Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: open carry at the gaslight festival

  1. #1
    Regular Member bigdodge25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    31

    open carry at the gaslight festival

    Would there be any reason I couldnt carry at the gaslight festival in J-town?
    G19

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917
    Yes, you could be a felon.

  3. #3
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by langzaiguy View Post
    Yes, you could be a felon.
    This would be the only reason; unless of course it is within 1000ft of k-12 school property and you don't have your CDWL.
    "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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member bigdodge25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    31
    I dont think i was in 1000ft of any school and Im not a felon...lol so I'm good. Went ahead and OC'd cause with my knowledge of OC everythigng was legal. I walked past MANY sheriffs and LEO and not one look or question. Some people were pointing and talking though..lol
    G19

  5. #5
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    This would be the only reason; unless of course it is within 1000ft of k-12 school property and you don't have your CDWL.

    What? You can't OC within 1000 ft of a school? I knew you couldn't be on school grounds, but I'm surprised about the 1000ft......or am I just misunderstanding here (probably lol)?
    [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 CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    294
    It's federal law not Kentucky law that would prevent you from carrying within 1000' without a cdwl.
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  7. #7
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by CharleyCherokee View Post
    It's federal law not Kentucky law that would prevent you from carrying within 1000' without a cdwl.

    So in most larger towns and cities, it's almost impossible to legally OC without a CDWL? Schools are everywhere.
    I'm gonna have to read more on this one as I admit I wasn't familiar.
    [FONT=Verdana]”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
    tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    [ ~Unknown

  8. #8
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by ZXguy View Post
    What? You can't OC within 1000 ft of a school? I knew you couldn't be on school grounds, but I'm surprised about the 1000ft......or am I just misunderstanding here (probably lol)?
    No you cannot OC within 1000ft of "K-12" school property without having a CDWL issued in the state you are carrying in. This is a Federal law and most commonly called the FGFSZ. The first time they passed such a law it was deemed unconstitutional, so they changed the terminology and passed it again. This second law has never been challenged to my knowledge, but I am sure if it was it woud also be deemed unconstitutional because it is very vague and makes someone a felon for carrying in their private conveyance near a school, whether they are on school property or not.

    If the statute prohibited possession on school grounds only, then I believe our current SCOTUS would rule it constitutional, but it extends that ban to 1000ft beyond the edge of school property which is insane.

    I don't believe anyone has ever been charged with this statute unless there were some other aggravating circumstances other than just carrying a firearm.
    "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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    No you cannot OC within 1000ft of "K-12" school property without having a CDWL issued in the state you are carrying in. This is a Federal law and most commonly called the FGFSZ. The first time they passed such a law it was deemed unconstitutional, so they changed the terminology and passed it again. This second law has never been challenged to my knowledge, but I am sure if it was it woud also be deemed unconstitutional because it is very vague and makes someone a felon for carrying in their private conveyance near a school, whether they are on school property or not.

    If the statute prohibited possession on school grounds only, then I believe our current SCOTUS would rule it constitutional, but it extends that ban to 1000ft beyond the edge of school property which is insane.

    I don't believe anyone has ever been charged with this statute unless there were some other aggravating circumstances other than just carrying a firearm.

    Amazing....and unfortunate.
    Thanks for the explanation. I'll be reading up on FGFSZ.
    [FONT=Verdana]”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
    tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    [ ~Unknown

  10. #10
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post

    The GFSZ has been discussed on many occasions here on this forum.
    You can read about it on Wikipedia here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990

    And the text of the act can be seen here:

    http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917
    Don't let it discourage you from OCing. It's doubtful that one would ever be prosecuted for this unless they were actually on school grounds. It seems as though that this is just another charge that they would tack on if you had committed a crime on school property. It's doubtful that local LEO would even enforce federal law. Heck, they may not even have the authority to do so.

  12. #12
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by langzaiguy View Post
    Don't let it discourage you from OCing. It's doubtful that one would ever be prosecuted for this unless they were actually on school grounds. It seems as though that this is just another charge that they would tack on if you had committed a crime on school property. It's doubtful that local LEO would even enforce federal law. Heck, they may not even have the authority to do so.

    I just finished reading about it on the links above...and in some other threads. Admittedly, this is a p*sser. I'm imagining how many people violate this every day -- just on their way to work.

    As ya I mentioned before, I'm learning all this new at the moment as I'm new to owning. It's much more complicated than I ever imagined. I think you're right that local LEO won't pursue this, but it's still very concerning that it's on the books.

    Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread either

    I'm still trying to understand the significance of the law's wording about "a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce." It seems that they're just suggesting that because some people might be scared of guns, commerce will be affected and therefore having a gun makes the open carrier affect commerce (i.e., guns are bad, people are scared, if you have a gun, you'll screw with commerce by scaring people). That's messed up
    [FONT=Verdana]”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
    tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    [ ~Unknown

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by ZXguy View Post
    I just finished reading about it on the links above...and in some other threads. Admittedly, this is a p*sser. I'm imagining how many people violate this every day -- just on their way to work.

    As ya I mentioned before, I'm learning all this new at the moment as I'm new to owning. It's much more complicated than I ever imagined. I think you're right that local LEO won't pursue this, but it's still very concerning that it's on the books.

    Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread either

    I'm still trying to understand the significance of the law's wording about "a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce." It seems that they're just suggesting that because some people might be scared of guns, commerce will be affected and therefore having a gun makes the open carrier affect commerce (i.e., guns are bad, people are scared, if you have a gun, you'll screw with commerce by scaring people). That's messed up
    When they mention firearms that have moved in interstate commerce they are speaking of a firearm that has been shipped from one state to another, or a firearm that was shipped from another country into our country. This would be like a Glock being shipped from Smyrna, Georgia, to Kentucky; it has crossed state lines and therefore the Federal government believes they have the right to control everything the firearm does because of the very minute Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

    If a firearm was made in Kentucky, and it was shipped to someone who lived in Kentucky, and it never left the state, then it could be carried because it would not be affected by interstate commerce, and therefore the FGFSZ would not apply to the carrying of that firearm.
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 09-17-2012 at 12:13 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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by langzaiguy View Post
    It's doubtful that local LEO would even enforce federal law. Heck, they may not even have the authority to do so.
    I was recently told by a city detective that, "I can't enforce federal law". He even went to say that he thought at one time that KVE could enforce federal law but he couldn't. I think KVE ( I know they are KSP now) was a state agency so I don't see how. Plus, this detective didn't know squat about 65.870, so take his comment for whats it's worth.
    “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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    No, you've missed the point entirely. The original GFSZ Act was declared unconstitutional because the US Supreme Court said that congress did not have any authoity to do this, except as it applied to interstate commerce and congress had not established any connection between the two. The act was rewritten with this language in it to make that connection, then it was passed again. Not many people believe it will hold up in court this time, either and it has never been tested. Some prosecutors have refused to prosecute cases on this alone, because they don't believe it will hold up. This is charged most often in connection with another crime then thrown away during a plea bargain with the defendant. I believe you are safe from prosecution on this as long as you are not committing another crime in a school zone. You can make your own decisions. I have a CCDW and it doesn't apply to me. Who would arrest you for this federal crime? Is the FBI making traffic stops and setting up road blocks in your hometown?

    Nope...I definitely got that. My words were intended to make fun of their stated warped reasoning which allowed this to be passed. I would be very interested in seeing statistics on how frequently this law is used.
    [FONT=Verdana]”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
    tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    [ ~Unknown

  16. #16
    Regular Member ZXguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    When they mention firearms that have moved in interstate commerce they are speaking of a firearm that has been shipped from one state to another, or a firearm that was shipped from another country into our country. This would be like a Glock being shipped from Smyrna, Georgia, to Kentucky; it has crossed state lines and therefore the Federal government believes they have the right to control everything the firearm does because of the very minute Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

    If a firearm was made in Kentucky, and it was shipped to someone who lived in Kentucky, and it never left the state, then it could be carried because it would not be affected by interstate commerce, and therefore the FGFSZ would not apply to the carrying of that firearm.

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

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boone County, KY
    Posts
    312
    They seem to be enforcing an different GFSZ in New Jersey, getting caught with a BB gun can get one 7 to 10 years if happen to be in the wrong place. Granted, this is ON school property but not sure how it jives with the federal one. This could be seen as a supplement to to the Federal Law.

    And it would seem in this case that NJ law is more harsh than the Federal one for on the school ground rather than just 1000 within it. I figure I'd mention it as the GFSZ was bought up. In NJ BB guns are considered firearms, so the new law of 7 to 10 would seem to apply to regular firearms as well as BB guns. To say that the new law is harsh, is an understatement.

    Each state would seem to be able to add it's own laws to the Federal Gun Free School Zone law like NJ did by focusing on within the actual school boundary rather than 1000 feet around it.



    http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-662498.html

    " NJ ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER SCHOOL GROUNDS PENALTY INCREASE


    Possession of all BB guns and air guns would carry 7-10 year prison sentences with no possibility of leniency.

    Parents picking up their children at school after hunting or target shooting would also be at risk.

    Victim disarmament zones would be ensured.

    On Thursday, June 7 at 2:00 p.m., the New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider A1216, legislation that would increase the penalty for possession of a "firearm" on the grounds of an educational institution, raising it from a third to second degree crime. Second degree crimes carry a presumptive 7-10 year prison sentence and a fine of up to $150,000, with no opportunity for New Jersey's "pre-trial intervention leniency program, and very limited sentencing discretion by the judge.

    New Jersey's definition of "firearm" includes all BB guns and air guns, even though they are commonly regarded as toys in much of the country. Someone who mistakenly possesses a BB gun or air gun on school grounds - even a broken one - would be subject to the lengthy and unforgiving prison sentence that A1216 imposes, with no possibility of leniency, and a presumption in favor of imprisonment.

    Also, parents picking up their children at school after hunting or target shooting, or to go hunting or target shooting, would also be at risk of A1216's draconian punishment if they enter on school grounds with a firearm unloaded and properly stored in their vehicle, even though they are not involved in criminal activity.

    This thoughtless legislation also virtually ensures that New Jersey schools would become victim disarmament zones - even teachers licensed with gun permits would be subject to lengthy incarceration, chilling their right of self-defense to protect themselves and school children from attack.

    Ironically, A1216 is a "solution" to a problem that has already been solved. Firearms possession for an unlawful purpose is already a second degree crime in New Jersey, so this legislation adds nothing except cruel and unusual punishment for innocent mistakes. "
    I am not a lawyer, I study the history of gun control laws.

  18. #18
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by ZXguy View Post
    Truly amazing.
    Yes, it certainly is.
    "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.

Posting Permissions

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