I must have missed it.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The colleges in Kansas can make their own choices within state laws. State law allows concealed carry and some colleges do as well. They don't like to make it that public because of the bedwetting constitutency. Hence don't ask, don't tell. If that was good enough for Bill Clinton....

I have been talking about universal right of self defense from the beginning.

I am also surprised that you didn't go the common attack, "have you ever used a gun to defend yourself?".

Have you had lots of experience with bedwetting? Or were you referring to the vast amount of republicans in Kansas.

[JD Barleycorn]

A day late and a dollar short Eva. We've moved on.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Whose rights are being violated? I have the right, RIGHT, to self defense and I chose whatever is available to exercise that right. I have the skill, the training, and the disposition to walk around armed. I choose to do so. That is my right.

Your right is not to defend yourself...(okay, I'll give you this) Your right is to defend yourself with anything but a gun. You choose not to go through the training, you choose not to develop the skill, and you choose to not to have to make a hard decision about taking a life in defense of you, your families, or an innocent bystander. You just don't like the hard choices.

So who has a greater right in a public place? That seems to be what is bugging you. You charge me with wanting greater rights to move about armed but then you turn around and say that YOU have greater rights that I don't walk around armed. Now pay attention, no one wants to be around a rapist, drug user, molester, or murderer but you might be doing that very thing since people conceal their intent and character. The same thing with my weapon. If you don't see it then you don't have to hyperventilate. Go to a gun show sometime. The only hyperventilating going on is for someone trying to close a deal. Your nerves or sensitivities are your problem. Don't try putting them on me.

In the classroom (which you have pointed out a couple of times) there could be an off duty police officer. I ASSUME that he is armed and I don't care. When you go to a public event do you ask who is a police officer? I doubt it, so your sensitivity is situational at best and irrational.

As so many people have talked about, it is the law of the land. Deal with it. Isn't that how it goes?

Wrong on just about every statement. You have the right to self defense, but, once again, you don't have the right to self defense WITH A GUN in every circumstance. Do you or do you not understand this FACT???? If you carry a handgun into my home you are violating my rights. I am allowed to ban handguns from my home. FACT!!! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IN MY HOME WITH A HANDGUN AND I AM WITHIN MY RIGHTS TO DO THIS.

Living without a gun in my life is not at all a hard choice. Never needed one up to this point and it is doubtful I ever will. I am not going to waste my time developing a skill that I don't plan on using. I'm sure your argument is that there may be a time that I'll wish I had that skill but I'll take my chances.

At no time have I said I have "greater" rights than you, idiot. Find one statement that states that. I have said multiple times, which you totally ignore, that non gun owners have rights at times.

You posted 6 links to videos, all of which I looked at. I happen to agree with the main points in the videos. However, it was perfectly clear from the videos that the average citizen does NOT like guns, especially when the carrier flaunts them in their face for no reason. One of the guys who was openly carrying a handgun in a restaurant asked the guy who objected to this something like "Would it be better if I hid it under a few ounces of cloth.": The resounding answer is "YES". If I'm in a restaurant I don't want to see someone openly carrying a weapon. Plain and simple. When a police officer is carrying a gun, I know for a fact that he is trained with the gun and should know when to use it. With an average citizen, I have no way of knowing what his/her intentions are and whether he/she is trained in the use of the gun. I am not asking you to agree with my viewpoint (I'm sure to you it is "irrational") but I am sure I am in the vast majority on this.

And I do live with the law of the land, unlike you. I support your right to have a gun in YOUR home, not mine. I support your right to carry a concealed handgun, WITH A CHL. I support every hand gun law on the books. Where have I said otherwise???? What, you can't find me saying otherwise? If you call me irrational for not owning or carrying a gun, that is fine. I find it entertaining coming from someone who is simply unwilling to understand the mentality of others who disagree with him. No matter how much I disagree with your thought processes I accept them.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A day late and a dollar short Eva. We've moved on.

Thats what I thought you are a bedwetter. Nice deflection.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wrong on just about every statement. You have the right to self defense, but, once again, you don't have the right to self defense WITH A GUN in every circumstance. Do you or do you not understand this FACT???? I think you need to look up the word "fact". I maintain I have a natural right of self defense and my CHOICE is to do it with a firearm. I have other means but I'm not 28 anymore. It is your OPINION that I don't. If you carry a handgun into my home you are violating my rights. I am allowed to ban handguns from my home. FACT!!! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IN MY HOME WITH A HANDGUN AND I AM WITHIN MY RIGHTS TO DO THIS. Now if I come into your home with a concealed weapon you may never know it unless you ask. Are you any worse off for not knowing? Now you can be paranoid and ask everyone who comes through your door and then I can either leave (likely) or put my firearm in a locked case in my car (who knows about your neighborhood).

