Reply #56: Holland v. Commonwealth 1956

[one-eyed fat man]

The Kentucky court of appeals settled the question in clear and unambiguous language.

Holland v. Commonwealth 1956

"In our state the legislature is empowered only to deny to citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. The constitutional provision is an affirmation of the faith that all men have the inherent right to arm themselves for the defense of themselves and of the state. The only limitation concerns the mode of carrying such instruments. We observe, via obiter dicta, that although a person is granted the right to carry a weapon openly, a severe penalty is imposed for carrying it concealed. If the gun is worn outside the jacket or shirt in full view, no one may question the wearer’s right so to do; but if it is carried under the jacket or shirt, the violator is subject to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years. The heavy emphasis...is upon the undue advantage given to a person who is able suddenly to expose and use a weapon..."

Someone wearing a gun in a holster openly does not particularly draw attention. Although the question did come up recently at the State Capitol.

Beshear Not Concerned About Capitol Gun Policy

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear sees no reason to change the current “open carry” policy for handguns at the State Capitol. Beshear says he feels comfortable and safe in the building. But even if he wanted to alter the policy, Beshear says he doesn’t have the authority.

“Gov. Patton did issue an executive order at one point I think banning weapons in the capitol. And that’s what caused the laws to arrive at where they are today and that is, the legislature is in control of that issue, and not the governor,” he said.

"Some might even suggest that killing people is NOT REALLY one of the intended functions of a car."

Works pretty good when you are fed-up with Critical Mass-holes and no need to change magazines.