It is that time of year again.  The Kentucky legislative session has begun.  Being an odd number year, this year's session is a short one at only 30 working days in the regular session.  The first 4 days have already occurred and they are now on break until Feb 3rd.

Summary of firearm, hunting, and surveillance related bills.

SB 14 - R. Thomas
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/15RS/SB14.htm

Summary: Exempt landowners, their spouses, dependent children, and tenants and their dependent children from the requirement of procuring a sport fishing license if they are taking fish from private waters on lands of which they are bona fide owners.


Summary: Prohibit disruption of hunting by any means including drones.


 

You left one out!

HB 91
http://legiscan.com/KY/research/HB91/2015
Summary - Amends KY Gaming Law

This is very important to KY gun owners because charitable groups like the Friends of NRA, QDMA, SCI, and other 501c3 charities raise money from banquets and raffles. The gaming commission has been making the law up as they go and putting severe restrictions on games like plinko and bucket raffles. This has made it hard for honest charities supporting good causes to stay legal. If you've ever been to a charity event you know what these games are, they're fair and fun and have been around for ages. Suddenly the gaming commission decided they weren't OK because they didn't fit into their little boxes and forms. HB91 fixes these problems and makes it easier for good groups to raise money for good causes!

Screw SB 14.  Hopefully this one is dead on arrival.

 

Thanks for the info Swire.

If I support this one, my name better be pulled from the bucket at the next Friends event.

I guarantee you that we'll pull the ticket with your name on it out of the bucket at the next event.

We have to take out the tickets of all the people who didn't win and dump them in the trash at the end of the night.

I don't see anything in there that is positive and that will have a meaningful impact.    

Even if the following were to pass, it would not be followed.    We are not going to have new machineguns, and unregistered NFA items.    Won't happen.

HB 13 - D. St. Onge, R. Bunch
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/15RS/HB13.htm
Summary: 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 second 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.



What would make a difference and really matter is the repeal of the no carrying in a bar restrictions from the state concealed carry laws.    That has far reaching impacts that most people do not realize.   For example, one can't carry at Turfway Park in Florence.   Last year, we had a very good proposal.   This year, it is not even offered up.

Zackly!

Actively oppose SB 14! We cannot permit even a minor toehold for this to widen into cracks we can't later close. The incrementalists will just love this one! The first step in taking yet another right from us.

We lost our rights piece by piece and we'll get them back piece by piece.

I agree with most of the other commenters but what is with SB 38.

That could be construed and fought any number of ways.  Are drones a big problem now? Did someone get their feathers ruffled by another person flying one overhead taking pictures of them hunting?

"Not offered up", yet. There is still time, but the sponsor may fell like it is a waste of his time. The bill flew through the Senate last year 30-4, then the Democrat leaders wouldn't give it a hearing in the House. Those people are still there. We had a chance to remove them in November and sent the same team back for four more years. I don't know if we will see it or not, but my guess is the result will be the same, either way.

 

 

Having drones seems great... as long as they can be considered an intruder, a dangerous game animal, or harmful pest.    "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."    That is completely reasonable.   One does not if a drone is uploading a live feed of your children, your affections with your SO or yourself,  that it is armed in some way,  and so on.     Any  Law enforcement drone in the US should have red and blue lights on it with a siren.    Otherwise,   "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."

That would just be common sense drone control.

"O" hell no on Senate Bill 14 , Duty too Retreat, that's BS this is the land of Boone, Harrod, and Kenton. Glad they didn't have a Duty too Retreat. Stand Your Ground is the bedrock of Self Defense  Contacting my State Senator to day. IMHO go ahead and fly your little pissey drone over me and mine, but you better be flying it really really really high out of # 7.5 bird shot range.

 

Am I misreading it or something?  Doesn't it just move where "no duty to retreat" is codified?

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/15RS/SB14/bill.doc

enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:
?SECTION 1.   A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 503 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
A person who is engaged in lawful activity and is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and may meet physical force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or serious physical injury to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.

Yeah I assumed these 'edumacated' voters just looked at the summary that it was some hug a thug bill and didn't bother to read that it codifies no duty to retreat, changes great bodily harm to something that's easier to define, and adds the word "reasonable" so some thug can't defend HIS deadly force by his crazy idea that everyone was out to get him.

Change one of the summaries to "Says Obama is a muslim" and no matter what the bill says everyone is gonna go "Hell yeah I support that bill!"

 

Senator John Schickel is back with his bill to allow CCDW instructor to issue certificates of training directly to the students at the end of the class. SB 114 will do that and eliminate the requirement for each student to clean his gun. Senator Schickel introduced this same stuff last year, but also included dropping the prohibition on carrying in a bar. That is not in this years bill.

HB 278 is a terrible bill. I had been warned this was coming. Its being pushed by the KY League of Cities and would allow cities to prohibit employees from carry on the job. HB 278 was introduced by Joni Jenkins from Jefferson Co.(she lives in Shively). HB 278 will add an 8th paragraph to KRS 65.870 and it will read like this:

.(8) This section does not prohibit:

(a) A duly organized law enforcement agency from enacting and enforcing regulations pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories issued to or used by peace officers in the course of their official duties;

or (b) Any entity subject to the prohibitions of this section from regulating or prohibiting the carrying of firearms and ammunition by an employee of the entity during and in the course of the employee's official duties.

If this passes, and it could because Joni Jenkins has a lot of clout, anyone that takes employment with a local government entity would have to give up their right to keep and bear arms.

You're really not reading the bill at all. How can you miss the first paragraph that says

It's removing the redundancy of having it mentioned in every KRS and expands it to the ones it wasn't mentioned in.

A fear of great bodily harm is just poor wording. A jury is going to be hard pressed to believe that a huge bodybuilder or a UFC fighter is ever AFRAID of anything, so are we just going to throw them to the wolves? Either way plenty of people have been charged and convicted in Kentucky because they claim to have had a "fear of great bodily harm" but the force or situation was unreasonable. The reasonable test has ALWAYS been the deciding factor. The way the law is written now "fear" has to be a factor and it's not necessary. It hurts those that weren't afraid and now they have to lie and look stupid on the stand showing alligator tears and throwing out the standard "I feared for my life *sniff*"
Long story short, even in your situation if you shot a guy because he told you to hand over your wallet with no other provocation and your only defense is you couldn't see his hands. You won't be the first person serving time in a Kentucky prison for using unreasonable force.

I would think if you're so keen on killing thugs you'd appreciate the part that says we can use deadly force to prevent forcible felonies. Right now you can only use it for protection of life, property you own or property in your possession. This revision would let you do it on anybody's property.

It is an a con job to eliminate the common sense "stand  your ground".

This is being pushed by and supported by the most worthless trash in our society.

I read it the same as you Swire.

The source of the bill should settle any doubt as to the intent.

 

Hang on a second.  All I did was ask if I was missing something in the bill - nowhere did I say that I thought it was an improvement and I don't see where the other poster that you quoted did at that point, either.

But, since you ask, I'll answer.

Maybe it is an improvement.  I think that it's probably at least equivalent.  I don't think that it's worse than before.  

It changes where the language is located and changes the language to

A person who is engaged in lawful activity and is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and may meet physical force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or serious physical injury to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.

from

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.

and changes it as follows

A person is presumed to have held a reasonable belief fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical injury great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious physical injury great bodily harm to another if:




Come on, now.  Why would you be in fear of great bodily harm if you didn't believe that he was going to hurt you?  It's a safe bet that he has hands on the ends of his arms, hidden in his pockets though they may be.  More people are killed and injured each year in assaults with fists and feet as weapons than are with firearms.  Why does he need to pull a "weapon" for you to believe that you might be in peril of injury?  

Your "fear of great bodily harm" and your "belief of serious physical injury" are both subjective and exist in your mind.  If you see someone with their hands in their pockets and they demand your wallet, why would you be able to articulate that you were in fear of great bodily harm from the "unknown" but not be able to articulate that you believed that you would receive serious physical injury?

In any case, both versions specify that the victim be attacked.  Both versions specify a felony involving the use of force, so your example seems out of scope.  Is someone with their hands in their pockets demanding your wallet an attack?  Is it even a threat if they don't say something like "I have a gun" or "give me your wallet or I'll beat/stab/shoot/kill you", etc.?  Did you perceive it as a threat?  Did you believe that it was a threat or that you might suffer injury?  Why would that be any harder to articulate than "I was in fear of great bodily harm?"  How do you prove that you were "in fear of..."?  In the same way that you prove that you "believe you were in peril..."  You say that you were afraid of something or believed something.


As far as removing the "stand your ground" verbiage...  At best, SYG is a trite, overused buzzword that plays well on the news.  At worst, it could mean exactly what it says when taken literally.  Stand your ground.  Stay put.  No duty to retreat.  Don't advance.  

What if the guy from your example did pull a knife and threaten to kill you if you dont' hand over your wallet.  You "meet force with force," draw your pistol and he starts backing up and saying that he's leaving.  Let's say that you don't believe him but, rather, believe that you are still in peril of great bodily harm.  You step toward him with your gun on him.  The case could probably be made that you weren't standing your ground but that you were, instead, pursuing him.

"[A person has] no duty to retreat and may meet physical force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or serious physical injury to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force" sounds to me like, if I believe that I'm still in danger, I can still meet his force with my force "including deadly force."




I'm not trying to be contrary, here.  I'm just trying to figure out why the new version is supposedly so bad.  Like I initially asked, I'm not sure if I'm misreading it, or missing something, or what, but I'm still not seeing what the bad part is.  I don't see why "belief" is worse than "fear" or why "no duty to retreat" is worse than "stand your ground."

 

Updated my first post with information for bills SB 89, SB 114, and HB 278.

I would be interested to hear from a KY lawyer versed on the subject regarding the impact of the change in wording.

It may read very similarly in layman's terms but convey a very different legal standard.

Look to the motivations of the author of the bill.... in this instance I would be wary of any change.

That could be helpful if we have such input available.  Although I'm sure there's a saying about the number of lawyers in a room relative to the number of opinions therein.

One potentially worrisome addition that I see is the addition of "physical" to "may meet physical force with force".  Other than that, I personally don't see much downside.  What would be "non-physical" force that we could not meet with our own force?

 

Did either or both of those states have language similar to or identical to the following codified in law at the time of those cases?

"A person who is engaged in lawful activity and is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and may meet physical force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or serious physical injury to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force. "

In both cases, the defendant met all the criteria under the proposed changes to KY law.  They were somewhere that they were legally allowed to be.  They were engaged in lawful activity.  They were attacked.  They had reasonable belief that they had to take those actions to prevent death or serious physical injury by the attacker's knife.  As such, they used deadly force to prevent that injury.  I don't see how either of those cases would be handled differently under the old (current) law where each of the same criteria is met:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force. "



The history lesson on an early use of the phrase is great, but I still don't see its relevance.  The ruling you cite apparently reads:

"...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury."

I see the blue portion as equivalent to the "no duty to retreat" portion in both of our KY versions.  I don't see the green portion as two separate things but, rather, a rhetorical explanation that says he was able to stand his ground by using force.  Use of that force is also included in both of our KY versions.  In that regard, I still don't see a difference between that and either version of KY law above.

If anything, I think that the part in purple would be more relevant in the Dill and Garrison cases that you mention than in a discussion of the KY laws and it is unfortunate that this isn't included in our law.  This part directly addresses what force is used and how/why it was applied, not whether or not *some* force is called based a fear/belief of harm.  It is certainly unfortunate for them that it apparently wasn't considered.  I don't know all of the details of the cases, but I don't think it would be hard to articulate - especially in Garrison's case - that he honestly and reasonably felt that his use of that particular force was necessary to protect himself.



I don't think that they meant three separate things at all.  I think they meant that he had no duty to retreat.  They also say that whether or not he would be able to safely retreat has no bearing - it is a non-issue and it need not be considered.  Not only does he have no duty to retreat, his use of force during his non-retreat is justified if he believes that it is necessary to protect himself.


Again, this seems out of scope here.  The law clearly says that deadly force is justifiable under the given conditions - namely that they believed it to be necessary.  "Other options" are not addressed in either KY version and I don't see how adding the term "stand your ground" brings "other options" into play.  I don't see how a law that says "If X, then you have no duty to retreat and deadly force is justified" is worse (or different, even) than a law that says "If X, then you may stand your ground, you have no duty to retreat and deadly force is justified"



We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but we clearly just aren't reading the language in the same way and, frankly, neither of our readings matter in practice.  I'm not seeing it from your POV and I don't see how the examples you posted relate.  I'd be interested in hearing other member's take on it, especially members who play these games in court.

I assume there is good reason the US Supreme Court decided to break out the description that way.  Kentucky's current law matches what the Supreme Court said.  I'm perfectly fine with that.

I support SB 114, it streamlines the process. I am in favor of the instructors issuing the certificate, no matter who the authorized instructors are. I would prefer that SB 67 not pass and the existing instructor scheme be left intact. If that doesn't happen and the NRA instructors are allowed to give classes, they should be authorized to issue the certificates. I imagine that SB 114 was written without any contemplation that SB 67 would or would not pass.

I have read every word of this thread with a great deal of interest. When I first read this bill I couldn't see anything particularly wrong with it, but I couldn't get past the feeling that Reggie Thomas was not out to do us any favors. I think all of you have presented some very logical arguments, but I still haven't been able to see how this is an improvement over what we have now. I don't have to find anything wrong with it to oppose it. Just that it is unnecessary is enough for me. With all that being said, I believe that the real problem with this bill is in Section 4, where it amends KRS 503.060 by removing subsection 3 (a). This is a big mistake. It removes the justification when

(a)His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or

So, if you are involved in a fight and your initial force was nondeadly(say you come home and find a burgler walking across your neighbor's front yard carrying your TV set and you grab his arm), but your opponent escalates the force to the point that you believe that you are in imminent danger.......(he pulls a knife or gun), you would not be justified in using deadly force. I guess you'd just have to stand there and let him kill you. Everything else in this bill is a smokescreen. This is what this bill is all about. This and Reggie Thomas making a grandstand play for the benefit of his constituents. Pass or not pass, he makes points with his voters.

That section is poorly worded, I had to plug Farmer Bob for the defendant and Slim Thug for the "other"  into 060(3)(a) to keep it straight (using your TV burglar example).  


The use of physical force by Farmer Bob upon Slim Thug is [usually] not justifiable when Farmer Bob was the initial aggressor.  

Farmer Bob's use of physical force upon the other person [after Farmer Bob was the initial aggressor] [would no longer be explicitly] justifiable when Farmer Bob's initial physical force was non-deadly and the force returned by Slim Thug is such that Farmer Bob believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.

If Farmer Bob taps out and Slim Thug keeps attacking, Farmer Bob would still be justified in using force.


So if Slim Thug was walking through the neighbor's yard with FB's television, FB grabs him and ST pulls a knife and comes at FB, FB would have previously been justified in using physical force.  With 3a removed, FB might not be justified (see below), unless FB had clearly "tapped out."

It's still a little confusing.  KRS 503.060  is "Improper use of physical force in self-protection" - it sounds like any physical force, not necessarily deadly force as would be the case in a CCW shooting and doesn't have anything to do with SYG or duty to retreat.  Let's change it from Farmer Bob and Slim Thug in the yard to L'il Thug and Some Guy in an alley.  If LT unsuccessfully tries a "knockout game" on SG and SG starts beating the snot out of LT so LT shoots SG, couldn't LT's shooting charges be summarily thrown out if 3A is intact?  Assault charges might happen from the first punch, but wouldn't a lawyer argue that 3A gives the possibility that the shooting was justified as self defense?

Taking 503.080(1)(b) - also covered in the SB14 text - into account makes me think even more that 503.060(3)(A) is more about the LT & SG situation rather than FB & ST.  Doesn't that allow Farmer Bob to use physical force on Slim Thug if ST is stealing FB's stuff.  Isn't *that* what would justify you in your example?  If that force is justified by 080, how does that play with 060 in terms of who is the initial aggressor?  Farmer Bob wasn't engaged in unlawful activity when Slim Thug attacked him, but FB did use force first.

Rather than playing with the semantics of stupid little things like SB14 does, what about clearing up some of the above and getting it to make sense.  Agreed, however, on the point that Reggie isn't the man for that job.

I think you have articulated my concerns very accurately. This is a very bad bill. I used to use a similar analogy when I taught CCDW classes. Some of my students were surprised that you could not just shoot someone for stealing your property. I explained that you didn't have to just let them walk away with it either and if they escalated the situation enough that you feared for your life,  you could defend yourself. This bill would make that very risky and probably illegal.

But doesn't it also provide "self defense" justification for L'il Thug to use force on Some Guy if he starts loosing a fight that he started with his knockout game attempt?  LT initiates a fight, LT starts loosing that fight, LT keeps fighting, LT pulls a weapon and kills SG... "self defense."  



For the sake of argument, let's consider an alternative reality in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman example that the other poster (still misguided, IMO) tried to relate to the SYG verbiage in SB14...  TM was the initial aggressor by sucker punching (non-lethal) GZ.  It turns in to a scuffle and (justified or not, in this reality), GZ "escalates" it by pulling his KelTec PF9 (because he believed he was in peril of great bodily harm).  With GZ's pistol pointed at him, TM believes that he is imminent danger of death, pulls his own gun and shoots and kills GZ.

Here we have non-deadly initial force by TM and force returned by GZ that caused TM to believe himself to be in imminent danger of death.  Wouldn't 503.060(3)(A) be the obvious claim by TM and his lawyer to justify his "self defense" killing of GZ?  Wouldn't the the law explicitly protect him from the shooting and net him, at most, assault charges for the sucker punch?

I think that most of us would consider that to be a miscarriage of justice and don't want that.  

Maybe it's OK to remove 3A, or maybe it does us harm.  I don't know.  Maybe removing it makes it a potentially bad bill depending on how it interacts with 503.080.  But doesn't the above example also make the existing .060 law potentially bad?  

How could it be reworked to protect Farmer Bob when the burglar pulls a knife on him but not protect Trayvon when GZ pulls a gun on him?


ETA:  I don't know how the laws could be written to provide a blanket justification or a blanket un-justification and not wind up with something like the above.  Write it too vague and it ends up at trial with Farmer Bob or Bizarro Travon's fate in the hands of the American Idol watching jury pool - a scary thought.

The "not engaged in an unlawful activity" clause of the existing law would apply in your TM/GZ example.  Last time I checked assault was not a lawful activity and TM would have not be protected by the stand your ground law.  The existing law is worded fine to protect Farmer Bob when he lawfully confronted the thieves and not protect TM when he unlawfully assaulted GZ.

Here is the NRA's take on SB 14.

We are discussing a different part of SB14 pertaining to KRS 503.060  Improper use of physical force in self-protection., in which "the 'not engaged in an unlawful activity' clause" is not present or applicable.  This is separate from any duty to retreat vs stand your ground or fear vs belief discussions or history lessons from the 1920s.  

Assault is not a lawful activity, but it is sounds like what is directly addressed in 503.060(3) where the defendant (TM) was the initial aggressor (assault).





Thanks for sharing that.  I still don't see or buy the "taking away your right to stand your ground" business.  The NRA cries that the sky is falling and that any legislation dealing with self defense, CCW, firearms, etc. is taking away some right so everyone better donate now to battle it.  In general, I agree and don't think that we need any new laws relating to those things unless they are clearly protecting our rights but I also don't see how the current version is good and how the proposed changes make it worse.  At best, the NRA is correct in that the changes may be "unnecessary" - the rest sounds like their usual rhetoric to drum up membership and donations.

Are there any actual cases where the exact term "stand your ground" was treated differently than language that explicitly stated that there was no duty to retreat and use of deadly force was justified?  Is there someone who explicitly had no duty to retreat from an attack and explicitly was justified in using deadly force in their situation but got convicted because they did not have the "right to stand their ground?"

I'm still just not seeing how the bold part makes sense when the law flat out says that you have no duty whatsoever to retreat when attacked and that if you believe that you are in danger of serious injury then use of deadly force is justified.

If the NRA opposes it then that is good enough for me.   That means it is a bad change to the law.

A lot of people feel that way, I suppose.  There are dozens of examples of NRA supporting unfavorable laws and policies.  It's not necessary to dredge them up - any time anyone does or questions blindly following their lead, they are labeled an "NRA hater", which, as a long time voting member, I am not.  I will, however, look at the legislation on my own and support or fight it as appropriate.  


FWIW, don't take my posts here as my lobbying "for" SB14.  I'm just trying to figure out why it's bad.  If it simply clears up the duty to retreat/SYG/fear/belief language without detriment to our rights, then it's a positive.  If that part damages our rights, then obviously it's a negative.  If the .060 changes remove the self defense justification for Bizzarro Trayvon and don't hurt Farmer Bob's rights in Softpoint's example, then it's a positive.  If the .060 changes hurt Bob's rights in that example, then obviously it's a negative.

The NRA calls the changes merely "unnecessary" but can't/don't/won't articulate how they hurt our rights.  They just cry "it takes away our rights, we oppose it, we're relevant!" like they do in all the mail that they send, facebook posts, etc.

More attacks on preemption. Now, public hospitals want an exemption.
SB 128.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/15RS/SB128/bill.doc

Edit: Corrected the bill number. Thanks to SWIRE for catching the typo

 

Interesting that House and the Senate are trying to make changes to the same section of code.  They are setting it up so that one of the bills will become a vehicle for the combined changes of both bills.


I've added SB 128 to the summary page.







 

The bill summary for SB66 seems to contain a mistake. The summary at the LRC website:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/15RS/SB66.htm

says that the bill will allow military police under 18 to apply for a CCDW.

When I go to the actual text of the bill. It amends KRS 237.110 4(c) by adding the word: or qualifies under subsection (6)(d) of this section;

You can see this actual text by clicking the bill number in the summary from the link above.

When I go to KRS 237.110  6(d), I can find no mention of military police. It refers to any military personnel who have received weapons training. So, which is it, just military police or all who have had weapons training. Most people will just read the summary of these bills. If they do that with this bill they may get a surprise.

Here's what it says in the summary.


Maybe they looked at 6(b) instead of 6(d)?

Damn interns

ETA:  It looks like we are all human.  Did you mean 6(d) instead of 6(c)?   (c) is Corrections officers.

Yes, I meant 6(d). Thanks for the heads up. I fixed it but still don't know which is the real intent of the bill.

The summary statement of SB 66 is all sorts of messed up.  For example, how could anyone be retired and under the age 21?  Sign me up for that option please!

The intent of the bill is to remove the age restriction when applying for a CCDW permit for people trained by the military.  If they have been trained by Uncle Sam to carry a firearm then they can apply for a CCDW permit.