campfire
Regular Member
In the November election, according to the Kansas State Rifle Association press release, Kansans set a national record by passing our updated INDIVIDUAL (vs. collective--KS court's prior interpretation) right to bear arms constitutional provision by 89% in favor.
Article 4 of the Kansas Constitution will now read, “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.”
With that change now in place, what is the legal basis for a KS city to be able to outright ban open carry (many do)? Yes, I'm aware of the current statute that does not preempt local jurisdictions of their ability to regulate open carry. However, that predates this constitutional amendment. If cities do ban OC, only concealed carry is available to excercise the bearing of arms publicly and that requires licensing and so forth. The other day I read a nice thread on OCDO (sorry, lost where that was, my apologies) about the government not being able to requiring licensing of rights, only privileges...
I assume that Kansas will still have to pass updated laws to obtain OC preemption in practice, but theoretically, could a person now make a viable constitutional stand?
Article 4 of the Kansas Constitution will now read, “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.”
With that change now in place, what is the legal basis for a KS city to be able to outright ban open carry (many do)? Yes, I'm aware of the current statute that does not preempt local jurisdictions of their ability to regulate open carry. However, that predates this constitutional amendment. If cities do ban OC, only concealed carry is available to excercise the bearing of arms publicly and that requires licensing and so forth. The other day I read a nice thread on OCDO (sorry, lost where that was, my apologies) about the government not being able to requiring licensing of rights, only privileges...
I assume that Kansas will still have to pass updated laws to obtain OC preemption in practice, but theoretically, could a person now make a viable constitutional stand?