Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2016-017

October 28, 2016
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2016-17
The Honorable John Bradford
State Representative, 40th District
125 Rock Creek Loop
Lansing, KS 66043
Re: 	Cities 	and 	Municipalities‒Miscellaneous 	Provisions‒Knives 	and 	Knife
Making Components; Regulation by Municipality, Limitations
State Departments; Public Officers and Employees‒Firearms‒Personal
and 	Family 	Protection 	Act; 	Restrictions 	on 	Carrying 	a 	Concealed
Handgun; Concealed Handguns in Public Buildings
Synopsis: 	A state agency may adopt personnel policies to require an employee to
disclose whether the employee is carrying a concealed handgun while in
the workplace or while otherwise engaged in work duties. A state agency
may restrict the type of knife that an employee may carry while in the
workplace or while otherwise engaged in work duties. Cited herein: K.S.A.
2014 Supp. 75-7c03; K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c10; K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 12-
16,124; 12-16,134; 21-6302; 21-6304; 75-7c01; 75-7c10; 75-7c17; 75-
7c20; 75-7c23; 75-2935; K.S.A. 75-2949f; K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-6102.
* 	* 	*
Dear Representative Bradford:
As the State Representative for the 40th District, you ask for our opinion on two
questions concerning new workplace rules adopted by a state governmental agency.
Your questions are: (1) whether a state agency may require its employees to answer
yes or no when asked by a supervisor whether the employee is carrying a concealed
handgun; and (2) whether a state agency may prohibit its employees from carrying a
knife with a blade over four inches in length.

The Honorable John Bradford
Page 2
We were not provided with a copy of the policy in question, so our opinion is based
upon the policy as described in your request.
Regarding your first question, there is nothing in state law that would prohibit a state
agency from requiring its employees to disclose whether they are carrying a concealed
handgun at work. The Personal and Family Protection Act (PFPA), 1 commonly known
as the concealed carry law, is the only law that limits the ability of state agencies to
regulate 	concealed 	carry 	by 	employees. 	The 	PFPA 	bars 	a 	state 	agency 	from
“prohibit[ing] an employee from carrying a concealed handgun into the employee’s work
place unless the building has adequate security measures at all public entrances to
ensure that no weapons are permitted to be carried into such building and the building
is conspicuously posted in accordance with K.S.A. 75-7c10, and amendments thereto.”2
Prior to July 1, 2016, the PFPA also provided:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent . . . any public or private
employer from restricting or prohibiting by personnel policies persons from
carrying a concealed handgun while on the premises of the employer’s
business or while engaged in the duties of the person’s employment by
the employer . . . .3
The 2016 amendments to the PFPA removed the above reference to public employers
and also added the following provision:
No 	public 	employer 	shall 	restrict 	or 	otherwise 	prohibit 	by 	personnel
policies 	any 	employee, 	who 	is 	legally 	qualified, 	from 	carrying 	any
concealed handgun while engaged in the duties of such employee’s
employment outside of such employer’s place of business, including while
in a means of conveyance.4
These amendments mean that as of July 1, 2016, a public employer may not use
personnel policies to restrict or prohibit legally qualified 5 employees from carrying a
concealed 	handgun 	at 	work 	or 	while 	engaged 	in 	work 	duties. 6 	However, 	merely
1 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c01 et seq.
2 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(c). “‘Adequate security measures’ means “the use of electronic equipment
and armed personnel at public entrances to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the state
or municipal building, or any public area thereof, 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 or public area by members of the public.” K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-
7c20(m)(1).
3 K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 75-7c10(b)(1).
4 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c10(e).
5 See, e.g., K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6302(a)(4) (prohibiting concealed carry by a person under 21 years of
age “except when on such person’s land or in such person’s abode or fixed place of business”) and
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6304 (criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon).
6 A state agency may still prohibit concealed carry by employees inside the agency’s buildings by
installing adequate security measures at all public access entrances and posting the building with certain
signage. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(c).

The Honorable John Bradford
Page 3
requiring employees to disclose, if asked by a supervisor, whether they are carrying a
concealed handgun at work is not “restricting or prohibiting” concealed carry. We
therefore believe that these amendments to the PFPA did not extinguish the authority of
a state agency to require such a disclosure.
By contrast, Kansas law expressly prohibits a municipality from requiring its employees
to disclose whether they possess a valid concealed carry license. 7 Municipalities are
also barred from regulating concealed carry beyond the methods expressly authorized
by the legislature, 8 and from regulating the possession or transportation of firearms in
general. 9 However, because a state agency is not a municipality, 10 those statutes do not
apply to the state government or its agencies.
Prior to July 1, 2015, the PFPA required that “[o]n demand of a law enforcement officer,
the 	licensee 	shall 	display 	the 	license 	to 	carry 	concealed 	handguns 	and 	proper
identification.”11 The legislature removed that language in 2015 as part of Senate Bill 45,
the legislation that allowed any person at least 21 years of age who may lawfully
possess firearms to carry a concealed handgun without a license. 12 It has been
suggested that this change in the law was intended to protect the personal privacy of
persons who choose to carry concealed handguns. It has also been suggested that in
the absence of a statute requiring a person to disclose whether he or she is carrying a
concealed handgun, no state employee may be required to make such a disclosure to a
supervisor. Regardless of whether the legislature intended to protect the privacy of state
employees in such a manner, there is nothing in Kansas law that offers such protection.
In considering current Kansas law, we are guided by the rules of statutory interpretation
established by the Kansas Supreme Court:
The most fundamental rule of statutory interpretation and construction is
that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.
We 	first 	attempt 	to 	ascertain 	legislative 	intent 	through 	the 	statutory
language enacted, giving common words their ordinary meanings. When a
statute is plain and unambiguous, we do not speculate as to the legislative
intent behind it and will not read into the statute something not readily
found in it. . . . We cannot delete provisions or supply omissions in a
statute. No matter what the legislature may have really intended to do, if it
7 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c23(a) (“No employee of a municipality shall be required to disclose to such
person's employer the fact that such employee possesses a valid license to carry a concealed
handgun.”).
8 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c17(a) (“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.”).
9 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 12-16,124(a).
10 Municipality means “any county, township, city, school district or other political or taxing subdivision of
the state, or any agency, authority, institution or other instrumentality thereof.” K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-
7c23(b) and 75-6102(b).
11 K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 75-7c03(b).
12 L. 2015, Ch. 16, § 8.

