search
top

Then There Were Six: Constitutional Carry Now Law in Kansas

Thanks to Governor Brownback for signing the law. In other states where this has passed with Democratic governors, it’s met with a veto. I am not saying this to cheer the GOP, as I would like gun rights to be an issue that has bipartisan consensus, but it would seem that the Democratic Party, even in red states, is not interested in a truly robust Second Amendment right. West Virginia and Montana have both rejected full constitutional carry due to timid Democratic governors. Of course, let us also not forget about timid Republican governors.

This is a very difficult issue to move. The Democrats don’t want it because they like control, and don’t like the idea of the everyman being armed. The Republican “law and order” cohort likewise feels a lot more comfortable with licensed carry than they do with it actually being treated like a fundamental right. Shall-issue licensing was easier to move, because while it liberalized the licensed carry regime, one could argue it promoted “law and order,” which appeased that GOP cohort.

Constitutional Carry is essentially getting the law out of the way of a fundamental right, altogether. There are factions in both parties who are uncomfortable with that idea. Grassroots action is the only thing that’s going to move this needle.

But the fact remains, the shall-issue movement is over, because we’ve largely won. We’ve gotten all the states we’re going to get through the legislative process. The rest is in the hands of the federal courts. Constitutional Carry is the new frontier.

8 Responses to “Then There Were Six: Constitutional Carry Now Law in Kansas”

  1. ARL says:

    Maybe I’m missing something, but your link goes to a page describing how Gov. Brownback signed an education bill, not the carry bill.

  2. Patrick H says:

    Its amazing that we went from one Constitutional Carry state (which was by a court decision) to Six by legislative process.

    You are right, Constitutional Carry is the new frontier. I’m hoping we can get National Reciprocity to get the shall issue hold outs, and then continue to go for more Constitutional Carry.

    • HSR47 says:

      If you look at the progress of carry rights in the states, the bulk of the progress was made between about 1994 and 2004: We went from 1 unrestricted, 20 shall-issue, 17 may issue, and 12 rights-denied states TO 2 unrestricted, 35 shall-issue, 9 may-issue, and only 4 states still denying the right.

      If I were a betting man, I’d wager that by 2024 there will be at least 25 states with constitutional carry: As it stands, there are 6 states that have it, two states had bills killed only by executive veto, and several more that have bills going.

      Constitutional carry has been on the back burner here in PA for the last several years, and while it may not make it through this year, the legislature is probably going to pass it before Wolf (who will almost certainly veto it) is out of office. This makes it easier for squishy reps to get on board with it, which in turn makes it easier to strong arm those same reps into voting for it again once we get rid of Wolf (just like we did with HB 40).

  3. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    We already know what the antis’ arguments will be, wild west, blood in the streets, blah blah blah. They aren’t going to change.

    Who will change? The many people who are skeptical of Constitutional Carry but can change their minds when they see that none of the above scenarios actually happens, like it hasn’t in the 5 states that preceded Kansas. The more we get this passed and the public sees the lack of mass hysteria, the more we continue to win the culture battle.

    • Archer says:

      I’d actually leave Vermont out of those discussions. Here’s why:
      – Vermont has always had “Constitutional Carry” (I don’t care for the term, but I don’t get to write the dictionary). They’ve never had to change their laws to allow it.
      – The concern isn’t so much with “Constitutional Carry” as a thing, as with the process and result of changing to it. The liberals don’t want to relinquish control, and the squishes don’t want to relinquish control without knowing what will happen.
      – Since the real problem can be more accurately described as “fear of change”, our supporting arguments should focus on those states who have changed their laws, and the complete non-issue it turned out to be.

      So yes, talk about the “Constitutional Carry” states and the lack of “Wild West Shootouts” and “blood in the streets”, but focus mostly on Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and now Kansas, and how the sudden change in regulations did not cause the sky to fall on the Chicken Littles’ collective(ist) heads.

      Just my $0.02.

  4. HappyWarrior says:

    It’s very refreshing to see a governor with an actual spine, given the events over the last few days. Also take note that Brownback is also what many on here night deride as a “SoCon” but he is as tremendous on gun rights as he is on pro-life matters.

  5. Greg says:

    The loss on the federal level sent the bloomburg mommies running to the state level where they assured their master that they would clean up and they got a great start with one of the most confusing laws ever voted on in Washington. Since then they have to be cutting their fingernails down to the quick as it has been a pro gun legislative season. We can’t let up of course but I wonder how long it will be before bloomburg looses interest and puts gun control in the trash with his 32oz drink cups.

  6. Matthew Carberry says:

    There number of people living in Con Carry states (11 million-ish, 14-ish if you count Arkansas) is approaching the number living in effective no-issue jurisdictions.

    We just need one big high-population state, with major cities to turn the tide.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Kansas gets Constitutional Carry; Democratic governor signs gun-rights legislation - […] Details at Shall Not Be Questioned. It's good to see this sort of thing advancing. We are not supposed…
top