• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Mitchell prevails over University of Kentucky

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

Comm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Nicholasville, KY
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:

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

Comm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Nicholasville, KY
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?
 

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

Manzanita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
37
Location
Murray, Kentucky, USA
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!
 

Comm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Nicholasville, KY
Wow, Just heard the ruling on 630 WLAP news radio... they talked to Michael on the phone. (wonder who tipped them off????):eek:
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.
 

hotrod

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
569
Location
Union, Kentucky, USA
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:

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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.
 

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

UnfetteredMight

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Kentucky
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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:

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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.
 

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
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:)
 

Manzanita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
37
Location
Murray, Kentucky, USA
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:
Top