Gun Hero of the Day: Kansas Republican Chairman Kelly Arnold

1. If I was to paste a pic here, it’d be a homemade Good Guy Greg meme with this guy’s face.

   Good on him.

   • Kool Kansan Kelly?

     • Uh……

       Probably not a good idea.

2. Courts have repeatedly held that your home is your castle and that your hotel room is your home. You do not give up 4th amendment rights, that’s for sure. Do you give up 2nd amendment rights? Do they have case law or state law to back this up?

   • Even in California you are allowed to have a gun in your hotel room. But that does not apply to the rest of the property. My guess is they are removing the resitriction from the meeting rooms and other public areas.

   • None of your constitutional rights apply on private property except vis-à-vis agents of the State. Hotel employees are not agents of the State, and hotels are private property. Therefore, the hotel may ban firearms in any public area of the premises, just as you may prohibit other people from carrying firearms on your property.

   • You have some protections from the government in a hotel room in terms of search and seizure, etc, but you are not the owner and can decide whether to stay there or not depending on whether you want to abide by their rules. I say you shouldn’t stay there and give them business at all if they’re antigun.

   • Kansas CCH laws now (changed recently) say that any signage is merely a “suggestion”, except in Federal and State buildings. The worst that can happen is that, if discovered, you can be asked to leave.

3. Good for Kelly. I guess that the elite usually get what they want — even the right wing elite.

4. Why would anyone stary at a hotel that didn’t allow you to protect yourself? I only stay at hotels I feel safe at.

5. Hyatts policy sucks if you are moving or traveling for a competition or just want to protect yourself. It makes me wonder what the heck they are afraid of?

   • Their insurance company.

6. always bet on the whore . . . .

   • I don’t understand the relevance.

     • Money talks…

       • Bingo – one of the former minority owners of a major sports franchise used that saying to indicate that money trumps everything and people will prostitute themselves for it.

       • Reminds me of a story. Supposedly George Bernard Shaw was at a ritzy dinner party, seated next to an older woman who was volubly condemning the morals of a young woman who she accused of sleeping with various gentlemen to whom she was not married. Shaw, ever the wit, asked her, “Well, Madame, would you sleep with me tonight if I paid you a million pounds?” The woman, somewhat flustered, replied, “Why, yes I would.” Shaw then asked, “Would you sleep with me for one hundred pounds.?” “Of course not!” she exclaimed, “What kind of a woman do you make me out to be?” “We have already established that, madam,” he replied, “We are merely negotiating the price.”

7. Creates a good precedent. Now other groups can say – “hey, I guess this is negotiable. I want it too”. Do that enough times and eventually the management will get tired of talking about it.

8. We need to see similar action taken by the NRA at its conventions.

9. Bravo.
   Is human cloning up and running yet?

10. Sort a symbolic gesture. In Kansas if someone detects a licensed person carrying in a posted area, all they can do is ask you to leave.

11. I stayed at a Hyatt last weekend. I wasn’t aware of their “policy.” But, even if I was… I am free to ignore it. And, so I do.

12. How is this so great? I read it twice and what I’m seeing is this guy got a hotel to change policy so him and his republican friends could be packing here. How is this a win for anyone but him and his buds?

    • Good question, there.

    • This creates a precedant that future conventions can use. I would also imagine the suspension of the policy applies to all guests not just convention goers.

      Sometimes small steps matter.

    • Hopefully, it’s another reference point for fence sitters or the willfully ignorant, so they can see that nothing crazy happens when non-crazy people have guns while just going about their business.

      Anyone who sees this story and doesn’t associate carry of firearms with a AR/Starbucks or “F**K YOU, am I being detained?” Youtube video, might not look at the rest of us so poorly the next time.

    • First of all, please brush up on your grammar. It’s like fingernails on a blackboard to read your prattle.
      Second, who benefits? EVERYONE. The Constitution is respected, the law of the land is upheld, inalienable rights are not violated, and people are allowed to defend themselves and others from criminals. It’s a win-win. Democrats and people of all political strips carry, you know. Try expanding your mind, and not with illegal substances.

