Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Topeka - Ban Open Carry Firearms - Round 2

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    June 8th, 2010 City manager Norton Bonaparte will be submitting an ordinance for first reading to ban the open carry of firearms in Topeka.



    June 15th, 2010 the city council will vote on the ordinance that comes from the first reading.


    Below is the proposed ordinance:



    (Published in the Topeka Metro News _______________________________________)




    ORDINANCE NO. _____________



    AN ORDINANCE introduced by City Manager Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., creating City of Topeka Code § 9.40.005 concerning the unlawful carrying of a firearm.



    BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS:



    Section 1. That The Code of the City of Topeka, Kansas, is hereby amended by adding a section to be numbered 9.40.005, which said section reads as follows:

    Unlawful Carrying.[/b]

    (a) It shall be unlawful for any person on property open to the public, except those persons exempted under K.S.A. 21-4201(b), as amended, or licensed under TMC 5.90.050, as amended, to do the following:

    (1) Openly carry on their person a loaded firearm.

    (2) Have within their immediate control within the city limits any loaded firearm or semi-automatic firearm with the magazine loaded, detached or attached, unless concealed and carried by a person authorized to do so by K.S.A. 75-7c01 through 75-7c17, as amended.

    (b) It shall be unlawful for any person, except those persons exempted under K.S.A. 21-4201(b), as amended, or security personnel authorized by the city manager, to carry any firearm in municipal court, city hall or any building owned or operated by the city.

    (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from carrying a loaded firearm on the person’s land, in the person’s abode or in the person’s fixed place of business.

    Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage, approval and publication in the official City newspaper.

    Section 3. All ordinances, resolutions or rules, or portions thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby rescinded or repealed.

    Section 4. Should any section, clause or phrase of this ordinance be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid.

    PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council __________________________.



    CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS







    __________________________________

    William W. Bunten, Mayor

    ATTEST:







    ____________________________

    Brenda Younger, City Clerk



  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Your Mayor is a pansy.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel,

    I could be wrong but I think our Mayor is very pro 2nd Amendment. When he was in the legislature he voted for concealed carry and every pro 2nd Amendment bill. I have to make my judgment on his record.

    The city just put his name on the ordincace in case it passes.

    The ordinance is being pushed by City Manager Norton Bonaparte and Chief of Police Ron Miller.

    We will vigorously fight this ordinance.

    Thank you for being an open carry advocate.

    Marine0300

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Then your city manager and police chiefare pansies. Fortget the 2A... it's not yet been incorporated against the states. What's your state Constitution say?



    4. Bear arms; armies. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.


    A bit out of touch with reality... but the first part is clear. Do your politicians and police swear to support and defend the state constitution? They're not doing it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Then your city manager and police chiefare pansies. Fortget the 2A... it's not yet been incorporated against the states. What's your state Constitution say?



    4. Bear arms; armies. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.


    A bit out of touch with reality... but the first part is clear. Do your politicians and police swear to support and defend the state constitution? They're not doing it.
    How could they possibly pass this law it is clearly un-Constitutional?
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Um, “clearly un-Constitutional” – sure – but only for people that have lots and lots of MONEY to hire lawyer$ to fight these laws in the courts to win = normal people do NOT have the time or the money to fight un-constitutional laws or unmerited court rulings.



    I will give you an example of how “money and laws go hand and hand in this city” that was just learned in Topeka:



    Fred Phelps compound/church was spray painted by vandals a few weeks back, – Topeka city law says you the property owner has to clean it up/remove the graffiti promptly or be fined – when people asked why Fred’s compound was not removing the vandals work – and why they were NOT being fined – the city said “they have the right to leave it there, if we fine them they will sue us and win, something about right to expression because they wanted to leave the vandalized property to make the neighborhood look bad”, the city admitted that they KNEW this law violated our rights but they still fined home owners for YEARS for not cleaning up vandalized property promptly. Laws only apply to the poor and middle class that do not want to go bankrupt by forking out everything they ever owned to attorneys so they just bite the bullet and go on – but the rich and lawyers that have the money to fight them always win, they just always win. Rest assured if Fred Phelps church wanted to protest with AK-47’s on their shoulders this law would be challenged all the way to the hill and back, and the city would loose every time, and they would not even try to pass anything.



    Travis T

    Topeka, Kansas

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    If you live in Topeka or Shawnee County please email all the council members and mayor not to ban open carry.

