• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Radio Show Hosts KY Gun Control/Rights Talk

poetdante

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Messages
446
Location
Louisville, KY
Louisville's radio station 89.3 FM WFPL will host some folks discussing gun rights/laws in Kentucky. So far there will be Jeffrery Donohue (local law maker representing a huge swath of Jefferson County), a representative from Moms Demand Action, and someone from Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition (KC3). I have no doubt that the first two will push crazy anti-gun stuff. KC3 is the best organization representing all gun owners in Kentucky. Its members and leadership have near single-handily passed licensed and permitless concealed carry here. They also work tirelessly to ensure local governments are in compliance with the State's preemption authority on all matters pertaining to firearms. Without them, Kentucky would be a VERY different place. Please call and show your support. If you are a member/representative of a pro-gun organization that would be willing to come on the show, email me.


11:04 a.m. Friday October 4 89.3 FM

Call 502-814-TALK to call in with your opinions or Tweet them at @ WFPLNews (https://twitter.com/WFPLNews)
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,780
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Here is all that needs to be said:

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

For those who don't like the Second Amendment, repeal the Second Amendment. And if you can't repeal the Second Amendment then shut up.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
905
Location
Kentucky
Louisville's radio station 89.3 FM WFPL will host some folks discussing gun rights/laws in Kentucky. So far there will be Jeffrery Donohue (local law maker representing a huge swath of Jefferson County), a representative from Moms Demand Action, and someone from Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition (KC3). I have no doubt that the first two will push crazy anti-gun stuff. KC3 is the best organization representing all gun owners in Kentucky. Its members and leadership have near single-handily passed licensed and permitless concealed carry here. They also work tirelessly to ensure local governments are in compliance with the State's preemption authority on all matters pertaining to firearms. Without them, Kentucky would be a VERY different place. Please call and show your support. If you are a member/representative of a pro-gun organization that would be willing to come on the show, email me.


11:04 a.m. Friday October 4 89.3 FM

Call 502-814-TALK to call in with your opinions or Tweet them at @ WFPLNews (https://twitter.com/WFPLNews)
Yep without em we would have had permitless concealed carry in the late 90s. And no Hodge of regulations born with that permit scheme that could not have come into existence with OC or permitless cc .

It's a show in Louisville. It will be totally anti gun or with luck moderately anti gun.

Neither Lex, not Louisville nor KC3 in any way represent " Kentucky's gun owners".
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,780
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You looking for more ammo against the antis? Here you go.

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute.

Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.

Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.

Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum
Translation: A thing adjudged [the solemn judgment of a court] makes white, black; black, white; the crooked, straight; the straight, crooked.

The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.

The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
905
Location
Kentucky

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,780
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
For a legislator Jeffery Donohue has no concept of his oath and the laws of Kentucky. He says you have to have a license to hunt in KY. This is true, but if he would actually read the laws he would realize that that a hunting license is issued for the SPORT of taking game not putting food on the table. Putting food on the table is a right.

KRS 150.010(12) "Hunting" means to take or attempt to take in any manner, whether the hunter has game in possession or not;

Game is not defined in the KRS. Black's Law Dictionary 5th. - GAME: A sport, pastime or contest.
 
Top