• 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.

Lexington-Fayette County policy for employees and guns?

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
I was recently sent a policy of LFCUG concerning employees, and others, carrying guns on LFCUG property. You can see copy of that policy here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dTherrqezBXtlQO3FSll47LoYQDj_1lu/view?usp=sharing

Last night, I sent an email to Mayor Gray's office about this and I cc'ed Sally Hamilton, who signed it originally. About 3 o'clock this afternoon I got a call from Janet Graham, commissioner of the law depart. She told me that LFCUG was very much aware that they could not stop employees from carrying guns and this was not an attempt to do that. They had struggled with how to state their position without encouraging someone to violate the "No Concealed Weapons Ordinance", mistakenly. She said that they all believed that the KY. State Constitution was the "express authorization" that was mentioned in the policy. I told her that all of that does not always filter down to the middle-level supervisors and the policy could easily be misunderstood. She agreed and offered to just remove that entire sentence. That change could take up to two weeks and Ms. Graham has agreed to send me a copy of the new policy once it is adopted. I, in turn, will post it here.

Ms. Graham was very cooperative and pleasant. I think that if any LFCUG employee ever has a problem with this kind of thing in the future, Ms. Graham could solve it for them, immediately. She was not the least bit confrontational or argumentative.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Below is a rework of what I have posted in the past. Kentucky constitution says: "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."

Kentucky deals with arms or weapons. Other states place arms and weapons into categories such as long guns, handguns, knives, etc.

gutshot II strikes again.

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.

This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when 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,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “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.”

Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)) they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has 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.”
 
Top