A Law that makes sense for once!!!

[kyfanatic]

Finally a little common sense from our law makers =
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060706/NEWS01/607060345

[Art]

Sweet!!!!!

[WildmanWilson]

Did I read it right...you will also be able to have a weapon in your vehicle at work ? I know my employer will fire me on the spot if I'm carrying a weapon in my vehicle.

[kyfanatic]

That's the way I read it,you can also use deadly force on carjackers and such.

[PhilpotHunter]

The other exempts concealed carry permits from the state open records law, bars law enforcement officers from seizing weapons during disasters and allows employees to keep firearms in their vehicles on the premises of their employers. It was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Belcher, D-Owingsville

How is that possible? A bill to expand gun rights, sponsored by a Democrat???:rolleyes:

[gwhilikerz]

Doesn't KY law already state something like "a Kentuckian does not have to retreat but can stand his ground when confronted with violence" ?

[Auk1124]

Doesn't KY law already state something like "a Kentuckian does not have to retreat but can stand his ground when confronted with violence" ?

That's what I thought as well. I was under the impression there was never a duty to retreat in KY to begin with. And as far as the use of a gun in home invasion or carjacking scenarios I was under the impression deadly force could be used if in reasonable fear of one's life or safety already. In short I don't really understand what this law does that is different from what we had before. Maybe someone with a more thorough knowledge of self protection laws can explain it.

I'm afraid people will read this to mean they can use deadly force to defend PROPERTY, and I don't think that is the case...

[Bruttus]

The current law stated that if someone broke into your house and when you found them, they were headed to the door (retreating) the threat was gone, and you could not use deadly force. This is where the bull$hit ends. If they come in your house you can use deadly force. This will also make those SOB think twice about car jacking somebody.

[naturalelite]

How many of us would hesitate to pop a cap in someones butt if they broke into your house. I know I wouldn't hesitate but I have a wife and two daughters to worry about.

[Bruttus]

One must be very carefull. I have three kids between 15 & 20. They have friends over all times of the night.:confused:

[naturalelite]

Very true. Mine are still abit young for midnight knock on the doors. And if they get one someone is going to be in so much trouble anyway they would rather be shot.:D

[Bruttus]

Just wait Naturalite, when then become teenagers they turn into vampires. Up all night, sleep all day.

[WildmanWilson]

As far as keeping a weapon in you vehicle at work....does that pertain to only handguns or rifles and bows. I would love to be able to keep my bow or rifle in my truck so I could go hunting after work without going back home first.

I bet even if the law is true many employers will not go by it. They will find something else to fire you over.

[Bruttus]

The artical reads "firearms"

[bladeslinger]

How is that possible? A bill to expand gun rights, sponsored by a Democrat???:rolleyes: I heard that and how true !!!:D ;) Actually I do know of a lot of democrats that are for all the right things (like this), IMO there should be another political party .......Republicans, Democrats and Liberals (most of them are the same as the communist party though). That way the Liberals wouldn't trash the name of what good democrats that are out there.

[GSP]

Check out Bob Damron's record. ;)

[ecmbowhunter]

hmm...the company i work for (and loathe) has the "no deadly weapons on company premises" policy also...so does this law override their policy?

[AteUp]

hmm...the company i work for (and loathe) has the "no deadly weapons on company premises" policy also...so does this law override their policy?

Actually, it was debated on here before and OK and KY were the only states that declared it illegal for employers to prohibit employees from keeping weapons in their vehicles on company grounds. I argued that it was a private property owner's right to do so but found out later after searching the net that I was wrong. The premise is that an employer prohibiting someone from having a firearm in their vehicle on company grounds is thereby disarming that person for the entire ride to work, because they can't take their weapon with them. It was fought and won in Oklahoma and for some reason KY was the other state, but I guess it just became "official" now.

[AteUp]

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=193

Parking Lot Gun Laws and the Right to Transport Firearms

Should people who lawfully possess firearms be able to leave them locked in their motor vehicles, on business property? Common sense would say, "yes." All 50 states allow the transportation of firearms in motor vehicles for all lawful purposes and 48 states allow the carrying of firearms in vehicles for personal protection, in some manner.1 More than one of every four of America`s 65-80 million gun owners carries a firearm in his or her vehicle for protection.2

The U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of 46 states protect the right to arms and/or self-defense.3 And since 1986, federal law has protected the right to transport firearms in vehicles interstate.4

However, over the last few years disagreements over the right of people to leave firearms locked in their vehicles on business property have arisen. As a result, four state legislatures have passed, and during their current legislative sessions another seven states are considering passing, laws to protect that right.5

The issue began in 2002 in Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser corporation fired employees for having guns in personal vehicles on company property. The Oklahoma Legislature responded, unanimously in the House and by a vote of 92-4 in the Senate, by prohibiting "any policy or rule" prohibiting law-abiding people "from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle."

Arguments raised against the right of people, particularly employees, to leave firearms in locked vehicles on business property are unconvincing:

* A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by a law preventing the micro-management of the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile. Moreover, an employer`s private property interests do not trump a person`s right to have a firearm available for self-defense, if needed, during the daily commute to and from work. As with all civil rights, employers and owners of commercial property may not act with disregard to the rights of citizens. Reasonable accommodation is the foundation of the protection of all civil rights.
* A commercial landowner is subject to numerous limits, imposed by the federal, state and local governments, on what may and may not occur on its property.
* Employees have a legitimate private property interest where their automobiles and their contents are concerned. In our legal system, property rights extend to property other than land.
* Most gun-related violent crimes in workplaces are committed by non-employees. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 84% of all workplace murders are committed by strangers; 7% are committed by current or former employees.6 Naturally, strangers and former employees are not bound by any company policy pertaining to employees.
* Anyone determined to commit a violent crime will not be prevented from doing so by a mere company policy against having guns in cars. This should go without saying, since criminals are already willing to break laws against murder, rape, robbery and assault.
* Laws protecting the right to leave firearms in locked motor vehicles do not authorize a person to have a firearm outside his or her vehicle.
* Laws protecting the right to leave firearms in locked motor vehicles on business property specifically protect the property owner from liability for any related injuries or damages. Also, if a business prohibits people from possessing the means to defend themselves in their vehicles, it is potentially liable for injuries and damages incurred for failure to provide adequate security.
* The problem of workplace crimes has been exaggerated. The nation`s violent crime rate has declined every year since 1991 and is now at a 30-year low, the murder rate is at a 39-year low, and workplace violent crime has decreased more than violent crime generally. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health says, "the circumstances of workplace homicides differ substantially from those portrayed by the media and from homicides in the general population."7

Notes:

1. Only Illinois and Wisconsin do not have such laws.

2. USA Today/CNN/Gallup National Poll, Dec. 17-19, 1993.

3. The constitutions of the United States and all states except California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York protect the right to possess firearms for protection, recreation, sports, hunting, and other lawful purposes. Iowa and New Jersey`s constitutions protect the right to self-defense in general terms.

4. 18 U.S.C. sec. 926A.

5. In 1998, Kentucky`s Attorney General determined that state law prohibits employers from prohibiting people from having firearms in their vehicles. Minnesota`s Right-to-Carry law (2003) prohibits employers from prohibiting carry permit holders from having firearms in their vehicles. Laws protecting the right of any lawful possessor of a firearm to have a firearm in a personally-owned vehicle were passed in Oklahoma and Alaska in 2005, and are currently under consideration in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Mississippi, and Virginia.

6. "Violence in the Workplace, 1993-1999," Dec. 2001 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vw99.pdf). The study also noted, the highest percentage of work-related murders occur between 8p.m.-12 a.m., when most businesses are closed.

7. "Violence in the Workplace," July 1996 (www.cdc.gov/niosh/violhomi.html).

Posted: 2/15/2006

[ecmbowhunter]

thanks AteUp, that's some good information