Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ky. Supreme Court Defines Where Guns Are Allowed In Vehicles
wave3.com ^ | Sep 21, 2006 | NA

Posted on 09/22/2006 12:23:01 PM PDT by neverdem

Associated Press

(LOUISVILLE, Ky.) -- Fadi Mohammad didn't think there was anything wrong with storing a gun in the center console of his car.

He found out differently when he was charged with illegally carrying the weapon during an arrest for drunken driving in Louisville.

When his case went to court, a judge dismissed the charges, saying the center console fell under a provision in Kentucky law allowing guns to be carried in a glove compartment.

But the Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated both charges on Thursday in a split decision issued in Frankfort, saying a center console is not a glove compartment.

"A glove compartment is a small storage cabinet in the dashboard of an automobile," Justice Donald C. Wintersheimer wrote in the opinion.

Mohammad's attorney, Larry Simon of Louisville, did not immediately return calls seeking comment Thursday. Bill Patterson, a spokesman for the Jefferson County Attorney's Office, which prosecuted the case, said he's glad the court clarified the law.

"When it gets to court, it's going to be easier to define if a crime took place," Patterson said.

The opinion, backed by four justices, centered on what constituted a glove compartment and whether the Kentucky General Assembly intended to include other compartments built into the cab of a vehicle when it allowed gun owners to carry weapons inside their vehicles.

Kentucky's concealed weapons law allows someone to carry a gun in the car, either in the glove compartment "regularly installed in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer," on the seat or in the trunk.

Mohammad asked a Jefferson County judge to dismiss the charges, saying the center console between the seats qualified as a glove compartment under the law. The judge agreed and dismissed the charges. The Kentucky Court of Appeals overturned that decision and sent the case to the state Supreme Court.

Wintersheimer wrote that the General Assembly didn't include all manufactured-installed compartments in the car, which means they must have meant to include only the glove compartment in the exception.

"Whether gloves fit into other compartments is immaterial because the phrase 'glove compartment' was expressly adopted by the General Assembly and retains the plain meaning as a compartment located in the dashboard of a vehicle," Wintersheimer wrote.

In a separate opinion, Justice Will T. Scott said the majority opinion refers to a compartment that always has a "locking mechanism," a requirement not listed in the General Assembly's definition of glove compartment.

"Moreover, there is nothing in the statute that requires it to be in the 'dash board,' much less on the 'face' of the dash board, as is commonly assumed," Scott wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice Joseph Lambert.

Scott also noted that several newer vehicles do not have glove compartments as defined by the majority of the court.

The legislature should amend the law to correct the court's ruling, because the Supreme Court cannot amend the law on its own, Scott wrote.

"That's all the better reason to reinsert 'console compartment, or some other similar compartment' back into the statute," Scott wrote. "But, that of course is not for us to do."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

1 posted on 09/22/2006 12:23:02 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sounds like just another way to turn honest folks into criminals by judicial fiat to me.


2 posted on 09/22/2006 12:25:06 PM PDT by RogueIsland (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

""A glove compartment is a small storage cabinet in the dashboard of an automobile," Justice Donald C. Wintersheimer wrote in the opinion."

Bullcrap!

Both my TransAm and Corvette have no 'storage cabinet' in the dashboard. They only have a center console which is also the 'glove box'.

Talk about nit picking.


3 posted on 09/22/2006 12:25:49 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Never thought I'd be coming down on the side of a guy named Mohammed. Not this century, at any rate.


4 posted on 09/22/2006 12:26:02 PM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

*file under "judicial insanity:*


5 posted on 09/22/2006 12:27:41 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

It's a lot easier to get to if it's in the center console. If you're being jacked you don't want to have to fumble through the glovebox to get your piece.


6 posted on 09/22/2006 12:27:43 PM PDT by lesser_satan (EKTHELTHIOR!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I'd be more concerned that somebody named Mohammad was carrying a gun AT ALL.


7 posted on 09/22/2006 12:29:31 PM PDT by beelzepug (I suffer no fool lightly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Scott also noted that several newer vehicles do not have glove compartments as defined by the majority of the court.

And what does this have to do with the cost of tea in China? If the sun isn't seen at the North Pole in mid of winter it doesn't reduce the definition of the sun. On second thought, maybe it does in this judge's mind.

