They wanted to remove the part that says they can restrict your right to gun ownership based on mental illness.

(Reply) (Thread)

I think you are mixing the two. They wanted to remove the wording that currently lets the judicial system removed your right to VOTE if you have a mental illness.


The amendment to the right to bear arms amendment was just to 'clarify' who can own and bear arms. Seems there was some 'activist' Kansas Supreme Court back in 1905 that handed down a ruling that the amendment doesn't actually mean individuals, just that things like militias can have guns. Which I have to admit, is pure BS, as an armed citizenry is to protect against the government, so letting the government be the only ones with guns is.... totally against that amendment.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Ah, so I am. I think I'd read that they were putting a mental illness measure on the right to arms at some point, too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I still want the full meaning to go into effect.

Back in colonial days, any man, woman, or child (Who wasn't a slave) was allowed to own and use any and all weapons they could afford to buy, and/or build. Many a local rich mofo owned bigger cannons then the local army had, equipped his private army with top of the line rifles, and often had a better armed ship then most of the Navy.

This means that if I want to own a pony nuke, or nerve gas, or a slightly used Soviet tank with working cannon (Only used for hunting), I should be allowed to. And no where in the Constitution do they say I need to be sane, or even an American to do so.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Actually the vote regarding mental illness is about the right to vote, not gun ownership.
Two separate issues.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This totally made me LOL.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Every article talks about both of them, so it made a certain kind of groggy morning sense. I did honestly evaluate them as two different measures when voting.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Just bringing the State Constitution into agreement with the Supreme Court decision of a year or so ago... the guarantees an individual the right, rather than collectively "the people".

(Reply) (Thread)