Kentucky residents, will your governor sign it if it lands on his desk??

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/kentucky-constitutional-carry-bill-to-house-floor/#axzz5gqpyrXPp


Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- On February 27th, the Kentucky state House Judiciary Committee voted 12-8 to pass Senate Bill 150. SB 150 will now go to the House floor for a full vote.

Senate Bill 150, sponsored by Senator Brandon Smith (R-30), would recognize a law-abiding citizen’s unconditional Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense in the manner they choose. Self-defense situations are difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate. Accordingly, a law-abiding adult’s right to defend himself or herself in such situations should not be conditioned by government-mandated time delays and taxes.

I would be surprised if Bevin didn't sign it.

c'mon Ohio

yeah...right

You KY boys need to get off your asses and start contacting your state reps and Governor right now and don't let up. Good luck.

My rep is one of the sponsors.

Then call the governors office.....often.

Or you can set on your hands and say "I did my part...I made a post on an internet forum"....your choice.

I hope it happens

If it gets to Bevin, he'll sign it.

If you'd like to hear some really strong & common sense pro gun speak, listen to Ky. Gov. Matt Bevin. If you''d like to see a prominent figure go after an anti gunner with a ton more panache than Ted Nugent , but with the same vigor, watch Bevin.

If he doesn't sign it, it would be a very interesting reason to say the least.

Just got word it passed 12-8-3 out of House judiciary committee yesterday. Dr. John Lott showed up to testify with all the Moms Demand Action crowd there as well.

Headed to the floor for a full vote!

https://www.wlky.com/article/permit...bElsSdwznsqKpT4xXMckEc6YKu8rzG-O1ayMrZPY

Bill passes KY House, headed to Bevin's Desk

Bingo.

https://www.wymt.com/content/news/L...l-goes-to-Gov-Bevins-desk-506562031.html

That's number 16. We are effectively at CC in a third of the states.

Awesome.

Congrats to KY.

Hell yes!!! I just lit a fire under my Texas rep and senator about Oklahoma AND Kentucky doing it in the same week.

Don't forget South Dakota.

That makes three this year.

Wonder if / how this affects carrying in reciprocity states that still require formal CCDW permits?

I'm pretty sure it won't change the fact that you still need a CCW to carry in another state which grants reciprocity.

lol,..Bevin said that anybody who doesn't like it can move.

Way to go Kentucky! re: Bevin telling people to move...The Tulsa World is just full of articles still going on about it after it already is law. All sorts of freaking snowflakes caterwauling and showing their asses.

What I suspect too.

Also, wondering if this means that KY will (or soon will) no longer even issue CCDW permits, period?

Classic!

Uhhhh??????

57/3=19

In order to avail yourself of formal reciprocity you must have a CCW from one of the conforming states. There are some states like AK where anybody may already carry concealed without a permit.

Sounds like freedom to me.

The article that I read indicated that KY will continue to issue CCDW permits specifically to allow Kentuckians the opportunity of carry in other states with CCDW reciprocity. Third of fourth paragraph down in attached article.

Kentucky Today Article

Welcome aboard Comrade!

Good news .... Texas needs to go now!

I wish more politicians would take this approach. There are plenty of liberal enclaves. They can all congregate there.

And if that isn't good enough, go to Canaduh.

Welcome to the club my Appalachian-American cousins.

Signed into law, and cops KEEP bitching about it:

https://www.wlky.com/article/kentucky-is-16th-state-to-sign-constitutional-carry-law/26801276

March 12, 2019

Kentucky is now the 16th state to pass a constitutional carry law. But several groups, including law enforcement members, say it's a dangerous move.

Senate bill 150, which Governor Matt Bevin signed into law Monday, allows gun owners to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

At Openrange in Crestwood, it takes 7 hours and $85 to get a concealed carry permit. But as of Monday, gun owners legally won't need to do any of that to carry their concealed weapon in Kentucky.

"This is a constitutional right that we have been given and that has existed for 200 and some odd years and the responsible people can handle it just fine," said Bevin.

An NRA spokesperson said the law is "a common sense measure that allows law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right of self-protection in the manner that best suits their needs."

But several law enforcement groups say the issue isn't about rights, but safety.

"To me, the biggest takeaway is that people that are allowed to carry these guns now, don't have the proper training or how to interact with police if they are approached, it's a safety issue for us," said St. Matthews Police Chief Barry Wilkerson.

He said the new law can be dangerous for a person carrying a concealed weapon without any training.

"I relate it to basically driving a vehicle, would you stick a 16-year-old in a vehicle without any training," asked Wilkerson.

A spokesperson for Kentucky's Fraternal Order of Police said their biggest concern is that gun owners can now miss out on training that teaches them how to interact with law enforcement.

"Part of that concealed carry class are blocks of instruction on the law, as well as safety with the firearm, how to clean your gun, those kind of things," said Drew Fox, Fraternal Order of Police.

Governor Bevin said he hopes gun owners will still go through training. And you are still encouraged to get a permit, if you want to be compliant other concealed carry states.

//////////////////////////////////////

St. Matthews Police Chief Barry Wilkerson and the FOP are welcome to hold FREE classes on concealed/open carry and brief students on current law if armed citizens bother them that much. They need to put their money where their mouths are.

St. Matthews is a suburb of Louisville. That's all you need to know about that.

Might be interesting to see which way the winds blow regarding legal and civil defense issues of constitutional carry after a non CCDW holder shoots someone claiming self defense.

Great news Kentucky I hope Texas can get this done while we’re still able.

The main LEO groups that complain are from the few liberal bastions in the state. Every state has some political hack LEOs that the media runs to every time they want viewers to think ALL police are against it. I'm proud of Gov. Bevin for having the balls to sign it.

hear hear

This pretty much says all that needs to be said . . . "This is a constitutional right that we have been given and that has existed for 200 and some odd years and the responsible people can handle it just fine," said Bevin.

"To me, the biggest takeaway is that people that are allowed to carry these guns now, don't have the proper training or how to interact with police if they are approached, it's a safety issue for us," said St. Matthews Police Chief Barry Wilkerson. or how to deal with police when approached?

Doesn't this dumb ass know that none of the punks and thugs who are carrying illegal now give one hoot about training. In Oklahoma, the only important requirement for legal concealed carry is to inform any policeman, who might approach you in an official capacity, that you are carrying. Very simple.

"Allowed". He has no knowledge whatsoever of the Constitution and its meanings and implications. Rights aren't "given" by anybody but God. The Constitution allows nothing, but recognizes everything.

Good!

That is the concern I have about it. Now, I'll start this out by saying that people have been carrying concealed forever, back before there were such things as concealed carry permits, or licensed carry. I know, because I did. But, I grew up handling guns, and think I know a little about gun safety. I do worry about those people who go out and buy a gun, people who never been around firearms, and know nothing about the safety aspect of handling a gun.....and you can bet your azz there are such people.

We don't hire a cop one day, and then issue him a gun and a badge the next day, and put him on the street. We don't sign a guy up in the military one day, and then give him a gun and send him off the war the next day. We give those people training on how to use that weapon, and maybe even more importantly, especially in the case of the police, WHEN to use it. Yet, constitutional carry allows people to go around packing, who have never had one minutes worth of training as to when it's legal to use their gun.

I do support constitutional carry, but I also support making it mandatory for someone to undergo some training, that would give them some idea about what the law says about their right to legally shoot someone. I don't think that's asking too much.

Then you actually DON'T support Constitutional Carry or the Constitution as the Founders wrote and intended it. You support some sort of illegal system mandating training, which costs SOMEBODY money. If the legislators write the law to make training free, somebody still has to pay for it-even if whoever is doing the training donates their time. That means the trainers are essentially paying for it. If you don't like CC you should just move north or east a ways to a state where you'll be in your safe space and not have to deal with all these white trash rednecks that are going to shoot up all the good Democrats. Seriously, check your head.

Kentucky still has Constables, who are elected peace officers with arrest powers and the full weight and authority of law, in all 120 counties. Absolutely zero LEO training required for that position - all they have to do is win a local election.

If we in KY can give some nobody arrest powers and peace officer authority with no LEO training, then the rest of us nobodies ought to be able to handle concealed carry.

You're right about the constables, which is a position that should have been done away with years ago. Most that I've known were some idiot that liked to play "I wanna be a cop when I grow up."

Like I said, I have mixed feelings on it, as I still believe someone needs to undergo some sort of training as to what's legal and what's not......and that would include constables as well.

Again, you may as well say you don't support the Constitution.

With Rights come Responsibilities.

Whoever carries has a responsibility to themselves.

As far as the POS chief, he needs to have a class for his LEO's on how to interact with legally armed citizens.

The failure of previous generations to accept these facts and demand that the laws or lack thereof, reflect them, is what has gotten us to where we are today with all the illegal laws being enforced against us.

You can see it any way you want to, but that's not how I'm looking at it. I've been hunting for over 60 years, yet the state of Kentucky tells me that if I want to hunt on certain state and federal lands here, that I must take and pass a hunter safety course. Yet, they say that some 21 year old person that has never handled a gun before, can walk around in public carrying one......even if they don't know how to us it, or when it's legally to do so.....but that same 21 year old cannot go hunting unless they have taken a safety course. I just find that somewhat contradictory, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution......except to narrow minded people.

If wanting to follow the Constitution strictly is narrow minded then I'm narrow minded. Following it liberally as you are advocating, is what has lead us down the road to tyranny already. You probably think Red Flag laws are okie-dokey too. The Constitution says nothing about your "right" to hunt. It says everything about your right to protect yourself and ultimately have the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. What amount of infringement is okay? What amount of training is okay? Guns are dangerous, so is seven hours really enough? Maybe with your way of thinking, seven hours incrementally. Seven hourse to carry a flintlock horse pistol then another seven to carry a Contender. On and on. What do you need to have an AR for anyway?

It has everything to do with the Constitution and you don't support that document.

What is more dangerous ultimately, a gun or an idea? Ultimately ideas are more dangerous so it is logical to assume that if you need training to carry a gun you should be required to have training to express ideas and that training should include only expressing ideas that are accepatable...call them...what? Let's say, "Politically Correct" or "PC". Only PC ideas are acceptable and all shall be indoctrinated, I mean "trained" to express only those ideas. After all, if you have to have training in order to defend yourself then you should have to have training before you go spewing ideas. You might advocate for the KKK or something...

So let's say some woman is suddenly being stalked by a co-worker who she doesn't want to have anything to do with but who does want to have something to do with her. Should she be required to take a seven hour course in order to pick up a gun in her own house to defend herself? If not, then what should she do if she wants to go outside, say to work? Leave the gun at home because she lacks the training?

The bottom line is that training requires documentation, let's say a CCW. That costs money and requires bureaucracy. The Constitution says "the right to keep and BEAR arms" and says nothing about "with training" or "with permission of the government" or "with the appropriate license after all taxes, fees, etc. are paid".

The founders were a lot smarter than you. Take note.

The point that I'm trying to make has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. If Kentucky says it's alright to carry without a permit, then that's their right to do so. So, that means that it's okay for anyone without any training about safety or the law, to walk around armed. However, at the same time, they're telling those same residents that they can't use a firearm for hunting, unless they have passed a safety course. To me, that doesn't make sense........and yeah, our hunting license does tell us that hunting is a privilege and not a right.


Now, I'm not going to knock the hunter safety courses, as they're a good thing for beginning hunters to take, especially those who may not have had a parent to teach them gun safety. AND......I am a firm believer in personal responsibility, which means that it ultimately falls upon the shoulders of the person themselves, to make sure they are aware and familiar with all the aspects of safety and the law. AND....I am also a firm believer in punishing them if they don't.

Which brings us back to the subject at hand, constitutional carry, something I see as a little of a Catch-22 situation. On one hand you tell someone that they don't have to have any training to carry that gun, that's it's their right under the Constitution to do so, even if they have to shoot another person. Okay....I agree. Then, on the other hand, you tell them that if they want to go hunting with that gun and shoot a deer, then they must have training. To me, that sounds like a deer is more important than a person.

And you too.......something I figured out a long time ago.

Yes they were, but I'm still a lot smarter than you. You should've tucked your tail because this is an argument you'll never win. There is simply no Constitutional basis for what you want and that's the end of the story right there. You said it has nothing to with the Constitution, and you're right. That's it.

In any sane state of the union, if a deer attacks you and you shoot it in self-defense then I'm sure you'll be acquitted in the criminal trial. The deer's relatives may have friends on the jury in the civil trial and you may have to take out a second mortgage though. Look what happened to poor OJ.