8 posted on 09/22/2006 12:29:40 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan

"It's a lot easier to get to if it's in the center console."

That's probably why the judges reversed the ruling.

To make it fair for the criminal.


9 posted on 09/22/2006 12:30:38 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I'd like to know when the legislature wrote that provision - were center consoles even in use then? If "on the seat" is one of the options, then ease of access doesn't seem to be the issue. And whether or not the compartment can be locked means nothing if there is no requirement for it to be locked if containing a firearm. A hyper-technical ruling that demonstrates the difference between the law and justice, the former being a murderer getting off because of an inconsequential typo on a warrant application, the latter being that same just-released murderer getting hit by a bus as he exits the courthouse.
10 posted on 09/22/2006 12:30:58 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Treaty Fetishism: "[The] belief that a piece of paper will alter the behavior of thugs." R. Lowry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Who the heck is the judge to define the definition of a glove compartment? If he thinks it needs further definition he should throw it back to the legislature.


11 posted on 09/22/2006 12:31:55 PM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A pathetic case of splitting glove leather.

Gloves CAN be stored in the center console.

Have the courts nothing better to do?


12 posted on 09/22/2006 12:32:11 PM PDT by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; HangFire; lowbridge; feinswinesuksass; Joe Brower
Kentucky's concealed weapons law allows someone to carry a gun in the car, either in the glove compartment "regularly installed in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer," on the seat or in the trunk.

So the gun could be on the seat, but not in the console? What rubbish, and whaddabunchamaroons.

13 posted on 09/22/2006 12:32:55 PM PDT by AnnaZ (Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Perhaps Fadi should have gotten a Jewish attorney.

Unfortuantely, I agree with the Supreme Court here.


14 posted on 09/22/2006 12:33:15 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

What color is your 'vette?

(This is not a joke question.)


15 posted on 09/22/2006 12:33:44 PM PDT by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Does anyone know more of Fadi Mohammad's story? Why was he pulled over in the first place?

From what I've read in this article, the Supremes ruling is ridiculous. What difference does it make if one stores a gun in a glove compartment or a console between the seats?


16 posted on 09/22/2006 12:33:45 PM PDT by demkicker (democrats, terrorists, Powell, McCain, Graham & Collins are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Unfortuantely, I agree with the Supreme Court here.

Why?

17 posted on 09/22/2006 12:35:29 PM PDT by demkicker (democrats, terrorists, Powell, McCain, Graham & Collins are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
All this wouldn't have happened if Fadi Mohammad hadn't been stopped for drunken driving.

Wait a minute...Fadi Mohammad...Mohammad...MOHAMMAD! Drunk driving! Mohammad, alcohol...uh oh, somebody's going to be in trouble down at the local mosque.

< /sarcasm>
18 posted on 09/22/2006 12:35:31 PM PDT by Captain Rhino ( Dollars spent in India help a friend; dollars spent in China arm an enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM

Blue

'84


19 posted on 09/22/2006 12:39:56 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug

Well, he wasn't charged with possession by a person prohibited, or anything similar, so I'm going to assume that he's a law-abiding citizen.


20 posted on 09/22/2006 12:40:41 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

Indeed. The idea was to make carjacking a less hazardous occupation.


21 posted on 09/22/2006 12:41:26 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

No kidding. This being a criminal statute, vagueness is supposed to be construed in favor of the defendant. The judge should have let the guy off and then requested clarification from the legislature. That's how we do it down here in Louisiana, anyway.


22 posted on 09/22/2006 12:43:51 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Kentucky's concealed weapons law allows someone to carry a gun in the car, either in the glove compartment "regularly installed in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer," on the seat or in the trunk.

If a gun is allowed on a car seat, it is hard to imagine the gun in the center compartment as being more problematic. The concealed nature is of concern, but so would be the concealed nature of the 'glove box'.

I don't see a compelling cause here. What is unclear is if the person actually had a concealed weapons permit. Since we are addressing the issue of whether the console is a glove box, it's seems they are trying to define what the permit allows. That would imply he did have one.

It seems like a pretty strident attempt to enforce a rule rather than determine intent. I realize intent isn't a valid determinant, but this is a little over the top IMPO.

