Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2016-009

May 24, 2016
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2016-9
The Honorable Kay Wolf
State Senator, 7th District
8339 Roe
Prairie Village, KS 66207
Re: 	Cities 	and 	Municipalities‒Miscellaneous 	Provisions‒Firearms 	and
Ammunition; Regulation by City or County, Limitations
State Departments; Public Officers and Employees‒Firearms‒Personal
and Family Protection Act; Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Handgun;
Certain 	Local 	Ordinances 	and 	Resolutions 	Inapplicable; 	Concealed
Handguns in Public Buildings
Synopsis: 	A state-owned or leased medical care facility must either allow concealed
carry inside the facility or install adequate security measures and post
signage to prohibit concealed carry, unless the facility has temporarily
exempted itself from the provisions of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20. After
any such exemption expires, a state-owned or leased medical care facility
must 	comply 	with 	the 	provisions 	of 	K.S.A. 	2015 	Supp. 	75-7c20. 	If
concealed carry is allowed inside a state-owned or leased medical care
facility, 	the 	facility 	may 	regulate 	the 	manner 	of 	carrying 	concealed
handguns inside the facility. Medical personnel of a state-owned or leased
medical care facility may require patients to temporarily store concealed
handguns during medical treatment.
A 	municipal-owned 	or 	leased 	medical 	care 	facility 	must 	either 	allow
concealed carry inside the facility or install adequate security measures
and post signage to prohibit concealed carry, unless the facility has
temporarily exempted itself from the provisions of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-
7c20. After any such exemption expires, a municipal-owned or leased
medical care facility must comply with the provisions of K.S.A. 2015 Supp.
75-7c20.

The Honorable Kay Wolf
Page 2
The 	governing 	body 	of 	a 	municipality 	may 	not 	adopt 	an 	ordinance,
resolution 	or 	other 	regulation 	to 	govern 	the 	carrying 	of 	concealed
handguns 	inside 	a 	municipal-owned 	or 	leased 	medical 	care 	facility.
However, a physician, nurse, or other medical personnel of a municipal-
owned or leased medical care facility may refuse to allow a patient to carry
a concealed handgun while medical services are being provided, as long
as such action is not implementing a local law, official policy, or decision
by the governing body of the municipality.
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20 does not apply to a state or municipal-owned
medical care facility that is leased in its entirety by a private entity,
whether for-profit or not-for-profit.
The Personal and Family Protection Act does not require a state or
municipal building to provide storage facilities for concealed handguns
carried into the building by members of the public. Cited herein: K.S.A.
2015 Supp. 12-16,124; 21-6301; 21-6302; 21-6304; 21-6309; 65-425; 75-
7c01; 75-7c03; 75-7c10; 75-7c17; 75-7c20; 75-6102; K.A.R. 16-11-7.
* 	* 	*
Dear Senator Wolf:
As the State Senator for the 7th District, you ask our opinion on “the application of K.S.A.
2015 Supp. 75-7c20 to patients admitted to a state or municipal-owned medical care
facility.” Specifically, you ask whether such medical care facilities must permit a patient
to carry a concealed handgun during the patient’s stay at the facility. In your letter, you
note that “[t]he administration of certain medications and the need for various tests,
treatments, and other medical procedures would likely make it difficult for a patient to
consistently retain access and control over a concealed handgun throughout their stay
at the medical care facility.”
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20 is part of the Personal and Family Protection Act (PFPA), 1
commonly known as the Kansas concealed carry law. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(a)
establishes the general rule concerning concealed carry inside state or municipal-
owned buildings:
The carrying of a concealed handgun shall not be prohibited in any state
or 	municipal 	building 	unless 	such 	building 	has 	adequate 	security
measures 2 to ensure that no weapons are permitted to be carried into
1 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c01 et seq.
2 The PFPA defines “adequate security measures” as “the use of electronic equipment and personnel at
public entrances to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the state or municipal building,
including, but not limited to, metal detectors, metal detector wands or any other equipment used for
similar purposes to ensure that weapons are not permitted to be carried into such building by members of

