Kansas Constitution

John/az2

New member
"... Cherish then, that immortal document of what once were declared in
the face of the world to be the principles of this country... Give me
leave to say further, you will not mistake the will and pleasure of the
country, if you give all your friendship, all your best wishes, and all
the support in your power to the incomparable Constitution of the United
States. This Constitution was adopted by a fair expression of the public
will. It is the government of the country and the ordinance of God. When
we examine its merits, we find it but another edition of the genuine
principles of republicanism, equal rights if foundation, and the welfare
of the people its object. The precious maxims of the Declaration of
Independence are transplanted into the Constitution. And as under the
former the country marched to victory, so under the latter she may
advance to prosperity.
"Let the Constitution then, be esteemed the palladium of all that we
hold dear. Let it be venerated as the sanctuary of our liberties and all
government..."
Stanley Griswold (1763-1815), Sermon Delivered at Wallingford,
Connecticut, March 11, 1801, as quoted in Political Sermons of the
American Founding Era, Liberty Fund, 1991, pg. 1548.

Although the foregoing is the US Constitution, the principles remain the
same for state constitutions. The Kansas Constitution says "The people
have the right to bear arms for their defense and security;.."
It doesn't say concealed or open nor does it imply anything in its simple
terminology to restrict either. Passing a concealed carry bill is
unconstitutional; it turns a present right into a privilege; the
legislature must revisit this issue before proceeding; local laws must be
reviewed because home rule cannot be applied to Constitutional
principles, only to statutes.
Submitted by,
Larry Fischer

For the right of men have by Nature to Protect themselves, when none
else can protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished.
Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan


------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
Interesting, I have just asked this question to many organizations and a few local officials.

If the state says I can carry openly, how can a local government deny me what is written in the state constitution?
 
[mildly depressing drivel deleted by author, who had second thoughts...ouch, that strained my head!]

[This message has been edited by cornered rat (edited March 09, 1999).]
 
Aw jeez Oleg! Right, lets turn a legitimate thread into sensationalist speculative BS. I've asked you nicely, knock it off..capishe?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Sorry. Didn't mean to mess up the discussion. Why don't you delete my post and the follow-up to it.

Mea culpa.

------------------
Cornered "but cheery" Rat
http://ddb.com/RKBA
 
I can't delete a single post due to software limitations...only the entire thread. I have a personal aversion to editing someone who hasn't posted something obscene, illegal or a personal attack.

Hence, my dear Russian rodent, you and your post are caught between my personal principles and semi-official policy :)

Thanks Oleg
 
I appreciate the idea of keeping a tight ship...since the readership here doesn't change much over time (compared to other boards), self-indulgence in the form of depressing posts is definitely in bad taste. Point taken.

Personally, I wonder if carrying an obsolete (say a flintlock pistol or a percussion revolver) openly without a permit would work in a state where carry is prohibited...not strictly a gun but does fall under "dangerous weapons" classification. What if the person wore a period costume to match (17c French to go with a rapier and a wheel-lock or a snaphance pistol)? Comments?

------------------
Cornered "but cheery" Rat
http://ddb.com/RKBA
 
Actually there was a true incident last year similar to what you pose Oleg....I'll post the link when that website is back up..I keep getting an internal server error. Fascinating story.

Jim March (a member here) was involved, the infamous Wiccan wedding

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited March 09, 1999).]
 
I just looked it up on Dejanews. Sad and depressing, but I already stated that too often. Seems to me that some cops want feel omnipotent and the only way they can do it is by beating on meek people. They would probably stear clear of a large gang gathering.

Same theory as avoiding a large toothy dog in favor of kicking a kitten, and gets the same lack of respect from me.

In "civilized" Europe it used to be Jews (funny outfits and customs), here it is Wiccans...what else has not changed?

My guess that, even if the members of the wedding had announced their intent ahead of time, somebody would have turned up who did not get the message...I, personally, prefer people who can excercise good judgement without being told every little detail.

------------------
Cornered "but cheery" Rat
http://ddb.com/RKBA
 
HCI and their ilk such as PETA have a finely honed sense of self-preservation, my friends. It is perfectly legitimate to throw red paint on women wearing furs. They have better sense than to do it with a bunch of bikers wearing leather. They are cowards.

Oleg, you forgot another parallel. Both groups you mentioned had been either accused or suspected of human sacrifice by the "establishment."
 
Yep....
The amazing thing was that the DA insisted on following thru with that nonsense.
Unfortunately in these times, the political mileage of anything "weapon" related is tremendous for ambitious and unscrupulous pols, who rarely go after the real offenders with the same vehemence that they do the captive law-abiding populace. Form over substance is par for the course for these parasites and petty pols.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Yes, the amazing Wiccan Wedding fiasco. When KF is back online I'll look up the URL, it includes pics. And yes, I'm in there too...note, I ain't Wiccan but the Groom, the high priestess officiating (Calif. legal, too) and most of the groomsmen were.

The real mess there is that the cops didn't like what was going on and *falsified* a concealed knife charge. If it hadn't been for the wedding photos showing clear and legal open carry *and* other people at the park BBQing and chucking a frisbee around with no concern of sudden sword violence the guy'd be a felon today.

Jim March
 
Back
Top