Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 59

Thread: Mitchell prevails over University of Kentucky

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    186

    Mitchell prevails over University of Kentucky

    The opinion of the Kentucky Supreme Court in Mitchell V. University of Kentucky is posted at the KYCourts website.

    The results was reversing and remanding and was unanimous in it's conclusion.

    Additionally, I believe it included a strong rebuke of the University of Kentucky, and a strong statement for all gun owners in Kentucky.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nicholasville, KY
    Posts
    135
    Here Here!!!

    Very strange wording... but it seems like Minton was reluctant at the end to do this ruling... I mean it sounded like he was in favor of U.K. but that is just my take on it.
    Last edited by Comm; 04-26-2012 at 10:33 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Comm View Post
    Here Here!!!

    Very strange wording... but it seems like Minton was reluctant at the end to do this ruling... I mean it sounded like he was in favor of U.K. but that is just my take on it.
    I read it a little differently. I believe that he, along with one other Justice, belived that the gun in the automobile, possibly unlocked, on a college campus was a bad idea in general. I think that the unanimous ruling that UK acted illegally though was a strong statement.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nicholasville, KY
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOverlay View Post
    I read it a little differently. I believe that he, along with one other Justice, belived that the gun in the automobile, possibly unlocked, on a college campus was a bad idea in general. I think that the unanimous ruling that UK acted illegally though was a strong statement.
    Yeah, I re-read that part, and I understand it better now.

    So, now he goes BACK to Fayette county where he waits some more for damages right?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Comm View Post
    Yeah, I re-read that part, and I understand it better now.

    So, now he goes BACK to Fayette county where he waits some more for damages right?
    Well as I understand it, it will go back to Fayette County for trial on his wrongful discharge suit. I would guess that based on the wording of the SC opinion, UK will try to settle the case out of court, but that is just a guess.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    127
    Found it...
    Last edited by garyh9900; 04-26-2012 at 11:25 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nicholasville, KY
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by garyh9900 View Post
    Found it...
    http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2010-SC-000762-TG.pdf

  8. #8
    Regular Member Manzanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Murray, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    37
    YEEAAAAHHH! I just got back from a "wet county" run across the border into Tennessee and read the news! I'll toast one for Mr. Mitchell tonight!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Comm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Nicholasville, KY
    Posts
    135
    Wow, Just heard the ruling on 630 WLAP news radio... they talked to Michael on the phone. (wonder who tipped them off????)
    He seems in good spirits.. glad it's over and he prevailed, but now he has to go through yet another court to seek damages.
    Guess U.K. will have to reword those pesky staff and student handbooks now.

  10. #10
    Regular Member hotrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Union, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    566

    Understanding the Supremes

    If I understand this correctly, it only applies to the weapon in the vehicle, in compartments that are not considered concealed without a concealed permit or anywhere within the vehicle, as long as the person has a concealed permit. No carrying on your person, just in your vehicle. Did I read the text correctly?
    Last edited by hotrod; 04-26-2012 at 04:45 PM.
    Speed is fine
    Accuracy is final

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod View Post
    If I understand this correctly, it only applies to the weapon in the vehicle, in compartments that are not considered concealed without a concealed permit or anywhere within the vehicle, as long as the person has a concealed permit. No carrying on your person, just in your vehicle. Did I read the text correctly?
    I believe so. I think the legislature has allowed the the post-secondary schools the ability to regulate firearms on their campus unless exempted by law, such as the Mitchell case. I don't know how it applies to open carry, but it might be interesting.

