KY: Man arrested in Louisville Arby's after refusing to cover gun, police say

[Thundar]

Read the law again. It does not say what you contend. The named parties may prohibit, but the law does not say how that prohibition must be communicated.

I read the law. I do not understand why it is being cited here. The guy in Arby's was OCing. This law was for concealed deadly weapons.

 

[carracer]

No, I do not live in Kentucky but am one of the many that Open Carry more often than not. Wanted to share a video, maybe it is already here, maybe you have seen it. http://www.downrange.tv/blog/open-carry-scenario-from-the-best-defense/18059/

If I was that guy in the article, I would have thanked the officer for pointing out the fact that ARbys does not respect my right to OC and left to find somewhere that was not prejudice to my rights. The people that made this video have another which is similar in the way that it deals with a guy carrying concelied and did not notice the sign posted in the window.

I don't have a criminal record and don't plan on getting one over not complying with a LEO just doing his job. If I feel as though I was wrongly treated I WILL request the officer's name and badge number in a professional manner then go to the nearest police station to file my complaint.


My opinion and has kept me from getting cuffed and stuffed on many occassion.[/QUOTE

I would have let the officer know I will cooperate to the full extent I am REQUIRED by law.

 

[KYGlockster]

I read the law. I do not understand why it is being cited here. The guy in Arby's was OCing. This law was for concealed deadly weapons.

Because it is competely relevant. It would be no different for someone OCing, even though Arby's never asked him to leave. A LEO cannot ask someone to leave property they do not have control of unless management specifically asks them to do so.

And Eye I have read the law many times. I know what it says. You can claim it doesn't say what it says, blah blah blah, but I will stick to MY opinion. How you come to your understanding is beyond me, but it is rather plain in its intent and meaning.

 

[eye95]

You may have read it many times, but you still seem to miss that it does not say how the prohibition must be communicated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[KYGlockster]

A LEO cannot ask someone to leave property they do not have control of unless management specifically asks them to do so.

Can you tell me what the above says? An LEO can ONLY ask you to leave private property if the OWNER or somone in MANAGEMENT that has authority to make these decisions on behalf of the owner/lessee asks them to do so!

I didn't imply it had to come directly from their mouth to a carrier's ears; but it must be communicated from them to the LEO in order for the request to be valid.

 

[nonameisgood]

KRS 237.115(17) states: (17) The owner, business or commercial lessee, or manager of a private business enterprise... may prohibit persons holding concealed deadly weapon licenses from carrying concealed deadly weapons on the premises.

Only a manager, lessee or owner can ask one to leave if carrying a firearm.

As snipped, this would not apply. Is there another rule pertaining to unlicensed, openly carried guns?

 

[eye95]

And the only thing I have contended is that it is reasonable for the LEO to be the way the representative of the establishment communicates the request to leave and that as long as the LEO is conveying the owner or his agent's wishes, then they should be honored.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[self preservation]

I don't have a criminal record and don't plan on getting one over not complying with a LEO just doing his job. If I feel as though I was wrongly treated I WILL request the officer's name and badge number in a professional manner then go to the nearest police station to file my complaint.


My opinion and has kept me from getting cuffed and stuffed on many occassion.

I don't know if I even want to start preaching to you all the things that could be wrong with your comments.. Oh what the hell,.... if "doing their job" is violating my rights and making up laws as they go, I'll take that charge to defend my rights. And your opinion may have kept you from getting cuffed and stuffed, but at what price? To quote Ben Franklin "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." And that seems to be where you stand right now. I say right now because I see that you're only 4 post deep into OCDO and I hope after some more reading your eyes will open wider so as to see the big picture.

 

[KYGlockster]

As snipped, this would not apply. Is there another rule pertaining to unlicensed, openly carried guns?

If you say so. I will stick with my opinion and you can stick to yours. I guess if you are carrying your firearm openly an LEO can assume he has rights over the property and can ask you to leave a private establishment based on his decision and no one else's. I am done with this thread. See ya!

 

[Logan 5]

Respect the wishes of the owner. Can the cop verify that the owner said that? If the owner says no OC, honor it. Or leave.
The man and his family got into an argument with the cop and I presume the owner or manager. And I have no idea where that went, truthfully.
I'd love to see & hear the video of the event.

 

[SavageOne]

Interesting there are those who believe that a LEO can act as an agent of a private business owner, while on duty. That would mean that ,for example, a bar owner could use on duty LEOs as bouncers, to ask some loud and boisterous customer to leave. A store could also use a LEO to courier their receipts to the bank for them. Of course, we know, they can't do these things, business owners must take on these responsibilities themselves. So why should business owners be allowed to use them as described in OP?

Private property owners have certain responsibilities that they must preform on their own. Asking someone to leave their property, or in this case cover up an openly displayed firearm, are examples of them. If the person refuses, then is the time to call in the LEOs. This kind of situation is what lead to the suit in Albuquerque, NM.

 

[eye95]

Who said anything about "acting as an agent of the owner"?

Acting as an agent of the owner would mean making the decision in place of the owner to trespass someone. Passing along a message is not acting as an agent. The owner or his actual agent are still making the decision. The officer can be the means of communicating the decision.

Personally, unless I had reason to believe that the officer was blowing smoke (as they were at Target), I'd accept the message and leave. If I thought they were trying to exercise their own authority to tell me that I could not carry (as they did at Target), I'd tell them I need to hear it directly from the manager.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Logan 5]

Remember, they have the right to refuse to anybody. If you're OC'ing and they say no, then they can tell you to leave.
So help them. As soon as they implement the rule on you, apologize and leave. Why get in trouble for flapping your lips when taking their money source somewhere else is far better?

 

[4sooth]

Living in Louisiana I see similarities between our laws and those of Kentucky where trespass is concerned. About a year ago I discovered the law in Louisiana may have been virtually ignored when someone was asked to leave a place of business. The practice had been that ANY employee of a business had the authority to ask, order, trespass, or other wise cause any given customer to leave the premisses. However, the actual law(as written) is very different. What ours says is the owner, lessee or his AGENT has the authority to remove a customer (or anyone) from his place of business. The conflict comes in that Louisiana has a definition of what constitutes an agent. The statute defines an agent as "someone who has the procedural capacity to sue on behalf of the principal". No "delegation" is mentioned in the statute. I discussed this with my attorney and another one I have coffee with on occasion. Neither had seen this--nor had either had this come up in their practice. Refusing to leave in this state is known as "Remaining where forbidden"--a misdemeanor--but is enforced frequently--especially in bars where drunks are known to say "You can't make me leave"! A caveat is in order here--the police may not (legally) solicit an order from the manager to expel someone. This must be the manager's decision completely. I am aware of the local police going back to a business after the fact and coercing the on-duty employee to sign a statement saying he was frightened by an open carrier so the department could justify the illegal arrest of an open carrier. The man was handcuffed and placed in the back of a unit but released within minutes. He got an attorney and is suing the agency--but it will be a long process and the settlement small--if any. In the Arby's incident it appears the officer was acting outside the law from the beginning--if what is reported is factual. His de-facto solicitation of the employee complaint was probably also outside the law. The families self-injection into the situation certainly did not help the OC'er any and things likely would have gone smoother had they not. I will follow this for any new developments.

 

[aadvark]

To Whomever it may Concern:

The City of Louisville needs to be Sued under Kentucky Revised Statute 65.870.

Furthermore..., The Officer Involved needs to be Trained.

Open Carry of a Loaded Firearm is LEGAL in The Commonwealth of Kentucky in EVERY Location other than a School for Children and Establishemnts that Serve Alcohol for Consumption on Premises, under Certain Circumstances.

aadvark

 

[SavageOne]

Who said anything about "acting as an agent of the owner"?

Acting as an agent of the owner would mean making the decision in place of the owner to trespass someone. Passing along a message is not acting as an agent. The owner or his actual agent are still making the decision. The officer can be the means of communicating the decision.

Personally, unless I had reason to believe that the officer was blowing smoke (as they were at Target), I'd accept the message and leave. If I thought they were trying to exercise their own authority to tell me that I could not carry (as they did at Target), I'd tell them I need to hear it directly from the manager.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Anyone communicating an owners wishes, which the owner has not communicated personally first, is acting as an agent of the owner, be it a manager, stock boy, or LEO. A property owner cannot use a LEO as the initial instrument to exercise their property rights. It is not the job of LEOs to "pass along" messages that a property owner has failed communicate themselves. A LEO's job is to enforce laws, such as trespass but, at least in my state, you are not trespassing until you are asked to leave, by the owner, and refuse. Let's not forget that should a LEO act as an agent of a property owner, the would open themselves, their departments, and cities to liability.

 

[eye95]

Anyone communicating an owners wishes, which the owner has not communicated personally first, is acting as an agent of the owner, be it a manager, stock boy, or LEO...

If you think that merely passing along a message from the owner constitutes being an agent (the legal term) of the owner, then I would ask you to cite a definition from the law that would support that ridiculous assertion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>