BREAKING: Kansas Goes Constitutional Carry

Kansas they said was the name of the star (courtesy

“Gov. Sam Brownback plans to sign a bill allowing Kansas residents to carry concealed firearms without a permit,” reports. “The Republican governor’s office scheduled a signing ceremony for Thursday afternoon at the Statehouse. Legislators approved the measure last week.” As Kansas is already an open carry state, the removal of a mandatory concealed carry permit puts the Sunflower State in the Constitutional Carry column, the fifth state on the list. “Kansas still will issue permits for gun owners who want to carry concealed in other states that recognize Kansas permits. A person seeking a Kansas permit must undergo eight hours of firearms training.” Want to hear anti-CC Democrats whining? You know you do . . .

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, [told that] too many questions about consequences of the legislation weren’t satisfactorily answered by state lawmakers or gun-rights lobbyists.

“Will this bill put people in unnecessary danger?” he said. “Will our state’s business community be adversely affected by way of unneeded liability or potential higher insurance costs? And, could this bill lead to business owners being forced to ban any and all firearms, including concealed firearms currently allowed by law?”

No, no and no. But for gun rights advocates the passage of Senate Bill 45 into law is a big, When Harry Met Sally-style YES! Winning!


  1. avatar SD3 says:

    April 1st, right?……..

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Wrong. Been watching this unfold for awhile now.

      Now to make a shoulder rig for my Mosin…

      1. avatar JWM says:

        A mosin? Do you mean Nagant revolver?

        1. avatar Slick says:


    2. avatar Toby in KS says:

      No, June 1st! The law goes into effect on June 1st! HAHA!

  2. avatar Fred Lead says:

    The real question Democrats should be asking: “will anyone ever take us seriously again”? They try to beat the danger drum but no one is listening.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Don’t expect them to change when rivers of blood fail to flow in Kansas streets, either.

      1. avatar edwilco says:

        rivers of blood?? The only blood river will be some criminal shot down for trying something stupid… as it should be….

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      I can’t remember the last time I’ve taken the Democratic Party seriously. Idiotic comments like the ones from Hensley certainly do not help.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        The last Senate and House minority leaders signed onto the Kansas 2A Protection Act.

        While there are exceptions, guns typically aren’t a partisan issue in Kansas. Our Democrats are rather akin to Eisenhower Republicans.

  3. avatar Scrubula says:

    Bravo kansas. No more permission slips required for a basic human right.

  4. avatar Another Robert says:

    Very nice! I ain’t even from Kansas, but this is great! The more that do it, the more that will join… BTW, is there some symbolic significance to using a pic of a Jimenez Arms .22 to illustrate this celebration-worthy event?

    1. avatar TokShifter says:

      That was the first thing I noticed as well. Interesting choice…

    2. avatar Ronaldo Ignacio says:

      When Kansas first allowed concealed carry, a Lawrence Journal World reporter applied and got a concealed carry permit, and bought the Jiminez as part of the series…

  5. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Is this one of those cases where you must be a *resident* to exercise constitutional (and concealed) carry (similar to Wyoming). If so, it’s not true constitutional carry, non residents require a permit.

    There might even be a constitutional issue (14th amendment?) with discriminating against people from out of state.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a huge improvement over the status quo ante.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Hmm. Now that is a very interesting and important question that never occurred to me.

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Reading the text of the bill, the only requirement is that you be legally within the state; if you’re visiting, passing through or anything else temporary, that’s just fine. There’s no residency requirement.

      Hey there, all y’all down in Tay-hass – c’mon up here and taste some real firearms freedom!

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        That’s a nice thought, actually. I’ve considered running across the state line to Louisiana just so I could see what it’s like to open carry, but I’ve seen and heard about too many Louisiana city cops who don’t know the laws of their own state.

    3. avatar Another Robert says:

      Constitutionally speaking, I’m not sure you could in fact have two sets of criminal laws, one for the residents and one for the non-residents.

    4. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      It’s a constant march and were beating the treadmill at the moment. It’s a good thing.

  6. avatar mk10108 says:

    5 down 45 to go.

    1. avatar Fred Lead says:

      Eventually we won’t need a concealed carry reciprocity bill, every state besides the fughetabodit-5 will have constitutional carry.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Yeah, but those five states are big, populated, and hence there’s often a need to travel there. Having reciprocity and not having blood running down the streets might actually “crack” their obstinacy with regard to 2A. (It certainly can’t have a worse result than we have now.)

    2. avatar Russ in AK says:

      Wouldn’t this be the sixth state?

      1. Vermont
      2. Alaska
      3. Wyoming
      4. Arizona
      5. Oklahoma (residents only)
      6. Kansas

      1. avatar Russ in AK says:

        I could’ve sworn that Oklahoma had passed that law. I guess not?

        I did miss Arkansas though.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Wyoming is residents only for permitless concealed carry.

        Colorado keeps seeing such a bill introduced (and failing), but it always operates in terms of making being a CO resident an exception to the ban on Concealed Carry, not just doing what should be done and repealing the ban on concealed carry.

      3. avatar SteveX says:

        Oklahoma permit holder says – Concealed or open carry but with permit only when you are away from your residence or owned business. Magazine loaded long gun carry in vehicle with permit as well. Signage does not carry the force of law but you must leave if asked or face trespassing charges. Let’s see… Can’t carry in businesses that make 51%+ profits on alcohol. Churches are OK and it is encouraged at mine. An informal group, including quite a few LEO’s, station at the different entrances during services.

      4. avatar TMIB says:

        OKLAHOMA – “open carry became lawful with permit as of November 1st, 2012. ”

        If you need a permit for Open Carry, then it’s not Constitutional Carry. 🙁

    3. avatar JWM says:

      Um. Should be 5 down, 52 to go.

      1. avatar Chuck in IL says:

        After Obama moves out of the Whitehouse, we go back to 50 states.

  7. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Wahhh Wahhhhhhhh for the dims.
    Yea for the people of Kansas.

  8. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    The article did say “Kansas residents” so do I as someone from the outside not have the same protection when I go for a visit?

    1. avatar Erik says:

      I read through the bill and nothing seems to mention a residency requirement

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Wow. Legislators and a governor who get it. They actually read the constitution?

  10. avatar kevin says:

    Yay us

    and since a couple people asked…yay anyone visiting us (nonresidents don’t need a permit either once it takes effect, probably July 1st that seems to be when everything takes effect here)

    1. avatar Toby in KS says:

      The radio news report I heard said June 1st.. I guess I ought to read the law to make sure.

  11. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

    plans to sign a bill….I’m pessimistic let me know when it’s law

    1. avatar Toby in KS says:

      The news reporter said there’s going to be a big signing ceremony and hullabaloo this weekend, and that the law would take effect on June 1st.

      But that was a news report. it would be better to read the law and find out.

      1. avatar kevin says:

        I just checked and the statute book is published July 1st according to the secretary of state’s website so it is july…well, at least now I know why everything here always takes effect July 1st.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    Toto, we’re back in Kansas!

  13. avatar Tommy Kocker says:

    Beware. The left is honing its skills in pressuring pols on legislation it doesn’t like. The recent knee buckling of Arkansas and Indiana Govs within hours of being attacked by the gay mafia should be a warning. If they want they can turn this CC around.

    1. avatar Stacy says:

      I thought about that too, especially with that last quoted statement, but while they may try, I don’t think they can replicate that effect for the simple reason that this isn’t a law targeted against a group. It’s identical to similar laws passed elsewhere, and recognizes the right of everyone, including all the SJWs’ various victim groups, to carry weapons for personal defense.

      The other big difference is that pro-2A movement is legion, and has the moral advantage, while the anti-gay marriage social conservatives are a tiny and fast-shrinking group that’s been on the defensive politically for the past decade. There are underlying social trends that cut strongly against them, but that if anything cut in favor of gun rights.

  14. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Outstanding, Kansas!

  15. avatar Slick says:

    Ermagerd, blerd in der streets!

