self preservation
Regular Member
If you give them permission to infringe on your rights then they can basically do what they want legally.
What was permission in this incident?
If you give them permission to infringe on your rights then they can basically do what they want legally.
What was permission in this incident?
What was permission in this incident?
Since it says your license is not valid here
Does it say your license is not valid there, or does it say that it does not authorize you to carry concealed into a police station?
According to KRS 237.110 it says authorize. Which to the majority of people would probably mean the same as not valid. If it does not authorize you to carry there then its not valid there. Hence you are carrying concealed without a license. A Class A Misdemeanor.
It also does not authorize you to carry a loaded firearm onto private property, are you saying that you would be illegally carrying concealed if you walked into Walmart concealed?
Politicians argue for hours on the exact wording of the statutes for a reason. If they wanted invalid, the statute would have said invalid. It should say something that it does not.
Commas, semicolons and exact, but similar, wording can change a statute drastically.
There is no list of the places that you can carry concealed. (I'm sure that would be a nightmare to list every place.) They do however clearly define where you CAN'T carry concealed.
KRS 527.020 10
Carrying a concealed weapon is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the defendant has been previously convicted of a felony in which a deadly weapon was possessed, used, or displayed, in which case it is a Class D felony.
So Does this not make carrying a concealed weapon in a police station (Since it says your license is not valid here) a Class A Misdemeanor?
It is ILLEGAL.
I would ask others here that are saying otherwise to go in a police station and inform them that they are carrying a concealed firearm and see how that plays out for them.
You can listen to them if you want, but it is MY opinion that it is illegal. It would be a CCDW charge because the license is not valid in a police station, and KRS 527.020 specifically states wherever a license is not recognized under authority of KRS then you can be charged with CCDW. That is my read anyway.
I would suggest someone ask a competent attorney for an answer. Better yet, we should find a way to get the Attorney General to give an opinion.
The GA would not SPECIFICALLY list places that are off limits if doing so would be completely useless.
People are having a hard time understanding a very basic concept: if the license is not valid in a sepcific location, then you are carrying a concealed weapon without the proper licesne. What is this? This is a violation of KRS 527.020!
That is an opinion that is shared by many people. It has been my experience that most of those people don't understand the law and don't feel comfortable explaining their actions or relating those actions to the law. I don't believe it is true. Judges can't get by with saying black is white and no means yes. The statutes are written as clearly as possible. I have seen arguments over the placement of a comma go on for days. Show me a statute that can be used "when they want" and "how they want". And who are these "they"? Do you mean officials elected by the people? If "they" are conspiring to railroad law abiding citizens, how do they get reelected?
I never used the word "authorize". I only said there could not be a penalty.
I don't know how much more "clearly defined" it could be. Two statutes say there can be "no penalty". If you wanted there to be no "penalty", how would you write "no penalty"? What would it have to say to make you believe "no penalty" means "no penalty"? I suspect that it could not be done. If this wording of "no penalty" doesn't mean "no penalty", why is it there and what does it mean. The General Assembly wanted to exclude CC from some places, but didn't want citizens to fall into traps or to be penalized for walking into the wrong door or be arrested for missing a sign that was hidden. This was their solution and I see it as "clearly defined" as it possibly could be. How would you have handled the problem of making carrying a concealed weapon in a place where concealed weapons were exclude to not be the crime of carrying a concealed weapon?
I found this in the thread KYGlockster posted on Ky Law Enforcement Magazine. It is a "whitepaper" on Ky gun laws and how LEO's should apply them. Go to the second paragraph on page 3. Here is a link to the entire document from the Department of Criminal Justice Training. The DCJT seems to think "No Penalty" means "no specific criminal charge".
https://docjt.ky.gov/legal/documents/WhitePaperonOpenCarryandCarrying.pdf
It's one of those things where you'll just have to test the waters and keep pressing the issue.