Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Krs 237.115

  1. #1
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48

    Krs 237.115

    So I was just talking with a friend and we were discussing whether or not you could OC on the property (not in the buildings) owned/operated by University of Kentucky. UK's policy gives a big NO to guns via http://www.uky.edu/regs/files/ar/ar6-6.pdf

    Initially, I thought they only had the ability to restrict students and staff but had little or no power over Average Joe who was just crossing campus (like walking down the center of campus on their side walks).

    KRS 237.115 seems to suggest they do indeed have the power to completely control all firearms on their campus.

    Can anyone shed any light?

    Thanks!
    [FONT=Verdana]”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
    tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    [ ~Unknown

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Yes you can walk onto their campus while openly carrying your firearm, but unfortunately, they can have you removed from their campus for doing so. Do they really have authority to do this since they are state owned? No, but our state legislature has granted them that authority under KRS 237.115.

    So, it is not illegal, but it is not advised.

    If you have your CDWL just conceal before entering the campus buildings or the grounds and you should be fine. I attend a public college, and I carry concealed every day.
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 09-11-2012 at 06:18 PM.
    "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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    Yes you can walk onto their campus while openly carrying your firearm, but unfortunately, they can have you removed from their campus for doing so. Do they really have authority to do this since they are state owned? No, but our state legislature has granted them that authority under KRS 237.115.

    So, it is not illegal, but it is not advised.

    If you have your CDWL just conceal before entering the campus buildings or the grounds and you should be fine. I attend a public college, and I carry concealed every day.
    Thanks for responding...this is pretty interesting to me.

    This whole blurry kinda illegal/kinda not stuff regarding firearms bugs me...but I guess that's the state of things in 2012.

    So you're saying that it's similar to a sign on a door in a store (no weight) that you can't OC on campus...that they *shouldn't* arrest you (of course they'd surely escalate into an arrest anyway). I'm just speaking theoretical out of curiosity.

    I'm trying to remember where I learned that campuses aren't really supposed to have this power. I know they have long had rules for students and employees, but for some reason I thought I'd read that it didn't apply to Average Joe visiting campus grounds. Apparently 237.115 puts that to rest. Is 237.115 contradicted elsewhere (excluding the good ol' 2A, of course)?

    So, if this is the case, then *any* university land is off limits -- like the Arboretum...like Coldstream Park. What about the public sidewalks down Rose St? Are those city owned? Campus owned? I would guess the sidewalks are city since the university smoking ban excludes sidewalks (as evidenced by the 1000 smokers in front of the hospital on Limestone).
    [FONT=Verdana]”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
    tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    [ ~Unknown

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by ZXguy View Post
    Thanks for responding...this is pretty interesting to me.

    This whole blurry kinda illegal/kinda not stuff regarding firearms bugs me...but I guess that's the state of things in 2012.

    So you're saying that it's similar to a sign on a door in a store (no weight) that you can't OC on campus...that they *shouldn't* arrest you (of course they'd surely escalate into an arrest anyway). I'm just speaking theoretical out of curiosity.

    I'm trying to remember where I learned that campuses aren't really supposed to have this power. I know they have long had rules for students and employees, but for some reason I thought I'd read that it didn't apply to Average Joe visiting campus grounds. Apparently 237.115 puts that to rest. Is 237.115 contradicted elsewhere (excluding the good ol' 2A, of course)?

    So, if this is the case, then *any* university land is off limits -- like the Arboretum...like Coldstream Park. What about the public sidewalks down Rose St? Are those city owned? Campus owned? I would guess the sidewalks are city since the university smoking ban excludes sidewalks (as evidenced by the 1000 smokers in front of the hospital on Limestone).
    Public colleges were given the authority to control the possession of weapons on their property by the legislature in '96 when they passed the concealed carry licensing statute into law. They cannot deny anyone the right to keep weapons in their vehicle, but once outside the vehicle they can "control" possession. Since they have this authority, most every college in the state takes advantage. Private colleges are private and can ban anything they want.

    It is not illegal to carry on campus, but it will get you thrown off, that I would almost guaruntee. Could you be arrested? Sure. You can be arrested for anything at anytime, it just depends on how ignorant or power hungry the leo is you are dealing with.

    Should public funded colleges, using public funded buildings be allowed to control the possession of firearms when no others can (except k-12, COJ, and detention facilities)? No. I can walk into my State capitol carrying my firearm, but I can't walk into my local community college (althout I do anyways)? This is rather bogus, and I would really like to see colleges removed from KRS 237.115 altogether.
    "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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    KRS 237.115 did not give colleges or universities any powers. It only acknowledged that they already had that power and that nothing in the new concealed carry law did anything to change that. There is no specific statute that allows colleges and universities the power to control weapons. It is not illegal to carry a weapon on university property. The General Assembly has given colleges and universities broad and undefined powers to manager their own affairs and the ability to control weapons has been determined to be part of those powers. The colleges and universities are treated very much like private property in this respect. There is an Attorney General's opinion on this from years ago. I can't put my finger on it right now, but I'll dig around and find it, later. I'd like to see this changed, but its going to take a significant effort, a lot of money and some time to get that done, if it can be done at all. The areas that are covered by this are so small that it may not be worth the fight as long as other, more easily solved problems exist. Yes, the ban on weapons covers all college and university property. Many larger schools have property scattered all over (UK) and most is unmarked. It would be very easy to accidentally walk onto this property. They are not required to post any signs.

    I agree with you on all points (I'm reading about this more and more from sources outside of this website). Admittedly this is a little frustrating. I suspect any fight to change carrying laws on campus would be an exercise in futility. There are many other fronts where time spent to change the law would be much more effective.

    Because of this discussion, a friend of mine actually called UKPD and asked about their policy. He said he was told that they would find a reason to arrest you and that they seemed to be a little upset that someone was calling 'em and asking about guns lol. I guess their nervousness is somewhat understandable as it isn't the topic of the typical phone call to their offices. Regardless, I didn't like the idea that they'd find some reason to arrest people. Apparently, they were never entirely clear on whether or not they claimed it was an illegal act....essentially I take it as a "no comment" stance. Still, I believe they were very clear that you'd get the boot off campus.......probably in handcuffs for some other concocted reason.

    My friend and I are still discussing this a bit and I maintain that it's not illegal to carry, but (like you said) they control the policy much like a private property owner.

    Still, I wonder about OC while just walking down Rose St. which is in the middle of campus but ultimately controlled by the city (I believe). This isn't something I specifically care to test...just more of a theoretical interest.
    [FONT=Verdana]”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
    tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    [ ~Unknown

  6. #6
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    oh, btw, it was this video I watched a few weeks back which really got me thinking about the whole topic

    [FONT=Verdana]”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
    tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    [ ~Unknown

  7. #7
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by ZXguy View Post
    I agree with you on all points (I'm reading about this more and more from sources outside of this website). Admittedly this is a little frustrating. I suspect any fight to change carrying laws on campus would be an exercise in futility. There are many other fronts where time spent to change the law would be much more effective.

    Because of this discussion, a friend of mine actually called UKPD and asked about their policy. He said he was told that they would find a reason to arrest you and that they seemed to be a little upset that someone was calling 'em and asking about guns lol. I guess their nervousness is somewhat understandable as it isn't the topic of the typical phone call to their offices. Regardless, I didn't like the idea that they'd find some reason to arrest people. Apparently, they were never entirely clear on whether or not they claimed it was an illegal act....essentially I take it as a "no comment" stance. Still, I believe they were very clear that you'd get the boot off campus.......probably in handcuffs for some other concocted reason.

    My friend and I are still discussing this a bit and I maintain that it's not illegal to carry, but (like you said) they control the policy much like a private property owner.

    Still, I wonder about OC while just walking down Rose St. which is in the middle of campus but ultimately controlled by the city (I believe). This isn't something I specifically care to test...just more of a theoretical interest.
    I would have your friend call the PD back and ask to speak with the officer again. I would get him to state his name and badge number before the conversation transfers to the topic of guns, and record the conversation. If they have an LEO saying they will find a way to arrest someone for doing something that is perfectly legal, then people need to know about it.
    "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.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    To save lots of clicks, here's the text of the opinion described above:

    OAG 96-40

    October 4, 1996

    Subject: Whether a public university policy banning possession or storage of a deadly weapon or destructive device on any campus of the university or in any facility owned, leased or operated by that university is void as violative of the right to bear arms secured by the Kentucky Constitution.

    Requested by: Don Cetrulo, Director
    Kentucky Legislative Research Commission

    Written by: Kent T. Young, Assistant Attorney General

    Syllabus: A public university ban on the possession or storage of a deadly weapon or destructive device on property owned or occupied by that university does not violate the right to bear arms secured by Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution.

