By Dean Weingarten
The law requires that if a government entity bans law abiding citizens from carrying guns on their premises, then they must enforce that ban for criminals who would ignore mere signs.
Rep. Forest Knox, who sponsored the bill, explained its purpose:
“It is about safety,” the Altoona Republican told the Emporia Gazette. “You’re not afraid of illegal guns that are already there but you’re afraid of law-abiding citizens who are carrying guns? And I think the public sees that point.”
If a government entity desired to ban guns, they would have to secure all the entrances to that building and put in place security measures that would effectively keep guns out of their premises for both law abiding citizens and criminals alike. Such measures would normally include metal detectors and security guards. The government entities could obtain a six month exemption to the law. The exemption will end on December 31st of this year. An alternate method to delay implementation of the law is for the government entity to pass a resolution approving of a security plan that would meet the requirements. That would allow for a four year exemption.
Several counties have already recognized the foolishness of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep people from bearing arms in a few small places, when they can bear arms nearly everywhere else. There is also the political consideration that ordinary people would object to government employees and legislators being treated as somehow more valuable than ordinary citizens, and therefore worthy of special and expensive protection.
Arizona has passed a similar measure twice, with large margins, though Arizona’s Governor Brewer has vetoed it both times.
It is hard to see how opponents of the bill can fault it, as it simply requires them to enforce the gun bans that they want in place. The irrational thinking seems to stem from false assumptions about reality, based on the “progressive elite” model of modern murder, where murders occur because ordinary citizens, in a moment of passion, have a gun available. In fact, the vast majority of murders are committed by tiny group of people with a long history of violence that is well documented.
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble has recognized that the real choice that confronts us is whether to have an armed society, that can quickly react to localized threats, or a mix of heavily fortified areas interspersed between areas with virtually no protection. The Kansas law requires pubic officials to face up to this choice. The heavily fortified “green zone” model may work for a totalitarian state ruled by an elite, but it cannot really work for a free society.
Bans on citizens carrying guns in government buildings add nothing to security, but they make life complicated for those who wish to exercise their second amendment rights. Like most defenseless victim zones, they are designed to intimidate and inconvenience gun owners, making the exercise of their constitutional rights difficult and legally dangerous.
The Kansas law is a good first step toward an increase in public safety by the reduction of defenseless victim zones.
©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.