VOTE YES ON 1 NOVEMBER 2ND!

[Teresa]

VOTE YES ON 1 TO PROTECT YOUR GUN RIGHTS!

Put our Right to Keep and Bear Arms back in the Kansas Constitution

A 1905 court ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court took the interpretation of Section 4 of the Kansas Constitution to mean the Right to Keep and Bear arms only exists as a collective right for those in the militia or military and "NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT EXISTS."

For that very reason, the NRA has worked with KSRA, Senator Mike Petersen and the Legislature, to pass a Constitutional Amendment during the 2009 legislative session, which provides new language that clarifies Section 4 and GUARANTEES an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

"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."

Our elected officials have done the citizens of Kansas a tremendous service by passing this landmark Constitutional Amendment.  Now it is up to the voters to go to the polls on November 2, 2010, and vote this provision into the Kansas Constitution. 

The ballot language will read as follows:

"A vote for this amendment would constitutionally preserve the right of a person to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for the lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."

"A vote against this amendment would provide for no constitutional right of a person to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."


VOTE YES ON 1 NOVEMBER 2ND!

[mtcookson]

Definitely awesome... but at the same time I don't like the wording. It simply needs to say: "A person's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

With this statement "for the defense of self, family, home and state" and I can see some idiot politician or lawyer or whomever trying to bring suit against someone for protecting friends or even random strangers in certain situations where a person could do so. The statement "and for any other lawful purpose." might help... but like they say "Give a politician and inch and they'll take a mile". This is giving them that inch.

Regardless, I'll definitely vote yes but I'm doing so hesitantly sadly. I just don't trust them.

[srkruzich]

Definitely awesome... but at the same time I don't like the wording. It simply needs to say: "A person's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

With this statement "for the defense of self, family, home and state" and I can see some idiot politician or lawyer or whomever trying to bring suit against someone for protecting friends or even random strangers in certain situations where a person could do so. The statement "and for any other lawful purpose." might help... but like they say "Give a politician and inch and they'll take a mile". This is giving them that inch.

Regardless, I'll definitely vote yes but I'm doing so hesitantly sadly. I just don't trust them.

you aren't the only one MT.  I will vote yes too but quite frankly, its a moot point isn't it, since the 2nd Amendment trumps this anyway.