First vs. Second Amendment Controversy in Kansas

A dispute in Kansas raises the question:  which takes
precedence, the First Amendment (free speech) or the Second
Amendment?<br>
<br>
On July 1, 2013, <a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2162_enro…; target="”_blank”">a
Kansas state law</a> 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.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://cjonline.com/news/2014-01-31/legislator-tries-muzzle-wyandotte-c…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Topeka <i>Capital-Journal</i> this week</a>, 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.<br>
<br>

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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---