A meeting with my County Attourney tomorrow.

CharleyCherokee · May 10, 2011

A meeting with my County Attorney tomorrow.

I called the county attorney to see if he had a chance to look over the ordinances and such and also to see what was going to be done about it. So now I have a meeting with the county attorney tomorrow over the illegal ordinances regarding carry in the parks. I also noticed that they have a gun busting sign at the Carson park which I believe is a state park. The ordinance they site prohibiting carry there is 237.110. I don't see how this would prohibit carry unless it is federally prohibited which I somehow doubt as it's an approximately 50 acre plot of land in the center of the city.
Any advice you guys can give me for my meeting tomorrow. I'm not a great speaker so any advice you can give or topics to bring up or things such as that would be much appreciated. I'll let you know how it goes afterwards.

CharleyCherokee · May 10, 2011

Thanks for the quick response. I've already a copy of ALL the gun laws printed that I was using to research before I started carrying. I will be taking that with me, and I did print out a copy of the OAG that you mentioned. I have a feeling the county attorney was hoping that I would go away. I let it sit for a month since I figured it would take time to get anything done, but now since it's been a good while I figured I'd see what's happening with it if anything at all. I'm a little nervous about the whole thing. I hate being looked down especially when I'm right. I'm prepared to get the run around about this whole thing.

CharleyCherokee · May 11, 2011

Well. My meeting with Mr. County Attorney was not very fruitful this evening. He told me that his job was concerned with nothing I brought to him. "My job is to prosecute crimes." He then went on to tell me that in order to get the ordinances changed I would have to be tried and go to court over them. I then told him if that was the case then the ordinances could stay on the books forever if the DA never prosecuted giving the citizens the false impression of its illegality. He did concede that the ordinances were by his understanding unenforceable. The first thing he actually said to me was "Well I've studied the law and been an attorney for 25 years. How long have you?" Which kind of set the whole tone of the meeting after that. I remained respectful but after many slights directed towards my intelligence and understanding of the law I replied to his "I've dedicated much time to thoroughly understand and know the laws" to "And I've not?" Anyway, I came away from it feeling a bit accosted. To top things off the cop at the metal detector took my EMPTY holster and held it until I was finished. I didn't feel like putting up a fight about it there, but I will be calling the Sheriff's office at some time discuss their at the door policies.
From reading and studying the laws I have not seen where it prohibits the open carry of a firearm into a courthouse or court facilities. I've only seen laws that prohibit such on school and detention facility property. So could someone please point me in the right direction?
I did take the opportunity to discuss many things with Mr. County Attorney, but nothing was really said that I didn't already know. I did, however, walk to the city hall and put discussion of the ordinances on the agenda. I further called the Park offices and left a message with the director there. Hopefully, he'll call me back tomorrow. I also scheduled an appointment to talk to the county judge about the signs at Carson park.

langzaiguy · May 11, 2011

What an arrogant bastard. Props to you for putting up with him. There is a KRS that states that it is against the law for a public official to knowingly deprive a citizen of a right or a privilege. Not only are these illegal statutes a CIVIL liability against the city, but it can be a CRIMINAL liability if they know about it and do nothing.

EXCELLENT decision to get this on the docket for the next meeting--are you bringing this up with the city council or the county fiscal court? Make sure you're bringing it up to the right forum.

It's one thing if you're having a private conversation with this guy. He can say whatever he wants and be a complete @$$hole. In a public forum, however, you publicly bring this before your local officials and they have to publicly address what they are going to do and it will go into their minutes. Chances are quite good that they will follow the law appropriately.

In regards to your question, if the county attorney is in a justice center with courtrooms, chances are you may NOT CC or OC. Virtually any other setting it will be fine to OC.

I believe the position of County Attorney is an elected position statewide. Please make note of this incident and actively campaign against this fellow.

Here's my experience: the Scott Co. Sheriff illegally banned guns from his offices. He dug in his heels. Through contacting the county attorney, he advised the Sheriff that I had a legitimate claim and eventually the sign came down. I took great effort in campaigning against the Sheriff, walked on doors, donated money, etc and we got him out of office!

Good luck and you know we're here for ya!

CharleyCherokee · May 11, 2011

Can you please tell me which KRS prohibits carry in a Justice center? I've read and reread the laws I can find concerning firearms and it says nothing in the KRS about open carry being prohibited and only mentions that CONCEALED carry is prohibited in dention facilities, sheriff's office, meetings of a governing body, and courts.. I'm paraphrasing for the most part. But the KRS I'm referring to is 237.110. There is a specific KRS that bans guns on schools it's KRS 527.070. KRS 237.106 give power to dentention facilities to prevent people from bringing a firearm onto their property. I'm not saying you guys are wrong. I would just like to see for myself what tells you you can't carry openly into Justice centers. I've read KRS 237 throughly several times and the statues it mentions within it.

