KS passes Yes on 1 (Individual RTKBA)

[madengr]

"Yes on 1" passed by 89% yesterday. This was to amend the KS constitution to recognize an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Not that it wasn't there already, but it clears up a 100 year old supreme court decision that claimed it was only a collective right. Scary though that 11% voted no.

I wrote a program to fetch the data from the following URL then sorted by ascending order as to % yes by county:

http://www.kssos.org/ent/kssos_ent.html

chautauqua 97
jewell 97
clark 96
comanche 96
elk 96
hodgeman 96
lane 96
meade 96
anderson 95
barber 95
edwards 95
gray 95
greenwood 95
hamilton 95
haskell 95
kingman 95
lincoln 95
mitchell 95
morton 95
norton 95
osborne 95
ottawa 95
phillips 95
rawlins 95
republic 95
rooks 95
scott 95
stanton 95
stevens 95
barton 94
butler 94
cheyenne 94
clay 94
decatur 94
doniphan 94
ellsworth 94
gove 94
graham 94
grant 94
harper 94
kearny 94
kiowa 94
logan 94
miami 94
russell 94
seward 94
sheridan 94
smith 94
stafford 94
sumner 94
thomas 94
trego 94
washington 94
woodson 94
cherokee 93
jackson 93
linn 93
montgomery 93
morris 93
neosho 93
ness 93
pawnee 93
rice 93
rush 93
wabaunsee 93
allen 92
bourbon 92
brown 92
chase 92
cloud 92
cowley 92
dickinson 92
ellis 92
finney 92
ford 92
franklin 92
greeley 92
jefferson 92
marshall 92
nemaha 92
osage 92
pottawatomie 92
pratt 92
sherman 92
wallace 92
wichita 92
wilson 92
geary 91
labette 91
leavenworth 91
marion 91
reno 91
atchison 90
crawford 90
lyon 90
saline 90
mcpherson 89
sedgwick 89
harvey 87
shawnee 87
wyandotte 87
johnson 85
riley 85
coffey 76
douglas 74

[PaulineDisciple]

Wow! thanks, my county, Anderson is right up near the top with 95%, cool.

[Reason]

nice!

[Anti Federalist]

Shame it took this language out though:

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.

[madengr]

Shame it took this language out though:

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.

It was not removed. They struck out the "The people..." clause and replaced it with "A person...". The only concern I have is "lawful purpose".


Section 1 . The following proposition to amend the Constitution of the
State of Kansas shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the state
for their approval or rejection: Section 4 of the bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas is hereby amended to read as follows:

‘‘§ 4. Individual right to bear arms; armies. The people
have the right to bear arms for their defense and security A person
has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family,
home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for
any other lawful purpose ; 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.''

[Pericles]

It was not removed. They struck out the "The people..." clause and replaced it with "A person...". The only concern I have is "lawful purpose".

I'd be OK with it. As any other lawful purpose, is additive, not exclusive. The language is better than Texas has, which still shows influence from the Yankee occupation.

[Anti Federalist]

It was not removed. They struck out the "The people..." clause and replaced it with "A person...". The only concern I have is "lawful purpose".

Oh, OK, great, thanks for posting that, my reading of it seemed to indicate that language had been struck.

Good for Kansas.

[PaulineDisciple]

I did a little research on why Kansas had put this ballot question up for a vote and came up with this;

“The current text, "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security," has been read as not securing an individual right in City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905), which was adhered to by City of Junction City v. Lee, 532 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1975).”

“The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in City of Salina v. Blaksley is notable mainly for being the first court decision which invoked the now debunked “collective rights” interpretation of the right to bear arms. The decision was issued by a unanimous court in November 1905. At present this case and its progeny remain valid law in the State of Kansas”

For further discussing see;

http://volokh.com/posts/1238042014.shtml

http://kscblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/constitutional-amendment-would-overrule-court-decision/

and you can read the original 1905 ruling here;

http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/rkbadecisions/Salina1905.pdf

So in effect, this vote overturned 105 year precedence on two historical rulings. Wow! Hooray for our team!