    Statutes construed: KRS 65.870; 164.975(1); 237.115(1); 527.070(1)

    Opinion of the Attorney General
    The Office of the Attorney General has been asked to render an opinion on whether a University of Louisville policy banning possession or storage of a deadly weapon or destructive device on any University of Louisville campus or in any facility, owned, leased or operated by the University violates Section 1, Seventh and Section 26 of the Kentucky Constitution. The Attorney General provides this opinion on a public question of law which was submitted by the director of the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission on behalf of a legislator. KRS 15.025(1) and (2).

    Specifically, the director of the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission asks:

    Since Section 1 of the Constitution of Kentucky prohibits the General Assembly from controlling other than concealed “arms” and Section 26 of the Constitution of Kentucky declares all acts in violation of the Kentucky bill of rights to be void, does the action of the University of Louisville as it applies to the possession or carrying of unconcealed weapons violate the Constitution of Kentucky, even though the action of the University is allegedly taken pursuant to 1996 HB 40?

    We cannot accept the premise that Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution “prohibits the General Assembly from controlling other than concealed ‘arms’”. We, therefore, begin our analysis by addressing this assertion. We then proceed to the ultimate question of whether the action taken by the University of Louisville violates Section 1, Seventh and Section 26 of the Kentucky Constitution.

    Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution provides in relevant part as follows:

    All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned. . .

    Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

    Some assert that the last clause of Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution sets forth the sole power of the Kentucky General Assembly to enact laws relating to bearing arms.

    In Eary v. Commonwealth, Ky., 659 S.W.2d 198 (1983), however, the Kentucky Supreme Court expressly recognized that the right to bear arms is subject to the state’s reasonable exercise of its inherent police powers to protect the public health and safety. The Eary court upheld the constitutionality of a statute which prohibited convicted felons from possessing handguns. The Eary holding recognizes that the right to bear arms under Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution is not absolute. In other words, while Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution secures a right to bear arms, it does not define the scope of that right in absolute terms.

    Prior to the effective date of our present constitution (1891), the Kentucky courts recognized that one does not have an absolute right to bear arms openly at all times, in any place, and in any manner. Ogles v. Commonwealth, Ky., 11 S.W. 816 (1889). Certainly, the English common-law tradition from which our legal heritage derives did not accord to the individual an absolute right to bear arms openly. See, e.g., Emery, The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 28 Harvard Law Review 473 (1915).

    A comparison of Section 1, Seventh of our present Kentucky Constitution to its counterparts in prior Kentucky Constitutions reveals a change in language which suggests the framers of the 1891 Kentucky Constitution did not intend for the Constitution to confer an absolute right to bear arms openly. All prior versions of the Kentucky Constitution provided in relevant part that the right to bear arms “shall not be questioned”. First Constitution of Kentucky (1792), Article 12, Section 23; Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), Article 10, Section 23; Third Constitution of Kentucky (1850), Article 13, Section 25. The drafters of the 1891 Kentucky Constitution, our present Kentucky Constitution, deleted the words “shall not be questioned”.

    We are aware of the case of Bliss v. Commonwealth, Ky., 12 Ky. 90 (1822), which construed Article 10, Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) as conferring on the individual citizen an absolute right to bear arms. The Bliss court concluded that legislation prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon was unconstitutional and void pursuant to Article 10, Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the predecessor and counterpart of Section 26 of our present Kentucky Constitution. Bliss v. Commonwealth, however, was decided at a time when the Kentucky Constitution stated without qualification that the right to bear arms “shall not be questioned”.

    The Bliss opinion must be read in the context in which it was written. It does not state the law under the present Kentucky Constitution. Moreover, Kentucky Courts have recognized that the Bliss court’s general characterization of Kentucky’s Constitutional provisions as mandatory is subject to qualification. See, e.g., Gaines v. O’Connell, Ky., 204 S.W.2d 425, 427 (1947).

    We also are aware of hyperbolic dicta in Holland v. Commonwealth, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 83, 85 (1956), characterizing Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution as “an exemplification of the broadest expression of the right to bear arms”. One need only look to the language of Article 12, Section 23 of the First Constitution of Kentucky (1792) to see that this statement, if interpreted literally, is false. The right to bear arms was expressed more broadly in our first constitution as follows:

    The rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be questioned.

    The Holland court also stated:

    In our state the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. The constitutional provision is an affirmation of the faith that all men have the inherent right to arm themselves in the defense of themselves and of the state. The only limitation concerns the mode of carrying such instruments.

