• 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.

Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Spreads To Kentucky

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,175
Location
here nc
They certainly have the authority to tell local government what they can and cannot do. Telling local governments that they can't ban guns does not increase the state power in any way, in fact since cities and counties are subdivisions of the state government they are allowing less power to be exercised.

uh whom is the infamous "THEY" you use in different contexts...
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
They certainly have the authority to tell local government what they can and cannot do. Telling local governments that they can't ban guns does not increase the state power in any way, in fact since cities and counties are subdivisions of the state government they are allowing less power to be exercised.
Yes it does increase a state power it never possessed concerning guns or weapons.

Neither the counties cities OR the state have any legal constitutional power to regulate weapons per the 2A.

If you want to gloom onto the ky constitution , the state only has authority granted it to prevent concealed carry. The counties and cities have none at all.

There doesn't need to be a law passed enhancing a power it does not possess, as the counties and cities have no authority to regulate weapons in the first place.

Lewis county is going to be the next 2A sanctuary county. Congressman Thomas Massey seems to not see the issue the same as you.

Sherriffs are willing to go to jail and fiscal courts are ready to use county funds to defend them if little Andy decides to try something funny on his own.
I'll wager he wont ,especially now that the sanctuary county and city movement has hit ky. He at least wants to finish one term I'd imagine.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,175
Location
here nc
snippp...

Sherriffs [sic] are willing to go to jail and fiscal courts are ready to use county funds to defend them if little Andy decides to try something funny on his own.
I'll wager he wont ,especially now that the sanctuary county and city movement has hit ky. He at least wants to finish one term I'd imagine.

So a seated, still sworn duly Elected by the citizenry Sheriff would be put in jail ? Truly...for what offense?

there is nothing of distinction in their oath of office these "upstanding" ELECTED officials could be incarcerated for?

"support" the national & state constitutions ~ oh and be true to the commonwealth...i'm sure they exemplified that support constantly and consistently as they execute their office...speaking of...

faithfully "execute" the office of the sheriff ~ pray tell what on this flat planet does that encompass?

the KY members and other readers can not really believe these and other LEs enforce every bloody law/statute/ordinance ~ state or federal ~ on the books fairly and equally amongst the privileged & ethnic impoverished populations do you?

these fine upstanding elected idiots aren't going to the houscow any time so they are either running for reelection or been sucking down too much of the famed KY spirits ...my bet is they are setting themselves up by promoting their 4.5 minutes of fame to boast during reelection time!
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
Regulating cop behavior is not regulating guns.
If they have to go to jail which I highly doubt, it will be for upholding their oath and refusing an exc order by little Andy regulating guns. And sheriffs are not answerable to the govorner in this state.
So yep it is ALL about regulating guns since the governor has no authority over ky sheriffs.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,175
Location
here nc
If they have to go to jail which I highly doubt, it will be for upholding their oath and refusing an exc order by little Andy regulating guns. And sheriffs are not answerable to the govorner in this state.
So yep it is ALL about regulating guns since the governor has no authority over ky sheriffs.

sorry Ghost...you have not articulated
1) where any LE has to enforce an EO?
2) KRS 61.170?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
sorry Ghost...you have not articulated
1) where any LE has to enforce an EO?
2) KRS 61.170?

They dont have to enforce an EO. The Sherrif is not answerable to the Governor .

The oath a LEO takes including sheriffs and deputies, to uphold and protect the constitution of the United States supersedes any EO, state or Federal law that violates it.

As I said , there are sheriffs willing to be jailed illegally rather than violate their oath.

That said, I highly doubt it would be tried in this state or that the counties citizenry would allow it if it were.

No gun regulation will pass in ky. Little Andy would have to try something by E.O. and he hasn't got the nerve or is stupid enough to try IMHO.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,175
Location
here nc
you do know they said the same about DJT's EOs yet congress has fail to initate a vote or overturn any of the to date.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,175
Location
here nc
They dont have to enforce an EO. The Sherrif is not answerable to the Governor .

The oath a LEO takes including sheriffs and deputies, to uphold and protect the constitution of the United States supersedes any EO, state or Federal law that violates it.

As I said , there are sheriffs willing to be jailed illegally rather than violate their oath.

That said, I highly doubt it would be tried in this state or that the counties citizenry would allow it if it were.

No gun regulation will pass in ky. Little Andy would have to try something by E.O. and he hasn't got the nerve or is stupid enough to try IMHO.

i noticed with interest everyone dances around my query...

"support" the national & state constitutions ~ oh and be true to the commonwealth...i'm sure they exemplified that support constantly and consistently as they execute their office...speaking of...

faithfully "execute" the office of the sheriff ~ pray tell what on this flat planet does that encompass?

what objective evidence is necessary to show LEs are "support" & "execute" per their oath of office...

and a note...the KY LEs oath isn't the same
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
i noticed with interest everyone dances around my query...

"support" the national & state constitutions ~ oh and be true to the commonwealth...i'm sure they exemplified that support constantly and consistently as they execute their office...speaking of...

faithfully "execute" the office of the sheriff ~ pray tell what on this flat planet does that encompass?

what objective evidence is necessary to show LEs are "support" & "execute" per their oath of office...

and a note...the KY LEs oath isn't the same
I know. I took it . Twice.

It does contain the phrase to protect and defend the COTUS ,which supersedes any other part of it.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,175
Location
here nc
I know. I took it . Twice.

It does contain the phrase to protect and defend the COTUS ,which supersedes any other part of it.

really...interesting those two words are not used anywhere in the actual documents...

KY Sheriff's constitutional oath in section 228:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of Sheriff according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God. https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/KYC...tution&HitCount=2&hits=3+30+&SearchForm=&.pdf

part two of KY sheriff's oath per 70.010 Special oath of sheriff.
(1) In addition to the oath prescribed in the Constitution, every sheriff shall take the following oath: "I, A B, do swear that I will do right, as well to the poor as to the rich, in all things belonging to my office as sheriff; that I will do no wrong to any one for any gift, reward or promise, nor for favor or hatred, and in all things I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties of my office according to the best of my skill and judgment, so help me God." https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=24184

KY LE's oath of office
I, ________________________ , do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of police officer for the City of ___________________ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear that since the adoption of this present Constitution, I have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State, nor out of it, nor have I accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

I further solemnly swear that I am able to read and write the English language intelligibly, that I am sober, moral, and sagacious, that I am at least 21 years of age, that I have never been convicted of a felony, that as a police officer for the City of _______________ I will not interfere in any election, and that I will endeavor to the best of my ability to detect and prosecute all gamblers and others violating the laws against gaming.

so again what does support to actually mean and and how does the the kind folk, LEs included, faithfully execute the office?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,175
Location
here nc
alas the congressional oath succulently states "support and defend" not the case on KY's oath.

the term "support" "inherently" includes "defend" really?

now when those leading legal educational institutions are not and have not been teaching the nuances of constitutional law to wantabe legal beagles would those judicial lay-persons who take an oath be aware the oath's statement "support" inherently includes "defend"?

sorry gentlemen, you can not arbitrarily wave the Magick wand muttering phrases and change the meaning of verbiage, thus the context, of phrases under the ruse of "inherently"
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
alas the congressional oath succulently states "support and defend" not the case on KY's oath.

the term "support" "inherently" includes "defend" really?

now when those leading legal educational institutions are not and have not been teaching the nuances of constitutional law to wantabe legal beagles would those judicial lay-persons who take an oath be aware the oath's statement "support" inherently includes "defend"?

sorry gentlemen, you can not arbitrarily wave the Magick wand muttering phrases and change the meaning of verbiage, thus the context, of phrases under the ruse of "inherently"

How else would one support something under attack except by defending it?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
If they have to go to jail which I highly doubt, it will be for upholding their oath and refusing an exc order by little Andy regulating guns. And sheriffs are not answerable to the govorner [sic] in this state.
So yep it is ALL about regulating guns since the governor has no authority over ky sheriffs.
I have not made myself explicitly clear...my apologies.

"Regulating cop behavior is not regulating guns."

A ordinance/law that would make it a criminal offense for violating "the law of the land" would go much farther than a resolution, or ordinance declaring that "we" will not enforce unconstitutional laws. A ordinance/law that would hold prosecutors and judges to criminal account for not "supporting"...strictly speaking...the federal and state constitutions would go even farther.

Focus on the enforcer(s) and not on "not enforcing."
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,175
Location
here nc
How else would one support something under attack except by defending it?

i have no earthly idea what KY legislative members intended nor what the contextual meaning of "support of" was in Sept 1891, but i do know for a fact the word "defend" wasn't used!

now a new word ~ "attack" is thrown into the caldron.

so now how does one "defend" from an "attack" of a physical document or the premise from said document...when the document's contextual origin has been morphed, even by today's learned jurist, to something unrecognizable by today's distorted sentiments.

so whose definition of "support" are those who take the oath being adjudicated by & how will they be tried...[50 shades of of current impeachment nonsense of they said this, these denying and third part [biased imho] constitutional experts say...yepper...uh huh, uh nope, we have no direct evidence to contribute whatsoever !]

last time anybody in this country was criminally tried & convicted of failing to "support" occurred when?

i'll wait while you check your funk & wagnalls...
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
I have not made myself explicitly clear...my apologies.

"Regulating cop behavior is not regulating guns."

A ordinance/law that would make it a criminal offense for violating "the law of the land" would go much farther than a resolution, or ordinance declaring that "we" will not enforce unconstitutional laws. A ordinance/law that would hold prosecutors and judges to criminal account for not "supporting"...strictly speaking...the federal and state constitutions would go even farther.

Focus on the enforcer(s) and not on "not enforcing."

No problem.

The trouble with using the phrase "law of the land" in an ordinance is gov decides what the law of the land is.

Better an ordinance , with a penalty , for enforcing all state gun regulation.

The state is free to ignore and not e force Fed gun regulation already.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,726
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.”

The constitution is the law of the land, no question. The constitution was not a legislative act. It was a compact of the several states which had their own constitutions.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,266
Location
Kentucky
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.”

The constitution is the law of the land, no question. The constitution was not a legislative act. It was a compact of the several states which had their own constitutions.
True that.
But we see how the 2A has been watered down .
An ordinance , specifying weapons , and a stiff penalty for any county official enforcing any regulation of weapons , wouldn't leave anything for a court to "interpret.

BTW Carter County is now a 2A sanctuary county.
Resolution passed unopposed, standing room in the courthouse only , meeting lasted 6 min.

An ordinance would have passed just as easily, but that wasnt what was presented.
 
Top