State-Journal.com - Like high court, local officials split on gun ruling

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.

32.	Posted by nativeson July 3, 2008
	" I think now that the SCOTUS has settled the question of the right to bear arms more onus should be placed on us, law-abiding gun owners, to develop ways of preventing senseless gun violence. Before anyone starts throwing around the "canned" statistics that get thrown around involving gun related crimes, let me say that any unintentional, accidental, criminal, senseless gun related death or injury is too many and we should do better. Now that we no longer have to argue about our guns being taken from us we should turn our attention to common sense methods for detering gun violence. One way that I see to do this is to register our firearms so that they can be better accounted for. We as responsible gunowners shouldn't be able to sell/give our guns away to anybody w/out a record of that transaction." There's no problem with guns being accounted for. Guns that aren't being used in crimes aren't a problem, they're sitting in homes and in gun safes, doing nothing and contributing nothing to crime. Guns being used in crimes are in the hands of criminals, who should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives instead of being put out on parole. Gun control in the form of registration doesn't work. Look at England and Great Britain. They've outlawed the private possession of handguns and made it a criminal act to defend yourself. But their crime rate has skyrocketed, and the use of guns in crime is higher than ever. Now they want to ban knives, and they rave about the rate of "knife crime". The fools who supported these measures won't admit that they've failed. Not even all the cameras that they've installed to monitor the public have helped them to solve crimes. But to address your argument even more directly, why don't you tell us what guns you have, and we'll tell you what we think about each one, and if you should own it, and whether it's a type that we approve of. Then if we DON'T approve of it, you can tell us where it is so that we can come get it. You shouldn't object to that at all, since you support "common sense" regulations. So in the interest of public safety and good citizenship, let's hear it. What guns do you own? Surely you don't mind sharing your private business with all of us? The solutions that you're offering come right off the pages of the Brady gun-control group and the Violence Policy Center, both of which have labored to outlaw firearms ownership. But the onus is on you, now. Fire away and we'll be glad to help you decide what you NEED to have and make sure you don't sell it without our approval. Since you have doubts, maybe you shouldn't have guns at all and we should take them from you anyway?

31.	Posted by aecarter44 July 3, 2008
	"safeguards could be put in place to elevate (sic) the fear of theft" I assume you mean "alleviate." What would you suggest, armed guards? Neither gas stations, banks nor government armories have developed a way to prevent thefts! I have a 1000 pound safe anchored to the floor and wall. Ever seen a video of someone chaining an ATM to their truck and driving off? Remember Katrina, where the local police went around confiscating firearms from lawful owners? (We're from the government and we're here to help.) Of course that was illegal then (and THEY should have been arrested and jailed, but they're cops and special! Last I saw, a lot of the firearms still hadn't been returned.) and new laws make it more illegal(?), so I'm sure next time the police will obey the laws. You see, if police (criminals) weren't bothered breaking the old law, why should the police (criminals) follow the new law, ANY new law? The ink wasn't dry on the SCOTUS decision before the DC mayor was saying only certain types of handguns (no semi-automatics) would be legal. SCOTUS set no such limitations; they said HANDGUNS. Sorry, I just don't trust the government. Most (non-union) businesses had the good sense decades ago to end pension systems in favor of other retirement plan options because they saw that pensions led the way to financial ruin. Our government STILL can't see that. As long as I break no law, LEAVE ME ALONE. It is none of "their" business what I have or how I dispose of my property. If someone illegally buys a gun, lock them up! Texas just sentenced a man to over 3000 CONSECUTIVE years for sexual assault. Make violent gun crimes the same type penalty. Verification that I am not barred from buying a firearm is one thing. Records showing what I own are another matter. I could deal with a "shall issue" on all driver's licenses, whether or not you ever intend to buy a firearm. That authorization is removed only by court order for people banned from purchase / possession, and there is no record of who has or might purchase a firearm.