Living without a gun in my life is not at all a hard choice. Never needed one up to this point and it is doubtful I ever will. I am not going to waste my time developing a skill that I don't plan on using. I'm sure your argument is that there may be a time that I'll wish I had that skill but I'll take my chances. The question is why do you want to deny me my choice?

At no time have I said I have "greater" rights than you, idiot. Find one statement that states that. I have said multiple times, which you totally ignore, that non gun owners have rights at times. You have made several statements that my rights are superceded by your rights or the rights of some "public". I follow that law and that is the only concern of the public. My rights are exactly the equal of yours. When in the public which what we were talking about and not your house I have the legal right to do what I do. You can have no argument there. Don't think I didn't notice the idiot comment (you're losing).

You posted 6 links to videos, all of which I looked at. I happen to agree with the main points in the videos. However, it was perfectly clear from the videos that the average citizen does NOT like guns, especially when the carrier flaunts them in their face for no reason. One of the guys who was openly carrying a handgun in a restaurant asked the guy who objected to this something like "Would it be better if I hid it under a few ounces of cloth.": The resounding answer is "YES". If I'm in a restaurant I don't want to see someone openly carrying a weapon. Plain and simple. When a police officer is carrying a gun, I know for a fact that he is trained with the gun and should know when to use it. With an average citizen, I have no way of knowing what his/her intentions are and whether he/she is trained in the use of the gun. I am not asking you to agree with my viewpoint (I'm sure to you it is "irrational") but I am sure I am in the vast majority on this. Now you're starting to argue against open carry when you seemed to support it over concealed carry. That cop you're talking about now in my classroom is not in uniform. He is dressed like so many other students. Unless you ask, or can tell, he is just like anyone else. You don't know his intentions, you don't know his training, and you don't know his mindset that day. Cops have committed heinous crimes (I lived in New Orleans for two years). Also, according to the FBI crime statistics armed civilians have a slightly better record of shooting the right person than does law enforcement. Slightly but still better.

I can't comment on your vast majority comment because you have not really taken the time to clearly and succinctly state your position. Everything you've said has been complicated by this thing and that thing. A credo should be all encompassing and not have to be qualified. Mine is that I have (as does everyone else) a natural right to self defense at any time or any place in defense of my life or someone's else's life (even yours) and my means of defense is a firearm but it is not limited to that choice (in accordance with the local laws).

And I do live with the law of the land, unlike you. I support your right to have a gun in YOUR home, not mine. I support your right to carry a concealed handgun, WITH A CHL. I support every hand gun law on the books. Where have I said otherwise???? What, you can't find me saying otherwise? If you call me irrational for not owning or carrying a gun, that is fine. I find it entertaining coming from someone who is simply unwilling to understand the mentality of others who disagree with him. No matter how much I disagree with your thought processes I accept them.

There you go again. Where do you get off saying that I'm breaking the law? That is not your right and it is not true. The law says that I can carry a firearm in my car and on my person. I can't see how you can be taken serious on the latter part of this paragraph when you are so presumptuous and wrong in the former part.

As for the school, they have made a choice. They follow state law and state law leaves it up to them. Their spoken, but unwritten, is that they will neither ask about your concealed carry and they don't want you telling people that you do. They follow the state law and I follow the state law and the school law. How can you take umbrage against that?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

There you go again. Where do you get off saying that I'm breaking the law? That is not your right and it is not true. The law says that I can carry a firearm in my car and on my person. I can't see how you can be taken serious on the latter part of this paragraph when you are so presumptuous and wrong in the former part.

As for the school, they have made a choice. They follow state law and state law leaves it up to them. Their spoken, but unwritten, is that they will neither ask about your concealed carry and they don't want you telling people that you do. They follow the state law and I follow the state law and the school law. How can you take umbrage against that?

Wrong on just about every statement. You have the right to self defense, but, once again, you don't have the right to self defense WITH A GUN in every circumstance. Do you or do you not understand this FACT???? I think you need to look up the word "fact". I maintain I have a natural right of self defense and my CHOICE is to do it with a firearm. I have other means but I'm not 28 anymore. It is your OPINION that I don't.

YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE SUCH A LEGAL RIGHT 100% OF THE TIME.
YOU JUST DON'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT FACT. YOU ARE WRONG. THIS IS NOT OPINION ON MY PART. I CAN"T BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE STILL MAKING STATEMENTS LIKE THIS. YOU CAN'T "LEGALLY" CARRY A HANDGUN IN MY OFFICE BUILDING. THAT IS FACT. YOU CERTAINLY HAVE A CHOICE TO DO SO BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL. IF AN EMPLOYEE WANTS TO PUT A HIGH PAYING JOB IN JEOPARDY BY CARRYING A GUN ON COMPANY PREMISES THAT IS CERTAINLY HIS/HER CHOICE.

If you carry a handgun into my home you are violating my rights. I am allowed to ban handguns from my home. FACT!!! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IN MY HOME WITH A HANDGUN AND I AM WITHIN MY RIGHTS TO DO THIS. Now if I come into your home with a concealed weapon you may never know it unless you ask. Are you any worse off for not knowing? Now you can be paranoid and ask everyone who comes through your door and then I can either leave (likely) or put my firearm in a locked case in my car (who knows about your neighborhood).

BREAKING THE LAW IS BREAKING THE LAW. YOU CAN JUSTIFY IT ALL YOU WANT BY SAYING "NO ONE WILL KNOW" BUT YOU ARE STILL BREAKING THE LAW BY CARRYING A HANDGUN WHERE IT IS PROHIBITED BY LAW.

Living without a gun in my life is not at all a hard choice. Never needed one up to this point and it is doubtful I ever will. I am not going to waste my time developing a skill that I don't plan on using. I'm sure your argument is that there may be a time that I'll wish I had that skill but I'll take my chances. The question is why do you want to deny me my choice?

I AM CLEARLY NOT DENYING YOU YOUR CHOICE AT ALL WHERE IT IS LEGAL TO DO SO. YOU ALSO HAVE THE CHOICE TO CARRY YOUR HANDGUN WHERE IT IS NOT LEGAL TO DO SO -- WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN YOU DO SO YOU ARE VIOLATING OTHER'S RIGHTS TO BE IN A GUN FREE ENVIRONMENT.

At no time have I said I have "greater" rights than you, idiot. Find one statement that states that. I have said multiple times, which you totally ignore, that non gun owners have rights at times. You have made several statements that my rights are superceded by your rights or the rights of some "public". I follow that law and that is the only concern of the public. My rights are exactly the equal of yours. When in the public which what we were talking about and not your house I have the legal right to do what I do. You can have no argument there. Don't think I didn't notice the idiot comment (you're losing).

YOUR RIGHTS ARE GOVERNED BY LAWS, JUST LIKE MINE. IF YOU FOLLOW THE LAW AND DO NOT CARRY A HANDGUN WHERE PROHIBITED, NO PROBLEM. I HAVE NEVER SAID YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY A HANDGUN, CONCEALED (WITH A CHL WHEN REQUIRED) OR OPEN (IN THOSE STATES THAT ALLOW IT) AT ANY TIME IN THOSE PLACES THAT ALLOW YOU TO DO SO. LEARN HOW TO READ AND TRY TO COMPREHEND.

You posted 6 links to videos, all of which I looked at. I happen to agree with the main points in the videos. However, it was perfectly clear from the videos that the average citizen does NOT like guns, especially when the carrier flaunts them in their face for no reason. One of the guys who was openly carrying a handgun in a restaurant asked the guy who objected to this something like "Would it be better if I hid it under a few ounces of cloth.": The resounding answer is "YES". If I'm in a restaurant I don't want to see someone openly carrying a weapon. Plain and simple. When a police officer is carrying a gun, I know for a fact that he is trained with the gun and should know when to use it. With an average citizen, I have no way of knowing what his/her intentions are and whether he/she is trained in the use of the gun. I am not asking you to agree with my viewpoint (I'm sure to you it is "irrational") but I am sure I am in the vast majority on this. Now you're starting to argue against open carry when you seemed to support it over concealed carry. That cop you're talking about now in my classroom is not in uniform. He is dressed like so many other students. Unless you ask, or can tell, he is just like anyone else. You don't know his intentions, you don't know his training, and you don't know his mindset that day. Cops have committed heinous crimes (I lived in New Orleans for two years). Also, according to the FBI crime statistics armed civilians have a slightly better record of shooting the right person than does law enforcement. Slightly but still better.

TO REITERATE, SINCE YOU SEEM TO BE RATHER SLOW, I SUPPORT LAWS. I SUPPORT OPEN CARRY LAWS IN THOSE STATES THAT ALLOW IT. THAT DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE IT WHEN A PERSON COMES INTO A RESTAURANT WHERE I AM EATING WITH HANDGUN ON HIS HIP. I AM SIMPLY STATING THAT I, AND MOST PEOPLE, ARE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE NOT SEEING HANDGUNS IN PUBLIC PLACES.

I can't comment on your vast majority comment because you have not really taken the time to clearly and succinctly state your position. Everything you've said has been complicated by this thing and that thing. A credo should be all encompassing and not have to be qualified. Mine is that I have (as does everyone else) a natural right to self defense at any time or any place in defense of my life or someone's else's life (even yours) and my means of defense is a firearm but it is not limited to that choice (in accordance with the local laws).

FIRST, YOU DO NOT HAVE A NATURAL RIGHT TO DEFEND MY LIFE. THAT IS MY RIGHT. IF I AM BEING ROBBED ON A STREET AT GUNPOINT, I DO NOT WANT YOU COMING TO MY RESCUE. THE DOWNSIDE, IN MY OPINION, OUTWEIGHS THE UPSIDE. AND ONCE AGAIN (HOPEFULLY IT WILL SINK IN EVENTUALLY) YOU MAY CHOOSE TO PROTECT YOURSELF WITH A FIREARM BUT IN SOME CASES YOU WILL BE BREAKING THE LAW BY DOING SO.

And I do live with the law of the land, unlike you. I support your right to have a gun in YOUR home, not mine. I support your right to carry a concealed handgun, WITH A CHL. I support every hand gun law on the books. Where have I said otherwise???? What, you can't find me saying otherwise? If you call me irrational for not owning or carrying a gun, that is fine. I find it entertaining coming from someone who is simply unwilling to understand the mentality of others who disagree with him. No matter how much I disagree with your thought processes I accept them.

Whether or not they enforce the law is irrelevant. If I drive 70 mph on a road where the speed limit is 65, I am breaking the law. Whether or not the police will prosecute me for doing it is irrelevant. Written law trumps unwritten

[JD Barleycorn]

Before I read the rest of it I am going to comment on your wrongful use of the word "legal". In Kansas (you keep talking Texas but I live in Kansas so that is what we are goingt to talk about) it is legal to take a class, fill out an application, pay the fee and get a concealed carry license. I have done this. I have done nothing illegal. Now pay attention, in Kansas a owner can post a sign on the outside of their business saying that they want no guns on the premises. If you do bring one on the premises then you can be asked to leave. You will not be arrested as you have done nothing illegal. You will be asked to leave only. If you refuse then you can be arrested for treaspass and only treaspass. You have been wrong about so many things up here in Kansas (where I live). Missouri has different rules. You can be arrested for bringing a "concealed weapon" into a business that proscribes such carry. Know what that means in Kansas? There is no legal requirement to declare that you have a weapon on you since a business "ban" has no legal standing. So everytime you claimed I did something illegal you have been wrong. So admit that you are in error.

[JD Barleycorn]

After reading the other comments, all of which are rendered moot by your misunderstanding of the use of the word "legal" this is the only thing worth commenting about;

FIRST, YOU DO NOT HAVE A NATURAL RIGHT TO DEFEND MY LIFE. THAT IS MY RIGHT. IF I AM BEING ROBBED ON A STREET AT GUNPOINT, I DO NOT WANT YOU COMING TO MY RESCUE. THE DOWNSIDE, IN MY OPINION, OUTWEIGHS THE UPSIDE. AND ONCE AGAIN (HOPEFULLY IT WILL SINK IN EVENTUALLY) YOU MAY CHOOSE TO PROTECT YOURSELF WITH A FIREARM BUT IN SOME CASES YOU WILL BE BREAKING THE LAW BY DOING SO.

You leap to conclusions again, I am not protecting your property, I am trying to protect your life or the life of someone with you. That is my choice (your welcome). Now if you want me to stay away then wear a T-shirt that says "PREY" and I will go along on my business.

[i'va biggen]

Don't mess with him Speed he has stopped more crime than Zimmerman.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Don't mess with him Speed he has stopped more crime than Zimmerman.

Actually....

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

After reading the other comments, all of which are rendered moot by your misunderstanding of the use of the word "legal" this is the only thing worth commenting about;

FIRST, YOU DO NOT HAVE A NATURAL RIGHT TO DEFEND MY LIFE. THAT IS MY RIGHT. IF I AM BEING ROBBED ON A STREET AT GUNPOINT, I DO NOT WANT YOU COMING TO MY RESCUE. THE DOWNSIDE, IN MY OPINION, OUTWEIGHS THE UPSIDE. AND ONCE AGAIN (HOPEFULLY IT WILL SINK IN EVENTUALLY) YOU MAY CHOOSE TO PROTECT YOURSELF WITH A FIREARM BUT IN SOME CASES YOU WILL BE BREAKING THE LAW BY DOING SO.

You leap to conclusions again, I am not protecting your property, I am trying to protect your life or the life of someone with you. That is my choice (your welcome). Now if you want me to stay away then wear a T-shirt that says "PREY" and I will go along on my business.

Protecting MY life is not your responsibility. Where did you come up with that? Please show me anything written that deems you with such a responsibility, other than someone's opinion.

I searched the internet for anything that would give you the responsibility for saving someone's life other than your own, your family's, or someone you happened to be with you. I found some interesting information on responsibilities of CHL holders but absolutely nothing mentioning protection of strangers. The only article I could find that limits your responsibility is below, which mentions self-defense. You protecting my life is NOT self-defense.

There are other rules that experts agree on:

Citizens need to understand that unlike law enforcement persons who have the right to use whatever force is deemed necessary to subdue someone; individual citizens are generally limited by state and local law to using equal force as self-defense in a confrontation. In other words, a handgun should only be used as a last resort, when the offending person clearly intends to commit serious bodily harm, or has a handgun. If retreating is an option, do it.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Don't mess with him Speed he has stopped more crime than Zimmerman.

I always find it amazing that people such as JD and IB who are the most ardent when it comes to gun owner's rights seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time much more than the average citizen. Times I've needed a handgun for protection in my life -- zero. Times my wife, who has visited about 1/2 of the countries in this world and all 50 states, has needed a handgun for protection -- zero.

I guess we're just lucky and really do need a handgun for protection.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Before I read the rest of it I am going to comment on your wrongful use of the word "legal". In Kansas (you keep talking Texas but I live in Kansas so that is what we are goingt to talk about) it is legal to take a class, fill out an application, pay the fee and get a concealed carry license. I have done this. I have done nothing illegal. Now pay attention, in Kansas a owner can post a sign on the outside of their business saying that they want no guns on the premises. If you do bring one on the premises then you can be asked to leave. You will not be arrested as you have done nothing illegal. You will be asked to leave only. If you refuse then you can be arrested for treaspass and only treaspass. You have been wrong about so many things up here in Kansas (where I live). Missouri has different rules. You can be arrested for bringing a "concealed weapon" into a business that proscribes such carry. Know what that means in Kansas? There is no legal requirement to declare that you have a weapon on you since a business "ban" has no legal standing. So everytime you claimed I did something illegal you have been wrong. So admit that you are in error.

You are correct in that neither one of us seems to know all the laws concerning owning and carrying handguns or other firearms in all 50 states.

Below are the relevant laws in the state of Texas:

30.06 signage

TPC section 30.06 covers "Trespass by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun". It allows a residential or commercial landowner to post signage that preemptively bars licensed persons from entering the premises while carrying concealed. It is a Class A misdemeanor to fail to heed compliant signage. Signs posted in compliance with TPC 30.06 are colloquially called "30.06 signs" or "30.06 signage"; the phrase "thirty-aught-six" is sometimes substituted for the statute number as an ironic reference to the .30-06 Springfield cartridge fired by, e.g., the M1 Garand rifle.

• The courts have yet to rule on any specific requirements of 30.06, but CHL permittees are generally instructed that signage which does not comply exactly with TPC Sec. 30.06(c)(3)(B) is not binding. By the letter of the law, compliant signage must be:
  • A single sign (splitting the required language across two signs is considered non-compliant),
  • In contrasting colors (engraving the wording into a stone facade or onto a metal plate is considered non-compliant unless the engraving is then filled in with a contrasting color),
  • Having text 1" or greater in height,
  • Containing exactly the text specified by the law (even one letter difference makes the sign invalid). The legal verbiage is:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."[7]

And in Texas a Class A misdemeanor carries with it the following punishment.

Class A Misdemeanor

In Texas, class A misdemeanors are punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both jail time and a fine.

So what you are saying is true in Kansas or Missouri is not true in the state of Texas. I would appreciate seeing the same laws as they pertain to your state. Not that I don't trust your words. LOL.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Before I read the rest of it I am going to comment on your wrongful use of the word "legal". In Kansas (you keep talking Texas but I live in Kansas so that is what we are goingt to talk about) it is legal to take a class, fill out an application, pay the fee and get a concealed carry license. I have done this. I have done nothing illegal. Now pay attention, in Kansas a owner can post a sign on the outside of their business saying that they want no guns on the premises. If you do bring one on the premises then you can be asked to leave. You will not be arrested as you have done nothing illegal. You will be asked to leave only. If you refuse then you can be arrested for treaspass and only treaspass. You have been wrong about so many things up here in Kansas (where I live). Missouri has different rules. You can be arrested for bringing a "concealed weapon" into a business that proscribes such carry. Know what that means in Kansas? There is no legal requirement to declare that you have a weapon on you since a business "ban" has no legal standing. So everytime you claimed I did something illegal you have been wrong. So admit that you are in error.

I did some research on my own. Carrying a handgun into several places is ILLEGAL, which means it is against the law.

Situations or Circumstances Where Carrying a Gun is Illegal

The following rules govern when you may not carry a gun in Kansas. You may not carry a firearm:

• without a license (for concealed firearms)
• openly on public property if the city or town you are in has prohibited it, and
• onto school property (including preschool and child care facilities).

People may also not carry a gun into:

• police or sheriff stations, jails or prisons
• courthouses
• polling places when an election is taking place
• state offices
• athletic event facilities, or
• places of worship.

(Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-7c10.)


From an article titled "What are the Gun Laws in Kansas" : http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbys...nlaws_ks_3.htm



No license shall authorize the licensee to carry a concealed weapon into:

• Any place where an activity declared a common nuisance is maintained.
• Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station.
• Any detention facility or jail.
• Any courthouse.
• Any courtroom, except that nothing precludes a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in the judge's courtroom.
• Any polling place on the day an election is held.
• Any meeting governing board of any county, city, or other political or taxing subdivision of the state, or any committee or subcommittee thereof.
• On the state fairgrounds.
• Any athletic event.
• Any state office building.
• Any athletic event not related to or involving firearms which is sponsored by a private or public elementary or secondary school or any private or public institution of postsecondary education.
• Any professional athletic event not related to or involving firearms.
• Any portion of a drinking establishment except that this provision shall not apply to a restaurant.
• Any elementary or secondary school building or structure used for student instruction or attendance.
• Any community college, college or university facility.
• Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal or state law.
• Any child exchange and visitation center provided for in K.S.A. 75-720, and amendments thereto.
• Any community mental health center; psychiatric hospital; or state psychiatric hospital, as follows: Larned state hospital, Osawatomie state hospital or Rainbow mental health facility.
• Any city hall.
• Any public library operated by the state or by a political subdivision of the state.
• Any day care home or group day care home, or any preschool or childcare center.
• Any church or temple.

Nothing in this shall be construed to prevent:

• Any public or private employer from restricting or prohibiting in any manner persons licensed under this act from carrying a concealed weapon while on the premises of the employer's business or while engaged in the duties of the person's employment by the employer.
• Any entity owning or operating business premises open to the public from restricting or prohibiting in any manner persons licensed under this act from carrying a concealed weapon while on such premises, provided that the premises are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention. of persons entering the premises, as premises where carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited; or
• A property owner from restricting or prohibiting in any manner persons licensed under this act from carrying a concealed weapon while on such property, provided that the premises are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the property where carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited.

I don't know whether these are laws or not. Sure seem to be but I could be wrong. Nor are any punishments mentioned for those who violate these restrictions. Again, I would appreciate input from you from reliable sources to uphold your point of view that these are NOT laws.

And I have never said that there is a requirement to tell most people that you are carrying a concealed handgun. Even in Kansas, you should not be in a classroom with a concealed handgun. You are not authorized to do so and whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant.