Rely on USCCA Reciprocity Map, always.
@Richard43 Wikipedia is a resource but I wouldn’t rely on it alone. USCCA’s Reciprocity map has good summaries of each states laws ant links to the actual codified statutes. Like Wiki’s any summary is a good starting point but there unless you get you hands dirty in the statutes, you are probably missing some smaller pieces. And then throw in the case law that annotate the statutes and you can have some real fun.
Here’s one from Kentucky. KRS 527.020(8) used to say that having a weapon in a factory installed glove box is not considered a concealed weapon. They Courts decided this meant only the glovebox and a center console, even in a car without a glove box was not included. It has since been changed to any enclosed container, compartment, or storage space installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer so it can mean seat pockets, the trunk, glovebox, center console.
Even though its concealed, it is deemed not to be concealed.
MikeBKY - Yikes! I almost made a mistake that could have screwed up the rest of my entire life, and maybe someone else’s. I of course am referring to my post about Wikipedia and State law, and recommending it as a reference source . I hope that my attempt to erase it was successful before anybody had a chance to read it . I had completely forgotten about USCCA Reciprocity Map. Thank you so much for your reply. I REALLY appreciate the tactful way you pointed out to me the possible repercussions of my enthusiasm. As I said in a prior, unrelated posting, I am really impressed with the way USCCA members watch out for one another. But I didn’t realize how quickly it would apply to me, though. Thanks, again, and my sincerest apologies to the USCCA.
@Richard43, no apologies needed - I mean, you’re here to learn, just like the rest of us, right? this is how we do it - put our stuff out there, bounce it off of others, get smarter!
I know I can bring my questions here - even if they’re “silly” questions - and someone will teach me without making me feel bad for not knowing. I know I can field-test my ideas and my ways of presenting things here because people will challenge me, make me think hard about what I’m saying, what I believe, give me a steel to sharpen my blade against.
It pretty much rocks.
Glad you’re here
Yep, bench law often contradicts both the statutes as written and the clear legislative intent.
Not knowing the case law relative to the statutes can be a big problem.
Here’s another great Kentucky example of the confusion some of our laws create. Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms in defense of self or the state but allows legislation with respect to concealed carry making open carry protected. KRS 237.110 is the statute authorizing concealed carry licenses . Subsection 15 of the statute says "The licensee shall carry the license at all times the licensee is carrying a concealed
firearm or other deadly weapon and shall display the license upon request of a law
enforcement officer. " Earlier this year, Constitutional carry was passed and codified in KRS 237.109 and reads, “Persons age twenty-one (21) or older, and otherwise able to lawfully possess a firearm, may carry concealed firearms or other concealed deadly weapons without a license in the same locations as persons with valid licenses issued under KRS 237.110.”
I have had several police officers tell me that now, since we are a constitutional carry state, they can no longer ask people who they know are carrying, open or concealed, for identification to determine if they are or are not prohibited from carrying a firearm, i.e. are felons, have DV charges, EPO, DVO, IPO or are underage, etc.
I don’t have the answer yet and have asked folks in our Department of Criminal Justice Training. If they don’t know, it will probably mean getting an Attorney General Opinion.
The legislative intent seems to me to be that indeed, they are not supposed to be stopping anyone just for carrying, that they should only do so if they have RAS that a crime has been committed or is about to be by that person.
Personally I see that as entirely reasonable, either it’s a right or a privilege.
As a permittee, I am still required to produce my permit because that section of the statute has not been changed while anyone who does not have a permit is not required to produce anything. And, the Kentucky Constitution specifically allows our General Assembly to legislate concealed carry. And since “constitutional carry” in Kentucky was created by statute and it specifically references the concealed carry statute, the ID requirements should also be applicable. And unrestricted open carry is arguably all that would be required to meet the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment Young v. Hawaii 2018 WL 3542985 (9th Cir.)(Pending rehearing en banc).
I completely agree with you on that.
I have no problem with the idea that constitutional carry should cover OC and that CC should be under license either.
MikeBKY - Again, thanks for elaborating and clarifying my post about Wikipedia. I am curious though…I know USCCA’S Reciprocity Map is a reliable source for statutes concerning CC. My question is, if case law annotates the statutes, would that apply also to the Reciprocity Map. In other words, is there a caveat to case law, bench law in relation to Rec. Map statutes? Thanks.
Yes, the caselaw also affects the information on the reciprocity pages. From what I have seen, it appears USCCA does also look at the caselaw as I have seen where it has been cited with respect to certain issues.