|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 8, 2009, 02:51 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: March 12, 2009
Posts: 27
|
Need an explanatin of law language please
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 | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,716
|
Apparently Kansas does not have the individual right specifically written into their constitution:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=1887 Quote:
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. |
|
April 8, 2009, 03:24 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
|
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: Quote:
|
|
April 8, 2009, 03:38 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: March 12, 2009
Posts: 27
|
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 | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
|
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 | #6 |
Member
Join Date: March 12, 2009
Posts: 27
|
Thanks all for the info!!
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|