Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2014-002

January 10, 2014
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2014- 02
The Honorable Jim Howell
State Representative, District 81
125 East Buckthorn Road
Derby, KS 67037
Re: 	State Departments; Public Officers and Employees‒Firearms‒Personal
and Family Protection Act
Synopsis: 	The Personal and Family Protection Act (PFPA) does not prohibit a county
from demanding disclosure of an employee’s concealed carry licensure
status in order to verify whether the employee is entitled to certain
protections available only to concealed carry licensees. The PFPA does
not prohibit a county from making a record of an employee’s licensure
status, 	but 	such 	record 	must 	remain 	confidential 	and 	may 	not 	be
disclosed. A county may discipline an employee for refusing to disclose
his or her licensure status for the purpose of determining whether the
employee may lawfully carry a concealed handgun into the employee’s
work place. Lastly, it is unlikely that a Kansas or federal court would
recognize a county employee’s claim for discrimination on the basis of
concealed carry licensure status. Cited herein: K.S.A. 44-1001; 44-1111;
44-1125; 45-215; K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 45-221; 75-7c01; 75-7c06; K.S.A.
2012 Supp. 75-7c10; K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c10; 75-7c17; 75-7c20; 75-
6102; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; 42 U.S.C. § 12112.
* 	* 	*
Dear Representative Howell:
As State Representative for the 81 st District, you ask our opinion concerning guidance
that Sedgwick County has provided to supervisors of county employees regarding
County Policy No. 4.505, which was amended following the passage of 2013 Senate

The Honorable Jim Howell
Page 2
Substitute for House Bill 2052. 1 That bill amended various provisions of the Personal
and Family Protection Act (PFPA),2 commonly known as the concealed carry law.
You quote such guidance as stating:
Supervisors have the right to inquire as to whether their employees are
carrying a handgun in the workplace or whether they intend to carry a
handgun in the workplace. Supervisors may ask to see the employee’s
license and document the license status in the employee’s personnel
records. No copies of the licenses shall be made or maintained by the
County. Supervisors may ask employees to show the license on an annual
basis.
We address your questions in order.
1. 	May a county require its employees to disclose their concealed carry
licensure status?
In our opinion, the answer is yes. K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 75-7c10(b)(1) allowed any public
employer to restrict or prohibit by personnel policies a county employee licensed under
the PFPA 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. 	However,
following the amendments to that statute during the 2013 legislative session, the ability
of a public employer to restrict or prohibit concealed carry by employees is now
“[s]ubject to the provisions of K.S.A. 75-7c20, and amendments thereto.”3 K.S.A. 2013
Supp. 75-7c20(c) states:
No 	state 	agency 	or 	municipality 4 shall 	prohibit 	an 	employee 	who 	is
licensed 	to 	carry 	a 	concealed 	handgun 	under 	the 	provisions 	of 	the
personal and family protection act from carrying such concealed handgun
at the employee's work place unless the building has adequate security
measures 5 and the building is conspicuously posted in accordance with
K.S.A. 75-7c10, and amendments thereto.
Thus, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c10(b)(1) and 75-7c20(c) allow a county to restrict or
prohibit by personnel policies an employee licensed under the PFPA from carrying a
1 L. 2013, Ch. 105.
2 K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c01 et seq.
3 K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c10(b)(1).
4 “The terms ‘municipality’ and ‘municipal’ are interchangeable and have the same meaning as the term
“municipality” is defined in K.S.A 75-6102, and amendments thereto, but does not include school
districts.” K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c20(l)(2).
5 “‘Adequate security measures’ means 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
public.” K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c20(l)(1).

