Posey v. Commonwealth

Appeals attorney s fee could not be determined The decision of the Court affirmed. Further- until benefit was authorized.

more, the fee could not be deducted from of benefits until were made.

payments All concur.

Although present of KRS version

342.320(2)(a) attorney’s for a bases the fee claim on the compensation

workers’ “award,” clearly requires

amount of the “paid by employee

the fee to be proceeds of the award or settlement.” encourage RIB purpose pneumoconiosis pres coal workers whose Ricky POSEY, Appellant L. ently respiratory impairment causes no mining industry be find work outside the their condition worsens. Baker v. fore See Kentucky, COMMONWEALTH Co., Inc., Meade v. supra;

Shamrock Coal Appellee. (Ky. 587-88 Spud Mining, S.W.2d 1997). that purpose, Consistent with KRS No. 2004-SC-0060-DG. 342.732(1)(a)2 receipt and 3 condition the Supreme Kentucky. Court under the award on enrollment benefits participation as a student. KRS 23, 2006. Feb. 342.732(l)(a)5 the time and 10 restrict paid which benefits must be or ex within recipient to

pire, thereby encouraging the result, promptly. As a a worker who

do so RIB must also demon

receives a award that he is entitled to receive benefits

strate recovery

under the for there award to determine the proceeds from which attorney’s

amount of an fee and from the fee. Id. deduct supported finding properly

Absent a actively

that the claimant was enrolled and student, not as a he was enti-

participating his RIB to receive benefits under

tled reason, only not

award. For attorney pre- for an fee

counsel’s motion employ-

mature under the terms contract, under premature

ment it was 342.320(2)(a) KAR as 803 as well

KRS challenged

25:125. Counsel has 342.320;

constitutionality of KRS there-

fore, to address unnecessary it is for us arguments. of his

the remainder joined their conver- Niehaus, Goyette, The other officer soon Daniel T. J. David Louisville, Defender, Deputy Appellate conversing with and as were sation KY, Attorney for Appellant. porch, they observed Appellant on the individually wrapped shotgun shells and General, Stumbo, Attorney

Gregory D. marijuana inside the home. packets of Attorney Seelig, Gen- George G. Assistant General, eral, Attorney marijuana Criminal They Office of also smelled an odor Division, Frankfort, KY, Attor- Appellate from the home. emanating neys Appellee. for observations, the officers From these Appellant’s home step decided to inside by Justice

Opinion of the Court door) him and arrest for (through open GRAVES. a controlled substance. possession of guilty conditional Appellant entered marijuana immediately seized the They (subse- Marijuana Trafficking in pleas to in shotgun plain shells view and the offense), of a Firearm quent Possession to search the rest Felon, proceeded then Posses- Misdemeanor a Convicted Substance, lying on the floor They gun and Pos- found a sion of a Controlled home. in Paraphernalia Jefferson Drug session of adjoining plain view. in an room crimes, Appel- Court. For these Circuit addition, they found a set of electronic years proba- to four lant was sentenced cough syrup. of codeine scales and a bottle Pursu- tion with six months work release. Trafficking in for was indicted Appellant Appellant took pleas, ant to his conditional ounces) (less while eight than Marijuana Appeals. appeal to the Court direct of- (subsequent of a Firearm Possession opinion, the unpublished RCr 8.09. In an by a Con- fense1), a Firearm Possession of affirmed his convictions Appeals Court of a Felon, Possession Commonwealth, victed Misdemeanor Posey v. respects. (ren- 02-CA-2519-MR, Substance, and Possession 2003 WL Controlled 2003). Appellant filed filed a dered December Paraphernalia. Appellant Drug discretionary review this petition for the evi- all of suppress pretrial motion Court, CR 76.20. For granted. which we of his search during the dence seized herein, we now affirm the reasons set forth a motion filed Appellant home. also convictions, reasons not but for Appellant’s charge, ar- possession the firearm dismiss opinion. Appeals’ in the Court of stated (barring convicted 527.040 guing KRS 6, 2002, police two Louisville un- January On handguns) was possessing felons from outstanding to serve an attempted officers both The trial court denied constitutional. named an individual arrest warrant on subse- Appellant Appellant’s motions. last known ad- Powell. Powell’s James guilty pleas entered conditional quently Ninth Street. When dress was 1565 South reserving appeal charges, for all arrived at that address the officers constitutionality and the suppression issue door, Ricky L. Appellant, knocked on KRS 527.040. Appellant, at the door. Posey, appeared trial affirmed the Appeals The Court immediately inside the standing who was the officers’ holding that rulings, court’s home, the door opened threshold of purposes for the into the home entry one of the officers. began to talk with offense). ounces) (subsequent subsequently amended to charge was 1. This (less eight Trafficking Marijuana than entry.” Commonwealth warrantless seizing contraband Appellant arresting McManus, (Ky.2003). 107 S.W.3d the Fourth violate did view plain fur- Appeals Court Amendment. is a rec of evidence “Destruction constitutional, re- 527.040 KRS ruled ther creating an exigent circumstance ognized Eary decision Court’s lying on requirement.” to the warrant exception (Ky.1983). Commonwealth, 659 S.W.2d cause to probable officers have Id. Where and now discretionary review accepted We and that a crime has occurred believe affirm issues. both on imminent crime is in evidence from that destroyed, it is reasonable being

danger of Issue Amendment I. Fourth to secure the enforcement officers for law in or evidence is located place where the the officers argues first Appellant its imminent destruction. prevent der to Amendment his Fourth violated States, 468 (citing Segura v. United Id. con home without they when entered 3380, 3388, 796, 810, 82 104 S.Ct. U.S. purpose for the a warrant sent and without (1984) (characterizing the L.Ed.2d 599 him for a arresting seizing evidence of im danger preservation of evidence He contends misdemeanor crime.2 or never” destruction as “now minent justified police while the would have been situation)). marijuana in arresting seizing him and case, marijuana plain was in In this see public place, had he been located in a such, as to dispute there is no view. As 481.005(l)(d) (permitting KRS warrantless cause to probable the officers had whether for committed in the arrests misdemeanors possession Appellant believe that was presence), officer’s Fourth Amendment Moreover, since a controlled substance. such an and seizure in his barred arrest view, plain it was the contraband was home without a warrant or consent. Be reasonable for them to believe also cause exigent we believe circumstances danger of drugs in imminent were justified entry Appellant’s into home destroyed in the absence of immedi- being purpose preventing the imminent evidence. See Ker ate action to secure the evidence, destruction of reject Appel 23, 28, 3,n. 83 S.Ct. Californiа, v. 374 U.S. argument lant’s that his Fourth Amend (1963) 1623, 1627, 3, n. 10 L.Ed.2d 726 ment rights were violated in this instance.3 speed the ease and with (referring to exigent circumstances, drugs destroyed) Absent can be and Illinois which McArthur, 326-327, is not reasonable for a law v. 531 U.S. S.Ct. enforcement (2001) agent person’s 946, 948, (police or officer to enter a home 148 L.Ed.2d 838 that, Payton consent or a warrant. v. unless re- good without had reason to fear York, 573, 590, strained, destroy drugs New 445 U.S. 100 S.Ct. defendant would warrant). 1371, (1980); 63 L.Ed.2d 639 Talbott v. with a they before could return Commonwealth, Therefore, (Ky. in this case S.W.2d the circumstances 1998). such, “The Commonwealth bears the were the officers act- exigent and as exigent to demonstrate that cir ed entered the home reasonably burden when justifying warrant, the without a and arrested present cumstances ‍​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍were restrained subsequent possession marijuana 2. The in this case search of his home once the offi- crime. entry was misdemeanor cers made lawful the home and into Appellant. arrested therefore, Appellant challenge, does not address, constitutionality we do not 946, 952, Appellant, (2001) and then secured the evidence S.Ct. 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (i.e. plain marijuana (distinguishing “jailable” between view shells). “nonjailable” offenses when gun determining and the shot importance of law enforcement’s need to argues immi- Appellant that while the preserve crimes); evidence of those In present nent destruction of evidence can Columbus, gram City v. 185 F.3d exigent felony circumstances the case of (6th Cir.1999) (“Under Welsh, courts crimes, they exigent should not constitute must look to the penalty state’s scheme to circumstances the case of misdemeanor determine the seriousness of a state law (the possession marijuana crimes in this offense; suspect if the has committed an crime). Appel- case was a misdemeanor offense ‘for which no imprisonment pos Wisconsin, lant cites to Welsh U.S. sible,’ ‘minor.’”); the offense is United (1984) 80 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Grissett, (4th States v. 925 F.2d case, support for his In that position. Cir.1991) (exigent circumstances existed to Supreme the United Court held States justify entry warrantless into motel room likely imminent destruction of evi- police burning marijuana where smelled exigent circum- present dence did not outside); standing Randolph while justifying entry stances warrantless into State, 764, (Tex.App. 152 771-72 S.W.3d non-jailable home where the offense was 2004) (“[I]f offense, a misde either an 754, 104 and civil nature. Id. S.Ct. by con felony, punishable meanor or a explained The Welsh Court exigent circum finement and there are government’s arresting interest in or se- stances, justify enough then it is serious curing purely evidence for a “minor of- entry constitutionally the warrantless of a fense” does not outweigh presumption area.”); protected Cherry v. Common of unreasonableness for warrantless en- wealth, 347, 297, 44 Va.App. 605 S.E.2d 752, person’s tries into a home. Id. at 104 (2004) (police 305 officer’s warrantless en S.Ct. 2091. try exigent into residence based on circum However, in Kentucky misdemeanors marijuana smelling burning stances after offenses; are more than mere civil marijuana reasonable, though even subject are crimes which can offenders to of only a misdemeanor possession was case, imprisonment. simple pos- In this 431.005(1)(d)(autho fense); also, KRS see marijuana A session is Class misde- to make warrantless rizing peace officers meanor, 218A.1422, found KRS and those persons committing misdemean arrests guilty subject of committing that crime are City Atwater v. presence); ors in their (12) impris- to as much as twelve months Vista, 318, 340, 121 S.Ct. Lago 532 U.S. onment, (2001) 532.090. The fact that con- KRS 1550, 1536, (noting 149 L.Ed.2d viction of result misdemeanor crimes permits and federal law that bulk of state as in the loss of for as much one’s freedom persons committing warrantless arrests year see, one the contention that such belies presence). in their But misdemeanors clearly Carter, crimes are “minor.” case is As this v. 360 F.3d United States Welsh, (10th Cir.2004) (small distinguishable quantity from the facts supra, Appellant’s marijuana we find no merit rise to the level of does not justify contention that imminent destruction en “serious crime” to warrantless exigent is not suf- cir try of misdemeanor crime evidence into home on the basis of Davis, cumstances); circumstances 133 Ohio exigent ficient to constitute State (1999) App.3d Fourth Amendment. See Illi- 726 N.E.2d under the McArthur, 326, 336, (exigent exception circumstances nois v. 531 U.S. law unconstitu- to find the takable order to mis- apply did not requirement warrant Bindner, Id.; also Walters tional.” see involving nо violence crime demeanor (“It is the (Ky.1968) ex- 435 reasoning overruled to some S.W.2d weapons), Flinchum, and intend- presumptions City Middletown v. rule that tent constitutionality 43, 765 N.E.2d in favor of the St.3d ments are Ohio and, in cases of reasonable even of statutes (2002). constitutionality, they should doubt of their in this case was Because the contraband in favor and the doubt resolved upheld such con- possession plain view expressed people of the voice of subject to as much as is a crime traband department through legislative their (12) we find imprisonment, months twelve government.”) entry Appel- into the officers’ warrantless the contraband was lant’s home to secure that KRS concedes Appellant circumstances, namely, justified by exigent legitimate exercise 527.040 would be the imminent destruction prevent police pow Assembly’s broad the General evidence. 1(7) not enacted as a if were ers Kentucky Constitution. provision of the Constitutionality II. of KRS 527.040 (“Our Walters, Legisla supra, at Id. See argues that KRS Appellant next discretion to determine ture has a broad is unconstitutional. Under KRS 527.040 to health and is harmful for itself what 527.040, felony it is a for convicted felons public inimical to wel morals or what manufacture, transport possess, _”). Indeed, legislature’s pow fare of Ken firearm the Commonwealth laws, in the laws pass especially er this law tucky. Appellant contends welfare, an safety and is public interest 1(7) Kentucky violates Section of the Con Man government. essential attribute stitution which states: 577, 587, Sims, Ky. 213 S.W.2d ning v. 308 are, nature, by equal, All men free and (“when of the power (Ky.1948) 592 have certain inherent and inalien- and called in a law is Legislature to enact among reck- rights, able proceed with question, the court should ... The arms in oned: bear caution and should never greatest possible State, of themselves and of the defense every invalid until after declare an act subject power to the of the General As- favor”) (quo resolved its doubt has been sembly prevent persons to enact laws to omitted). Thus, we and citation tation weapons. carrying from concealed to the always great deference must accord these so-called legislature’s exercise of considering the constitu When would to do so statute, “police powers,” all unless tionality of a this Court draws prohi and the limitations “clearly offend[ ] in favor of fair and reasonable inferences also, Id., see constitution.” validity. Kentucky Industri bitions the statute’s 475, Lohr, 470, Medtronic, Customers, v. 518 U.S. Kentucky Inc. Inc. v. Utility al (1996) 2240, 700 493, 135 L.Ed.2d 499 116 S.Ct. Company, S.W.2d Utilities 983 (“States great had lati traditionally have of the Consti (Ky.1998). violation “[T]he legislate powers to clear, police tude under their complete and unmis- tution must be 222, Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d Mullins v. Assembly’sbroad to en- 4. The General ("[T]he legislature purpose protecting the has (Ky.App.1997) act for the laws public is derived from Section 29 welfare and the designate what is a crime power to vests Kentucky thereof."). Constitution. This Section for violations sentences See, body. e.g., legislative power with that all Inc., limbs, Co., lives, protection as to the 724-25 (Ky. S.W.3d 2005). health, comfort, quiet case, and persons.”) party In this neither dis Metropolitan Ins. (quoting Co. that putes regulation of firearms among Life Massachusetts, 724, 756, 105 471 U.S. S.Ct. by convicted supported felons is substan (1985)). 2380, 2398, 85 L.Ed.2d tial and concerns. See Eary rational Commonwealth, (Ky. 659 S.W.2d However, Appellant that contends 1983) (“It opinion that a is our statute 1(7) are mandates of Section clear and that limiting possession by firearms affirmatively existence to ex- operates its who, persons past their commission of possession empt the area of firearms felonies, serious have demonstrated a regulation by Assembly. the General Pur- dangerous for the law disregard constitution, 26 of our suant Section thereby present a threat of further crimi argues that KRS es- Appellant 527.040 is activity nal 1(7) legislation in the reasonable sentially nullified interest public as welfare safe- impermis- should be declared invalid an also, ty_”); Philip Cook infringement upon see J. people’s sible Ludwig, Principles to bear arms. For reasons set forth Jens for Effective herein, disagree. Policy, Gun 73 Fordham L.Rev. 589 (2004) (stating gun misuse concen begin emphasizing We trated among people with arrest records rights preserved people pursuant arguing gun policy that effective through 26 of Sections our constitution designed should be to increase the “legal usurped by legislative cannot be fiat.5 liability” guns); to those who misuse Mat Steelvest, § Const. see also Inc. v. Miner, Hearing Danger thew S. anof Center, Inc., Scansteel Service 908 S.W.2d Allowing Armed a Detention Felon — for Trust, (Ky.1995); Union Inc. v. Hearing Bail under the Act Reform Brown, 218, 219 (Ky.App.1988). 757 S.W.2d Firearms, Unlawfully those who Possess Rights Bill of always has (2004) (argu 37 U. Mich. J.L. Reform be, been, recognized and continues to ing possession by firearms unlawful supreme law of this Commonwealth. public safety), is a felons serious threat Matthews, Gatewood v. S.W.2d Stampalia, Judge Amy Karan and Helen (Ky.1966). Accordingly, we consider Firearms: A Domestic and Violence any carefully fully possible infringe and (Oc Combination, Deadly 79 Fla. B.J. by upon rights governmen ments these a 2005) that domestic (reporting tober abus power. tal seriously likely ers are to harm or more prohibits specific KRS 527.040 a kill access to somebody if have fire individuals, namely class of convicted fel arms). ons, possessing from firearms in the Rather, Kentucky. that the Appellant Commonwealth of Decades of contends con- protects us stitution the convicted taught expressly decisions have that a statute right spite felon’s arms in prohibiting a class of individuals from do these must, minimum, public at a welfare and ing anything substantial risks to safety. plain points language rational in order to to the based on some basis He See, 1(7), argues that when it satisfy e.g., constitutional and is standards. right Natural & read to another en- comparison Commonwealth Resources constitution, can dowed there be no Env. Protection Cabinet Kentec Coal Rights." through ly "Kentucky’s 5. 26 are collective- Bill of Sections known versions)6 (the im- previous word used meaning language. to the doubt as nothing in the consti- finding encompass meant to disagree, right We that the is plies tution, implied, or which express either were just those who all and persons positions. Appellant’s support privileges with endowed on citi- commonly conferred which were First, that the lan- Appellant argues 1(7) and clear. It guage plain of Section zens.7 right all “men” have the to declares that may it be reason- agree we While and of

bear arms defense themselves language сhange to infer from this able subject only “the to the Commonwealth convention de- constitutional the 1890 Assembly to enact power of the General persons lot of entitled expand to sired carrying con- persons prevent laws firearms, disagree we possess 1(7). § Ky. He weapons.” cealed Const. necessarily in- reasonably or expansion “men” in the argues that use of the word generally It convicted felons.8 than “citizens” cluded modern constitution rather sovereigns, from their tion or concession previous version of the constitution 6. The read, part: extraordinary privileges, addi- pertinent "That the obtained to bear arms in defense of themselves to the to those which were common citizens tion Ky. countries; questioned.” not be and the State shall subjects respective of their other (1850) added). (emphasis § In Const. with these ex- and one who was invested today we see was ratified: traordinary privileges, whether he was an are, nature, equal, free and "All men not, city whether he or inhabitant rights, inherent and inalienable have certain not, deemed a citizen. was born in it or was among be reckoned: only England, citizen is not entitled a defense of themselves and of the bear arms in city which privileges of the all the local 1(7) (emphasis § Ky. Const. add- State....” belongs but he has also he ed). parliament, electing being elected extraordinary privi- an which is itself rather Smith, (1 Amy In the 1822 case of every belong to class lege, since it does not Litt.) predecessor our Court wrote: subjects. we she Before can determine whether Rome, term, go back to whence If citizen, not, a of either of those find, citizen, origin, we shall in the has its states, necessary what it is it is to ascertain republic, period of her that citi- illustrious England, birth that constitutes citizen. In highest subjects to class of zens were the country in the was alone sufficient to make belonged, jus and that civitatis whom slave, any subject. one a Even villain or jus upon those who civitatis conferred is, king’s allegiance born within the accord- it, privi- possession were in law, ing principles of the common civil, political religious. leges, subject; admitted that but it never can be аpplied to the term came to be When the doubt, may, be a he is a citizen. One no state, necessarily carried of a inhabitants birth, subject; citizen as well as a but signification, with refer- with it the same subject evidently words of and citizen are state, privileges to of the ence indisputably import, and it re- different to the implied with reference had been it citizen, something quires more to make a city, applied was to privileges of a when it is, fact, subject. It it does to make than city; it is in this birth, of the and the inhabitants place of a man’s but the not the term, citizen, sense, to is believed that the enjoy, privileges he be entitled to term, universally generally, understood be if not him a citizen. The citi- which make word, civis, zen, the United States. the Latin is derived from signifies who primary its sense one Id. at 334. and in privileges of with the freedom and is vested as it was meaning the word "citizen” 8.The city. early period after the subver- At an during half of the nine- the latter construed empire, the Roman when civiliza- sion of probable pur- century reveals more begun teenth again progress, to the cities tion had expanding in Section by usurpa- pose every part Europe, either accepted persons that certain classes of the 1890 constitutional convention than thought ability them, to lack the or the natu- historically are was attributed to possess many ral to attributes say cannot that the use of the word “men” recognized which are under our constitu- constitution intend- within our modern was example, tion. For parties none encompass necessarily ed those men to in- dispute premise that children and felons. who were convicted incompetent persons likely sane or are Appellant similarly argues to right endowed with the natural bear framers’ intent include convicted felons Emerson, arms. See States v. United 1(7) scope within the Section (5th Cir.2001) (citing F.3d 227 n. Kentucky Constitution is illustrated numerous authorities which document the comparison to Section of the constitu- criminals, children, fact that “violent describes, tion. detailed mind” those of unsound were never intend- form, enti- types “persons” who are right ed to be conferred with the tled to vote in the of Ken- Commonwealth arms). Historically, convicted felons were tucky. “persons” It that these must states similarly accorded diminished status when (1) eighteen years age; least being certain came endowed with (2) be a citizen of the United States rights. natural excludes, specificity, America. It with Indeed, prevailing the view at the time (1) felons; following “persons”: convicted our modern constitution was formulated (2) people at the time who are incarcerated not endowed with the felons were (3) election; per- idiots and insane right possess natural firearms. See § Ky Const. 145. sons. Hirsch, Emerson, Id.; supra, at State v. contends that since Section Appellant (2001) Or.App. 34 P.3d specific- 145 excludes convicted felons with (“Felons simply not fall did within 1(7) not, ity, does then it must but Section right pos- benefits of the common law 1(7) in- be inferred that Section meant to punished sess arms. That law felons with among clude felons the class of convicted goods, usually automatic forfeiture of all persons possess entitled to fire- who were death.”) B. accompanied by (quoting Don argument arms. This is also flawed. Jr., Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the First, it is that the of suf- notable Original Meaning Amend- Second frage is not contained within the sections ment, (1983)); 82 Mich. L.Rev. see Rights.” Bill of “Kentucky’s entitled Reynolds, Harlan A Critical also Glenn Rather, it is located within its own section Amendment, Guide to the Second 62 Tenn. Thus, (1995) “Suffrage and Elections.”9 entitled that fel- (reporting L.Rev. “consistency argu- in form” Appellant’s historically possess ons did not arms). provi- Thus, specimen ment is weak since the without further evi- possess completely sions are found in two different suggest dence to that convicted felons more status sections of the constitution. were somehow accorded 1(7) interesting prior It also to note that from "citizens” to "men.” In order to be time, during eligibility considered a citizen individ- of one’s establishment eligibility required of vote, uals were to meet slew the follow- the constitution establishes requirements, including to: but not limited (1) (the rights ing: Rights reserved The Bill of male, Caucasian, age, being appropriate of (2) people) and the three branches of property the word and a owner. Use of executive, judi- government legislative, — оperated these oner- "men” to relax some of cial. Smith, Amy supra. requirements. See ous

179 26) Moreover, voting of the constitution the reason that Section somehow rights completely different to reason legislature exist within divests the of the vot ably posses section constitution because the area of firearms regulate natural, ing thought was not to be a in people’s right sion. The to bear arms right people alienable and inherent and of the defense of themselves Common (like arms) right at the time recognized preserved wealth was first that our modern constitution was drafted. Ky. by our constitution 1792. Const. 1;§ Ky Proceedings See Const. Volume 1 (“The 1792, 12, § art. 23 Debates Constitutional Conven citizens to bear arms defense of them 1890, tion 534 [hereinafter “Debates”] ques shall not selves and the State C.J.) Bronston, (Delegate (listing the abso tioned.”). language know it as we man); lute Hopkins, Yick Wo v. A today was ratified review 370, 1064, 356, 118 U.S. 6 S.Ct. 30 L.Ed. modern accompany the debates which (1886) (right 220 regarded vote is “not 1(7) formulation of indicate no in Section strictly a natural right, privi as but as part tent on the of the drafters to deem lege merely by society”). conceded Rath right to bear arms abso er, voting a privilege which was con (“and Debates, pg. lute. hence See people through ferred to the prudence liberty, arose civil which is but natural legislature. and consent of the It is self- liberty, restrained the necessities grant power requires evident that a (Bronston, C.J.); public good”) pg. 557 specificity prevent pow some so as to such (“the right to bear arms defense of being pow er from swallowed within those State, themselves and the that means on ers which have otherwise been limited or occasions”) (Askew, J.F.); proper pg. Justice, Varney reserved. See (“We we are are freemen because (1888). specifici S.W. Such please, licensed to do as we we are free ty desired, particularly necessary is not men are because we licensed do what is however, (or when it to reserving comes law.”) (Rodes, right according to the Rob perhaps, preserving) people’s natural (“I ert); object pg. know the this is §§ and inherent rights. Ky See Const. every to give right man the to bear arms 4, 26; 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law himself, family, and coun defense § 40 (discussing grants constitutions (“A (Rodes, Robert); try.”) pg. 816-17 limitations of power); The Federalist Cf. man, course, right has a to defend his (James Madison) (“The No. at pow liberty. right life and His to do it delegated by ers proposed Constitution inalienable, enjoy inherent and and he can Government, to the Federal are few and any that privilege interfering without with defined. Those which are to remain in the else.”) J.F.). body (Montgomery, State Governments are numerous and in definite.”). Accordingly, we also cannot fact, concept of an individual infer clear intent to endow convicted sprung republi- to bear arms from classical possess felons with the firearms required can individual ideology which reference to utilized in a dif holding to maintain a certain ferent section of the constitution for a Hirsch, degree supra, of civic virtue. purpose. different Kates, Jr., (quoting Don B. The Sec- Dialogue, ond Amendment: A 49 Law &

