Bill passes Kentucky Senate to allow concealed carry without license

K

KyJim

New member
Kentucky has constitutional open carry and "shall issue" concealed carry. The Kentucky Senate passed a bill 29-8 on February 14th to allow concealed carry without a license, while also keeping the licensing system in place. This allows those with licences to carry concealed in those states with reciprocity agreements.

For those of you who always think this sort of thing is a partisan issue, a number of "yes" votes came from Democrats. One of the "nays" is Republican. I don't participate in lobbying, but I expect the bill has an excellent chance in the House.

Of course, some of the local media has tried to put the bill in a bad light, noting that it came out of the Senate on the anniversary of the Parkland school shooting. https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article226259470.html

The bill itself is at: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/19RS/sb150/orig_bill.pdf
 
"concealed carry without a license"

Not sure if I'm just naïve or just a little too concerned. My wife and I are on year 6 of our CCW status and have now attended two qualifications and also read USCCA and many other publications stressing - AVOID any reason to have to shoot. Both courses were different in content as were the qualifications and range time.

I am a advocate of anyone carrying a Firearm to be educated to a fault on why we are doing it - Being from Minnesota we just had a Road Rage issue where a CCW in good standings shot a short bus driver over a snowy freeway congestion scratch and dent issue. Six shots and hitting the driver while children were on board. CRAZY - now he also had another deadly issue a few years back and charges were not filed as the Dead guy was a gang punk.

I feel if this guy can be one of our "CCW Brothers" then how about anyone who just wants to carry be a good thing.

Just my thoughts -
 
I feel if this guy can be one of our "CCW Brothers" then how about anyone who just wants to carry be a good thing.
Click to expand...

So, you think others should comply to your standards or do without?

If so, then you are joined by several politicians who also want to restrict our right to defend ourselves. I would not consider you a brother if you are against others being able to defend themselves at home or wherever they legally travel.

I would encourage you to rook around here a bit and learn about what the Constitution is, is not and what the 2nd amendment is saying.

There are many well written articles on the subject here that might give you some ideas and insight to the subject.
 
Not sure if I'm just naïve or just a little too concerned.
Click to expand...
No amount of background checks or training can insure that nobody with a CCL uses his or her gun inappropriately. We can open carry in my state without a license and can stow a gun "concealed" in a glove box or other inside storage compartment. So, I don't think allowing more people carry concealed will increase the risk of deadly encounters due to road rage. And, how many times will citizens benefit from being able to carry concealed without a license? But we should avoid this type of balancing because rational arguments can be made to ban private possession of guns entirely. A rational argument just means a logical or reasoned argument; not a better argument or an argument that considers our constitutional rights.

More importantly, the culture has changed in our country. Open carry used to be culturally acceptable in a great deal of the country. Now, it's much less socially acceptable. In cities, it's a sure way to get hassled, even if it's legal. Thus, allowing concealed carry without a license reinforces our inherent right to self-defense.

In addition, most of us here can pay the license fees and training costs without a financial sacrifice. But many are just hanging on. Allowing concealed carry without a license puts those in precarious financial shape on more or less on equal footing with those a bit better off.
 
That is great news about Kentucky. I am also curious if passed will it allow any US citizen to carry in Kentucky or only Kentucky citizens?

I know that will never happen in Illinois where it costs us about $400 to get a CCW which IMO is a crime and prevents a lot who need CCW the most, primarily inner city law abiding minorities, from being able to afford it but that is by design by the politicians that want to keep a boot on their neck.

While I am all for anyone who wants to own a or carry a firearm to get training that includes safe handling, basic proficiency, and understanding the laws I certainly don't want it to be mandatory. States or cities that feel it is a concern should offer free training classes for those interested in such. The MSM anti gun agenda focuses only on criminal uses of firearms and never the many many daily instances of those who use them to defend themselves from violent criminals.
 
Last edited:
The House recurved received it Friday but it has not been assigned to a committee yet.

The bill does not distinguish between citizens of Kentucky and citizens of other states.
 
Last edited:
L2R said:
I would encourage you to look around here a bit and learn about what the Constitution is, is not and what the 2nd amendment is saying.

There are many well written articles on the subject here that might give you some ideas and insight to the subject.
Click to expand...

The Constitution makes no reference to public carry at all, and the right to "bear" arms (as opposed to simply "keep" them) is subject to interpretation of the federal judiciary. We don't actually know what the high court thinks, but Scalia (who was about as supportive of gun rights as any justice is likely to get) wrote thusly:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

While these were essentially side notes to the core finding of DC v. Heller (which held that we have a right to keep most firearms in our homes without regard to any militia, but nothing more), his writing didn't bode well for the concept of "Constitutional carry," which is a made-up political term, every bit as much as, say, "assault weapon."
 
Heller did not address those issues specifically. They were not before the court. It is speculated that Scalia included that language to ensure a 5th vote.
At the SCOTUS level, the legality of carry laws has not been addressed.
 
Being from KY it is great to see a bunch of bipartisan support for this bill. The law is a good one, that makes total sense. I love the point that was made regarding someone who is legal to open carry, becoming a criminal just because he put a coat on.

I have my CCDW, and will continue to renew it as we travel quite a bit, and need it for reciprocity in many of the states we go through or to.

The 2A does not say anything about training being required to have this right!!
 
The 2A does not say anything about training being required to have this right!!
Click to expand...

But don't you think that's a good idea?

RGRacing said
"concealed carry without a license"

Not sure if I'm just naïve or just a little too concerned. My wife and I are on year 6 of our CCW status and have now attended two qualifications and also read USCCA and many other publications stressing - AVOID any reason to have to shoot. Both courses were different in content as were the qualifications and range time.

I am a advocate of anyone carrying a Firearm to be educated to a fault on why we are doing it
Click to expand...

I agree...allowing anybody to carry w/o training makes me a little uneasy.
The 'law' to buy a gun these days is a pretty low bar, IMHO.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/02...gh-school-track-aurora-dispute-parking-space/
The incident started as an ongoing dispute between two neighbors over a parking spot, Sherman said.
“The two neighbors who live right across from each other were arguing on text and they finally decided to settle the matter by coming here to Eaglecrest High School and to Thunder Ridge Middle School … kind of in between.”
Click to expand...
At some point a 31-year-old male got a gun and shot his neighbor — a 46-year-old male. The suspect then called police to surrender and went home just a few blocks away.
Click to expand...
 
Do you know for a fact that the 31 year old guy had never received training? If he hadn't, do you think training would have stopped him from being an idiot?

Training is a good idea. Mandatory training is a bad idea as it can easily be used to disenfranchise people who cannot afford said training.
 
When it comes to matters of law simplified and streamlined are the best, good for the citizens of Kentucky.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Required training limits rights to only those that can afford it.
Agree with the above poster about training being a good thing.
I took required two day training in order to get a license: none of it covered safely shooting or carrying a handgun. Very little was even about guns. There was a requirement to get part of your 50 rounds on a human sized stationary target at really close ranges.
The required training was fairly expensive, something a poor person couldn’t afford. The licensing fee to the state was fairly expensive as well; however, the state did have discounted fee for the financially destitute. Still, the required training from private parties can be expensive.
 
Last edited:
In NH something similar was done 2 years ago - not sure how it relates to non-residents though. In the case of NH we had a shall issue license that permitted concealed carry, with no training requirement, that was 99% based on whether somebody was allowed to own a gun - again, 99% of the time, if one could own a gun the local chief of police or selectmen ran a background check and signed off.

Open carry had been legal without a permit for some time, however a loaded pistol in a vehicle I believe was always considered "concealed".. With our permit, since it was only red tape really, they got rid of the requirement and things make more sense now if you ask me. If you can't own the gun you are breaking the law anyway; if you can own the gun the permit was just a formality.

What I will say is being spread across two residences (in NH, different towns) I've always been hesitant to get the permit since one rule of the permit is you relinquish it upon change of residence and must re-apply in the town of your new residence (it would be easy for someone to accuse me of lying about my residence no matter which I use and then I'd potentially be in violation of the law concerning the permit).. So now I carry concealed if I wish and without the red tape. It was a good change - "common sense" :) if you ask me.

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...

As far as training requirements go - I get and have witnessed something as simple as trigger discipline, or operation of their particular firearm even, is not necessarily understood with new gun owners, which is sad.. But then I do not understand why grandma (or anyone) has to pay hundreds of $$ and be able to shoot a particular group in order to carry her revolver in her purse. A basic free written test with the option of taking the class or reading a study guide would suffice to cover gun safety basics if you ask me. Weak minded people with anger management problems are not filtered out or made safe through "training".
 
Do you know for a fact that the 31 year old guy had never received training?
Click to expand...

MY point is that additional, 'mandatory' training for a CCWP is NOT a bad idea. Lotsa of wackos out there with legally obtained guns. For these 'stupid in public' people to CCW w/o any additional training, isn't a good idea, IMHO.
Training is a good idea. Mandatory training is a bad idea as it can easily be used to disenfranchise people who cannot afford said training.
Click to expand...

Every state that doesn't have no license CCWP requires training..mandatory training, even IF(as in my case), it's crappy training.
 
MoMan said:
The 2A does not say anything about training being required to have this right!!
Click to expand...

These kinds of arguments are clichéd and are non-starters, legally. For one, the Second Amendment doesn't mention public carry at all. Beyond that ...

• The First Amendment doesn't say anything about "speech" in regard to non-verbal expression or "free press" in regard to electronic media.

• The First Amendment doesn't say anything about what a "religion" actually is or what "free exercise" might legally entail.

• The Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about your car or rental properties (such as a storage unit) or private electronic communications.

• The Fifth Amendment doesn't say anything about a citizen's implicit right to be reminded of his basic rights before being interrogated.

I could go on and on. The Bill of Rights establishes basic limitations on the powers of government. It's up to the federal judiciary to define the minutiae in an evolving society.

My view is that the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that persons carrying weapons in public have basic training and credentials. I personally favor thorough instruction that includes academic training and live-fire exercises and legitimate examinations for both. I'm impressed, however, by the comments by others here that such training should not be limited solely to those with the means to pay for it.
 
USNRet93 said:
MY point is that additional, 'mandatory' training for a CCWP is NOT a bad idea. Lotsa of wackos out there with legally obtained guns. For these 'stupid in public' people to CCW w/o any additional training, isn't a good idea, IMHO.


Every state that doesn't have no license CCWP requires training..mandatory training, even IF(as in my case), it's crappy training.
Click to expand...

Just because someone is trained, it doesn't mean that they will follow what they learned. Irresponsible people will do what they do no matter how much training you force on them. Responsible people will find out what they need to know whether it is mandated or not.

I'm not aware of any states that require training prior to purchasing a gun. Lots of people who don't have a carry permit do stupid things with those guns. Do you want to force them to get training as well?

You are also wrong about every state requiring training prior to issuing a carry permit, I believe Indiana is one of them that has no training requirement. The first permit-less carry state, Vermont, allowed untrained people to carry for a century, apparently without major issues.
 
No amount of training or classes will deter stupidity. I cannot speak about other states training when it comes to obtaining a concealed carry permit, but when I took the class a lot of years back, all the class did was read over the state statutes regarding the lawful use of deadly force, and go to the range. If you could hit the paper, you were good to go.
If you were hitting the ground at 5 yards because the gunshop told you a hammerless double action snub nose was the best gun for protection, and you had never shot a gun before, never dry fired, the instructor just handed you one of his guns, with a single action trigger pull so the shooter could at least hit paper instead of dirt.
Oh and all that 'classwork' didn't prevent a ND while the line was not only cold, but transitioning shooters, so someone on that line coming off failed to clear their weapon as well as to keep boogerhook off the trigger.

No, that's not exaggeration or hyperbole.
 
Washington state does not require training, at least when I got my permit 5 years ago. Texas does, but Texas allowed me to transition my permit to Non-resident when I moved.

In Washington, I went to the sheriff’s office, paid a reasonable fee, got my self fingerprinted there and a few short days later the little guy was in the mailbox.

My Texas permit back in the old days was an expensive lengthy process that was really inconvenient. I hear it’s changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top