1911Forum banner

Will Shawnee County DA Hecht prosecute Mr. Mah?

  • Yes, while manufacturing some wrong not present.

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • No, Kansas law is too clear.

    Votes: 7 70.0%
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In this thread I reported on the Oklahoman who shot a robber of a gas station... http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=163660

Question: Will the DA of Shawnee County, KS, prosecute Mr. Mah?

Lets see what Mr. Hecht wrote about the bill which became the concealed carry law... http://www.shawneecountyda.org/index.asp?nid=204

"An issue popular with many has been the “right” [ WHOA! that's a red flag right there; one of the first ten rights enumerated in the Constitution is a " 'right' " to Mr. Hecht ] or legal opportunity to carry firearms concealed on their person. It being argued that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution stating:

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' is the organic basis for the right of persons to carry concealed on their person firearms and that the adoption of Senate Bill 418 of the 2006 Kansas Legislative Session being for the purpose of '. . . the personal and family protection act; providing for licensure to carry certain ‘concealed weapons’. . .' is in furtherance thereof, such being the so-called “Concealed Carry” law.

The advocates of strict construction of the 2nd Amendment would argue a constitutional right exists to own, bear, and carry firearms – concealed or not, as may be chosen. [ that would seem to me to be the definition of those "bear arms"' "not be"-ing "infringed" words.] Others would argue the 2nd Amendment applies only to bearing arms for militia purposes and others are somewhere between the extremes and would suggest that reasonable regulation and restriction may be constitutional. After all, in 1776, or when the Constitution was first presented to the states for ratification in 1787, firearms consisted of single shot black powder and ball muskets and hand pistols, not 14 shot, semi-automatic, .40 caliber, laser sight, sound and flash suppressant, hand guns or sound and flash suppressed .50 caliber rifles with laser sights and night visions with which a man can be dropped at 500 yards. [ nope, but that single shot musket was the equivilent of the modern M-16 or snipers rifle, and any US citizen with the money could own a cannon, but, Man! did he not choose the scariest sounding firearms for his arguments or what? Laser sighted, sight and sound suppressed? Does that make killing someone with them "more wrong"?]

Nothing is absolute.

[Really? Here's what the KS Constitution says...

Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Sec. 5. The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate.

Sec. 6. There shall be no slavery in this state; and no involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Sec. 7. The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed... No religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust...

So the US Constitution doesn't apply to the States? Let a State infringe on speach and see how far that flies. But it is moot, because the KS Constitution gives the same right as the US Constitution.

I wonder if Mr. Hecht is prepared to reasonable recgonize violations of the right to a trial by jury, or on the prohibition against slavery (let's just own a few people, that's ok), or maybe a minor test of religion for government office, just a few compelled religion classes; after all, "nothing is absolute." ]

The Kansas Supreme Court stated in 1958, referring with approval to the case of Sester v. Belvue Drainage District, 162 Kan. 1, 6, 173 P.2d 619, a 1946 case '. . . in which it was said that the first ten amendments to the federal constitution are limitations only on the power of the federal government and do not apply to the state.' (State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496, 328 P.2d 733)

... [legal case quotes here]

It is interesting to note the Legislature must have recognized the danger of authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms for look at where they may not be carried:

'Any real or personal property that allows commercial gambling [long list followed] (Senate Bill 418, New Sec. 10, 2006 Legislative Session )

Was it intentional that the only places of worship where the carrying of a concealed firearm was prohibited was a 'church' or a 'temple'? Not a 'mosque'. [ Good point, Mr. Hecht!] And, by the way, how does one define or identify what is a 'church' or a 'temple'? Does the Phelps compound qualify? Do storefront places of worship qualify? [Phelps- that's another Waco building up]

Clearly, or at least extensively, the legislature has said where you may not carry a concealed firearm – and made it a Class A misdemeanor to do so in violation.

However, they have given property owners the right, with proper notice, to forbid the carrying of concealed firearms on their property, but only made it a Class B misdemeanor to do so in violation. Apparently, it is more serious to carry a concealed weapon in a two-story state office building than in a twelve-story private office building. [ Mr. Hecht has a minor point here, but mistates the illogic or wrong thinking of the legislature- The State made it an A misdemeanor to defy them by carrying in place they said was wrong to carry a concealled weapon, while a B misdemeanor to carry where the property owner says you can't- possibly it is worse to defy the legislature than just a property owner, but that says more about the law makers potential disdain for property owners than what is a more serious "wrong" ]

... [not relevent- and I need the word count reduced]

As is well recognized by those of us involved [ Those Mr. Hecht ran as a Republican, this type of statement is normally heard from elitist liberal Democrats- they know better than you], there are way too many guns out there and they are sophisticated, high powered, with a numerous load. My fear is that as more guns become ever more close at hand in emotional surges, “road rage”, unrealistic fears, it will be reached for. [I fear Mr. Mah is in trouble... Mr. Hecht just showed an irrational fear of guns, not of criminals, that's both irrational and danderous. Given all of the evidence to the absolute contrary from Florida first, this is the lamest argument against CCW, but one still promulgated. Lott showed us criminals flee the armed citizen and armed citizens can be trusted as proven by their years of safely using and implements CCW carry]

We have a recent example of a private hard-working, responsible citizen, whose pick-up was burglarized, pursuing the offenders a considerable distance, in both residential and commercial neighborhoods and firing numerous shots from a MC11 [ Mac-11? Is this choice intended to be inflamatory? ] at the fleeing vehicle. Who was placed at risk? We have had one child killed while simply talking on the phone in her home by a reckless discharge of a handgun and this month a teenage girl wounded by a “drive by” shooting. Is such a shooting different than that of the citizen firing at a fleeing vehicle while driving his vehicle at a rapid rate of speed?

[ Mr. Hecht again has a point, but not the one he was trying to make. This yahoo misused a gun per my LE training in KS, but the CCW law would not have affect this situation, except to possibly better educate the truck owner. The details of the reckless discharge and the "drive-by?" are missing and the events are irrelevent... please, drive by gangsters don't apply for CCW permits to become upstanding responsible citizens. These truths are apparently lost on Mr. Hecht.]

Mr. Hecht apparently recognizes there is a threat to those at risk in his County... http://www.shawneecountyda.org/index.asp?nid=184

At Risk—Women and Children

"Frequency of Sexual Assaults

...

The KBI acknowledges that in 2002 three times a day [every 7.5 hours] a rape was reported in Kansas. Sadly, we must acknowledge that two thirds of all sexual assaults go unreported (USBOJ, 2002)

It is frightening to acknowledge the risk that exists in Shawnee County because of the 180 registered sex offenders that are living here. For their names, addresses and photographs, go to the office web page at www.shawneecountyda.org and then click on Community Awareness and then click on Sexual Offenders. Information is the only way to protect our children."

ONLY WAY? DID THE D.A. JUST WRITE THAT? THAT'S AMAZING! Mr. Hecht just resign and let's not prosecute any more criminals, we should just inform protential victims!

But, that risk against women should not be combatted by arming women.

Mr. Hecht's observations are that CCW holders will run down the street shooting innocents, not that CCW holding females will prevent their rapes, possibly those women will smoke a sexual predatory thereby improving the community.

So I ask, will D.A. Hecht prosecute Mr. Mah?

Under Kansas law, a person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to her and she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend herself or another against such aggressor’s imminent use of unlawful force.

Given this decision by the Sedgwick County, D.A. (Wichita, KS)...

http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/da/criminal_media/2003/ajalenewilson.html

in which a female killed her unarmed (though larger) female attacker with a knife, it would be a shame if Mr. Hecht decided to ignore KS law to make his fears of an armed populace "real."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,526 Posts
It looks like Kansas has a pretty level headed State Senator, it sounds like he should be the State Atty. General though:
http://www.ksnt.com/news/local/5300366.html
After fourteen years of trying to pass the Conceal Carry law in Kansas, State Senator Phill Journey says Friday’s incident is a prime example of where the new law could help society. It is absolutely going to be seen as more permit holders are out there. I think its important that criminals need to be on notice that this will happen to them.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Control, control, control...

After all, in 1776, or when the Constitution was first presented to the states for ratification in 1787, firearms consisted of single shot black powder and ball muskets and hand pistols, not 14 shot, semi-automatic, .40 caliber, laser sight, sound and flash suppressant, hand guns or sound and flash suppressed .50 caliber rifles with laser sights and night visions with which a man can be dropped at 500 yards.
The above statements show his willful disregard for both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment, as well as the intent of The Founders.

This, from someone who holds a law degree, a doctorate in law. He knows damn well what he is saying is hogwash.

This guy is nothing more than another corrupt, morally bankrupt leftist/socialist with a law degree and power to wield. Power, power, power, control, control, control - that's all people of his ilk think about.

They don't think about controlling criminal thugs - they think about controlling We The People.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,526 Posts
Was it intentional that the only places of worship where the carrying of a concealed firearm was prohibited was a “church” or a “temple”? Not a “mosque”. And, by the way, how does one define or identify what is a “church” or a “temple”? Does the Phelps compound qualify? Do storefront places of worship qualify?
If this guy is so stupid as to not know that a Mosque wouldn't fall under the same category as a church, he really is the village idiot.
And as disgusting as Phelps is, he would fall under a place that carrying would be prohibited, as he describes his organization as a church. I once was a member of a "storefront church", quite often that is the only way a new work can get started..yes the key word is church...

Typical lib that wants to stretch, parse, twist, and redefine every term used in order to come to his suitable interpretation...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
With the left so angry about a concealed carry bill passing in this state, I see the county attorney at least holding a hearing to see if the shooting was justified. I think it will set a presedent for the rest of Kansan's. The Attorney General is not friendly to CCH laws so I do see this thing going on for the poor guy who stuck his neck out to protect others. Steve48
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Former KS AG Opinion on the 2nd Ammendment

Steve 48 said:
With the left so angry about a concealed carry bill passing in this state, I see the county attorney at least holding a hearing to see if the shooting was justified. I think it will set a presedent for the rest of Kansan's. The Attorney General is not friendly to CCH laws so I do see this thing going on for the poor guy who stuck his neck out to protect others. Steve48
In ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 97-17...
http://www.kscourts.org/ksag/opinions/1997/1997-017.htm
the former KS AG concluded:

"We conclude that the Kansas prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm on one's person except when on one's own land, abode or fixed place of business, as provided by K.S.A. 21-4201(a)(4), does not violate the second amendment to the United States constitution. Thus, in response to your question, the second amendment to the United States constitution does not provide the citizens of Kansas with a right to carry a concealed weapon."

Very truly yours,


CARLA J. STOVALL
Attorney General for Kansas

The above was preceded by a lengthy diatribe listing the prior poor case decisions. Poor being my adjective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
After all, in 1776, or when the Constitution was first presented to the states for ratification in 1787, firearms consisted of single shot black powder and ball muskets and hand pistols, not 14 shot, semi-automatic, .40 caliber, laser sight, sound and flash suppressant, hand guns or sound and flash suppressed .50 caliber rifles with laser sights and night visions with which a man can be dropped at 500 yards.

Do people who spout this garbage really know what they are saying? Carrying this thought to its logical conclusion, there were no computers, phones, radios, TV, radio, mass produced print media. This would mean none of the above are protected forms of expression. NO Hollywoood movies either. The first admendment would only apply to forms of communication available at the time the constitution was written. No wiretap court orders needed, computers are wide open to invasion,after all the framers never concieved of computers.

len
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Trailboss60 said:
If this guy is so stupid as to not know that a Mosque wouldn't fall under the same category as a church, he really is the village idiot.
You mean it would right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Len S said:
After all, in 1776, or when the Constitution was first presented to the states for ratification in 1787, firearms consisted of single shot black powder and ball muskets and hand pistols, not 14 shot, semi-automatic, .40 caliber, laser sight, sound and flash suppressant, hand guns or sound and flash suppressed .50 caliber rifles with laser sights and night visions with which a man can be dropped at 500 yards.

Do people who spout this garbage really know what they are saying? Carrying this thought to its logical conclusion, there were no computers, phones, radios, TV, radio, mass produced print media. This would mean none of the above are protected forms of expression. NO Hollywoood movies either. The first admendment would only apply to forms of communication available at the time the constitution was written. No wiretap court orders needed, computers are wide open to invasion,after all the framers never concieved of computers.

len

Stellar point!
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top