The Honorable Kay Wolf
Page 3
such building and the building is conspicuously posted [with signage
approved by the Attorney General].
Whether K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20 applies to a particular medical care facility is a
question of fact. The statute only applies to a “state or municipal building,” which is
generally defined as “a building owned or leased by such public entity.”3 There are two
relevant exceptions to this definition: a building that is held in title by the state or a
municipality solely for revenue bond purposes, and a building that is leased in its
entirety by a private entity.4
This means that a state or municipal-owned medical care facility 5 is considered a “state
or municipal building” for the purposes of the PFPA, unless the building is leased by a
private entity or is held in title solely for revenue bond purposes. Thus, if a city owns a
hospital building but the hospital’s operations are conducted by a private entity that
leases the entire building from the city, then the hospital is not considered a state or
municipal building under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20.
Because the application of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20 to a particular building depends
on the facts of each case, we limit our opinion to only those state or municipal-owned
medical care facilities that fall within the definition of “state or municipal building” under
the PFPA. We also limit our analysis to concealed carry by members of the public, and
not by law enforcement officers or employees of the medical care facility.
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(j)(1) presently allows the governing body or, if no governing
body exists, the chief administrative officer, of a state or municipal building to exempt
the building from its provisions for a period of only four years.6 During an exemption
period, the building may prohibit concealed carry simply by posting certain signage at all
exterior entrances to the building. 7 After the four-year exemption period expires, the
building is required to comply with K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20.
the public.” K.S.A 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(1). Effective July 1, 2016, such security personnel must be
armed. See L. 2016, Ch. 86, § 6. The PFPA excludes “any cutting instrument that has a sharpened or
pointed blade” from its definition of “weapon,” and therefore the adequate security measures need not
prohibit knives, machetes or similar objects from entering the building. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-
7c20(m)(6).
3 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(5)(A). “Municipality” means any county, township, city, or other political
or taxing subdivision of the state, or any agency, authority, institution or other instrumentality thereof, but
does not include school districts. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(m)(2) and 75-6102(b).
4 Id. See also Attorney General Opinion No. 2013-14 (under the PFPA, “building” refers to the entire
structure, not just a portion of a building) and Attorney General Opinion No. 2013-021 (discussion of what
constitutes a “building” under the PFPA). Effective July 1, 2016, concealed handguns may be prohibited
in only a portion of a state or municipal building. See L. 2016, Ch. 86, § 6.
5 The PFPA defines “medical care facility” as a hospital, an ambulatory surgical center, or a recuperation
center. A hospice is not included in this definition. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20(j)(1) and K.S.A. 65-
425(h).
6 Effective July 1, 2016, such exemptions may run until July 1, 2017. See L. 2016, Ch. 86, § 6.
7 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c10(a). See also K.A.R. 16-11-7.

The Honorable Kay Wolf
Page 4
Taken 	together, 	the 	above 	provisions 	mean 	that 	a 	medical 	care 	facility 	that 	is
considered a “state or municipal building” under the PFPA presently has three options
with respect to its policies on concealed carry within the facility by members of the
public. First, the facility may exercise an exemption and prohibit concealed carry by
posting required signage. Second, the facility may prohibit concealed carry into the
facility by installing “adequate security measures” at all exterior public entrances and
posting certain signage. Third, the facility may choose to allow concealed carry by any
person who may lawfully possess a firearm.8 Under current law, once an exemption
expires, only the second and third options are available.
As a practical matter, we acknowledge that it would be challenging, if not impossible, to
provide adequate security measures at medical care facilities where emergency care is
provided. To qualify as “adequate security measures” under the PFPA, such measures
must be in place at all public exterior entrances to the building and must include
electronic detection equipment and security personnel at each entrance to “ensure that
weapons are not permitted to be carried into such building by members of the public.”
This 	language 	encompasses 	all 	public 	entrances, 	including 	the 	emergency 	room
entrance, and includes all public visitors to the facility, including patients. The PFPA
provides no exceptions for patients who enter an emergency room through the public
entrance and need immediate medical care, or whose medical condition is such that
requiring security screening of the patient for weapons is unsafe or impracticable.
However, we must consider the law as it is currently written.
Turning to your question, we will separately discuss the application of K.S.A. 2015
Supp. 75-7c20 to state-owned or leased medical care facilities (“state facilities”) and
municipal-owned 	or 	leased 	medical 	care 	facilities 	(“municipal 	facilities”), 	because
different rules apply to municipal facilities.
State Facilities
With respect to state facilities, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20 generally requires concealed
carry to be allowed inside a state building unless the building is exempt or provides
adequate security measures and signage. But neither the PFPA nor any other provision
of law restricts the state government from adopting rules to govern the manner of
carrying or storing a concealed handgun once the handgun is inside a state-owned or
leased building.
We therefore believe that under current law, a state agency may regulate the carrying or
storage of a concealed handgun by patients and other members of the public while
inside a state facility. In the absence of a statute to the contrary, we believe the state
may require, for example, that concealed handguns carried inside state facilities be
holstered or unloaded, or it may prohibit patients from carrying a concealed handgun
8 In 2015, the law was changed to allow any person over the age of 21 to lawfully carry a concealed
handgun, provided that the person is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
A state-issued license is no longer required to lawfully carry a concealed handgun. See L. 2015, Ch. 16,
§§ 2, 3 and 8. See also K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6301(i)(5), 21-6302(a)(4), and 75-7c03(a).

The Honorable Kay Wolf
Page 5
into an x-ray room. Medical personnel may also require that a patient remove a
concealed handgun from his or her person before medications or procedures are
provided.
We note, however, that neither the PFPA nor any other provision of law requires state
facilities to provide secure storage for handguns carried into the facility by members of
the public. Therefore, even if a state facility is required by law to allow a patient to carry
a concealed handgun into the facility, it is under no obligation to provide a means for the
patient to safely store the handgun while the patient is receiving medical treatment. The
state facility could suggest, but not require, that the patient leave his or her handgun in
a secure location outside the facility if the patient will not be permitted to carry the
handgun while receiving treatment.
Municipal Facilities
With respect to municipal facilities, there are other laws that prohibit a municipality, but
not the state government, from regulating firearms. One provision of the PFPA, K.S.A.
2015 Supp. 75-7c17(a), generally bars municipalities from regulating concealed carry in
any fashion:
No city, county or other political subdivision of this state shall regulate,
restrict or prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns by individuals
except as provided in K.S.A. 21-6301, 21-6302, 21-6304, 21-6309, 75-
7c10 or 75-7c20, and amendments thereto, or K.S.A. 21-4218(f), prior to
its repeal.
Thus, a municipality may enforce certain criminal laws involving the unlawful carrying or
possession of firearms (K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6301, 21-6302, 21-6304 and 21-6309),
and it may take actions authorized by the PFPA, but otherwise has no authority to
regulate, restrict or prohibit concealed carry.
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 12-16,124(a) further prohibits cities and counties from regulating
firearms in general:
No city or county shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or
regulation, and no agent of any city or county shall take any administrative
action, governing the requirement of fees, licenses or permits for, the
commerce in or the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, storage, carrying,
transporting or taxation of firearms or ammunition, or any component or
combination thereof.
To interpret the scope of these limiting statutes, we rely upon the Kansas Supreme
Court’s guidance for statutory interpretation:
[T]he best and only safe rule for ascertaining the intention of the makers of
any written law is to abide by the language they have used. If the makers’

The Honorable Kay Wolf
Page 6
language is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to use canons of
construction or legislative history or other background considerations to
construe the legislature’s intent. 9
By its plain and unambiguous terms, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c17(a) only prevents a city,
county or other political subdivision from regulating, restricting or prohibiting concealed
carry except as authorized by other statutes. Likewise, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 12-16,124(a)
only prohibits a city or county from governing firearms. It is our opinion that such
language restricts only the governmental bodies of municipalities, because only those
bodies have the power to adopt or enforce the type of local laws barred by those
statutes.
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 12-16,124(a) also prohibits local government “agents” from taking
“any administrative action” concerning local firearm regulations. The statute does not
define “administrative action,” but the ordinary meaning of the term is “[a] decision or an
implementation relating to the government’s executive function . . . .”10 The statute also
does not define “agent,” but the term ordinarily means “[s]omeone who is authorized to
act for or in place of another; a representative.” 11 Thus, a representative of a city or
county, who is authorized to act for or in place of the city or county, may not implement
local laws governing firearms or make a decision based upon such local laws.
Whether a person is acting as an agent of a city or county is a question of fact.
However, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 12-16,124(a) only prohibits an agent of a city or county
from taking administrative action “governing the requirement of fees, licenses or permits
for, the commerce in or the sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, storage, carrying,
transporting or taxation of firearms or ammunition, or any component or combination
thereof.”
We do not believe K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 12-16,124(a) or 75-7c17(a) restricts medical
personnel employed by a city, county or other political subdivision from making medical
decisions that temporarily restrict the ability of a patient to carry a concealed handgun
on their person. We reach this conclusion because we assume that the governing body
of a city, county or other political subdivision would not enact local laws or rules
mandating certain procedures be followed during medical treatment at a municipal
facility. Therefore, any medical decision by municipal medical personnel would not be a
“decision or an implementation” related to the local government’s executive function.
Thus, a city council or county commission could not pass an ordinance, resolution or
any other regulation governing the manner in which concealed handguns must be
handled while inside a municipal facility. However, a physician employed by a city-
owned hospital could lawfully refuse to allow a particular patient to carry a concealed
handgun during treatment based upon individualized medical concerns, so long as the
9 Taylor v. Kobach, 300 Kan. 731, 735-36 (2014) (internal citations omitted).
10 Black’s Law Dictionary (10 th ed. 2014) (Westlaw).
11 Id.

