Editorial

KANSAS LOOKS AT CONCEAL-CARRY ISSUE

This article comes from our electronic archive and has not been reviewed. It may contain glitches.

While Missouri voters turned down the right to carry concealed weapons in a statewide referendum this month, some Kansas legislators are trying to pass a bill that would allow concealed weapons in the Sunflower State, one of the seven states that do not have some form of conceal-carry law.

The Kansas Legislature actually passed such a bill in its 1997 session, but it was vetoed by Republican Gov. Bill Graves, who says there is no need for Kansans to have concealed weapons. If the Legislature approves another bill, Graves says he will veto it again.

Kansans who favored concealed weapons say they can only hope for a new governor. The reason: Unlike Missouri, Kansas has no constitutional authority for initiative or referendum issues. Missouri has both.

With an initiative, Missourians can initiate laws by acquiring enough signatures on petitions. With a referendum, the Missouri Legislature puts an issue, as they did with concealed-carry this year, before the voters for approval. In both initiatives and referendums, there is no veto option.

From time to time, Kansans have debated whether or not the state should have initiative or referendum rights, or both. The prevailing arguments have warned of chaotic laws resulting from direct-democracy voting that bypasses the legislative or executive branches of government. So far, those who see benefits in the initiative or referendum process haven't been able to persuade legislators, who would have to authorize a vote on a constitutional amendment.

Although there have been plenty of oddball ballot measures in Missouri as a result of initiatives or referendums, the state has weathered the people's right to have a hand in making laws. Issues that would never get statewide exposure have been widely debated and decided over the years.

It was because of Missouri's referendum option that the state's voters were the first in the nation to use the ballot box to decide the conceal-carry issue. In the other 43 states that have some sort of conceal-carry laws, the issue was decided legislatively.

That is still an option for Missouri. With enough legislators and a supportive governor, conceal-carry could become law without a vote of the people.

It will be interesting to see how neighbors Kansas and Missouri address the conceal-carry issue in the future. Along the way, Kansans might get the right to initiate laws or vote in referendums.

But don't expect Missouri legislators to pass a conceal-carry law or Kansas legislators to propose an initiative-referendum constitutional amendment anytime soon.