Guns and entry to your house

[Alpo]

Al I know is what the law says.

The letter of the law says I can carry.

The intent of the law appears to be that if you took a gun in there for nefarious purposes - to rob it or to shoot someone - they could get you for violating 18 930 along with any other crimes.

I think most people look at this part >whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.<, and miss the part that says "that don't apply IF".

[johnlives4christ]

well thank you for your help alpo. i started doing some researching in the krs and it appears that anyone, from any state can purchase a gun in kentucky from either an FFL or an individual. so someone in texas or georgia can come up here and buy a glock im still looking to find out about open carry. i re-read the concealed carry laws.

[Alpo]

Originally Posted by johnlives4christ

well thank you for your help alpo. i started doing some researching in the krs and it appears that anyone, from any state can purchase a gun in kentucky from either an FFL or an individual. so someone in texas or georgia can come up here and buy a glock im still looking to find out about open carry. i re-read the concealed carry laws.

No, that's not correct. You can only buy a pistol in your state of residence. You can only buy, legally, a gun FTF in your state of residence. Anybody can purchase a rifle or shotgun, in Kentucky, from an FFL, provided it is legal in THEIR state also. California (I'm pretty sure) will not allow people from out of state to buy a gun there, and will not allow their people to buy a gun out of state.

So, if you live in Kentucky, you can only buy a pistol, legally, in the state of Kentucky. If someone from Texas or Georgia came up there and tried to buy a Glock from an FFL, the FFL will refuse them (if he's got walkin'-about-sense), because that's a Federal Felony. If someone from Texas or Georgia came up there and bought a gun of any type, pistol rifle or shotgun, from someone FTF, they have also broken the law. The seller would have only broken the law if he had reason to believe the buyer was not a Kentucky resident. But the buyer knew he didn't live there, so he "willfully" broke the law.

If you were down in Georgia, and saw a pistol you just absolutely had to have, there is only one legal way to buy it. You can pay for it there, but it must be shipped to an FFL in Kentucky. You go to him, fill out the yellow-sheet (which ain't yellow anymore) and he does the call-in. Then you can pick-up the gun. Buying across state lines requires an FFL on at least one end. Buying a pistol across state lines requires an FFL on YOUR end.

[johnlives4christ]

Originally Posted by Alpo

No, that's not correct. You can only buy a pistol in your state of residence. You can only buy, legally, a gun FTF in your state of residence. Anybody can purchase a rifle or shotgun, in Kentucky, from an FFL, provided it is legal in THEIR state also. California (I'm pretty sure) will not allow people from out of state to buy a gun there, and will not allow their people to buy a gun out of state.

So, if you live in Kentucky, you can only buy a pistol, legally, in the state of Kentucky. If someone from Texas or Georgia came up there and tried to buy a Glock from an FFL, the FFL will refuse them (if he's got walkin'-about-sense), because that's a Federal Felony. If someone from Texas or Georgia came up there and bought a gun of any type, pistol rifle or shotgun, from someone FTF, they have also broken the law. The seller would have only broken the law if he had reason to believe the buyer was not a Kentucky resident. But the buyer knew he didn't live there, so he "willfully" broke the law.

If you were down in Georgia, and saw a pistol you just absolutely had to have, there is only one legal way to buy it. You can pay for it there, but it must be shipped to an FFL in Kentucky. You go to him, fill out the yellow-sheet (which ain't yellow anymore) and he does the call-in. Then you can pick-up the gun. Buying across state lines requires an FFL on at least one end. Buying a pistol across state lines requires an FFL on YOUR end.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/237-00/020.PDF

check this out alpo and tell me what you think. it says what i said, after i thought about it a while the onlything i could think of is that the federal law says differantly and overrules?

[Hardballer]

Originally Posted by Alpo

Something you might want to consider, John.
http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/conte...18_usc_930.htm

That's the law pertaining to going armed on Federal property.

>(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills or attempts to kill any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. <

I don't know about you, but when I have a license to carry a concealed weapon, and I have a pistol in my pocket for self defense, that's a "lawful purpose".

Actually, the 2A kinda gives any kind of carry a lawful purpose.

