• 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.

More Anti-Gun Legislation

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
Half of the bill is great--limiting federal firearm jurisdiction and whatnot. The other half is crap like this:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import:
(a) Any machine gun;
(b) Any short-barreled shotgun;
(c) Any short-barreled rifle
 

Tmhrr

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
47
Location
Ky Usa
Half of the bill is great--limiting federal firearm jurisdiction and whatnot. The other half is crap like this:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import:
(a) Any machine gun;
(b) Any short-barreled shotgun;
(c) Any short-barreled rifle

I agree these are already highly regulated as class 3 weapons and are legal in most states with additional paperwork, and ATF requirments ( the last I heard the process takes up to 6 months). There is no reason to all of the sudden address this non-issue in State Law


machinegunmap.png
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,037
Location
Owingsville,KY
Do I understand this right? Is this a bill to not allow the enforcement of the possible crazy federal laws to be enforced in KY? Is this a bill that we want supported or opposed? I'm getting mixed emotions here considering that the thread title is "More Anti-Gun Legislation."
 
Last edited:

jaegan

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
29
Location
, Kentucky, USA
I don't see any of this bill as anti-gun. The portion about NFA weapons in Section 2 only applies to those weapons:

1. Which, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the security exemplar as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the security exemplar; or

2. Any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.

I don't know of any weapons like that in existence. If they do exist, I have no problem with them being made illegal.


I don't read it that way.

The relevant section from the bill is as follows:
" SECTION 2. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 237 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import:
(a) Any machine gun;
(b) Any short-barreled shotgun;
(c) Any short-barreled rifle; or
(d) Any firearm:
1. Which, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the security exemplar as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the security exemplar; or
2. Any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
"

I don't see any other way to read that than a flat ban on machine guns, SBR's and SBS's, -in addition to- firearms described in part d.
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,037
Location
Owingsville,KY
No, those are semi-colons at the end of (a), (b) and (c), that makes them words in a series. Then there is the word OR before (d) and a colon which precedes a list that applies to the entire sentence. There are no periods. This is all one sentence. Think of it this way:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import: any machine gun; any short-barreled shotgun; any short-barreled rifle; or any firearm: which, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the security exemplar as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the security exemplar; or any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.

I agree that the construction is clumsy and unfortunate, but I know Senator Hornback and Senator Schickel personally and I am certain they have no intentions of banning any weapons.

I had a question(s) but I will PM it to you.
 
Last edited:

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
This could be a slippery slope legislation, IMO.

Regardless, it needs some clean up on the language as it might be interpreted to ban mear possession of these guns. This would seem to really put a hurt on those who have Class 3 weapons as the transfers are contingent on them being legal in the state of residence.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
This could be a slippery slope legislation, IMO.

Regardless, it needs some clean up on the language as it might be interpreted to ban mear possession of these guns. This would seem to really put a hurt on those who have Class 3 weapons as the transfers are contingent on them being legal in the state of residence.

I agree. It appears to me that it is a ban on these weapons, because it is not a continuous super-section. For example: any machine gun is under super-section (a), and the others are under their own super-section. We must also notice that there are semi-colons after the first three (machine guns, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns), then the word "or" followed by "any firearm" with a colon leading into the rest of the statute.

Here is an example of another statute that leads to my conclusion:

(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS Chapter 150.

The above super-sections under the sub-section each have semi-colons after them, but they are individual statements and/or sentences. Only one of these exceptions must be met in order to confiscate a firearm from someone, not all six of them. This is of course sub-section (3) of KRS 237.104. The same applies to the legislation in question. The machine gun is seperated by a semi-colon, not a comma, which means it is its own sentence since the semi-colon is used where a sentence could have ended but didn't.

The real kicker, however, is the use of the word "or." We have the first three items listed under different super-sections seperated by the semi-colon, but at the end of the third item we have the word "or" after the semi-colon, followed by the words "any firearm" followed by a colon, which means any firearm with the following characteristics stated, which is SEPERATED from the first three items in the sub-sections (a), (b) and (c).

This legislation in its current form will definately ban the stated firearms, and it needs to be amended before I could ever support it. It may not have been the sponsors intent, but in its current form that is exactly what it does.
 
Last edited:

jaegan

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
29
Location
, Kentucky, USA
The real kicker, however, is the use of the word "or." We have the first three items listed under different super-sections seperated by the semi-colon, but at the end of the third item we have the word "or" after the semi-colon, followed by the words "any firearm" followed by a colon, which means any firearm with the following characteristics stated, which is SEPERATED from the first three items in the sub-sections (a), (b) and (c).

This legislation in its current form will definately ban the stated firearms, and it needs to be amended before I could ever support it. It may not have been the sponsors intent, but in its current form that is exactly what it does.

Exactly. For what it's worth, I emailed Sen Gregory, since I'm in her district. Based on the response I received, I don't think they intended to ban anything, however as written that is what this would do. I drew her attention to this in a follow up email, so hopefully they'll take another look at it and fix it, but we should definitely keep an eye on this.
 

jaegan

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
29
Location
, Kentucky, USA
No, those are semi-colons at the end of (a), (b) and (c), that makes them words in a series. Then there is the word OR before (d) and a colon which precedes a list that applies to the entire sentence. There are no periods. This is all one sentence. Think of it this way:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import: any machine gun; any short-barreled shotgun; any short-barreled rifle; or any firearm: which, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the security exemplar as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the security exemplar; or any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.

I agree that the construction is clumsy and unfortunate, but I know Senator Hornback and Senator Schickel personally and I am certain they have no intentions of banning any weapons.

hmmmm. I see where you're coming from, I just don't think I agree with the analysis.

You're saying it reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import any machine gun which after removal... etc
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import any short-barreled shotgun which after removal... etc
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import any short-barreled rifle which after removal... etc
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import any firearm which after removal... etc

Whereas I think it reads as:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import any machine gun.
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import any short-barreled shotgun.
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import any short-barreled rifle.
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import any firearm which after removal.... etc.

Even if you're right, I still think the confusion means that it needs to be substantially re-worked.
 
Last edited:

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
Gutshot has it right, this law would not ban any weapons that we would care about.

I care about my Class 3 weapons and I don't think we can take the chance that this proposed law might ban them.

Why did they call out 3 very specific types of firearms? If they were really only concerned about those firearms that could evade a metal detector or x-ray machine they could have just said "any firearm......" and not specified three particular firearm types and then a catch all of "any firearm"?


Trust but verify.
 
Last edited:

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,037
Location
Owingsville,KY
Gutshot has it right, this law would not ban any weapons that we would care about.

I would have to disagree that we don't care about these weapons. I do not own any class 3 weapons and probably never will. But at the same time I don't want any LAC to lose any weapon(s) they may own. When you start not caring about this one or that one, next thing you know the only thing left for them is take is the ones you do care about. No compromises on any of it!
 

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
Thanks for pursuing this, Gutshot. It's nice to know their thinking & intentions. It will be interesting to see if he will make good on this. If there is an exception for Class III registration, it will be interesting to see how a state-based program would work.
 

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
So why even mention anything about Class III firearms if we're not changing any protocol or procedure in regards to it? Whoever authored this bill has made their intentions clear--they wish to not just banish federal control of firearms in Kentucky, but to control them even more so. Please let me know if there are any updates to to this bill or if anyone has dropped their sponsorship of it.
 

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by the urge to match up with federal statutes.

Telling the feds that they can go home because we have it covered, does what? Even if they were to honor our wishes, we just have a gun law that is prosecuted by the state as opposed to the feds.

Be gentle but I need some educating on what we are attempting to accomplish.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I just got off the phone with Senator Paul Hornback, a co-sponsor of this bill. He told me the wording was intentional and had to be that way. It would do no good to claim that a federal law was null and void in Ky. if Ky. didn’t have a law on the books to cover that same subject. We have to show that the federal law is unnecessary because Ky. has already done what we think necessary in that field. I asked about the issue of machine guns, SBR’s and SBS’s. He said they would be illegal, except where properly registered. I told him that I couldn’t find any exception for registration in the bill and he was shocked. He said it was supposed to be in there. He’s going to look into it and get back with me by Tuesday. He will get it fixed or he’ll pull the bill.

Thank you for contacting them on this issue. There are other parts of this bill that I could never support as well, but especially the part that bans the possession, transfer, importation, or sell of machine guns, SBRs and SBSs. They must realize that they need to not only make an exception to possess properly registered items stated above, but they also need to make an exception that allows for people to continue to purchase and transfer these items as long as they are properly registered. If they only except those already in possession and not those that could be possessed in the future, then they still kill our ability to obtain these weapons in the future.

This bill will strip the rights of those that have been committed to a mental institution. You do NOT have to be adjudicated to be admitted to a mental institution, and this is an infringement! I have heard of WAY too many stories here lately of people being committed to mental institutions for NO reason other than a doctor with a vengeance! This takes our rights without the approval of a court, and I cannot support that!

This bill also strips the rights of those that unlawfully use or that are addicted to a controlled substance. We are going to deprive someone of their rights because they smoke a little marijuana? Alcohol is MUCH more dangerous than marijuana, so why not strip gun rights from those that drink? How about from those that drink and drive, because they are much more irresponsible than those that smoke marijuana! Even people that have become addicted to medication, why should we remove their rights over a sickness? We should treat these people, not throw them out and forget about them while at the same time stripping them of their rights. In 1776 people often kept morphine and similiar compounds around for pain and sickness. Would the Founding Fathers have stripped these people of their rights? No, because they kept the same things! Not that it is right, but does the government really have the authority to tell us what we do with our bodies when they ache? Let's leave these infringements to the Federal Government who do it best, and keep Kentucky free.

People that go around selling dope and fueling the problem I could understand taking away their rights, because they are causing serious problems to a lot of people and families.

I cannot support this legislation, and I don't see how others can that truly believe in liberty and our God-given rights.
 
Last edited:

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
I must admit that I don't understand the thought process here either. If you want to tell the Fed to pound sand then they should make it legal to purchase these items in KY without any paperwork. Telling the fed "we'll handle it and don't need you to" is just giving in to the fed. This bill is a terrible thing to pass especially from our "pro" gun community. I imagine that this bill would gain the support of even the anti-gun politicians from Jefferson county, and that in itself is telling enough. This bill is anti liberty and is a very weak stance against the federal government. Really it's not a stance against it at all.
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Where did this come from? I never said that the exemption would only cover possession. It never even occured to me, or to Sen. Hornback, that all the provisions of Section 2. would not be exempted. They certainly would.



I agree with you. When I speak with Sen. Hornback I will insist that the word "involuntarily" be inserted before committed. This will protect those that seek mental health treatment on their own.

This bill also strips the rights of those that unlawfully use or that are addicted to a controlled substance. We are going to deprive someone of their rights because they smoke a little marijuana? Alcohol is MUCH more dangerous than marijuana, so why not strip gun rights from those that drink?

Because alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.




Its not about causing trouble. Its about being addicted and out of control.

I've dealt with this first hand in my family, and those that were addicted were far from out of control. In fact, all they did was try and stay to where they could make it day to day without feeling like they were going to die from withdrawal symptoms.

Now I deal with these individuals on a daily basis, and I can attest that this is something we should certainly be treating people for instead of incarcerating them and destroying their lives forever. Once these people have a felony conviction for nothing more than an addiction then they are ruined for life. They will never get a decent job and therefore they will never be able to live a productive life. So, after they are convicted of felonious crimes, what incentive do they really have to get help and stay straight?

I will be the first to admit that many people do get on narcotics and get out of control -- WAY out of control. However, this is not the case for those that I have witnessed deal with addiction, and we shouldn't punish all for the actions of a few.

As for the bill itself to everyone....

I understand what this bill is TRYING to accomplish, but I believe it does more harm than it does good. We can protect our right to own certain firearms without placing more restrictions on who can keep and bear arms. They are trying to sugar coat it so that the Federal Government doesn't come in and sue them, and that we shouldn't worry about. The Federal Government never attempts to sugar coat anything they do, and I for one am sick and tired of putting up with their nonsense! Kentucky needs to stand up and say enough is enough, not try and skirt our way around legislation that we shouldn't have to skirt around in the first place in a Constitutional Republic.
 
Last edited:
Top