• 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.

Michael Mitchell v University of Kentucky

hotrod

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
569
Location
Union, Kentucky, USA
"The Kentucky Supreme Court notified KC3's attorneys today that they're going to hear the appeal from Michael Mitchell, the young man who was wrongfully terminated from UK Med Center last year!" www.kc3.com

If anyone may know more about the Kentucky Supreme Court picking up this appeal, please post your information. I found this on the www.kc3.com website. I am certainly happy, if the above is true. It is an opportunity to repair conflicting laws and hopefully let me carry at my college. I believe the article said it would be in September before it is heard.
 

UnfetteredMight

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Kentucky
I was just refreshing my memory and looking at the specifics of law in this case and maybe it's late and I'm tired and maybe i'll get up tomorrow and look at this again and realize my mistake, but don't we have a conflicting law here? It's a catch 22.

527.020 Carrying concealed deadly weapon.
(4) Persons, except those specified in subsection (5) of this section, licensed to carry a
concealed deadly weapon pursuant to KRS 237.110 may carry a firearm or other
concealed deadly weapon on or about their persons at all times within the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, if the firearm or concealed deadly weapon is carried
in conformity with the requirements of that section. Unless otherwise specifically
provided by the Kentucky Revised Statutes or applicable federal law, no criminal
penalty shall attach to carrying a concealed firearm or other deadly weapon with a
permit at any location at which an unconcealed firearm or other deadly weapon may
be constitutionally carried.

No person or organization, public or private, shall
prohibit a person licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon from possessing a
firearm, ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in his or her vehicle in
compliance with the provisions of KRS 237.110 and 237.115.


Any attempt by a
person or organization, public or private, to violate the provisions of this subsection
may be the subject of an action for appropriate relief or for damages in a Circuit
Court or District Court of competent jurisdiction.

237.115 Construction of KRS 237.110 -- Prohibition by local government units of
carrying concealed deadly weapons in governmental buildings -- Restriction on
criminal penalties.
(1) Except as provided in KRS 527.020, nothing contained in KRS 237.110 shall be
construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the right of a college,
university, or any postsecondary education facility, including technical schools and
community colleges, to control the possession of deadly weapons on any property
owned or controlled by them
or the right of a unit of state, city, county, urbancounty, or charter county government to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly
weapons by licensees in that portion of a building actually owned, leased, or
occupied by that unit of government.



527.020 prevents penalty by employers as long as it is within the provisions of 237.115.

237.115 allows colleges to prohibit concealed deadly weapons on property controlled by them, except for what is provided in 527.020

.....huh?
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
If u recall that law was changed where neone able to posses a gun could keep it in their vehicle at any employers property as long as vehicle was locked. It was unconstitutional, just like they are trying to fight the current laws that allowed the college to terminate this man for exercising a constitutional right being as the vehicle was his private property. I think the supreme court will rule in our favor just as they most always do on matters such as these. I think the universities that enjoy taking peoples rights away need to remember wat state they r n, and hopefully they r about to.
 

UnfetteredMight

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Kentucky
If u recall that law was changed where neone able to posses a gun could keep it in their vehicle at any employers property as long as vehicle was locked. It was unconstitutional, just like they are trying to fight the current laws that allowed the college to terminate this man for exercising a constitutional right being as the vehicle was his private property. I think the supreme court will rule in our favor just as they most always do on matters such as these. I think the universities that enjoy taking peoples rights away need to remember wat state they r n, and hopefully they r about to.

No nothings been changed, unless your referring to the recent session. Those are direct from the KRS website and 527.020 prohibits employers from stopping employees(only someone with a CC license apparently) from possessing firearms in their vehicle on company property.

Looking at it again after a good nights rest, I can see the intention now, but I can also see why the judge screwed it up. The law needs to be rewritten a little clearer and if they did in this last session, awesome.
 
