0 votes

Does Right to Bear Arms "for any other lawful purpose" Limit the 2nd Amendment?

The People of Kansas overwhelmingly voted to change their State Constitution regarding the 2nd Amendment, and this language is found below in bold print. Did they just limit their right to bear arms if tyranny wins and the overthrow of the government is the only way out? Is the term "lawful" relative and limiting to the People when it comes to revolution?

Right To Bear Arms Vote Sets A National Record
Friday, November 5th, 2010 at 2:18 pm

Bonner Springs, KS - The citizens of Kansas voted overwhelmingly on November 2nd to ensure that their Second Amendment rights are never questioned in Kansas.

Voters decided with 710,255 votes (89% of votes cast) that the Kansas Constitution should be changed to insure that every individual has the right to bear arms in Kansas. Only 91,004 persons (11% of votes cast) declared they did not want this change made.

It was a great victory and shows how important the people of Kansas believe this issue is. This was a record setting vote as no other gun rights initiative has passed with this overwhelming of a vote in the entire country.

The previous record was set in 1986 when West Virginia voters approved their Constitutional Amendment with an 83.6% approval.

Article 4 of the Kansas Constitution will now read, “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose.”

The Kansas State Rifle Association worked with the NRA and Senator Mike Petersen and several other members of the Kansas legislature to pass a resolution to provide for this new language and get it placed on the ballot for this general election.

The Kansas State Rifle Association would like to thank everyone who assisted in educating the voters about this amendment. It was a huge effort to inform voters to make sure they understood what was being done and why it needed to be done. Volunteers spent countless hours passing out bumper stickers, fliers and yard signs and explaining the issue to citizens.

Our voices have been heard loud and clear and the Second Amendment prevails in the great State of Kansas!


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't think the

tyrants will be reading it as carefully as we are when they decide whether or not to violently resist and uprising.

Defend Liberty!

Why didn't Kansas just simply

Why didn't Kansas just simply reiterate the 2nd Amendment? Kansas' version is more limiting on our rights, possibly even in violation of them.

2nd Amendment states that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed... period. Kansas adding other limitations on to that is a constitutional infringement on those rights. Our right to keep and bear arms is absolute, not up to the States to decide.


where I live,

resisting Color of Law, is STILL LAWFUL.

if not, we can always direct everyone to John Bad Elk vs. United States, you know, just as a good Constitutional reminder.o)


"and for any other lawful purpose"

What if the last sentence read "and for any other legal purpose" ,would it change the meaning of anything?

Let me break it down: "A

Let me break it down:
"A person" The Legal entity--> YOU
"has the right" in other words, It is not a privilege!
"to keep AND bear arms" AND!!!!
"for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."

Because if LAWFUL PURPOSE wasn't included, he had a RIGHT to bear his GUN at the clerk when he robbed the store, And he would be right!

The Real reason of why this LAW was added was to clarify the Second Amendment from those who think it is only the right of the organized militia to bear arms.

This is a win for all PRO 2nd Amendment. End of story!


I doubt this

would stop the UN army from taking them from people.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Nope, you're right.

My firing a bullet into them will though.

Malon Labe.

hey man, don't knock the pajamas.o)

just ask the Vietnamese how they "stopped" the UN.

It's not the high-tech, or layers of protection that matter. Their "protections" all still gots to be manned by some poor schmuck to get the NWO machine keep-on keeping on...

likewise, ask any WhiteHat hacker, they'll tell you no matter how "secure" they think they are, it's always the human guarding that data that's always the weakest link.)

SteveMT's picture

Not only the UN, but our own government as well.

They seem to want our guns.

What part of BEAR arms do people not understand ?

IT means, able to have on your person.
We have already altered the meaning.
"To bear', does not mean, let it in a closet and bring out when it is too late to be neccessary.

The second ammendment is already compromised.
"TO KEEP" means to have it in a person's closet.
A malitia is always prepared . Who is the malitia ? Every abled body that is of age and healthy enough to move a finger.

And I do not promote or advocate anything or activity..

Keep is one thing...

Bear is entirely another! Thank you for pointing that out, Impailed4U.

Great point.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

SteveMT's picture

Kansas is trying to reinvent the wheel, but with more words....

than is necessary.

I believe that Kansas just dug a hole for themselves.

The less words the better. As it was said in the Constitution is the way to go.

The word "lawful" clouds the meaning and is unnecessary.

Seeing as our Declaration of Independence is still valid

organic law of the land, and in it is the acknowledgement that the people have a right and a DUTY to overthrow government which has become destructive of securing the rights of the people, then overthrowing a tyrannical government is a lawful purpose.

The only way around that would be to repeal the Declaration of Independence.

yup, The Declaration of Independence IS STILL, LAW of the Land

It's the first one in the Federal Register.

For all the moronic, still L vs.R false paradigm stuck liberals whom PROPAGANDIZE the following, "so sir, ARE YOU advocating the over throw of the US Gvt??" in TV interviews?

I'd say, "um, NO, but the Founders certainly did, and IS STILL the LAW of the Land, last I checked!" .o)

Thanks for the article Steve.

Just FYI. There IS a 2nd amendment section here on the DP now. I'd hoped it would get more articles than it does.

SteveMT's picture

Jefferson, Done. Thanks for that info.

The DP is a continual learning experience.


I had asked MN to include a 2nd amendment section, and I haven't been as diligent keeping it populated with articles. Good to see something in there now and then.

I can see how using the word "lawful" can open this legislation up to a variety of interpretation.

Who decides what "lawful" is?

It seems like they had "good intentions", but you know what they say about what the "road to hell" is paved with.

SteveMT's picture

A quote by Karl Marx, the master of twisting lawful


Agree: "good intentions" are wide-open to interpretation and can run amok.