Nate Louderback
Dear Gardner City Council,
My name is Nate Louderback and I am a resident of Gardner in the 10th precinct. It has come to my attention that there is a very important discussion that is going to take place at your June 17, 2013 meeting. The posted agenda reads as follows: “Consider directing the City Administrator to prepare a letter of notification to the Kansas Attorney General of the City’s intent to exempt its buildings from HB 2052, under Section 2(i).”
This spring the state legislature approved HB 2052. There have been a number of shootings that have taken place in ‘gun free’ zones and the purpose of the bill is to ensure that there is appropriate security measures in place in public buildings. Rather than defending people with a ‘gun-free zone’ sticker, the bill requires the city to either provide adequate protection for its citizens by implementing safety precautions like metal detectors or having security guards. Alternatively, the city may choose to allow the citizens the right to protect themselves by utilizing the concealed carry law, which they can already legally do in most places in the state.
The law becomes effective on July 1, 2013; however, the legislature has created a provision to allow cities to delay implementation in order to determine the costs of providing the appropriate security measures. I am writing today to state emphatically that the City of Gardner does not need to explore the costs because it is not feasible to spend even a single dollar to provide paid security or metal detectors when there is a cost-free option available. Our new Mayor ran on a platform of not raising taxes and the citizens of Gardner will not want to divert even a single dollar from other needed municipal services.
Please note that I have made the choice to not own a gun as a personal decision for my family. With that being said, I fear no law abiding gun-owner and there is no statistical evidence that shows an increase in gun-violence with the right for concealed carry.
In summary, it is my opinion that it is not necessary for a delay as there is a free alternative to comply with the law and there is no justification for an added expense, except for a desire from the socially liberal mayor and like-minded members of the council to impose their own desire for gun-control on the city.