July 1 ... several changes take effect (+!) ... here is some info .........
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: July 1 ... several changes take effect (+!) ... here is some info .........

  1. #1

    July 1 ... several changes take effect (+!) ... here is some info on "one" of them

    Some key parts of HB2052...

    HB 2052 - Mega Gun Bill : http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_1 ... 3_0000.pdf

    New Sec. 2. (a) The carrying of a concealed handgun as authorized
    by the personal and family protection act shall not be prohibited in any
    state or municipal building unless such building has adequate security
    measures to ensure that no weapons are permitted to be carried into such
    building
    and the building is conspicuously posted in accordance with
    K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-7c10, and amendments thereto.

    {(d)** (1) It shall be a violation of this section to carry a concealed
    handgun in violation of any restriction or prohibition allowed by
    subsection (a) or (b) if the premises are posted in accordance with rules
    and regulations adopted by the attorney general pursuant to subsection

    (h). Any person who violates this section shall not be subject to a criminal
    penalty but may be subject to denial to such premises or removal from such premises.


    Section (a) and (b) referred to are related to "conspicuously posting " can prohibit :

    (a) Provided that the premises are conspicuously posted in accordance
    with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general as premises
    where carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited, no license issued
    pursuant to or recognized by this act shall authorize the licensee to carry a
    concealed handgun into any building.

    (b) Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent:
    (1) Any public or private employer from restricting or prohibiting by
    personnel policies persons licensed under this act from carrying a
    concealed handgun while on the premises of the employer's business or
    while engaged in the duties of the person's employment by the employer,
    except that no employer may prohibit possession of a handgun in a private
    means of conveyance, even if parked on the employer's premises;
    or
    (2) any private business or city, county or political subdivision from
    restricting or prohibiting persons licensed or recognized under this act
    from carrying a concealed handgun within a building or buildings of such
    entity, provided that the premises are posted in accordance with rules and
    regulations adopted by the attorney general pursuant to subsection (f)
    (h),as premises where carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited.

    Section (h) is the section saying all doors must be posted, size of sign, height / location of sign, etc.

    NOTE , this still applies :
    (g) Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the carrying or possession of a handgun where prohibited by federal law.


    Also ... very last paragraph :
    Sec. 9. K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-7c17 is hereby amended to read as
    follows: 75-7c17.
    (a) The legislature finds as a matter of public policy and
    fact that it is necessary to provide statewide uniform standards for issuing
    licenses to carry concealed handguns for self-defense and finds it
    necessary to occupy the field of regulation of the bearing of concealed
    handguns for self-defense to ensure that no honest, law-abiding person
    who qualifies under the provisions of this act is subjectively or arbitrarily
    denied the person's rights. No city, county or other political subdivision of
    this state shall regulate, restrict or prohibit the carrying of concealed
    handguns by persons licensed under this act except as provided in section
    2, and amendments thereto, and in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp.
    75-7c10, and amendments thereto, and subsection (f) of K.S.A. 21-4218,
    prior to its repeal, or subsection (e) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-6309, and
    amendments thereto, shall be null and void.

  2.   
  3. #2
    This all takes effect July 1. Below is a press release by one of the Representatives who were key in drafting and pushing this legislation.... with some of the key elements of the law. It does several things, which includes making it legal to carry in any public building unless they have "adequate security measures" in place to prevent "anyone" from entering who might have a gun (including bad guys) ..... security, metal detectors, limited / protected entrances, etc. . It also makes it legal for public employee who have cc licenses to carry at work. It makes carrying past a "posted" building .... no longer a crime of any kind, not even a misdemeanor, unless they have metal detectors, etc. Someone can only 'ask ' you to leave. This applies to businesses as well. The 'list' of prohibited places to carry, is gone. Kansas (in another bill) will also start recognizing the CC licenses of all states. This DOES include all Universities and schools, and even if security measures in schools are installed --- to allow employees of the school to carry. And ... NO EMPLOYER may have a "POLICY" which would punish any CC licensed employee from having a gun in their car in the employer's parking lot(s).

    This is the one of the ones that Obama and Biden are so "upset" about Kansas passing .....


