• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Concealed Carry In Kentucky Without A License

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
350
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
LEGISLATIVE ACTION ALERT

SUPPORT HB 113 - http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/11RS/HB113.htm

Rep. Mike Harmon from Danville, the sponsor of this new concealed carry bill, recently met with members of Take Back Kentucky, Campaign for Liberty and OpenCarry.org, and they fixed the language in the bill. The concerns we had with the bill were not intentional. They were mostly legalese. This is a good bill, and would add Kentucky to Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona as states that do not require a state issued license to practice the fundamental and unalienable right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether a weapon is openly carried or concealed. We'd keep our existing concealed carry license for those who wanted reciprocity to carry concealed in other states.

It's time for the calls to flood into the Capitol to support HB 113.

Call the Legislative Message line in Frankfort: 1-800-372-7181 (Until 11 PM! No excuses!)

The first Message is for YOUR representative, the House leadership, and the House Judiciary Committee: "Please support our Second Amendment Rights and pass HB 113; the Concealed Carry Bill"

Second Message: Thank representative Mike Harmon for sponsoring HB 113



BTW - Mike Harmon is the running mate of Phil Moffett, a pro-liberty (pro-2A!) candidate for governor in 2011.
http://www.PhilMoffett.com

BTW#2 - I'll have a table at the Lexington Gun Show on February 19th and 20th, promoting HB 113, the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act, and Phil Moffett for governor. Come on by and say hi!
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
The States of: Montana, Utah, New Hampshire, AND Wyoming; are in a Race with Kentucky to become The Nations' 4th Constitutional Carry State!
 

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
So question, what does this mean for those 18-21? Right now that demographic can OC. If this passes, will only those 21+ be able to OC or CC?
 

trooper46

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
150
Location
, ,
So question, what does this mean for those 18-21? Right now that demographic can OC. If this passes, will only those 21+ be able to OC or CC?

I see your point. Although the proposed bill only says 21 or older. I don't think it could be interpreted to legally change the age specifically for open carry as this would clearly violate Kentucky's constitution, being that the general assembly can only regulate concealed carry as it applies to adults (legally 18 or older).

Just my take on it.
 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
350
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
It's my understanding, after reading the bill and talking to the sponsor, Mike Harmon, that nothing changes for the existing open carry situation. HB 113 essentially removes the need for a license but mostly leaves concealed carry as it is. That's certainly the legislative intent, and after the input from Kentuckians For The Right To Bear Arms, Campaign For Liberty and OpenCarry.org, I think it's a lot closer to that intent, although the legalese is a bit tough for me to grok. The bill does stipulate 21 for concealed carry, though.
 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
350
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
When is this due to come up for vote?

Odd numbered years are short sessions in Frankfort, so time is short. It comes up for a vote when the committee chair schedules it to come up for discussion and a vote. If passed out of the House committee, Greg Stumbo decides if/when it comes up for a floor vote in the House. If it passes the House, David Williams decides if/when it comes up for a floor vote in the Senate. If it passes the Senate, Governor Beshear decides whether to pass it (he probably would).

The more pressure we bring to bear on our legislators, the sooner it's voted upon and the more likely it is to pass.

In my experience, Kentucky has a lot of pro-gun voters, but very few pro-gun activists. We're a passive lot. We hope our legislators "give" us some pro-gun legislation, or don't "take away" too many of our gun rights. That's not how it's intended to work, and we won't get much of what we want if we sit back and hope for change. If we got serious, we could exert enough pressure to get A LOT of pro-gun legislation passed, but we don't seem to have TWO MINUTES to call Frankfort to demand good legislation. Instead, we hope others do it for us so we can reap the benefit. We allow a few anti-gun legislators from Louisville and Lexington (Darryl Owens, Mary Lou Marzian, Kathy Stein, Ruth-Ann Palumbo, Kelly Flood), to run rough shod over the vast majority of rural pro-gun legislators by abusing their committee chairmanship positions. We allow Senate President David Williams and Speaker of the House Greg Stumbo to pretend to be pro-gun moderates while working behind the scenes to make sure the bills die in committee, or are not called for a floor vote, or are called for a vote before the support has fully formed.

Seriously! TWO MINUTES! Call, and get your friends and family to call! See the first post for details.
 

neuroblades

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
1,240
Location
, Kentucky, USA
It's my understanding, after reading the bill and talking to the sponsor, Mike Harmon, that nothing changes for the existing open carry situation. HB 113 essentially removes the need for a license but mostly leaves concealed carry as it is. That's certainly the legislative intent, and after the input from Kentuckians For The Right To Bear Arms, Campaign For Liberty and OpenCarry.org, I think it's a lot closer to that intent, although the legalese is a bit tough for me to grok. The bill does stipulate 21 for concealed carry, though.

Liberty, one thing I remember reading and was curious if it stayed in the legislation. There was mention that one major thing it would change was the part of the law pertaining to employers not legally being allowed to stop OC in ypour POV while on company property. My understanding was that IF the Constitutional Carry passes, this would gain legal teeth allowing an employee to actively take legal actions against employers that break this law. Has this stayed the same?
 
Last edited:

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
350
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
Liberty, one thing I remember reading and was curious if it stayed in the legislation. There was mention that one major thing it would change was the part of the law pertaining to employers not legally being allowed to stop OC in your POV while on company property. My understanding was that IF the Constitutional Carry passes, this would gain legal teeth allowing an employee to actively take legal actions against employees that break this law. Has this stayed the same?

This was a point of discussion during the conference call to understand the bill and fix any issues. The bill is complicated by the need to address several existing gun laws in Kentucky. The bill includes external references to those bills, often with lengthy passages struck through and much less text to replace it. Overall, the law is simplified (almost always a good thing), but the bill to reduce the legalese must contain the legalese that is being eliminated, so the bill is much more complex than it would be if the gun law complexity didn't previously exist. Our goal was to make sure that the good stuff (Castle law, concealed carry in your personally owned vehicle in an employer's parking lot) wasn't accidentally eliminated with the bad stuff. In short, it's not.

Here's the relevant portion of the actual bill:

Section 6. KRS 237.106 is amended to read as follows:
(1) Any other statute to the contrary notwithstanding, no person, including but not limited to 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) Except for a person prohibited from possessing a firearm under Section 1 or 2 of this Act, any other statute to the contrary notwithstanding, 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.
(4) An employer, public or private, that fires, disciplines, demotes, or otherwise punishes an employee who is lawfully exercising a right guaranteed by this section and who is engaging in conduct in compliance with this statute shall be liable in civil damages. An employee may seek and the court shall grant an injunction against an employer who is violating the provisions of this section when it is found that the employee is in compliance with the provisions of this section.
(5) Any person or organization, public or private, who violates or attempts to violate the provisions of this section may be subject to an action for appropriate relief, damage, or a combination thereof in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Read the bill yourself, if you dare! The quoted portion above is most of page ten. I hate legalese.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/11RS/HB113/bill.doc
 

aagab

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
26
Location
Georgetown, Kentucky, United States
As usual it looks like our legislators will do nothing. Time is running out and the bill (just like any other bill that means much of anything) is going nowhere. :banghead: Really would like to know why our taxes are wasted on these people. I work in government and all I ever see is childish games and back stabbing between these people who supposedly represent the people of this state.:cuss:
 

Liberty4Ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
350
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
One of the bills that's probably going nowhere is a repeal of the legislation that greatly expanded the time the legislature is in session. There is a strong movement coalescing behind the increasingly popular opinion that the Kentucky Legislature is at best a waste of time, and at worst, a lot of money being spent to make the lives of Kentuckians worse, by taking away our liberty and charging us a lot of money that we don't have for this service.

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
--- Mark Twain
 
Top