Finally, nothing support Ap we find (Winter 1986) Contemp Probs pellant’s suggestion limiting that the lan (footnote omitted)); guage concerning uti see also Saul Cornell weapons” “concealed 1(7) (in DeDino, conjunction lized in Amend- with and Nathan The Second 180 Regulation: regulation judicial

ment and the ernment Future Gun or mandate” Historical, Legal, Policy, and Cultural citing to up- several decisions which 487, 73 492 Perspectives, Fordham L.Rev. reasonable on the rights hold limitations (2004) (“Historians long recognized have 1). contained within Section that the [of Second Amendment U.S. 1(7) Moreover, the text in Section does connected strongly Constitution] person’s that a support notion republican ideologies Founding right is absolute arms since it Era, particularly of civic vir- the notion plainly states that one bear arms for tue.”)(cid:127) implication emphasis “One of this purpose of self-defense defense of right on the virtuous citizen is that the language the State. Such indicates that preclude disarming arms does not laws right is conditioned on certain self- (i.e. criminals) those, unvirtuous citizens or premises enjoyed evident law- who, —that mentally like children or the unbal- fully and without undue interference with anced, incapable are deemed of virtue.” Debаtes, rights pg. of others. See Hirsch, 1212, Debates, also supra, see (“A man, course, right has a 816-17 (“We pg. 764 are not freemen because we liberty. right defend his life and His to do are licensed to do we please, as we are inalienable, it is inherent and and he can freemen because we licensed to are do law.”) enjoy interfering that without privilege right according what Robert). else.”) J.F.). (Rodes, anybody (Montgomery, concept This of civic vir- with similarly provi- Thus, reject tue is in other Appellant’s reflected contention that sions contained 1 of our Consti- our constitution confers on all somehow tution, the rights persons such as of all to persons an to bear arms or absolute life, liberty, happiness. and the pursuit possession area of that firearms Yet, party neither would claim these exempt legislative completely regula- rights are absolute or somehow immune tion.10

from reasonable limitations the interest essence, arguments Appellant’s safety and public welfare. See Robert sug boil down to presumptions mere Ireland, M. Constitu- State (1999) (com- gestions conceivably be inferred tion, could A Guide 25 Reference our modern present 1 no means an menting Section “is However, against gov- possi- the mere repository rights unlimited constitution.11 individually jurisdictions interpreting generally keep 10. Numerous of Americans private historically provisions consti and bear their arms as to arms of their state country.”) understood tutions have held likewise. See Heidbrink v. 13, (Mo.App.2005); Swope, 170 S.W.3d 15 Devine, 1031, (R.I. merely highlight Mosby Appellant's arguments v. 851 A.2d State, 298, 2004); Rohrbaugh ambiguity v. W.Va. within Section inherent contained 404, (2004); general. State and within As an 607 S.E.2d 413-414 v. constitutions instrument, Hirsch, Or.App. are intended to be 34 P.3d constitutions stroke, (2001); Dayton, as to City 48 Ohio written with broad so encom- Mosher (1976); pass general philosophies principles St.2d 358 N.E.2d Cf. Emerson, rights F.3d of societies and of individuals as United States held, (5th Cir.2001) ("Although, they have are See 16 CJ.S. as we contained therein. (2005). § protect individ Constitutional the Second Amendment does Law rights, are not in- ual that does not mean that those enumerated such instruments absolute, subject any all-encompassing rights may never tended to be be made limited, narrowly exceptions subject to be specific but rather are understood tailored exceptions, particular well-recognized so cases that are to certain or restrictions preserve and not with the balance the collec- reasonable inconsistent was to bear arms which upon the interpreted could be bility through Section people to invali- way is insufficient reserved particular 1(7) previously language of a statute. Wal- constitution. As plain date the of our ters, Court, are to be “rea- supra, (ambiguities at 467 KRS 527.040 is by stated inter- legislative in favor of the public resolved in the interest of legislation sonable balance, we defer to the pretation). noth- at 200. Since safety.” Eary, supra, legisla- interpretation of our constitution, express reasonable or either ing in the ture, permits finding that the constitution leg- such prohibits or implied, undermines regulation people’s of the some reasonable islation, 527.040to be consti- we find KRS arms, only to the extent right to bear but tutional. to ensure regulation

that such is enacted Appeals decision of the Court by maintaining all persons the liberties of affirmed. responsible exercise of the proper the 1(7). general right contained in Section C.J., COOPER, LAMBERT, GRAVES See, against e.g., (prohibition KRS 237.060 WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., concur. ammunition); 237.090 armor-piercing KRS ROACH, a separate concurs in J. (providing disposition for the of forfeited JOHNSTONE, J., joins. in which opinion ammunition); 527.020 firearms or KRS possess it firearms or (making unlawful J., SCOTT, part and dissents concurs weapons property); other on school KRS separate opinion. part by possession (prohibiting 527.100 Justice, ROACH, concurring. minors). by circum- handguns Under no reached I concur in the result may regulation legislature stances However, sepa- majority I write opinion. arbitrary enacted for an or irrational be constitutionality of rately to address the purpose, unduly infringe upon nor Ultimately, proper I think a KRS 527.040. exercise of this as it was general understanding rights of the de- historical preserved pursuant envisioned and Sec- Kentucky 1 of the Con- 1(7) scribed tion Constitution. stitution, related to particularly mind, this standard in and consid- With criminals, ground the sole neces- provides ering majority persons vast to withstand consti- sary for the statute living in are law-abid- this Commonwealth challenge. tutional individuals, ing we ulti- responsible blush, ar- Appellant’s semantic At first mately regulation determine that the con- on the compelling based arbitrary gument seems tained within KRS 527.040is contained in Section that the unduly infringe and does not facts or irrational trial, See, upon the first trial prevent a second if tive with the individual. Baldwin, agree, jury or if the verdict failed e.g., 165 U.S. Robertson motion; (1897) nor (interpret- upon the defendant's set aside S.Ct. 41 L.Ed. 715 ("Thus, provision article that no Rights) does the of the same ing the free- the U.S. Bill of 1) impair (article against be a witness himself speech press one shall dom of and of the libels, testify, prosecution obligation if a publication permit the blas- does not time, articles, lapse of publi- against him be barred phemous indecent or other or by statutoiy Nor does private pardon, or enactment. injurious public cations morals person provision accused shall people keep that an reputation; 2) against (article him infringed by with the witnesses confronted and bear arms is not declarations, dying prevent admission of carrying prohibiting the of concealed laws died depositions who have person of witnesses weapons; provision no shall omitted). (citations trial.”) 5) (article the former put jeopardy does not since be twice Kentucky majority are for “all As out pointed opinion, Constitution right felons did not men,” and, possess have specifically, more that the sub- firearms at common Robert law. See also section on bear arms reserves Dowlut, Right to Arms: Does the Assembly only to the General Judges or the Predilection Constitution regulate weap- of carrying of concealed (1983) (“Co- Reign?, 36 Okla. L.Rev. Appellant’s argument ons. But fails when English eigh- lonial and societies of the rights are in the context these understood century, teenth as well as their modern of the common law when Constitution infants, idiots, counterparts, have excluded adopted in 1891. lunatics, possessing and felons fire- [from At Convention of arms].”). Constitutional fact, stripped In felons were of 1890, Robert Rodes served as the Chair rights of station under the сommon law. Winters, Note, M. RICO man of the on Preamble and Vernon Criminal Committee Eight and the Amendment: Bill Rights. of Rodes described the seven Forfeitures ‘Rough’ Enough, Justice Is Not 14 Has- subsections of Section 1 of the Constitution (1987) (“A L.Q. tings Const. felon “general of as a statement of our who had broken the social contract no rights.” 2 Report the Proceed Official of longer any right advantages, had to social ings in the As and Debates Convention people including property, transfer of Frankfort, Eighth Day sembled at on the punishing believed that the felon as well as September, Adopt, Amend of as a his ancestors and heirs would serve Change the Constitution the State of of per- more effective deterrent than would (1890). then de Kentucky, at 435 He (footnote omit- punishment sonal alone.” rights, claimed scribed these which he also ted)). essence, In “could not own felon men,” “certain inalien belong “free as himself, any any property nor could heir rights.” able and Id. at 436. indefeasible felony born before or after claim rights particular, Rodes traced these Holdsworth, A him.” through 3 William S. Bill Magna English Charta and the 1927) (3d History English Law 69 ed. 444-46; Rights. Id. at see also Ken (footnote omitted). This harsh treatment Hartman, Gormley & Rhonda G. The Ken legal effect of the of felons was due to the tucky Rights: Bill A Bicentennial Cele attaint- [being] corrupted felon’s “blood (1990-91) bration, (“Specif L.J. explained ed.” the reason Id. Blackstone Kentucky Bill ically, an examination of the behind the treatment as follows: Rights may of 1792 shows that only The true reason and substantial ultimately Magna traced Charta and con- any forfeiture for crimes ground of Thus, English Rights.”). Bill of Sec this; property that all is derived sist group rights that were tion concerns of those civil society, being one commonly called the or liberties upon which are conferred individ- Blackstone, Englishmen, see 1 William uals, degree of nat- exchange for that England on the Laws Commentaries freedom, every man ural must which or, (describing rights, *144 “the he enters into social com- sacrifice when termed, En frequently are the liberties of If, therefore, a member munities. ”), specific .... glishmen which included the fun- any community national violates the to bear arms. See id. at *143-44 association, by damental contract of his (“The auxiliary right fifth law, and last he for- transgressing municipal subject having ... that of arms for their he privileges feits his to such ”). contract; and the state — claims defence added), very excerpts reprinted Bernard justly portion resume that it, Schwartz, Rights: A any part of the law The Bill Documen- property, or (1971). is little assigned History him. There tary early that the citizens of United doubt Blackstone, on William Commentaries possible depri- were sensitive to the States England the Laws *299-300. rights their and liberties at the vation of attainder, concept The of or cor- severe govern- federal newly-formed hands of the blood, of into ruption was carried over clear, however, that equally It is ment. States, law of see U.S. the the United rights not extend the their concern did Const, (“[N]o Ill, § art. of Attainder of criminals. and liberties Blood, Corruption Treason or shall work of during Further, sense, Life of the except Forfeiture the makes es- approach this Attainted.”), Person or that the individ- simple of the fact pecially when one considers states, including Kentucky. ual See longer are “free under that felons no men” (“No § person shall attainted very Const. of the the criminal law. The nature felony the of treason or General Assem- on the requires criminal law limitations bly, corruption convicted, and no shall attainder work through of those either rights blood, nor, except during of life of the (imprisonment) the limitations or liberty on offender, (fines), forfeiture of to the Com- estate Limita- property punishment. monwealth.”). Despite the of exclusion arms right part on the are tions doctrine, harsh law this the in the United deprivation rights. of that of parcel and significant States still allowed for limita- stripped felons at common law were Since Thus, rights tions on of felons. while privileges rights, they are not of their and the law could allow for forfeiture of to bear arms under entitled 1(7) it affect property, simply felons’ could not Ken- the Constitution of their heirs. Therefore, in majority I concur tucky. opinion’s conclusion that KRS 527.040 early colonists Amer- American constitutional. ican citizens also that this de- understood privation rights extended to the JOHNSTONE, J., concurring joins this following bear arms. Consider the exam- opinion. fight Part over ple: ratification the United States ‍​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍Constitution was SCOTT, Justice, concurring in part concern it did not anti-Federalists’ in dissenting part. rights. days contain a after bill of Several opinion in re- majority’s I concur Pennsylvania 46 to Convention voted issue, the Fourth Amendment but garding Constitution, ratify twenty-one 23 to rights on I dissent the constitutional minority the Convention’s issued members arms.” “self-defense” and to “bear a Bill of dissenting calling a address for arrest, Rights. simply wrong charge in their list of It is proposed Included “felony crimes” for was a to bear arms that stated convict Kentuckians weapon for in their own home— part: passed keeping in law shall be “[N]o them, weapon in- disarming any was people any un- without evidence committed, danger purposes. real tended to be used for unlawful less crimes ” rights to practice violates all of our public injury from individuals.... Such in of [ourselves arms defense Address and Reasons Dissent “bear Pennsylva- and our self-defense. Minority of the Convention of others]” 7). 1(1, Thus, Constituents, § I write (emphasis Ky. Const. nia to their See in separately pistol to remind Kentuckians of what officers there the back record, left Bill of Rights appears our forefathers us room. From his Mr. Thus, under our Constitution. Posey is an addict. he was sen- years penitentiary, tenced four dissent, I writing While noticed however, probated, on the condition that Appalachian News-Express of Decem- he serve six-months the Jefferson Coun- 21, 2005, Peggy Ligón, pled ber ty Jail with work release otherwise guilty the McCracken Circuit Court to comply with other conditions established felony reckless homicide connec- him keep drugs the court to clean from year-old boy, tion with the death of five information abiding. Background and law crossing who was hit while a street under country indicated he had served well her care. military, receiving an honorable dis- hit, Moments before he was she told the charge. high graduate He a school was child and four children that it other steady employment through- and had had okay to cross the street. She and the Yet, years. out the he had a because just children had started to cross when the in in weapon though another house— left a child her sidе and was struck felony charged room-—he was with another pickup by young truck driven a man from crime. not young Paducah. man was However, charged. mother said child’s premises arguments Several underlie all hearing after the that she had asked that supporting seg- of various disarmament charge against Ligón dropped. society. ments of One is that American accident,” “We never blamed her for the gun criminals will abide our laws. The However, charge was not she said. police that the second and most subtle is dropped Peggy Ligón is a “con- now society protect us adequately forces of can Guilty victed felon.” Woman Pleads to in anyway at all our times —whether Death, Ap- Reckless Homicide in Child’s homes, enjoyment. workplaces, places or palachian News-Express, December thoughts comforting, are While these 2005, at 11A. daily newspaper proves each read of one’s felon,” Ligón, a Peggy now “convicted mention the multitude of otherwise—-not to has no further under the laws of in deal with our courts violent crimes we keep a in home to firearm her reported year, each most of which are herself, children, irrespec- defend or her this, many papers. All of while dangerous neighborhood tive of how a she designed statutes states have enacted Nor, might majority in. should live hands of violent keep guns out concede, does she have a to live Yet, continuing violent criminals. any person possesses house with other who just you proves point, crime once firearm, since that would constitute her guns, only outlaw outlaws will have them. possession” weapon, “constructive rendering again her liable for unlawful My experience life leads me to believe possession weapon by of a a “convicted “hard- only way keep that the successful felon.” away weapons ened criminals” case, “hurting people” prison them in Posey put this Mr. was arrested —is asked, anybody can’t hurt else. We his own home.1 after his where When arrest, else’s any weapons, away if he had he told the don’t need to take someone marijuana possession than ounce. 1. The amount of in his and his friend’s wаs less 1/2 I themselves, response time. And family, or their ed numbers right to defend might add—finance. to do that. is most often punish, point

