Louisville Metro Avoids Statutes

On January 18, 2004 KC3 wrote to Metro Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson to advise him of what we believed to be an unhealthy trend within the Louisville Metro Government. First we reminded him that the Constitution of this Commonwealth protects as “inherent and inalienable” for all of its citizens “The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties” and “The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.” To this end, it also protects “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.” In defense of this concept the Kentucky General Assembly, through the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS), Chapter 65.870, has provided that “No city, county or urban-county government may occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or combination thereof.”

In January, 2003 it was necessary to inform the Director of Metro Parks that the restriction pertaining to the concealed carry of weapons at Otter Creek Park violated the state concealed carry law. Eventually, after a second correspondence, the prohibition was brought into compliance with the applicable Kentucky statutes.

April, 2003 brought the revelation that the Metro Police, through statements on the departments Internet site, banned the possession of firearms at the Thunder Over Louisville celebration. The Department’s Chief of Staff responded that the information was posted inadvertently and it was subsequently removed from the site.

For years there have been signs posted in the Highview & Fern Creek area that bear the image of a handgun overlaid by a red-slashed circle. The universally accepted interpretation of such an icon is “No Weapons” in the broadest sense, or at the least, “No handguns”. Prominent in the center of the sign is the official seal of the Jefferson County Department of Police. In spite of numerous requests to have the signs removed or modified to reflect the spirit of the KRS and the Commonwealth’s Constitution, the majority of the 10 signs originally erected remained in place.

We began the new year by discovering that The Louisville Waterfront Park Guidelines for Rentals & Facility Specifications, Section XIV(J), found on the Waterfront Development Corporation's Internet pages provided that “Festival signage is required to indicate that weapons are not allowed inside a special event area at Waterfront Park.” On another page, titled 2003 Thunder Boat Slip Auction, Waterfront Park Harbor, the restriction “No boats with firearms (except for flare guns) will be allowed in the harbor” can be found under the heading “terms of use”.

Along with our letter to Mayor Abramson, we sent another correspondence to Senator David Karem in his capacity as Executive Director of The Waterfront Development Corporation (WDC), advising him of the specific issues pertaining to his agency. He replied in a timely fashion to acknowledge receipt of the letter and advised us that he would look into the matter. Interestingly, about the same time Mr. Karem was posting his response, the WDC was updating their 2003 Slip Auction to get ready for 2004. The new and improved page titled 2004 Thunder Boat Slip Auction Waterfront Park Harbor contained precisely the same language regarding firearms as before. The mayor had not yet addressed our concerns when another one came to light.

Barely a month after the first letter, KC3 again wrote to Mayor Abramson to protest an abuse of the Commonwealth's statutes. In the Wednesday, February 18, 2004 Courier-Journal story titled Metro police offering free gun safety locks, the statement “Though Louisville has an ordinance stipulating that guns must be kept in a locked box or contained with a trigger or cylinder lock, officers don't always see compliance“ is attributed to Metro Police Chief Robert White. According to the article, the mayor then said “the [gun lock] safety kits would help families be in compliance without having to pay for a lock.” Simply put, the ordinance in question, along with many other firearms related Metro ordinances, was unenforceable because of its conflict with KRS 65.870. Prior to merger, city government seemed to be aware of the conflict as there was previously a disclaimer attached to the online version of the ordinance. We also sent a letter to Chief White asking him, as we did the mayor, to verify the statutory conflict and to then notify his personnel to refrain from prosecuting the ordinance. Chief White promptly wrote back to acknowledge the "contradiction between Metro Government Code of Ordinances and the State law, [and that he had] requested the County Attorney's Office take the necessary steps to repeal" the offending ordinance.

We at KC3 contend that it is an obligation of the Louisville Metro Government to uphold the laws and defend the natural rights of Louisvillians as well as other citizens of Kentucky. Admittedly, most of the situations described above were in force prior to the merger of city and county government but that does not lessen the need to put an end to any similar circumstances that currently exist or may arise in the future. As Chief Executive of the Metro Government, it would seem to be the duty of Mayor Abramson to insure that the members of his administration are aware of the limits of their authority and that they remain within those bounds. The mayor, on the other hand, apparently was not willing to concede the authority of the statutes in some of these instances and asked his "Special Counsel", Christina Heavrin, to relate as much in her reply to our remonstrance. Her response seemed to display a certain contempt for the rights and protections guaranteed to the citizens of Kentucky as well as a gross misunderstanding of the various issues and the controlling statutes.

She begins by explaining that "as Mayor of the City of Louisville in 1996, Mayor Abramson opposed the law that licensed individuals to carry concealed deadly weapons and the decision of the Kentucky General Assembly to bar communities from regulating the possession of guns locally." It is interesting to note that when Abramson first took office as Mayor of Louisville in 1985, the law intended to "bar communities from regulating the possession of guns locally" had been in force for nearly a year. (The KY Constitutional protections had been in place for nearly 100 years!) Whatever his position on any particular statute, it is simply NOT up to him to choose whether to abide by it. Ms. Heavrin also declared that "At the urging of law enforcement professionals, the Mayor also opposed the requirement that local governments auction off guns confiscated from criminals rather than allowing police departments to destroy them." Although this had nothing to do with the issues with which we confronted the mayor, it does indicate his willingness to simply discard resources belonging to the taxpayer in order to promote his own misguided ideology.

