Kansas "Personal and Family Protection Act" to be Voted on by the Senate!

Senate Bill 418, "The Personal and Family Protection Act," advanced through the Senate Federal & State Affairs Committee today! This important legislation sponsored by Senator Phil Journey (R-26) passed with a 6 - 3 voice vote without substantive amendments.

SB 418 now advances to the full Senate for a vote as early as this coming Thursday, February 9.  Please start contacting your State Senator today at (785) 296-2456 and ask him or her to support SB 418.

To find further contact information please use the "Write Your Representative" feature found at www.NRAILA.org.

Good.


I told my dad to go tell one of our neighbors (A state senator ) to vote YES for it.  He better have or I'ma kick his butt when I come home on leave.

What are the details of this act?  I live in NC but I am a KS resident

Is this your CCW law?

Quoted: What are the details of this act?  I live in NC but I am a KS resident

http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2006/418.pdf

Quoted: Is this your CCW law?

YES

Quoted: Good. I told my dad to go tell one of our neighbors (A state senator ) to vote YES for it.  He better have or I'ma kick his butt when I come home on leave.

I have emailed my senator as well this morning and am going to call later when their office is open.

I hope this passes for you guys, i get sick of stopping at the state line to unload my ccl and it's disgraceful that a midwestern state has gone so long without a CCW law.  

good luck

I posted this in the KS forum thread too, but I'll post it in this one as well...

I've received several more replies from the emails I sent that have been positive. I thought this one was kind of funny:

"Chris. I am supporting this bill. Remember good gun control is being
able to hit what you aim at. Thanks Sen Mike Petersen"

Emails sent to my senator and representative.

2 things.

I dont like how you have to take a mandatory weapons training course, even if been in the military and even if you shot 29.5/30 on the M9 weapons range.
I already had to take the stupid Hunter's Safety course, after I was in the military for over 3 years.  That was freaking retarded.  I didnt learn one single thing about firearms/weapons in that class, the only thing I learned was the tag limit in KS for deer.  And I dont even hunt deer.

And

The places you can carry.  They are taking all the fun out of carrying.  No fairgrounds, no athletic event?
Sheesh.

Quoted: I hope this passes for you guys, i get sick of stopping at the state line to unload my ccl and it's disgraceful that a midwestern state has gone so long without a CCW law.   good luck

Thanks!  We are going to need it.

Quoted: Emails sent to my senator and representative.

Thanks Langadune!

I'm glad it's coming to Kansas. Congrats guys.

Quoted: I'm glad it's coming to Kansas. Congrats guys.

Hold off just yet...

It could still possibly be struck down.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm glad it's coming to Kansas. Congrats guys. Hold off just yet... It could still possibly be struck down.

How bout we call Sebelius and tell her we will vote for her (lie) if she will sign it into law.

Good luck.

Quoted: 2 things. I dont like how you have to take a mandatory weapons training course, even if been in the military and even if you shot 29.5/30 on the M9 weapons range. I already had to take the stupid Hunter's Safety course, after I was in the military for over 3 years.  That was freaking retarded.  I didnt learn one single thing about firearms/weapons in that class, the only thing I learned was the tag limit in KS for deer.  And I dont even hunt deer. And The places you can carry.  They are taking all the fun out of carrying.  No fairgrounds, no athletic event? Sheesh.

Incrimentalism, yo.

Get the bill you can pass now. Strip the crap out later.

Quoted: ...And The places you can carry.  They are taking all the fun out of carrying.  No fairgrounds, no athletic event? Sheesh.

Crossing those off my list of "Things to do".

Quoted: Emails sent to my senator and representative.

Just got a response from my state rep...

Jason If you are talking about the right to carry, I support it.
Criminals never ask permission.

Sincerely,
Bill Otto
Representative, 9th District

Not bad.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm glad it's coming to Kansas. Congrats guys. Hold off just yet... It could still possibly be struck down. How bout we call Sebelius and tell her we will vote for her (lie) if she will sign it into law.

Haha, hell no.  I aint telling that bitch I'ma vote for her, I hate her as is.

My god mother is a representative.    I will be checking in with her to see where she stands.  

It comes up yearly.

Get the legislature to permit NFA firearms too.

Quoted: Get the legislature to permit NFA firearms too.

