Kansas committee hears bill to convert provisional concealed‑carry licenses, bar data collection from off‑duty officers

Chairperson and committee members opened a hearing on House Bill 2052 on procedural and substantive changes to Kansas’s concealed‑carry law, including automatic conversion of provisional licenses to standard licenses at age 21, a new requirement to physically surrender a suspended or revoked license to the attorney general, and a prohibition on venues collecting personal information or requiring visible identifiers of off‑duty law enforcement officers.

The bill “amends the Personal and Family Protection Act,” Revisor of Statutes staff member Mike (title given as revisor of statutes) told the committee, and sets procedures for conversion of provisional licenses and for surrender when a license is suspended or revoked. He said the bill also would prevent a building owner or person in authority at a building from requesting personal information or requiring an off‑duty officer to wear identification to prove they are an officer.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill fixes an unintended gap that leaves 18‑ to 20‑year‑olds without reciprocity in other states, and law‑enforcement groups and chiefs said commercial venues are creating procedures that undermine statutory protections and put officers at risk by collecting home addresses, phone numbers and photographs and issuing highly visible wristbands.

Proponents’ arguments focused on provisional licenses and reciprocity. David Soudin of Derby told the panel that provisional license holders may be able to carry in Kansas but not in other states that recognize a full Kansas license. “Under a provisional license, somebody that’s 18 to 20 can carry concealed in the state of Kansas only,” Soudin said. “A standard concealed‑carry license comes with reciprocity.” He described confusion at a Sedgwick County DMV office when his family tried to clarify how conversion would work and urged the committee to “restore the rights of Kansans who fulfill the requirements for concealed carry.”

A second proponent, Ashton Soudin, described the practical effect of the current law: she said she obtained a provisional license months before turning 21 and later learned “my provisional status would not convert and that I would be required to wait,” leaving what she called an “arbitrary gap” in rights and reciprocity.

Public‑safety groups supported the bill’s section limiting venue practices. Lieutenant Tim Greenwood of the Hays Police Department, speaking for the Kansas Peace Officers Association, said officers are sometimes forced to use special entrances, give home addresses and phone numbers and wear “a highly visible bright green wristband” that marks them in the crowd. “Plain and simple,” Greenwood said, “we deserve the right to carry concealed when we’re off duty.”

Chief Darryl Atterberry, presenting for the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police and the Kansas Sheriffs Association, described multiple incidents in which off‑duty officers were made to fill out electronic databases, photographed, and given wristbands. He cited statutory language (identified in testimony as “75‑7c‑17” and “75‑7c‑22” in committee discussion) that he said was intended to prevent local restrictions on off‑duty carry and said venue practices have “sewn seams into that” statutory protection. Atterberry said those venue practices can lead to officers being singled out or removed from public spaces.

The Kansas State Rifle Association’s executive director, Megan Hilbish, also supported automatic conversion of provisional licenses, describing the training and background checks required for a standard license and urging that Kansas “bring[] Kansas in line with the best practices nationwide regarding concealed‑carry licenses.”

One opponent, Nicholas Reineker of Inman, told the committee he opposed portions of the bill that reference federal firearms regulations and urged broader removal of federal constraints from state law; the chair interjected to keep testimony focused on the bill’s specific provisions.

Committee members asked questions about the practical effect of the sections: whether off‑duty officers would still be expected to show credentials if asked, how the bill would treat retirees or out‑of‑state officers, and how venues that treat law enforcement differently from the public would be affected. Revisor staff said presenting credentials would remain the normal way an officer identifies themselves and that current law already allows certain out‑of‑state or retired officers to carry where an on‑duty officer could carry.

No formal committee vote on HB 2052 was recorded at the hearing; the committee took testimony from proponents and opponents and closed the public‑testimony portion of the record.

Votes and other formal actions recorded in the meeting: several bill‑introduction requests earlier in the agenda were accepted without objection, and the committee approved minutes from the Jan. 14 session by voice vote at the end of the meeting.

What’s next: the committee opened the record on HB 2052 and will determine whether to advance it at a future meeting. Committee members and several law‑enforcement witnesses noted the issue has arisen in prior sessions and that venues’ practices vary by site and operator, which witnesses said creates implementation and security questions.

Contacts and attribution: testimony quoted in this article is drawn from the committee hearing record and attributed to Revisor staff (identified as Mike, Revisor of Statutes), Representative Hal (sponsor comments), David Soudin (resident, Derby), Ashton Soudin (resident), Lieutenant Tim Greenwood (Kansas Peace Officers Association), Chief Darryl Atterberry (Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police; Kansas Sheriffs Association), Megan Hilbish (Kansas State Rifle Association), and Nicholas Reineker (Inman resident).