Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Arrest on U of L Campus Today

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    http://tiny.cc/6nCE0

    From today's CJ:
    A former University of Louisville student and contract employee was apprehended by University of Louisville Police Friday morning after a law library staff member recognized that he was barred from campus.
    According to police, Thomas H. Irwin entered the law library at about 8:30 a.m. with two handguns and ammunition. A library employee called U of L Police, who escorted Irwin from the premises without incident.
    U of L Police arrested Irwin and charged him with carrying a concealed deadly weapon and with criminal trespass, said university spokesman Mark Hebert.
    Irwin was taken to the campus police headquarters for further investigation and then transported to Louisville Metro Corrections. U of L had declared Irwin a persona non grata in December 2008.
    “We have systems in place to protect our students, faculty and staff, and in this case the employee acted quickly and appropriately,” Provost Shirley Willihnganz said, in a statement. “I also want to thank our police for acting quickly.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    I know this forum primarily focuses on Open Carry . . . however, I think this is a case that we should follow closely. If Irwin had a CDWL and had not been asked to leave the library (prior to his arrest), then I really don't see any basis for an arrest. If there are other issues involved (such as no permit), then the case is rather mundane. But, this potentially could be the case that demonstrates the commonly-held presumption of guns being illegal on college campuses here in KY.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    The story certainly seems to focus on the issue of entering the library with handguns, however, he has previously been barred from campus.

    Right now, we don't know the details of why he was previously banned, but police actions are very likely justified because of his status on campus.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    According to WDRB Fox 41:
    "Police say he had aboutfifty-three rounds of ammunition, and did have a concealed-carry permit, but police aren't sure if the guns were registered in his name."

    http://tiny.cc/4aWuz

    So . . . if he had a permit, why charge him with carrying? Such charges simply won't be sustained. Being banned from campus and then showing up on campus? Perhaps there is a trespassing charge there . . . and then again, perhaps not (since the campus is public land).

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    He had a permit:

    "Brown said Irwin was cooperative and told police he had the guns “because he was going to a shooting range later.” Irwin did have a permit to carry the weapons, Brown said."


    http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...to+law+library

    My understanding is that such signs on campuses in KY have no consequences, even inside of buildings, other than being asked to leave.

    Of course, there could be non-criminal code of conduct violations for students or faculty, but that isn't the case here.

    65.870 Local firearms control ordinances prohibited.
    No city, county or urban-county government may occupy any part of the field of
    regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying or transportation of firearms,
    ammunition, or components of firearms or combination thereof.
    Effective: July 13, 1984
    History: Created 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984.


    OAG 96 - 40 "A public university ban on the possession or storage of a deadly weapon or destructive device on property owned or occupied by that university does not violate the right to bear arms secured by Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution."

    237.115 Construction of KRS 237.110 -- Prohibition by local government units of
    carrying concealed deadly weapons in governmental buildings -- Restriction on
    criminal penalties.
    (1) Except as provided in KRS 527.020, nothing contained in KRS 237.110 shall be
    construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the right of a college,
    university, or any postsecondary education facility, including technical schools and
    community colleges, to control the possession of deadly weapons on any property
    owned or controlled by them or the right of a unit of state, city, county, urban-
    county, or charter county government to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly
    weapons by licensees in that portion of a building actually owned, leased, or
    occupied by that unit of government.
    (2) Except as provided in KRS 527.020, the legislative body of a state, city, county, or
    urban-county government may, by statute, administrative regulation, or ordinance,
    prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons by licensees in that
    portion of a building owned, leased, or controlled by that unit of government. That
    portion of a building in which the carrying of concealed deadly weapons is
    prohibited or limited shall be clearly identified by signs posted at the entrance to the
    restricted area. The statute or ordinance shall exempt any building used for public
    housing by private persons, highway rest areas, firing ranges, and private dwellings
    owned, leased, or controlled by that unit of government from any restriction on the
    carrying or possession of deadly weapons. The statute, administrative regulation, or
    ordinance shall not specify any criminal penalty for its violation but may specify
    that persons violating the statute or ordinance may be denied entrance to the
    building, ordered to leave the building,
    and if employees of the unit of government,
    be subject to employee disciplinary measures for violation of the provisions of the
    statute or ordinance. The provisions of this section shall not be deemed to be a
    violation of KRS 65.870 if the requirements of this section are followed. The
    provisions of this section shall not apply to any other unit of government.
    (3) Unless otherwise specifically provided by the Kentucky Revised Statutes or
    applicable federal law, no criminal penalty shall attach to carrying a concealed
    firearm or other deadly weapon with a permit at any location at which an
    unconcealed firearm or other deadly weapon may be constitutionally carried.
    Effective: March 31, 2005
    History: Amended 2005 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 16, effective March 31, 2005. -- Created
    1996 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 5, effective October 1, 1996.





  5. #5
    Regular Member Undertaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Wood, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    Mgoblue, I see that police remark in quotations. Did the police mention the word 'registered' or is that your opinion. Just curious because I dealt with that issue last week.

    Gutshot, I believe you are correct in your statement but why does the term 'registration' keep coming up. Are these statements referring to the owner of the weapon being duly registered? ie: CCDW permit?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Undertaker wrote:
    Mgoblue, I see that police remark in quotations. Did the police mention the word 'registered' or is that your opinion. Just curious because I dealt with that issue last week.

    Gutshot, I believe you are correct in your statement but why does the term 'registration' keep coming up. Are these statements referring to the owner of the weapon being duly registered? ie: CCDW permit?
    I used quotes because I copied the text from WDRB's site. those were their words.

    Crazy . . . I know. None of my guns are registered in my name -- and let's keep it that way!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    MgoBlue wrote:
    According to WDRB Fox 41:
    "Police say he had aboutfifty-three rounds of ammunition, and did have a concealed-carry permit, but police aren't sure if the guns were registered in his name."

    http://tiny.cc/4aWuz

    So . . . if he had a permit, why charge him with carrying? Such charges simply won't be sustained. Being banned from campus and then showing up on campus? Perhaps there is a trespassing charge there . . . and then again, perhaps not (since the campus is public land).

    If he had been previously banned from campus, then that is where the tresspass charge will come from.
    University campuses are not public land.

    The are, in fact, private property.

    ALso, the University of Louisville's weapons policy...

    http://louisville.edu/police/service...n_storage.html





  8. #8
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote
    University campuses are not public land. The are, in fact, private property.
    I'm fuzzy on the entire issue of universities in Kentucky banning firearms.

    First, if the universities are private, then why are they given VAST SUMS of our state tax dollars? They operate as divisions of the state government. The state budget allocates funds for their operation. There is some autonomy in some matters, but not others. I call shenanigans on the "private property" claim. To the extent the universities exert that claim, I think they are trying to have it both ways. When they want to ban guns, it's private property. When they want my tax dollars, they're state universities.

    I know students caught carrying on campus will be expelled, and faculty and staff will be fired. They have very strong gun ban policies. However, I am no longer a student, nor staff and I've never been faculty. Legally, what can they do if I open carry on campus? Ask me to leave and charge me with trespassing if I refuse? If the universities are state property, and they certainly seem to be state property to me, then I don't think they can legally compel me to leave for open carrying.

    Does anybody KNOW of a legitimate basis for a Kentucky university to ban guns outright and enforce their anti-gun policy? I'm looking for a law, and not an authoritarian assertion or conjecture or "it's what they do". Administrators and bureaucrats will do all sorts of illegal stuff and trample our rights as much as they can, until someone says, "Show me the law."

    To me, this looks like using my tax dollars to deprive me of an unalienable right that is specifically protected by the US Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution, as well as Kentucky statute.

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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    I was an employee of a university for several years.

    State universities are private property. The position I held at the university I worked for hinged on the fact that the univerisity and it's property are private property.

    You also are wrong about what you think you know.

    Students caught carrying, openly or otherwise, face discipline within the universities judicial system, but are rarely expelled just for carrying.

    Employees caught CC with a permit are told to take it off campus and to not bring it back.

    Believe me when I say this...university property is private property. The way it was explained to me, was that it should be considered "privately held state property". A little of an oxymoron, I know, but trust me, it is private property.



  10. #10
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    The way it was explained to me, was that it should be considered "privately held state property". A little of an oxymoron, I know, but trust me, it is private property.
    Hey! Great! Everything I own is "privately held state property". Redistribute your state tax dollars to me!

    "A little of an oxymoron"? That's like a little bit pregnant. The concept of state owned private property is complete nonsense. As in, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. The two are complete opposites. It can't be public property AND private property. Any attempt to explain it that way is clearly, as I said, an attempt to have it both ways.