  12. #12
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    You are correct. KRS 237.115 gives them the authority to regulate weapons on their property. Problem is, their property is public property and they do not have the authority to void the constitution, which is exactly what 237.115 does. The regulation of concealed firearms would be constitutional, the regulation of openly carried firearms is NOT.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    To say that the state can't regulate open carry is just wrong, they do regulate OC. There are many places where openly carried firearms are regulated by the state and most of them are public property. The most notable examples are schools, jails, prisons, courts and even, bars. I know you are passionate about this issue and I respect that, but overstating the case may make you appear overzealous to some. We don't want to be perceived that way. The constitutional barriers are high for regulating OC, but not insurmountable. We here in Ky. enjoy some of the least restrictive gun laws in America and I intend to do my part to keep it that way. I do believe that restricting gun possession on University property is wrong, not because it is unconstitutional, but because it is a demonstrable failure. These gun bans have cost many lives and that is the way to get them removed, not by some claim of constitutional protection that can not be factually defended. I genuinely believe we can accomplish the total repeal of KRS 237.115 within a few years and the removal of gun bans on all public college and university property with it. If there is anything to be learned from the Mitchell case it is that the Ky. Supreme Court will back the General Assembly on gun issues, even when some of the Justices don't like the law. That is rare, indeed. We need to educate our legislators about the dangers to our children in these free fire zones. It won't be as hard as many think.
    To follow up on gutshot's comment, laws should be made in the legislature, not in the courts. We can be proud that the Kentucky Supreme Court did not let any personal opinion enter into the Mitchel decisions ultimate result. They looked at the law, as passed by the legislature, decided it was clear on it's face and upheld it. That is how it should be.

    We need to keep taking steps with the legislature to obtain what improvements in the Kentucky Revised Statute we feel are needed.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOverlay View Post
    To follow up on gutshot's comment, laws should be made in the legislature, not in the courts. We can be proud that the Kentucky Supreme Court did not let any personal opinion enter into the Mitchel decisions ultimate result. They looked at the law, as passed by the legislature, decided it was clear on it's face and upheld it. That is how it should be.

    We need to keep taking steps with the legislature to obtain what improvements in the Kentucky Revised Statute we feel are needed.
    Agreed. I find it very disturbing that the SCOTUS tends to vote along party ideologies instead of doing their damn job of defending the Constitution to the letter.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    here is how the state can constitutionally regulate any arm: 1) disallow crazy people from owning & having 2) disallow felons

    And thats it. Handgun, rifle, Uzi, atom bomb ... all the same.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 04-27-2012 at 02:10 AM.

  16. #16
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    The SCOTUS said that gun bans in "sensitive" areas would not be unconstitutional. Detention facilities, and court of justice courthouses/facilities are "sensitive" and I agree that weapons in these places is not always the best idea. However a public school, whether it is k-12 or a public college is not what I would consider a sensitive area. You are not in an environment where people are being charged with crimes or where very tense civil issues are taking place, or where violent offenders are being housed; it is simply a building with people advancing their education.

    It is my opinion that a ban on carrying in schools is unconstitutional. People walk into a school on their own free will, and they should not be stripped of their right to self defense
    for wanting an education. The constitution says "shall not be infringed," and being
    stripped of your 2A rights for walking into a building to advance your education on your own free will is certainly infringing on that right.

    I think we all believe gun free school zones are a demonstrable failures, but after all the shootings in gun free school zones, restrictions have gotten only worse. The government is to politically correct these days, and I don't see them removing these bans simply
    because they obviously do not work. I believe the only way to have these gun free school zones done away with is to challenge their constitutionality, because honestly, how many legislators do you think would repeal a ban on school property? Remember the first FGFSZ that was passed? It was deemed unconstitutional and for good reason! The same could be said for the current GFSZ, on the federal and state level, and especially in Ky. If a ban on exercising our rights in a public educational institution is not unconstitutional in our state, then what would be??

    Also, our right to bear arms is not infringed in a bar, we can carry, just not loaded. We can still have firearm and ammunition on our person.
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 04-27-2012 at 10:29 AM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    The SCOTUS said that gun bans in "sensitive" areas would not be unconstitutional. Detention facilities, and court of justice courthouses/facilities are "sensitive" and I agree that weapons in these places is not always the best idea. However a public school, whether it is k-12 or a public college is not what I would consider a sensitive area. You are not in an environment where people are being charged with crimes or where very tense civil issues are taking place, or where violent offenders are being housed; it is simply a building with people advancing their education.

    It is my opinion that a ban on carrying in schools is unconstitutional. People walk into a school on their own free will, and they should not be stripped of their right to self defense
    for wanting an education. The constitution says "shall not be infringed," and being
    stripped of your 2A rights for walking into a building to advance your education on your own free will is certainly infringing on that right.

    I think we all believe gun free school zones are a demonstrable failures, but after all the shootings in gun free school zones, restrictions have gotten only worse. The government is to politically correct these days, and I don't see them removing these bans simply
    because they obviously do not work. I believe the only way to have these gun free school zones done away with is to challenge their constitutionality, because honestly, how many legislators do you think would repeal a ban on school property? Remember the first FGFSZ that was passed? It was deemed unconstitutional and for good reason! The same could be said for the current GFSZ, on the federal and state level, and especially in Ky. If a ban on exercising our rights in a public educational institution is not unconstitutional in our state, then what would be??

    Also, our right to bear arms is not infringed in a bar, we can carry, just not loaded. We can still have firearm and ammunition on our person.
    SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), not Supreme Court of Kentucky.

  18. #18
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOverlay View Post
    SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), not Supreme Court of Kentucky.
    OMG, really? Did you even read what I said after the acronym? The SCOTUS! In the heller v. D.C. Case said in their opinion that gun bans in sensitive areas would not be in violation of the constitutional right to bear arms. I don't even recall a case where the supreme court of Ky has ruled that gun bans in sensitive places are constitutional, and why you believe I would mistake SCOTUS for SCOKy is beyond me.

    I thought everyone on this forum would be aware of the heller case and that the SCOTUS ruled in that case.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    OMG, really? Did you even read what I said after the acronym? The SCOTUS! In the heller v. D.C. Case said in their opinion that gun bans in sensitive areas would not be in violation of the constitutional right to bear arms. I don't even recall a case where the supreme court of Ky has ruled that gun bans in sensitive places are constitutional, and why you believe I would mistake SCOTUS for SCOKy is beyond me.

    I thought everyone on this forum would be aware of the heller case and that the SCOTUS ruled in that case.
    My bad, sorry. Since we were discussing the Mitchell case, I missed the connection. Darn, first mistake today

  20. #20
    Regular Member Manzanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Murray, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    37
    Look, y'all. We are all on the same team here; at least I think we are.

    I know this is a lively forum; one only need look at the "new forum posts" column on the home page to see all the doctors of the open-carry church arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but, seriously, folks, we need to stop eating our own long enough to simply celebrate a victory here.

    I'm not sure I follow all this asking "does it mean this" or "what about that". Just read the ruling. It's not that hard to understand. One of the good things about the Kentucky Revised Statutes is they don't seem to be infected with too much legalese. The Supreme Court ruling is also fairly clear and doesn't really need a lawyer to interpret. Just read the dang thing.
    Last edited by Manzanita; 04-27-2012 at 10:15 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Gravel Switch, KY
    Posts
    544
    A lawyer or Attorney?


  22. #22
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    It isn't full of legal terms because it is actually a statute that all statutes need to be written in layman's terms.
    Last edited by 09jisaac; 04-27-2012 at 11:54 PM.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    It isn't full of legal terms because it is actually a statute that all statutes need to be written in layman's terms.
    I actually hadnt happened across that one yet, what a jewel. That could seriously be useful in a disagreement with an opinion enforcement officer.

    "....with common and everyday meanings."

    Backs up a position I took in an old thread of mine.

  24. #24
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Don't ask me how I found it either. I just go through random statutes every so often. Did you know that using reptiles in religious services is illegal?
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Of course, God was occasionally occupied with other duties and these preachers were bitten and died.
    Oops, lol.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •