Bill passes Kentucky Senate to allow concealed carry without license

[Mainah]

Anti gunners said it would cause violent altercations and crime if "everyone" could just carry all willy nilly - but really things have always been as such and it's made no difference...

Yup, that's what they said when we passed similar legislation here in Maine over a year ago. I haven't seen a spike in crime or wild west gunfights. Plenty of people get training from friends or relatives for free that is just as good (if not better) than what you'd pay for from a stranger. I did.

[KyJim]

Anti-rights groups have predictably come out against the bill in force. They procured a phone survey which, they say, show "91 percent of Kentuckians and 90 percent of gun owners in the state favor the current permitting system for carrying concealed weapons." The survey also shows two-thirds of Kentuckians oppose the current bill and 72 percent would be less likely to vote for a legislator voting for the bill. The survey company surveyed 1,169 adults and states there was an error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The surevey was commissioned by Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense. News story here: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politi...226510505.html

I absolutely do not believe this poll is a valid reflection of opinion. The story does not list the specific questions asked and neither do news releases from either anti-rights organization. The polling company, SurveyUSA does not even mention the survey on its website. I have to believe the questions were so slanted to make the poll invalid and/or many favoring concealed carry chose not to respond.

I get tons of calls from survey companies. I never participate.

[Wallyl]

The 2nd amendment clearly states the right to bear arms, by the people, should not be infringed----our elected officials swear an oath to abide by the constitution. How can they legislate gun control laws that violate the 2nd amendment? Does it not stand to reason they have violated their oath and have impeached themselves making such laws. Same with LEOs--they also swear to abide by the constitution...so how can they justify enforcing an unconstitutional law? I laud Kentucky for this legislation, but there should have never been the need to enact it in the first place.

[MoMan]

Originally Posted by KyJim

Anti-rights groups have predictably come out against the bill in force. They procured a phone survey which, they say, show "91 percent of Kentuckians and 90 percent of gun owners in the state favor the current permitting system for carrying concealed weapons." The survey also shows two-thirds of Kentuckians oppose the current bill and 72 percent would be less likely to vote for a legislator voting for the bill. The survey company surveyed 1,169 adults and states there was an error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The surevey was commissioned by Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense. News story here: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politi...226510505.html

I absolutely do not believe this poll is a valid reflection of opinion. The story does not list the specific questions asked and neither do news releases from either anti-rights organization. The polling company, SurveyUSA does not even mention the survey on its website. I have to believe the questions were so slanted to make the poll invalid and/or many favoring concealed carry chose not to respond.

I get tons of calls from survey companies. I never participate.

I agree with KyJim here. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that ANY survey/poll can be made to get the results "required". It is a matter of the questions asked, more particularly, the structure of the question. The person taking the survey/poll won't even realize they are being led to a certain outcome. It is very easily done, and happens on most surveys/polls.

ETA:
Being from Kentucky, I would bet this is probably one of the most "slanted" surveys/polls ever put together.

[MarkA]

Got past the house; headed to the Governor's desk! 60-37 vote.

[USNRet93]

Anti-rights groups have predictably come out against the bill in force.

BUT

The Kentucky House of Representatives approved legislation Friday that lets people carry a concealed gun without first getting a permit — or completing a background check and safety training — and sent it to Gov. Matt Bevin for consideration.

The House voted 60-37 to approve Senate Bill 150 despite opposition from the Louisville Metro Police Department and the Kentucky State Fraternal Order of Police, as well as the Kentucky chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a nationwide organization that's working to curb gun violence.

"We are supportive of the rights we protect for all citizens but have safety concerns with this bill as it stands," the Kentucky State FOP said in a tweet Friday before the House voted on SB 150. "We are concerned this bill could have potentially deadly, unintended consequences."

State Reps. Jerry Miller and Jason Nemes, both Louisville Republicans, voted against the bill along with some other GOP members, while several Democrats voted for it.

[KyJim]

I would expect the governor to sign the bill, though he has not commented publicly about it. The governor, a Republican, has taken some controversial actions on a variety of things and I would not expect him to do something to tick off his political base, especially with the widespread support the bill had in the state legislature. I'm also not surprised that Louisville Metro didn't like it, though I assume that it was primarily the decision of the chief. I'm a little surprised about the FOP.

[JN01]

Cincinnati Channel 12 news had a clip of the Governor stating that he would be signing the bill.

[KyJim]

The governor signed the bill into law yesterday. Since it has no emergency provision, it will go into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns on March 28th.

[Brownstone322]

Originally Posted by Wallyl

The 2nd amendment clearly states the right to bear arms, by the people, should not be infringed----our elected officials swear an oath to abide by the constitution. How can they legislate gun control laws that violate the 2nd amendment? Does it not stand to reason they have violated their oath and have impeached themselves making such laws. Same with LEOs--they also swear to abide by the constitution...so how can they justify enforcing an unconstitutional law? I laud Kentucky for this legislation, but there should have never been the need to enact it in the first place.

There's a simple answer: Elected officials and law enforcement do not have unilateral power to decide what is and isn't constitutional absent the presence of settled law.

There's not much settled law on the specifics of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The only way to get there is for legislatures to enact laws and for the federal courts to review challenges to those laws. That's how enumerated powers are supposed to work; no one's violating any oaths.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Brownstone322

There's a simple answer: Elected officials and law enforcement do not have unilateral power to decide what is and isn't constitutional absent the presence of settled law.

There's not much settled law on the specifics of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The only way to get there is for legislatures to enact laws and for the federal courts to review challenges to those laws. That's how enumerated powers are supposed to work; no one's violating any oaths.

First, to Wallyl: The Second Amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear arms "should" not be infringed. It saus the RKBA "shall" not be infringed. There is a difference.

To Brownstone322: I understand your point, but I can't completely agree with you. Too often legislators enact laws that are obviously at variance with the Constitution (or, in the case of state or local legislative bodies, at variance with the respective state constitution or laws) even though they know they aren't in keeping with the Constitution. Look at Hillary Clinton -- in the aftermath of the Heller and McDonald decisions, she stated flat out that the Supreme Court was "wrong." Remember, she was a United States senator. That single statement demonstrated conclusively that she had no respect for the Constitution she had sworn to uphold.

On a smaller/lower level, I can't find it again but I recall seeing a video on Youtube of a meeting of some local legislative body. They were debating the adoption of some restrictive, anti-gun ordinance. The state in question had a firearms preemption statute, which meant that if the municipality (or county, don't remember which) adopted the proposed ordinance it would be unenforceable. A member of the audience pointed this out to the legislative body. One of the councilmen then made the statement that he didn't care if the proposed law was prohibited by state law, he was going to vote for it anyway because "We have to do something."

I do not believe that the Founders ever intended for the Congress to engage in a cat-and-mouse game in which the Congress would intentionally enact laws they know full well are in conflict with the Constitution, but they count on the fact that it would cost huge amounts of money and take many years for anyone to successfully challenge the laws in court. That's morally wrong, even if you wish to argue that it's "legal." But that's what we see in action today.

And it stinks.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Brownstone322

There's a simple answer: Elected officials and law enforcement do not have unilateral power to decide what is and isn't constitutional absent the presence of settled law.

Elected reps don't have a unilateral power to adjudicate constitutionality, yet ideally they would possess both the capacity and inclination to legislate in ways that could be supported by a good faith view of constitutional limits or a good faith argument for extension of the current understanding of those limits.

A cynic might argue that good faith isn't relevant to a system in which counting votes, 218, 51 or 5, is enough to win, but disputes seem more susceptible to genuine resolution with a coherent foundation where we all speak the same constitutional language and make arguments rather than excuses.