    They're called "state universities" because they are state property. The University of Kentucky will receive $310,500,000.00 of our state taxes in 2009. That sounds like a public institution to me.

    http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/757292.html

    I hate to repeat myself, but apparently I need to do so.

    Does anybody KNOW of a legitimate basis for a Kentucky university to ban guns outright and enforce their anti-gun policy? I'm looking for a law, and not an authoritarian assertion or conjecture or "it's what they do". Administrators and bureaucrats will do all sorts of illegal stuff and trample our rights as much as they can, until someone says, "Show me the law."
    Buy rice. Buy beans. Buy guns. Buy ammo.
    This is your final SHTF warning.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/056-00/030.PDF



    Besides, any state-owned land is indeed OWNED. THAT IS IN ITSELF, A PIECE OF LAND BEING OWNED, makes it private property.

    It may be "public use", but it is still private property, owned by the state.

    It's not different that a walmart. It is privately owned property, but intended for public use.



  12. #12
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    A PIECE OF LAND BEING OWNED, makes it private property.

    It may be "public use", but it is still private property, owned by the state.

    It's not different that a walmart. It is privately owned property, but intended for public use.
    It is not like Wal*Mart. Here are the definitions. Bold emphasis is mine.

    Private \Pri"vate\ (?; 48), a. [L. privatus apart from the
    state, peculiar to an individual, private, properly p. p. of
    privare to bereave, deprive, originally, to separate, fr.
    privus single, private, perhaps originally, put forward
    (hence, alone, single) and akin to prae before. See Prior,
    a., and cf. Deprive, Privy, a.]
    1. Belonging to, or concerning, an individual person,
    company, or interest
    ; peculiar to one's self; unconnected
    with others; personal; one's own; not public; not general;
    [1913 Webster]


    Public \Pub"lic\, a. [L. publicus, poblicus, fr. populus people:
    cf. F. public. See People.]
    1. Of or pertaining to the people; belonging to the people;
    relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community;
    -- opposed to private
    ; as, the public treasury.
    [1913 Webster]


    Wal*Mart is a corporation, which is privately owned by individual shareholders. It is not owned collectively by the entire public, as a national forest, a local city park or a state university is.

    I'm a bit surprised that I needed to define public and private. I had assumed that these are common terms and we were operating from a mutual understanding of the basic definitions, but I guess I should have known better when I read about privately owned public land, or publicly owned private land or whatever mutually exclusive terminology is being used. And these terms are definitely mutually exclusive. Just so we're clear, that means property cannot be both public and private. That's indicated by the definition of private when it says, "not public".

    Private land is owned by individuals or corporations. Public land is collectively owned by everyone.

    If a piece of land is owned by the state of Kentucky, it is not private property. It is public property. Ownership issues aside, if an institution receives over $300 million of our state taxes a year, I think that had better not be a private enterprise. It had better be a state (public) institution. I don't like it when my Kentucky tax dollars are used to deny me my rights that are enumerated in the Kentucky Constitution.

    If Wal*Mart wants to deny me the ability to carry a firearm in their store, it's their property and thus their right to make the rules. As a consumer, I can choose to shop there without my firearm, or not shop there. I can even choose to be lawfully arrested for trespassing for not leaving when the owner of the property or their duly designated representative asked me to leave, although I wouldn't choose to do that. But the state has no right to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms on state property. Why? Because the property is owned by everyone and that includes me. In a very real way, I'm a part owner of all public land, and so are you.

    To my knowledge, universities are the only state properties where the state of Kentucky attempts to enforce anti-gun laws. Presumably, there is some special sentiment related to protecting children, as if 18+ year olds are children. What I'd like to know is whether these misguided sentiments have been codified into law. If so, I'd argue that they are unconstitutional laws.


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

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Didn't it come out that the kid did not, in fact have a CCDW permit, and the original story was a typo about him having one?

    I'm not sure, but I thought I heard that.


    Being personna non grata is basically just a fancy term for a tresspass warning, but what gets me is how he could become a contract employee if he was so.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Liberty4Ever wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    A PIECE OF LAND BEING OWNED, makes it private property.

    It may be "public use", but it is still private property, owned by the state.

    It's not different that a walmart. It is privately owned property, but intended for public use.
    It is not like Wal*Mart. Here are the definitions. Bold emphasis is mine.

    Private Pri"vate (?; 48), a. [L. privatus apart from the
    state, peculiar to an individual, private, properly p. p. of
    privare to bereave, deprive, originally, to separate, fr.
    privus single, private, perhaps originally, put forward
    (hence, alone, single) and akin to prae before. See Prior,
    a., and cf. Deprive, Privy, a.]
    1. Belonging to, or concerning, an individual person,
    company, or interest
    ; peculiar to one's self; unconnected
    with others; personal; one's own; not public; not general;
    [1913 Webster]


    Public Pub"lic, a. [L. publicus, poblicus, fr. populus people:
    cf. F. public. See People.]
    1. Of or pertaining to the people; belonging to the people;
    relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community;
    -- opposed to private
    ; as, the public treasury.
    [1913 Webster]


    Wal*Mart is a corporation, which is privately owned by individual shareholders. It is not owned collectively by the entire public, as a national forest, a local city park or a state university is.

    I'm a bit surprised that I needed to define public and private. I had assumed that these are common terms and we were operating from a mutual understanding of the basic definitions, but I guess I should have known better when I read about privately owned public land, or publicly owned private land or whatever mutually exclusive terminology is being used. And these terms are definitely mutually exclusive. Just so we're clear, that means property cannot be both public and private. That's indicated by the definition of private when it says, "not public".

    Private land is owned by individuals or corporations. Public land is collectively owned by everyone.

    If a piece of land is owned by the state of Kentucky, it is not private property. It is public property. Ownership issues aside, if an institution receives over $300 million of our state taxes a year, I think that had better not be a private enterprise. It had better be a state (public) institution. I don't like it when my Kentucky tax dollars are used to deny me my rights that are enumerated in the Kentucky Constitution.

    If Wal*Mart wants to deny me the ability to carry a firearm in their store, it's their property and thus their right to make the rules. As a consumer, I can choose to shop there without my firearm, or not shop there. I can even choose to be lawfully arrested for trespassing for not leaving when the owner of the property or their duly designated representative asked me to leave, although I wouldn't choose to do that. But the state has no right to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms on state property. Why? Because the property is owned by everyone and that includes me. In a very real way, I'm a part owner of all public land, and so are you.

    To my knowledge, universities are the only state properties where the state of Kentucky attempts to enforce anti-gun laws. Presumably, there is some special sentiment related to protecting children, as if 18+ year olds are children. What I'd like to know is whether these misguided sentiments have been codified into law. If so, I'd argue that they are unconstitutional laws.

    Private Pri"vate (?; 48), a. [L. privatus apart from the
    state, peculiar to an individual, private, properly p. p. of
    privare to bereave, deprive, originally, to separate, fr.
    privus single, private, perhaps originally, put forward
    (hence, alone, single) and akin to prae before. See Prior,
    a., and cf. Deprive, Privy, a.]
    1. Belonging to, or concerning, an individual person,
    company, or interest
    ; peculiar to one's self; unconnected
    with others; personal; one's own; not public; not general;
    [1913 Webster]

    You proved my point with this one. In this case, the state becomes the "interest"

    Public Pub"lic, a. [L. publicus, poblicus, fr. populus people:
    cf. F. public. See People.]
    1. Of or pertaining to the people; belonging to the people;
    relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community;
    -- opposed to private
    ; as, the public treasury.
    [1913 Webster]

    The university most certainly does not belong to the "people" of the state or community. The public cannot access or use universithy property without permission of the university, and it's governing board (usually a board of regents).



    Also, state universities operate only with support from the state, not completely funded by the state. In reporting of finances, they only have to report the keeping/spending of public funds recieved from the state, not complete reporting of all funds.

    Beised, if it was public land, the Board of Regents would be elected, not appointed by the govenor.

    Besides, if you look up any laws pertaining to state universities, it commonly speaks of property owned by the institution, not owned by the state.







  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    Did anyone ever hear the outcome of this incident? Its been a year.
    If you really want to know, his name is in the article. I'd file the form found at the following link (http://courts.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F5...71/0/RU004.pdf) and see how it goes from there.

    Since the guy was arrested in Louisville, you can also get his arrest history from the jail (400 S. 6th St) for a fee - come during business hours.

    The info is public record, you just have to fill out the proper forms and pay "Da Man" his fees for the info. Have fun.

Posting Permissions

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