KRS 237.106 and school employees

Reading through my son's school handbook today I read a rule that school employees are not to have any kind of firearm on school property, including their vehicles. Of course this rule is from the board of education. Does anyone know if school employees are not protected by 237.106? It states that they will face displinary action including termination if found to have a firearm in their vehicles. If they are protected I would like to bring this unlawful rule to their (school board) attention to avoid a possible lawsuit. Another problem being is both my parents work for the school system so I'm kind of torn on how/if I should pursue this. What do you fellows think???

By the way...KRS 237.106 is the law that prevents your employer from not letting you have a gun in your car...(Mitchell vs. UK)

It is my belief that it would be an illegal prohibition on employees. I am a school employee and while I don't know my district's policy on handguns, I don't really care. I carry in my glovebox--it's there if I need it. I don't plan on advertising the fact so I doubt it will ever become an issue.

referring to school, you keep it in your car there is not a thing they can legally do yo you
527.070
(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, if the firearm is contained within a vehicle
operated by the adult and is not removed from the vehicle, except for a
purpose permitted herein, or brandished by the adult, or by any other person
acting with expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on
school property

langzaiguy, i work at a college campus, i do the same as you, and i know i'm not the only one with the people i work with

Curtis C said:

referring to school, you keep it in your car there is not a thing they can legally do yo you
527.070
(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, if the firearm is contained within a vehicle
operated by the adult and is not removed from the vehicle, except for a
purpose permitted herein, or brandished by the adult, or by any other person
acting with expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on
school property

langzaiguy, i work at a college campus, i do the same as you, and i know i'm not the only one with the people i work with

Click to expand...

We now know that a college cannot fire you if you are an employer and keep weapons in your car, nor can they sanction you if you are a student. 237.106 would not protect you on k-12 property UNLESS you have a state issued CDWL, because you would still be in violation of Federal law, therefore k-12 schools would be exempt from 237.106 unless the employee has a CDWL. Some here would argue there is no federal officer to arrest you for a violation, but you can always be arrested and charged with a different crime after the fact. 527.020 does not apply to post-secondary institutions (colleges); carry in your vehicle on post-secondary property is completely legal, as it is to carry inside these institutions (they can fire you if you are an employee or sanction you if you are a student if you carry outside of your vehicle and they discover you carrying). I am a full time college student and I carry concealed on my person every single day while at school. I carry my firearm in an IWB holster with baggy shirts, and no one has any idea I am armed. I do, however, exercise extreme caution when I move while outside of my vehicle on college property. I refuse to become a victim, and I will never allow myself to be placed in a situation as the kids of VTech.; waiting to become the next victim is not what I consider living.

KYGlockster said:

We now know that a college cannot fire you if you are an employer and keep weapons in your car, nor can they sanction you if you are a student. 237.106 would not protect you on k-12 property UNLESS you have a state issued CDWL, because you would still be in violation of Federal law, therefore k-12 schools would be exempt from 237.106 unless the employee has a CDWL. Some here would argue there is no federal officer to arrest you for a violation, but you can always be arrested and charged with a different crime after the fact. 527.020 does not apply to post-secondary institutions (colleges); carry in your vehicle on post-secondary property is completely legal, as it is to carry inside these institutions (they can fire you if you are an employee or sanction you if you are a student if you carry outside of your vehicle and they discover you carrying). I am a full time college student and I carry concealed on my person every single day while at school. I carry my firearm in an IWB holster with baggy shirts, and no one has any idea I am armed. I do, however, exercise extreme caution when I move while outside of my vehicle on college property. I refuse to become a victim, and I will never allow myself to be placed in a situation as the kids of VTech.; waiting to become the next victim is not what I consider living.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying and I agree that the state laws vs the GFSZA are confusing because I'm not so sure that KY has preemption over a federal law. You claim that in order for an employee to be protected under 237.106 that they must have a CCDW. And you may be right but under that theory a person must also have a CCDW for 527.070 to protect them. And as you know 527.070 states,

(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, if the firearm is contained within a vehicle
operated by the adult and is not removed from the vehicle, except for a
purpose permitted herein, or brandished by the adult, or by any other person
acting with expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on
school property

It makes no mention of needing a CCDW and neither does 237.106. Also, we have been making the claim that a federal officer must arrest you in order to be charged and tried for violating the GFSZA but this link tells us different...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I honestly don't know.... It's all clear as mud to me!!!

self preservation said:

