Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: "New state law allows open carry in city owned buildings"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ky Usa
    Posts
    47

    "New state law allows open carry in city owned buildings"

    I don't think the media could get it right if you paid them

    The article has a lot of anti gun comments attached

    http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...WS01/301240068

    "People can now openly carry a firearm in any city-owned facility in Kentucky — including libraries, parks, the zoo, city council chambers and city hall — thanks to a revision made to state law last year.

    The law, which applies to any legal firearm, also states that in some places, like suburban firehouses run by special districts, people with the appropriate permit may carry concealed weapons.

    The revision, which became subject to enforcement this month, clarifies that firearms may only be regulated by the state, voiding all local ordinances and restrictions."
    Last edited by Tmhrr; 01-25-2013 at 05:56 PM. Reason: add quotation mark for part excerpted from article

  2. #2
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    FYI this isn't a new law...

    Unless every word of your post was quoted directly from that news article, then don't insinuate that it's new... Its our near thirty year old preemption or whatever
    Last edited by DrakeZ07; 01-25-2013 at 04:50 PM.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917
    Tmhrr realizes this, Drake.


    I added a comment on the article and I emailed the "reporter". Her email is as follows: jhalladay@courier-journal.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ky Usa
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    FYI this isn't a new law...

    Unless every word of your post was quoted directly from that news article, then don't insinuate that it's new... Its our near thirty year old preemption or whatever

    About 80% of my post was quoted directly from the article, everything above the link was my words everything below the link was directly from the article. I know the law is nearly 30 years old, I didn't insinuate that it is a new law, that is the headline of the article, and almost all of the comments attached to the article are anti's, including the one about how the NRA has bought and paid for the legislature (not my words one of the comments attached to the article.)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330
    Here's the USA Today version of this article.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ldings/1863437

    It demonstrates the prevailing urban attitude that only the government should have guns and that will make everyone safer. They can't seem to begin to see the other side. To most of them, it is unthinkable or inconceivable or ridiculous that people should not be disarmed. There is the arrogant notion of the ruling class, that they can scribble a new law on a piece of paper and change human nature and the laws of free market economics. They can suddenly make crime and insanity illegal, and it'll simply disappear, because they think it should and they wrote a law or put up a sign. They'd be less delusional if they believed in Santa Claus. At least there's some evidence supporting that belief. But rather than change their egotistical world view when the world doesn't conform to their whims, they ignore reality yet again, and figure that if 37 laws didn't make the world the way they think it should be, then the 38th law will surely do the trick.

    Why don't we tell these people that there's a newly discovered Utopian socialist world without crime just waiting for them to bureaucratically rule and legislate, and then load them onto a rocket and shoot it into the sun?

  6. #6
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    “We have concerns for the safety of our workers,” said Poynter, who pointed out that sometimes the work of government can make people angry. “To be able to come to the office with a gun is disconcerting to some of our employees.
    Because prior to this "new law" a person willing to commit murder would not have brought a gun into a government building.

    It is not far-fetched that people may use weapons in meetings when they become upset, she said, citing the fatal September shooting of two men at a Spring Creek Homeowners Association meeting.
    Once again that dang ole 65.870 has now made murder legal. Just like in 1996 when KY became a CCDW state, we wouldn't be able to cross the street because of all of the blood in the gutter. Never mind the fact that people may use weapons is the exact reason that we LAC would like to carry our own. And I bet the Homeowners Association meeting that she is speaking of was a "gun free zone."

    “When you bring guns into a situation where things become heated,” Flood said, “you’re asking for trouble.”
    My wife and I should have already shot each other dead a million times over by now.

    Stephanie Phelps, who visited the Louisville Free Public Library with her young son this week, said the idea of having guns inside a library makes her feel very uncomfortable.
    Baah....Baah..... here sheepy, sheepy, sheep.

    “I don’t think it’s right at all,” she said, adding that she would be concerned about someone who is emotionally unstable having a weapon and becoming agitated.
    If more sane people were armed the crazy people would get off fewer shots. Maybe we can amend 65.870 where it won't apply to emotionally unstable people. I mean if it's on paper it will prevent, right?

    But he said he doesn’t believe many gun owners will opt to bring their firearms into libraries, especially because they are places where children gather.
    Of course not. Why would a LAC want to bring a gun where a child is? It's not like kids ever need protection from a crazed gunman. I've never heard of innocent children being shot.

    Harrods Creek Fire Chief Kevin Tyler said he’s very uncomfortable with having his firefighters carrying weapons while on duty, for several reasons. Traditionally, firefighters do not carry weapons, and the public has come to expect that, Tyler said.
    We work at different Fire Departments because at my dept. Firefighters have been carrying for years.

    “We are seen as the people who help you,” Tyler said, not the people who enforce laws and carry guns".
    So because Firefighters help people, put their life on the line for people that they have never met, they shouldn't be allowed to protect their own life? And what "laws" are Firefighters enforcing?

    Additionally, on-duty firefighters who are carrying weapons should have a way of securing those guns if they go to a scene where weapons are prohibited or it would be unsafe to take them inside
    I can agree with that.

    But fire trucks and fire stations do not have secure lock boxes for guns.
    Bull sh!t. When I was a Fire Chief every Firefighter in my dept that carried had a secure, metal lock box to secure their firearms. In the station and on the trucks.

    Riddle said firefighters carrying guns presents many potential problems, but there is nothing he can do to prevent it.
    Are you going to tell us what those "potential problems" are or do we just need to make up our own?

    “If they bring it in, they are personally liable,”
    Of course. Why would it be any different just because you are at work?

    Buechel Fire Chief Rick Harrison, meanwhile, said he welcomes his firefighters who have permits to carry their firearms on duty. Harrison said there are times when firefighters encounter dangerous situations in which guns would provide added safety. For several years, Harrison has had permission from the trustee board to carry his weapon inside the firehouse.
    Holy hell. A voice of reason. Way to go Chief Harrison.

    “The gun they are allowed to carry is for their personal protection,” Harrison said. He said the department plans to conduct additional training in firearm safety.
    Thumbs up.

    Harrods Creek Sgt. Ali Thomas, who has a concealed carry permit, said he won’t be taking his gun to work.
    Care to let us know you security system pass code as well as when you are not home. You would be an easy victim.

    Thomas, a former military police officer, said as a firefighter he doesn’t want the added responsibility of carrying a gun on duty. “It’s an added, unnecessary risk” that he’d have to worry about, Thomas said.
    In the course of your career you have never had a weapon pulled on you before, have you? Tell the Firefighters that are attacked and injured or killed each year that it is an "unnecessary risk" to carry a gun. I bet they would disagree with you.

    While Damron said he would be willing to look at whether the revised law is causing unexpected consequences, such as the concerns raised by fire districts, he firmly believes regulation should rest with the state.
    So do we.

    He also sees no problem allowing guns in libraries, parks or other public venues.
    Anyone with common sense wouldn't neither.

    Generally, “I’m in favor of giving people the right to protect themselves wherever they are,” he said. Areas may be safer “if you have a carry concealed holder in those areas than if they were gun-free zones.”
    Common sense from a politician. You have my vote.
    “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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ky Usa
    Posts
    47
    WHAS11 VERSION



  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    So what's the REAL story? I thought that various governmental entities (Greater Cincinnati Airport, anyone?) could regulate carry (OC or CC) in government buildings.

    Then I read on this thread that preemption is 30 years old...?

    So, what's the story?

    Thank you.

  9. #9
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Gutshot, A great thought out letter as always. When does the media ever get it right? I'm sure you will let us know if you get a response back.
    “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
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    As far as a response goes, my expectations are low.
    Just so much misinformation in the media today. It's heart breaking because people buy it up like crazy and never question it.
    “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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917
    I emailed Jessie Halladay, the reporter, the Courier-Journal, and USA Today. I have only received a response from USA Today:

    Thank you for your recent letter to USA TODAY. I have shared your comments with the appropriate assignment desk. An editor will be in contact if a more specific response is warranted.

    Your interest in USA TODAY is appreciated.

    Sincerely,

    Brent Jones
    Reader Editor

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Thanks much, gutshot.

    As I read it, though, government officials can (and more likely than not, will) charge people with KY's version of inducing panic or disorderly conduct for carrying in places that they want to dissuade you from carrying.

    Despite a similar law in Ohio (KY's is better, btw), it's an ongoing problem.

    I'm right across the river on KY's northern boundary, so if you need someone to test things, (as long as I've got legal backing) count me in.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Thanks much, gutshot.

    As I read it, though, government officials can (and more likely than not, will) charge people with KY's version of inducing panic or disorderly conduct for carrying in places that they want to dissuade you from carrying.

    Despite a similar law in Ohio (KY's is better, btw), it's an ongoing problem.

    I'm right across the river on KY's northern boundary, so if you need someone to test things, (as long as I've got legal backing) count me in.
    Nope, not likely, the statutes are worded in a way that it would be a stretch to saddle someone with those crimes for only carrying a firearm for their personal protection.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Yes, I think you are right. The trick is not to let them goad you into doing something that they can bend into DC. Yelling, cussing, arm waving. Just keep your head and stay quiet. Of course, there is no guarantee of anything. There's nothing to keep them from charging you with murder either. I think the penalties in 65.870 will stop most of this. Don't forget police are covered, too.
    I cannot cite it, as I have not done the research in order to verify, but I have an ACLU para-legal friend, who mentioned something about a SCOTUS/CoA case where it is considered perfectly legal to curse at a LEO; although the other two items you mentioned was never brought up in conversation for common sense values.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    31

    Where's The Inducing Panic Statue?

    Does anyone know the title of the "inducing panic" statue. KRS...? I did a quick google search, but I could not find it. Thanks!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Re: "New state law allows open carry in city owned buildings"

    Because it ain't there. There is disorderly conduct, but that requires an actual intent to cause disorder.

    Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

  17. #17
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330
    Police have broad discretion in the performance of their duties. It's a complex job, and I think discretion is required, but that also allows broad opportunity for abuse. Disorderly conduct is often tacked on regardless of the defendant's demeanor. It's like a freebie. Sometimes, disorderly conduct charges are threatened or charged in the absence of any other charges, again regardless of the person's demeanor. It's similar to the use of a Taser as a pain compliance device to elicit cooperation, even though the initial intent of the Taser was to offer a hopefully non-lethal alternative for subduing violent suspects. In short, disorderly conduct is often used to charge a person with Contempt Of Cop. It's a sad state of affairs.

    Just as there have been people arrested for resisting arrest... and nothing else! How does that work? It seems circular.

    "What's the charge?"

    "They were resisting arrest."

    "And why were you arresting them?"

    "Because they were resisting arrest."

    I'm certainly not talking about all police officers, here. I think this behavior varies greatly from department to department, and from region to region. Like most abuse, the more it's tolerated, the more there is. It does seem to be trending upward, and I don't think it's simply a matter of ubiquitous video cameras on cell phones making us more aware of the phenomenon, although that's certainly true to some extent as well.

    Here's an example of a completely out-of-control state policeman in northern Texas, arresting a man for resisting arrest (and ONLY resisting arrest) because he and his girlfriend refused to submit to a voluntary search of their vehicle. "When a police officer gives you directions, you follow them!" Yes, even when those directives violate your right to be free from illegal searches, as described in the 4th amendment in our Bill of Rights.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHAZgYyS1AA

    You may have already seen the same Texas DPS trooper in the more popular video, Two Girls, Four Cavity Probes, One Glove.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGRyMXyfztk

    Yes, cursing at the police in a nonthreatening manner is apparently protected free speech, in theory, but I'd go with gutshot's recommendation and remain calm and collected when standing up for my rights. I'd also try to record the encounter myself if possible.

    Back on topic - It's discouraging how persistently wrong the media has been in portraying the HB 500 changes to KRS 65.870 as a new law, and generating an urban public outcry against this "new law", when the truth is, the local governments have been in flagrant violation of the state law for 29 years, and their increasingly arrogant refusal to obey the law is the reason the penalties were added to the existing law. It certainly feels like the media is running a disinformation campaign against the right to keep and bear arms in Kentucky. Unfortunately, we're faced with the modern equivalent of the old warning against arguing with a man who buys ink by the barrel. TV has replaced newspapers, and most people only know what they see on their idiot boxes. Fortunately, the internet is quickly replacing TV as many people's source of news and information, largely because TV news is so biased and inaccurate, as we've seen in this particular case.

    Whenever and wherever possible, please try to blast out the truth about KRS 65.870 to counter the media's obvious anti-gun bias.
    Buy rice. Buy beans. Buy guns. Buy ammo.
    This is your final SHTF warning.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    The Ky. League of Cities tries to straighten out this mess.
    http://www.klc.org/news/2006/Update_on_Gun_Control_Laws
    Thank you gutshot! This is very good information. I wish the media would refer to this before blasting out any more misinformation, but I suppose that's too much to hope. At the very least, I hope the local governments take note and get their houses in order.

    We should make certain that our local governments are aware of this excellent information from a source that should be trustworthy to them. I've already brought that Kentucky League of Cities article to the attention of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government attorney who is advising the LFUCG on firearms matters.
    Buy rice. Buy beans. Buy guns. Buy ammo.
    This is your final SHTF warning.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ky Usa
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    The Ky. League of Cities tries to straighten out this mess.
    http://www.klc.org/news/2006/Update_on_Gun_Control_Laws




    from the ky league of cities document
    Under the FAQ : Q: How does this actually affect city gun regulation? What can we do? What can we NOT do?

    the last bullet point states:

    "With limited exceptions, even citizens licensed to carry a concealed weapon cannot carry the weapon into certain buildings, such as police stations, jails, courthouses, meetings of city governing bodies (except members of the bodies themselves), schools and airports."

    This looks to be poorly worded, It makes it look like weapons are completly banned in these places, with the exception of Jails and schools open carry should still be allowed.
    Police stations and meeting of governing bodies would only be off limits to concealed carry only, airport carry would be ok outside of the security area courthouses actully have limited exceptions such as no actual court rooms or if the building is occupied complety by the courts.


    IS THIS CORRECT OR AM I JUST READING IT WRONG?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330
    Charles from KC3 just had a very informative call into Mandy McConnell on Louisville's WHAS 840, explaining that HB 500 "put some teeth" into the longstanding KRS 65.870 to prevent local governments from simply ignoring our firearms preemption law because there were no penalties, and HB 500 did not, as the media has been claiming, suddenly allow guns to be carried where they were once illegal.

    The interview lasted only about ten minutes, and you can probably find it on an online archive of the show.

    Thanks Charles!
    Buy rice. Buy beans. Buy guns. Buy ammo.
    This is your final SHTF warning.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ky Usa
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty4Ever View Post
    Charles from KC3 just had a very informative call into Mandy McConnell on Louisville's WHAS 840, explaining that HB 500 "put some teeth" into the longstanding KRS 65.870 to prevent local governments from simply ignoring our firearms preemption law because there were no penalties, and HB 500 did not, as the media has been claiming, suddenly allow guns to be carried where they were once illegal.

    The interview lasted only about ten minutes, and you can probably find it on an online archive of the show.

    Thanks Charles!

    It starts about 50 seconds into hour 3

    http://www.whas.com/player/?mid=2283...m_name=podcast

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    388

    Updated question

    So I am a tad late getting to the discussion but here is my question. KRS 65.870 states firearms can be carried into public buildings, and I think someone here mentioned being able to carry them into certain places like assemblies, and police stations. The point of KRS 65.870 is that local authorities cannot regulate any aspect of firearms. BUT, KRS 237.110 states you cannot conceal carry into such places

    Except as provided in KRS 527.020, no license issued pursuant to this section
    shall authorize any person to carry a concealed firearm into:
    (a) Any police station or sheriff's office;
    (b) Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
    (c) Any courthouse, solely occupied by the Court of Justice courtroom, or
    court proceeding;
    (d) Any meeting of the governing body of a county, municipality, or special
    district; or any meeting of the General Assembly or a committee of the
    General Assembly, except that nothing in this section shall preclude a
    member of the body, holding a concealed deadly weapon license, from
    carrying a concealed deadly weapon at a meeting of the body of which he
    or she is a member;

    At the same time, isn't there a KRS stating you can carry concealed anywhere you would carry openly?

    So yay or nay on police stations? How about airports before you get to the security checkpoint?

    Also, I realize that it is not a crime to conceal carry into a business that has a no weapons allowed sign (though it is after they ask you to leave an you do not), is this right?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    388
    Oh ok. I understand a little better now.

    Nevermind! I found the thread in this forum about KY gun laws. Thanks! What about the laws that say you can open carry in all those places the previous poster mentioned?
    Last edited by poetdante; 01-30-2014 at 11:31 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    No KY statute (that I am aware of) says you can legally carry concealed where it is illegal to carry concealed.


    There IS a statute that says that no criminal penalties shall be attached to carry a concealed deadly weapon where you can legally open carry.


    Edit: 237.115?
    Last edited by 09jisaac; 01-30-2014 at 12:20 PM.
    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
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917
    @Poet Laws restrict us, they don't tell us what we can do. Gutshot is right, you need to shift your thinking a bit. You may open carry anywhere that you want that isn't restricted by law. In Kentucky, concealed carry is much more regulated than open carry, per our Constitution.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •