Quantcast
Home | Back

Like high court, local officials split on gun ruling

Share Story:     Share_email E-mail Story    |    Share_print Print Story    |    Comments    |   

Retired Franklin Circuit Judge William L. Graham says last week's 5-4 ruling " striking down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun possession " "shows a "pretty deep divide in the Supreme Court."

Nita Gilbert, co-owner of Gilbert's Gun Shop on Louisville Road in Frankfort, said "amen" to the ruling. "It's about time."

Graham said the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is a "perfect example of him and the conservative majority using their own political agenda to belie the notions they advance in other cases. Those notions include great deference to the wisdom and judgment of popularly elected legislative bodies at the state and local level.

"This is (Scalia's) political agenda because he's throwing out what the legislature and the people of the District of Columbia have decided is the best way to govern their own safety and well-being," Graham told The State Journal.
"Whether he adheres to these principles he's so fond of enunciating depends on whose ox is getting gored."

Graham said Scalia also is casting aside "many, many years of judicial opinions and scholarship by the Supreme Court in interpreting the Second Amendment. The initial phrase that precedes the right to bear arms refers to the right of a militia to bear arms.

"Previously the federal courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to grant local and state legislatures the authority to reasonably regulate the circumstances under which individuals sometimes have a right to bear arms, particularly in public places."

Jason Gilbert, co-owner of Gilbert's Gun Shop, said the ruling "was an excellent verdict for sure. I'm kind of surprised it was 5-4. But for the first time since 1939 they've ruled that gun ownership is an individual right."

Following the ruling, the National Rifle Association filed lawsuits against San Francisco and Chicago," Gilbert said. "With a lot of support behind the NRA now, their handgun laws will be up for reverting back in favor of the firearm owners who believe it's an individual right to own a firearm."

Judge-Executive Ted Collins, a longtime Franklin County sheriff, said Friday he hadn't read about the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun possession.

"But my general belief regarding guns is that our U.S. Constitution gives people of this country the right to bear arms," Collins said.

"Of course being a former sheriff, I believe there are certain areas that need protection where you wouldn't carry guns such as court sessions where emotions can run high.

"As long as reasonable people use good judgment there's a time and place for everything. But there's always going to be some slight restrictions to that."
Thursday's ruling came a day after a plastics plant worker in Henderson opened fire during an overnight shift, killing five co-workers and then himself.

The ruling decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense.

The court's landmark 5 to 4 ruling split along ideological grounds and wiped away years of lower court decisions declaring that the amendment's intent, ratified more than 200 years ago, was to tie the right of gun possession to the militia.

Locally, Collins said he doesn't think citizens should be allowed to carry guns to Fiscal Court meetings on the third floor of the courthouse annex.

"This building is tied in with the judicial court system " district, circuit and family court " and it's not an appropriate place to be carrying guns," he said.
Collins said he didn't know enough about the recent gun controversy at City Hall to comment.

The City Commission had discussed installing a metal detector to prevent concealed firearms at public meetings.

It was prompted by the deadly shooting at a city council meeting in Kirkwood, Mo., on Feb. 7 that left two police officers and three city officials dead.

Commissioner Kathy Carter suggested installing a metal detector, saying, "Not to do anything would be irresponsible."

Commissioners asked City Solicitor Rob Moore to research if it was legal to ban guns in city buildings.

Moore later told the commission that although weapons can be outlawed in state government buildings, a state statute says city governments can't impose a similar ban.

"Unless you want to ask the legislature to amend the statute, there's really nothing that can be done," Moore said.

Carter said Friday the Supreme Court ruling "is a double-edged sword.

"If someone thinking about committing a crime knows you have a gun, he or she may hesitate before deciding to take action," Carter said.

Regarding the City Hall gun issue, Carter said, "We should comply with the law. I have no problem with that."

She said she owns a gun and likes to bird hunt.

"I respect guns," Carter said. "I also know guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Franklin County Magistrate Jill Robinson said the U.S cannot continue to "go down the road we're going where all these random shootings are occurring all the time. Something is wrong and we need to figure out how to solve the problem.

"Obviously guns are getting into the hands of the wrong people " people who aren't stable enough to handle them."

Robinson said she isn't certain whether current gun laws aren't being enforced or the laws need to be rewritten. "We need to take a really good look at this issue," she said.

The Supreme Court ruling disturbs her, she said.

"I think the people of Washington, D.C. should be able to decide what's best for their community," Robinson said. "What happened to states' rights? How is this different than living in Iraq or Baghdad?"

Gilbert said there are "very strict gun laws that prevent people from firearm ownership, and they're related to prior felonies, domestic violence and a whole list. We get a background check and there is no way anyone coming to a gun store, in our business, (can buy a gun) if they have anything in their history at all."

He said a lot of violent crimes occur "across the country with vehicles and baseball bats and everything else. There are a tremendous amount of laws in place to prevent people from legally owning firearms.

"There are a lot of people involved in crimes with firearms, and that's up to the judicial system to enforce the laws that are there when someone does something violent. I don't think that's always the case.

Gilbert said even in Kentucky, "known as a firearms-friendly state, we have some representatives locally who are not friendly to firearms. I think that's a shame. A lot of folks in our community believe you have a right to defend yourself in your home with a firearm. I think there are some folks who represent local people in a very poor way."

Second Amendment of U.S. Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. State-Journal.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Login above or Register to comment.
Jump to Page: 1 2 3 ... 6
   Next 10 Comments of 52 Total Comments
52.
    Posted by stubbornasamule July 6, 2008
"Posted by thebuzz 12 hours ago
. . . . . . I didn't bring up freedom of speech or did I try to make a point by questioning anyone's mental state by making personal attacks."

Words, be they spoken or written, have always and will continue to be a "weapon of the day". They don't have to be purchased or registered but used at will.
Words have the opportunity to cause as much or more irrpairable damage and harm than any bullet loaded into a gun.
When posting on any forum you take your chances.

51.
    Posted by nativeson July 6, 2008
"Posted by thebuzz 12 hours ago
Well nativeson, I appreciate the grammar lesson and I mean that honestly, I can get on a roll. But again referring to my original post, I didn't bring up freedom of speech or did I try to make a point by questioning anyone's mental state by making personal attacks. Good day sir."

Some people might consider this response to stubbornasamule a bit personal, an attempt at some sort of insult -

"Way to pick and chose your quotes. Tell Scooter Libby I said hi."

Something to think about.
As for freedom of speech, the point was that when you use an argument to restrict rights, or to discuss restrictions, you have to consider what that argument would look like if applied to the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

50.
    Posted by aecarter44 July 6, 2008
Properly registered machineguns are legal in KY, and most other states. As to where I can carry, read the KY Constitution...Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

That means I CAN carry openly anywhere. But you do not see people abusing that right, do you?
Again, it's not the already law-abiding people you have to worry about. You just want to keep enacting new laws, based on your agenda, until you MAKE us criminals.

FCC bans, what, 7 words on public airwaves, none on cable or satellite (OK, some movie content will get you jailed), the OED has ~ one million total? Wish that was all the infringements I had to contend with concerning firearms.

49.
    Posted by ridgerunner July 5, 2008
My apology's to thebuzz for not logging him out before posting using the computer referring to the last post.

48.
    Posted by thebuzz July 5, 2008
Well nativeson, I appreciate the grammar lesson and I mean that honestly, I can get on a roll. But again referring to my original post, I didn't bring up freedom of speech or did I try to make a point by questioning anyone's mental state by making personal attacks. Good day sir.

47.
    Posted by thebuzz July 5, 2008
I happen to think that Ridgerunner does know his history more so than most of the others leaving posts. There are certain aspects of American history that we don't like to admit and when you read more in depth than just your basic history you realize there are good and bad sides to everything, even the people who we were all brought up to believe could do no wrong. I do not see where ridgerunner brought up anything about 'controlling' guns but rather trying to make the point that your constitutional rights are already being infringed upon and as far as the freedom of press issue about tv and newspapers.... I will NEVER be convinced that our forefathers would defend or would ever have foresaw the horrible way citizens of this country take advantage of this right, namely the internet and the grotesque and sickening content which is just a click away from our kids. Also, to aecater44, you are not allowed to say whatever you want on the tv or radio, there are laws in this country that prohibit you from saying exactly what you may be feeling, which is exactly the point I think ridgerunner is trying to make. Our government has placed many restrictions on the original bill of rights because of so called progress.

"Posted by aecarter"..and in KY, I can walk the streets with an AR-15 OR an M-4! I can legally enter a courtroom or any other area carrying openly where concealed carry is prohibited. Do I expect a Judge to recognize that right? No.

What do you mean you can legally carry an "FULLY AUTOMATIC" AR-15 in KY but you don't expect a judge to understand???? He may not understand because it is ILLEGAL in this state.

46.
    Posted by nativeson July 5, 2008
" Your rights are already infringed, if the supreme court wants to say that gun control laws are unconstitutional then there should be absolutely no gun laws. "not to be infringed" Should we all walk the streets with fully automatic AR-15's? If so I'm ok with it, but don't pretend that we have some absolute freedom without restrictions. But I like your argument, meds and helicopters, what happened to your readings of Adams and Mason? I'm sorry a little passion and freedom of thought on a subject is so not American these days."

No one's under any illusions about the restrictions on our rights. But while some are arguably reasonable, others aren't and have to be resisted or changed. In a perfect world people could own any weapon that they liked, but in that world people would all have common sense, a good education, be stable and if they screwed up they'd be hung from a tree the instant they harmed anyone else.
In the world we live in now, people who don't like guns want more restrictions without being able to give good justifications for them and that's what I'm against. We have more than enough laws that don't stop crime, and I'm for taking laws off the books that hamper the law-abiding in the exercise of their rights.
All that other stuff, all those other issues are for another time and another discussion. I'm only concentrating on this now.
And FWIW, when you run on your sentences and go from topic to topic like that, people do tend to wonder about things just a bit. Something to consider, maybe slowing down a bit?

45.
    Posted by aecarter44 July 5, 2008
oops, shudda read Nativeson b4 responding..and in KY, I can walk the streets with an AR-15 OR an M-4! I can legally enter a courtroom or any other area carrying openly where concealed carry is prohibited. Do I expect a Judge to recognize that right? No, I don't expect the guards at the metal detector to let me pass them. Nor do I expect the ACLU to come to my defense. Most gun owners seem to realize that although "keep and bear
means "own and carry" and "Not be infringed" means " can have whatever I want: It ain' gonna happen. Too many people out there that would rather restrict the peaceful activities of law-abiding people than punish the guilty, because they don't approve of my pasttime.

44.
    Posted by aecarter44 July 5, 2008
ridgerunner????
So freedom of speech and the press does not appy to TV, radio, Internet, etc. simce they did not exist 250 years ago??????

43.
    Posted by ridgerunner July 5, 2008
I don't remember getting personal, I just wanted to make the point "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Your rights are already infringed, if the supreme court wants to say that gun control laws are unconstitutional then there should be absolutely no gun laws. "not to be infringed" Should we all walk the streets with fully automatic AR-15's? If so I'm ok with it, but don't pretend that we have some absolute freedom without restrictions. But I like your argument, meds and helicopters, what happened to your readings of Adams and Mason? I'm sorry a little passion and freedom of thought on a subject is so not American these days.

   Next 10 Comments | Home | Back