User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/10/2014 4:10:16 AM EDT
[#1]
SB60 is more bad than good. I could see this one being abused. So I am not in favor of it.
SB 25 - Good bill. I would like to see "knife" rights reach the level of "gun" rights since this is an area that has been neglected not only in KY but in the rest of the country. Knife laws are more retarded overall than gun laws. In some states I can legally carry whatever firearm I want but cannot carry a knife with a blade over 3 inches  Retarded as fuck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2014 8:19:01 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SB60 is more bad than good. I could see this one being abused. So I am not in favor of it. SB 25 - Good bill. I would like to see "knife" rights reach the level of "gun" rights since this is an area that has been neglected not only in KY but in the rest of the country. Knife laws are more retarded overall than gun laws. In some states I can legally carry whatever firearm I want but cannot carry a knife with a blade over 3 inches Retarded as fuck.Gotta agree on both. Having a drink does not mean impairment at all. I don't think Ky's knife laws are to bad but there should not be any knife regs at all. I feel the same way about guns and regulations as well but knife laws are frequently even stupider than gun laws. The last three out of state vacations I took I wound up, after checking the laws where I was going, having to buy a different pocket knife for a daily carry that fit the law where I was going. I was not surprised at this for the NYC trip but I was surprised that I needed to switch out for Georgia and Indiana. Not gun related but they are wanting to go after business owner's property rights again on the smoking ban issue so that is one to keep an eye on as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2014 4:12:19 PM EDT
[#3]
The NRA commented about 2 of the bills. You can read their full text here. http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/1/kentucky-2014-session-underway-with-legislation-already-on-the-move.aspx
One bill was SB60 and their opinion on it was that it was all good. That didn't seem right based on the summary text of the bill which talks about creating additional restrictions. So I went through the full text of the bill and here is what I found. One thing that wasn't mentioned in the summary is that it removes the section that prohibits carrying in bars. This part would be deleted: "Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense beer or alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to that purpose;" is deleted. Now to the section that has the new restrictions. It changes the "not carrying only in the bar portion of a business" to "no drinking while carrying anywhere in any business that serves drinks". That part doesn't bother me too much but what does bother me is section after that. It eliminates the exemption of the owner and employees of the business from carrying if they have a single drink but it leaves in the exemption for law enforcement. That just does not sit well with me at all. Putting any type of restriction on when a businesses owner can carry inside his own business is flat out wrong. Then after striping away the rights of the business owner they want to exempt law enforcement allowing them to do things in a business that the business owner would be prohibited doing. That isn't right on multiple levels. An easy solution would be to either remove everyone's exemption or leave in the business owners and employees. I will not support a bill that restricts a business owners right to carry in his own business. Here is the actual text of that section. Strike through will be removed, underline will be added. Section 4. KRS 244.125 is amended to read as follows: (1)[Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, ]No person shall consume alcohol while[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. (2)This section shall not apply to[ the owner manager, or employee of licensed premises,] law enforcement officers[,] or special local peace officers commissioned pursuant to KRS 61.360. (3)[This section shall not apply to a bona fide restaurant open to the general public having dining facilities for not less than fifty (50) persons and which receives less than fifty percent (50%) of its annual food and beverage income from the dining facilities by the sale of alcohol. (4)]Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting the carrying of a concealed deadly weapon in violation of KRS 527.020. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2014 7:52:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Minor update.
HB127, HB99, HB144, HB128, HB11, and HB151 have all been assigned to the House Judiciary committee. HB179 the retired officer purchasing duty weapon bill was assigned to the House Local Government committee. SB25 the local knife ordinance bill was assigned to the Senate State & Local Government Committee. SB60 the carrying bars and denying the owner/employees from carrying if they had a drink bill has not been assigned to any committee at this point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2014 6:43:13 AM EDT
[#5]
Added HB213. It exempts corrections officers from the CCDW training requirement if they have passed their basic firearms training course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 7:31:01 AM EDT
[#6]
HB179 has been posted in committee. That just means the committee has scheduled a discussion/vote on it. HB179 is the retired law enforcement officer service weapons bill.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 9:33:58 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Added HB213. It exempts corrections officers from the CCDW training requirement if they have passed their basic firearms training course. I thought that was already the case. Dad is a retired probation and parole officer and he never had to take the class, just pay for the licence. Or is this specifically about folks working in jails and prisons? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2014 10:33:00 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought that was already the case. Dad is a retired probation and parole officer and he never had to take the class, just pay for the licence. Or is this specifically about folks working in jails and prisons? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Added HB213. It exempts corrections officers from the CCDW training requirement if they have passed their basic firearms training course. I thought that was already the case. Dad is a retired probation and parole officer and he never had to take the class, just pay for the licence. Or is this specifically about folks working in jails and prisons? The bill creates a new section explicitly for "Corrections officers who are currently employed by a county containing a consolidated local government or an urban-county government". It sounds like was mean to include anyone working jails or prisons and had basic firearm training. Under the existing law there is a section for retired peace officers. I looked up the statute that defines a peace officer, it said "the following officers may, upon request of the employing agency, be certified by the council...Employees of a correctional services division." So it is possible that he could have been classified as a peace officer and exempted. Statue on peace officers. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=41831 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2014 6:29:21 AM EDT
[#9]
A new bill has been introduced. SB88 - D. Seum It is about health boards and preventing them from creating rules about firearms and ammunition. I wish I knew the background on what prompted this. The bill does a couple things. First, the way it reads, it eliminates the county health board from creating any new administrative regulations of their own, it exempts all regulations already in place, and then clearly states that they will have no authority over anything related to firearms. Since the Columbine shooting the anti-gunners have always pushed for more gun control on the basis of public health. Things such as mandatory safe storage, which means the gun needs to be unloaded, secured with a lock, and stored in a different location than the ammunition. This is just one of many articles written this year claiming guns are a public health issue. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/opinion/obeidallah-gun-violence/. We also know that doctors have started asking people with children about firearms in the home. The concern that a local health board could create a regulation based on firearms is a valid one. Since the author of the bill is Senator Dan Seum from Jefferson county it makes me wonder if the Louisville health board hasn't already enacted something or is trying to enact some administrative regulation of firearms. The bill exempts anything already in place, so if Louisville has put something in place it would never go away. Does anyone know if Louisville has been trying something like this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2014 7:42:11 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:ill is Senator Dan Seum from Jefferson county it makes me wonder if the Louisville health board hasn't already enacted something or is trying to enact some administrative regulation of firearms. The bill exempts anything already in place, so if Louisville has put something in place it would never go away. Does anyone know if Louisville has been trying something like this?
Not off the top of my head, but I will make time tonight to find out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2014 7:55:56 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bill creates a new section explicitly for "Corrections officers who are currently employed by a county containing a consolidated local government or an urban-county government". It sounds like was mean to include anyone working jails or prisons and had basic firearm training. Under the existing law there is a section for retired peace officers. I looked up the statute that defines a peace officer, it said "the following officers may, upon request of the employing agency, be certified by the council...Employees of a correctional services division." So it is possible that he could have been classified as a peace officer and exempted. Statue on peace officers. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=41831 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Added HB213. It exempts corrections officers from the CCDW training requirement if they have passed their basic firearms training course. I thought that was already the case. Dad is a retired probation and parole officer and he never had to take the class, just pay for the licence. Or is this specifically about folks working in jails and prisons? The bill creates a new section explicitly for "Corrections officers who are currently employed by a county containing a consolidated local government or an urban-county government". It sounds like was mean to include anyone working jails or prisons and had basic firearm training. Under the existing law there is a section for retired peace officers. I looked up the statute that defines a peace officer, it said "the following officers may, upon request of the employing agency, be certified by the council...Employees of a correctional services division." So it is possible that he could have been classified as a peace officer and exempted. Statue on peace officers. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=41831 That sounds about right. I am sure he would know the specifics. I know they did regular firearms qualifications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2014 7:06:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not off the top of my head, but I will make time tonight to find out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:ill is Senator Dan Seum from Jefferson county it makes me wonder if the Louisville health board hasn't already enacted something or is trying to enact some administrative regulation of firearms. The bill exempts anything already in place, so if Louisville has put something in place it would never go away. Does anyone know if Louisville has been trying something like this? Not off the top of my head, but I will make time tonight to find out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2014 7:30:17 AM EDT
[#13]
HB179 Update This bill is moving and seems to have no resistance
Jan 22-reported favorably, 1st reading, to Consent Calendar What that means: When a committee reports a bill favorably, the bill has what's called its "first reading" and is placed in the Calendar for the following day. CONSENT CALENDAR (or consent orders) - A list of bills having had one (or two) reading(s), and on which members in attendance are presumed to vote yes unless they indicate a negative vote prior to the call of the roll. What comes next: Second Reading and then To Rules: The bill is read by title a second time and sent to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee may recommit the bill or place it in Orders of the Day for a specific day. After that it is the Third Reading and Passage. To pass, a bill must be approved by at least two-fifths of the members of the chamber (40 representatives or 16 senators) and a majority of the members present and voting. Once passed it is submitted to the other side and go through the whole process again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2014 7:33:11 AM EDT
[#14]
I just noticed that state level preemption for knives was introduced last year and never went anywhere. If this is something you want then I recommend contacting your legislators.
The NRA has an easy way of doing this. Follow this link, enter your contact information, and on the following page you select which legislators you want to right to. http://nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-lawmakers.aspx The knife preemption bill is SB25 - R. Webb, J. Schickel - State level knife law preemption and repeal of any existing ordinances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2014 7:10:56 PM EDT
[#15]
SB 60 can kiss my ass!! If I take my family out to a restaurant and have a beer with dinner while carrying it should not be illegal. We don't need more restrictions and I have not seen any news stories where this was a problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2014 6:32:07 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SB 60 can kiss my ass!! If I take my family out to a restaurant and have a beer with dinner while carrying it should not be illegal. We don't need more restrictions and I have not seen any news stories where this was a problem. WAVE3 did a biased hit piece on this last night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2014 6:39:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That sounds about right. I am sure he would know the specifics. I know they did regular firearms qualifications. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Added HB213. It exempts corrections officers from the CCDW training requirement if they have passed their basic firearms training course. I thought that was already the case. Dad is a retired probation and parole officer and he never had to take the class, just pay for the licence. Or is this specifically about folks working in jails and prisons? The bill creates a new section explicitly for "Corrections officers who are currently employed by a county containing a consolidated local government or an urban-county government". It sounds like was mean to include anyone working jails or prisons and had basic firearm training. Under the existing law there is a section for retired peace officers. I looked up the statute that defines a peace officer, it said "the following officers may, upon request of the employing agency, be certified by the council...Employees of a correctional services division." So it is possible that he could have been classified as a peace officer and exempted. Statue on peace officers. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=41831 That sounds about right. I am sure he would know the specifics. I know they did regular firearms qualifications. That's because P&P are certified through "Eastern". This bill is in direct response Jefferson County Sheriff Aubrey requiring Louisville Metro Department of Corrections sworn officers to take the concealed carry class rather than excepting their firearms training and yearly qualification even though it's more stringent than the class. Just because he can. They don't need the permit due to being sworn peace officers but several wanted one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2014 7:07:47 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: HB179 Update This bill is moving and seems to have no resistance Jan 22-reported favorably, 1st reading, to Consent Calendar What that means: When a committee reports a bill favorably, the bill has what's called its "first reading" and is placed in the Calendar for the following day. CONSENT CALENDAR (or consent orders) - A list of bills having had one (or two) reading(s), and on which members in attendance are presumed to vote yes unless they indicate a negative vote prior to the call of the roll. What comes next: Second Reading and then To Rules: The bill is read by title a second time and sent to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee may recommit the bill or place it in Orders of the Day for a specific day. After that it is the Third Reading and Passage. To pass, a bill must be approved by at least two-fifths of the members of the chamber (40 representatives or 16 senators) and a majority of the members present and voting. Once passed it is submitted to the other side and go through the whole process again. Update: Jan 23-2nd reading, to Rules; posted for passage in the Consent Orders of the Day for Tuesday, January 28, 2014 Since it was posted to the Consent Orders it is expected to pass with little opposition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2014 6:41:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jan 22-reported favorably, 1st reading, to Consent Calendar Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: HB179 Update This bill is moving and seems to have no resistance Jan 22-reported favorably, 1st reading, to Consent Calendar What that means: When a committee reports a bill favorably, the bill has what's called its "first reading" and is placed in the Calendar for the following day. CONSENT CALENDAR (or consent orders) - A list of bills having had one (or two) reading(s), and on which members in attendance are presumed to vote yes unless they indicate a negative vote prior to the call of the roll. What comes next: Second Reading and then To Rules: The bill is read by title a second time and sent to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee may recommit the bill or place it in Orders of the Day for a specific day. After that it is the Third Reading and Passage. To pass, a bill must be approved by at least two-fifths of the members of the chamber (40 representatives or 16 senators) and a majority of the members present and voting. Once passed it is submitted to the other side and go through the whole process again. Update: Jan 23-2nd reading, to Rules; posted for passage in the Consent Orders of the Day for Tuesday, January 28, 2014 Since it was posted to the Consent Orders it is expected to pass with little opposition. Jan 28-3rd reading, passed 98-1 It passed the House with only 1 Nay vote which was cast by: Representative Jim Wayne (D) House District 35 Jefferson |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2014 9:33:32 AM EDT
[#20]
New bill introduced. Not a law, just a Concurrent Resolution. That is basically an agreement that the legislators view something as important and I'm guessing help gets funding for it. HCR 85 was introduced today by R. Meeks of Louisville. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/14RS/HC85.htm He wants to create a Gun Violence Prevention Task Force to study firearms used in crimes, universal background checks, removing the restrictions on cities passing their own gun laws, and many other anti-gun ideas. Nowhere does it ask them to look into who the people are who are committing violent acts with guns. Instead the main focus of the task force will be documenting how evil guns are and how more gun control will make things safer. The other firearm bill he introduced tries to exempt cities from the statewide preemption law so his main goal is very clear, banning guns. If Meeks really cared about preventing gun violence he should be looking into who is committing the violent acts and why they are committing them, instead of documenting which guns are used and if they were fired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2014 12:06:03 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
New bill introduced. Not a law, just a Concurrent Resolution. That is basically an agreement that the legislators view something as important and I'm guessing help gets funding for it. HCR 85 was introduced today by R. Meeks of Louisville. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/14RS/HC85.htm He wants to create a Gun Violence Prevention Task Force to study firearms used in crimes, universal background checks, removing the restrictions on cities passing their own gun laws, and many other anti-gun ideas. Nowhere does it ask them to look into who the people are who are committing violent acts with guns. Instead the main focus of the task force will be documenting how evil guns are and how more gun control will make things safer. The other firearm bill he introduced tries to exempt cities from the statewide preemption law so his main goal is very clear, banning guns. If Meeks really cared about preventing gun violence he should be looking into who is committing the violent acts and why they are committing them, instead of documenting which guns are used and if they were fired. At least this tells us who the enemys are. Communist fuckard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2014 12:36:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At least this tells us who the enemys are. Communist fuckard. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: New bill introduced. Not a law, just a Concurrent Resolution. That is basically an agreement that the legislators view something as important and I'm guessing help gets funding for it. HCR 85 was introduced today by R. Meeks of Louisville. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/14RS/HC85.htm He wants to create a Gun Violence Prevention Task Force to study firearms used in crimes, universal background checks, removing the restrictions on cities passing their own gun laws, and many other anti-gun ideas. Nowhere does it ask them to look into who the people are who are committing violent acts with guns. Instead the main focus of the task force will be documenting how evil guns are and how more gun control will make things safer. The other firearm bill he introduced tries to exempt cities from the statewide preemption law so his main goal is very clear, banning guns. If Meeks really cared about preventing gun violence he should be looking into who is committing the violent acts and why they are committing them, instead of documenting which guns are used and if they were fired. At least this tells us who the enemys are. Communist fuckard. Meeks generally isn't that anti-gun despite the gun violence/safety legislation he submits every year. It seems he is just pushing for an exemption so Louisville can have its own gun control. On the CCDW law changes last year he voted in favor of them. The members of the House we need to watch are the ones that voted against those changes last year and introduced legislation to require the state police to destroy confiscated assault weapons instead of selling them. The people who voted no on the CCDW changes were: T. Burch, K. Flood, M. Marzian, D. Owens, D. Watkins, J. Wayne The people co-sponsoring the destruction of assault weapons bill were: T. Burch, J. Crenshaw, K. Flood, J. Jenkins, M. Marzian, D Watkins, J. Wayne |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2014 9:47:40 AM EDT
[#23]
Three new bills today. One of which is the Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act. Make sure you contact your legislators and tell them to support it. The Democrat leadership will probably block it again but it still good to let your legislators know that you want it.
SB106 - J. Carpenter http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/14RS/SB106.htm to allow a person protected by an emergency protective order or a domestic violence order to carry, if authorized by the issuing court, a concealed deadly weapon for a period of up to 90 days after the sheriff has performed a criminal background check and fingerprinted and photographed the person. SB107 - J. Higdon Create new sections of KRS Chapter 431 to allow a felony record to be expunged under specified circumstances; require the Administrative Office of the Courts to keep a confidential index of expungement orders for the preparation of presentence investigations; amend KRS 527.040, relating to possession of a firearm by a felon, to exempt individuals who have had their felony records expunged; require the Kentucky State Police, Attorney General, Department of Corrections, and Administrative Office of the Courts to establish regulations reflecting the actual cost of processing certification of eligibility for expungement. HB293 - J. DeCesare, K. King, S. Lee, D. Osborne, B. Rowland, A. Wuchner Relating to firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories made in Kentucky, marked "made in Kentucky," and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law; specify that the exemption does not apply to machine guns, silencers, exploding ammunition, and firearms with a bore of 1 1/2 inches; name law the "Kentucky Firearms Freedom Act." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2014 10:43:57 AM EDT
[#24]
The latest NRA-ILA alert had some more bills.
This week has seen a lot of activity in Frankfort with the introduction of three more pieces of pro-gun legislation. House Bill 283, sponsored by state Representative James Kay (D-56), would clarify certain aspects of Kentucky’s charitable gaming statutes and afford groups like the Friends of NRA the opportunity to host more events throughout the state. HB 283 would also streamline the reporting process for those on the charitable gaming license. Senate Bill 88, sponsored by state Senator Dan Seum (R-38), would strengthen the already existing statewide firearms preemption statute by preventing local boards of health from regulating any part of a firearm or ammunition. Senate Bill 106, sponsored by state Senator Jared Carpenter (R-34), would strengthen an individual’s ability to defend themselves against another for those persons who have legally sought an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). SB 106 would expedite the permitting process by giving almost immediate access to a Concealed Deadly Weapons License (CDWL) to those persons under protection by a court issued EPO, following a background check. House Bill 127, sponsored by state Representative Bob Damron (D-39), was introduced during the first week of session and merits our full support as it preserves the rights of sportsmen, shooters and gun owners alike as they travel by air. HB 127 would solidify your rights by taking away the ability of Kentucky airport boards and regulatory bodies to dictate the allowance of firearms in non-secure areas of airports or to go beyond the scope of current federal law and regulations in airports. On Wednesday, anti-gun state Representative Reginald Meeks introduced House Concurrent Resolution 85. HCR 85 is a subtle attack on your Second Amendment rights under the guise of creating a “task force” to study public safety. This “task force” will only abuse taxpayer dollars and resources by attempting to implement additional gun control measures, creating a backdoor method to impose further restrictions on the ability for self-defense, lawful possession of a firearm and the limitation of firearms afield for sportsmen and shooters. Your NRA is standing vigilant on the front lines in the battle for your Second Amendment rights and will continue to keep you updated as these and other legislation make their way through the 2014 legislative session. Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your e-mail inbox for further updates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2014 3:29:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Ugh busy year in KY. Way too many bills to keep track of and my state rep is a schmuck and I've not heard from my state senator in a while
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2014 3:33:57 PM EDT
[#26]
Ugh busy year in KY. Way too many bills to keep track of and my state rep is a schmuck and I've not heard from my state senator in a while
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2014 8:02:15 AM EDT
[#27]
More from NRA-ILA today:
Tomorrow, the Kentucky Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear Senate Bill 106, sponsored by state Senator Jared Carpenter (R-34). SB 106 would strengthen an individual’s ability to defend themselves against another for those persons who have legally sought an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). Additionally, SB 106 would expedite the permitting process by giving almost immediate access to a Concealed Deadly Weapons License (CDWL) to those persons under protection by a court issued protective order, following a background check. Please call 800-372-7181 to register your support for SB 106. Senate Judiciary Committee: Senator Whitney Westerfield (R-3), Chairman Senator Katie Stine (R-24), Vice Chairman Senator Perry B. Clark (D-37) Senator Carroll Gibson (R-5) Senator Sara Beth Gregory (R-16) Senator Ray S. Jones II (D-31) Senator Jerry P. Rhoads (D-6) Senator John Schickel (R-11) Senator Dan “Malano” Seum (R-38) Senator Robert Stivers II (R-25) Senator Robin L. Webb (D-18) SB 106 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2014 11:02:12 AM EDT
[#28]
When it says "tomorrow" it actually was referring to today. The committee meeting started at 10am today so it's too late to influence the committee.
Here is a link for the legislative calendar. I believe they update it late at night for the next day. That doesn't give much time to take action or let others know to take action. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legislative_calendar/index.aspx For those interested there is live coverage of some of the committees and the chambers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2014 4:16:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Urgent action needed. This is the bill that expands carrying to the entire bar/restaurant area but also creates a restriction against carrying anywhere in a restaurant/bar if you have had a drink. The current law prohibits carrying only in the portion of the establishment that is primarily devoted to dispense beer or alcohol but has no restrictions on consuming alcohol. On one hand it expands where we can carry and on the other it puts a restriction on when we can carry. The prohibition on carrying covers the entire premise of a place licensed to sell by the drink. Going on distillery tour with a tasting? Can't carry. Going to a vineyard to do a wine tasting? Can't carry. The part that bothers me most about the bill is it removes the exemption that allowed the owner of the business and employees to carry. Meaning if the owner of the restaurant has a single drink in his own business; he is no longer allowed to carry concealed. Taking away a businesses owners right to carry on his own property is just wrong. The NRA is pushing this bill as written. If you have a different opinion you need to let your legislators know. Members of the Senate Standing Committee on Licensing, Occupations, and Administrative Regulations. Click their page to get to their contact form or email address. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2014 6:31:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Added HB351, SB125, and HB342 under Good Bills.
HB351 is the House version of SB 106 which passed. It will be discussed tomorrow, Wednesday 2/12/14. I'm not sure why the House is pushing their bill when they could just adopt the Senate bill. The shore descriptions read the same: Allow a person protected by an emergency protective order or a domestic violence order to carry, if authorized by the issuing court, a concealed deadly weapon for a period of up to 90 days As mentioned yesterday the committee had a hearing on SB60 today. It passed out of the committee with some amendments. I will post the full context of the amendments in the discussion of SB60 thread. SB60 - reported favorably, 1st reading, to Calendar with Committee Substitute Short description on the amendment: Remove requirement that firearms safety courses provide applicants with a manual created by the Department of Criminal Justice Training; limit the prohibition against possession of a loaded firearm while drinking alcoholic beverages to only the room on the licensed premises where the alcoholic beverages are sold; exclude certain law enforcement officers acting in the course of their duties; restore firearm exemption for bona fide public restaurants that seat at least 50 persons and receive less than 50% of their income from the sale of alcoholic beverages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2014 8:12:36 AM EDT
[#31]
Bills SB106 and HB351 have been seeing some movement. The bills both deal with issuing a temporary CCDW permit for a person protected by an emergency protective order. The fact that both the House and Senate are moving bills means that they will pass something this year, they just have different ideas on what should be included. Originally both bills started out with similar language except for one big difference. The Senate bill is a Shall Issue bill and the House bill is a May Issue bill. Since then a couple amendments have been added to each bill. The Senate bill would allow the endorsed court order to count as a temporary permit. The House bill adds language on the prohibitions on concealed carry to allow for the temporary permit. An amendment to the House bill would also put the courts in charge of who gets custody of a pet when an EPO is issued.
It looks like both sides will pass their own version of the bill and then work out a final version in committee. That only major difference is the shall or may issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2014 12:25:18 PM EDT
[#32]
In listening to the committee discussion on HB351, Rep. Mary Lou Marzian - House District 34, was bragging about her perfect F rating with the NRA. She said she would vote NO on the bill, admitting that she knew it would help protect abused women but her NRA F rating was more important. It would be nice if we could get her replaced.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2014 5:05:42 AM EDT
[#33]
Marzian is locked in with all the upper crust white guilt idiots that live in the Highlands.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2014 5:24:47 PM EDT
[#34]
An interesting development on HB351. Two new amendments were added to it which isn't that interesting by itself. What makes it interesting is one amendment comes from Mary Lou Marzian, the one who gleefully boasted about her NRA F rating and determination to vote against the bill. Why would she add an amendment to a bill she won't vote for?
The first of new amendments, HFA 2, would the following people carry anywhere without restriction if they have a carry permit: current or retired Attorney General, assistant attorney general, deputy attorney general, or assistant deputy attorney general. The second amendment added today, HFA 3 by Marzian, would add the language that explicitly covers the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of an act of domestic violence or abuse, as long as the person has a protective order, and the person has a temporary carry permit under the new law. So basically anti-gun Marzian just gave some very sharp teeth to people protected by EPOs. She wants to allow the use of deadly force using a firearm as a way for an abuse victim to stop future attacks. In other words an EPO is no longer just a piece of paper that will do nothing. It is now literally a license to kill the person violating the EPO in a threatening manner. It is very interesting that such a strong pro-gun stance is being added to the law by a notorious anti-gunner who voted against the bill. What are your thoughts on this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2014 6:21:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An interesting development on HB351. Two new amendments were added to it which isn't that interesting by itself. What makes it interesting is one amendment comes from Mary Lou Marzian, the one who gleefully boasted about her NRA F rating and determination to vote against the bill. Why would she add an amendment to a bill she won't vote for? The first of new amendments, HFA 2, would the following people carry anywhere without restriction if they have a carry permit: current or retired Attorney General, assistant attorney general, deputy attorney general, or assistant deputy attorney general. The second amendment added today, HFA 3 by Marzian, would add the language that explicitly covers the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of an act of domestic violence or abuse, as long as the person has a protective order, and the person has a temporary carry permit under the new law. So basically anti-gun Marzian just gave some very sharp teeth to people protected by EPOs. She wants to allow the use of deadly force using a firearm as a way for an abuse victim to stop future attacks. In other words an EPO is no longer just a piece of paper that will do nothing. It is now literally a license to kill the person violating the EPO in a threatening manner. It is very interesting that such a strong pro-gun stance is being added to the law by a notorious anti-gunner who voted against the bill. What are your thoughts on this? I like the changes, but I have some thoughts as to why Marzian offered them. Aren't EPOs listed as "not to come within 100 feet of the victim"? Does that mean if I have an EPO against my wife for beating the tar out of me I can simply shoot her when she steps on my lawn within that 100 foot circle? This would be a defense similar to SYG (as it really is not as reported by the media) or justifiable homicide. It could also be politicking, she can support a bill that is going to pass anyway and get a little box ticked that she strengthened protections for women. The very paranoid interpretation is that she's putting this in there to get a few questionable cases then use that as an excuse to really earn her F rating. Wait a year until a woman with an EPO shoots a man with when the woman is clearly bugnuts insane and oh look one more victim of gun violence to trot out for the Courier Journal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2014 6:32:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aren't EPOs listed as "not to come within 100 feet of the victim"? Does that mean if I have an EPO against my wife for beating the tar out of me I can simply shoot her when she steps on my lawn within that 100 foot circle? It could also be politicking, she can support a bill that is going to pass anyway and get a little box ticked that she strengthened protections for women. The very paranoid interpretation is that she's putting this in there to get a few questionable cases then use that as an excuse to really earn her F rating. Wait a year until a woman with an EPO shoots a man with when the woman is clearly bugnuts insane and oh look one more victim of gun violence to trot out for the Courier Journal. Yeah something like that could happen but that would be up for the courts to decide. If someone is close enough to shoot then they have gotten a lot closer than the EPO limits and probably have bad intentions. At that point our current castle doctrine says that they could shoot as well. So the bill doesn't really change much other than to expand/clarify the castle doctrine to cover an abuse victim allowing them to use deadly force anywhere they are and feel threatened by the person violating the EPO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2014 7:25:24 PM EDT
[#37]
SB100 - S. Gregory was introduced today. It would create an electronic CCDW renewal. Electronic renewal would be $70 but paper renewal stays at $60.
to allow both paper and electronic applications and renewals for concealed carry licenses; establish a $70 application fee and a $25 fee for duplicate licenses requested electronically; change the period for State Police to either issue or deny a license from 60 days for paper applications to 14 days for electronic applications; change the number of requests made to other states for license reciprocity from twice per year to once per year |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2014 7:12:43 AM EDT
[#38]
SB60 passed the Senate 30-4 using the committee substitute bill. Now to see if the Democrat House will pick it up. Nay votes were: Harper Angel McGarVey Rhoads Thomas Did not vote: Clark Denton Neal Webb |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 3:53:56 PM EDT
[#39]
New bill introduced
This bill would be awesome if it passed. It references Heller, the 2nd Amendment, the 10th amendment, the 14th amendment, and basically declares all federal gun laws null and void in Kentucky. My guess is the Democrat controlled house will never let it out of committee. HB429 - D. St. Onge, J. Gooch Jr., L. Bechler, J. Carney, J. Fischer, K. Imes, A. Koenig, D. Mayfield, M. Meredith, D. Osborne, B. Rowland, S. Santoro, B. Waide, R. Webber Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237 to declare legislative intent; invalidate and nullify all federal laws and regulations restricting ownership or possession of firearms; direct the General Assembly to take all appropriate action to safeguard Kentuckian's rights to possess firearms in accordance with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 1 of the Constitution of Kentucky; amend KRS 527.040 to add persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States and persons illegally or unlawfully in the United States to the list of persons who shall not possess firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:08:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nay votes were: McGarVey That asshole. He represents my district, his newsletters are dreck and he hasn't bothered to respond to clear, polite emails from me with so much as a form letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2014 6:19:34 PM EDT
[#41]
HB 351 will be voted on tomorrow in the House. It is the temporary concealed carry license for someone who files an EPO. It has 3 amendments to it, including the one from anti-gun Marzian that explicitly states that someone with the temporary permit is allowed to shoot a person they believe is going to carry out another act of domestic violence.
As far as I know the amendments have only been filed to the bill and not voted on. They will discuss and vote on the 3 amendments and then on the underlying bill.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2014 6:22:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Also according to the NRA SB100 will be voted on in committee. It adds an electronic CCDW application and renewal for $70.
This Thursday, February 27, Senate Bill 100 is scheduled for a hearing in the Kentucky Senate Veterans, Military Affairs and Public Protection Committee. SB 100, introduced by state Senator Sara Beth Gregory (R-16), would streamline the Concealed Deadly Weapons License (CDWL) permitting process by allowing applicants to submit their forms electronically.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2014 11:13:21 AM EDT
[#43]
I know the action that takes place on the House floor is nothing more than a dog and pony show but today it was pathetic. They spent 40 minutes with various representatives honoring their special guests. Then they put in about 5 minutes on actual legislative work which included the consent orders and then discussing and voting on that one bill. After that they gave committee notices, described all the various receptions they were invited to tonight, and adjourned for the day. There are 15 bills in the regular orders that they could have discussed today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2014 4:44:59 AM EDT
[#44]
SB 100 and SB 125 will be heard by the Veterans, Military Affairs, and Public Protection committee today. SB 100 is the electronic CCDW application and SB 125 would exempt honorably discharged service members from the CCDW training requirement.
SB 106 will be heard again by the Judiciary committee. It is the 90 day temporary CCDW for people who file an EPO. It is the Senate version of HB 351 and had passed out of committee but now has been sent back to the committee. The House and Senate bills have almost nothing in common at this point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2014 8:53:26 AM EDT
[#45]
New bill introduced. Allow new residents of Kentucky who have valid concealed carry licenses from other states to waive the training requirements for Kentucky licenses and to use the out-of-state license in Kentucky for their first 120 days of residence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2014 1:16:43 PM EDT
[#46]
I have noting to contribute today except a big round of applause for SWIRE.
I feel that your legislative watch has been more useful than NRA-ILA and your commentary is clear and helpful. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2014 4:43:54 AM EDT
[#47]
agreed
thank you Sir |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2014 4:01:34 PM EDT
[#48]
HB 351, the temporary CCDW bill for people with EPOs, passed 79-13 with only amendment 4 being applied.
The House apparently has been playing fast and loose with the rules of orders, several legislators spoken out against how things have happened. Typically the bill passed out of committee is the base bill that is voted on. This includes a committee substitute bill, which is just changes to the originally filed bill made by the committee. What the leadership of the House did on Friday was to ignore the committee substitute but instead push the originally filed bill. This matters because House amendments 1, 2, and 3, made to this bill were made to the committee substitute. Since the House leadership ignored the substitute those 3 amendments are null and void. Amendment 3 was the amendment by anti-gunner Marzian that would grant immunity to any domestic violence victim defending themselves from the person listed in the EPO with a firearm. The House leadership apparently did this with other bills and amendments. Amendment 4, which was filed to the original bill, starts out by deleting the original text and adding totally new text. One big change was the original bill stated a 90 day temporary CCDW permit. Amendment 4 changes that to a 45 day permit. Nay votes: Adams, Burch, L. Clark, Donohue, Flood, Graham, Jenkins, Marzian, Meeks, Owens, Smart, St. Onge, Wayne. Not Voting: Combs, Couch, Crenshaw, Gooch, Hall, Nelson, Waide, D. Watkins. If you want to watch the floor debate on the bill you can do so here. Discussion of HB351 starts about half way through. http://www.ket.org/legislature/archives/?nola=WGAOS+015148&session=wgaos+015 There were 17 no votes on this bill. The no votes spoke against the bill siting several things such as wanted required training, they hated hand guns, they hated the NRA, and they were spouting absolutely bogus firearm death statistics. Even some of the pro-gun people were talking about mandatory training. This isn't just a couple legislators from Louisville. So keep that in mind with the upcoming elections. I know there is not much of a concern about anti-gun laws getting passed in Kentucky but if we are complacent about the number of anti-gun legislators will increase. There was a TN thread about Mom's Demanding Action protesting in their state. Bloomburg's Mayors Against Guns has several mayors in Kentucky on board. The threats are out there and now is the time to speak up before the gun issue becomes an uphill battle for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2014 7:26:35 AM EDT
[#49]
SB 106 is on the Orders of the Day for the Senate today. That means it could be discussed and voted on today. SB 106 is the Senate version of the HB 351 which deals with the temporary CCDW permit for people who filed an EPO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2014 4:53:06 PM EDT
[#50]
SB 106 passed in the Senate today using the committee substitute bill. Floor amendment 1 was withdrawn, it would have allowed for the use of the court endorsed papers to serve as the temporary CCDW permit. That provision is no longer needed. When this legislation was written the State Police had told the legislators that it would take more than 45 days to conduct a background check. So provisions written to allow the court papers to serve as the temporary permit. The State Police have since come back and said if they receive proper state funding they can operate an electronic background check system that will have results in 1 to 3 days. Since the actual temporary permit can now be produced in a matter of days the court paper provision is not needed.
The bill passed 35-0 with 3 people not voting. Not voting: Denton Kerr McGarvey After all the substitutes, amendments, and games that have happened related to both HB 351 and SB 106, the final versions passed by each chamber have identical text. It is pretty safe to say the current form of the legislation is what will be signed into law. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