Last edited:

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
UnfetteredMight:

The Statues You Enumerate are Correct in that Open Carry is Allowed, but Concealed Carry is Prohibited, should Colleges so Elect to do so.

aadvark
 

UnfetteredMight

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Kentucky
Yes you are right, there appears to be a conflict here. However, I don't believe there really is. The Ky. Supreme Court often accepts cases where a conflict exists, or appears to exist, in order to settle that issue. Generally, when two statutes conflict, courts will assume that the General Assembly knew of the first law when they passed the second and will also assume that they wanted the most recently passed statute to apply. That is not always the ruling, as we found out in the Circuit Court where Mr. Mitchell's suit was dismissed. I feel certain that the University's attorneys will argue that Mr. Mitchell's gun was not stored "in accordance with KRS 237.115 and KRS 237.110", because the university had prohibited weapons on their property. They did not argue that in Circuit Court, but chose to ignore KRS 527.020 and the judge allowed them to get away with it and the judge also ignored 527.020 in her ruling. I doubt they will be able to do that before the Ky. Supreme Court. Mitchell's attorney, Chris Hunt of Lexington, will make certain KRS 527.020 is throughly discussed in his brief and his oral argument. The way I read the two statutes, KRS 527.020 is the controlling law and there is no conflict between the two. KRS 237.115 plainly says, in the first sentence, "(1) Except as provided in KRS 527.020". That settles the apparent conflict right there. I don't know how it could be any more plainly written. The intent of the General Assembly is clear. Also, 237.115 was last amended and passed in 2005. 527.020 was last amended and passed in 2007, so it is the most recent. Either one of those two things should cause the Court to rule in Mr. Mitchell's favor. I will admit to being slightly biased and am willing to listen to anyone who has a different opinion on this.

I agree.

UnfetteredMight:

The Statues You Enumerate are Correct in that Open Carry is Allowed, but Concealed Carry is Prohibited, should Colleges so Elect to do so.

aadvark

No, an OAG plainly states that colleges/universities are treated as private property. So they can ask you to leave if you are OCing and the law doesn't appear to provide protection for anybody, without a CCDW, who has a firearm in their vehicle (omitted glove box considering new law in effect in June) while on private property.

No person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit a person licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon from possessing a firearm, ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in his or her vehicle in compliance with the provisions of KRS 237.110 and 237.115.
 
Last edited:

neuroblades

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
1,240
Location
, Kentucky, USA
OK, I'll toss my hat in the ring on this one though I might end up being wrong. *LOL* It sound to me asthough there's no conflict whatsoever, The first KRS allows for carrying/keeping your weapon in your vehicle ANYWHERE you go! The second one simple reads that colleges, universities and the like can still forbid you from actually CARRYING on your person on their property.
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
No nothings been changed, unless your referring to the recent session. Those are direct from the KRS website and 527.020 prohibits employers from stopping employees(only someone with a CC license apparently) from possessing firearms in their vehicle on company property.

Looking at it again after a good nights rest, I can see the intention now, but I can also see why the judge screwed it up. The law needs to be rewritten a little clearer and if they did in this last session, awesome.

KRs 237.106 states neone able to posesa a gun can keep it in their personal vehicle on employers property and employer is liable for denying right. It extends protection to everyone not just ccw holders, BC the previous law was unconstitutional. So back to wat I said before, it was n his personal property n accordance with law. Not actually on the school prop. The law only says u can't posess on detention facility grounds without jailer or wardens permission and of course federal property. It states nothing about colleges, so hopefully sc will rule in his favor and ours.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I agree.



No, an OAG plainly states that colleges/universities are treated as private property. So they can ask you to leave if you are OCing and the law doesn't appear to provide protection for anybody, without a CCDW, who has a firearm in their vehicle (omitted glove box considering new law in effect in June) while on private property.


No person or organization, ublic or private, shall prohibit a person licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon from possessing a firearm, ammunition, or both, orother deadly weapon in his or her vehicle in compliance with the provisions of KRS237.110 and 237.115.[/QUOTE

Btw for ocers wout a ccw license carrying in ur glovebox has been legal since 2006 or 2007, it didnt just pass this leg. Session it was amended to also allow carry in consoles and anyother factory installed storage comparenr without a ccw. As far as krs 237.106 it also has been active since 2006 or 2007. So even if he didn't have a ccw, he was still within the law, like I said everybody can carry on employers prop. In their vehicle not just ccw holders like the older version of the law states
 

UnfetteredMight

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Kentucky
KRs 237.106 states neone able to posesa a gun can keep it in their personal vehicle on employers property and employer is liable for denying right. It extends protection to everyone not just ccw holders, BC the previous law was unconstitutional. So back to wat I said before, it was n his personal property n accordance with law. Not actually on the school prop. The law only says u can't posess on detention facility grounds without jailer or wardens permission and of course federal property. It states nothing about colleges, so hopefully sc will rule in his favor and ours.

Yeah I just saw that in another thread, I stand corrected and relieved, I was a little upset about that one. That goes back to checking the dates as Gutshot said, but I was unaware until tonight that the other law existed, missed that one somehow.

Btw for ocers wout a ccw license carrying in ur glovebox has been legal since 2006 or 2007, it didnt just pass this leg. Session it was amended to also allow carry in consoles and anyother factory installed storage comparenr without a ccw. As far as krs 237.106 it also has been active since 2006 or 2007. So even if he didn't have a ccw, he was still within the law, like I said everybody can carry on employers prop. In their vehicle not just ccw holders like the older version of the law states

I said I omitted glove box carry because of the new law that takes effect in June, not that glove box carry became available this session.

It's agreed, he was within the law, now for the KSC to rule as such.
 
Last edited:

UnfetteredMight

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Kentucky
Read KRS 237.115(1) very closely. It is the only place that I know of in KRS 237.110 or KRS 237.115 where the mention of weapons is not limited to concealed weapons. This attempts to extend the prohibition to OC. The statute shifts gears, between (all) weapons to concealed weapons, in one sentence.

True, because they are considered private property like the local gas station, nevermind some funding they receive comes from the state.

I think this will be the second to last "legislative battleground" for the carrying of weapons for Kentucky, K-12 schools being the last.
 
Last edited:

UnfetteredMight

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
222
Location
Kentucky
Cite please.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/KYAGOp96_40.pdf

The summary.

The geographic areas occupied by university campuses are quite limited. Given this and also given the fact that one has no absolute right to carry arms on to the property of another, it is reasonable to conclude that a university ban on deadly weapons and destructive devices is not clearly contrary to that right to bear arms which is secured by Section 1, Seventh of our Kentucky Constitution.

Universities are unique places of public assembly. Given that the governing boards of public institutions of higher education are authorized to control the method by which university property is used and the purpose for which university property is used, and given that large numbers of people frequently gather on university campuses, a university ban on weapons and destructive devices is not an unreasonable exercise of the police power in furtherance of the public health and safety. The University of Louisville policy prohibiting possession or storage of deadly weapons or destructive devices on any University of Louisville campus or in any facility owned, leased or operated by the University does not violate Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky Constitution. The policy therefore is not void pursuant to Section 26 of the Kentucky Constitution.


One of the reasons why I don't like our AG and I don't think he is as much of a pro 2A supporter as he professes to be. I'm very glad Rand got elected instead of him and we need to get him out of that office.
 
Last edited:

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
UnFetteredMight:

..., ut if The Colleges are Public, then, They would have to Allow Firearms, Right?

Hence..., Preemption under Kentucky Revised Statute 65.870?

BUT..., Preemption would not Cover Colleges as Colleges are NOT: Cities, Counties, or Urban-County Governments.

aadvark
 

Comm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Nicholasville, KY
Thanks gutshot, I really didn't catch that part, but now that I reviewed it, I see what your saying. It helps to have a different set of eyes looking at this stuff.
Thanks again.
 

Comm

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Nicholasville, KY
Hey all,
Maybe gutshot could weigh in on what this means, but I was looking at the Ky Supreme court files, and it listed that Leslie Sanders of the NRA, Wesley Butler of the Ky Hospital Assoc., and Gregory Stivers of the Council of Post Secondary Education, all filed a "Amieus Curiae" in this case.
Other Universities included, Morehead, Eastern, Western Ky, Murray, North Ky, University of Louisville, and Western Ky.
The order was filed on 7-20. Still no mention of when the case will be heard, but gutshot said maybe around September.
This looks to be a big shootout!
 

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
These are what is normally called "Friends of the Court" briefs. They will not participate in the oral arguements, but they submit their views and opinions of law to the court to consider.

I would imagine the NRA brief would be good for our cause, but it is probably a good guess that the other two are not.

Gary
 
Top