Bill HB531

[Ghost1958]

This discussion was about one issue, possession of a gun in your car on school property. You were wrong about that and you are wrong about my "favorable lean" on this bill, in its present form. You can't just ignore the things you are wrong about by now saying that there are other things wrong with this bill, too. That has been discussed by most of the other people here and I don't know that anybody will disagree about that. If this bill doesn't change drastically before it hits the floor, I will never support it, but not because it bans guns in cars on school property. I would never make a fool of myself by claiming it does when it obviously doesn't. Arguing about something so patently wrong just diminishes the things that are really wrong about this bill. You lose all credibility.

It wouldn't take much to make this a good permitless concealed carry bill. There is plenty of time to get that done. This is not a "take it or leave it" process. Everything is negotiable. If changes can't be made, there are plenty of people and plenty of time to work to stop it. I don't want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater". Besides, its too early in the process to complain about it, now. By the time it gets to committee, your complaints will be forgotten. I see this bill as a opportunity not a danger. I can much more imagine it passing after a few changes than I can imagine it passing the way it is now.

Who in the General Assembly, will vote for it? Will the antigun people vote for it? No. Them vote for unlicensed people carrying guns, hell no. What about progun people who want unlicensed carry. No. They're like us and we don't like it. The only people that will vote for this bill in its current form are legislators who are indebted to the NRA or want NRA help in their reelection this November. There are lots of them around, but only one of them on the House Judiciary Committee and I have an appointment with him on Thursday.

The democrats are trying to save their majority in the house. Do you really think they want this tied to them?

I simply brought up one of the many things wrong with this bill , along with signage etc.

If I have no cedibility with you, you are the only person in Ky that has hsd any dealings with me, or knows me, including senators and House reps that I have no credibility with.

Which is fine.
You stated FOL signage doesnt bother you. " I can see a no gun sign and afford 25 dollars".

You Im gathering will support this bill if it includes FOL and revamping of Reciprosity.
I and a huge number of gun owners in KY will not.
Ill state this simply so my " credibility" isnt damaged further.
If this bill does ANYTHING other than simply remove the need for permits to CC , I and every soul I can bring to bear will fight it to the Gov desk.
And do our utmost to boot out of office any legislator that supported it win lose or draw.

I had hoped to see the day we gpt rid of permits, but not by further compromise.
Heck I know Dem senators that would happily sign permitless carry if not for the other changes such as signage being in this bill.

I usually agree with you. This time sadly I cant. Not on this bill unless everything else but permitless carry is removed from it.

 

[poetdante]

The worst enemies of Ky.'s gun owners has always been other Ky. gun owners.

Thats been my experience for the most part, in that most wont lift a finger to help and most if not all think every other gun owner besides themselves is incompetent and needs more training (ie navy seal level). The few gun owning faculty I know on campus are of the mindset guns dont belong in city limits


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ghost1958]

The worst enemies of Ky.'s gun owners has always been other Ky. gun owners.

There absolutly is no anomosity toward you.

I hope you proved me wrong on the school thing. I simply do not trust the language used nor that out illustrioud AG will tie it together as you did.

Id prefer and have worked to achieve true constitutional carry.
This bill isny that. And FOL signs are a poison pill. There is no need for that to be in this bill.
In addition it is allowing the legislature to step beyond it 2a and more importantly out state condtitution that spells out very specifically authority over guns it has.
That is to prevent CC. That is it.
Its already went beyond that with the permit scheme. Now we allow it to ffurther over reach its authority to impose fines etc specifically on carry past a sign?
It is not granted that authority. Nor shpuld it be allowed to over reach more thsn it already has.

I hope you I and others can get this to be what its being sold as. A simple repealing oc the need for a ccdw permit.
If not this bill needs to die.
Good luck in your meeting, I may set up one with tbat judicuary mrmber myself.

I do agree Ky gun owners worst enemy is other Ky gun owners.

 

[Ghost1958]

I think that the three of us can agree that the introduction of HB 531 has energized a lot of gun owners that would have normally kept their mouths shut about anything else. This is a good thing, no matter how much we may disagree on the details. It is still very early in this process. If/when we get to the committee level, we may all have more in common than we imagine at this point. In any case, this bill has done a great job of putting the issue into discussions. Prior to two weeks ago, it was never mentioned, except by a few of us. If we end up with nothing in this session, people will now know what we are talking about and it won't seem like such a strange concept next year.