Otherwise, to answer your question. I am going to go before the city council to discuss the city ordinances prohibiting carry in the parks. I'm going to wait a little bit before trying to tackle the Carson county park issue the Fiscal court judge I would need to talk to about all that is pretty busy with flood business right now. I scheduled an appointment to talk to him June 9th. One of my college professors is on the city council so I won't be completely uncomfortable in there.

CharleyCherokee · May 12, 2011

The city park ordinances are the reason I would be going to the city council. Carson park is a county park and it has a sign prohibiting carry per KRS 237.110 which is ridiculous to say the least. The county ordinances are not so easy to go through, because they don't seem to be kept readily available online. I went to the county clerk and went through a bunch of them which happen to be folded papers that are shoved in a filing cabinet in no particular order other than by year.
The county attorney said that the courthouse is a battle I'm NOT going to win.

But he agreed with me that the park ordinances weren't enforceable.
His reaction to the OAG was "It's an opinion and not the law, however it is given some weight in court proceedings."

langzaiguy · May 12, 2011

I think the key here is finding that ordinance that prohibits carry in the courthouse. You may even email Mr. Murphy and have him cite which ordinance prohibits carry in the courthouse. There very well may be none at all in which case there would be no legal backing. If there is an illegal ordinance, then it would be helpful to bring it up in a public forum. I believe the KRS is clear that localities may ONLY regulate CC in buildings--and even then, there can be no criminal charges applied, they can only tell you to leave.

CharleyCherokee · May 24, 2011

Here is the "speech" I'll be giving to the city council tomorrow.

Good evening,
At the close of last week's meeting, I gave each of you some information detailing precisely what I would be speaking about tonight. However, I will take this opportunity to reiterate the facts at hand. I'm here today to speak with you about unenforceable ordinances currently in the book of Paducah law.The specific ordinances I'm referring to are 30-3, 70-94, and 70-5. The ordinances in chapter 70 prohibit the carry of firearms in city parks. However, KentuckyRevised Statute 65.870 states:
"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."
This statute effectively preempts Paducah's chapter 70 ordinances prohibiting firearms in public parks. The Kentucky attorney general's opinion 96-39 supports this position further. Chapter 30 discusses powers delegated to the mayor in cases of emergency. Section 3 of this chapter gives the mayor the power to close businesses, and force businesses selling firearms,explosives, or amunition to remove and lock up all such items until further instructed. However, Kentucky Revised Statute 237.104 states:
"No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS chapter 39A or at any other time, have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument."
Forcing a firearm shop to close, remove, and lock up all their wares violates this
statute. As such, Paducah's chapter 30 ordinance effectively giving the mayor the power to do just that is preempted by Kentucky statutes.
Considering the information I have provided, I humbly request these statues be repealed and removed from all manuscripts. Keeping them in print opens the city to potential lawsuits for rights violations from officers attempting to enforce them. Further, these ordinances work to intimidate the public from exercising their rights to self defense, keep, and bear arms where and when they are lawfully entitled to.

jt59 · May 24, 2011

CharleyCherokee said:
Here is the "speech" I'll be giving to the city council tomorrow.

Good evening,
At the close of last week's meeting, I gave each of you some information detailing precisely what I would be speaking about tonight. However, I will take this opportunity to reiterate the facts at hand. I'm here today to speak with you about unenforceable ordinances currently in the book of Paducah law.The specific ordinances I'm referring to are 30-3, 70-94, and 70-5. The ordinances in chapter 70 prohibit the carry of firearms in city parks. However, KentuckyRevised Statute 65.870 states:
"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."
This statute effectively preempts Paducah's chapter 70 ordinances prohibiting firearms in public parks. The Kentucky attorney general's opinion 96-39 supports this position further. Chapter 30 discusses powers delegated to the mayor in cases of emergency. Section 3 of this chapter gives the mayor the power to close businesses, and force businesses selling firearms,explosives, or amunition to remove and lock up all such items until further instructed. However, Kentucky Revised Statute 237.104 states:
"No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS chapter 39A or at any other time, have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument."
Forcing a firearm shop to close, remove, and lock up all their wares violates this
statute. As such, Paducah's chapter 30 ordinance effectively giving the mayor the power to do just that is preempted by Kentucky statutes.
Considering the information I have provided, I humbly request these statues be repealed and removed from all manuscripts. Keeping them in print opens the city to potential lawsuits for rights violations from officers attempting to enforce them. Further, these ordinances work to intimidate the public from exercising their rights to self defense, keep, and bear arms where and when they are lawfully entitled to.

Good effort your putting into this...

Would add just a thought....don't say "humbly ask"...it exudes subserviency - Commoner to King and won't help your debate ...it's simply the law, and they need to acknowledge that and comply. You may actually find an advocate or two on the board that will be willing to keep it high on the profile list...watch for them or seek them out.