The Honorable Kay Wolf
Page 7
physician’s directive is not implementing a formal rule, ordinance or resolution enacted
by the local government.12
To help illustrate our analysis, consider a scenario in which a county-owned hospital is
subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20 (i.e., is not subject to a
temporary exemption), and has no adequate security measures in place. If the county
commission enacts a resolution requiring concealed handguns carried inside the county
hospital to be unloaded, we believe such action would violate K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 12-
16,124(a) and 75-7c17(a) because those statutes expressly prohibit a county from
regulating concealed carry or the carrying of firearms in general except as allowed
under the PFPA.
Using the same hypothetical county hospital, consider another scenario in which a
patient arrives at the hospital for a scheduled surgical procedure carrying a concealed
handgun. If the patient’s physician bars the patient from carrying the handgun into the
operating room for safety and sanitation reasons, is the physician violating state law? In
this scenario we believe the answer is no, because the physician’s order is not an action
taken by the county governing body, and could not be construed as an administrative
action taken on behalf of the county government’s executive function. Therefore, such
an action would not run afoul of the prohibitions in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 12-16,124(a) and
75-7c17(a).
Summary
To summarize, whether a state or municipal-owned or leased medical care facility is a
“state or municipal building” subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20 is a
question of fact. Neither a medical care facility that is leased by a private entity, nor a
medical care facility that is held in title by the state or a municipality solely for bond
financing purposes, is subject to K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20.
The governing body or, if no governing body exists, the chief administrative officer, of a
state or municipal-owned medical care facility may temporarily exempt the facility from
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20. After any exemption expires, the facility must either allow
concealed carry inside the facility or continue to prohibit concealed carry by installing
12 This is not to suggest that medical personnel employed by a municipal medical care facility have
unfettered authority to regulate concealed carry inside the facility. A municipal medical employee could be
deemed an agent of the municipality if a court determined that an apparent agency relationship existed.
See, e.g., Shawnee State Bank v. North Olathe Indus. Park, Inc., 228 Kan 231, Syl. ¶ 3 (1980) (“An
ostensible or apparent agency may exist if a principal has intentionally or by want of ordinary care
induced and permitted third persons to believe a person is his or her agent even though no authority,
either express or implied, has been actually conferred upon the agent.”). We believe a temporary
restriction on a patient’s ability to carry a concealed handgun during medical treatment, imposed by
medical personnel based upon patient-specific medical considerations, is less likely to be considered an
action on behalf of the municipality than a blanket policy that affects all patients without regard to the type
of treatment being provided.

The Honorable Kay Wolf
Page 8
adequate security measures at each exterior public entrance and posting the facility
with required signage.
There is nothing in state law that prohibits a state-owned medical care facility from
regulating the carrying of concealed handguns inside its facility. This means that
notwithstanding the provisions of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c20, a state-owned medical
care facility may adopt rules governing the manner of carrying concealed handguns
inside the facility.
Municipal-owned medical care facilities that fall within the PFPA’s definition of “state or
municipal building” are subject to more legal restrictions on their ability to restrict or
regulate concealed carry inside the facility. However, those legal restrictions only bar
the local governmental body from adopting an ordinance, resolution or other regulation
that regulates concealed carry or firearms in general, except as expressly authorized by
the PFPA. Agents of the local governmental body may not take administrative action to
implement any such local rules.
Medical personnel employed by a municipality do not violate K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 12-
16,124(a) by refusing to allow an individual patient to carry a concealed handgun during
treatment so long as such refusal is not based upon or implementing an ordinance,
resolution or other policy or regulation adopted by the local governing body.
Even if a state or municipal medical care facility is required to allow concealed carry
inside the facility, medical personnel may recommend that a patient leave their handgun
in a secure location if the patient will not be permitted to carry the handgun during
treatment. There is no legal requirement that a state or municipal medical care facility
provide secure firearm storage for patients or visitors to the facility.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Sarah Fertig
Assistant Attorney General
DS:AA:SF:sb