On this we agree totally. Ky carriers tend to be very comfortable with the way things are snd believe anti gun laws wont be slipped in by the legislature. For fear of being booted out.
Which is mostly true, and other than permits we are about as set carry wise as a state can get.
This bill being sold by the NRA and politicians as a simple repeal the need for ccdw permits then discovering the infringements and over reachs the writers and sponsors are trying to slide past has woke up and outraged alot of folks in my neck of the woods. They arent so trusting now which is a good thing.

Im pretty sure some legislators heads will roll on both sides over this. And probably should.
And the NRA at least around here has lost some members and all credibility with this attempted card trick.

 

[LEX_XDM40compact]

I hope you proved me wrong on the school thing. I simply do not trust the language used nor that out illustrioud AG will tie it together as you did.

.

What Gutshot has said is 100% true. You will still be allowed to carry on school property inside your vehicle, there is no NEW restrictions being added with this bill that would change that.

Of course I already mentioned my thoughts in my original post in regards to 'thinking' this is one step forward but 2 steps back with the addition to the no gun signs, however after reflecting and understanding laws can and will change accordingly if we fight for them. I made this post with a hyped up head and anger when I read it but I quickly understood and realized everything can change. We need to stand behind this bill with improvements and changes to be made, we will argue that the current law in regards to no gun signs needs to remain the same.

Stand behind it WITH the voice of changing its current reading on signage.

 

[Ghost1958]

What Gutshot has said is 100% true. You will still be allowed to carry on school property inside your vehicle, there is no NEW restrictions being added with this bill that would change that.

Of course I already mentioned my thoughts in my original post in regards to 'thinking' this is one step forward but 2 steps back with the addition to the no gun signs, however after reflecting and understanding laws can and will change accordingly if we fight for them. I made this post with a hyped up head and anger when I read it but I quickly understood and realized everything can change. We need to stand behind this bill with improvements and changes to be made, we will argue that the current law in regards to no gun signs needs to remain the same.

Stand behind it WITH the voice of changing its current reading on signage.

I do hope you and Gutshot are right on tbe school carry in vehicle thing.
If its the same and intended to be enforced the same, there wss no reason to line out tbe existing provision. It was lined out and I do not believe it will be applied by the AG as yall trust it will..

However IF the bill is changed to leave signage as is, and recoprosity as is, I would promote it as visciosly as I am fighting it now.
But until those changes are made, not a promise they will be, the bill for me and everyone I have spoken to about it is pure poison.

 

[LEX_XDM40compact]

I do hope you and Gutshot are right on tbe school carry in vehicle thing.
If its the same and intended to be enforced the same, there wss no reason to line out tbe existing provision. It was lined out and I do not believe it will be applied by the AG as yall trust it will..

However IF the bill is changed to leave signage as is, and recoprosity as is, I would promote it as visciosly as I am fighting it now.
But until those changes are made, not a promise they will be, the bill for me and everyone I have spoken to about it is pure poison.

I believe it was lined out due to redundancy already found in the new proposed law, meaning to clean it up some as they did in other sections of the bill. The lined out part in regards to schools is already defined in section 3.

The law is written pretty straight forward.

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 in conformity with Section 3 of this Act

Section 3

Section 3. KRS 237.106 is amended to read as follows:
(1) No person or organization, including but not limited to a public or private[an]
employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall prohibit any
person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm, part of
a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.
(2) A person, including but not limited to an employer, who owns, leases, or otherwise
occupies real property may prevent a person who is prohibited by state or federal
law from possessing a firearm or ammunition from possessing a firearm or
ammunition on the property.
(3) A firearm may be removed from the vehicle or handled in the case of self-defense,
defense of another, defense of property, or as authorized by the owner, lessee, or
occupant of the property.

Again, You may carry on school grounds in your vehicle as allowed in section 3. Make sure you understand they ADDED "No person or organization, including but not limited to a public or private[an]
employer" to that KRS section.

The current law states : "No person, including but not limited to an employer."
The proposed law it would state : No person or organization, including but not limited to a public or private[an] employer"

The current marked out line you refer to is

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

Which that Is already implied as a change in section 3 as a school would NOW fall under an organization public or private.

I am having a problem finding an issue with the reciprocity of the proposed law? If you mean the fact that everything is lined out about KY allowing people to carry with other conceal carry permits? That is because under the NEW proposed law KY would NOT REQUIRE A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT. Therefore EVERYONE could carry within our state as they can currently openly. Same way AZ and other states with permitless carry have.

If it is in regards to someone becoming a resident of KY who has a conceal carry permit from somewhere else that must do certain things? That again is based upon the new law which would no longer require a permit to carry ie: you would not need said permit anymore as having a conceal carry permit while living in KY would not give you any other carrying benefits within our state, you would still be able to apply for a KY permit to benefit from being able to travel to other states and to purchase firearms from FFL's quicker and smoother. Its similar to the same regulation that you are suppose to change your driver license to your new state of residence. Again that section would only apply to someone who has moved to be residence of our state, regardless you would still be free to openly or conceal carry your firearm as a visitor to our state at anytime WITHOUT a permit.

 

[LEX_XDM40compact]

double posted information ( can be deleted)

 

[LEX_XDM40compact]

2. the wording in line 5 of the bill (first page); my reading of that line would make an entire building (even if it were 200 stories tall) off limits, if it had just one of these offices or one of these activities in any tiny part of it. It would make an entire city hall off limits, if a police station was in it and even if that city had no "No concealed weapons" ordinance. Same thing with courthouses. Notice the thing about "Solely occupied by the court of Justice" is gone. Here is what that says: shall not carry a deadly weapon concealed on or about his or her person into a building or any portion of a building which has been posted in accordance with this section and in which any of the following are located:

This would be an example as well to leave the gun signage out of the law! Or if required to stay should not have any criminal penalty for a missed sign regardless of how many occurrences and a nominal fee if needed of a maxim $6.39 ( it really should be very small and random with change) The building would be posted based on a police station being occupied on the 1st floor but the other 199 floors are private businesses and under what I also read it as you could not carry in any part of that building. It should not apply to buildings with more than one business or organization should just state you can not carry into those parts of the building or those "places"

 

[Ghost1958]

This would be an example as well to leave the gun signage out of the law! Or if required to stay should not have any criminal penalty for a missed sign regardless of how many occurrences and a nominal fee if needed of a maxim $6.39 ( it really should be very small and random with change) The building would be posted based on a police station being occupied on the 1st floor but the other 199 floors are private businesses and under what I also read it as you could not carry in any part of that building. It should not apply to buildings with more than one business or organization should just state you can not carry into those parts of the building or those "places"

There should not be a fine. Even if it is a dollar for passing a sign.
The legislature has NO authority granted it by the state constitution to fine a person for carrying past a sign.
They can by law only alllow or prevent cc.

This is why very few want this bill its a slippery slope.
Assembly has no power to levy that type of fine. But lets pretend they do to pass this bill.
Of course 50 bucks is to much but 6 is ok.

A prime example of not being sble to trust lamguage in anything where polticians sre concerned.
The state constitution states the assemblies power concerning guns, .
They over stepped it by creating permits to cc.
Now they want to institute fines on carry in a larger breach of the state constitution.
Demonstrsbly they they cant be trusted to follow simple language.
Much less a convoluted mess lime this bill.

 

[Ghost1958]

The legislature has NO authority granted it by the state constitution to fine a person for carrying past a sign.
They can by law only alllow or prevent cc....snip

That is a ridiculous assertion. The state government regulates open carry every day and has for decades. If you think they can't, just open carry into a school. They will very quickly show you that they can pass laws about open carry. They also do it in bars with loaded guns, they do it in prisons and other detention facilities, by administrative regulation. I challenge you to back up your words with your actions. If what you say has any validity, you should have no problem convincing a judge that you are right. If you won't do it, you are admitting that you are wrong.

If they can't be trusted to "follow simple language" they could just arrest you for going past a sign, right now and ignore the existing law. That doesn't happen, because they do "follow simple language". If they can't be trusted to follow the law, what is the use of having any law. What is the need to argue about the wording of this law if they can't be trusted to follow it, any way. You seem to have come unhinged. I think I'll withdraw from any further conversations with you, until you can get yourself composed a bit.

I have a much easier task for you than single handedly taking on a legislature that over steps its authority by staging a one man protest.

Show me in the KY state constitution, ANYTHING that empowers the state to do one single thing concerning guns other than prevent carry of concealed weapons.

They do such as the permit scheme and this bill and we allow it because they dangle a carrot we like.
But they are not empowered to do so.
You cant find that empowerment in the KSC.
Its why all gun regs in ky say concealed deadly weapon.

Ill wait.

 

[Ghost1958]

The legislature has NO authority granted it by the state constitution to fine a person for carrying past a sign.
They can by law only alllow or prevent cc....snip

That is a ridiculous assertion. The state government regulates open carry every day and has for decades. If you think they can't, just open carry into a school. They will very quickly show you that they can pass laws about open carry. They also do it in bars with loaded guns, they do it in prisons and other detention facilities, by administrative regulation. I challenge you to back up your words with your actions. If what you say has any validity, you should have no problem convincing a judge that you are right. If you won't do it, you are admitting that you are wrong.

If they can't be trusted to "follow simple language" they could just arrest you for going past a sign, right now and ignore the existing law. That doesn't happen, because they do "follow simple language". If they can't be trusted to follow the law, what is the use of having any law. What is the need to argue about the wording of this law if they can't be trusted to follow it, any way. You seem to have come unhinged. I think I'll withdraw from any further conversations with you, until you can get yourself composed a bit.

I have a much easier task for you than single handedly taking on a legislature that over steps its authority by staging a one man protest.

Show me in the KY state constitution, ANYTHING that empowers the state to do one single thing concerning guns other than prevent carry of concealed weapons.

They do such as the permit scheme and this bill and we allow it because they dangle a carrot we like.
But they are not empowered to do so.
You cant find that empowerment in the KSC.
Its why all gun regs in ky say concealed deadly weapon.
As far as convincing a judge you and I both know there isnt any caselaw on oc in ky to work with. Because OC charges that do hit court are almost always dismissed out of hand. Or lost by the state.
As is ky simply mirrors Fed law as to carrying in school.
To my knowledge, there have been NO convictions concerning OC in a bar.


Ill wait. Ill wait for the section of the KY. Constitution that empowers the legilsture to do more than allow or deny cc.
Much easier for you to find that than me be arressted under an illegal law, illegally emforced at the point of a gun to make a point.

 

[Ghost1958]

The legislature has NO authority granted it by the state constitution to fine a person for carrying past a sign.
They can by law only alllow or prevent cc....snip

That is a ridiculous assertion. The state government regulates open carry every day and has for decades. If you think they can't, just open carry into a school. They will very quickly show you that they can pass laws about open carry. They also do it in bars with loaded guns, they do it in prisons and other detention facilities, by administrative regulation. I challenge you to back up your words with your actions. If what you say has any validity, you should have no problem convincing a judge that you are right. If you won't do it, you are admitting that you are wrong.

If they can't be trusted to "follow simple language" they could just arrest you for going past a sign, right now and ignore the existing law. That doesn't happen, because they do "follow simple language". If they can't be trusted to follow the law, what is the use of having any law. What is the need to argue about the wording of this law if they can't be trusted to follow it, any way. You seem to have come unhinged. I think I'll withdraw from any further conversations with you, until you can get yourself composed a bit.

Im not unhinged at all. Though my point seems to be getting lost in the rush to defend a bad carry bill. As it reads now.

My point is simple.
The Kentucky State Constitution in one simple sentence spells out specifically what the General Assemblies authority is concerning guns and carry.
To prevent the carry of concealed weapons.
Clear and concise. No authority granted to create permits . Certainly not to fine carrying past a no gun sign.

Did the GA adhere to that? No.
They created a permit scheme when they only have power to allow or not allow cc.
They were granted no authority to create prohibited places. But they did.
None of that is debateable.
My point is, if they could not follow one clear sentence in the KSC, what makes one think they wont make a nightmare for carriers out of this bill if allowed to levy fines they have no power to levy, and and give themselves any wiggle room at all.?

 

[poetdante]

For the same reason the AG in 1996 said prohibiting carry on college campuses is valid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Animalou812]

I have a much easier task for you than single handedly taking on a legislature that over steps its authority by staging a one man protest.

Show me in the KY state constitution, ANYTHING that empowers the state to do one single thing concerning guns other than prevent carry of concealed weapons.

They do such as the permit scheme and this bill and we allow it because they dangle a carrot we like.
But they are not empowered to do so.
You cant find that empowerment in the KSC.
Its why all gun regs in ky say concealed deadly weapon.
As far as convincing a judge you and I both know there isnt any caselaw on oc in ky to work with. Because OC charges that do hit court are almost always dismissed out of hand. Or lost by the state.
As is ky simply mirrors Fed law as to carrying in school.
To my knowledge, there have been NO convictions concerning OC in a bar.


Ill wait. Ill wait for the section of the KY. Constitution that empowers the legilsture to do more than allow or deny cc.
Much easier for you to find that than me be arressted under an illegal law, illegally emforced at the point of a gun to make a point.

As far as open carrying in "bars" I routinely carry in restaurants / bars. Not sure if that is s good example but I have never had any issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LEX_XDM40compact]

@Ghost I am still very curious as to what your problem is with the reciprocity? Please read back on page 2 our replies in regards to that. There is not one line in the bill that is bad in regards to this?

 

[Ghost1958]

@Ghost I am still very curious as to what your problem is with the reciprocity? Please read back on page 2 our replies in regards to that. There is not one line in the bill that is bad in regards to this?

Instead of it simply being Ky recognizes any state that recognizes us, the bill will have a beaucrat with KSP "negotiating" written agreements with other states.

Today I spoke with one of the heavy hitter co sponsors of this bill.
He had only been given a summary of the bill , been contacted by some low info NRA members who dont know what is in the bill to co sponsor it, assumed it was a pro carry bill since the NRA supports it and co sponsored it.

He DID NOT know the added fol sign, fines, penalties were in it.

Nor the striking out of the school lot vehicle provision. Once informed he is not nearly as certaim as Gutshot that sec 3.applis to schools.

If those changes are not written out of the bill entirely he will withdraw his sponsorship.

A bit more checking around has me VERYcomfortable that this bill , unless all three of those areas are put back as they were,
Unstrike the school parking lot provision
Leave signage and no gun sign law as is now,
Leave recoprosity as is now. This bill is going nowhere. Apparently emough of our legislators care about keeping ky gun friendly and not opening doors to future disasters to flatten this bill unless it becomes a simple no permit needed bill and nothing more.

Even is a few gun carriers are willing too jump over a cliff to get rid of permits.

Id urge folks to call or email the house judicuary members about the flaws in this bill and tell them you support it if it becomes a simple no permit needed bill.

Otherwise its not going to see the light of day.

It also came to my attention a bill of this type is not needed at all.
A simple bill repealing the law requiring a permit to cc, and leaving the ccdw process available for those that want one for travel is all that is needed.
The same could have been done im lieu of the present permit scheme back in the 90s and adding an optional permit to meet those eith recoprosity needs.
Not nearly the revenue in that though.

 

[Ghost1958]

Carrying a "loaded" gun in a bar is illegal, KRS 244.125. It makes no distinction between a concealed and openly carried firearm. Its one of those laws that Ghost1958 says can't be passed. Restaurants are a different animal and are exempted from KRS 244.125. Restaurants that serve alcohol are also covered in the concealed carry law, KRS 237.110 (16)(e). This bill, HB 531, will remove the part in KRS 237.110. The other one will remain, almost, unchanged by HB 531. Violating KRS 244.125 can lead to serious problems for you, including the forfeiture of your firearm. Here is a link to KRS 244.125: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=43043

You are misquoting me. I didnt say those laws couldnt be passed.
That Fed or State Gov passes laws they hsve no constitutional authority to pass is nothing new.

I said the Ky State Constitution only empowers the General Assembly to prevent the carry of concealed weapons.

That is a fact. The laws passed in ky almost all pertain to CC because of that fact and most of those they made a huge stretch to enact. They only have Consitutional authority to prevent cc or allow it. Not regulte it or requore permits for it.

OC they have no legitimate regulating powers over at all. Hence no caselaw in Ky on OC
Nor any convictions for "violating" an OC regulation like oc in bars.
There is a law against it. But to my knowledge no convictions that have stood under that or any other OC regulation.
There may have been one but I can find no record of it.

 

[Ghost1958]

It is not a fact. That is not what the Ky constitution says. Once again, you are not reading what is written.

Well then, since they are all unconstitutional, you will be going right out and OC'ing into a school pretty soon, right? Come back and let me know how it works out for you. If you won't do it, you know you are wrong.

Your dancing in circles. Very simple. Show us one line in the Ky state constitution that empowers anyone to do anything othet tjan prevent concealed carry.
Im still waiting. It is not there and that IS a FACT.

One of your meets is already been put wise to this scam and isnt supportive of it now that he has been other than if its rewritten.

That person is not sure on the school carry as you seem to be.

Yes reciprosity is a bit different. Not deal breaker so but it is being hsndled a bit diferent.

Im not spewing misinfo. Im repeating what is there to read.
Simply put the bill introduces FOL signs in ky.
Not rewritten, dead bill.

School lot vehicle carry is questionable.
Not rewritten, dead bill.

Likely not enough time to rewrite this bill for it to get out of judicuary anyway.

Shame too. If one of our reps had actually written the thing instead of just proposing an outside influences bill it probably wouldnt have been a simple permitless carry bill without the poison in it. And might have gotten some where.

As is nobody and I do mean nobody that was in support of this bill is after they find out it intros FOL signs with even a 50 cent penalty.
Except three folks here.

I doubt the republican that proposed the senate version knows what is in it.
Probably not the Dem either.

 

[Ghost1958]

It is not a fact. That is not what the Ky constitution says. Once again, you are not reading what is written.

Well then, since they are all unconstitutional, you will be going right out and OC'ing into a school pretty soon, right? Come back and let me know how it works out for you. If you won't do it, you know you are wrong.

Ky BOR. No 7
" The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the sttate, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons".

That is exactly what it says. Now I still am saying it says something it doesnt say?