|
HB 2052
Jul 5, 2013 23:46:41 GMT -5
Post by eagle on Jul 5, 2013 23:46:41 GMT -5
This is getting interesting more every day. I bet I've been thru this bill in detail over 20 times now. Also, been in touch with several people.
Seems the "biggest" issue right now, is whether the employees working in buildings that have exemption, could be charged with the misdemeanor charge if they carried into the building. I know my opinion, not only from the statute, but from information, etc. that I've gotten from reliable sources, but wrote Klebe in the CC office for a "clarification" on this from him... and see what they say.
I have no skin in that one, but interested in what the "correct" answer is.
|
|
|
Post by tkarter on Jul 6, 2013 8:01:22 GMT -5
They can't be charged with any penalty no matter where they work. I seen the language in place for it to revert back to pre July penalties but that was stricken.
|
|
|
HB 2052
Jul 6, 2013 19:43:01 GMT -5
Post by eagle on Jul 6, 2013 19:43:01 GMT -5
Then you can explain this :
AG's Q/A section : Note the reference below to 75-7c10(b).
Q: If a building(s) has elected to exercise one of the allowed exemptions, what effect does that have for licensees carrying concealed into that building? A: Licensed concealed carry could be restricted through the proper posting of Attorney General-approved signage at all entrances to the building(s) and the building would not be required to have adequate security measures in place. Essentially, most concealed carry law would remain as it was pre-July 1, 2013.
NOTE: K.S.A. 75-7c10 was amended in other ways during the 2013 session, including a revision to the penalty section. That new penalty section would still be effective even if the building has exempted itself. The penalty for violating 75-7c10 would not revert back to its misdemeanor position of pre-July 1, 2013.
Q: I am a CCL holder who works in a qualifying state or municipal building. If my building does not put adequate security measures in place and the building does not exercise an exemption from Section 2, can I carry while I’m at work? A: Yes. Section 2(c) states that adequate security measures and signage are necessary in order to “prohibit” an employee from carrying on and after July 1, 2013. NOTE: Again, if the building has exempted itself, then the law largely reverts back to its pre-July 1, 2013 position and K.S.A. 75-7c10(b) language relating to employer/employee relations would still be in effect.
Pre-July 1 statute • 75-7c10: Same; posted places where carrying concealed weapon not authorized; penalties for violations. (a) Provided that the premises are conspicuously posted in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general as premises where carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited, no license issued pursuant to this act shall authorize the licensee to carry a concealed weapon into:
(b) (1) Violation of this section is a class A misdemeanor. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), it is not a violation of this section for the United States attorney for the district of Kansas, the attorney general, any district attorney or county attorney, any assistant United States attorney if authorized by the United States attorney for the district of Kansas, any assistant attorney general if authorized by the attorney general, or any assistant district attorney or assistant county attorney if authorized by the district attorney or county attorney by whom such assistant is employed, to possess a firearm within any county courthouse or court-related facility, subject to any restrictions or prohibitions imposed in any courtroom by the chief judge of the judicial district. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any person not in compliance with K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 75-7c19, and amendments thereto. History: L. 2006, ch. 32, § 10; L. 2006, ch. 210, § 7; L. 2007, ch. 166, § 5; L. 2009, ch. 92, § 5; July 1.
|
|
|
HB 2052
Jul 6, 2013 19:49:02 GMT -5
Post by tkarter on Jul 6, 2013 19:49:02 GMT -5
I don't have the link handy but that was stricken. I will try an locate the proof of that. But if one thinks about it a bit having a CCH under the PFPA there can be no penalties that don't apply to all. That is the reason it was stricken.
And I do believe what you posted supports the penalty doesn't revert back to pre-July.
|
|
|
HB 2052
Jul 6, 2013 19:58:59 GMT -5
Post by eagle on Jul 6, 2013 19:58:59 GMT -5
Public employees are treated differently. Just as DA's are public employees but allowed to carry past "facilities with adequate security measures". Public employees are not all equal even vs other public employees, let alone citizens. Nor are the penalties that apply related to them.
the AG is saying ... it reverts back to 75-7c10(b), which is the part that includes "a misdemeanor charge" for carrying past the signs.
I've emailed Klebe in the AG's office for a clarification, but not received a response yet.
|
|
|
Post by tkarter on Jul 6, 2013 20:02:09 GMT -5
I will read the entire final bill and see if that is the case.
|
|
|
HB 2052
Jul 6, 2013 21:01:51 GMT -5
Post by tkarter on Jul 6, 2013 21:01:51 GMT -5
I can find nothing in the bill nor laws that would allow for any person with a CCH who is working for the state or city to be held for carrying past a sign to any penalty I am not going to be charged with. Your links asking the question and the answers are not law. I provided a link to support what I am saying. www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2052_enrolled.pdfHere is the link that says it all.
|
|
|
HB 2052
Jul 7, 2013 14:12:58 GMT -5
Post by eagle on Jul 7, 2013 14:12:58 GMT -5
Depends upon interpretation. Does an "exemption" , mean they are exempt from the new law while the exemption is in place. IF so, then the new law doesn't apply, and the misdemeanor charge would still apply in "exempted" buildings.... at least for employees.
The AG's statements in his own releases, he states that carrying past the sign in an exempted building, would be "unlawful". That's the reason some of us are asking them to clarify what they are saying, and what they mean by what they say. IF the AG says it does, whether we agree or not, that's probably the way the cities and police depts. will attempt to enforce it.
|
|
|
HB 2052
Jul 7, 2013 16:33:28 GMT -5
Post by tkarter on Jul 7, 2013 16:33:28 GMT -5
He has since changed his wording to a violation, that carries no criminal penalty.
He was way out there for a good long while which has lead to a lot of confusion.
The police already have their marching orders that says there is no criminal penalty for licensed persons carrying past a sign. Even an exempted sign. Any test case would go nowhere trying to enforce the old law now that July 1 has came and went.
|
|
|
Post by eagle on Jul 8, 2013 0:49:22 GMT -5
that's good ....... as TK knows, a person got an email from Sexson of the CC unit saying an employee carrying past a sign in an exempted building, would not be guilty of a misdemeanor anymore. I have not heard from Klebe one way or the other.
|
|