    We can win this fight we need emails from local citizens!

    July 15th, 2010 at 6pmis the vote.

    City Council:

    http://www.topeka.org/cityofficials/

    Mayor

    http://www.topeka.org/mayor/

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Open Carry on Public Property is Legal in Kansas, as the State does not regulateOpen Carry. The State only regulates Concealed Carry on this issue, as is codified under 21-4201(4). Law Enforcement should be aware Open Carry is Legal, however; you should too be aware that under KSA 12-16 124, Local Governments and Counties may regulate Open Carry of LoadedFirearms on ones Person, or Carry inAir/Land/Water Vehicle, KSA12-16-124(2) and 12-16 124(4), and the same Law alsoworks at prohibiting carry intoa/ny: Jail, Juvenile Detention Facility, Prison, Courthouse, Courtroom or City Hall- KSA 12-16 124(3). With the exception of KSA 12-16-124(3), being in the possesion of a Permit from Kansas, or one which Kansas reconizes, is an affirmative defense to any prosecution under KSA 12-16 124(2) or KSA 12-16 124(4).


    Under KSA 12-16 124(2) and 12-16 124(4), Topeka would be Preempted on Loaded Open Carry by those Persons who are holders of Valid Family and Personal Prtection Act Permits to Carry Firearms, issued by Kansas..., under KSA 75-7c03.

    However, Topeka may regulate Open Carry, without exception for those Persons listed above, on the following properties..., as they pertain to Open Carry: 1. Jail, 2. Juvenile Detention Center, 3. Prison, 4. Courthouse, 5. Courtroom, or 6. City Hall. The City of Topeka does not have to regulate this activity, but they may well do so under Kansas Law. Unfortunately, Permit Holders are not exempt from these regulations.

    Concealed Carry Laws throughout Kansas, although Uniform in nature under KSA 75-7c 17, but these Laws allow some Local Restrictions. As a General Rule of Thumb... most States, but not all States, regulate Concealed Carry far more strictly than Open Carry, espicially where Open Carry is treated as a Right, which it is, is far more acceptable than Concealed Carry, less one has a Permit to do so.

    KSA 75-7c 17 allows Concealed Carry to be curtailed under 75-7c 11(a)(1) through 75-7c 11(a)(2). KSA 75-7c 11(a)(1) has to do with Private Property Rights, less your Personal Motor Vehicle. 75-7c 11(a)(2) is the Kansas Statutory Off-Limits Areas, for Concealed Carry only, per KSA 75-7c 10(1) through 75-7c 10(22). All of these areas areOff-Limitson Concealed Carry, regardless if one has a Permit, however; they may not be Off-Limits to Open Carry though.

    So... Topeka can say, 'NO OPEN CARRY.'

    If youhave a Permit (Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act Permit KSA 75-7c),then, you can laugh at them.

    Topeka can get mad and say..., 'NO CARRY IN THE FOLLOWING PLACES: (SEE THE ABOVE UNDERLINED PLACES).

    Even if they do this though, everywhere else in Topeka is okay to Open Carry.

    If it is Public Property, and not one of those underlinded places, then it is okay to Open Carry there, and you can not Legally be arrested for it, or made to leave.

    If it is Private Property, KSA 75-7c 11(a)(2) and KSA 21-3721(1)(A) govern, and like most any other State, you MUST leave if you are told from the Rightful Owner or Occupant.

    Example: Topeka says, 'NO OPEN CARRY AT TOPEKA LIBRARY.'

    You can say, 'I have a Permit (KSA 75-7c)..., I am Legal [Open Carry].

    Remember though, under KSA 75-7c 11(19), Concealed Carry in the SAME Library is Off-Limits, though.

    I am not an Attorney, but my advice is although Open Carry is Legal in every area except those underlined above, Concealed Carry is MUCH MORE STRICT. Everyone who lives in Kansas, and hasThe Permit (75-7c)needs to read 75-7c (10).

    Open Carry is Off-Limits in Kansas at the following Areas, per Law:

    1. Schools, Schools means: K-12, under KSA 21-4204(5) and KSA 21-4204(6), and

    2. MAJOR STATE BUILDINGS, i.e. State Capitol, State Supreme Court, Governor Mansion, Landon State Building, Docken State Building, any other etc. MAJOR State Building, per KSA 21-4218.