[Alpo]

It boils down to this.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
>Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;<

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. If the gun sold in Kentucky is crossing state lines (Georgia resident buying a gun), that is interstate commerce. If the gun was made in a different state (Colt in Conn., Kimber in NY, etc) that is interstate commerce. So Congress makes the gun laws. Kentucky may say that a guy from Georgia can go up there and buy a pistol, but Congress says, "No he can't", and Congress has the authority, in this case. This isn't a "state's rights" thing, either. States Rights arguments come from Article 10, which says, "Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But that power has been given to the US by the Constitution.

So, yes, you've got it right. Federal law says different, and this Federal law overrules Kaintuck.

[Alpo]

Originally Posted by Hardballer

Actually, the 2A kinda gives any kind of carry a lawful purpose.

Well, actually, no. The 2nd states that I have the right to carry a gun. But if I am carrying that gun with the intent of knocking over a liquor store, or murdering a couple of people, then I am not carrying it for a lawful purpose. I am carrying it, specifically to commit a crime, and that would be an unlawful purpose. I'm not carrying the gun illegally, but I am carrying it for an unlawful purpose.

Ain't the English language, as it am spoke here, fun?

[johnlives4christ]

thanks for clearing that up for me alpo

do you know any federal restrictions on open carry?

i know my states concealed carry restrictions, but im unsure of the federal concealed carry restrictions. could you help me with either of these?

~john

[Hardballer]

Originally Posted by Alpo

Well, actually, no. The 2nd states that I have the right to carry a gun. But if I am carrying that gun with the intent of knocking over a liquor store, or murdering a couple of people, then I am not carrying it for a lawful purpose. I am carrying it, specifically to commit a crime, and that would be an unlawful purpose. I'm not carrying the gun illegally, but I am carrying it for an unlawful purpose.

Ain't the English language, as it am spoke here, fun?

Hmmmmm. . . what I meant to say but did not fully delineate when I remarked "any" kind of carry, was in fact a reference to the kind of firearm and it's location on one's person. The idea that the "carry" would; in fact, be in a legal manner was, I thought obvious from the previous comments but I can see that I was wrong.

I personally believe; and would, if my bank account allowed for it, test this belief in court, that carry is legal in all buildings, federal or not, because of the 2A, the 9A and the 10A. I think the 2A is not changeable, morphable, or living. It is succinct and to the point. Immutable. Intransigent.

I, personally, do not believe that the 2A can be legislated. Period.

[Alpo]

Originally Posted by Hardballer

Hmmmmm. . . what I meant to say but did not fully delineate when I remarked "any" kind of carry, was in fact a reference to the kind of firearm and it's location on one's person. The idea that the "carry" would; in fact, be in a legal manner was, I thought obvious from the previous comments but I can see that I was wrong.

I personally believe; and would, if my bank account allowed for it, test this belief in court, that carry is legal in all buildings, federal or not, because of the 2A, the 9A and the 10A. I think the 2A is not changeable, morphable, or living. It is succinct and to the point. Immutable. Intransigent.

I, personally, do not believe that the 2A can be legislated. Period.

I agree, completely. If, as you say, my pockets were deep enough to high fancy legal talent, I would carry openly (which is illegal in Florida), walk into the police station, the federal courthouse and the airport. 'Cause the 2nd Amendment says that my right to carry a gun cannot have any limitations put on it.

I don't have several million dollars for that legal fight, though.

[Alpo]

Originally Posted by johnlives4christ

thanks for clearing that up for me alpo

do you know any federal restrictions on open carry?

i know my states concealed carry restrictions, but im unsure of the federal concealed carry restrictions. could you help me with either of these?

~john

To my knowledge, there are none, and if there were it seems they would be unconstitutional.

Remember the double nickel? Nationwide speed limit. That was not a Federal law, even though it was a Federal law. Feds did not have the power to make that law, so they blackmailed all the states. Any state that did not pass a 55 max speed limit would not get Federal Highway Funds. That worked so well that when Congress decided that 18 was too young to drink they blackmailed the states (or would that be extortion?) the same way, to raise the age back to 21. Then they used that again to get nationwide seat-belt laws.

They did that because it was a law they wanted but did not have the power to enact. A Federal law on open carry could only be legal on Federal property. Congress has no power to make a law like that on state property.