Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley, file)
Previous Post
Next Post

Local municipalities in Kentucky with anti-gun political leaders could not prohibit their employees from not only bringing guns to their workplace in personal vehicles, but from carrying them in the course of their workday. Kentucky’s Attorney General Daniel Cameron released that opinion earlier in the week, based upon various state laws governing local jurisdictions’ ability to regulate firearms.

While the “opinion” lacks the force of law, it reflects the Attorney General’s position if litigation ensues in the matter. In other words, the Mayor of Louisville — the only city in Kentucky with a member of Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” — could not prohibit employees from having guns in the personal vehicles while at work. Or on their belts, for that matter, if the firearm is openly carried in a public building or concealed or openly carried elsewhere.

The AP has the story via the Richmond Register:

Kentucky’s local governments cannot prevent their employees from carrying weapons “at all times and places” while on duty, according to a state attorney general’s opinion released Monday.

In reaching that conclusion, Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s office tied together various sections of Kentucky law governing the authority of local governments to regulate firearms.

Any such local authority is strictly limited, the attorney general’s office said in its review requested by the city of Ashland. State law allows local governments to prohibit concealed weapons in buildings they own, lease or control, the opinion said.

However, they cannot bar their employees from openly carrying firearms inside local government-owned buildings or possessing weapons — whether concealed or not — on public property that is not a building, including public parks, the opinion said. They also can’t be prevented from possessing firearms in their personal or local government-owned vehicles, it added.

“Synthesizing these statutory provisions, it is the attorney general’s opinion that the city may not prohibit its employees from carrying firearms ‘at all times and places’ while on duty as a city employee,” the five-page opinion said.

The opinion — written by Assistant Attorney General Aaron J. Silletto and signed by Cameron — does not carry the force of law. It reflected the gun-rights policies passed by the state’s legislature.

The review was requested by the Ashland city attorney in northeastern Kentucky. Several city employees petitioned the city manager for permission to carry firearms while on duty…

“The city may not prohibit its employees from: (a) open carrying firearms inside city-owned buildings; (b) possessing or carrying any firearms, whether concealed or carried openly, on public property that is not a ‘building’; (c) possessing, carrying or keeping firearms in their personal vehicles; or (d) possessing or carrying any firearms in city-owned vehicles,” the opinion said.

Given Kentucky’s liberal mindset on firearms ownership and possession, why is it they don’t have Chicago-style violence on their streets?  Or 673 homicides in a single city? How is it that even possible?

Kentucky recognizes and values of the lives of its municipal employees and as such, allows them to carry the tools to defend their lives or the lives of other innocents from violent attack. “Civilized” cities like Chicago and New York City won’t do that, and they see orgies of violent crime. Where would you rather live?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. My mother and father are buried in KY. I lived in Ashland for a while in my youth. Nice place. I still have family in the area. KY has always been open minded about firearms. Surprisingly, WV, my birth place, was not so cool about firearms until fairly recently.

  2. Perhaps the KY AG sees it something like this…

    1) The Second Amendment is one thing.

    2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, etc. is another thing.

    3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.

    • Cool! I wish this black attorney general was ILLinoyed AG. Instead of that Kwame critter…

  3. could not prohibit their employees from not only bringing guns to their workplace in personal vehicles, but from carrying them in the course of their workday

    Welcome BACK to the “good old days”…

  4. No one can stop a freeman from carrying a gunm, however the freeman if caught is punished by a law.
    When a Constitutional Right is up to a courts decision it’s not a Right, it’s a privilege.

    • If any big shots can deny it, it’s not a right. If the Constitution says ” the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ” then any law limiting a citizen’s rights to carry are unconstitutional.

  5. Good for Kentuckians. As for whether this will shift the debate on a national scale, we all know the left really doesn’t want this framed as a self-defense issue, facts notwithstanding, so it’ll take a lot of noise to overcome the media’s caterwauling.

  6. If something goes wrong and that gun hurts someone, the city will be liable, not the carrier. That’s where the AGs opinion fails.

    The city can not provide nor guarantee training for all its gun carrying employees (other than cops). You know that’s going to cost the city dearly in a court case where they have to defend an employee who was involved in a gun incident.

    That will also turn public sentiment against city employees carrying guns. Just plain dumb on the AGs part.