I see what you are saying and I agree that the state laws vs the GFSZA are confusing because I'm not so sure that KY has preemption over a federal law. You claim that in order for an employee to be protected under 237.106 that they must have a CCDW. And you may be right but under that theory a person must also have a CCDW for 527.070 to protect them. And as you know 527.070 states,

(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, if the firearm is contained within a vehicle
operated by the adult and is not removed from the vehicle, except for a
purpose permitted herein, or brandished by the adult, or by any other person
acting with expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on
school property

It makes no mention of needing a CCDW and neither does 237.106. Also, we have been making the claim that a federal officer must arrest you in order to be charged and tried for violating the GFSZA but this link tells us different...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I honestly don't know.... It's all clear as mud to me!!!

Click to expand...

Well, why don't we all get together and sign a petition or all group money and hire a lawyer to take the matter up to the Commonwealths attorney, for an AG Opinion on the matter? I'd sure it'd be cheaper, and less implications involved than being a test case with a possibility of losing the court battle and being imprisoned?

In my opinion, I wouldn't presume for a moment that anything in the KRS or any court rulings, would give any hint of pre-empting -Federal law/policy- ... And I wouldn't presume that only a Federal LEO could arrest for a Federal crime... Don't be the test case, I have a feeling the Feds have more money and can win more court battles than any of us combined.

*Edit; Spelling.
*Edit; Grammar.

DrakeZ07 said:

Well, why don't we all get together and sign a petition or all group money and hire a lawyer to take the matter up to the Commonwealths attorney, for an AG Opinion on the matter? I'd sure it'd be cheaper, and less implications involved than being a test case with a possibility of losing the court battle and being imprisoned?

In my opinion, I wouldn't presume for a moment that anything in the KRS or any court rulings, would give any hint of pre-empting -Federal law/policy- ... And I wouldn't presume that only a Federal LEO could arrest for a Federal crime... Don't be the test case, I have a feeling the Feds have more money and can win more court battles than any of us combined.

*Edit; Spelling.
*Edit; Grammar.

Click to expand...

I read that Ron Paul was trying to abolish this act because it is a bad act. I believe that at this point that issue is dead and didnt go anywhere. My biggest thing is if the Bath Co. School Board has an illegal policy I would like to bring it to their attention. For one, to give the gun rights back to the employees, and second to keep the board from having to pay out a ton of money that they don't have. This year when we bought "school supplies" for our son I damn near thought that we were going to have to buy a gas card for the teacher to get to and from school. Most supplies we bought were for the teachers. That tells me that the board is short on cash.

@Drake and after all of that, an AG's opinion would be just that--an opinion.

@SP; Check you're inbox in about ten minutes <3 also, I understand what you're saying, but I have a feeling that no matter what state of federal code says, the school board isn't going to listen, nor care.

@Langzai; True, but better than nothing, since I doubt the U.S. Attorney General would care enough to offer a non-biased opinion...

gutshot said:

Exactly. Everybody, even the people on this board and especially Gutshot, will always claim an AG's opinion as absolute fact and good, sound legal certainty, if that opinion agrees with his ideas, but if the AG disagrees with him, then the opinion is just an opinion.

Click to expand...

You mentioned yourself in a third-person point of view :O ... That's like, the first grammar mistake I've noticed from you~

Better to have an opinion that may support us, than nothing at all.

self preservation said:

I see what you are saying and I agree that the state laws vs the GFSZA are confusing because I'm not so sure that KY has preemption over a federal law. You claim that in order for an employee to be protected under 237.106 that they must have a CCDW. And you may be right but under that theory a person must also have a CCDW for 527.070 to protect them. And as you know 527.070 states,

(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, if the firearm is contained within a vehicle
operated by the adult and is not removed from the vehicle, except for a
purpose permitted herein, or brandished by the adult, or by any other person
acting with expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on
school property

It makes no mention of needing a CCDW and neither does 237.106. Also, we have been making the claim that a federal officer must arrest you in order to be charged and tried for violating the GFSZA but this link tells us different...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I honestly don't know.... It's all clear as mud to me!!!

Click to expand...

As gutshot stated, the school must obey the laws of KY. However, if you do not have a KY issued CDWL, it is illegal to carry within 1,000ft of school property, so you would be committing a federal felony every time you left your firearm in your vehicle if you did not have a CDWL, but you would NOT be violating any state law, and in fact state law would protect your right to keep the firearm locked in your vehicle. The "an officer can't arrest you for a federal violation" doesn't fly with me, and there are numerous cases where people are arrested for a state charge; they end up not having sufficient evidence, or a federal charge would carry stiffer penalties, and the suspect is then charged with a federal offense. A local officer can arrest for a fedral violation if the federal law allows them to do so, and if state law allows them to do so. A local officer can detain you until a federal officer arrives to arrest you if they are not authorized by law to make an arrest for a federal violation. I would not be worried about it, I am just letting everyone know that they are breaking the law if they keep a firearm in their vehicle on k-12 school property without a CDWL. There is a very important clause in the US Constitution that states anything in the US Constitution or federal law is the law of the land, unless there is a state statute that forbids it from being enforced or it violates a state constitution. Honestly I don't believe the FGFSZ is valid under the 2A, Article 6, or the commerce clause of the US Constitution. To be honest, the federal government is so far outside its constitutional restraints that the US Constitution is almost worthless. They use one small clause to do everything they do, and the SCOTUS agrees that they have authority under that clause. It is really a joke when you start looking into it.

I recommend that on Jan. 13, 2013 you report your school board for violation of KRS 65.870 and request the members of the board be charged with official misconduct in accordance with that statute.


Whom would I report that to?

gutshot said:

The County Attorney prosecutes misdemeanors in Ky., he would file the charges. He is probably the attorney for the school board, also. He should know them all. He might have to charge himself, too.

Click to expand...

I can really see a local County Attorney pushing this issue...(cough cough) So basically we can do nothing???

gutshot said:

No, of course not. Read the law. It says what to do. Why are you always so negative? Do you think the law was written as a way to "get" you? It is not a rigged game. You seem as if you always assume we are getting screwed. If you don't read and learn the law, you are screwed, but it will be your own fault.

Click to expand...

I guess growing up and living in a small community where things don't always go as they should has made me that way. I live in a corrupt place. Our old county attorney, sheriff, PVA, and a few others were all charged by the FBI a few years back for being corrupt. I guess I just expect it. I just don't see me going into the county attorneys office because another county entity has violated a law and them saying "not on my damn watch" and then actually doing something about it. Maybe you have had better luck with these things and people have done what they are suppose to do. Even if I read and learn the law(s) I can't enforce them. Hasn't the comment been made several times and even by you that one of our biggest problems is getting goverment to follow their own rules?

Right is right but if you can't get them to get off of their ass to do their job then what? Where do you turn from there? I'm not trying to be negative but at times it's damn near impossible to get the proper thing done over here.

self preservation said:

I guess growing up and living in a small community where things don't always go as they should has made me that way. I live in a corrupt place. Our old county attorney, sheriff, PVA, and a few others were all charged by the FBI a few years back for being corrupt. I guess I just expect it. I just don't see me going into the county attorneys office because another county entity has violated a law and them saying "not on my damn watch" and then actually doing something about it. Maybe you have had better luck with these things and people have done what they are suppose to do. Even if I read and learn the law(s) I can't enforce them. Hasn't the comment been made several times and even by you that one of our biggest problems is getting goverment to follow their own rules?

Right is right but if you can't get them to get off of their ass to do their job then what? Where do you turn from there? I'm not trying to be negative but at times it's damn near impossible to get the proper thing done over here.

Click to expand...

If you take the matter before the county attorney and he refuses to do anything about it then he can be charged with malfeasance or neglect of office.

KYGlockster said:

If you take the matter before the county attorney and he refuses to do anything about it then he can be charged with malfeasance or neglect of office.

Click to expand...

And who charges them with malfeasance? I ask because I don't know. If my house is on fire I would call the fire dept, if my toilet was clogged I would call a plumber, if my tooth hurt I would call a dentist, if I need to be yelled at by an older man from Bardstown I would call Gutshot. (just kidding with you, Gutshot :lol But for a situation like this I would have no idea who to call.

I'm not trying to be "negative" or "paranoid" but the old saying goes "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." If I see something going on that shouldn't be going on but yet I make no attempt to fix the problem, or I want to fix the problem but don't know how to, then what good have I done? Just trying to learn in case that fight ever does happen. I just want to be prepared for it.

gutshot said:

I am not from Bardstown.

Click to expand...

I know in what municipality you reside in.

gutshot said:

but it appears self preservation does not.

"if I need to be yelled at by an older man from Bardstown I would call Gutshot."

Click to expand...

I guess your old post about "Bardstown Has wasted Enough of My Time" lead me to believe that Bardstown was the place you called home. Guess thats what assuming get's me......