View Full Version : Need an explanatin of law language please

April 8, 2009, 02:51 PM
I was reading an article from some MSNBC story and came across a paragraph that caught my attention because it was talking about Kansas gun law and thats where I live, but I am not for sure what it means or if it's passed what it does to help us. The following is copy of the paragraph:

"Kansas plans to put a measure on its 2010 ballot that would rewrite the state constitution to make gun ownership a personal, rather than collective, right."

Can anyone help me understand what this is talking about please?

April 8, 2009, 03:23 PM
Apparently Kansas does not have the individual right specifically written into their constitution:


Bill of Rights - § 4 - Bear arms; armies

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

To have it ammended to have the individual right spelled out it a good thing, a very good thing!!!

April 8, 2009, 03:24 PM
If gun ownership is a personal right, you may own guns even though you are not part of a well regulated militia or in the military.
If gun ownership is a collective right you as a single person do not have a right to own guns, but society in general does. In other words, gun ownership could be restricted to militia, military, etc.

Here's how the DV vs Heller case was phrased: The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
SCOTUS decided that it is an individual right, not a collective right.

April 8, 2009, 03:38 PM
So nothing would really change other than the law would be spelled out more clearly? As it is written now would that make it more easy for gun bans to be passed then?

April 8, 2009, 03:47 PM
You wouldn't notice any changes right off the bat. If it passed it would assure that future gun control laws could not prevent an individual from owning a gun unless the state (and US) constitutions were changed or interpreted differently via another Heller type case.

Nothing gets changed right away, but it makes it more or less difficult for certain laws to get passed in the future depending on how the vote goes. You might notice something 20, 30 or 40 years down the road though.

April 8, 2009, 03:53 PM
Thanks all for the info!!