    -said every anti ever

  16. avatar JackieO says:

    Fine job Kansas. Particularly fine.

  17. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    What is the list now? This is my understanding of constitutional carry states:
    – Alaska
    – Arizona
    – Wyoming
    – Arkansas
    – Vermont

    And so Kansas will be number six on the list?

    I also heard that over 99% of Montana is constitutional carry. Is that accurate?

    1. avatar nynemillameetuh says:

      Montana has permitless concealed carry outside of city and mining/lumber camp limits. Open carry doesn’t require a permit and is allowed inside and outside of city and camp limits. This makes the recent veto of permitless carry all the more spiteful.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Wyoming requires that you be a resident to Cconceal Carry without a permit. So it’s not quite constitutional.

  18. avatar Dustin says:

    So, 10% of the nation respects it’s own highest law…

    Better than 8%…

    I hate Floriduh…

  19. avatar stateisevil says:

    Down here in Florida, we’re quite content with the privilege to purchase an affirmative defense to the felony of carrying a concealed weapon or firearm. Open carry? What’s that? Besides a crime, that is.

  20. avatar gsnyder says:

    Tip of the hat. Isn’t it something in our current Country’s status we congratulate others for allowing them to have inalienable Constitutional Rights?

  21. avatar HAVE GUN says:

    Eleven years ago I moved from California to Kansas.

    It just gets better all the time.

  22. avatar Deadeye says:

    Hats off to you Kansas. I hope this becomes a trend.

  23. avatar GenghisQuan says:

    In other news, local vampire community disappointed when rivers of blood fail to materialize, vow to vote Republican next term.

  24. avatar Rick says:

    Mo is going down that road. Unfortunately we have a dem (Nixon) in the big house and he is likely to veto it when/if passed. Of course with Kansas passing CC perhaps it will pass just because Kansas did.

  25. avatar Jeff Hunt says:

    OK, how does requiring a CPL hurt anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights? If you ask me, some training might be a good thing. If one can pony up the money to buy a gun and ammunition, one should invest the time and money to learn some basics of handgun safety. Also, the Amendment does specifically mention regulation.

    1. avatar I bite troll bait says:

      Well, it mainly hurts the poor. Sometimes, the gun and ammo is about all you manage to afford after saving. Also, while training is a good idea, making it the government’s business to enforce it turns a good practice into an obligation. By no means should one find himself in cuffs for defending himself without a permit.

      Finally, while the Amendment does mention “a well regulated militia,” the men that wrote it also wrote about “well regulated diets” and “well regulated daily regimen[s].” “Well regulated” doesn’t mean “government regulated,” which is extremely important to anyone who wishes to properly read anything written before the 20th century.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      By having government requirements, the exercise of a right becomes the exercise of a privilege. When we trade the exercise of a right for a privilege, then it can, and probably will be, infringed upon by government at some point.

      Also, there is the question of cost. Someone with no money could be given a firearm or they could do a small job for one and then keep and bear it without further delay.

      Shall not be infringed means just as it reads. It doesn’t mean that we cannot encourage others to get training, however, government cannot be requiring it. Its freedom101.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      This comment reads like satire, but I’ll treat it as if it’s sincere.

      OK, how does requiring a CPL hurt anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights?

      How does a poll tax hurt anyone’s right to vote? What other constitutionality protected, natural rights require a locense? How about a free speech license? Maybe a religious exercise license?

      If you ask me, some training might be a good thing.

      Did you get your first amendment training before commenting here? Almost everyone agrees that training is a good thing. The issue is government defining it, and mandating it as a condition to exercise a natural right.

      If one can pony up the money to buy a gun and ammunition, one should invest the time and money to learn some basics of handgun safety.

      The basics of firearms handling and safety are simple. I’ve taught them to my 7- and 6-year-olds. They don’t require an “investment” of time and money, nor do they require government oversight.

      Also, the Amendment does specifically mention regulation.

      Perhaps you should invest some time and money to learn some basics of grammar, focusing on sentence structure and reading comprehension.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email