Ms. Heavrin than stated the following:

"Otter Creek Park was in compliance with the law in prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons in any and all buildings in the park. The signs may not have been so finely worded so that persons carrying concealed deadly weapons entering the park understood the distinction between buildings and the rest of the park. However, knowing how many children frequent the park, it may have been beneficial that when the signs were posted fewer persons carrying concealed deadly weapons entered the park."

Oh, REALLY??!?! WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG again! First of all, there is NO LAW that allows for local government "prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons in any and all buildings in the park." KRS 237.115 clearly states:

That portion of a building in which the carrying of concealed deadly weapons is prohibited or limited [by the legislative body of the... urban-county government...] shall be clearly identified by signs posted at the entrance to the restricted area. The statute or ordinance shall exempt any building used for public housing by private persons, highway rest areas, firing ranges, and private dwellings owned, leased, or controlled by that unit of government from any restriction on the carrying or possession of deadly weapons.

As one can easily see, certain buildings are specifically exempted from the statute so "any and all buildings" could not be prohibited to concealed carry. Secondly, the signs were "so finely worded" as to cite KRS 150.300 (Titled: Poaching -- Destroying or defacing signs and notices) which has absolutely NOTHING to do with regulating the possession of concealed weapons, or for that matter, ANY weapon. The "distinction between buildings and the rest of the park" could not possibly be expected by visitors because the signs were posted beside the road, NOWHERE CLOSE to any building, much less "clearly" at the entrance to any! In her comment about the children, although she was prepared to offer up her politically correct fantasia, she wasn't prepared to go beyond "it *may* have been beneficial". Of course, the fewer people carrying concealed deadly weapon in the park were the ones pre-disposed to pay attention to the restriction, the same ones that don't cause a problem. The criminal element would simply ignore the prohibition and would continue to pose a threat.

Next she commented on the Waterfront Park issue.

The prohibitions adopted by the Waterfront Development Corporation ("WDC") concerning the carrying of concealed deadly weapons are in compliance with state and local laws. The WDC manages the Waterfront Park facilities in a proprietary as opposed to a governmental capacity. ... In leasing the Park's various venues for special events, including areas cordoned off during Thunder Over Louisville, Waterfront allows users to serve alcoholic beverages under temporary liquor licenses. KRS 237.110 specifically bars any person from carrying a concealed deadly weapon into any establishment licensed to dispense beer or alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. Finally, the rules regarding the docking of boats during Thunder Over Louisville were consistent with directions the WDC received from the Army Corps of Engineers.

At the expense of repeating myself, Oh, REALLY??!?! WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG again!! There are several items at issue here. First, she contends that the "WDC manages the Waterfront Park facilities in a proprietary as opposed to a governmental capacity." What does that mean? Can a government truly avoid the prohibitions of KRS 65.870 (No [local] government may occupy any part of the field of regulation ... of firearms...) simply by forming a corporation, giving it taxpayer property and declaring it "proprietary"? If the WDC is truly "proprietary", why does the Metro Louisville Internet pages list it in the "Louisville Metro Government Department and Agency Listing"? Why does the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances, § 98.01 - DEFINITIONS recognize that the "WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION means the agency of the Metro Government and the Commonwealth of Kentucky..."? Why does § 30.21 (B) (1) recognize WDC as one of the "departments, agencies, and divisions of the former City of Louisville and Jefferson County governments"? Why does § 35.003 recognize WDC as one of Metro Governments "departments or offices"? How many times can the Metro government claim the corporation and still get away with declaring it as a non-government agency? With this supposed authority held by the Metro Administration, one has to wonder why Mayor Abramson doesn't simply declare the whole of Jefferson County as "proprietary" and declare himself to be king!

As for the alcohol, KRS 237.110 (we assume she refers to sub-section (13)(e)) is, by now not surprisingly, misquoted by Ms. Heavrin. The statute actually states that "No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed firearm into: Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense beer or alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to that purpose" Most importantly, the WDC requires signs "to indicate that weapons are not allowed inside a special event area at Waterfront Park", it says NOTHING whatsoever about concealed weapons as the statute she cites specifically regulates. Furthermore, "the areas cordoned off" are not done so primarily for the purpose of dispensing alcohol, at least one would like to think so since so many children frequent the events she described.

The Army Corps of Engineers is cited as the source for the boat restrictions. For now, we are not quite sure where they have derived the authority to regulate the possession of arms but being an agency of the Federal Government we are not surprised they beleive they have the authority to promulgate such regulations. This is something we will look into and update this article accordingly when we find out.

In summary, it would seem that Ms. Heavrin has engaged in quite a bit of mirror erection and smoke blowing. Louisville Metro simply does NOT have the authority under the statutes to regulate firearms outright whatsoever, REGARDLESS of the legal chicanery they are trying to flimflam us with. They have only limited authority to regulate the concealed carry of deadly weapons within buildings owned or controlled by Metro government. Unfortunately, when the time comes for the individual unlucky enough to be prosecuted for ignoring the restriction to challenge the trespass upon his civil rights, the taxpayer will likely be the big loser. Unless, of course, the big loser turns out to be the person unlucky enough to need the defensive firearm he left behind because of the posted restrictions.

21 MAR 2004