2
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Take Back Kentucky Anti Second Amendment State Alert: City of Elizabeth town, Kentucky

A KC3 member found a “NO GUNS” sign on a city-owned building in Elizabethtown. A picture of that sign can be seen here:

https://www.dropbox.com/…/33600777_1708974412473622_5247615…

After digging a little deeper he found out that city employees were being told they were not allowed to carry firearms at work. He brought these issues to KC3 board members and a complaint was lodged with the mayor of E-town. E-town does not have a “No Concealed Weapons” Ordinance.

The issue of the sign was settled very quickly and the sign was removed, however, it was soon discovered that the City of E-town had a written policy that prohibited employees from possessing firearms while at work or in city-owned vehicles. After several email exchanges and phone calls between KC3 board members and city official, the city agreed to amend their employee policy manual.

Without discussing the new policy with KC3, the E-town City Council passed a new, amended weapons policy. You can see this new policy here:

https://www.dropbox.com/…/E-town%20new%20policy%20%285%29.p…

The violations are in the third paragraph on the first page and then item “p” on the third page.

The new policy is no better than the old and the city has refused to make any further changes. This issue has been referred to KC3’s attorney and will, most likely, result in a lawsuit. I’ll let you know when that lawsuit has actually been filed.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Responses to “TBKY 2nd Amendment Alert for Elizabethtown, Kentucky”

  1. William says:

    So, here’s basically how the interview on WVLK went this afternoon.

    I’ve been on this show before and it’s been basically friendly. But it was a guest host and his buddy. His buddy was full-bore surveillance state. He said the police should be able to keep all surveillance secret, our proposed ordinance would hamstring them, and I am being completely unreasonable. He said we don’t have any expectation of privacy in public and the courts will protect us from any abuses of secret police surveillance.

    So, I asked him if it would bother him if I followed his daughter around the park and filmed her.

    Of course, he had to admit it would. In fact, he got a little emotional. He said he’d start filming me because he’d figure I was up to no good following a girl around.

    Then we had to go to a hard break and left it hanging.

    So we came back and the host came tried to make nice, saying he actually agrees with a lot of what I said. Then he asked me why I had asked for receipts and purchase orders in my initial open records request…I answered that real quick with a block and pivot and then said something to the effect of, “The point I was making before the break with the park question is that we all believe in privacy at some level. There is a line that can be crossed with surveillance where it becomes creepy. I don’t think that changes just because somebody has a uniform and a badge.”

    Then I went on – I said, “I’m pretty sure that most people in the audience identify as conservative, or lean to the right. That means you believe in limited government and distrust government power. Why should that change just because it’s the police department? After all, these are government employees. They are just as prone to abusing power as anybody. So I don’t think asking for oversight and accountability is unreasonable.”

    And boom…that hit the 4 p.m. hard break.

    #LastWord

Leave a Reply