The Kansas Legislature today passed a Right-To-Carry bill over the veto of its governor.
Here's the text of the NRA announcement:
It took them 16 years, but they won the final battle against politicians, big-city kleptocrats, and liberal nanny-staters. Good for you, Jayhawkers!House and Senate Override
Governor Sebelius' Veto:
Kansas Passes Right-to-Carry
Thursday, March 23, 2006
(Fairfax, VA) – Both the Kansas State Senate and House of Representatives voted to override Governor Sebelius’ veto of the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed Right-to-Carry legislation, Senate Bill 418, “The Personal and Family Protection Act.”
“After 12 years, it took a collective, bi-partisan effort to win this fight. Kansas now joins 46 other states who enjoy some form of Right-to-Carry,” NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox declared.
The Kansas State Senate voted 30 to 10 to override Governor Sebelius’ veto of the Right-to-Carry legislation. Less than a day later, the Kansas House of Representative voted 91-33 to sustain the override.
Cox continued, “We want to recognize the steadfast support of several state leaders. Without their hard work, Kansans would still be deprived of this valuable law. Senator Phil Journey, Representative Candy Ruff, and Representative Gary Hayzlett worked tirelessly on this measure and we thank them.”
Kansas becomes the 47th state with some form of Right-to-Carry. There are now three states that do not allow any form of Right-to-Carry; Nebraska, Illinois and Wisconsin have yet to pass such self-defense legislation.
“As always, we appreciate the commitment and participation of our members in Kansas for helping pass this legislation and helping override the Governor’s veto of this self-defense law,” concluded Cox.
That's 47 down, three to go.
---
On January Eighth of this year I talked about the efforts to effect a similar Second Amendment drive in Nebraska.
A local blogger, Gunscribe, has been actively campaigning to persuade his state legislature to pass LB 454, which would allow fellow citizens the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. I had asked him to keep me informed, but unfortunately events in his personal life didn't permit him time to maintain correspondance. However, he has been covering the RKBA issue on his blog and that may be enough to give us an outline of the issues.
Don't Take Your Guns To Town.
Essentially the state legislature doesn't want to pass it.
And they're getting some support from the "municipalities", which want an 'opt out' clause.
In what may be the stumbling block between the citizens of Nebraska and the proposed enactment of this bill, the "municipalities" (Omaha and Lincoln, primarily) want to retain the 'right' to impose local ordinances which will effectively cancel the provisions of the state law.
Gunscribe summarized the arguments pro and con. As far as the 'home rule' provisions which the big-city politicos espouse, it's "States' Rights" vs "Federal Law" all over again, except that the States Rights are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
According to Gunscribe:
The crutch that these Municipalities lean on for enactment of these unconstitutional ordinances is their supposed "Home Rule Authority".
... Under "Home Rule Authority" a Political Subdivision cannot enact an ordinaces [sic] that are repugnant to or inconsistant with the Constitution.
Purpose of home rule charter provisions of Constitution is
to render cities as nearly independent as possible of state
legislation, subject to the general public policy of the state. State
ex rel. Fischer v. City of Lincoln, 137 Neb. 97, 288 N.W. 499 (1939)
[Emphasis added by The Geek.]
Further, the Constitution of the State of Nebraska seems to specifically support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
The judicial precedent for supporting a Right-To-Carry measure in Nebraska seems to be in place. Special interests have apparently accepted that they can't stop the bill. Now they're focusing on "Damage Control", in an attempt to define 'no-fly zones' where their own little feifdom can still impose a modicum of control over the rights of their citizens.
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Source:
Neb. Const. art. I, sec. 1 (1875);
Amended 1988, Initiative Measure No. 403
It's frustrating. Maddening. Still, it's a positive note, which presages that all parties have accepted the inevitable.
Consider it in light of the old joke about the man who asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. When she admits that this might be possible, he asks if she would sleep with him for twenty dollars.
"Why, of course not!" she retorts. "What kind of girl do you think I am?"
"Madam", he replies, "We have already established that. What we are doing now is merely haggling over the price."
No comments:
Post a Comment