Pub. 2 2013 Issue 3

6 l e a d i n g a d v o c a t e f o r t h e b a n k i n g i n d u s t r y i n k a n s a s T he 2013 Kansas Legislature approved amend- ments to the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act, more commonly referred to as the Kansas concealed carry a permit law. In addition to authorizing Kansans to lawfully be licensed to carry concealed weapons, the law is also known for introducing to Kansas businesses, the signage which lets those who have a license to carry a weapon, know that con- cealed weapons are not allowed in a particular place of business. The signs have the universal trademark for “no” – a red circle with a line drawn through – and in this case, the line is drawn through the image of a handgun. Currently, Kansas law is silent with regard to the consequences of posting the signage. In other words, the law only permits the post- ing of the signage, but does not speak to whether posting a sign prohibiting those with a license to carry a concealed handgun from carrying that handgun in a private place of business creates any additional risk, or whether it lessens the risk of being held liable should an incident occur on the premises. Of great interest to private entities, HB 2052, which is expected to be signed by Governor Brownback soon, contains two provisions which address in part, the consequences of the decision to post or not post the signage: 1. Any private entity which provides adequate security measures in a private building and which conspicuously posts signage in accordance with this section prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun in such building as authorized by the personal and family protection act shall not be liable for any wrongful act or omission relating to actions of persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun concerning acts or omissions regarding such handguns. 2. Any private entity which does not provide adequate security measures in a private building and which allows the carrying of a concealed hand gun as authorized by the personal and family protection act shall not be liable for any wrongful act or omission relating to actions of persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun concerning acts or omissions regarding such handguns. 3. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to increase the liability of any private entity where liability would have existed under the personal and family protection act prior to the effective date of this act. By this language, the legislature intended to provide some pro- tection from liability for private businesses in two circumstances: 1) if the business has posted the signage prohibiting the lawful carrying of concealed handguns, and also provides “adequate se- curity measures” to assure no weapons enter the premises; or 2) if the business allows the lawful carrying of concealed handguns. In either circumstance, state law will provide that the business shall not be liable for an incident that occurs relating to actions by per- sons lawfully licensed to carry a concealed handgun. By negative implication, the law does not provide protection for those entities who post prohibitive signage, but do not have adequate security measures in place. Naturally, businesses want to know how this affects their decision, made several years ago when the concealed carry permit law was enacted, to post the signage or not. Subsection (3) of HB 2052, specifically addresses this concern by stating that these provisions shall not be deemed to increase the liability of a private entity as it existed prior to this bill becoming effective. The bill appears to recognize that any entity has potential liability should someone commit an act of violence on its premises, and many arguments have been had as to whether prohibiting the lawful carrying of concealed handguns on premises increases or decreases that potential liability. This language simply states that the provisions in subsection (1) and (2) above, do not change the liability that existed before, and in doing so, clarifies that the intent of those two provisions is to provide a means by which an entity can seek to reduce its liability. Note also, that HB 2052 does not provide that compliance with either of the two provisions above will shelter a business from all liability for acts of violence on the premises. The law specifically states that such a business shall not be liable for acts that occur by persons lawfully licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Poten- tial liability for other criminal acts are not affected. Most observers of this legislation agree that the legislature, by these provisions, is discouraging the use of the signage prohibiting licensees from carrying concealed handguns with them into private places of business. Evidence of this can be found in the definition of “adequate security measures,” which must be used in addition to the signage in order to receive the limited liability under this law, which includes the use of electronic equipment and personnel at public entrances to detect the carrying of any weapons into the building, and the secure storage of lawfully carried weapons in a gun locker or other similar storage at the entrance to the building. The bottom line is that the law still provides a choice: each entity must decide whether to stick with its initial decision on whether to post the signage or not, knowing that its potential liability for acts committed on the premises has not changed; or take advantage of the legislature’s decision to hold a business harmless from acts of those lawfully licensed to carry a concealed handgun on the premises, if it chooses to comply with one of the two provisions above. HB 2052 Amends the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act By Kathy Taylor, KBA SVP- General Counsel