    Holland v. Commonwealth, supra, 294 S.W.2d at 85. This language is not an essential part of the holding in the Holland case. Moreover, the Holland case is internally inconsistent. The case also cites with approval the provisions of KRS 435.230, since repealed. KRS 435.230 included a prohibition against selling “a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife, to a minor”. The penalty for this offense was set by statute at of a term of imprisonment of not less than two nor more than five years. The Holland court determined that “the legislature has exercised the power granted it by enacting KRS 435.230". Id., at 85. The Holland court recognized the validity of a legislative enactment which went beyond merely denying citizens the right to carry concealed weapons, even though the Holland court asserted “the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons”. Id., at 85. The Kentucky Supreme Court has since expressly recognized that the legislature’s power with respect to the right to bear arms is not limited only to denying citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. Eary v. Commonwealth, Ky., 659 S.W.2d 198 (1983).

    In Commonwealth v. Wasson, Ky., 842 S.W.2d 487, 492 (1992), the Kentucky Supreme Court recognized that “much of our original Kentucky Bill of Rights” derived from “the then recently enacted Pennsylvania counterpart”. “[B]ecause of the common heritage shared by the Kentucky Bill of Rights of 1792 and the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights of 1790", “[d]ecisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreting like clauses in the Pennsylvania Constitution are uniquely persuasive in interpreting our own”. Commonwealth v. Wasson, supra, 842 S.W.2d at 498. Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, governing the right to bear arms, reads today just as it did in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790. That section states:

    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    Article 12, Section 23 of the First Constitution of Kentucky (1792) states:
    The rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

    The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 contained a provision similar to Section 26 of our present Kentucky Constitution. Article 1, Section 25 of the present Pennsylvania Constitution retains the relevant language from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790, to wit:

    To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

    Section 26 of the Kentucky Constitution states:

    To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that everything in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

    In Commonwealth v. Ray, Pa.Super, 272 A.2d 275 (1970), vacated on other grounds in 292 A.2d 410, a Pennsylvania appellate court held that the right to bear arms was not violated by a state statutory provision which contained a general prohibition against carrying “a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class”. Commonwealth v. Ray, supra, 272 A.2d at 278. The appellate court noted that “[t]he limitation is as to an area constituting a very small portion of the Commonwealth”. Id., at 278. The Pennsylvania appellate court recognized the view “[t]hat the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution is not an unlimited right is almost universally accepted”. Id., at 279. The court reasoned “that a reasonable regulation in a gun control law is a valid exercise of the police power of the Commonwealth prescribing for the good order and protection of its citizens”. Id., at 279.

    The holding in Commonwealth v. Ray suggests that banning deadly weapons and destructive devices on university property does not violate the right to bear arms conferred by the Kentucky Constitution. The Kentucky statutes and Kentucky case decisions support this conclusion.

    KRS 164.975(1) states in relevant part that “[t]he governing boards of public institutions of higher education” have “the power and authority to govern and control the method and purpose of use of property owned or occupied by their respective institution”. See also, KRS 164.950 and KRS 164.955. KRS 164.200 grants broad discretion to a university board of trustees to “establish proper regulations for the government of the university.” As this office said in OAG 69-357:

    [T]he establishment of regulations which may limit the access of students and/or nonstudents to the campus, or which may condition their access upon certain reasonable requirements based upon the necessity for preservation of order and/or protection of students, staff or facilities is a proper exercise of the Board’s legal authority. However, the determination of the specific controls which may be required as based upon the facts gathered by or known to the Board is a matter which is to be decided by the Board, acting within its sound discretion in the discharge of responsibilities imposed by law as the governing body of the University.

    The general prohibition in KRS 65.870 against local firearms regulation by city, county or urban-county governments does not apply to the governing boards of public institutions of higher education.

    KRS 237.115(1), enacted in the 1996 session of the Kentucky General Assembly (1996 HB 40), states in relevant part as follows:

    Nothing contained in KRS 237.110 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the right of a college, university, or any postsecondary education facility, including technical schools and community colleges, to control the possession of deadly weapons on any property owned or controlled by them. . .

    KRS 237.110 is the statute which authorizes the issuance of licenses to individuals to carry concealed deadly weapons. While KRS 237.115(1) recognizes the right of colleges and universities to control possession of deadly weapons, generally, on their properties, KRS 237.115(1) limits other units of state government, city governments, county governments, urban-county governments, and charter county governments to prohibiting only the carrying of concealed deadly weapons. The Kentucky General Assembly, therefore, has recognized that the governing board of a college or university of this Commonwealth has a right to control the possession of all deadly weapons on its properties, regardless of whether the weapons are concealed or carried openly.

    We are aware that KRS 527.070(1), creating a criminal offense for unlawful possession of certain weapons on school property, excludes “institutions of postsecondary or higher education”. The fact that the legislature has elected not to criminalize the carrying of those weapons on the property of institutions of postsecondary or higher education, however, does not preclude the governing boards of public institutions of higher education from otherwise controlling the possession of deadly weapons on their properties.

    In O’Leary v. Commonwealth, Ky., 441 S.W.2d 150 (1969), Kentucky’s high court addressed the nature of a university’s control over its property. The Court considered whether a student’s right of free speech and assembly was violated when he was arrested for breach of the peace for refusing to leave a university hallway where he and others were blocking the entrance to a room as a form of protest. The O’Leary court noted that university premises generally are not “maintained for use by the public in general”. O’Leary v. Commonwealth, supra, 441 S.W.2d at 157. Mr. O’Leary had predicated his appeal in part on provisions contained in the Kentucky Bill of Rights relating to free speech and the right of assembly. The O’Leary court reasoned in relevant part as follows:

    We are fond, in this country, of reiterating the principle that even the greatest majority is powerless to throttle a constitutional right. It is equally true, however, that the existence of a constitutional right is neither a sword to cut up the rights of others nor a shield against the consequences of conduct that otherwise violates the law. The majority too has rights, not the least of which is the protection afforded by its criminal laws.
    It is clear from the decisions of the [U.S.]Supreme Court...that free speech and the right of assembly in public places must not be left to the ad hoc discretion of provincial authorities, nor can people be ordered off the premises of business establishments, otherwise open to the public, for no reason except their creed or color. There is a difference, however, between public and private places, and in this context we regard the premises of a college or university as no different from private property. That the institution is financed with tax money is no reason why its governing body should not have the same dominion and control over it as would a private owner. No one would contend, we trust, that the presence of a group of demonstrators in the office of its president would be any more legitimated and protected by the Constitution than would be their presence in the White House at Washington.

    Id., at 156. The O’Leary court specifically held that “the sanctity of a college campus and buildings is no less than that of private property”.

    There is no absolute right under the Kentucky Constitution to carry arms on to the property of another. The governing board of a university, like a private property owner, may direct those who come upon its property to do so unarmed.

    “[I]t is axiomatic that private rights must yield to a reasonable exercise of the police power”. Colten v. Commonwealth, Ky., 467 S.W.2d 374, 378 (1971), affirmed in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972). The right to bear arms is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police power. Eary v. Commonwealth, Ky., 659 S.W.2d 198 (1983).

    The geographic areas occupied by university campuses are quite limited. Given this and also given the fact that one has no absolute right to carry arms on to the property of another, it is reasonable to conclude that a university ban on deadly weapons and destructive devices is not clearly contrary to that right to bear arms which is secured by Section 1, Seventh of our Kentucky Constitution.

    Universities are unique places of public assembly. Given that the governing boards of public institutions of higher education are authorized to control the method by which university property is used and the purpose for which university property is used, and given that large numbers of people frequently gather on university campuses, a university ban on weapons and destructive devices is not an unreasonable exercise of the police power in furtherance of the public health and safety.

    The University of Louisville policy prohibiting possession or storage of deadly weapons or destructive devices on any University of Louisville campus or in any facility owned, leased or operated by the University does not violate Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution. The policy therefore is not void pursuant to Section 26 of the Kentucky Constitution.[1]

    A. B. CHANDLER III
    ATTORNEY GENERAL



    KENT T. YOUNG
    ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

    #1046

    Footnote
    [1] We should also note that OAG 96-39, also issued today on a similar subject, does not conflict with this opinion. Given the mandatory language of KRS 65.870, a local government’s ability to regulate the carrying of firearms is far different from such power of a University. The two are tantamount to the proverbial apples and oranges.

  9. #9
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by ZXguy View Post
    He said he was told that they would find a reason to arrest you.
    I'm getting real tired of hearing this sh!t out of LEO's mouths. What in the hell ever happened to the "protect and serve" standard that LEO's use to adhere to? But what in the hell can a man really do when charged with a BS charge other than go to court and spend a ton of money that you probably don't have in the first place?
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  10. #10
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    The Brady scorecard give KY a 2 out of 100 because Colleges are not forced to allow firearms on campus. If not for that we would have 0 out of 100.. Still better than some on the map. http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/KY/
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

Posting Permissions

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