I believe we must continue is that violence for those who punishment, unexpected. even increase quick, unpredictable in an unlawful manner. weapons misuse to defend Thus, to each of us up it is (enhancement of of- can, 218A.992 families, See KRS until our if we ourselves and of a firearm possession (the fense if actual2 can arrive. Because help police) trafficking), KRS during drug need, forefathers made sure our 532.045(2)(d) (use deadly weapon aof “right of self-defense” 1891 that offense), during a minor an KRS against engraved “right to bear arms” were 533.060(1)(enhanced sentencing for use of Constitution, 1(1-7), in our deeply offense), during firearm an KRS 533.065 See KRS 503.070. as well as our statutes. deadly (wearing body carrying armor and however, 527.040, seeks disarm KRS offense), during and KRS weapons by rendering their all “convicted felons” 635.020(4)(use during child of firearm felony a further possession of firearms However, I it is felony). do not believe then question in this case. The crime—as disarm, constitutionally impri- valid to (1) truly a are “convicted becomes felons” son, keep weapons would for a those who deprive class we need to of firearms? they hope never occur—the purpose will (2) so, to do so under is it constitutional if defense of themselves and their families. Rights? Bill our State Constitutional census, Kentucky had a As of the 2000 Const., 1(1 7), § Ky. & 26. See 4,041,769 area of population people an ques- here with presented are not We 40,395 square today, miles. Yet there are to involving the Second Amendment tions only troopers 943 State available Nor, are the United States Constitution.3 they are patrol response, and even to any question relating presented with day. per divided into several work shifts statute, federal 18 USCA comparative http://wunv.kentucky statepolice. org/pdf 922(G) weap- § areas, prohibiting possession /crimefacts2004,.pdf at 111. Other felons,” ap- still counties, by “convicted which ons supple- such as cities and have fed- forces, felons” under plies today mental too are limit- to “convicted police but Reconsideration, 309 80 GEO. L.J. Montaque, 23 S.W.3d canist Cоmmonwealth 629, (“The Levinson, (Ky.2000) requires (1991); Embarrassing 632 statute Sanford The Amendment, (1989); nexus between the crime committed and L.J. 637 Second 99 Yale firearm.”). possession aof Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Don Kates Amendment, Meaning Original the Second addressing summary arguments 3. For a with, (1983); compare 204 82 Mich. L.Rev. Amendment to the United States the Second Reynolds, A Critical Guide to Glen Harlan Miller, Constitution, see United States v. 307 Amendment, 62 Tenn. L.Rev. Second (1939); U.S. 59 S.Ct. L.Ed. DeDina, (1995), Saul Cornell and Nathan The (9th Lockyer, Cir. Silveira v. 312 F.3d 1052 and the Future Gun Second Amendment Emerson, 2003) States v. 270 F.3d and United Legal, Policy Regulation: and Cul Historical Cir.2001). (5th Alstyne, See also Van The L.Rev. 487 Perspectives, tural 73 Fordham Rights to Second Amendment and the Personal Guns, (2004); Bogus, Carl Race Riots and Arms, (1994); Duke L.J. Akhil Bare Williams, (1993); David S.Cal. L.Rev. 1365 Amar, Rights Bill and the Four Reed Militia: Amendment, Republicanism and the (1992); Civic Citizen teen 101 Yale LJ. 1193 Amendment, Diamond, Terrifying 101 Yale Second Raymond & Robert Cottrol (1991). an L.J. 551 Second Amendment: Towards Afro-Ameri- constitution is much differ- law,4 nize our state though the United States eral even than language, and structure rights, rule ent yet specifically has to Supreme Court of the United States. the Constitution Thomas noted validity. on its As Justice concurring opinion Printz Unit- Thus, question” is no “federal as there 938-39, States, 117 S.Ct. ed 521 U.S. case, in this we must consider involved (1997), Fn. 138 L.Ed.2d statute, 527.040, Kentucky’s KRS whether 1: by a weapon of a prohibiting possession Miller, that the Sec- we determined felon,” is valid under the Con- “convicted guarantee not

ond Amendment did Kentucky, has a Bill of stitution possess a sawed-off right citizens “right guaranteeing the Rights specifically weapon had shotgun 1(7), because arms,” Ky. § as well as Const. bear military “ordinary shown been Const. “right of self-defense.” 1(1). “contribute to the equipment” that could § 527.040 was first enacted KRS not, common defense.” The court did first, only, statute 1974. It is the however, define, or otherwise attempt Kentucky making posses- history construe, protected firearm, the substantive other than a concealed sion aof part: weapon, provides, Amendment. a crime. It the Second (1) of a guilty possession person A say: went on to Justice Thomas he by a convicted felon when firearm had recent occasion This Court has not ... a firearm when he has been possess, the nature of the substantive consider felony, ... and has not: convicted of a safeguarded by the Second (a) pardon.... a full granted been If, however, the Second Amendment. (2) by a convict- Possession of a firearm personal to confer a Amendment is read felony D unless the ed felon is a Class arms,” a color- “keep and bear handgun in which possessed is a firearm the Federal argument able exists felony. it is a C case Class scheme, at regulatory Government’s intra- purely 527.010(5). pertains least as it handgun. A a KRS pistol is firearms, runs possession ... state the va- “police power,” upon which protections. that Amendment’s afoul of rests, arises under lidity of 527.040 KRS argu- did not raise this parties As the Kentucky the Constitution. Section 29 of ment, however, need not consider we pow- legislative “The provides: 29 Section date, future Perhaps, at some here. Repre- vested a House ers shall be to deter- opportunity will have the Court Senate, which, together, sentatives and Story was correct mine Justice whether Assembly of the ‘General styled shall be ” he the when wrote “The Kentucky.’ the Commonwealth of considered, the justly as arms “has been em- power,’ as here legislative ‘the words republic.” of a palladium of the liberties mean- phrase, ployed, comprehensive are a 2365, 938-39, (citing, 3 J. Id. at 117 S.Ct. to, or are ing powers appertain (1833) 1890, § Story, Commentaries body.” by, legislative usually exercised added)). (emphasis Commonwealth, Booth’s Ex’r v. 61, hold (Ky.1908). “We Su- from what the United States 113 S.W. Aside exercise is ... a valid may say 527.040] on the Second that preme [KRS Court of the Commonwealth recog- police power of the future, the one must Amendment in Constitu- premacy of the United States Clause Napier, 233 F.3d 4. United States (6th Cir.2000) ("This tion, pro- be provides constitutional federal law ‘shall state which the vision, ”). ‘right to Kentucky constitutional supreme [the Law of the Land....' the however, trumped by the Su- is arms’] bear Commonwealth, felony A qualify? else would Kentucky.” Eary but who Thus, (Ky.1983). the to a for which a sentence term S.W.2d “an offense legislative (1) and police power, power year “[i]s at least one imprisonment Constitution, when people, their custody of the of Correc- Department government upon departmеnt create a 500.080(5). imposed.” KRS tions laws, power confer the to make they who person “convicted felon” is a Thus a part ... conferred “felony.” Suffice it convicted of has been Ex’r, 113 general power.” more Booth’s number felonies to- say of various added). (emphasis S.W. at lowest) (the D day, from Class felonies (the highest), crimes both Federal capital To fully consider conflict between State, Rights,” listing KRS and our “Bill of exceed on this and the 527.040 “felony.” And must understand term pages. several next meaning and fully we must understand the bigamists, who They people dig include 7) 1(1, impact Rights, our Bill of lands, people public artifacts on Indian and 26. purchase falsify price their deeds who this, “history To we must do review etc., registration, way all the and vehicle times,” the “First Amendment many But to murder.5 there are more up relationship its Ken- contextual within the “lower,” “higher.” than tucky and the “historic com- Constitution” (who our ments of our forefathers” drafted inkling an vast area of non- With Constitution) from the recorded Constitu- threatening activity human covered tional that we Debates of so “felony,” term thus the extent might they what understand meant 527.040, coverage of let KRS us broad they intended selection its within the con- proscriptions consider used. must “older And we look at our Bill of text of our Constitution (our precedents), decisions” so we can bet- Rights. ter what the about understand court felt

these at a time much closer to the BILL AND THE OF RIGHTS time created. were THE CONSTITUTIONS OF KENTUCKY

CONVICTED FELONS Kentucky Rights Bill of Con- the term fel- The Let’s start with “convicted felon,” Peggy Ligón through on.” is a is contained in “convicted stitution Sections 434.850, 211.990(3), many computer hacking, 5. It KRS pages would take too to list them all, 528.040, 434.855, exploring digging gambling, from and KRS false but run deeds, lands, 164.990(1), public price value on purchase for on KRS information or artifacts 387.990, flagrant agents college non-support, notify or KRS failure of athletic KRS athletes, 530.050, involving university agency vehicle contracts with reckless homicides accidents, 507.050(1), 164.689(3), riding, joy copying of rec- KRS KRS KRS unauthorized 514.100, violations, 351.990, videos, 434.445, mining willfully KRS KRS remov- ords or violations, markers, 205.990, ing damaging boundary public KRS assistance KRS or 530.010, 433.770(1), paid through bigamy, giving false statement as to amount KRS violations, vehicle, 138.990(10)(a)and campaign KRS failure finance KRS motor tax, 141.990(5), 121.90, filе, obtaining permis- pay all or income KRS cremation without coroner, 213.991, improper way up to the homicides KRS KRS violent sion of 214.990(7), overwhelming majority samples, Chapter testing re- of blood KRS involve, which, classification, by not ceiving deposits failing institu- do financial 517.100, tions, any threat portend, threat violence or of cancer KRS treatment safety public. second KRS of the non-physicians, offense 1(1, 7), numbers, part, pro- relevant same section albeit under Article Section 1(1), “right X. de- vide: Section self fense,” today, as we know was still nature, are, All equal, men free and absent. certain inherent inalien- and have among which reck- rights,

able years It is noteworthy several after adoption oned: of the second Con- Kentucky legislature stitution in enjoying right First: The and defend- passed prevent persons an act “to in this ing their lives and liberties. wearing

Commonwealth from concealed Commonwealth, arms.” 2 Litt. Bliss v. The to bear in de- Seventh: arms Act (Ky.1822). provided ..., subject of themselves fense commonwealth, any person “that in this Assembly of the General to enact pocket pistol, who shall hereafter wear a carrying prevent persons laws to dirk, knife, cane, large in a con- or sword weapons. concealed traveling cealed as unless when weapon, Rights, last of the Bill of Section any on a fined in not journey, shall be sum (the clause”) powers pro- “high Section than less one hundred dollars.” Id. The vides: him charged indictment in Bliss hav- with To guard against transgression of the cane, ing in a worn a sword concealed as high powers delegated, which we have weapon. every Bill thing

We Declare that on the Commenting out Rights excepted general is citizens in defense to bear arms of them- powers government, shall forever selves, court predecessor our held the act inviolate; all contrary remain laws in violation of unconstitutional Section thereto, contrary to this Constitution 1(7), “right the constitutional to bear shall be void. arms,” clause,” “high powers as well as the history. Although at its Now let’s look stating: (and foremost) right today, first to bear arms in defense [I]t self-defense,” 1(1),

“right of Section did not state, of the citizens and the aрpear in the first Constitution of Ken- constitution, by the and whatev- secured arms,” tucky “right complete full and exer- er restrains the (as did, 1(7), Section 23 of Article right, though cise of an entire XII), read, the time which at “[t]he it, destruction of is forbidden arms the citizens to bear in defense explicit language of the constitution. themselves and the State shall not be acts, merely legislative Not questioned.” “high powers clause” The purport away; it but to take all which (as also in the first Constitution appeared it impair diminish it as' existed when thereof), standing Section 28 of Article XII formed, void. the constitution was are the guard against pro- of invasion liberties fact, Rights. Bill of the tected The at of right adoption existed in the

language “high powers we see constitution; then limits had no that today language clause” is the same of power short the moral the citi- of 1792,1799 and appeared in it, it in con- zens to exercise and fact liberty nothing sisted in else but of “right appeared to bear arms” also The arms. Diminish of in the citizens to bear Constitution Second therefore, you and neces- liberty, 1799. It was the same and the from persons prevent may pass laws right; and such sarily restrain the Const, art. restraint, Ky. arms.” carrying and which concealed the diminution (1850). im- question indisputably XIII, § most act citizens wear- by prohibiting the ports, was current Constitution fourth and Our in a manner which was ing weapons 3, 1891. August ratified on adopted and them when the constitu- lawful to wear time, Bill we see the For the first adopted. tion was to the through moved Rights, Sections We see Constitution. forefront it is forgotten, not be should [I]t (for first And we see preamble. new right of the only part time) “inher- together, the seven grouped constitution; it is the by the secured new rights inalienable” ent and complete, as it existed right entire wit: Rights, Bill of of our First Section constitution; and adoption at the nature, are, equal, free and All men impaired, any portion right if of that be and inalien- have certain inherent be, may part how small the immaterial reck- among which rights, able order of time and immaterial ... oned: done, equally it be it is forbidden enjoying and defend- right of First: The by the constitution. ing their lives and liberties. Id. at 91-92.6 Al- right worshiping The Second: Twenty-eight years later Ken- the dictates of according to mighty God tucky its third Sec- adopted Constitution. their consciences. 1(1), self-defense,” was “right tion seeking pursu- right The Third: absent, “right but the to bear arms” still safety happiness. ing their “high powers clause” remained and the communicat- right freely The Fourth: Yet, changes XIII. several notable Article opinions. ing thoughts their Dueling occurred. was outlawed. pro- acquiring and Const, right The (1850). Also, VIII, § art. Fifth: tecting property. arms, 25 of to bear then Section XIII, assembling together authorize Article was amended to The Sixth: carrying prohibiting persons laws for their common peaceable in a manner arms, thereby abrogating the applying concealed to those invested good, and of ruling in Bliss. for re- government power with the pur- proper or other grievances dress of Thus, language was added and the or remon- address poses, petition, “right to bear arms” the 1850 Constitu- strance. read “[t]hat tion thereafter arms de- Seventh: arms in defense

the citizens bear State, and of the fense of themselves not be and their State shall themselves As- of the General Assembly subject questioned; but the General made, time, concur in but cannot contrary see decision decision of the 6. For Tennessee, reasoning.”). language under con- their Aymette 2 Hum. v. State of read, free ("we Aymette "that (Tenn.1840) aware that sideration are Tenn. 154 right this State shall have Kentucky, white men of Appeals in the case the Court of Commonwealth, 90, de- arms for their common Ky. keep and bear Litt. of Bliss defendant wore 90, Aymette, the legisla fense.” In act of their has decided that an clothes, con- ture, under his concealed bowie knife the one now under consider similar to weap- ation, trary Tennessee concealed to the then' We have unconstitutional and void. that ons statute. great respect court whom for the 16, sembly prevent persons laws to tion or addition.” Am.Jur.2d Vol. Con- to enact Law, 60, carrying weapons. p. § from concealed stitutional 429-30. an explicit For the time we have Allen, Delegate first C.T. Caldwell “right in the First subsec- County, of self-defense” a member of the Committee on 1, right enjoying “the tion Section Rights and the Bill of for the the Preamble defending and their lives and liberties.” Convention, explained 1890 Constitutional clause,” 26, “high powers re- delegates this First Section to the at the unchanged, declaring mained that the Bill convention: Rights remain inviolate: “shall forever ‍​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍friends, you, my grow- I tell the idea is contrary contrary or and laws thereto country that ing the Government ” Constitution, to this shall be void. “bigger thing” thought is a than we ever Though many constitutional we have had was; that is of it the individual small amendments since then there have been no That is the reason considerations.... or to these sections. revisions amendments Bill why this Committee [on Rights] brought has to the front AT THE DEBATES KENTUCKY individual; very and outset of our CONSTITUTIONAL CON- say, we that the individual Government VENTION OF 1890 has certain inalienable and inherent “It a familiar interpretation aid Government, nobody, that that no rights provision of a of a constitution to examine thought can take from him.... We it If proceedings of the convention. advisable, juncture of af- present clearly purpose particular reveal the fairs, front bring that individual provision accepted the debates will be him; if magnify yea, you please, and ” meaning.... an indication of [their] very glorify him. And at the start Compa Barker v. & Lumber Stearns Coal say, great Rights Declaration of ny, Ky. 152 S.W.2d inherent, that individual has seven (1941). rights, gov- and that no State inalienable Interpretations of Constitutions rules ernment, county government, that no hazardous, and, implication are most city government, that no no district all, ought if it to be employed ever can take from him ... government, ever only done those instances where single inalienable If we have left out one subject-matter leave no and right belongs and inherent meaning of the doubt that the intended individual, and of he can not be may investigation clause which be under is, I tell it and will deprived, me what way only, be reached in that and be to this eighth paragraph vote to add an way approximate with cer reached and section. are the inalienable What tainty. Telephone & Tele Cumberland ... ? The inherent first Hickman, 129 graph Company City enjoy- one nearest is.... Ky. S.W. he ing defending Whether life. L.Rptr. (Ky.1908). sinner, be saint or Protestant Catho- lic, not, inalienable posi- “A provision constitutional which is what first has, [right] protected he to bе ambiguity and free from all must be tive in, reads, defending his enjoying is that accepted by the courts as enjoying Seventh —and while applied rather than construed. should be life.... ... permissi- all these he has a case no construction is such himself, his ble, interpola- bear arms in and there is no excuse defense of end state, sought the motive and can and and no man What family his section, when, in the first the Committee Like Pleiades away.... take it the and inalienable they stated the seven unspeakable splendor that shine with that freemen? It was inherent of midnight sky, the atten- attracting the low, man, high and lettered every every eye of that is cast thither- tion unlettered, glance, at a could see ward, in- so seven inalienable and these moment, rights, in in one take rights, the Pleiades of individual herent ... say, inherent I inalienable and of liberty, group galaxy shine as a the intelligence this the of I submit liberty.... good It strikes as a civil me Convention, gained point have we not decidedly picture appropriate —one sa you group old these over the when days degeneracy, govern- these of when cred, inalienable so rights, inherent and greater drifting ment is on to see eye the the unlettered can that of, and the anybody every than dreamed of in, take them glance at a them sight individual almost lost of.... is country may know and boys the the understand them.7 Rights Bill the Committee added). (Emphasis 505. Id. at every gives it as an inalienable Bronston, at the Delegate Charles J. carry arms to de- openly individual At- Fayette County Commonwealth time a' himself, family only but his fend torney, convention as to spoke and the State. clause,” “high powers Sec- purpose Convention, 1890, Debates Constitutional 26: tion added). I, (Emphasis Vol. 494-497. What is beginning. That guard against transgression “To

end?8 God, eloquence Great in those we dele- high powers have jewels,” gentlemen words! “Crown representatives, to our we declare gated said, “gathered from the of lib- caskets article,” this every thing erty, all found a and rest- where home excepted liberty, “is out residuum ing-place.” powers government, and general inviolate.”9 We shall forever remain at 500. Id. not submit to the will fluctuations of Majorities might arise future. important It to know we are. what infringe upon these would undertake Like the inalienable and inherent seven and, secure, which we seek to liberties man, so [right] to be stated not submit therefore, will them distinctly, intelli- clearly and so and so majority. rule land, in his gibly, everybody in the added). (Emphasis at 585. Id. can common see what school-house entirely foregoing was consistent are.... Wickliffe, Nel- Delegate C.A. with what added). (Emphasis Id. at 504-505. County, had to the 1849 Consti- stated son Convention:

tutional 8.Referring Preamble of the applause 7.Mr. Allen was met with Constitution his remarks. convention at the conclusion of Id. at 505. Const., (1849). § 9.Ky.

192

Sir, therein, yield body by I to no man in in changed legisla- not be just ture, courts, principle, devotion to the democratic by only by but formal gov- which lies at the foundation of free City Presby- amendment. Louisville v. of ernments, majority shall rule. Orphans Society terian Home Louis- of Sir, But in principle to secure that its ville, Ky. 299 186 S.W.2d 200 exercise, ..., free and I beneficial claim (1945). law, forming organic in an Why were the founders of our first Con- should take care to insert a rule for the stitution in so concerned about the guidance majority. Popular of that ma- to “right bear arms?” Let’s look at the

jorities by need a rule of action which to circumstances of their life on the frontier governed. to find out. 1792, Kentucky population had a of Our Constitution is made not so much 73,000 Clark, people.11 Thomas D. A His majority for the benefit for the (1988). tory Kentucky 96 “No adult community, protect as it is to Kentuckian 1792 had been born in Ken minority.... Harrison, tucky.” Kentucky’s H. Lowell (1992). Road to Statehood 130 judiciary political is the ark of the man, poor to which he must flee times [I]mmigrates floating Parties of down danger; the shield which he is constantly the Ohio River were attacked attempts deprive resist him flagrant Indians. So did these at- rights. of his Judge Harry tacks become that Inne’s delegate Kentucky Report Proceedings [a the Debates and Constitu- tional Convention Revision Convention comment 1890] Kentucky, Secretary Constitution 149- State letter [United States] (1890). Knox, 1,500 persons War estimated that captured had been killed or between THE THE HISTORY OF TIMES 1790. He estimated further construing provi- “[I]n constitutional 20,000 property horses and worth sions, history [the will look courts] 15,000 pounds over hаd been stolen or existing of the times and the state destroyed. things to ascertain the intention of the Id. at 99. people framers of the constitution and the Duncan, adopting Shamburger “Making living simple process, it ...” was a 388, 390, family per- for the (Ky.1952), citing pioneer 253 S.W.2d were Manning, fectly Keck v. 231 S.W.2d satisfied with what the seasons and (1950). meaning brought of a constitution- the rifle them.” Id. at 68. “Dis- provision change exception al does not as conditions tinction social rank was the rule, change, public rather than the for one man’s rifle policy and the declared recognizes Kentucky prison 10. The United States Constitution 11. built the first west quickly Allegheny the federal need for formed militias in 1799 Mountains Frankfort (i.e., revolutionary Lexing- war battles of imprisoned its first inmate in 1800. Rob- Concord) ton and the need for citizens Lawson, —thus ert G. Times in Difficult adept weapons. to have and be with State Corrections, Ky. pop- L.L 305. The inmate generally constitutions address the only ulation was Id. at 322. themselves, protect people their fami- lies and the states. another’s, http://www.ken- as effective as if both were oners were massacred.” at search.

good tucky. gov/Kyhs/hmdb/marker shots.” Id. 70. marker aspx?mode suhject&subject=107, Ann her father from Wilkinson wrote of # troubles “During 115. Indian 25, 1789, September “it Lexington on 1791-94, general government Ken- [of astonishing improves. how this fast Town tucky] 19 should authorized that men be by largest It is far the in the District ... River, 10 at stationed at the mouth Salt expected fall Emigration will 12 Valley at Hardin Severn’s [E-town] grater Report says than ever. [sic] geneal- http://www.kentucky Settlement.” Seventy there are families in the Wilder- him. ogy.org/meade /indianJbattles. way now there Kentucky.” ness on [sic] 9. Id. at “The 1790 census credited Lex- 1792, in Kentucky After became a state ington with 884 inhabitants.” Id. Constitution, first it was adopted its by north the Ohio River abutted 1792,

In “Oct. ten Indians attacked [a] Territory until Northwest 1800. Thereaf- party Spring [near travelers at Oven ter, Territory until by the Indiana 1816 Legrand, County, Kentucky]. in Hart Territory until and the Illinois 1818. killed, men one Two woman were until 1816 Indiana did not become a state girl captured....” woman and Illinois not until 1818. Not until http:I kentucky. Iwww. search, Timbers,” in of “Fallen 1794 where battle gov/Kyhs/hmdb/marker aspx ?mode fought, hundred Kentuckians did sixteen subject&subject=107, # 1414. marker in with the Indians the сonflict American group “[A] of fifteen Indians attacked Se- began these northern territories even Elizabethtown, Valley [present day vern’s subside, not end. Allen although did in 1792 Kentucky] and killed two women River, Eckert, Bloody That Dark and children, W. slaughtering and five as well as (1995). 609 burning livestock and down several cab- Kleber, Kentucky ins.” John. E. En- on For a better feel what it was like (1992). cyclopedia, County, Hardin frontier, during the time of Constitu- Morgan’s building, Sterling— Station —near Mt. tion one needs to read the dates 1, by captives was attacked on April places capture Indians Kentucky “19 women and children returned after the battle of captured while pris- in men worked fields.... “Fallen Timbers.”12 Enoch, Ashby, captured complete prisoners Kentucky 12. "A all the in list of sur- River. Anthony] Wayne is [General rendered to not May River mouth Ken- 1788 on Ohio near by known the author W. [Allen Eckert] Polly, May tucky Ashby, captured River. in exist, but from an the various examination of Kentucky Ohio Rover near mouth 1788 on made, reports following have been Robert, Ashby, captured May in River. list of has construct- known information been Kentucky on River. Ohio River near mouth of by Age, given, was ed the author. if Susannah, May captured on Ashby age capture: at the time of Alton- individual’s Kentucky mouth River. Ohio Rover near Ann, 1793, ton, 1, April Maty captured at Thomas, May captured on Ashby, Station, Elizabeth, Morgan’s Ky. Anthony, near mouth River. Ohio River 1793, 26, captured March on the Wilderness Baldwin, Betsy, Kentucky. captured Bark- John, Kentucky. Armstrong, capture Road in er, Susannah, 1, 1793, April captured at Mor- unknown; by date surrendered Detroit River Station, February gan's Ky.; on surrendered David, 13, Wyandots. Ashby, captured Au- 11, 1795, Beecroft, by Benjamin, Delawares. 9, 1790, Co., gust Ky; in Madison surren- 1, 1793, Morgan’s Sta- captured April on at 1795, 14, by Joseph September dered St. Po- Beecroft, [sic], 14, tion, cap- Rachael David, Ashby, captured tawatomies. Anther Station, April Morgan’s tured on May on River Ohio near mouth 9, 1795, McKeever, [sic], Ky.; May Betsey captured surrendered on Dela- nees. Brown, John, captured ... wares. in 1791 on Kentucky; 1783 in surrendered in 1795 Ohio side of river near Falls of Ohio.... McKensie, Wyandots. Betsy, Detroit River John, Camp, captured Kentucky. captured Kentucky; in 1792 in surrendered in Corder, Jenny, captured on March McKensie, cap- Nancy, Shawnees. Kentucky; on the Wilderness Road in Kentucky; tured in 1792 in surrendered in 10, 1795, July by Wyan- surrendered on Mitchell, by Mary, captured 1795 Shawnees. Ford, 8, Polly, captured dots. ... in 1786 on Kentucky; in 1774 on the Wilderness Road in Kentucky; the Wilderness Road in surren- Mitchell, by surrendered in 1795 Ottawas. Frazier, Daniel, by dered in 1795 Shawnees. Hughes, captured James in 1787 on Ohio 15, captured April Valley, in 1790 in Powell's River; River near mouth of Great Miami sur- 20, 1795, Ky.; by surrendered on June British Mitchell, by rendered in 1791 Shawnees. Gibson, David, 23, McDougall.... trader Ian 17, Sally, captured in October 1790 in Ken- 5, 1790, captured Dunlap’s on December at wilderness; 30, tucky July surrendered on Station, 7, 1795, Ky.; August surrendered on 1795, Parsain, Sarah, 14, by Mingoes. cap- Glass, Robert, by Wyandots. captured in 9, 1790, Co., August Ky.; tured on in Madison Kentucky; by 1779 in surrendered in 1795 14, 1795, September by surrendered on St. Green, Betsy, captured Shawnees.... in Joseph Raughley, Potawatomies.... Victor Kentucky; by 1790 in surrendered in 1795 1, 1793, captured April Morgan's on at Sta- Green, Polly, captured Shawnees. in 1790 in Ky.; by tion surrendered in 1795 Shaw- Kentucky; by surrendered in 1795 Shaw- Rigil, Kissey, captured Hart, Elizabeth, 29, nees.... in 1792 in captured nees .... on 11, 1790, Co., Kentucky; by surrendered in 1795 Shawnees May Ky.; in Madison surren- Ronune, Isaac, 1786, 14, 1795, September captured ... by Joseph dered in near on St. Hart, child, Town, Ky.; by Potawatomies. Elizabeth and Lee’s surrendered in 1795 Ruddell, captured Abram, Kentucky; in 1789 on Salt River captured in Shawnees. on Hart, by 22, 1780, Station, surrendered in 1791 Shawnees. Is- Ky.; June at Ruddell's sur- rael, Orchard, captured Ky.; in at Crab Ruddell, 1790 by rendered in 1795 Shawnees. Ste- by Hogling, surrendered in 1795 Shawnees. 10, 22, 1780, phen, captured on June at Rud- Moses, captured fishing in 1778 while in Station, Ky.; by dell’s surrendered in 1795 Fork, Floyd’s Ky.; by surrendered in 1795 Samuel, Robert, captured April Shawnees. in Holbrook, Jenny, captured Shawnees. in just 1794 on Ohio River below mouth of Salt Co., May Ky.; in 1789 Madison surrendered Kentucky; by River in in surrendered 14, 1795, September by Joseph on St. Pota- Sharp, Mary, captured Potawatomies.... in Horn, Peggy, captured watomies. ... in 1790 Kentucky; 1786 near McAfee’sStation in sur- Kentucky; by in surrendered in 1795 Shaw- Shaw, John, by rendered in 1795 Shawnees. Horn, Polly, captured nees. in 1790 in Ken- April captured in 1792 near head of Bear- tucky; by surrendered in 1795 Shawnees. grass Kentucky; Creek in surrendered in Johnson, James, 3, 1794, captured July on in Shaw, William, by captured Shawnees. 9, 1795, Kentucky; May by surrendered on April Beargrass 1792 near head of Creek in Johnson, John, captured Delawares. in 1790 Kentucky; by surrendered in 1795 Shaw- Kentucky; by surrendered in 1795 Shaw- Smith, Peter, captured nees.... in 1793 Johnson, Joseph, captured nees. in 1790 in Ohio; by near Falls of surrendered in 1795 Kentucky; by surrendered in 1795 Shawnees. Smock, John, captured Potawatomies. Johnson, Patty, captured Kentucky; in 1790 in Creek, Ky.; March 1794 on Brashear’s sur- Johnson, by surrendered in 1795 Shawnees. 10, 1795, by rendered June Potawatomies. Peggy, captured Kentucky; in 1790 in surren- Smock, Peter, Jr., 14, captured in March Keer, John, by dered in 1795 Shawnees. Creek, Ky.; on Brashear's surrendered June captured Kentucky; in 1790 in surrendered in 10, 1795, David, by Spangler, Potawatones. Shawnees_ Love, by Timothy, cap- 9, 1774, captured December at Falls of on May Big tured at head of Benson Ohio; 15, 1795, May by surrendered on Pota- Kentucky; by Creek in surrendered in 1795 Stephenson, Jenny, captured watomies. Lusk, Samuel, 18, captured Shawnees. 11, 1792, Co., August Ky.; on in Madison Big Sandy; 1793 at head surrendered in 14, 1795, September by surrendered on Martin, Thomas, by cap- Shawnees. Jane, Stephenson, captured in Shawnees. Kentucky; tured in 1790 in surrendered in Lick, James, Ky.; 1792 at Paint surrendered in 1795 by McCarty, cap- Shawnees. Thorn, Samuel, Jr., 20, by Shawnees.... tured in 1790 on Ohio River above mouth of River; Ohio; captured Green surrendered in 1795 Shaw- in March 1790 at Falls of AND ITS CONTEX- much ONE prisoners, “It was this return of as SECTION finally the Ken- IN THE anything as convinced RELATIONSHIP TUAL truly had come tucky peace settlers KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION chop man his now a could last logic ma by the We are assured pasture cattle and horses with- wood or as the word “citizen” jority opinion that Indi- being out fear of or killed robbed in the Constitutions used Eckert, supra, Depreda- ans.” at 619. 1792, 1799, 1850, conceptually exclud however, tions did not end. “Around though “felons” “citizens”—even ed Crittenden, County, Ken- Grant [near word used founders the Bran tucky] party of Indians burned are Constitution is “men.” We our 1891 children. scalping parents home after Smith, Litt. Amy cited to the case of mother, except All crawled to died who 326,11 Ky. (Ky.1822) language: for the Kennedy eventually recov- house. She http://www.kentucky. ered.” she Before we can determine whether search, gov/Kyhs/hmdb/marker not, citizen, of those a of either was aspx/mode- subject&subject=107, mark- states, necessary to what it is ascertain It # 936. until er wasn’t the battle Eng- a In it is that citizеn. constitutes (and too!), Tippecanoe Tyler on November land, country in the was alone birth 7, 1811, that other the Shawnee and the subject. any to make a sufficient one American Indian tribes of the final- region slave, born within the Even a villain or a ly lost their on the Ohio grip Midwestern is, king’s allegiance according to Valley they lands thou- had roamed for law, subject; a but principles common years, http://www.tcha. sands mus. is a it can never admitted that he be Still, battlehistory.htm. it was sev- in.us/ citizen. later, years Kentucky acquired eral before counties, First, Amy only with eight say, its western-most as a result let me dealt purchase of their from the Chickasaw Indi- a in 1822 question of whether slave $300,000.00 freedom, ans for 1818. This area claiming sue for her could Kentucky is now referred as the Jack- un- “privileges and immunities” citizens Purchase son area. the Constitution of the United States. der also since the comment say, Let me that times, Kentucky’s These were the when was made within regarding “villain” (1792 1799) first Constitutions —stan- slave, “a a within context of villain or bom for Times today dards written. —were king’s allegiance,” proper spelling felon, his, a even after serving when was, “A of the word “villain” “villein.” time, her, expected would have been manor, person a was attached to villein himself, have a to defend his farms in the of a substantially who was condition Yet, family. today’s still times are slave, (10) performed the base and servile who dangerous. years, In the last ten was, upon the manor for the lord and 2,145 work Kentuckians have been murdered. subject respects, property in most kentucky statepolice. org/pdf/ http://www. to him.” Black’s Law Dictio- belonging crimefacts2004..pdf. Creek, by February on June Potawato- tured in 1794 Brashear's surrendered on Thom, Sr., Samuel, captured Ky.; by surrendered in 1795 Potawato- mies. Elizabeth, child, o@n Creek, Ky.; Young, and one surrendered mies.... Brashear's 1, 1793, Bibber, cap- captured Morgan's Sta Joseph, April Van on Shawnees. tion, Ec Kentucky; in 1795 Shawnees.” tured in 1792 in surrendered surrendered Cleve, Samuel, kert, cap- supra at Van 746-50. Shawnees. offense,” shall, nary, person Rev. 4th Ed. at 1741. “A freeman an indictable “no offense, proprietor; opposite was an allodial put for the same twice tenant; a vаssal or a free tenant or feudal jeopardy,” open, “all courts shall be distinguished freeholder as from a villein.” him,” every person, injury for an done Fry, 71 Pa. Case P.F. Smith &c., person “no shall be attainted of (Pa.1872) (emphasis 1872 WL 11181 treason,” &c., per- “the estates such added). lives,” destroy sons as shall their own way through they All &c. use the

Secondly, suggested it is to be a “person,” word but the first and times, “citizen” of the individuals were re- fourth sections use the words quired eligibility require- to meet a slew “men” and “man.” It be at times ments, including being property that of the word “man” is construed Thus, “men,” owner. rather than word persons; include all but where in the “citizen,” operated ‍​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍to relax some of these article, section, you same in another requirements. response onerous this, Kentucky “persons” might me never use the word be con- point let out required the ownership property as strued that there was some reason for ” “man, basis to vote. using the word and in an effort whole, a Jacksonian western frontier State at the give construction inception, time of its and that attitude courts would be bound to hold that in changed. during the frontier times never apply that section it was intended to to men alone. It cannot be that the Com- clarifying In the of the word “men” use apply only mittee meant section to Constitution, Section of the as well as say, male sex. And I while the the clarifying of our the intent of the framers polls safe at the in the of women be “right regards Constitution men, conscience, hands of their arms,” in illuminating bear the differ- are if religion, and as to better intrusted opinions ent between Bliss 1(2) of to themselves. the Ken- [Section Amy, and Tennessee in one needs to look tucky order to secure Constitution] to the debates in the Constitutional Con- uniformity throughout report the Phelps, vention Mr. a dele- between J.L. Committee, in- “persons” I ask that Louisville, gate from and Mr. Robert “person” for serted for “men” Rodes, standing com- the chairmen of the referred to. “man” the two sections mittee for the Constitutional Preamble Rights, Bill formulated which committee my I think Mr. RODES. friend has the used: forgotten one distinction. The word The CLERK. The next amendment “persons” applicable corporations; is by Delegate: was offered the same generic. the word “man” is Of course by striking Amend section 1 out from you could substitute the word “one” or “men,” inserting line the word “person.” certainly But we know what “persons.” lieu thereof means, and in this sense it “men” Mr. I have offered that PHELPS. every thing. means My rea- same amendment to section Why you do use the Mr. PHELPS. is, doing son that I believe the for “person” word all the other sections? “persons” better word generic word is a “person” Mr. The word re- In RODES. report than the word “men.” the Committee, 11, 12, 13, 17, corporations fers to sometimes. the sections shall, “per- the word they say, person “no for some of these sections 19 and a limitation of it is grant power; not a corpora- defined to include sons” will be power. tions. adop- being taken on question

The there a Is not PHELPS. Mr. J.L. Delegate tion of amendment in it? power grant of Louisville, it the First District from No, sir; Mr. RODES. rejected. to have been declared was right; and the universal arms bear Convention, 1890, Constitutional Debates pass any law Legislature forbade added). I, Ky. (emphasis Vol. 817-818 right. interfering with that with the next discussion dealt Their give Does it not PHELPS. Mr. J.L. “right to bear arms.” breadth prevent power Legislature will re- The CHAIRMAN. Clerk any purpose except carrying of arms next amendment. port the here enumerated? what are The next amendment The CLERK. Legis- It Mr. authorizes RODES. Delegate from that offered con- carrying prohibit lature to 7 of the Strike out subsection Russell: weapons; but that is all. cealed following, insert the viz: section being adop- on the taken question arms, subject to the “The offered tion of the amendment Assembly to pass of the General Russell, it was declared Delegate from persons carrying prevent laws to rejected. been to have concealed arms.” Convention, 1890, It me seems to Debates Constitutional Mr. J.L. PHELPS. clause, I, present- 818-819. object that the Vol. Committee, procure ed was to contrary— Thus, arguments to arms, to and that

right to all men bear Rights the Bill of founders constructed our to Legislature right the the should have sense, generic “men” in a using the word the arms. carrying forbid of concealed word, human- mean, want of better to for idea, my If is the amendment ex- that was to exclude it was used ity. The reason Committeе it. But have presses the corporations. say can to that bear undertaken 1 Moreover, out in rights the set Section for in defense of purposes arms certain as “inherent and inalienable” defined were themselves, and of the their families pos- “authority is an rights. “Inherent” State, civil when power or in aid the being from an- it derived without sessed summoned, legally subject to the thereto (4th Dictionary, 921 Black’s Law other.” Assembly to pass of the General 1968). “not means sub- “Inalienable” ed. person carrying prevent to from laws Id. liberty.” ... at e.g. to ject alienation concealed arms. carrying man that forbid a from Don’t goes hunting or deer- when he arms of Ken- only did the Constitutions Not carrying driving? sug- Don’t forbid limit “citizen” tucky the word not any purposes except arms would have it exclude by those who gested say a man twenty-five I want to that named? felons”—of “convicted Kentucky Rights, should have Bill of under the rights granted 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, so any pleases, (Section he purpose bear arms for eleven concealed. 18, 20, 25) he does bear them with crime specifically deal context, simply it is criminals. Given gentleman does RODES. The Mr. the founders of unacceptable to assert that proper distinction. This not make the our people who words chose stored to their civil executive Constitution — precision today pardon. with a unknown in- —ever arms,” tended for the bear “right to (2) who, Persons at the time the elec- self-defense,” “right of only tion, be limited are in confinement judg- under the crime, who had those never committed a ment of a court for some penal offense. saying without it! (3) persons. Idiots and insane added). (Emphasis Looking place- further at contextual then, purpose was the ment, adding What III Section of Article of the 1792 subsequent 2 to Sections Section provided, “in elec- Constitution 145, if already the word “citizen” excluded citizens, tions free male citizens “convicted felons?” years age twenty-one ... en- shall elector; joy person of an but no Moreover, prior Constitu except shall be entitled to vote in the Convention, tional even our predecessor county actually in which he shall at reside acknowledged court Anderson Win the time of the election.” Section free, Ky.L.Rptr. S.W. III, Article pro- same Constitution 351, 353 (Ky.1887), only citizens con vided, shall, cases, “Electors in all except (not victed “infamous crimes” all felo treason, felony, and breach of surety nies) were suffrage denied peace, privileged from during be arrest Again under the statutes of the time. elections, going their attendance and in privilege inherent an and inalienable —not returning them.” Article right: VIII, 2, provided, Section “[l]aws shall Legislature having this constitution- suffrage, made to exclude from office and provision guide, al as a and knowing shall those who thereafter be convicted of what crimes are denounced the com- bribery, perjury, forgery, high other infamous, mon law as and that crimes or misdemeanors.” are, perpetrators among things, other suffrage excluded from the upon light, this same of our conviction, doubtless enacted the law Constitution, current titled Enti- “Persons “any person robbery, convicted Vote,” tled states: forgery, counterfeiting, or perjury, or Every citizen of the United States crime, shall his right other like forfeit of age eighteen years of in who has resided office,” suffrage right and to hold with a year, county the state one in and the six view to crimes declared infamous the months, and precinct the in which he law, common and meant the words sixty days offers to vote next preceding “or other like crimes” to include all election, a the shall be voter in said crimes, previously specified, not precinct and not the fol- elsewhere but with principles are inconsistent common lowing persons excepted are and shall honesty humanity, of and and convict not the vote. have to perpetrator the of degradation, depravi- (1)Persons any convicted in and ty turpitude. court moral The several of treason, competent jurisdiction in crimes enumerated the statute are of of fel- election, ony, bribery class, crimes; in an or of such this known as infamous high misdemeanor as the As- it is the presumed expres- General to be sembly may operate shall as an “or declare sion other like crimes” intended apply from the of but suffrage, exclusion to to and embrace other such hereby persons may excluded be re- crimes as likewise with are inconsistent duels, out to the 1849 Conven- pointed and hu- he principles honesty of common tion: manity, perpetrator and convict turpitude. point moral I

depravity brings you wanted That to Kentucky to-day not get you. to Does Id. at 353. vil- asylum every murderous offer an then, previous Obviously under our Con- lain, foreign a comes here from who stitutions, citizens who convicted of were in still crimson country with his hands crimes, as “infa- other than those treated fellow-man, may that he the blood Thus, mous,” still allowed to vote. were Are have in cold blood? assassinated Convention of Del- the Constitutional possibilities privileges not all the egate George Washington, Campbell criminal, does citizenship open such County, change explained proposed law, it, have dis- you would our present Constitution: assassin, as of such an criminate favor open engages man against who qualifications Here we have the defined, [referring duels]? termed combat what voter these, By general rule.... the first Convention, 1890, Constitutipnal Debates convicted, maybe disqualified all are who IV, ban- (Discussing 4712. Ky. Vol. ..., felony; any of treason or Court dueling). ning submit, This, respectfully .... is an of the commenta- argued by If as some correspond- improvement upon ... century ma- and the tors the twentieth VIII, 4 of ing [Article section court, jority the framers of Kentucky pres- in the Constitution] eigh- in the late constitution ent Constitution. century, term “citizen” meant the teenth (i.e., Convention, 1890, those convicted of felonies exclude Debates Constitutional from such excluded were II Ky. Vol. “citizen”) then by use of the word just cited I’ve provisions constitutional words, In other the section as framed put our founders above and that Committee, is what is termed “self- Constitution, aor only surplusage, were leg- no from executing.” requires It aid the precision words. With waste of .... For is a matter which islation they employed, implored language purity dignity concerns use, accept the assertion I cannot others franchise; good which all elective im- used so that the used—was citizens will admit should be exalted of dele- Clearly comments precisely. require no public esteem. It should otherwise. Pugh J. show gate Sam’l persuade us that convicted argument that one could be excluded argument enjoy to permitted not be felons should right without an “inalienable and inherent” upon the privilege, that inestimable exclusion, yet express exclusion express which, in a of puri- state preservation “privi- deprive one of required to representative itself de- ty, Government in simply untenable lege” voting), is (e.g., pends. language. use of and the science Convention, 1890, Constitutional Debates perusal a careful Especially, when II, Ky. Vol. de- the and report proceedings official in Frankfort in the convention held ignore plain lan- bates And one cannot the 1890 discloses the distrust September in delegate, Pugh, of Lewis guage Sam’l J. “High had the many delegates the for outlawing County, arguing against when (or Courts” and had they interpretation how construed of that satisfactory clause misconstrued) previous in language Consti- the in a years Constitution will few report tutions. The debates that the dele- pass away they from the honored seats gate County, from Pendleton Mr. Leslie T. occupy, now and those will seats be filled Applegate, argued to those assembled: be, by It judges. other will as it was

Yet principles some these are vital to by Delegate Pendleton, said from day. issues We have labored the same but judges. court different upon somewhat them and have altered may they knows how view Who that Why? experi- them some. Because the section? conclude They that along ence of time has shown that in interpretation of the present Judges is 1849 or and even to going back wrong. They may to be unable concur. 1792, they didn’t mean what men They may that the say giv- construction meant; they who used them and thought that en clause some the other profoundest while I have respect Judges yonder away back was the cor- courts, yet they our have their turned one; rect then we would have the it, they upon forces turned have again; trouble over so that it seems to it, light upon of reason have language me ar- human can so if found defi- expressions that these are ranged express really thought as to protect cient private to men their conveyed intended to be ... rights, and for that reason we have en- section, ought that it to be done. larged upon expressions here.... added). 625. (Emphasis Id. at exists that presumption framing If you language plain can ever use so great the Constitution care was exercised specific Courts will convey in the used to its language meaning change some time or make a another implication. and as little left possible as it, it, you I employ then would like German, City Louisville S.W.2d I morning because this sat down 931, 935, (Ky.1940). Library Digest and took down Barbour’s now, hope, by I one that in and found that that has understands Court overruled Kentucky’s itself Constitutions the term more than one hundred times its earlier if history; they then themselves cannot “citizen” did not exclude “convicted felons” it, say they any implicit adopted what mean and stick how definition from any country the name of Heaven can we in war. use which we seceded always “men,” will be construed did first Nor the word sec- it, as we wish and which will stick Rights, enjoy- tion of the Bill limit the males, to. Rights ment of those some might suggest.13 Convention, 1890, Debates Constitutional I, Ky. Vol. 590-591. PRECEDENTS delegate from Todd Honorable Petrie,

County, pointed also out Mr. H.G. our Looking prede- decisions of prior to those assembled: light subject, cessor court to shed on it, “right thinking the first case I found on the

[I]n about occurred me judges giving that are arms” is the of Bliss Common- these who decision "privileges United and immunities” and Amendment to the States Constitution "equal protection” applicable twenty-three years adop- the clause were in before 1868— through adoption the 14th of our Constitution. States the of the tion Price, the a friend of wealth, 90, 1822 ing to arrest 90, 12 Ky. Sam Litt. WL house, Ogles’s where appellant, Ogles, the assume that (Ky.1822). One would Ogles night, It was and new the both resided. presented was Common issue in room. deci the same lengthy sleeping the fact that this and Price were wealth from first, refusing any of the house previous no citations to Price came out sion contains him Immediately the constitu behind authority. Bliss dealt with to be arrested. Kentucky statute sheriff then tionality the then new hand. The Ogles, gun of came any Ogles ... who person “that his to arrest provided posse directed one dirk, pocket pistol, a at- shall hereafter wear from him. When gun take his and cane, knife, resisted, concealed large struggle or took sword tempted, Ogles any sum ... be fined in weapon, as a shall shot. place sheriff was —the Id. less than one hundred dollars.” not Price tended to show that The evidence presented, of the indictment In the words however, an tried as Ogles, was did it. charged having with carried Bliss was crime and convict- the aider abettor cane, weapon. in a concealed sword trial, Ogles life. At sentenced to ed and charge guilty of the He was found he took killing place the claimed that when one hundred fined dollars. posse purpose that the did not know predecessor, Ap- the then Court of thought Our to arrest Price. He was peals, grounds the conviction on injure reversed about to persons were private some the as an statute was unconstitutional recognize not him. He said he did or kill “right infringement Bliss’s shooting. until after sheriff twenty-third section arms” under then In- that the appeal, complained he On of the tenth article of the 1799 “right his structions violated Constitutional Constitution, again, provided “the which 5, af- number arms.” Instruction bear of the citizens to arms de- bear having parameters out the ter set state, not fense of themselves shall crime, stated: decision, rendering In questioned.” Ogles Elam was that the defendant [I]n the court noted: residence, and did staying at said then is the to bear arms defense [I]t knowledge or have either notice not the citizens ... that is secured were, and posse his the sheriff and who Constitution, and whatever restrains knowledge not have notice did complete right, of that full and exercise posse and his of the sheriff purpose it, though an entire destruction residence, good faith but being at said explicit language forbidden posse and his were the sheriff believed merely legislative Not Constitution. purpose there for the persons then and acts, away; but purport to take then committing violence to someone impair it as it all which diminish or residence, had then he staying at said was when the Constitution existed take, keep, carry formed, are void. for in- said residence gun and аbout Id. at 91. vestigation, purpose and for any person protection Ogles I defense case found was next bodily Commonwealth, staying from violence and Ky.L.Rptr. there harm, struggle had the (Ky.1889), year be- decided the S.W. being away gun taken against his the 1890 Convention. fore Constitutional it, him, and, these cir- December, if he had under of Hickman the sheriff cumstances, and if purpose, and for said attempt- County shot and killed while jury the believe from the legislature evidence In our state empow- the knowingly intentionally only he did not ered to to deny right citizens the to aid, incite, abet, carry weapons. either coun- encourage, concealed The constitu- provision or tional is an sel advise Sam Price to said the resist affirmation of arrest, that all men have the inherent attempted arrest will ac- faith right to arm quit him. themselves the defense only themselves and the state. The conviction, Upholding the the stat- court carry- limitation concerns the mode of ed: ing such instruments. It is claimed even if he knew Win- added). at 85 (emphasis Id. sheriff, was ters the and that and his he Again, the Criminal Law Revi- lawfully were posse there to make an Advisory sion acknowledged Committee arrest, yet right, he had the under opinion the Holland as binding authority. circumstances, existing and when his This committee forbidding law drafted arrest, brother-in-law resisting was to weapons chapter concealed of the gun investigate seize his matter. dealing penal code with “firearms of- equiva- To this cannot assent. It is commentary they The fenses.” wrote then saying lent to that man so exer- reflected the of the belief time. cise Constitutional as to vio- 1(7) Kentucky of the Constitu- late the law.... gives persons tion right “[t]he Appel- This Instruction protected the arms in defense themselves and the lant, and, if acting he in good was faith: state, subject of the Gener- not, he then his constitutional if Assembly prevent al enact to laws to right cari'y to arms cannot him. excuse persons carrying weap- concealed He cannot so to exercise as intimidate legislative ons.” No other limitation discharge duty officers of their carry weap- the Constitutional give and thus and encouragement aide is valid. ons tо those resisting lawful arrest. Code, Draft, Penal Final (1971) § Commentary, (citing added). (emphasis Id. at 818 Commonwealth, Holland 294 S.W.2d Ogles recognized that a constitutional added)). (Ky.1956)(emphasis threaten, right may not be exercised to However, (in this court new impede, injure in an others unlawful age) “right considered arms” bear manner; when it interferes with the lawful 1(7) the Kentucky under Section Consti- others, it has no constitutional and, delegates tution prophesized as protection. Convention, at re- Constitutional next I found case is Holland position previously its out in versed set Commonwealth, (Ky. 294 S.W.2d Holland and on the breadth of the Bliss 1956). Holland, the court stated: arms,” stating, “right bear 1(7) foregoing Ken- is our that a limit- opinion [Section “[i]t statute tucky is an exemplification ing possession per- firearms Constitution] who, expression past broadest sons their commission give legis- felonies, bear arms. Some states have demonstrated a serious regulate carrying dangerous lature the law and disregard for the firearms; prohibits thereby present one threat crim- least state of further possession activity legislation even firearms. inal is reasonable

203 briefs the excellent safety But as was shown public of welfare and the interest case, Eary not ad- in the court was this regulation such is constitution- and that authority concerning of le- vised of the wealth as ally permissible a reasonable arms,” has now which “right to bear police power.” exercise of the gitimate But of regardless to us. presented been Commonwealth, 198, Eary v. 659 S.W.2d Eary, in the reason for the decision (Ky.1983). 200 the Constitutional misstates completely re- Eary, majority now upon which majority Kentucky, in does Law not, however, lies, own support their does case, upholds Eary. opinion felony only A D on position. Class based ordinarily a rule of wise Stare decisis is marijuana normally of is not possession universal, is inexora But it not action. “Eary regarded felony.” as a had “serious de- principle “The of ‘stare ble command. felonies, convicted of four previously been blindly to adhere require not us cisis’ does viz, first-degree ... storehouse burglary determine decisions when we previous possession burglary of tools.” breaking v. Thomas were error.” those decisions also, v. Id. at 199. See Boulder Common- Commonwealth, 446, (Ky. 931 S.W.2d wealth, (Ky.1980) 610 S.W.2d 1996), by Mor grounds overruled on other (overruled grounds) (preceding on other — Commonwealth, S.W.3d -, gan v. Assault). First-Degree conviction was (Ky.2006). 2006WL Eary opinion in no one Until the Section of the cur- of suggested “right ever had part every has rent Constitution been Kentucky under the Constitution arms” meaning ev- Kentucky Its is Constitution. subjected “general” police could be If a plain language from the used. ident Indeed, general power. being power, Constitution, it is void statute violates the interfer- specific power, rather than such Stidger Rogers, and this was so held ence, is in direct approved Eary, as was 541, Ky. (Ky.App.1801). WL violation of Section 26 effect, a declaration Section is everything “We Declare that Constitution: Kentucky has constitu- government Rights excepted in this Bill of is out transcended. tional limits that cannot be general government, and shall powers of emphasized in Grauman This was Jef- inviolate; all con- forever remain laws Court, Ky. County Fiscal ferson thereto, trary contrary this Constitu- (1938). 117 S.W.2d 918 added). (Emphasis be void.” tion shall [ujnlike governments possessing those constitution, conflicts the Bill no written Constitutional between national departments our Rights legislative are not rec- specific powers omnipo- governments but conflicts be- and state onciled gov- our nature and form of Rights general pow- Bill tent. The tween upon it. The imposes limits Rights being the Bill of held ernment ers are—with real every A itself is in sense general constitution inviolate such instances.14 law, thereof the makers any protect- supreme within power may not intrude whom, being people themselves Rights Bill of De- sphere ed —“We political system, sovereignty Rights Bill of under our every thing in this clare legisla- Though the powers resides. general primarily out of the excepted govern- § 26. ture a state exercise ...” Const. government however, argued in this case. specific point, has not been 14. This power may mental denied not it and to act have appropriate dom must defini- any enact law expressly forbidden preserve tion to of enforcement that constitution, by the state or federal protection. every power In case the to authority such where has been withheld regulate not, must so as be exercised people any have that act declared end, attaining permissible unduly a to transcending oppos- that restriction or infringe protected freedom. ing supreme that shall law be void. Commonwealth, Lawson Id. at 919-920. (1942). 164 S.W.2d supports Conventional wisdom the idea However, we are not at time this con- police power gives of a legislature that struing a which statute is so limited. The to authority necessary enact all laws for deprives state before us all “convicted fel- good society. put of If plebiscite, to a in Kentucky of ons” amendment, a through constitutional arms, including people Peggy Ligón. like doubtless some a supporting version stat- ute similar to 527.040 KRS would police theory, The relied on in I adopted majority. suggest, a howev- (unleashed Eary now from its limitations er, that there would be much more discus- felonies), to “serious” undermines constitu- sion about whether a should such statute precepts. agrees tional If the court ” apply felons, just “convicted to police power regulation allows of pos- those who have committed serious crimes session, despite plain our ordinarily a portend pattern future Constitution, then no is involving weapons violence as was noted fact, inquired during safe. when oral (“It in Eary. is our that the opinion state case, arguments the Commonwealth limiting possession by a firearms that, desired, legislature asserted if the so who, person past their commission of power” “general police could use its felonies.”) Eary serious S.W.2d possession only weapons limit to those 200. age years. over the Power once type stereotypical Nobody wants this boundaries, acquired, except knows no firearms, convicted felon to have access to stringently those maintained others. prior illegal use such firearms job, is our This but we remain silent. objective, support would such an un- even der a scrutiny” Ogles “strict review.15 “STANDARD OF SCRUTINY” would support such a view. “To this we equivalent cannot It saying assent. a majority also asserts that “ration- that a man so exercise his Constitu- al analysis” support basis sufficient tional to violate the law....” the denial of the not- Constitutional Ogles, 11 S.W. at Yet, 818. ed herein. this is not a “burden” “deprivation” case—this is a A court con- case.

Thus the Amendment embraces two deprive cannot a of a “core value” cepts, person and freedom [own] —freedom but, act. The constitutional with a “rational basis” first is in the absolute Republican Party test. things, nature the second cannot be. Minnesota White, 765, 774, subject Conduct remains 536 U.S. regulation S.Ct. (2002). protection society. for the free- L.Ed.2d however, experience My truly protect society tells me that this can a such criminal type lengthy of criminal still have use for a would is to incarcerate him term when weapons. Again, only way you weapon unlawfully. I believe he uses 7) say 1(1, what Section legisla- it is “Whenever determined they say. mean what significantly with exer- mean and tion interferes right, Therefore, majority court must I dissent from cise of fundamental must judicial legislation with strict otherwise. says review the opinion, must dem- scrutiny, which the state under compel- the statute serves

onstrate that interest, and that the state’s

ling state by any

objectives could not be achieved 16A Am. restrictive measures.”

less Law,

Jur.2d, § at 346- Constitutional added). Thus, KRS (Emphasis

47.

527.040, pose no by including persons who welfare, general could

threat scrutiny” test were even pass “strict (Theodore H. BROCKMAN Catina 527.040,however, doesn’t KRS applicable. Party Interest), Lavit, Real de- just interfere burden ‍​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‍—it Appellant, Thus, Kentucky our Con- stroys it. under test save it. stitution —no can Rights pro- designed The Bill of (Hon. of COMMONWEALTH majority. against

tect individual Party George, Doughlas Real M. power police That is Under the plain. Interest), Appellee. the Bill of theory, majority, allowed No. 2004-CA-000982-MR. than a Rights little more statement is limited, aside, to be or cast aspirations, Kentucky. Appeals Court the then purpose it suits the whenever pro- But to majority. plain That now. Dec. all, pro- this court must rights tect Ordered Published Case Ricky Peggy Posey tect the 10, 2006. Appeals Feb. Court simple rule of constitutional Ligón. The if protect don’t their law our protect cannot own. —we But let

I am that we have failed. sad conscience”

me close with some “words of people. wise some political

“The ark judiciary is man, to which he must flee times

poor

trouble; he is to resist the shield which him of

attempts deprive Debates, 1849 at

rights.” Report of God, eloquence

149-150. “Great jewels,’ ‘gath- ...

those words! ‘Crown liberty, where ered from caskets ” De- resting-place.’

found a home and

bates, at 500. therein, of our forefathers plain, forthright,

being understandable

Case Details

Case Name: Posey v. Commonwealth

Court Name: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date Published: Feb 23, 2006

Citation: 185 S.W.3d 170

Docket Number: 2004-SC-0060-DG

Court Abbreviation: Ky.