If lawmakers intended college campuses to be excluded from places where a Kentucky CCDW holder could legally carry a weapon, why wasn't the law written that way?  The wording of the law specifically mentions primary and secondary schools and day care centers, but not universities and colleges.

(f) Any elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of school authorities as provided in KRS 527.070, any child-caring facility as defined in KRS 199.011, any day-care center as defined in KRS 199.894, or any certified family child-care home as defined in KRS 199.8982, except however, any owner of a certified child-care home may carry a concealed firearm into the owner's residence used as a certified child-care home;

Colleges do not fall under primary schools, secondary schools or child care facilities, so how to they manage to qualify as "off limits?"

KRS 237.115

(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, urban-county, 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.

So why only name primary and secondary schools in the list of prohibited places? I guess so a private college can choose to allow it?

My take.
Schools = illegal.
Those entities listed = ask you to leave.  

Exactly. KRS 527.070 makes it a crime, a felony actually, to posses a firearm on K-12 school property. The colleges and universities can't make new law and can only ask people to leave. They are treated as if they were private property and some of them are; Transylvania and Centre for example. In 1996, the Office of the Attorney General was asked for an opinion of whether this is constitutional or not for a public institution. If you want to read that opinion just click on "OAG9640" in the column on the left side of this page:

http://ag.ky.gov/civil/civil-enviro/opinions/Pages/1996.aspx

There are two more oddities about KRS 237.115. That statue is about CONCEALED weapons, but when it mentions colleges and universities it just says " deadly weapons" then it switches back to CONCEALED deadly weapons when it discusses cities and counties. This is the only place in the KRS, that I know of, where that happens. Also, with cities and counties it says they can "Prohibit" concealed deadly weapons, but uses the word "control" with colleges and universities. What is the difference? If there is no difference, why did they use different words? Everybody that I have asked about this agrees that prohibit is a stronger word than control, but nobody has the answer.  ..

At this point I don't think Universities care and it's more of a headache to deal with changing the policy than it is to enforce said policy. I think they just don't want to admit to the people they were wrong. I was told by UofL, they enforce the weapons policy and punish just as harshly as they do the smoking policy. I see people smoking on campus all the time. I know people carry on campus all the time. If they can't see it, they don't have to deal with it (as they explained to me).

This is such bullshot... if the state govt trusts me with a deadly weapon in public -- gives me a license to carry one -- then what's this about?   I suddenly become a menace to society as soon as I step on public school property?   Do I pay taxes for the PUBLIC school???  Are my taxes for naught?

Do I not have a right to self-defense everywhere, all the time?   Why would someone come between me and my children like this?   A govt which makes it ILLEGAL for me to provide for the defense of MY OWN CHILDREN is a very bad govt -- and is terribly anti-Constitutional (for whatever that's worth to 'em).   So is the govt making a guarantee ( a real one ) that says in lieu of my own provided protection, IT WILL PROVIDE for my and my children's protection while on school property???   I doubt it.   And is there any grace period for me to transition from my own self-protection into the govt-provided protection and back to my own?   Or do I just get to become a felon... and LOSE my basic human right to self-defense?   (which I believe is the actual goal....)

Makes no fffoking sense to me.   Someone with a concealed carry permit is a highly vetted and trustworthy person:   we have the stamp of approval of the sanctimonious govt!  

Who and when do I get to talk to about this?

Well, I'm glad you asked. You can talk to your local school board. You know the ones that ask you to vote for them  and you never know who the hell they are. KRS 527.070 gives each local school board the authority to allow anyone they want to bring firearms into the schools that board controls. Several PRIVATE schools in Ky have done that on a limited basis. I know of no public school that has done so.

There are five state that do not prohibit concealed carry licensees from carrying in their schools. Michigan is one of those states. They seem to get along just fine with that policy.

You need to understand that most people do not love their children, obviously.    Otherwise, parents would be at least as well armed as most cops.    But they are not, because some just don't care and others are cowards.

I agree. A lot of people hate guns more than they love their children and would rather see their children shot and killed than allow guns in the schools.

Some would try to deny it.   But, actions speak louder than words.   Do most parents have a CDWL?    Of those , how many actually carry?  

People really can't handle the truth.   The right thing to do is for them to change.