The Honorable Jim Howell
Page 3
concealed handgun into that employee’s work place only if the building has adequate
security measures and is posted as prohibiting concealed carry.
Additionally, notwithstanding any personnel policies prohibiting the carry of concealed
handguns into a county building, it is not a violation of the PFPA for a county employee
licensed under the PFPA to carry a concealed handgun into a county building that
provides adequate security measures and is posted as prohibiting concealed handguns
so long as that employee possesses a valid concealed carry license and enters through
a restricted access entrance. 6
These new protections for concealed carry apply only to state or municipal employees
who are licensed to carry concealed handguns. By contrast, a public employee who is
not licensed to carry concealed handguns may be prohibited by personnel policies from
carrying a concealed handgun into the employee’s workplace, regardless of whether the
building 	is 	posted 	as 	prohibited 	concealed 	carry 	and 	whether 	adequate 	security
measures exist to ensure that no weapons enter the building.7
Practically speaking, if a county discovered that one of its employees had carried a
concealed handgun into that employee’s work place in violation of personnel policies,
there would be no way for the county to determine whether that employee was lawfully
carrying 	such 	handgun 	without 	verifying 	that 	the 	employee 	possesses 	a 	current
concealed carry license. In our opinion, the PFPA does not prohibit a municipality from
demanding proof that an employee is authorized to carry a concealed handgun into that
employee’s workplace by requiring the employee to show his or her concealed carry
license.
Records related to persons licensed to carry concealed handguns are confidential and
may not be disclosed pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA),8 but such
protections only govern the disclosure of such information by a public agency. 9 There is
no language in the PFPA that grants a concealed carry licensee the right to refuse to
disclose his or her licensure status to a public agency employer.
2. 	If a county employee discloses that employee’s concealed carry license
status, may the county maintain a record of the employee’s status?
The PFPA does not prohibit a county from creating or maintaining a record related to
employees licensed to carry concealed handguns. However, if a county chooses to
6 K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c20(d).
7 K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c10(b)(1).
8 K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c06(b). The Kansas Open Records Act may be found at K.S.A. 45-215 et seq.
9 See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 45-221(a)(53) (“Except to the extent otherwise required by law, a public agency
shall not be required to disclose . . . Records of a public agency that would disclose the name, home
address, zip code, e-mail address, phone number or cell phone number or other contact information for
any person licensed to carry concealed handguns or of any person who enrolled in or completed any
weapons training in order to be licensed or has made application for such license under the personal and
family protection act, K.S.A. 75-7c01 et seq., and amendments thereto, shall not be disclosed unless
otherwise required by law.”).

The Honorable Jim Howell
Page 4
create a record of the concealed carry licensure status of an employee, such record
may not be disclosed pursuant to the KORA. Further, a person who discloses such
record may be subject to criminal charges. 10
3. 	If a county employee refuses to disclose that employee’s concealed
carry licensure status, may the county discipline the employee?
There is nothing in the PFPA that would protect a county employee from discipline for
refusal to disclose his or her concealed carry licensure status. As noted above, the
PFPA does not grant concealed carry licensees the right to refuse to disclose their
licensure status. Thus, in our opinion, a county employee may be disciplined for
refusing to disclose his or her concealed carry licensure status when the disclosure is
requested by the county for the purpose of determining whether the employee is
authorized to carry a concealed handgun into that employee’s work place.
4. 	Is there a legal remedy for a county employee who feels discriminated
against based on his or her concealed carry licensure status?
Whether a legal remedy exists for a particular employee depends on the facts of that
individual case. However, generally speaking we do not believe that either Kansas or
federal law would recognize a claim for discrimination based solely on concealed carry
licensure status.
“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.” 11 There are statutory exceptions to the at-will employment rule, including the
Kansas Act Against Discrimination, 12 the Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, 13 and statutes prohibiting discrimination against military personnel. 14 None of these
laws apply to concealed carry licensure status.
In addition, the Kansas Supreme Court has identified four exceptions to the rule that an
employee may be terminated at will, all of which have been determined by the Court to
be “in contravention of recognized state public policy.” 15 An employer may not discharge
an employee in retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim, 16 whistleblowing, 17
filing 	a claim under 	the Federal Employers Liability Act, 18 or exercising a public
employee’s First Amendment right to free speech on an issue of public concern. 19 None
10 K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 75-7c06(b).
11 Campbell v. Husky Hogs, L.L.C., 292 Kan. 225, 227 (2011).
12 K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq.
13 K.S.A. 44-1111 et seq.
14 K.S.A. 44-1125 et seq.
15 292 Kan. at 228.
16 Anco Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Freeman, 236 Kan. 626 (1985).
17 Palmer v. Brown, 242 Kan. 893 (1988).
18 Hysten v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 277 Kan. 551 (2004).
19 Larson v. Ruskowitz, 252 Kan. 963 (1993).

The Honorable Jim Howell
Page 5
of these exceptions apply to an employee who feels discriminated against by virtue of
his or her concealed carry licensure status.
Federal 	equal 	employment 	opportunity 	laws 	prohibit 	a 	county 	from 	discriminating
against an employee on the basis of the employee’s race, color, religion, sex or national
origin, 20 or on the basis of disability. 21 Concealed carry licensure status does not fit into
any of those categories.
Federal law also prohibits a county from depriving a county employee of “any rights,
privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws . . . .”22 We have
previously opined that an equal protection claim against a county for allowing concealed
carry into some polling places but not others would be unlikely to succeed because no
court has yet recognized concealed carry licensees as a suspect class, or recognized
concealed carry as a fundamental right. 23 For the same reasons, it is our opinion that an
equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 also would be unsuccessful.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Sarah Fertig
Assistant Attorney General
DS:AA:SF:sb
20 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
21 42 U.S.C. § 12112.
22 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
23 Attorney General Opinion No. 2013-20.