• 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.
  • 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.

New Bill to remove restrictions of place on Concealed Carry in Ky.

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
458
Location
Central Ky.
#1
BR 97 Pre-Filed for the 2019 session of the General Assembly would allow a person with a concealed carry license to carry in all places in Ky. with the exception of:
1. Police Stations
2.Sheriffs' offices
3.Court of Justice courtrooms or court proceedings
4.An area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property

Everywhere else will be OK; bars, schools, colleges and Universities, City Council meetings, Courthouses, and removes the authority of a city to put up "No Concealed Weapons" signs.
BR 97 is sponsored by Rep. Robert Goforth of East Bernstadt.

A similar bill has been introduced by Representative Tim Moore of E-town for the last three years. That bill has gone nowhere.I can find no mention of open carry and how that would be affected for unlicensed people by this bill.

BR 97 can be seen here:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/19RS/BR97/bill.pdf
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,994
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#2
(1)Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, no person, without a valid concealed deadly weapon license, shall be in possession of a loaded, as defined in KRS 237.060, firearm while actually within the room where alcoholic beverages are being sold by the drink of a building on premises licensed to sell distilled spirits and wine at retail by the drink for consumption on the licensed premises pursuant to KRS Chapter 243.
If having a conceal carry license does not require the firearm to be carried concealed it would be reasonable to say that all that is required to carry in a bar (open or concealed) is a license.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
458
Location
Central Ky.
#5
Any guess from you as to whether this bill has a better chance than the predecessors you mentioned, gutshot?
The election and other unknown events will always be the deciding factor, Brian. Nobody can predict when the next school shooting will occur. The Marshall Co. shooting put all gun bills on hold last year. The years before that, the Dems. were in control of the House, Daryl Owens was the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and no gun bill could even get a hearing.

If the Dems win the House, Mary Lou Marzian could become the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. She is the most anti-gun member of the General Assembly. No gun bill would get a hearing. Ask me again in November.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
505
Location
MO, USA
#6
The Marshall Co. shooting put all gun bills on hold last year.
I hope the Republicans are finally learning about this one. I know some have learned. When an inconvenient event happens, Dems never become shy about hearing their bills. (Do they?) From what I see, they just keep pushing even harder. Of course the news is always on their side. The way politics are today, people want a strong agenda; it rarely pays to be on the defensive.

The Dems are also much further left than they have been for a long time. In years past, they were always afraid to appear anti-gun during election time. They tried to make it seem like the normal gun owners should feel secure; they were just after some hard to define group of gun fanatics. They fooled some people over the years, but now those days are almost gone. Now Dems are bold enough to say they are going to take away your guns.

Better not let them; it will happen faster than you think if they take over! Harder to roll things back if we let things slip away. Politics have changed a lot, there's a lot to lose; we must stand firm and vote diligently! :)
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
458
Location
Central Ky.
#7
This bill could be the biggest change to concealed carry since it was passed in 1996.

This bill appears to remove the ability of private property owners and lessees to ban concealed weapons on their property. This could be the end of "No Guns" signs on stores and restaurants.

Go to the bill and look at page 22. The bill strikes all of the wording in subsection (17) of KRS 237.110. That wording is about placing signs on private property, banning guns in day care centers and health care centers. All of that wording has been removed. Tim Moore's bill does not do that.

Not only is this a better bill, the sponsor, Robert Goforth isn't carrying all of Tim Moore's stink from last year. When the sexual assault scandal hit last year, 7 Republican members of the House of Rep. tried to get the Republican Speaker of the House, Jeff Hoover expelled from the House. Tim Moore was one of those seven people. They didn't get it done. The House Republicans were divided into two factions, one pro Hoover one anti Hoover. I had one Representative tell me last year that if Tim Moore had a bill that would cure cancer, he couldn't get it passed, due to the fighting among the Republicans over Hoover. Nobody knows if the Republicans will still be in control of the House after the election and nobody knows if Hoover will be reelected Speaker if they are in charge and nobody knows if Tim Moore will still have some stink on him again this year. Maybe, it will all be "forgive and forget". Robert Goforth has none of that to deal with.

I spoke with Rep. Goforth on Sunday evening. He seems to be a very intelligent and likable person. I think that he intends to put some real effort into this bill.
 

Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
12
Location
E-Town
#12
"Most people may not realize that the person next to you has a clip in his left pocket and a gun in his right pocket and there's nothing law enforcement can do about it," Goforth said. "They're already doing it, so they need to be trained, they need to be licensed and we need to hold them to a higher standard."

The old clipazine... sigh.
 

Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
113
Location
Kentucky
#13
The more I read about "trained " and held to a "higher standard " the less I trust it.

An Owensboro cop fired twice for no reason at a man in his own backyard. The man returned fire not knowing who was shooting at him.

