Kansas "Gun permit requests fall below forecast"

It is only below "forecast" for those who look at what happens in other states and don't take into account differences in training requirements, fees, and where you can use the guns. Kansas with an 8 hour training requirement is longer than most states and the $150 fee for a four year permit is well above what the fee is on average in other states. Indeed the fee is one of the highest in the country. I also agree that things will pick up some once the law goes into effect.

1) So far, the attorney general’s office has received nearly 3,600 applicants for gun permits under the law enacted this year at the rate of about 40 a day, said Chuck Sexson, director of the Concealed Carry Handgun Licensing Unit in the attorney general’s office.

He said about 2,600 permits have been approved and the rest are going through the approval process, adding that none have been rejected.

“I think at the beginning we were projecting 20,000 to 25,000 in the first couple of years based on other states. I don’t know what might hold folks off from applying,” Sexson said. “It’s probably less than we had anticipated when we started. Maybe it’ll increase as we get closer to January.” . . .

It would be nice if there were some learning curve on these predictions.


Blogger saturdaynightspecial said...

"...I don't know what might hold folks off from applying..."

Is this guy serious ? The Kansas CCW is a start, but the requirements are ludicrous ($150 fee). And consider all the restrictions that come with it. Kansas antigun politicians are as insane as Illinois'. Especially when compared to Vermont.

11/27/2006 5:51 AM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear SNS:

It is a pretty silly statement. It doesn't take that much to realize that a fee that is three times above the national average or a training period that is much longer than the national average might have an effect.

11/27/2006 6:17 AM  
Anonymous tkdkerry said...

The fee is high, I'll grant you that. But I don't think 8 hours training is excessive at all, in fact I tend to think it should be longer. I think SNS is right, that the supposed short-fall of applications is that many people probably feel "what's the point" when they learn the restrictions. A co-worker said he was taught in the class that he could pull his weapon to protect himself, but could NOT pull it to protect a bystander. I haven't checked, and it sure doesn't sound right, but if trainees are getting that impression and passing it around it may well have an effect.

11/28/2006 7:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home