You may want to ask them to request a legal review by the prosecutors office for the record....that will put him on the spot.

Good luck, this will come out well in the end with persistence...

CharleyCherokee · May 24, 2011

Wow just wow.

So... I was a little nervous, but I read my prepared speech. They are going to review the ordinances. The city manager said that 70-94 had already been repealed, but I told him that it was still online. The real story was what happened when I was trying to walk into the meeting with my openly displayed firearm.

As I was walking into the meeting I'm stopped by Chief Berry and another officer. I didn't get his name, because he was merely observing from my side not saying anything. Chief Berry informed me that I couldn't go into the meeting with my firearm. To which I asked him why not? It was a public meeting and there were no laws prohibiting me from doing such. He said well the KRS says you can't, but I guess that's for concealed carry. If you want want to speak you'll have to put your firearm away. I informed him that I had walked and had no place to put it. So I went through the hassle of calling my wife to come and take possession of the firearm so I could speak. Afterwards the chief came up and shook my hand all the while espousing how he's PRO 2A and a member of the NRA. Funny how it's the pro 2A NRA cop that tells me I can't go into a public meeting with my firearm, because HE says so. And yes I plan to file a report.

langzaiguy · May 24, 2011

Awesome!! Ya made us proud tonight. If you are filing a report on your unconstitutional detainment, please include this KRS:

522.020 Official misconduct in the first degree.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, he knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office; or
(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.

By tying your right to speak with you jumping through some irrelevant hoop, that's grounds for a civil rights violation. What's next, you have to kiss his ring? Spin around in a circle? If open carrying a gun in a city council meeting is legal--and it is--there is no reason to put it away to speak. This is a serious violation.

But that is a black mark on them, not you. Job well done!

UnfetteredMight · May 24, 2011

gutshot said:
You can stop looking, Charley. There is no statute like that. The legal basis for "no guns in a courtroom" it is laid out in Attorney General Opinion 97-09. I believe there is also an order from the Chief Justice of the
Ky. Supreme Court ordering that guns be excluded from Ky. courtrooms.

langzaiguy said:
522.020 Official misconduct in the first degree.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, he knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office; or
(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.

I'm curious, so what legal right does even a Supreme Court Judges have to circumvent the Kentucky Constitution? I thought that process was up to the legislature to make amendments?

Isn't the court supposed to make judgments based on the strict wording of the written law? Aren't they supposed to only nullify a law if it breaks Constitutional law, not break that law themselves? Otherwise, why do we even have a legislature.

This even goes back to the old glovebox carry law that was passed and then the Kentucky Supreme court makes the decision that they meant only in the dash. Well that wasn't in the wording so what authority do they have to rewrite laws unless backed by Constitutional law? This isn't their position is it? Separation of powers means nothing under this paradigm.

CharleyCherokee · May 24, 2011

He threatened to arrest me for disorderly conduct of course.

And he knew there was no KRS against it. He specifically told me it was only because he said. Further he told me that the day before some of the commisioners had received a threat against them or something. Personally I think he was just lying so I'd think he was justified in telling me to remove the firearm. I did do a no no though, and that was to tell him I was going to file a report against him for denying me entrance.

CharleyCherokee · May 25, 2011

I recorded, but it's more than a little difficult to make out what's being said except for parts. I'm assuming he would go with the "threatening behavior" part.

UnfetteredMight · May 25, 2011

gutshot said:
AGO 97-9 gives all the justification much better than I can. The old "glove box" rule said just that, "glove box". The Ky. Supreme Court refused to stretch that wording to mean any compartment. They reasoned that if the General Assembly had meant any compartment they would have said any compartment. Now they have.

Obviously their intention in the first place was to allow a person legally able to possess a firearm, to be able to possess said firearm in at least one spot in a vehicle that was not readily visible as to prevent theft of the firearm or to prevent alarm by those less enlightened (not that I personally care about that last one). Consider early model Camaros that didn't have a glove compartment in the dash, the center console IS the glove compartment, or those on motorcycles, the only compartments are under the seat.

So while I agree that if they intended any compartment, they would have worded it as such. It should have equally been inferred that they meant that you could put it in a compartment not in the dash if one in the dash did not exist, because of the obvious underlying intention of the law. Of course this particular point is moot now, but what I am concerned about is a court expanding or limiting a law written by legislatures, state or federal, without strict constitutional justification.

By their charge, they should have expanded on the wording seeing as both our federal and state constitutions are for the right to bear arms, instead they limited it. This is something we all should take note of and be concerned about. Consistently I have seen the SCOTUS knock down law after law by order of the provisions in the US constitution, but they are always reserved when it comes to the 2A.

My apologies CharleyCherokee, for hijacking your thread.

UnfetteredMight · May 25, 2011

gutshot said:
What section of the Disorderly Conduct statute did you violate?
Here it is:

KRS 525.055 Disorderly conduct in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the first degree when he or she:
(a) In a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof:
1. Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
2. Makes unreasonable noise; or
3. Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose; and
(b) Acts in a way described in paragraph (a) of this subsection within three hundred (300) feet of a:
1. Cemetery during a funeral or burial;
2. Funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;
3. Funeral procession;
4. Funeral or memorial service; or
5. Building in which a funeral or memorial service is being conducted; and
(c) Acts in a way described in paragraph (a) of this subsection at any point in time between one (1) hour prior to the commencement of an event specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection and one (1) hour following its conclusion; and
(d) Knows that he or she is within three hundred (300) feet of an occasion described in paragraph (b) of this subsection.
(2) Disorderly conduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

KRS 525.060 Disorderly conduct in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct in the second degree when in a public place and with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof, he:
(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
(c) Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard, or other emergency; or
(d) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose.
(2) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.

This is a good example of why we all need to carry and use a recorder when we carry.

Allow me to properly join the discussion by applauding you for your efforts. As gutshot stated, you broke no law and recorders are a must for this short of thing, especially the kind that they don't know you have. This is a one party consent state so you do not have to inform a person you are recording them as long as you are a party to that conversation.

There is actually this wristwatch that I'm considering purchasing that looks like a nice wristwatch, works too. But press one button and it records a few hours of audio, no way to playback or erase it on the watch, it has to be attached to a pc for those functions. Kinda pricey though, but the price was FAR less that what one could incur over false charges.

Maybe you should have reminded him that malfeasance is a crime?

61.170 Malfeasance or neglect of county officers -- Penalty.
(1) County judges/executive, justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, surveyors, jailers,
county attorneys, and constables may be indicted in the county in which they reside
for misfeasance or malfeasance in office, or willful neglect in the discharge of
official duties, and if convicted they shall be fined not less than one hundred ($100)
nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and the judgment of conviction shall
declare the office held by such person vacant.
(2) Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, policeman, or other peace officer who fails to enforce
any provision of KRS Chapter 242 after receiving information of a violation
thereof, or having knowledge of a violation thereof and failing to act thereon, may
be indicted for nonfeasance or malfeasance in office, and if convicted shall be fined
not less than fifty ($50) nor more than two hundred dollars ($200), and the
judgment of conviction shall declare the office held by such person vacant.
(3) In the absence of good cause shown, a member of the fiscal court who fails to attend
fifty percent (50%) of the regular terms of the fiscal court within a six (6) month
period or who fails to attend two (2) consecutive terms of the fiscal court shall be
charged with neglect of office and upon conviction shall forfeit his office.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 121, sec. 32, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended
1988 Ky. Acts ch. 328, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1988. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts
ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 2554c-31, 3748.

UnfetteredMight · May 25, 2011

CharleyCherokee said:
I recorded, but it's more than a little difficult to make out what's being said except for parts. I'm assuming he would go with the "threatening behavior" part.

Sorry, just saw this post. Can you send me a copy of the audio? I record music and as such have some pretty good audio mastering software and maybe I can amplify and clean it up a bit for ya.

Unfetteredmight@yahoo.com

Grapeshot · May 25, 2011

gutshot said:
. Too bad a man had to be convicted to get it done.

Also unfortunate that the change in the law will not automatically make him whole again.

Grapeshot · May 25, 2011

Grapeshot said:
Also unfortunate that the change in the law will not automatically make him whole again.

gutshot said:
Not knowing, understanding, and obeying the letter of the law can be expensive in many ways. Gun owners don't and should not expect to get any breaks in court.

Didn't intend to imply otherwise. I agree.

Not even up to speed on that case. Just always seem a shame to me when a person is convicted of a crime, then that case is instrumental in the law being changed so that the original crime is no longer such. Yet they languish as a guest of the state.

CharleyCherokee · May 25, 2011

I know, or at least I'd hope to, that a disorderly conduct charge wouldn't stick. This is my first encounter with an officer while oc'ing and I didn't feel like pressing the issue, missing my chance to speak, and having to further deal with defending myself against the egregious balogney charge. It's as if you're reading my mind Gutshot, because I intend to go to each meeting with my firearm. I'll get better about defending my positions as I continue to do so. On another note, I tried to file a complaint against Chief Berry today and the lady told me I would have to call the City Manager or the Mayor to file that complaint. Suppose I'm going to have to put pressure on that too. Why do they insist on fighting when they're so obviously in the wrong? I wouldn't be nearly so irate if they would just fix the problem and adjust rather than try and force an issue and be difficult about it.

A meeting with my County Attourney tomorrow.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member