    Either Violation of these Laws is a Kansas Class A Misdemeanor, and it does not matter if you have a Permit (75-7c) or not.

    Everywhere else, less the underlinded places (if enacted Locally), are Open Carry friendly, especially if one has a Permit.

    Generally, although Kansas Law is a little confusing, Kansas is a Open Carry State.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Topeka's Ordinance proposed Ordinance is partially Preempted under KSA 12-16, 124 as:

    Chapter 12.--CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
    Article 16.--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
    Firearms and ammunition; regulation by city or county, limitations. (a) No city or county shall adopt any ordinance, resolution or regulation, and no agent of any city or county shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, transfer, ownership, storage or transporting of firearms or ammunition, or any component or combination thereof. Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (a) of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 75-7c11, and amendments thereto, any such ordinance, resolution or regulation adopted prior to the effective date of this 2007 act shall be null and void.
    (b) Nothing in this section shall:
    (1) Prohibit a law enforcement officer, as defined in K.S.A. 22-2202, and amendments thereto, from acting within the scope of such officer's duties;
    (2) prohibit a city or county from regulating the manner of openly carrying a loaded firearm on one's person; or in the immediate control of a person, not licensed under the personal and family protection act while on property open to the public (hence, if you are Licensed, then, you are good to go);
    (3) prohibit a city or county from regulating in any manner the carrying of any firearm in any jail, juvenile detention facility, prison, courthouse, courtroom or city hall (does not matter if you have a Permit or not); or
    (4) prohibit a city or county from adopting an ordinance, resolution or regulation requiring a firearm transported in any air, land or water vehicle to be unloaded and encased in a container which completely encloses the firearm or any less restrictive provision governing the transporting of firearms, provided such ordinance, resolution or regulation shall not apply to persons licensed under the personal and family protection act (hence, if you are Licensed, then, you are good to go).
    (c) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and subsection (a) of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 75-7c11, and amendments thereto, no person shall be prosecuted or convicted of a violation of any ordinance, resolution or regulation of a city or county which regulates the storage or transportation of a firearm if such person (1) is storing or transporting the firearm without violating any provision of the Kansas criminal code or (2) is otherwise transporting the firearm in a lawful manner.
    (d) No person shall be prosecuted under any ordinance, resolution or regulation for transporting a firearm in any air, land or water vehicle if the firearm is unloaded and encased in a container which completely encloses the firearm.
    History: L. 2005, ch. 141, § 10; L. 2007, ch. 166, § 1; May 3.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Below was submitted by the City of Topeka:

    Topeka Open Carry of Firearms Ordinance Proposal
    The City of Topeka city council is considering a proposed ordinance to again
    ban the open carrying of loaded firearms, both handguns and long guns, in public
    places. The proposed ordinance would not impact carrying firearms on your own
    property, in your home or where you work. Concealed Carry Permit holders would
    also be exempted.
    The primary reason behind the proposal is to return the law to the same status it
    had before an ordinance passed in 2007 unintentionally repealed the long standing
    ban on open carry of guns. (See legislative history below). This mistake has only
    recently been discovered in the last few months. Topeka is virtually alone among large
    Kansas cities (>100,000 population) to allow people to openly carry in public shotguns,
    rifles or handguns.
    In densely populated, urban locations, there is little legitimate need to be
    walking down the street or into stores carrying a shotgun, rifle or other firearm. Even
    assuming good intentions, such as self protection, the dangers from accidental
    discharges, over penetration and missed shots make the current state of the law a
    concern for public safety. And unlike concealed carry permit holders, open carry
    requires no training, no education, no background check, and no restrictions on
    consuming alcohol.
    And not everyone has good intentions. While many responsible citizens could
    handle the responsibility of openly carrying a loaded firearm, the police deal every day
    and night with the gruesome injuries and deaths caused by others with inflamed
    passions, short tempers and substance impaired judgments. Permitting the open carry
    of loaded firearms potentially increases the risk of injury.
    Finally, regardless of the ultimate decision, it is believed that the City of
    Topeka’s policy on the open carry of loaded firearms is an important enough issue that
    it should be the result of informed debate and an intentional decision, not the
    accidental result of an oversight.
    Below is a short legislative history, explanation of the proposed ordinance,
    concerns, frequently asked questions and the actual draft of the ordinance.
    I. Legislative History
    a. Topeka has had an ordinance banning the open carry of loaded weapons
    since at least 1981. On February 20, 2007, Topeka City Code 54-101,
    which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public places, was repealed in
    its entirety per Ordinance No. 18821 and the City adopted the 2006
    Uniform Public Offense Code (“UPOC”) which adapts state statutes, for
    municipal codes. The state statute dealing with unlawful use of weapons,
    K.S.A. 21-4201, is U.P.O.C. 10.1.
    b. However, the state statute and UPOC provision are designed to apply
    throughout the state, including hunting fields, so there is no prohibition
    against carrying loaded firearms. A review of the files of the City of
    Topeka and after discussing this with persons involved in this adoption
    reveals this was an oversight, not an intentional choice by the council.
    c. K.S.A. 12-16,124 was passed in 2006 to restrict cities and counties
    authority to regulate firearms in conjunction with the concealed carry law.
    It was amended in 2007, but both original and modified versions
    contained exceptions to the local restrictions specifically authorizing cities
    to regulate the open carry of loaded firearms on property open to the
    public and any firearm in city courtrooms, city hall and other buildings.
    II. Explanation of Proposed Ordinance – attached.
    a. The proposed ordinance would basically reinstate TCC 54-101, but
    following the exceptions authorized in K.S.A. 12-16,124.
    b. The ordinance would not apply to a person on his or her land, in his or
    her home or at his or her fixed place of employment.
    c. Concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement personnel and
    designated security would be exempted from the ordinance for firearms
    in their immediate possession.
    d. The ordinance would prohibit:
    i. The open carrying of loaded firearms on property open to the
    public, except concealed carry permit holders; and
    ii. Prohibit anyone other than law enforcement and guards, form
    carrying any firearms into city buildings.
    III. Concerns:
    a. Open carry of loaded firearms can lead to escalation of use of force and
    result in serious injury.
    b. Currently, there is confusion and conflicting laws regarding guns.
    i. Under U.P.O.C. 10.1(5) it is illegal to transport a loaded firearm in a
    motor vehicle but legal to carry that same gun in your hands,
    loaded, on the streets and in businesses Topeka.
    ii. While it is illegal for a licensed, trained concealed carry permit
    holder, who has passed a background check, to enter a bar or
    other business that is properly posted, it is currently legal for any
    person, trained or untrained, exercising good judgment or poor
    judgment, to enter that same business with a loaded firearm.
    c. Possible interference with public business. With the repeal of TCC 54-
    101, there is no law against a person carrying a loaded firearm to a city
    council hearing, a code or other hearing in front of a board or commission.
    i. As such, security has no lawful authority to prevent a person from
    entering public buildings and attending public meetings so armed.
    ii. The free and open discussion of ideas may be impaired in the
    presence of openly carried firearms at public forums.
    d. Increased civil liability of the city.
    i. If officers of the government prevent a person from doing a legal
    act, such action could subject the city to civil suit and liability. So if
    security guards try to prevent a person carrying a firearm into a
    public building, the city could be sued. Further, it puts the guards in
    a potentially dangerous situation to remove the firearm.
    ii. A police officer can stop a person only if they have reasonable
    suspicion that the person has or is committing a crime, what is
    generally known as a Terry stop. Stopping someone without
    reasonable suspicion is a violation of the 4th amendment to the
    constitution, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and
    seizures. As such, if a citizen looks outside their home and sees
    one or more people with guns, they would rightly be concerned
    and would likely call the police.
    1. Any show of authority or official stopping of the group with
    guns could subject the officers and the city to a federal
    lawsuit under 42 USC 1983.
    2. But failure to stop someone, who might be on their way to
    commit a crime is unacceptable.
    IV. Frequently Asked Questions.
    Q. Is the proposal constitutional?
    A. The rights of citizens to bear arms is constitutionally protected,
    however even Constitutional rights are almost never absolute. The right to
    bear arms has limits. The United States Supreme Court has recently
    stated "[L]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose." U.S. Supreme Court, District of
    Columbia v Heller, 2008. Numerous restrictions on possessing and
    carrying firearms have been upheld. And more to the point, no court has
    ruled that banning the open carry of loaded weapons in a public, urban
    setting violates the constitution. So yes, a restriction on a right to openly
    carry a firearm is constitutional.
    Q. Isn’t there another case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court on local
    control of firearms, so should we wait and see what that ruling is?
    A. McDonald v. Chicago, is a challenge to a handgun ban in Chicago
    and was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, 2010. The
    key issue in McDonald is whether the second amendment to the United
    States Constitution applies to the states, and its political entities such as
    cities. However, even if the Court decides that the second amendment
    does apply to the states, the only result of the case would be that the
    Chicago outright ban on handguns will likely be overturned. Other local
    laws, that merely restrict guns, are not in issue and so will not be resolved
    by this decision.
    Q. Will this ordinance apply to paintball, pellet and bb guns?
    A. No, the ordinance applies to “firearms” which are defined by both
    state and city law as operating by combustion or explosion – not
    compressed air. However, it should be noted that discharging airguns is
    already severely restricted by existing city code.
    Q. If I am an employee of a business, could I carry a loaded weapon, or just
    the owner?
    A. If the owner of the business approves, then an employee can carry
    a loaded firearm under the proposed ordinance, concealed or openly.
    Q. Will this ordinance control concealed carry permit holders or possessing a
    loaded gun at home?
    A. No.
    Q. Has there been incidents involving open carry?
    A. There have been no criminal charges filed since this mistake was
    discovered last fall. There have been several incidents where persons
    openly carrying firearms on the street were questioned by police but only
    one resulted in an arrest and conviction for illegal transportation.
    However, as shown by past incidents, up to and including 9/11, it is better
    to be proactive and prevent problems than to wait for them to occur.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KC Metro, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    Topeka's Ordinance proposed Ordinance is partially Preempted under KSA 12-16, 124 as:

    Chapter 12.--CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
    Article 16.--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
    Firearms and ammunition; regulation by city or county, limitations. (a) No city or county shall adopt any ordinance, resolution or regulation, and no agent of any city or county shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, transfer, ownership, storage or transporting of firearms or ammunition, or any component or combination thereof. Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (a) of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 75-7c11, and amendments thereto, any such ordinance, resolution or regulation adopted prior to the effective date of this 2007 act shall be null and void.
    (b) Nothing in this section shall:
    (1) Prohibit a law enforcement officer, as defined in K.S.A. 22-2202, and amendments thereto, from acting within the scope of such officer's duties;
    (2) prohibit a city or county from regulating the manner of openly carrying a loaded firearm on one's person; or in the immediate control of a person, not licensed under the personal and family protection act while on property open to the public (hence, if you are Licensed, then, you are good to go);
    (3) prohibit a city or county from regulating in any manner the carrying of any firearm in any jail, juvenile detention facility, prison, courthouse, courtroom or city hall (does not matter if you have a Permit or not); or
    (4) prohibit a city or county from adopting an ordinance, resolution or regulation requiring a firearm transported in any air, land or water vehicle to be unloaded and encased in a container which completely encloses the firearm or any less restrictive provision governing the transporting of firearms, provided such ordinance, resolution or regulation shall not apply to persons licensed under the personal and family protection act (hence, if you are Licensed, then, you are good to go).
    (c) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and subsection (a) of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 75-7c11, and amendments thereto, no person shall be prosecuted or convicted of a violation of any ordinance, resolution or regulation of a city or county which regulates the storage or transportation of a firearm if such person (1) is storing or transporting the firearm without violating any provision of the Kansas criminal code or (2) is otherwise transporting the firearm in a lawful manner.
    (d) No person shall be prosecuted under any ordinance, resolution or regulation for transporting a firearm in any air, land or water vehicle if the firearm is unloaded and encased in a container which completely encloses the firearm.
    History: L. 2005, ch. 141, § 10; L. 2007, ch. 166, § 1; May 3.
    While I've seen folks in the Kansas threads interpretsection (b)(2) of the above lawin the manner described above, it seems to me that the consensus on this site is that the semi-colon breaks thatsentence into two thoughts and thatthe exemption for a person with aconcealed permit onlypertains to the second half of the sentence and not the first. The most convincing thread I've seen on the topic is linked below; among other statements it includes a response from the Assistant Attorney General stating that the concealed permit doesNOT allow people to openly carry in cities with an open carry ban,except when thepermit holder is inhis/her vehicle. Link: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...mp;forum_id=24

    I don't think that (b)(2) is worded (and punctuated) clearly at all, especially whenone considers that (b)(4) is there to cover the inside vehicle issue. However, it seems that there is enough gray area with this issue to get someone in trouble unless they assume that the local bans that are in place in many locations are enforceable.

    If there is Kansas case law or something else that favors the interpretationof (b)(2)to meanthat there ispre-emption of local open carry bans for permit holders (other than when in a vehicle), please share it so that we can take that information into consideration.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    marine0300 wrote:
    The ordinance is being pushed by City Manager Norton Bonaparte and Chief of Police Ron Miller.
    Neither of these two are elected officials.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    In Topeka the city manager runs the city government. (chief administrator) He can submit any ordinance he wants. On that note so can each council member.



    Pray for Topeka On Tuesday evening. We will show up and fight this horrible gun ban.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    marine0300 wrote:
    In Topeka the city manager runs the city government. (chief administrator) He can submit any ordinance he wants. On that note so can each council member.



    Pray for Topeka On Tuesday evening. We will show up and fight this horrible gun ban.
    Good luck to all. Wish I could be there.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    The Semicolon may break the clause into two seperate parts, however; it does not negate the exemption for either part.

    The Semicolon used in the aboveinstance, has been insereted for Grammatical reasons.

    This is similiar to my first sentence in this post. For Grammatical reasons..., the Semicolon used above Grammatically divides and Complex Sentence into two parts. The correct Grammatical usage of the symbol, is, as above: ..., (negation word);...

    In much the same way, the Kansas Legislature didmuch the same.

    The exception, thus, applies equally for both clauses, not merely one or the other.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KC Metro, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    The Semicolon may break the clause into two seperate parts, however; it does not negate the exemption for either part.

    The Semicolon used in the aboveinstance, has been insereted for Grammatical reasons.

    This is similiar to my first sentence in this post. For Grammatical reasons..., the Semicolon used above Grammatically divides and Complex Sentence into two parts. The correct Grammatical usage of the symbol, is, as above: ..., (negation word);...

    In much the same way, the Kansas Legislature didmuch the same.

    The exception, thus, applies equally for both clauses, not merely one or the other.
    I thought after the moderator pointed out that this is not how Kansas law is interpreted, that you had reconsidered. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...35#post1284835

    See also http://www.opencarry.org/ks.html

    See also input from people who worked on/with the law (Stoneking; KS Asst. Attorney General) mentioned in: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...Open-Carry-Law

    I will say again, I don't disagree that the wording (punctuation) could be more clear, but folks should check this out themselves before trusting the preemption interpretation.

    Aadvark, is there Kansas case law or something else documented (other than the information in the links above to the contrary) that favors the interpretation of (b)(2)to mean that there is pre-emption of local open carry bans for permit holders (other than when in a vehicle)? If so, please share it so that we can all take that information into consideration.

    Also, curious if you are living in or from Kansas or travel here regularly or anything? One of your posts said you are in/from Georgia, although your profile location is blank. Didn't know if you had special knowledge of Kansas laws that could help us out, or if you wanted to be a test case.

    Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide to support the preemption interpretation. I'm trying to stay open-minded on the issue as I'd like your interpretation to be correct; but in an abundance of caution I'm currently going to default to the Asst. Attorney General's opinion...
    Last edited by campfire; 07-02-2010 at 12:04 AM.

  17. #17
    KansasScout
    Guest

    Angry

    I am confused. I thought you all got this killed once already? They are trying again? WTF?!!!!!

  18. #18
    KansasScout
    Guest
    There is no part two. I don't get the label. This is a dead issue now. Open carry is legal and no plans for any new proposals for any new ordinances as far as i see. This thread got confusing.
    This is settled.

  19. #19
    Regular Member me812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    federally occupied Arizona
    Posts
    216
    There is no part two. I don't get the label. This is a dead issue now. Open carry is legal and no plans for any new proposals for any new ordinances as far as i see. This thread got confusing.
    This is settled.


    It's settled for now, but they'll be back. They always are. IMO, you guys in Kansas really need to work on getting statewide preemption passed so that you don't need to worry about this crap anymore.
    Last edited by me812; 07-24-2010 at 03:40 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by me812 View Post
    There is no part two. I don't get the label. This is a dead issue now. Open carry is legal and no plans for any new proposals for any new ordinances as far as i see. This thread got confusing.
    This is settled.


    It's settled for now, but they'll be back. They always are. IMO, you guys in Kansas really need to work on getting statewide preemption passed so that you don't need to worry about this crap anymore.
    Yeah, Missouri needs to fix it too...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    And what about OC in car???

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •