Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 96

Thread: Bill HB531

  1. #1
    Regular Member LEX_XDM40compact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    LEX, KY
    Posts
    83

    Bill HB531

    This bill seems to introduce permit less or "constitutionally" carry to the state AND allow no gun signs to become legal which are punishable by the law with fines and a misdemeanor

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/16RS/HB531.htm click the blue HB531 to download and read the full bill.

    My question and from what I have gather this proposes with the new law of conceal carrying without permit, it will allow businesses to post signs to prohibit carrying a firearm. As currently a No gun sign has no legal standing.

    From what I read with this new law no gun signs WILL become a legal standing that is punishable by a fine and up to a Class B misdemeanor.


    (1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, a person, including a person
    with a license issued or recognized pursuant to Section 2 of this Act, shall not
    carry a deadly weapon concealed on or about his or her person into a building or
    any portion of a building which has been posted in accordance with this section
    and in which any of the following are located:
    (a) Any police station or sheriff's office;
    (b) Any detention facility as defined in KRS 520.010;
    (c) Any Court of Justice courtroom or court proceeding;
    (d) Any meeting of the governing body of a city, county, urban-county
    government, consolidated local government, charter county government,
    unified local government, special purpose governmental entity, or special
    district;
    (e) 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 from carrying a concealed deadly weapon at a meeting of the body of
    which he or she is a member; and
    (f) The portion of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of
    persons and property.
    (2) For the purposes of this section, "building" does not include any structure or
    area of a structure designated for the parking of motor vehicles.
    (3) The Attorney General shall promulgate administrative regulations prescribing
    the location, content, size, and other characteristics of signs to be posted on
    premises where carrying a concealed deadly weapon is prohibited pursuant to
    UNOFFICIAL COPY AS OF 02/29/16 16 REG. SESS. 16 RS BR 2003
    Page 2 of 37
    BR200300.100 - 2003 - 5755 Jacketed
    subsection (1) of this section. The administrative regulations shall prescribe, at a
    minimum, that:
    (a) The signs shall be posted at all exterior entrances to the prohibited building
    or the prohibited portion of a building;
    (b) The signs shall be posted at eye level of adults using the entrance and not
    more than twelve (12) inches to the right or left of the entrance;
    (c) The signs shall not be obstructed or altered in any way; and
    (d) Signs which become illegible for any reason shall be immediately replaced.
    (4) The following persons may carry concealed deadly weapons on or about their
    persons at all times and in all locations within the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
    except in or on the premises of a detention facility as defined in KRS 520.010
    unless given express permission by the person in charge of the facility. As used in
    this section, "detention facility" does not include courtrooms or other premises
    used by the Court of Justice or administered by the Administrative Office of the
    Courts:
    (a) An elected peace officer;
    (b) A nonelected peace officer, when expressly authorized to do so by the unit of
    government by which he or she is employed;
    (c) 1. A deputy jailer; and
    2. The department head or any employee of a corrections department in
    any jurisdiction where the office of elected jailer has been merged with
    the office of sheriff;
    who has successfully completed Department of Corrections basic training
    and maintains current in-service training, when expressly authorized to do
    so by the unit of government by which he or she is employed;
    (d) A certified court security officer, when necessary for his or her protection in
    the discharge of his or her official duties and when expressly authorized to
    UNOFFICIAL COPY AS OF 02/29/16 16 REG. SESS. 16 RS BR 2003
    Page 3 of 37
    BR200300.100 - 2003 - 5755 Jacketed
    do so by the unit of government employing the security officer;
    (e) A United States mail carrier when engaged in his or her official duties and
    in accordance with federal law and federal regulations; and
    (f) 1. If they hold a license to carry a concealed a deadly weapon pursuant
    to Section 2 of this Act:
    a. A Commonwealth's attorney or assistant Commonwealth's
    attorney;
    b. A retired Commonwealth's attorney or retired assistant
    Commonwealth's attorney;
    c. A county attorney or assistant county attorney;
    d. A retired county attorney or retired assistant county attorney;
    e. A justice or judge of the Court of Justice; and
    f. A retired or senior status justice or judge of the Court of Justice.
    2. A person specified in this subsection who is issued a concealed carry
    deadly weapon license shall be issued a license which bears on its face
    the statement that it is valid at all locations within the Commonwealth
    of Kentucky, and may have such other identifying characteristics as
    determined by the Department of Kentucky State Police.
    (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to:
    (a) Permit the carrying or possession of a firearm where it is prohibited by
    federal law;
    (b) Impair the ability of the owner or legal possessor of private property to
    regulate or prohibit the carrying or possession of firearms on such property,
    provided that any business or commercial enterprise which is accessible to
    the general public and from which firearms are prohibited shall be posted
    in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, and no prohibition shall
    apply to the carrying, transport, storage, or use of a firearm in conformity
    UNOFFICIAL COPY AS OF 02/29/16 16 REG. SESS. 16 RS BR 2003
    Page 4 of 37
    BR200300.100 - 2003 - 5755 Jacketed
    with Section 3 of this Act; or
    (c) Impair or limit the authority to restrict or prohibit the carrying or
    possession of deadly weapons pursuant to Section 9 of this Act.
    (6) A person who carries a firearm or other deadly weapon in violation of this
    section, if the premises are posted in accordance with administrative regulations
    promulgated by the Attorney General under subsection (3) of this section,
    commits a noncriminal violation with a penalty payable to the clerk of the District
    Court of fifty dollars ($50) for the first offense and one hundred dollars ($100)
    for the second offense. A third or subsequent offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
    I would really like a second thought on what the follow means?

    2. A person specified in this subsection who is issued a concealed carry
    deadly weapon license shall be issued a license which bears on its face
    the statement that it is valid at all locations within the Commonwealth
    of Kentucky, and may have such other identifying characteristics as
    determined by the Department of Kentucky State Police.
    Will they give ALL actual permit holders this or just certain ones that are mentioned right above that section?

    I hope I am misreading something, as I read it we are taking one step forward with permitless carry and 2 steps backwards by changing the law on No gun signs?

    This is the scary part from what I read

    A person who carries a firearm or other deadly weapon in violation of this
    section, if the premises are posted in accordance with administrative regulations
    promulgated by the Attorney General under subsection (3) of this section,
    commits a noncriminal violation with a penalty payable to the clerk of the District
    Court of fifty dollars ($50) for the first offense and one hundred dollars ($100)
    for the second offense. A third or subsequent offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
    It calls to repeal and remove the full previous KRS which is in regards to conceal carrying - 527.020 ( at the very bottom of the Bill it mentions this )

    The only true way to allow true "constitutional" carry to our state would be to simply repeal and remove KRS 527.020. We do not need to add more laws in with this.

    I really do see this a huge hit and a step backwards for gun laws here in our state. They are using what we NEED to pass as the headline agenda, but adding more laws and regulations on what we already have.

    Would love Gutshots opinion and reading of this
    Last edited by LEX_XDM40compact; 03-01-2016 at 07:00 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    388
    hopefully they can amend the no-gun signs carrying weight of law then...

  3. #3
    Regular Member LEX_XDM40compact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    LEX, KY
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Yes, you are correct. Let me add that the misdemeanor only kicks in after the third violation. Don't be a slow learner.



    Just the ones mentioned right above it. Those are the same ones that have that authority, now.



    In my estimation, it is 10 steps forward and one half a step back. There will be plenty of opportunities to correct the defects in this bill. In any case, I don't find a $25 fine too scary.



    No, that is not the "only way". The other way is the way that laws have been passed for centuries. Propose a bill, discuss it, make a few changes, discuss it some more, make a few more changes, compromise, make a good argument, pass what you can, wait to see how it works, make some more changes. This bill does repeal KRS 527.020. We can't have one law that says you can do something and another one that says that same activity is illegal. KRS 527.020 will cease to exist.

    ,


    If we want a bill to allow permitless carry, this year, we do. Do you know of any other bills that will allow us to carry without a license? You can either support this bill and try to improve it, oppose the bill or take your marbles and go home, which will it be? If a better bill comes along, we can both abandon this one and support the other one.



    I think you got it. What you have said is true. I disagree with your interpretation of the results of it. This bill has flaws. The original concealed carry law had lots of flaws, too. Over the years we worked them out. Laws are not set in stone. The evolve and can be made better. There is still a long committee process and then a floor discussion of this bill. There can be changes. There will be plenty of time to try to make it better before a final vote. No matter what the final result is, it can always be made better in the coming years. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we wait for a perfect bill, we will never get anything. The only real question is will you and the other gun owners of Ky. get into the fight to pass and improve this bill or complain and whine about the flaws and wait for the "perfect" one.

    I know that Kansas has permitless carry. Do I know all the particulars of their law? No, all I know is I want some. I can't see very well, but I can see a "No Guns Allowed" sign and I can pay a $25 fine. Neither of them scare me.

    I agree with the overall results and goal of this bill. We do NEED the permitless carry in our state. I can see a no gun sign, and I can also pony up a $25 fee in case my eyes do not see that sign. However how many hours and fights have we had to have to make a "No Guns allowed" sign be removed in our state? I know you alone put in a lot of work to enforce the current law to people and you are the first advocate of teaching and educating the current law in regards to the no gun signs. When it was added it was a huge win for all of us and would be a shame to see it ripped back away under something GOOD. Yes it will be easy to avoid I am sure the "few" that will be in compliance with the signage and I am sure it will be a 1 in 100 that an actual conceal carrier would be asked or "caught" breaking this law ( concealed means concealed) However we all know thats not the point when it comes to the law and would also regulate and RESTRICT a lot that currently open carry.

    I agree and Will stand by the bill of course any gun owner who would not do the same is a dam fool. We are all on the same team that's for sure, I just wanted to make a post of this bill as it is one of the largest in regards to gun owners and wanted to strongly voice an opinion based on the negatives i saw in it right away.

    I like you and others should be encouraged to support this bill, follow the progress and changes and voice opinions when it counts and matters.
    Last edited by LEX_XDM40compact; 03-02-2016 at 12:19 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member LEX_XDM40compact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    LEX, KY
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Everyone's opinion matters and should be expressed. There are no wrong answers. I am happy and thankful that you will support this bill and that you see the benefits, even though it is less than perfect. I had concerns over the same things you mentioned, but got over them very quickly. Hopefully, you will get over them soon, too. Believe me, I'll do what I can to fix the flaws in this bill, for as long as it takes to get it right and will encourage others to do the same.

    I must confess that I really don't see any correlation between a penalty for violating a "No Guns" sign and the number of signs in existence or the placement of signs in accordance with the law. Certainly, there can be no penalty for violating a sign that is unlawfully placed. This bill will not create any more "No Guns" signs or allow any "No Guns" signs to be placed where they are excluded by current law. The best solution to all of this is to merge HB 221 and HB 531. Then we would really have some bill.
    Yes you are correct I am sure. Texas has a very similar law already in place where you are not allowed to carry at any location that has the proper signage. 1 inch black letters. has to be written 100% exact as the law is written etc. There is no enforcement of signs that as you mentioned are already out today that simply state "No guns allowed"

    I did not think about it but yes I am sure the current signs already out will not change and most business owners will not be aware of the sign compliance etc.

    I have already gotten over the no gun sign part for the most part in light of your reminder that it is very very early in the bill and laws do and will change as they are either enforced or being voted on. This is why I wanted your opinion

    Now we just need to get the masses aware of it!

    merging HB 221 and HB 531 hah there you go with your wishful thinking!
    Last edited by LEX_XDM40compact; 03-02-2016 at 02:56 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member LEX_XDM40compact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    LEX, KY
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    HB 531 is picking up support. Today, it has 4 new cosponsors, all democrats. Will Coursey, Bart Rowland, Dean Schamore, Gerald Watkins have joined Collins and Richards. Watkins is a member of the Judiciary Committee, where this bill will be heard. All of this is good news. Now, the bill needs more support and a few republicans would be good to show its a bipartisan bill.
    Oh that is awesome news! This could be it?

  6. #6
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Will the signs have force of law to an open carrier? The bill uses the language "concealed deadly weapon" carried on or about the person. How will this affect OC?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Manzanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Murray, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    37
    This is a stupid stupid bill that criminalizes up until now was not a criminal act.

    Sure, it supposedly is a "constitutional carry" bill. It's also a ******** backdoor more gun control trojan horse.

    What's up with this forum? Y'all are so effin' hardcore about carrying guns everywhere yet you're perfectly willing to allow the state to turn people who ignore no-guns signs in businesses into criminals if they happen to get "discovered".

    Well **** You.

    Oppose this damn bill like you should.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by LEX_XDM40compact View Post
    I agree with the overall results and goal of this bill. We do NEED the permitless carry in our state. I can see a no gun sign, and I can also pony up a $25 fee in case my eyes do not see that sign. However how many hours and fights have we had to have to make a "No Guns allowed" sign be removed in our state? I know you alone put in a lot of work to enforce the current law to people and you are the first advocate of teaching and educating the current law in regards to the no gun signs. When it was added it was a huge win for all of us and would be a shame to see it ripped back away under something GOOD. Yes it will be easy to avoid I am sure the "few" that will be in compliance with the signage and I am sure it will be a 1 in 100 that an actual conceal carrier would be asked or "caught" breaking this law ( concealed means concealed) However we all know thats not the point when it comes to the law and would also regulate and RESTRICT a lot that currently open carry.

    I agree and Will stand by the bill of course any gun owner who would not do the same is a dam fool. We are all on the same team that's for sure, I just wanted to make a post of this bill as it is one of the largest in regards to gun owners and wanted to strongly voice an opinion based on the negatives i saw in it right away.

    I like you and others should be encouraged to support this bill, follow the progress and changes and voice opinions when it counts and matters.
    This bill MUST be defeated or we will be no better than TX with FOL signs.
    I dont like permits either. But our reciprosity status and introducing FOL to signs is an imbecilic trade to get rid of them.

    We will never get rid of FOL signs once started.
    This is an anti carry bill. Oppose it.
    I and everyone I know are calling our reps to smash this bill.
    Ill be speaking in person to mine monday.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Manzanita View Post
    This is a stupid stupid bill that criminalizes up until now was not a criminal act.

    Sure, it supposedly is a "constitutional carry" bill. It's also a ******** backdoor more gun control trojan horse.

    What's up with this forum? Y'all are so effin' hardcore about carrying guns everywhere yet you're perfectly willing to allow the state to turn people who ignore no-guns signs in businesses into criminals if they happen to get "discovered".

    Well **** You.

    Oppose this damn bill like you should.
    Amen!
    Trust there way more gun owners and carriers that oppose this bill and will give s one way ticket out of office to any legislator that supports it.
    Gutshot is right about one thing. Thos has NRA written all over it.
    The same NRA that gave us GCA, NFA, and NICS background checks.
    For cryin out loud we have it pretty good as is.
    Nobody hates Permits more than me, but this is an anti carry bill. Allow FOL now youll never be rid of it.

    OPPOSE ThIS DAMN BILL
    Last edited by Ghost1958; 03-06-2016 at 01:42 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    The more one reads it the worse the bill gets.
    Now we can pick up our kids with a gun in the car.

    This unconstitutional, state and 2a btw, passes its a 5 grand felony by state law to do so,
    Its way more thsn just signs criminalizing yhe RTKAB that comes with this bill.
    And its a 50 dollar 1st offense fine not 25.
    You guys supporting this better actually read it without starz in your eyes before you help set all ky gun owners back to the level of Tx snd other restrictive states.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    388
    Did anyone either of you think that the penalties can be removed? I'm pretty sure that if this bill gets a hearing and tons of people call saying "hey, it's great but remove the no-gun signs penalty" something can be worked out. Look at all the KRSs we have on guns, they all have dates when they were last modified.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    The more one reads it the worse the bill gets.
    Now we can pick up our kids with a gun in the car.

    This unconstitutional, state and 2a btw, passes its a 5 grand felony by state law to do so,
    Its way more thsn just signs criminalizing yhe RTKAB that comes with this bill.
    And its a 50 dollar 1st offense fine not 25.
    You guys supporting this better actually read it without starz in your eyes before you help set all ky gun owners back to the level of Tx snd other restrictive states.
    I haven't read the full bill, but taking what you say as accurate, one wonders how "gun rights" supporters wrote such a bill #1) in the first place, and #2) apparently without consultation with KCCC (KC3).

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    I haven't read the full bill, but taking what you say as accurate, one wonders how "gun rights" supporters wrote such a bill #1) in the first place, and #2) apparently without consultation with KCCC (KC3).
    Those are the facts of the bill. Who says gin rights supporters wrote it?
    I personally know one senator all my life.
    That senator is a Dem and rabidly pro gun.
    All that is needed to do away with permits is repeal the requirement for them. And a governor who would sign it.
    We have the governor now. But the folks who wrote this bill want to put all this tripe in place with a bait and switch.
    The NRA is supporting constitutional carry for the first time as far as I know.
    That will force reps who know better to vote for the bill or lose office because they know few voters will actually read it to know its s scam.

    And no once FOL is allowed we will never get it removed short of state supreme court striking it down.
    This is a scam bill. Oppose it or join the other much more restrictive states like Tx

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    388
    I did notice that while TN and TX are both pro-gun states they have much higher crime in cities comparable in size/density of Louisville. My reasoning? Signs having force of law and lack of eminent domain. I do wonder how hard it would be to revise this bill to remove the FOL aspect before it gets a vote?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    This bill does no such thing. You are letting your emotions and outrage over the bad portions of his bill obscure your reading comprehension. The starz (sic) are in your eyes.

    Read the bills it most certainly does do exactly what. I posted

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    From the bill. Pg 36 i believe. The portion allowing vehicle carry is struck from this bill.

    Its doesnt take a ton of reading comprehension to see lines drawn thru that portion of the law on the bill.
    It is pg 36 though i cant copy and paste it for some reason.
    Please guys just read the ENTIRE bill and you will see for yourself a few are so bent on getting rid of permits they are willing to suport worse infringements we have never had before and will not get "fixed" later.
    Last edited by Ghost1958; 03-06-2016 at 01:55 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Answers to that, and many other questions, will be forthcoming this week. I suggest that everybody just take a deep breath and step away from this for a day or two. Its great to see gun owners motivated to such anger and action, but there is plenty of time for that. The first thing to do is find out what the situation is and who our enemies are. We don't want any "friendly fire" casualties here.

    For now, here is something I posted at another site. It's not exactly what you asked, but I think you'll understand.

    It could be that they(the sponsors) don't even know that these things are part of this bill, don't know that this is a big change (in the law) or don't know that anybody would object to the changes. Remember Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"? I know that this will be hard for many to accept, but I can guarantee all of you that Rep. Collins did not write this bill. Usually the idea for a bill comes to these people in a concept, just like, "Let's get 'constitutional carry'". OK, but how? What does that look like? The first solution is often to look at other states that have a similar laws and copy it, or big parts of it. That is exactly what I did with KRS 65.870 4 years ago (our statute is based on the Florida preemption statute). Then they try to mold the basics into the existing Ky. laws and constitution. A lot of this is just "copy and paste". The legislator doesn't do that either. That is done by "bill darfters" in the LRC staff. I would like to look at all the other states with permitless carry statutes and see if any match up with this one, but that is going to take a while. Often the
    bill comes back to him in one piece and he never reads it closely. He could just ask, "OK, this is constitutional carry, right?" and the bill drafter says "Yes sir, this is it" and that's the end of the process and off they go to the next bill. Another possibility is that this was brought to Collins, already written, by an outside organization (like NRA) and it is a boilerplate solution that they are going to fit into all 50 states, eventually. The same wording everywhere, with no consideration of individual states existing laws. Gun owners in some states would love to have a bill like this (Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland etc.) because what they have now is crap. I think this is the more likely beginning of this bill. The fact that is going to show up in both chambers reinforces the guess that NRA is behind it. Collins is a big NRA supporter.

    and then, later after the senate bill appeared:

    Well, as expected, the senate version of the permitless carry bill is up. Its SB 257 and appears to be identical, word for word, to the house bill. The sponsor in the senate is Albert Robinson, of London. I don't know Senator Robinson, but he's been around, both the house and the senate, a long time. Senator Robinson is a republican. The fact that the same bill is introduced in both the house and the senate, by both a long term republican and a long term democrat tells me that the NRA is behind this. We can no longer blame the evil democrats for trying to trick us.



    Yes the NRA is behind this, which shouldgive everyone pause.
    Kansas permitlees has no such baloney in it.

    I DO know a long time Dem senator who is a NRA member with a perfect pro gun voting record for years.
    That senator didnt propose this monstrocity, nor has co spinsored it because it is simply an anti carry bill which puts many new restrictions in place, some like including open carry in the fine section the legislature has no authprity to impose.
    This bill is desgined by RHINOs and Dems to intro new infringements under cover of permitless carry.
    The new restrictions, if passed, will never be gotton rid of. They arent needed to go permitless which should wake folks up.
    Once the new restrictions are in place a dollat to a doughnut hole says they reinstotute permits, AND keep the new restrictions.
    Like school vehicle carry becoming a felony. Which ,,again is in this bill though being carefully dodged.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I have read the bills, several times, carefully. So, carefully that I suspect that I know what you are referring to. It appears you have not read carefully. Sorry, but you are wrong. You have posted nothing to validate what you say. Show us something besides your opinion, please and I think I can show you where you have gone wrong.
    As isaid for some reason i cannot copy paste.
    Im using a phone whichis my only net access.
    However. It is on pg 36 under heading carrying school grounds.
    The old provision to have a weapon in vehicle is lined out. Followed by a very specfic list of those who can have a weapon on school grounds. None of which are the average citizen.
    Im not wrong its very plain the present provisionis struck from the bill.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Just not so. In fact this bill specifically protects school vehicle possession. Once again, I challenge you to prove that statement. If you don't know how, just copy and paste the portion of the bill that says that or tell us the page no. and subsection number and we can look for ourselves. If you can't or won't do that, you are just spewing false rumors. In other words BS.
    I did post page and heading and they are facts.
    BS is being spewed. Im spewing what im reading and checking on however.

    Do not get me wrong. I think permits are infringemrnt. Like every other gun reg.
    But you and I both know permitless carry is as simple as passing a bill removing that requirement. All this other sign etc bilge is not needed but it is in there for a reason.

    I am NOT willing to suffer under signage law and other restrictions we have not had since statehood to get rid of cc permits.
    All for no permits but not at yhe costs this bill introduces.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    I suspected the strike outs were the source of your misunderstanding. All of this is Section 12 of the bill and concern amendments to KRS 527.070 (the statute that makes possession of a firearm illegal on school property). Page 36, subsection (3) of Section 12 says,

    (3) The provisions of this section prohibiting the unlawful possession of a weapon on school property shall not apply to:
    (a) An adult who possesses a firearm in conformity with Section 3 of this Act

    So what does Section 3 say? Section 3 is on page 28, in the middle of the page and it says,

    (1) No person or organization, including but not limited to a public or private employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall prohibit anyperson who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.

    (2) A person, including but not limited to an employer, who owns, leases, or otherwise occupies real property may prevent a person who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm or ammunition from possessing a firearm or ammunition on the property.
    (3) A firearm may be removed from the vehicle or handled in the case of self-defense, defense of another, defense of property, or as authorized by the owner, lessee, or occupant of the property.


    Is a school district an organization? I think it is. If you say this doesn't apply to schools, why was it put in the section about schools and who would it apply to if not schools? It appears that using a phone for this work not only impairs your ability to post, but also to read a statute.
    We just have to disagree on your favorable lean to this bill.

    If that section was not changing to mirror the feds why line out the provision at all.?
    Makes no sense.
    What this bill for certain does with no debate is trade permits for FOL signage.
    With fines and charges after 3 times.
    That is NOT acceptable.
    The legislature does not even have the authority to level a fine or charge at OC past a sign. Per state constitution. That is why tresspassing law was relied on for signs as no law could be passed on OC period.

    If you are correct on the school thing which I do not believe you are, the signage and resprocity issues with written agreements etc arent debateable. And wont go away.
    I have fought consistamtly for gun rights in KY.
    I know snake oil when I see it.
    Anything other than simply removing permit requirements and nothing more I WILL fight in everyway possible , right to the governors office.
    If this passes and the state levies one fine for passing a sign that should be taken to the KY supreme court.
    All the legislature is empowered to do is allow or deny cc. Not set up permit schemes.
    And certainly not levy fines on any type of carry for passing a sign.

    This is an over reaching, anti carry bill any way you cut it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    This discussion was about one issue, possession of a gun in your car on school property. You were wrong about that and you are wrong about my "favorable lean" on this bill, in its present form. You can't just ignore the things you are wrong about by now saying that there are other things wrong with this bill, too. That has been discussed by most of the other people here and I don't know that anybody will disagree about that. If this bill doesn't change drastically before it hits the floor, I will never support it, but not because it bans guns in cars on school property. I would never make a fool of myself by claiming it does when it obviously doesn't. Arguing about something so patently wrong just diminishes the things that are really wrong about this bill. You lose all credibility.

    It wouldn't take much to make this a good permitless concealed carry bill. There is plenty of time to get that done. This is not a "take it or leave it" process. Everything is negotiable. If changes can't be made, there are plenty of people and plenty of time to work to stop it. I don't want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater". Besides, its too early in the process to complain about it, now. By the time it gets to committee, your complaints will be forgotten. I see this bill as a opportunity not a danger. I can much more imagine it passing after a few changes than I can imagine it passing the way it is now.

    Who in the General Assembly, will vote for it? Will the antigun people vote for it? No. Them vote for unlicensed people carrying guns, hell no. What about progun people who want unlicensed carry. No. They're like us and we don't like it. The only people that will vote for this bill in its current form are legislators who are indebted to the NRA or want NRA help in their reelection this November. There are lots of them around, but only one of them on the House Judiciary Committee and I have an appointment with him on Thursday.

    The democrats are trying to save their majority in the house. Do you really think they want this tied to them?
    I simply brought up one of the many things wrong with this bill , along with signage etc.

    If I have no cedibility with you, you are the only person in Ky that has hsd any dealings with me, or knows me, including senators and House reps that I have no credibility with.

    Which is fine.
    You stated FOL signage doesnt bother you. " I can see a no gun sign and afford 25 dollars".

    You Im gathering will support this bill if it includes FOL and revamping of Reciprosity.
    I and a huge number of gun owners in KY will not.
    Ill state this simply so my " credibility" isnt damaged further.
    If this bill does ANYTHING other than simply remove the need for permits to CC , I and every soul I can bring to bear will fight it to the Gov desk.
    And do our utmost to boot out of office any legislator that supported it win lose or draw.

    I had hoped to see the day we gpt rid of permits, but not by further compromise.
    Heck I know Dem senators that would happily sign permitless carry if not for the other changes such as signage being in this bill.

    I usually agree with you. This time sadly I cant. Not on this bill unless everything else but permitless carry is removed from it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    The worst enemies of Ky.'s gun owners has always been other Ky. gun owners.
    Thats been my experience for the most part, in that most wont lift a finger to help and most if not all think every other gun owner besides themselves is incompetent and needs more training (ie navy seal level). The few gun owning faculty I know on campus are of the mindset guns dont belong in city limits


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    The worst enemies of Ky.'s gun owners has always been other Ky. gun owners.

    There absolutly is no anomosity toward you.

    I hope you proved me wrong on the school thing. I simply do not trust the language used nor that out illustrioud AG will tie it together as you did.

    Id prefer and have worked to achieve true constitutional carry.
    This bill isny that. And FOL signs are a poison pill. There is no need for that to be in this bill.
    In addition it is allowing the legislature to step beyond it 2a and more importantly out state condtitution that spells out very specifically authority over guns it has.
    That is to prevent CC. That is it.
    Its already went beyond that with the permit scheme. Now we allow it to ffurther over reach its authority to impose fines etc specifically on carry past a sign?
    It is not granted that authority. Nor shpuld it be allowed to over reach more thsn it already has.

    I hope you I and others can get this to be what its being sold as. A simple repealing oc the need for a ccdw permit.
    If not this bill needs to die.
    Good luck in your meeting, I may set up one with tbat judicuary mrmber myself.

    I do agree Ky gun owners worst enemy is other Ky gun owners.
    Last edited by Ghost1958; 03-06-2016 at 11:15 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post

    I think that the three of us can agree that the introduction of HB 531 has energized a lot of gun owners that would have normally kept their mouths shut about anything else. This is a good thing, no matter how much we may disagree on the details. It is still very early in this process. If/when we get to the committee level, we may all have more in common than we imagine at this point. In any case, this bill has done a great job of putting the issue into discussions. Prior to two weeks ago, it was never mentioned, except by a few of us. If we end up with nothing in this session, people will now know what we are talking about and it won't seem like such a strange concept next year.
    On this we agree totally. Ky carriers tend to be very comfortable with the way things are snd believe anti gun laws wont be slipped in by the legislature. For fear of being booted out.
    Which is mostly true, and other than permits we are about as set carry wise as a state can get.
    This bill being sold by the NRA and politicians as a simple repeal the need for ccdw permits then discovering the infringements and over reachs the writers and sponsors are trying to slide past has woke up and outraged alot of folks in my neck of the woods. They arent so trusting now which is a good thing.

    Im pretty sure some legislators heads will roll on both sides over this. And probably should.
    And the NRA at least around here has lost some members and all credibility with this attempted card trick.
    Last edited by Ghost1958; 03-07-2016 at 12:01 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member LEX_XDM40compact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    LEX, KY
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post

    I hope you proved me wrong on the school thing. I simply do not trust the language used nor that out illustrioud AG will tie it together as you did.

    .
    What Gutshot has said is 100% true. You will still be allowed to carry on school property inside your vehicle, there is no NEW restrictions being added with this bill that would change that.

    Of course I already mentioned my thoughts in my original post in regards to 'thinking' this is one step forward but 2 steps back with the addition to the no gun signs, however after reflecting and understanding laws can and will change accordingly if we fight for them. I made this post with a hyped up head and anger when I read it but I quickly understood and realized everything can change. We need to stand behind this bill with improvements and changes to be made, we will argue that the current law in regards to no gun signs needs to remain the same.

    Stand behind it WITH the voice of changing its current reading on signage.
    Last edited by LEX_XDM40compact; 03-07-2016 at 12:08 AM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •