• 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.

Constitutional Carry Bill Filed in Ky. Senate

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,780
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
......

What SCOTUS states concerning the RTKABA and 2A is constitutionally void as they were purposefully denied the power of judicial review by the founders only to grant it to themselves in Marbury vs Madison . A power SCOTUS was not granted in the COTUS, illegally grabbed by SCOTUS for SCOTUS.
Yes, yes and yes. BUT:
The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,055
Location
White Oak Plantation
Beg to differ if I understand u correctly.

KY passed a law barring CC. they cannot touch OC here.

That law said not legal to conceal.

Or they could simply have passed nothing and cc would have been legal with no permit.

What the KY constitution did not grant them was the authority to create a permit scam and regulate cc.

They per the KY constitution could only deny or do nothing which would have allowed cc by default.

At any rate the permit scam dreamed up by a handful full of citizens saying they spoke for gun owners and politicians dreamed up CCDW and passed it mid nineties, violating both the 2A and KY constitution.
You are not answering my question, could be me not communicating adequately. How does KY prevent you from CCing. I provided two possible options available to the state, you voluntarily complying with the prior restraint law, or gun confiscation. This is the only way they can "prevent" you from CCing. One way with your help, the other without your help.

OC is not relevant to the CC discussion in the KY constitution.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,055
Location
White Oak Plantation
...

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”
Well this is all nice and all, but meaningless...no? Not only do the states, every single one of them, not complying with the "law of the land" there is not indication the SCOTUS is going to make them comply...even after they told them to comply. 2A...2nd tier (third tier?) right? Sure does seem like it.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,780
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Well this is all nice and all, but meaningless...no? Not only do the states, every single one of them, not complying with the "law of the land" there is not indication the SCOTUS is going to make them comply...even after they told them to comply. 2A...2nd tier (third tier?) right? Sure does seem like it.
I would not agree that it's meaningless. As to the SCOTUS, they have no army to enforce any of their opinions.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,055
Location
White Oak Plantation
I would not agree that it's meaningless. As to the SCOTUS, they have no army to enforce any of their opinions.
If the states retain prior restraints, and SCOTUS cannot compel the states to delete the prior restraints, this pretty much equates to meaningless...their proclamations in Heller are.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
905
Location
Kentucky
You are not answering my question, could be me not communicating adequately. How does KY prevent you from CCing. I provided two possible options available to the state, you voluntarily complying with the prior restraint law, or gun confiscation. This is the only way they can "prevent" you from CCing. One way with your help, the other without your help.

OC is not relevant to the CC discussion in the KY constitution.
Maybe I'm missing something your asking but I'll try again.

KY constitution originally stated the riight to be armed shall not be questioned.
There was no law against OC or cc. One could carry as they wished.

It was amended later to the present version which only empowers the legislature to pass laws to prevent cc.

They did. Making cc illegal in KY.

Mid nineties. A small group formed in KY and pushed thru the legislature a cc permit scam, where if one paid a fee, went to a Class yada yada, and read a book full of new, meanigless regulations one could get a permit to hide a whole list of deadly weapons. A permit and requirements they were NOT empowered to create.

Constitutionality the KY gov could only deny cc if it chose too. Thats it and that's all.
No authority to create a permission slip scam as they did anyway.

Cc without the permission slip however remained illegal and will until this June sometime.

As to HOW they prevented cc. They passed a law making illegal to do so. Though most Kentuckians ignored that and did anyway.

That's my best effort to answer what I believe your asking.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
905
Location
Kentucky
If the states retain prior restraints, and SCOTUS cannot compel the states to delete the prior restraints, this pretty much equates to meaningless...their proclamations in Heller are.
Agree to 's point. the states and SCOTUS itself ignore the intent of 2A as written.

And states are constitutionally not required to recognize nor enforce acts of Congress.

That said the BOR wasn't an act of Congress. It came about as the result of the 1st and only constitution of states which created the COTUS.

The COTUS is binding on the states.

SCOTUS did force Chicago and Illinois to create a cc permit.

The same with New York I believe.

What should happen if SCOTUS judges had a shred of integrity instead of being political hacks, is SCOTUS ruling based on the 2a that all attempts to regulate arms are unconstititonal. Which they are.
 

Chief Ten Beers

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
154
Location
Western Kentucky
It's official. The date that SB 150 becomes effective is June 27th. Ky. Attorney General says so here:

https://ag.ky.gov/government/opinions/Opinions New/OAG19-005.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3uAvy3qh8hF7UCH6auf6Bmg0ANwieqVBObgk8-LrY9aJLdKA8Tto9R1uo
I'm glad to hear this. There's a gun show coming up on May 4-5 in Paducah, and I think I'll go and see if I can find a good .357 wheel gun for cc. I've been open carrying during the summer months since I moved here to Kentucky, but not during the winter months when I have to wear a coat. :( Now I won't have to worry about it. :D
 
Top