Was told to disarm by LEO today inside of a police station while OC'ing

KRS 65.870 does not require any notifications, warnings or "good faith effort"

Click to expand...

Correct. And this will be the last meeting I have with them. I may only be fooling myself, but I believe that if I have to take this to court it would look better for my defense. As for my cat running for Mayor, don't we already have enough Puss's in politics the way it is???

Well, at least your Mayor is willing to listen and correct the problems instead of giving you the run around.

gutshot said:

You've done all you can do, for now. Just wait and see how they deal with it. Some people just learn at a slower pace than others. Jan. is not far off. Once it arrives, I'd be glad to join you or anyone else in OC'ing in your police station or just video you doing it (and whatever develops). Hopefully, the city will deal with this and no further action will be necessary. Good luck.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I feel that this time more will be done to address the issue than what was(n't) done last time. I could be wrong but I expect some retaliation from the Detective. Our police dept. consist of 5 LEO's. Very small town, very small police force, very friendly LEO's. But the Detective came here from another county and has a different mentality. It really showed when he stated to me "even if it is legal, if a city officer tells you to do something, you should just do it".

I'm not sure if the other officers will feel like their authority has been challenged or not by having to take this training. They shouldn't but who knows? I may get pulled over every time I drive through town now just because they can. But to quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Once again, thank you for your offer of support.

flb_78 said:

Well, at least your Mayor is willing to listen and correct the problems instead of giving you the run around.

Click to expand...

I will have to give the Mayor credit. The first time I talked to him about the "no guns allowed" signs he never gave any resistance or gave me the run around. After about a month later a NGA sign still remained in the police station.(who'd thunk it?) I emailed him and reminded him that PD was not off limits to 65.870 and he apologized and said that he thought that it had been taken down. He assured me that it would be removed that evening and it was.

Our last meeting could have been over in 20 minutes but he ask a lot of other gun law questions. It seemed to me he was asking because his curiosity had been peaked. We even discussed the (ideas, theories, facts???) that a LAC that is armed is safer than a person that is unarmed and defenceless. Not only for himself and his family but also for who ever is around him. Of course he brought up the CO theater shooting and made the comment "imagine if 1,5,20 or even 50 people had been legally armed and returned fire, imagine the lives that could have been saved that night."

Keep in mind that this man once wanted to ban any and all guns from city buildings. I believe that he is starting to come around and see that an armed LAC works way better than a metal sign with a rule posted on it.

Maybe you should invite him out shooting some time.

flb_78 said:

Maybe you should invite him out shooting some time.

Click to expand...

Kinda crossed my mind and I may in due time. I didn't go city hall to preach the gospel or try to convert anyone. But if they change their negative views on guns and come around to our side because they "never saw it that way before", then to me thats just a bonus...

I read in the paper the other day that the mayor attempted to pass a CC ban for city buildings after our OC meeting. It never even got the first vote. I wish I could provide a link but the online page hasn't been updated for some time now. But the paper did report him as saying "we can't ban openly carried weapons...and we won't". I was just kinda funny to read it because I know what started it.

Good job, OP. Thank god for people like you who are willing and able to take on the bureaucrats on their own territory and win!

Good luck! :banana:

New Ammo for your fight...

Tell him to google... Kirkwood Missouri City Council shooting...

Ask him to call the Kirkwood council and see how well their No Guns ban worked out for them..

agree !

"It's pretty sad that as citizens, we can be arrested for breaking a law that we are unaware of, but the government and police can claim ignorance of the law and be mostly immune to prosecution."


They can pull you over for picking your nose at a stop light and tell you ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but their own ignorance goes unregulated.

Lthrnck said:

Tell him to google... Kirkwood Missouri City Council shooting...

Ask him to call the Kirkwood council and see how well their No Guns ban worked out for them..

Click to expand...

Thanks for the added ammo but I have had my last meeting with the city over firearms. Plus the other city officials made it clear in a public meeting that they felt that disarming innocent people did NOT protect innocent people. I'm going to say this issue is now dead and the city of Owingsville is gun friendly....even if they don't wanna be.

Update and new info.

Last week I emailed the Mayor asking if all city LEO had inservice on 65.870 like we had discussed during our last meeting. His reply was short and only said "I have talked with the police chief about it and all is well". I assumed that this issue was closed and some education about firearms on city property had been given to all LEO's. But today a city council member called me asking what statue I refered to when I talked to the Mayor a few weeks back. I told him it was 65.870, but was to busy to ask him why he needed it. I called him back a short time later to see what was up.

He said that he had been CC during the city council meetings but the police chief said he couldn't because city hall sets closer than 1000 ft from a school. I explained to him that the chief did have a point but since he had a CC license he was exempt from the 1000ft restriction. The council member did direct me to this page www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5310-1.pdf , which only exempts you from school zones in the state that your licence is issued. (I didn't know that) +(he plans to present this to the chief)

I bragged before about how our LEO and town in general is gun friendly, but it looks now like I may have to eat my words. To me, the Chief realized that he can not prohibit firearms (execpt what 237 says) from city property, so now he is trying to use a federal law to enforce his views. I will NOT have anymore meetings to correct their f**k up's. I will wait to January and let HB500 take care of it if they decide to be stupid. But I do smell a violation/lawsuit coming on. Just wanted to give that little update.

Side note... it is refreshing when an elected city official calls you so they can fight a "ban" on firearms on city property. Wish they all were on our side.




Look under "general information" second page down, section 2. According to this we can't have them loaded within a 1000ft of a school zone even with a CC permit.

self preservation said:

Look under "general information" second page down, section 2. According to this we can't have them loaded within a 1000ft of a school zone even with a CC permit.

Click to expand...

On second thought, I think I looked at this with an "and" point of view instead of an "or" point of view. So I think that with a CCDW you would be fine...loaded or not. What do you all think?

gutshot said:

That's not what it says or what it means. Any one of the the six situations listed would exempt you from the FGFSZ law.

Click to expand...

Yes, sir. Thats what I meant by I first read it as an "and" and not as an "or" point of view. Either way I still don't think they can ban firerms on city property due to the FGFSC.

self preservation said:

Yes, sir. Thats what I meant by I first read it as an "and" and not as an "or" point of view. Either way I still don't think they can ban firerms on city property due to the FGFSC.

Click to expand...

Even if they did use the FGFSZ argument, all that would be needed to defeat it would be to carry a gun made in KY(such as one of the 1911s made by Doublestar in Winchester) as this act only applies to guns which have moved in interstate commerce. In other words, at least as I understand that particular law, it's not something which can be used as a blanket ban for all firearms.

gutshot said:

They can't. KRS 65.870 prohibits local governments from having any ordinance, rule, etc. banning guns. There's no exception for duplication of federal laws. The feds can have such a law. Now, if the city wants to try to enforce the FGFSZ, that's a different story. Let them try, but they can't have any rule or law of their own, even one that duplicates the federal law word for word. No ordinances means no ordinances and no one has been able to come up with any time the feds wanted to prosecute anyone for a stand alone FGFSZ violation . Any local authority that sees a violation of federal law may hold a violator for pick up by federal officers, should they want to pick them up and try them in a federal court. That is what they do with illegal aliens. That local government still has to obey state law. No "no guns" ordinances (rule, policy etc.) are allowed by city or county governments, period, and I don't think the feds will want to pick up anyone for the stand alone violation. Now, if you do something more than just carry in a school zone, you may get charged with that crime plus an enhancement of a violation of the FGFSZ law, but that prosecution will be by the feds for a federal crime. It won't be by Podunk Junction, Ky. for violation of the FGFSZ law. Local courts don't charge people with federal crimes. Those charges belong in federal court. If you are afraid the FBI or Homeland Security is going to come get you every time you drive past a school with a gun in your car, I'd suggest you leave your gun at home. I don't worry about such foolishness, but that's just me.

Click to expand...

I'm not worried about the FGFSZ because I have a CCDW, but what pisses me off is the last I knew everyone was on the same page and no issue existed. Now they are trying to find "something" that they can push their views with. Luckily, the city council member took the time to make some calls and to do his own research about what the Chief had told him instead of just taking his word and disarming in fear of a "federal case"... But how many people will be told this and stop OC'ing because they don't know any better?

I'm just waiting to Jan. and I will see how it goes from there.

gutshot said:

I have encountered many local government officials that truly were "gun friendly", but they were even more obsessed with their own power and not letting a lowly citizen tell them what they can and can't do. Some of them will go to great lengths to bully their way through any situation. They have become accustomed to getting their way, no matter what the law says.

Click to expand...

Ain't that the damn truth!!! All I can say is bully away...I'll push right back. They are accustomed to getting their way....hope I can disappoint them on this issue.

gutshot said:

Good for you! If you do it right you will win. Just keep at it and don't let them provoke you into anything that they can charge you with.

Click to expand...

I'm always careful to not have a slip of the tongue that they could twist into a charge. I try to argue little of me personal views as much as possible and instead argue what the law says. I'll guaren-damn-te you that I will keep at it . I truely believe in the Edmund Burke quote that you see below..