No OC For National Guard At Nicholasville Waffle House

[solus]

Being from North Carolina, you may not realize that non-felon adults have always had the right to openly carry firearms in Kentucky, and that's why the statement deals with concealed carry. Concealed carry of deadly weapons is the only bearing of arms that Kentucky regulates. Similarly, the statement emphasizes facilities and recruiting stations, not because that's the only place that national guard troops would be allowed to keep and bear arms, but rather because that's the only place they were previously prohibited from being armed, in much the same way that any employer could make a firearms policy for the place of employment. So to summarize, the statement specifically mentions concealed carry and recruiting centers and other facilities because Kentuckians would already understand that open carry anywhere else would not be an issue. Kentuckians have that right, and our laws have always recognized that right.

liberty, as i am sure you are aware, our nation's armed forces ~ state level NG included, function by a different set of governing regulations and guidance. one of corner stones of those regulations is the service member, general down to the lowly private, do not initiative activities on their own but rather at the express direction of their superior. therefore, if the service member wish to carry a firearm while on or off (local sheriff and army requires provost approval to get a CHP in NC), their are armed at the expressed permission of their superiors who assure the service member meets established governing regulations, training criteria and so forth.

at the moment, the DoD policies (includes NG entities) governing service members being armed while in service uniform are quite clear on training and carry parameters. I also note the KY Governor specially directed the NG adjunct to authorize CONCEAL CARRY at very specific locations using very specific documentation parameters, e.g., KY's concealed permits.

now if you truly believe the adjunct's directive is for every tom, dick, and sally in KY's NG unit to don their handy personal firearm in a concealed fashion but rather would be tailored to specific individuals who are assigned in those specific locations, e.g., recruiters, adm specialist, etc.

no where, liberty, have a criticized KY's exemplary carry statutes, but rather this one instance where an individual in NG uniform at 0100 in the morning was open carrying his personal firearm and was asked to leave a business establishment. the same business establishment where he got into an altercation at around the same time several weeks previously.

bottom line, when service members, i do not give a rats behind if they are reg or res or NG, are given lawful direction to CC while accomplishing their military duties, military regs do not allow the service member to decide on their own initiative that the direction means they are allowed to OC while out and about in the community.

ipse

 

[hotrod]

liberty, as i am sure you are aware, our nation's armed forces ~ state level NG included, function by a different set of governing regulations and guidance. one of corner stones of those regulations is the service member, general down to the lowly private, do not initiative activities on their own but rather at the express direction of their superior. therefore, if the service member wish to carry a firearm while on or off (local sheriff and army requires provost approval to get a CHP in NC), their are armed at the expressed permission of their superiors who assure the service member meets established governing regulations, training criteria and so forth.

at the moment, the DoD policies (includes NG entities) governing service members being armed while in service uniform are quite clear on training and carry parameters. I also note the KY Governor specially directed the NG adjunct to authorize CONCEAL CARRY at very specific locations using very specific documentation parameters, e.g., KY's concealed permits.

now if you truly believe the adjunct's directive is for every tom, dick, and sally in KY's NG unit to don their handy personal firearm in a concealed fashion but rather would be tailored to specific individuals who are assigned in those specific locations, e.g., recruiters, adm specialist, etc.

no where, liberty, have a criticized KY's exemplary carry statutes, but rather this one instance where an individual in NG uniform at 0100 in the morning was open carrying his personal firearm and was asked to leave a business establishment. the same business establishment where he got into an altercation at around the same time several weeks previously.

bottom line, when service members, i do not give a rats behind if they are reg or res or NG, are given lawful direction to CC while accomplishing their military duties, military regs do not allow the service member to decide on their own initiative that the direction means they are allowed to OC while out and about in the community.

ipse

You continue to confuse National Guard with a DoD unit. They are not the same, unless called to duty outside their state and authorized by the governor. In other words, they can carry any way they are authorized by the GOVERNOR! As a point of fact, I was a Staff Non-Commissioned Officer at my rank, not a NCO. My rank was Gunnery Sergeant, not Sgt.

 

[solus]

You continue to confuse National Guard with a DoD unit. They are not the same, unless called to duty outside their state and authorized by the governor. In other words, they can carry any way they are authorized by the GOVERNOR! As a point of fact, I was a Staff Non-Commissioned Officer at my rank, not a NCO. My rank was Gunnery Sergeant, not Sgt.

Gysgt, no offense was meant nor intended and being the politically correct individual i am, offer an apology.


i ask a brief adjournment while i consult with some resources...hold on to your thoughts for a moment.


ipse

 

[Liberty4Ever]

bottom line, when service members, i do not give a rats behind if they are reg or res or NG, are given lawful direction to CC while accomplishing their military duties, military regs do not allow the service member to decide on their own initiative that the direction means they are allowed to OC while out and about in the community

I don't pretend to know anything about the rules that regulate the behavior of national guard troops in Kentucky, but I cannot imagine that they constitute an ownership right over those serving in the national guard. I do not believe a person serving in the national guard has any less rights than the rest of us. The employer can establish rules of conduct AT WORK, but it's employment, not slavery. Employers shouldn't attempt to control employee behavior every minute of every day, even when they're not at work, and they certainly shouldn't infringe on their most fundamental rights which shall not be infringed.

It's useful to examine legislative intent. The Kentucky legislature passed a law stating that an employee can enforce a no firearms policy at work, but for the purpose of establishing a firearms policy, work starts when an employee exits their personal vehicle. The employee's vehicle is their property, and they have the right to be armed in their personal vehicle, even when that vehicle is parked in the employer's parking lot. This was a good law, because it balanced the property rights of the employer with the employee's right to keep and bear arms. Had the legislature ruled that employers can demand that employees not have guns in their cars, then the practical result would be that employees could not be armed on the way to and from work, and that would essentially result in employers preventing employees from being armed when not on the employer's property. It would functionally disarm most working Kentuckians throughout most of their day, including their commute to and from work, as well as any errands that are inevitably run as part of the daily commute, etc.

Now apply that legislative intent to the case of the national guardsman in the Waffle House. I don't believe the legislation to allow national guard troops to carry a concealed deadly weapon in recruiting stations and other national guard facilities was intended to deprive those in the national guard from bearing arms when on their way to or from work. The legislation was clearly a response to the shooting in Tennessee at a recruiting center that was a government enforced gun free zone, aka an area designated as safe for anyone wishing to shoot innocent people so they can be assured that their victims can't defend themselves.

I think you're misinterpreting a law designed to encourage national guardsmen to carry weapons at work as a law preventing them from being armed when not at work, and that clearly was not the intent of the law. Granting the additional ability to carry a concealed weapon at work is not the same as prohibiting being armed when not at work, just as telling school children that they can use calculators in math class does not imply that they cannot use calculators at home.

 

[solus]

I don't pretend to know anything about the rules that regulate the behavior of national guard troops in Kentucky, but I cannot imagine that they constitute an ownership right over those serving in the national guard. I do not believe a person serving in the national guard has any less rights than the rest of us. The employer can establish rules of conduct AT WORK, but it's employment, not slavery. Employers shouldn't attempt to control employee behavior every minute of every day, even when they're not at work, and they certainly shouldn't infringe on their most fundamental rights which shall not be infringed.

It's useful to examine legislative intent. The Kentucky legislature passed a law stating that an employee can enforce a no firearms policy at work, but for the purpose of establishing a firearms policy, work starts when an employee exits their personal vehicle. The employee's vehicle is their property, and they have the right to be armed in their personal vehicle, even when that vehicle is parked in the employer's parking lot. This was a good law, because it balanced the property rights of the employer with the employee's right to keep and bear arms. Had the legislature ruled that employers can demand that employees not have guns in their cars, then the practical result would be that employees could not be armed on the way to and from work, and that would essentially result in employers preventing employees from being armed when not on the employer's property. It would functionally disarm most working Kentuckians throughout most of their day, including their commute to and from work, as well as any errands that are inevitably run as part of the daily commute, etc.

Now apply that legislative intent to the case of the national guardsman in the Waffle House. I don't believe the legislation to allow national guard troops to carry a concealed deadly weapon in recruiting stations and other national guard facilities was intended to deprive those in the national guard from bearing arms when on their way to or from work. The legislation was clearly a response to the shooting in Tennessee at a recruiting center that was a government enforced gun free zone, aka an area designated as safe for anyone wishing to shoot innocent people so they can be assured that their victims can't defend themselves.

I think you're misinterpreting a law designed to encourage national guardsmen to carry weapons at work as a law preventing them from being armed when not at work, and that clearly was not the intent of the law. Granting the additional ability to carry a concealed weapon at work is not the same as prohibiting being armed when not at work, just as telling school children that they can use calculators in math class does not imply that they cannot use calculators at home.

liberty, your first sentence stated enough...end of your legislative legalese in your post...especially since the honorable KY governor issued an EO to the KY NG adjutant to make institute policy for those service members under his command! (you did notice i did not use the word employee!!)

so you are of the opinion NG members equate to run of the mill type 'employees'...hummm...in your current or any employment position you have served in, did you sign a contract to work for xyz years in an enlistment oh with the possibility of deployment to hostile environment(s) both in conus & abroad? additionally, ever work for a national entity and follow corp rules which in some cases ran counter to state labor laws? which did you follow in order to continue to receive your pay check?

that stated, the TAG's guidance is paramount in arming NG team members, not KY legislature.

finally, those serving in the active, reserve, NG components of the military do, in some cases have less rights than JQPublic...for example, get arrested for driving under the influence and local judicial doesn't pursue...if the CC wishes, UCMJ punishment can be imposed in the form of an Article 15 which in some cases can delay promotion, loss of a pay grade, etc. your cushy civilian position going hold you to corp punishment for an incident which occurred in the community? (caveat ~ yes if you are involved in governmental contract work w/clearance)

yep your first sentence summed it up quite well...

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/military-speech

A listing of various court cases to peruse. Pretty boring stuff, cases were brought by malcontents, fellas who, after being in the military for some amount of time, did not get the memo that we were to suck it up and get back on watch.

 

[DrakeZ07]

I can say if I was his C/O, I'd tell you to take your highly offended self on long walk off a short plank. How dare you say that the men and women who, as YOU pointed out, swore to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, have no right to self defense while out in public just because they're in uniform. The military is not just "subordinate" to We the People. They are PART of We the People.

I just noticed your new avatar, I didn't think you to be a furry until I saw said new avatar.

 

[SFCRetired]

Having been NG, Active Reserve, and Regular Army (back when it was Regular Army), I will tell you all that there are several things you are overlooking:

1. NG, while under the direct command of the state's Adjutant General, are still subject to Army Regulations and the UCMJ. If a member violates a part of the UCMJ while in a training status, he/she may be called to Active Duty and tried by courts-martial.
2. AR 670-1 specifies what may and may not be worn on the uniform. And, yes, the NG is subject to AR 670-1. By that, he was in violation of the AR by openly carrying a personal weapon.
3. The only sidearms authorized to be carried openly are issue sidearms and in issue holsters.
4. Normally, and I stress "Normally", the only personnel authorized to openly carry an issue sidearm are commissioned officers, warrant officers, some senior NCOs, and military police. These are only authorized in the performance of their duties.
5. The state Adjutant General may, if authorized by the governor of the state, issue a directive permitting concealed carry by personnel in uniform. Open carry of a personal weapon may not be authorized.