      • Making substances illegal is also unconstitutional; let’s not forget about the rest of our founding document.

        • Making substances illegal is unconstitutional? That’s a very interesting argument that I’ve never heard before. Everyone should be able to posses ricin, weaponized anthrax, sarin, for instance?

          Please detail some of the founding fathers’ writings where they talked about this subject.

          • “Please detail some of the founding fathers’ writings where they talked about this subject.”

            OK. Here is a list of the things that the states granted the Feds the power to do:

            US Constitution Article I Section. 8:

            The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

            To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

            To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

            To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

            To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

            To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

            To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

            To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

            To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

            To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

            To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

            To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

            To provide and maintain a Navy;

            To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

            To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

            To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

            To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

            To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

            Can you find “throw people into iron cages for smoking dried flowers” on that list?

        • And as to mind altering substances, I ask again, please detail some of the founding fathers’ writings on this subject, since the constitution is silent in this regard.

          • “since the constitution is silent in this regard.”

            Exactly. If the Constitution doesn’t delegate to them the authority to do something, they don’t have it.

            You seem to have fallen for the fallacy that the government is absolute ruler, limited only by ten little rules. The opposite is true. The government has NO (legitimate) powers at all, other than what the Constitution delegates to them. Or, more accurately, what the People delegated to them through the states by the instrument of the Constitution.

            • I can see you’re a real legal genius. You’re right that the Constitution does delegate power to the people of the states. Among these powers are the police powers and the power to enact legislation.

              Nowhere does the constitution outlaw murder. Nor does it outlaw your chose addiction. Those powers are legitimately left to the states.

      • Suck it up and take your medicine Dubya Bee. Rich and you BOTH were referring to the Constitution, then when it got too deep you changed it up to States… Your Ego is getting in the way of the debate.. Just take the graceful bow and allow him the victory.

        • “u BOTH were referring to the Constitution, then when it got too deep you changed it up to States”

          Speaking of reading comprehension, Larry, all I was saying is that when the whole regime turns against the Constitution, then supporting/upholding it falls to the states, who actually wrote it, or to the people respectively..

          • Very simply put, the fact that the Constitution does not outlaw something does not mean that it cannot be outlawed. It does not outlaw any particular activity that any of us would agree is criminal and that all of us would agree should be outlawed.

            Rich is just arguing that he should be able to smoke his pot. On a gun forum.

    • You know the old joke about “now that we’ve established what you are, we’re just negotiating the price”? It’s like that. They were willing to forgo their policies for this group, and now that they’ve “broken the seal” so to speak, the question becomes “Why won’t you do it for me?”

      And then that question maybe gets asked on a piece of fancy cream-colored paper with “The Law Firm of…” imprinted at the top.

      And so it goes.

    • You’re close, Kansas law allows any private property to post a sign banning guns on their property. Failure to honor the sign could result in the loss of your cch. The recent change only relates to public buildings (excluding Federal). State and local government buildings must provide a certain level of security in buildings (metal detectors…) or allow people with a cch to carry in the public building.

      There is an error in the article, Kelly is the Chairman not vice chairman.

    • The hotel is owned by the City of Wichita. There are several Council members who are very hostile to guns. Once the law was changed, Kelly and others began pushing the Council to add more buildings to the list of public buildings in which cch holders could carry. The anti second amendment crowd needs to see the sky doesn’t fall when you allow citizens to exercise their rights. This is part of an ongoing effort that wasn’t part of the story.

13. I remember staying at a casino hotel in Vegas for the 2012 US Open Trapshooting competition. Whenever you went through the lobby, you passed at least 5 high schoolers carrying their cased shotguns. I think one person asked me about my gun in a slightly fearful manner. Mostly I think that people didn’t even notice.

14. Big deal, the Democrats do the same things at their conventions. There’s no difference between the two parties.

    /sarc

Comments are closed.