More Like a Right

Some folks are worried the Kansas legislature is treating carry more like a right, rather than a privilege. I should note, however, that I think making carrying while intoxicated a crime is constitutional, but some of provisions relating to the Kansas concealed carry requirements probably shouldn’t be. To me the main provision that would be unconstitutional is the breathalyzer requirement, which forces the surrendering your 4th and 5th Amendment rights in order to exercise your Second Amendment rights. We can do this with cars because operating a vehicle on the public roadways is not a right.

9 thoughts on “More Like a Right”

  1. Michigan has the same breathalyzer requirement. I don’t quite remember if it’s only if you’re carrying at the time or just if you have a CPL at all.

  2. I disagree with the “carrying while intoxicated” as a crime — it may be constitutional but it isn’t right.

    I can say things while drunk — should we ban free speech or just hold people accountable for what they do while drunk?

  3. I don’t agree with making “carrying while intoxicated” a crime because that opens new doors for making “carrying while under prescription meds” a crime, or “carrying while on cold medicine” a crime. Keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right, unless driving, which is a crime if you’re intoxicated, and you know how many people do that, right?

  4. From what I’ve heard from my Kansas political friends, this will be a non-issue. The Kansas Tea Party will rule this year’s election and they are firmly pro-2A.

  5. In Utah you can carry a gun in your car out in the open without a permit. But if you have a permit and forget to tell the officer your fine is increased substantially.

    We are over-governed and over-legislated. So many laws restrict the law abiding citizens and provides loopholes for the criminals. Criminals are going to break the law no matter what it is.

  6. I don’t even see driving as a privilage anymore. Can you tell me of anyone outside of, maybe just New York City, who doesn’t need a vehicle to get back and forth from work or church or somewhere? Why shouldn’t we have it as a right?

  7. You have a right to travel. You do not have a right to have someone pave roads for you for free.

  8. I don’t see anything remotely unconstitutional about the breathylzer test. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t prohibit searches and seizures generally, only unreasonable ones, so at most there may be questions about when and under what circumstances such a search is reasonable. The Fifth Amendment has no application here whatsoever, as no one is being asked to testify about anything. That’s why we can do it for cars; it has nothing to do with that age-old “privileges” vs. “rights” baloney.

Comments are closed.