Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach on Tuesday came out in support of a constitutional amendment that would extend legal protections to ammunition as well as firearms’ accessories and components.
Kobach said the amendment would provide more protection of gun rights because it adds a new higher legal standard for regulating firearms and would now include a right to ammunition and gun accessories not necessarily guaranteed by the state constitution.
The amendment also sets out that any law regulating guns in Kansas would be subject to the heightened legal standard of strict scrutiny, meaning the government would have to demonstrate a compelling interest to adopt a regulation in a narrowly tailored way.
While the state amendment could not override federal statutes regulating guns, it could be a shield against government regulations at the state and federal level, he said.
Opponents of the bill said it would put the general public at risk, potentially making guns available to felons and domestic abusers who might challenge any gun regulation under the proposed constitutional amendment.
Kobach told the House Federal & State Affairs Committee that the proposed state constitutional amendment would provide a backstop to a new standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2022 case.
In that ruling, the court struck down a New York law requiring anyone who wanted to publicly carry a handgun in public to demonstrate the need to defend themselves.
Kobach said the U.S. Supreme Court held that the gun regulation was presumed to be unconstitutional unless the government could show it was consistent with regulations understood to be legal when the constitution was originally written.
“You basically have two very strong tests protecting the individual,” he said of the proposed amendment.
“In addition to the Supreme Court’s new text-and-history standard, you’re giving the person asserting their gun rights the best possible chances.”
Democratic state Rep. Jo Ella Hoye, the ranking member of the committee, asked Kobach how the amendment might affect laws already on the books that would keep guns out of the hands of someone convicted of a felony or domestic abuse.
“This potentially takes some of those laws off of the books,” she said.
Kobach said he didn’t think the constitutional amendment would nullify those types of laws if they were challenged in court.
“It’s always been assumed that historically and today the government – whether it be the federal government or the state government – has the right to take away from a felon his right to keep and bear arms,” Kobach responded.
“That right can be sacrificed and the loss of that right is an element of punishment that can be imposed,” he said.
He added that existing language in the state constitution, which wouldn’t change in the amendment, only covers the “lawful” right to keep and bear arms.
Democratic state Rep. Kirk Haskins of Topeka pressed Kobach about the need for the proposed constitutional amendment.
“It just says you have the right own to bullets. I would think the Second Amendment would already cover that,” Haskins said.
Kobach said he believes the Second Amendment would cover ammunition, but said there are asmall number of cases that address the meaning of the amendment.
“There are still a lot of unanswered constitutional questions,” he said.
“To what extent is ammunition covered and what accessories are covered, what are not covered by the Second Amendment?
“What this would do is add certainty that the state constitutional provision in Kansas does cover those things,” he said.
The proposed amendment requires support from two-thirds of the Legislature and would have to be approved by Kansas voters.
The proposed amendment would go on the ballot this November.
In 2010, about 88% of Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment that protected someone’s right to keep and bear arms for the “defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.”
The proposed amendment would extend the constitutional protection to firearm accessories and components as well as ammunition. It also would include the new strict scrutiny standard that has been adopted in other states.
The Rev. Annie Ricker, a Topeka pastor and chair of Kansas Interfaith Action, opposed the amendment. She said the amendment would threaten public safety.
“Gun owners like me, want laws that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. This amendment does the opposite of that,” she said.
“Not only would it make it virtually impossible to regulate anything from ammunition to bump stocks and more, when similar amendments passed in other states, convicted felons and domestic abusers sued for access to gun,” she said.
“The right to keep and bear arms is already enshrined in the Kansas Constitution,” she said.
“Our state can protect the Second Amendment while also ensuring that dangerous individuals do not have access to guns by passing and enforcing reasonable gun legislation.”
Shannon Little, a volunteer with Kansas Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in
America, also opposed the amendment.
She, too, said the amendment threatened important public safety laws.
“On its face, this amendment appears to only broaden gun-owners rights,” she said.
“If passed, the resolution could pave the way for convicted felons and domestic abusers to legally possess firearms in Kansas.”
