Last week the Kansas House of Representatives voted to allow concealed carry of guns in municipal, county and state buildings if they lacked adequate security including metal detectors and guards. THE HOUSE also advanced a bill called the Second Amendment Protection Act, which would override federal authority when it comes to Kansas gun owners. BOTH BILLS make for terrible laws.
The very thought makes Tom Williams, county commissioner and former Allen County sheriff, shudder.
“It would be horrendous,” Williams said Monday afternoon. “I don’t even want to think about it.”
The expense of outfitting the courthouse with such security measures would be prohibitive, Williams said, and would likely force the closing of all but the south entrance, which has an elevator.
“I don’t appreciate the Legislature for putting us in a box like this,” Williams said. “Seems like we can take care of ourselves without this government interference.”
Ed Bideau, representative for our 9th District, voted against the measure, House Bill 2055.
The amendment would nullify almost every ban, restriction or regulation passed by the federal government going back to 1861, when Kansas joined the Union, because those actions are not in line with what Kansas agreed to when it petitioned to join the Union as a state in 1859 — so goes the thinking.
If a federal agent demand’s a suspect’s firearm, for instance, the Kansan need not obey and will be protected by Kansas law.
To date, only Montana has passed such a law, despite the efforts by many other states, primarily in the country’s midsection.
Rep. Brett Dierks, R-Salina, proudly proclaimed, “The United States belongs to the citizens of Kansas, not the other way around,” to a rousing round of applause, against House protocol.
Bideau followed the majority and approved the measure 94 to 29.
The bill now goes to the state Senate.
Williams had it right. We don’t need the state ramming unwieldy measures down our throats.
The cities of Allen County should not have to come up with the resources to outfit their city halls, city meeting rooms, and the courthouse with electronic monitoring equipment to detect firearms or to post guards at each facility.
The courthouse has four entrances. Think of the cost of manning each entrance with an armed guard or metal detector. Same goes for the New Community Building in Riverside Park, and the city halls in Iola, Gas, Moran, LaHarpe and Humboldt.
And it doesn’t stop there. Every state building also would be forced to follow the mandate, including the state transportation building on North State Street and the SRS building on North Buckeye.
The alternative to the expensive measures is to allow guns on such grounds.
Feels more like blackmail, than responsible legislation.
As for overriding federal law, that’s a lawsuit waiting to happen. Think the Affordable Care Act.
Besides, state and federal law enforcement officers need to work together in fighting crime.
In his opposition to the bill State Rep. Virgile Weigle, a 28-year veteran of local, state and federal law enforcement, said “When I was a federal agent, I wanted to make sure the locals had my back. What you are doing here is going to destroy that relationship.”
The law would only add confusion to what is typically an already tense situation. Let’s keep a clean demarcation of who’s the real criminal here.
Gun control is a hot-button topic that every year diverts time and attention from truly important issues facing our legislators.
That our lawmakers let it be so, is telling.
— Susan Lynn