    Senator Forrest Knox
    Kansas Senate, District 14

    IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information:
    June 20, 2013 Senator Knox:

    Concealed Carry of Handguns in Public Buildings

    Senator Forrest Knox (R-Altoona) and many other members of the Kansas legislature have worked for several years to address security in public buildings. These efforts have culminated with the passage of Senate Substitute for HB 2052, which becomes law on July 1, 2013. Currently much discussion and action is being taken across the state by municipalities with regard to security in their buildings. Please find below clarification of the intent and content of the new law.

    Following passage of concealed carry in Kansas many buildings were posted prohibiting concealed carry even though no security was provided. Some municipalities across the state have recently discovered that this was done arbitrarily and without proper authority. Authorities are taking steps to decide which buildings require security and which do not. They are taking the signs down in buildings that they determine do not require the necessary investment in security measures. These authorities are allowing law abiding, licensed citizens to provide for their own protection where security is not in place.

    The recent prevalence of mass shootings in public places, many of which have been posted “no concealed carry” and are often referred to as “gun free zones,” has shown such places to be attractive sites for criminals. Elected officials are realizing that there are liability concerns in posting unsecured buildings.

    The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting is an example of such an event. A jury found the school liable in a civil law suit and awarded family members of victims large cash settlements. In this case the judge instructed the jury that a special relationship did exist between university officials and the victims, and that the relationship required officials to provide for their safety and security. The jury found that Virginia Tech's actions contributed to the deaths of the students.

    In hearings conducted over the last few years in the capitol, as more categories of people are being allowed to carry concealed handguns into public buildings, chief judges requested that authorities be allowed to restrict the weapons that enter court facilities when “adequate security measures” are taken. This became the impetus for the present legislation. Publicly owned buildings should only restrict licensed concealed carry when “adequate security measures” are present.

    “In America our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed and we must not allow this to be denied any place that we have a right to be,” stated Senator Knox. “The only exception to this is in the rare instances when special security is provided to the general public as a whole. Elected officials and Kansas citizens are figuring out, a sign is not adequate security.”


    Senator Knox also clarified several points regarding HB 2052:

    1) This legislation is not a knee-jerk reaction to recent events but rather the product of many years of work which has encompassed many public hearings with passionate testimony on both sides. This is the product of the legislative process at its best.

    2) This legislation passed both houses of the legislature in a strong, 80% favorable, bipartisan show of support and reflects the profound support of the citizens of Kansas for the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    3) The heart of this legislation is that in publicly owned buildings, in which the public has a right and often the necessity to be, law abiding citizens shall not be denied the right to provide for their own security unless security for the general public is provided.

    4) Publicly owned buildings that do not have open access to the public, having only controlled access entrances, are not specifically covered by this legislation. Buildings which are given blanket exemptions in this law are such buildings, that are intrinsically not open to the public at large or could be such. Specifically exempted are public primary and secondary schools as well as the Kansas school for the deaf and for the blind.

    5) Municipalities are allowed a limited exemption for six months in order for security plans to be developed. Thereafter, one four year exemption is allowed. To obtain this exemption they must:
    a) Adopt a resolution or draft a letter listing the buildings being exempted and listing the reasons for the exemption.
    b) This statement must include the following sentence: ‘‘A security plan has been developed for the building being exempted which supplies adequate security to the occupants of the building and merits the prohibition of the carrying of a concealed handgun as authorized by the personal and family protection act.’’
    c) A copy of the security plan must be maintained on file and must be made available to the Attorney General and local law enforcement.
    d) Notice of the exemption must be sent to the Attorney General and local law enforcement.

    6) Certain publicly owned institutions can receive one limited four year exemption simply by notifying the Attorney General and stating the reasons for the exemption. These institutions include a state or municipal owned:
    a) medical care facility.
    b) adult care home.
    c) community mental health center.
    d) indigent health care clinic.
    e) postsecondary educational institution.

    7) After this four year period, beyond December 31, 2017, no further exemption is allowed and any posted building will require “adequate security measures” to prohibit licensed concealed carry.

    8) In exempting such buildings, liability issues should be a concern of those in authority and such issues are specifically included in this legislation.
    a) Where “adequate security measures” are provided and a sign is posted prohibiting concealed carry liability protections are given.
    b) Where security is not provided and concealed carry is allowed the same liability protections are given.
    c) These protections are provided for both public and private buildings, but private buildings are specifically deemed protected from any increase in liability due to this legislation. Public buildings receive no such protection from increased liability due to this legislation.
    d) Exempted buildings receive none of these liability protections.

    9) Related liability insurance issues are arising as the company that insures most school districts and community colleges in the state, and many of the municipalities, is apparently objecting to this legislation. However, as there is no statistical basis for increased liability in allowing concealed carry where no security now exists, several entities in the state have found alternate insurers who will provide the same service while allowing concealed carry and are charging less for the service. It is apparently time to end this insurance monopoly and let free markets work.

    10) In keeping with this legislation, chief judges of judicial districts are given specific authority to limit the presence of weapons in their courtrooms and ancillary courtrooms, provided that security “such as armed law enforcement” is in place. However, judges across the state are trying to require that the entire building which houses their court facilities be posted and to require security. This is in direct contrast to the legislation and to their current practice in many rural areas. In the past some county commissioners have complied with such requests of chief judges and others have not. In many rural areas only the judicial areas of the buildings have been made restricted access or provided security measures. On the occasions when security is needed for the general public entering a courtroom, an officer with a wand is adequate. The public areas of such buildings must have “adequate security measures” in order to prohibit licensed concealed carry in those areas.

    11) In similar fashion corrections and jail facilities as well as law enforcement agencies are not impeded from prohibiting weapons from entering the secure areas of their buildings. However, they cannot prohibit licensed concealed carry in the public areas unless “adequate security measures” are provided.

    12) Licensed employees in buildings which lack ‘adequate security measures” cannot be denied the right to carry concealed handguns.

    13) Any licensed person who has authority to enter a restricted access entrance in buildings which provide ‘adequate security measures” is not in violation of the law when carrying a concealed handgun within the building.

    14) Certain publicly owned institutions are given authority to allow licensed employees to carry within their buildings even if the buildings are posted. These institutions, which may set their own policy requirements for allowing employees to carry, include a state or municipal owned:
    a) unified school district.
    b) medical care facility.
    c) adult care home.
    d) community mental health center.
    e) indigent health care clinic.
    f) postsecondary educational institution.

    15) Several changes have been made which affect the capitol building and capitol complex.
    a) Any person may carry a firearm on the grounds of the state capitol.
    b) It is not unlawful for anyone licensed to carry a concealed handgun within these buildings, including the governor’s residence and grounds.
    c) Concealed carry will be allowed within the state capitol after July 1, 2014 unless specific action is taken by the Legislative Coordinating Council prior to that date and it is determined that “adequate security measures” exist in the capitol.

    16) There is no longer a list of buildings in which concealed carry is prohibited.

    17) There is no longer a criminal penalty for a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun that carries in a posted building. He may only be denied access or removed from such premises.

    18) Implied in this legislation is that the weapons themselves are not evil but rather it is the actions of criminals that are evil. We can trust the citizens of Kansas and should not limit their freedoms based on the illegal actions of a few. The knife legislation passed this year is a clear example of this.

    19) Local control starts with our citizens, by protecting their constitutionally guaranteed individual liberties. Kansas citizens who, by the way obey the signs, are not a threat to our security. We should not tread on their rights while at the same time taking no steps to prevent criminals from bringing illegal weapons into public buildings. Good Kansans with guns make all of Kansas safer.

    20) What does the future hold? The citizens of Kansas are in strong support of their individual right to keep and bear arms, as about 90% voted to make this very clear in the Kansas Constitution. Legislatively, look for support of state’s rights over federal overreach. Look for support for measures aiding the security of a free State. Look for less infringement on the constitutional rights of Kansans - a move toward constitutional carry. Look for tighter and tighter adherence to the 2nd Amendment, which elected officials are sworn to support,

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


    Forrest Knox
    Kansas Senate, 14th District

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    NE Kansas
    Posts
    33
    Senator Knox and his fellow legislators did an admirable job in writing this bill, and the governor for signing it into law. In the middle of nation wide anti-gun hysteria, this shows Kansas to be one of the nation's very pro gun states. This, along with changes in the knife law,, will not only help our residents but will bring commerce to Kansas. Both laws will help make this state safer for all of us !!

Posting Permissions

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