+ a big freaking one


If KS had a CCW, allowed MG's and suppressors, I might not want to leave this state.  I know I wouldnt hate it so much.

Quoted: I hope this passes for you guys, i get sick of stopping at the state line to unload my ccl and it's disgraceful that a midwestern state has gone so long without a CCW law.   good luck

+87     Please keep the pressure on.

Quoted: Get the legislature to permit NFA firearms too.

How about we get them to fix the "inherantly dangerous instrumentality" law in Kansas.  Owning a gun is just like owning dynamite here.  If your gun is stolen you are responsible for its misuse.  Before you go saying it ain't so go check out.  The case is Wood v. Groh if you want to look it up. The operative language form the Kansas Supreme Court's syllabus is

"Firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and commensurate with the dangerous character of such instrumentalities, the reasonable care required is the highest degree of care."

and from the body of the opinion:

'Kansas has long followed the rule that the highest degree of care is required of all responsible persons having ownership or control of dangerous explosives such as dynamite and firearms. . . . [T]he degree of care has to be commensurate with the dangerous character of the instrumentality and a duty to exercise the highest degree of care never ceases.'" 265 Kan. at 861.


It is a fairly recent decision based on some bad law in Long v. Turk . I still have not figured out why the NRA or someone has not lobbied to change it to a standard more consistant with our sister states. Interestingly, most home owner policies do not cover damages due to the use or storage of inherently dangerous instrumentalities. Luckily, the carriers have not been pushing it either.

The case cited is one where the father had his gun stolen from a locked gun cabinet by a minor son and the son suffered a ND into the rear end of the girl he was taking upstairs for a romp.   From Memory, the jury put 70% fault on the kid and 20% on the girl (small town, punished her for low morals i guess) and only 10% on the boys parents.  The plaintiff failed to actually sue the boy (malpractice I am sure) seperately and found themselves withonly about $2000 they could try to collecrt from the parents under the statute.  The Supremes use dthe dangerous instrumentality designation to fashion a remdy for the plaintiffs.  The decision is just flat out wrong, but it is the law of th land.

[forgive the spelling - i was writing while fending off my 3 year old that wanted my attention :-) ]

Quoted: Quoted: Get the legislature to permit NFA firearms too. How about we get them to fix the "inherantly dangerous instrumentality" law in Kansas.  Owning a gun is just like owning dynamite here.  If your gun is stolen you are responsible for its misuse.  Before you go saying it ain't so go check out.  The case is Wood v. Groh if you want to look it up. The operative language form the Kansas Supreme Court's syllabus is "Firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and commensurate with the dangerous character of such instrumentalities, the reasonable care required is the highest degree of care." and from the body of the opinion: 'Kansas has long followed the rule that the highest degree of care is required of all responsible persons having ownership or control of dangerous explosives such as dynamite and firearms. . . . [T]he degree of care has to be commensurate with the dangerous character of the instrumentality and a duty to exercise the highest degree of care never ceases.'" 265 Kan. at 861. It is a fairly recent decision based on some bad law in Long v. Turk . I still have not figured out why the NRA or someone has not lobbied to change it to a standard more consistant with our sister states. Interestingly, most home owner policies do not cover damages due to the use or storage of inherently dangerous instrumentalities. Luckily, the carriers have not been pushing it either. The case cited is one where the father had his gun stolen from a locked gun cabinet by a minor son and the son suffered a ND into the rear end of the girl he was taking upstairs for a romp.   From Memory, the jury put 70% fault on the kid and 20% on the girl (small town, punished her for low morals i guess) and only 10% on the boys parents.  The plaintiff failed to actually sue the boy (malpractice I am sure) seperately and found themselves withonly about $2000 they could try to collecrt from the parents under the statute.  The Supremes use dthe dangerous instrumentality designation to fashion a remdy for the plaintiffs.  The decision is just flat out wrong, but it is the law of th land. [forgive the spelling - i was writing while fending off my 3 year old that wanted my attention :-) ]