    • hmmmm…. maybe not. Depends on the law, but generally municipalities may be immune from lawsuit if something happened due to the employees personal property use on the job, sometimes it depends on the particulars involved. Making a decision to carry at work is a personal decision to carry personal property at work, it does not automatically make the city liable if the person does something wrong with that personal property (firearm).

      • There are all sorts of restrictions on public employees because they are acting on behalf of the government. A city employee who is involved in a gun incident WILL trigger a lawsuit against the city.

        Think about it, Who has bigger pockets, the employee or the city? And why was the employee involved? Because they needed to be at a certain time and place to carry out their job.

        • “There are all sorts of restrictions on public employees because they are acting on behalf of the government. A city employee who is involved in a gun incident WILL trigger a lawsuit against the city.”

          not necessarily. A city employee is not acting on behalf of the government if they use their personal property (e.g. a firearm) to cause harm accidentally or other wise.

          A city employee is only acting on behalf of the government when they are performing their assigned work according to job description and expectation. Accidents/incidents due to employee use of employee personal property (e.g. firearm) are outside scope of job description and expectation for performance of employee work.

          “Because they needed to be at a certain time and place to carry out their job.”

          Certain time and place presence for work assigned does not automatically make the city liable if the employee uses their own personal property (e.g. firearm) to cause accident/harm/incident.

          “A city employee who is involved in a gun incident WILL trigger a lawsuit against the city.”

          Overall this is false. Its a common misconception that because the city employee is on the clock that the city is always automatically responsible for all of the employee actions, this is not true. It depends on the law and its application to the situation and the specifics of the incident.

          “Think about it, Who has bigger pockets, the employee or the city?”

          Doesn’t matter who has the bigger pockets. What matters is who is actually liable, you can’t sue an entity who is not liable. If the law says the city is not liable you can’t sue them over employee use of their own personal property (e.g. firearm) to cause accident/harm/incident.

        • If a city employee is on their personal phone, while making a personal call, and is involved in a car accident with a city vehicle while on the job, the city is liable.
          Why? They were working for the government at the time of the incident. It really is that simple.

          Mark my words, the government — city, county, state — will be held liable.

    • So an AG actually argues FOR your 2nd Amendment rights and you call HIM dumb? Must live in Kommiefornia, Killinoise or some other Dem run shithole…

    • So, Dumb, you wish to prevent people from exercising a natural right, in order to avoid a highly speculative and remote possibility that people might be alienated from the possibility that people might exercise that right? Do you realize just how (pardon, please) DUMB that sounds? If you have to surrender it in order to keep it, what use is it?

  7. And just yesterday on the Radio, Louisville Mayor…Bloomy bootlicker, Fischer signed a resolution to study the need for Reparations for slavery. And the Dem Gov of KY is a moron as well.

    The AG trusts “WE” the other 2 trust Big Brother.

    • I can see the reparations concept, since Tuesday through Saturday each week I identify as a destitute black woman, so de muny be pourin’ in den, right?

      • They aren’t able to pass reparations at a national level. And not at a state level either. So the democrats will do it at the local level, that they control. And they will legalize drugs at a local level too. That will make everyone happy.

  8. Wake me up when the same applies to private employers.

    They’re far worse than any city out there, currently.

  9. The Blue Grass State is the best state in the union for civil rights. I’m so glad the Army brought me here back in 1984.

  10. Nothing new here. AG Cameron is not plowing new ground, he was only explaining existing statutes to those too ignorant to read them or too prejudiced to accept what they have read. Cities and counties all over Ky. would like to ban guns in all locations and in all situations. Ky. law does not allow that. KRS 65.870 prohibits cities from “entering the field of regulation of firearms, firearms ammunition and firearms accessories” except in one situation. Cities and counties are given the very limited authority of prohibiting CONCEALED weapons inside their BUILDINGS. That authority was part of Ky.’s Concealed Carry law passed in 1996. Open carry of a firearm has been legal in Ky. since statehood in 1792 and local governments have never been allowed to regulate that right and can not to this day. CONCEALED weapons can not be regulated in open spaces or the grounds around buildings. Violation of a local government ordinance that prohibits CONCEALED weapons is not a punishable offense. All they can do is to deny you entrance or order you to leave the building. If the person then uncovers the weapon and becomes an open carrier, they may then continue to enter or remain in the building.

  11. I am a life-long Ky citizen. We love and respect AG Cameron. Unfortunately, we have a communist governor who I know is whining like a school girl about this.

Comments are closed.