Open and shut by KY statute. Homeowner was justified returning fire at a officer who did not ID. fired first for no reason.

But because it was a cop the KSP admitting he had the right to fire on the officer, went to 's grand jury anyway. Homeowner charged with assault.


Such cases make me very leery of "higher standards " for armed citizens. And permits or required training are infringement .

I was all for this bill but having some SERIOUS second thoughts.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,774
Location
here nc
#14
The more I read about "trained " and held to a "higher standard " the less I trust it.
An Owensboro cop fired twice for no reason at a man in his own backyard. The man returned fire not knowing who was shooting at him.
Open and shut by KY statute.
Homeowner was justified returning fire at a officer who did not ID. fired first for no reason. But because it was a cop the KSP admitting he had the right to fire on the officer, went to 's grand jury anyway.
Homeowner charged with assault.
Such cases make me very leery of "higher standards " for armed citizens. And permits or required training are infringement .
I was all for this bill but having some SERIOUS second thoughts.
Humm...verrry interesting Ghost, very Interesting,
First 10 Oct 18 reference on google i found was from the ‘boys in blue’ cite which seems to fail to mention the officer shot first: https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesma...was-suspicious-person-owD3-zPK5USdDK3MK8ju0A/

This newspeek 10 oct 18 cite, seems to have your version: http://www.14news.com/2018/10/10/police-scene-officer-involved-shooting-owensboro/
 

Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
113
Location
Kentucky
#15
I can't find it right now. But KSP admitted Morris fired his weapon. Something conviently left out of the BLM version.
KSP OFFICER king, KSP spokesperson, said "both men had a right to fire".

Like I said not my version.
Though it makes 0 sense that the homeowner, with no criminal record would fire on anyone without need.

Anyway the fact that the boys in blue repeatedly leave out a fact they previously admitted, that Morris did fire his weapon, twice, doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy about this bill.

If civilians and LEO were held to the same standard I personally would be less leery of the bill. But that is not and never has been the case.

But after reading it, while it does reduce the number of places one supposedly can't carry, it only applies to ccdw holders. The ccdw being infringement to begin with. Instead of all armed citizens as it should.

And the sponsors talk of training and licensing, higher standards etc are making me feel alot less supportive of the bill.
 

Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
113
Location
Kentucky
#16
I also do understand that the legislature has no regulatory power over OC. So any bill is going to not mention anything but CCDW.

Still , the sponsors talk of training and higher standards is sort of a red flag. Still thinking on it but my initial enthusiasm has dampened a bit.
The Representative is right about one for sure though.
Folks will carry where they wish, unconstitutional law or not.
 

Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
458
Location
Central Ky.
#17
I hope the Republicans are finally learning about this one. I know some have learned. When an inconvenient event happens, Dems never become shy about hearing their bills. (Do they?) From what I see, they just keep pushing even harder. Of course the news is always on their side. The way politics are today, people want a strong agenda; it rarely pays to be on the defensive.

The Dems are also much further left than they have been for a long time. In years past, they were always afraid to appear anti-gun during election time. They tried to make it seem like the normal gun owners should feel secure; they were just after some hard to define group of gun fanatics. They fooled some people over the years, but now those days are almost gone. Now Dems are bold enough to say they are going to take away your guns.

Better not let them; it will happen faster than you think if they take over! Harder to roll things back if we let things slip away. Politics have changed a lot, there's a lot to lose; we must stand firm and vote diligently! :)
Which democrat members of the Ky. General Assembly are you referring to?
 

Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
458
Location
Central Ky.
#18
I also do understand that the legislature has no regulatory power over OC. So any bill is going to not mention anything but CCDW.

Still , the sponsors talk of training and higher standards is sort of a red flag. Still thinking on it but my initial enthusiasm has dampened a bit.
The Representative is right about one for sure though.
Folks will carry where they wish, unconstitutional law or not.
The more I read about "trained " and held to a "higher standard " the less I trust it.

An Owensboro cop fired twice for no reason at a man in his own backyard. The man returned fire not knowing who was shooting at him.

Open and shut by KY statute. Homeowner was justified returning fire at a officer who did not ID. fired first for no reason.

But because it was a cop the KSP admitting he had the right to fire on the officer, went to 's grand jury anyway. Homeowner charged with assault.


Such cases make me very leery of "higher standards " for armed citizens. And permits or required training are infringement .

I was all for this bill but having some SERIOUS second thoughts.
The more I read about "trained " and held to a "higher standard " the less I trust it.

An Owensboro cop fired twice for no reason at a man in his own backyard. The man returned fire not knowing who was shooting at him.

Open and shut by KY statute. Homeowner was justified returning fire at a officer who did not ID. fired first for no reason.

But because it was a cop the KSP admitting he had the right to fire on the officer, went to 's grand jury anyway. Homeowner charged with assault.


Such cases make me very leery of "higher standards " for armed citizens. And permits or required training are infringement .

I was all for this bill but having some SERIOUS second thoughts.
I can't find it right now. But KSP admitted Morris fired his weapon. Something conviently left out of the BLM version.
KSP OFFICER king, KSP spokesperson, said "both men had a right to fire".

Like I said not my version.
Though it makes 0 sense that the homeowner, with no criminal record would fire on anyone without need.

Anyway the fact that the boys in blue repeatedly leave out a fact they previously admitted, that Morris did fire his weapon, twice, doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy about this bill.

If civilians and LEO were held to the same standard I personally would be less leery of the bill. But that is not and never has been the case.

But after reading it, while it does reduce the number of places one supposedly can't carry, it only applies to ccdw holders. The ccdw being infringement to begin with. Instead of all armed citizens as it should.

And the sponsors talk of training and licensing, higher standards etc are making me feel alot less supportive of the bill.
How does any of this "gossip", "chatter", "conversation", "newspaper quotes" and "unrelated news accounts from Owensboro" affect the plain wording and efficacy of this bill and why would anyone allow any of it to influence their opinion of a bill that none of these things affect in any way? The plain wording of the bill speaks for itself. Nothing else matters. What is in peoples minds means nothing. The only thing that matters is the black letters written on the white paper of the bill. Newspaper articles mean nothing. What Harry told Sally means nothing. What Jim did to Billy means nothing. The bill speaks for itself. Only the bills speaks for the bill. It is what it is and nothing else. It says what it says and nothing else. There are no secret "boogie men" hidden in the text of the bill that will automatically spring out and change all of the words or alter the meaning of the english language to make a bill say the opposite of what it said yesterday.

Anyway, I wouldn't get myself too worked up over this. The bill has about a 10% chance of ever getting a committee hearing. The sponsor, Representative Goforth has been on the job as a legistator for a total time of 4 days. He has never helped any of the other Representative get one of their bills passed. He has never passed one of his own. He has no "credits" to cash in.He has done no favors that require repayment by helping with his bill He is owed no favors. In other words, he is on his own with a very contoversial bill that stinks so bad that nobody wants to get near it. That leaves him a tough job. I'd wager that this bill dies a very quiet death without ever being mentioned again. It will just float along without a committee hearing until sine die. I will do that not because of some scheme cooked up by evil men, it will do that because it is a overreaching bill that would be hard for an experienced legislator to get pasted with the help of all his experienced friends. Then Representative Goforth has the affronafry to declare myself a candidate for Governor. He didn't want to wait his turn.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
113
Location
Kentucky
#19
How does any of this "gossip", "chatter", "conversation", "newspaper quotes" and "unrelated news accounts from Owensboro" affect the plain wording and efficacy of this bill and why would anyone allow any of it to influence their opinion of a bill that none of these things affect in any way? The plain wording of the bill speaks for itself. Nothing else matters. What is in peoples minds means nothing. The only thing that matters is the black letters written on the white paper of the bill. Newspaper articles mean nothing. What Harry told Sally means nothing. What Jim did to Billy means nothing. The bill speaks for itself. Only the bills speaks for the bill. It is what it is and nothing else. It says what it says and nothing else. There are no secret "boogie men" hidden in the text of the bill that will automatically spring out and change all of the words or alter the meaning of the english language to make a bill say the opposite of what it said yesterday.

Anyway, I wouldn't get myself too worked up over this. The bill has about a 10% chance of ever getting a committee hearing. The sponsor, Representative Goforth has been on the job as a legistator for a total time of 4 days. He has never helped any of the other Representative get one of their bills passed. He has never passed one of his own. He has no "credits" to cash in.He has done no favors that require repayment by helping with his bill He is owed no favors. In other words, he is on his own with a very contoversial bill that stinks so bad that nobody wants to get near it. That leaves him a tough job. I'd wager that this bill dies a very quiet death without ever being mentioned again. It will just float along without a committee hearing until sine die. I will do that not because of some scheme cooked up by evil men, it will do that because it is a overreaching bill that would be hard for an experienced legislator to get pasted with the help of all his experienced friends. Then Representative Goforth has the affronafry to declare myself a candidate for Governor. He didn't want to wait his turn.
Not sure it's an "over reaching bill " since it falls short of true uninfringed RTKABA that the 2A demands.

My problem with it and it's not really a deal breaker is it only addresses those with permission slips, as if they are not the infringement they clearly are.

I realize it's hard to include OC in any bill in KY as the legislature has no power over OC per the state constitution. So that I guess has to be given a pass.


The point I was making with my post was if it can be used to require a license, training, and a "higher standard" ,when civilians who carry are already held to "'s higher standard," than LE, it's an unconstitutional bill to begin with.
Though it does look good on paper.
 

Top