I knew I hated this state for a reason.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Get the legislature to permit NFA firearms too. How about we get them to fix the "inherantly dangerous instrumentality" law in Kansas.  Owning a gun is just like owning dynamite here.  If your gun is stolen you are responsible for its misuse.  Before you go saying it ain't so go check out.  The case is Wood v. Groh if you want to look it up. The operative language form the Kansas Supreme Court's syllabus is "Firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and commensurate with the dangerous character of such instrumentalities, the reasonable care required is the highest degree of care." and from the body of the opinion: 'Kansas has long followed the rule that the highest degree of care is required of all responsible persons having ownership or control of dangerous explosives such as dynamite and firearms. . . . [T]he degree of care has to be commensurate with the dangerous character of the instrumentality and a duty to exercise the highest degree of care never ceases.'" 265 Kan. at 861. It is a fairly recent decision based on some bad law in Long v. Turk . I still have not figured out why the NRA or someone has not lobbied to change it to a standard more consistant with our sister states. Interestingly, most home owner policies do not cover damages due to the use or storage of inherently dangerous instrumentalities. Luckily, the carriers have not been pushing it either. The case cited is one where the father had his gun stolen from a locked gun cabinet by a minor son and the son suffered a ND into the rear end of the girl he was taking upstairs for a romp.   From Memory, the jury put 70% fault on the kid and 20% on the girl (small town, punished her for low morals i guess) and only 10% on the boys parents.  The plaintiff failed to actually sue the boy (malpractice I am sure) seperately and found themselves withonly about $2000 they could try to collecrt from the parents under the statute.  The Supremes use dthe dangerous instrumentality designation to fashion a remdy for the plaintiffs.  The decision is just flat out wrong, but it is the law of th land. [forgive the spelling - i was writing while fending off my 3 year old that wanted my attention :-) ] I knew I hated this state for a reason.

Sorry tyman,  I still like my state!  I think maybe you need to come back and stand out in a field of grass, trees and possibly a 10acre pond enjoy the view then cut loose on some targets with your rifle.
We can still do that here.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Get the legislature to permit NFA firearms too. How about we get them to fix the "inherantly dangerous instrumentality" law in Kansas.  Owning a gun is just like owning dynamite here.  If your gun is stolen you are responsible for its misuse.  Before you go saying it ain't so go check out.  The case is Wood v. Groh if you want to look it up. The operative language form the Kansas Supreme Court's syllabus is "Firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and commensurate with the dangerous character of such instrumentalities, the reasonable care required is the highest degree of care." and from the body of the opinion: 'Kansas has long followed the rule that the highest degree of care is required of all responsible persons having ownership or control of dangerous explosives such as dynamite and firearms. . . . [T]he degree of care has to be commensurate with the dangerous character of the instrumentality and a duty to exercise the highest degree of care never ceases.'" 265 Kan. at 861. It is a fairly recent decision based on some bad law in Long v. Turk . I still have not figured out why the NRA or someone has not lobbied to change it to a standard more consistant with our sister states. Interestingly, most home owner policies do not cover damages due to the use or storage of inherently dangerous instrumentalities. Luckily, the carriers have not been pushing it either. The case cited is one where the father had his gun stolen from a locked gun cabinet by a minor son and the son suffered a ND into the rear end of the girl he was taking upstairs for a romp.   From Memory, the jury put 70% fault on the kid and 20% on the girl (small town, punished her for low morals i guess) and only 10% on the boys parents.  The plaintiff failed to actually sue the boy (malpractice I am sure) seperately and found themselves withonly about $2000 they could try to collecrt from the parents under the statute.  The Supremes use dthe dangerous instrumentality designation to fashion a remdy for the plaintiffs.  The decision is just flat out wrong, but it is the law of th land. [forgive the spelling - i was writing while fending off my 3 year old that wanted my attention :-) ] I knew I hated this state for a reason. Sorry tyman,  I still like my state!  I think maybe you need to come back and stand out in a field of grass, trees and possibly a 10acre pond enjoy the view then cut loose on some targets with your rifle. We can still do that here.

True, but NFA items plus a CCW would be muy perfecto in my mind.  A state that is conservative Republican in the Midwest without any of these things, is a bunch of crap.  You would expect this on the coasts or in NE....not in the Midwest.

And the part about "dangerous instrumenality" is just fucking retarded.

As well as making Military Servicemembers have to go through the same exact CCW class as non-mil is retarded as well.  At least make an exception for Infantry or MP's that actually use handguns.