a WPD supervisor who does self defense and he supported what I've said. In fact, I got the "are you kidding me this is common sense" look from him.
The courts would rule on what a “reasonable person” would dictate why the law was made and it was to show that the CCL laws override the fact that we have a no carry law at all, not that you can now carry unconcealed. And in law classes they teach that this is the measure that courts use often, what a “reasonable person” would believe that why the law was made. If you ask any of the city attorneys that made the law they will tell you that the intent would be to allow people to carry concealed when their city had previously had laws prohibiting such. I actually feel silly typing that last sentence out because it seems obvious to me. If there is any doubt in the language and someone or somedefense attorneywants to press the issue due to some wording problems, the first person "might" get off (but still spend time in jail) but the second would not because the ordinance would be amended by then. So isspending a night in a Wichita jail just to get some words changed is that really worth it? Or even thefive minutes you wasted reading this silly post all together.
6)Subsections 1(d), 1(e), 1 (f), and 1 (g) shall not apply to any person authorized to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to the Personal and Family Protection Act, K.S.A. 75-7c01 through K.S.A. 75-7c18, and amendments thereto.” It says these sections don’t apply because your CCL laws replace this section which, when you signed up for that license you agreed to follow its laws, and the states you are using its laws. In other words, if you were to walk down the street with your gun on your hip and loaded if you own a CCL license we would not charge you with section 5.88.010 (1) e but instead violating 5.88.010 (6) for violating your CCL which says “carry concealed” and would get your license revoked as well. Your license says "carry concealed" not "carry unconcealed".
So having said that, lets look at YOUR new laws seeing that sections 1d, 1e, 1f, & 1g don't apply because you got your CCL.
http://www.ksag.org/files/shared/75-7c-01.pdf
http://www.ksag.org/files/Brochure_08-09_8839_new_file_bleed_PLATE-NEW-2.pdf
After looking through this, I’m sure you already know that NO WHERE does is say that you can carry “unconcealed”. If your defense is that “well it doesn’t say I can’t”, well it doesn’t say that you can’t murder anyone either. All it is doing is telling you what you can do, which might in conflict with sections 1d thru 1g and to use this in instead of this section.
I'm not sure what WPD officers you have talked to because I have had conversations with a WPD supervisor who does self defense and he supported what I've said. In fact, I got the "are you kidding me this is common sense" look from him.
The courts would rule on what a “reasonable person” would dictate why the law was made and it was to show that the CCL laws override the fact that we have a no carry law at all, not that you can now carry unconcealed. And in law classes they teach that this is the measure that courts use often, what a “reasonable person” would believe that why the law was made. If you ask any of the city attorneys that made the law they will tell you that the intent would be to allow people to carry concealed when their city had previously had laws prohibiting such. I actually feel silly typing that last sentence out because it seems obvious to me. If there is any doubt in the language and someone or somedefense attorneywants to press the issue due to some wording problems, the first person "might" get off (but still spend time in jail) but the second would not because the ordinance would be amended by then. So isspending a night in a Wichita jail just to get some words changed is that really worth it? Or even thefive minutes you wasted reading this silly post all together.
