You are here
First vs. Second Amendment Controversy in Kansas
Tuesday, February 4th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
A dispute in Kansas raises the question: which takes
precedence, the First Amendment (free speech) or the Second
Amendment?
On July 1, 2013, a Kansas state law became effective that prohibited the use of state funds to pay for promotion or lobbying on gun control legislation or regulation at any governmental level.
According to an article in the Topeka Capital-Journal this week, when a Wyandotte County Unified Government (Kansas City) lobbyist testified against a state bill that would prohibit cities and counties from restricting the open carrying of firearms and knives and from using tax dollars to administer gun buyback programs, a state representative objected, saying that this testimony was prohibited under the 2013 law. The lobbyist said he was paid with local government funds. However, since money is fungible, one could argue that he was paid at last partially with state funds. The state rep plans to seek an opinion from the attorney general.
The lobbyist had a good point to make: the open carrying of guns and knives in an urban environment is different from open carrying in a rural environment. Therefore, there should not be one rule for both environments.
Why would a government place the Second Amendment above the First Amendment, especially when it undermines the discussion of important issues by local governments, state agencies, and the many private entities that receive state funds, and prevents geographic and other communities from having their opinions made part of the conversation?
If the AG does find that the prohibition applies to local governments, local governments should join together to oppose it by offering their views jointly, on both sides of this proposed legislation and others, and force the state to actually silence them. State agencies and organizations that receive state funds should join them, and make the prohibition unenforceable.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
On July 1, 2013, a Kansas state law became effective that prohibited the use of state funds to pay for promotion or lobbying on gun control legislation or regulation at any governmental level.
According to an article in the Topeka Capital-Journal this week, when a Wyandotte County Unified Government (Kansas City) lobbyist testified against a state bill that would prohibit cities and counties from restricting the open carrying of firearms and knives and from using tax dollars to administer gun buyback programs, a state representative objected, saying that this testimony was prohibited under the 2013 law. The lobbyist said he was paid with local government funds. However, since money is fungible, one could argue that he was paid at last partially with state funds. The state rep plans to seek an opinion from the attorney general.
The lobbyist had a good point to make: the open carrying of guns and knives in an urban environment is different from open carrying in a rural environment. Therefore, there should not be one rule for both environments.
Why would a government place the Second Amendment above the First Amendment, especially when it undermines the discussion of important issues by local governments, state agencies, and the many private entities that receive state funds, and prevents geographic and other communities from having their opinions made part of the conversation?
If the AG does find that the prohibition applies to local governments, local governments should join together to oppose it by offering their views jointly, on both sides of this proposed legislation and others, and force the state to actually silence them. State agencies and organizations that receive state funds should join them, and make the prohibition unenforceable.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
