So, some years ago we struggled our way to concealed carry, over then Governor now HHS Secretary Sebelius' (Ha ha! We got rid of her - oh, wait, no we didn't...) strong objections. Because, as we all know, the streets will run red with the blood of innocents when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry a firearm. Really. It happens all the time. What? It doesn't? But, but, BradyShumerStein assure us that's the case, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Anyway, the legislature overrode her veto, and, contrary to the assurances of the Violence Policy Center and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the streets of Dodge City weren't rivers of blood, and still aren't unless there is a problem at the slaughterhouse or feedlots. A year or so later, future Cabinet Star Sebelius signed a bill allowing we peons to own machineguns again (a right taken away in 1934, in response to an event in... Missouri) pretty much without too much fuss. And yet, well, golly, we're not having high-intensity combat in the streets with full-auto weapons. Heh. Just like there haven't been any drive-by artillery barrages even though Kansans have always been allowed to own artillery and tanks. You just can't get the tanks licensed to operate on the roads and byways... Anyway, she probably signed that bill because someone pointed out that only rich people could afford machineguns, and they weren't a risky demographic, except to your portfolio, as in say, Bernie Madoff.
Moving the story along, last year the Legislature tweaked the bill to remove what some saw as pesky requirements that you periodically prove you can still handle your piece in a manner indicative that you are able to hit what you aim at. I don't believe you have to prove that you aim at the right thing after the initial certification, but since I don't have a permit, I could be wrong on that. They also removed language, which some thought over-vague and needlessly restrictive, that allowed the Attorney General to deny a permit to people who "suffer from a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a weapon.” Thus clearing up the ambiguity by replacing it with unambiguously vague... nothing.
Well, lawyers being lawyers, we're now actually discussing whether or not that means the Attorney General cannot deny a license to a... blind person. Or perhaps a person who is paralyzed from the neck down. Etc. (Mind you, there might be ways to get around that, and I'm all for someone figuring 'em out, if there's a need.)
Now we find ourselves with the Attorney General's office having to work with the legislature to 'determine the intent' of the legislature.
No, really. You can't make this stuff up. In a prepared statement, Mr. Jeff Wagaman, deputy chief of staff for the Attorney General's office said (I shite you not), "We are currently working to determine the intent of the Legislature when this change was made during the 2010 legislative session.”
Procedurally, Wagaman is probably correct on this - but one would think his boss would know, given that last session, the Attorney General was a state Senator.
H/t Kevin for the link.
Anyway, the legislature overrode her veto, and, contrary to the assurances of the Violence Policy Center and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the streets of Dodge City weren't rivers of blood, and still aren't unless there is a problem at the slaughterhouse or feedlots. A year or so later, future Cabinet Star Sebelius signed a bill allowing we peons to own machineguns again (a right taken away in 1934, in response to an event in... Missouri) pretty much without too much fuss. And yet, well, golly, we're not having high-intensity combat in the streets with full-auto weapons. Heh. Just like there haven't been any drive-by artillery barrages even though Kansans have always been allowed to own artillery and tanks. You just can't get the tanks licensed to operate on the roads and byways... Anyway, she probably signed that bill because someone pointed out that only rich people could afford machineguns, and they weren't a risky demographic, except to your portfolio, as in say, Bernie Madoff.
Moving the story along, last year the Legislature tweaked the bill to remove what some saw as pesky requirements that you periodically prove you can still handle your piece in a manner indicative that you are able to hit what you aim at. I don't believe you have to prove that you aim at the right thing after the initial certification, but since I don't have a permit, I could be wrong on that. They also removed language, which some thought over-vague and needlessly restrictive, that allowed the Attorney General to deny a permit to people who "suffer from a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a weapon.” Thus clearing up the ambiguity by replacing it with unambiguously vague... nothing.
Well, lawyers being lawyers, we're now actually discussing whether or not that means the Attorney General cannot deny a license to a... blind person. Or perhaps a person who is paralyzed from the neck down. Etc. (Mind you, there might be ways to get around that, and I'm all for someone figuring 'em out, if there's a need.)
Now we find ourselves with the Attorney General's office having to work with the legislature to 'determine the intent' of the legislature.
No, really. You can't make this stuff up. In a prepared statement, Mr. Jeff Wagaman, deputy chief of staff for the Attorney General's office said (I shite you not), "We are currently working to determine the intent of the Legislature when this change was made during the 2010 legislative session.”
Procedurally, Wagaman is probably correct on this - but one would think his boss would know, given that last session, the Attorney General was a state Senator.
H/t Kevin for the link.
If I was blind and confined to a wheelchair, I'd still WANT a Thompson. Whether or not I decided to buy one at that point would be up to me.
Or should be.:)
Quoting my State Senator yesterday on a recent vote I disagreed with.........."I voted for SB 577 to keep it moving so we could change it".........Nancy Pelosi is alive and well and working part time as a Republican Senator in Indiana.
I'm delighted to do it. I wish all armed folks had to do it. I'd feel safer from the slight threat of NDs.
http://www.susankatzkeating.com/p/cj-and-her-lil-friend-tommy.html
BTW, that wasn't you (Armorer) making an unauthorized withdrawal at Citizens National on Delaware yesterday? I'm sure that the Sebelius crowd has you on the top of their suspect list.
Keep it up. Maybe you can score a ZERO from the Brady bunch someday too!
Maybe you can even designate an official state firearm too! Perhaps the "John Brown" Sharps carbine? Sorry, the Model 1911 pistol is already taken by Utah!
How many of your legislators, mayors, commissioners, school board members, etc have concealed carry permits, or at least the training to get one?
Every gun owner should be heavily involved in the political process- nominations, elections, bill writing and review and herding the critters along to get stuff passed. It CAN be done, but it takes years of work, not a single phone call on one issue, but dedicated effort. It will be a series of incremental wins (and some losses) but it can be done!
Can you hook me up with a local real estate agent?
One of the sources of my disappointment in the "keep and bear arms" controversy is the behavior of these "Chiefs of Police" groups is opposing their employers and fellow citizens Second amendment rights. Invariably, these individuals, who should have some level of expert knowledge about firearm crimes, support the proposition that an unarmed citizenry is a safer citizenry. My conclusion is that the "Chiefs", much like the Congressionally-approved general and flag officers in our military, have risen to the point where politics overwhelms intelligence.