The Honorable John Bradford
Page 4
did not in fact do it, under any reasonable interpretation of the language
used, the defect is one that the legislature alone can correct. 13
The legislature has demonstrated that it knows how to place limitations on local
governmental entities concerning the regulation of concealed carry. 14 However, to date
the legislature has not acted to place those limitations on state governmental agencies.
The only provisions of Kansas law that limit the authority of state agencies to regulate
concealed carry are found in the PFPA, 15 and none of those provisions prohibit a state
agency from requiring its employees to disclose whether they are carrying a concealed
handgun. Following the rules of statutory interpretation described above, we believe that
even if the legislature intended to protect state employees from being required to
disclose whether they are carrying a concealed handgun, it did not in fact do so. We
therefore opine that Kansas law does not prevent a state agency from requiring an
employee to disclose whether he or she is carrying a concealed handgun, regardless of
whether that employee has a valid concealed carry license.
We further note that Kansas employment law does not protect a state employee from
being required to disclose whether he or she is carrying a concealed handgun. “Kansas
historically adheres to the employment-at-will doctrine, which holds that employees and
employers may terminate an employment relationship at any time, for any reason,
unless there is an express or implied contract governing the employment's duration.”16
With respect to the state government, “unclassified” employees are at-will employees
generally 	subject 	to 	dismissal 	at 	any 	time 	and 	for 	any 	reason, 	while 	“classified”
employees fall within the protections of the civil service system. 17 The civil service
system does not, however, prohibit a state agency from requiring a classified employee
to disclose whether he or she is carrying a concealed handgun. In fact, the civil service
system permits a state agency to dismiss, demote or suspend a classified employee for
“possession of unauthorized firearms or other lethal weapons while on the job” 18 or
“refusal to accept a reasonable and proper assignment from an authorized supervisor
(insubordination).”19 	Read 	together, 	these 	statutes 	would 	seem 	to 	authorize 	a
supervisor 	to 	ask 	questions 	of 	a 	classified 	employee 	to 	determine 	whether 	the
13 State v. Prine, 297 Kan. 460, 474-75 (2013) (internal citations omitted).
14 See, e.g., K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 12-16,124(a) and 75-7c17(a).
15 See, e.g., K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c20(a), which generally requires concealed carry to be permitted
inside state government buildings.
16 Campbell v. Husky Hogs, L.L.C., 292 Kan. 225, 227 (2011).
17 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-2935(1) and (2). See also K.S.A. 75-2949 through 75-2949f (describing
procedures that must be followed in order to dismiss, demote or suspend a permanent employee in the
classified service).
18 K.S.A. 75-2949f(j). The term “unauthorized firearms” dates from the original legislation enacted in 1981,
and is not defined in statute. See L. 1981, Ch. 334, § 5. However, a state agency’s policy concerning
“unauthorized firearms” must be consistent with the PFPA with respect to the carrying of concealed
handguns by agency employees. For example, K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c10(e) protects the right of a state
employee to carry a concealed handgun while engaged in work duties outside the state agency’s place of
business, but does not give a state employee the right to openly carry a rifle while engaged in work
duties.
19 K.S.A. 75-2949f(l).

The Honorable John Bradford
Page 5
employee is in possession of an unauthorized firearm, and refusal to answer such
questions could be deemed insubordination.
In summary, we believe the answer to your first question is yes because there is nothing
in state law that prohibits a state agency from requiring its employees to disclose
whether they are carrying a concealed handgun.
Your second question asks whether a state agency may prohibit its employees from
carrying a knife with a blade over four inches in length while at work or while engaged in
work duties. Kansas law prohibits a municipality from enacting or enforcing “any
ordinance, 	resolution, 	regulation 	or 	tax 	relating 	to 	the 	transportation, 	possession,
carrying, sale, transfer, purchase, gift, devise, licensing, registration or use of a knife or
knife 	making 	components,” 20 	but 	this 	prohibition 	does 	not 	apply 	to 	the 	state
government.21
We believe our analysis above regarding concealed carry by state employees also
applies to the carrying of knives by state employees. There is nothing in Kansas law
that limits the ability of a state agency to establish personnel policies concerning the
carrying of knives by employees while engaged in work duties. We therefore believe
that the answer to your second question is yes.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Sarah Fertig
Assistant Attorney General
DS:AA:SF:sb
20 K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 12-16,134(a).
21 As used in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 12-16,134(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.” K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 12-16,134(e)(2) and 75-6102(b).