He was charge with driving while inebriated. That seems appropriate.

23 posted on 09/22/2006 12:44:17 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

I think he was pulled over for, and charged with, DWI.


24 posted on 09/22/2006 12:45:03 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: All
"Whether gloves fit into other compartments is immaterial because the phrase 'glove compartment' was expressly adopted by the General Assembly and retains the plain meaning as a compartment located in the dashboard of a vehicle," Wintersheimer wrote.

I'll grant that the wording of the law failed to take into account vehicles without traditional a 'glove compartment.' At least they didn't engage in activist nonsense. IMHO, the fault lies with the drafting of the legislation.

26 posted on 09/22/2006 12:47:10 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: Gordongekko909

And the dumb@ss gave the police permission to search his car?


28 posted on 09/22/2006 12:47:48 PM PDT by demkicker (democrats, terrorists, Powell, McCain, Graham & Collins are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
Talk about nit picking.

Interpreting the law as it's written is precisely what judges do. Nit picking is important.

Besides, unpicked nits become lice. :-)

29 posted on 09/22/2006 12:48:41 PM PDT by TChris (The United Nations is suffering from delusions of relevance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

I dunno. He was drunk.


30 posted on 09/22/2006 12:48:44 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Can you imagine being the person to go to jail because you stored your weapon a foot and a half from where it is legal to store...


31 posted on 09/22/2006 12:49:20 PM PDT by aligncare (Beware the Media - Industrial Complex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I was going to ask why it mattered as long as the gun was in a compartment to keep it from flying around the car. But then I read that having it on the seat of the car was okay. That doesn't make sense to me. It's okay to be laying on the seat but not in the center console? Strange.


32 posted on 09/22/2006 12:50:35 PM PDT by TXBubba ( Democrats: If they don't abort you then they will tax you to death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Unfortuantely, I agree with the Supreme Court here.

Your kidding right?

The black robed idiots are splitting hairs here.

33 posted on 09/22/2006 12:51:36 PM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM

I have never, once in my life put gloves in the glove compartment.

My van does not have a glove compartment nor a center console. It does have a small compartment on the engine cover and also large door pockets.


34 posted on 09/22/2006 12:53:52 PM PDT by cyclotic (Support Cub Scouting-Raising boys to be men, and politically incorrect at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"Kentucky's concealed weapons law allows someone to carry a gun in the car, either in the glove compartment "regularly installed in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer," on the seat or in the trunk. "



So, it's ok if the gun is floating across a seat through turns, but not ok if it is secured in a console between the seats.
Wow, this is micro-managing at its best!

oh yeah, I'm always a little concerned about armed Mohammeds, but this is one more time the judiciary is way out of whack! Not everyone drives a Mercedez Benz you idiot judge.


35 posted on 09/22/2006 12:57:28 PM PDT by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamofascists, now ACT LIKE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXBubba
This part is strange and perhaps justifies the ruling:
"That's all the better reason to reinsert 'console compartment, or some other similar compartment' back into the statute," Scott wrote. "But, that of course is not for us to do."
If the statute used to be written that way, but "console compartment, or some other similar compartment" was at some point removed from the wording then that is evidence that the legislature decided that a console compartment was not to be considered as a place for storing a weapon since they explicitly removed language saying just that from the law.
36 posted on 09/22/2006 12:58:37 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Large
This is BS. Center compartment, glove compartment, what does it matter. People should be allowed to carry their guns on any public property and on any private property(assuming permission). I thought Kentucky was better than this. Aren't they supposed to be pro-gun rights?

Generally we are. This is one area we aren't.
37 posted on 09/22/2006 12:59:43 PM PDT by JamesP81 (The answer always lies with more freedom; not less)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
Both my TransAm and Corvette have no 'storage cabinet' in the dashboard. They only have a center console which is also the 'glove box'.

Some of us don't even have that!




38 posted on 09/22/2006 1:01:04 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Oh, that tears it. I'm gonna fire up LexisNexis and see what the hell is going on here.

Back in thirty to sixty.

39 posted on 09/22/2006 1:01:15 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: Large

Homepage: http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm

>"My Account" (upper right corner)

>"My Preferences"


41 posted on 09/22/2006 1:09:14 PM PDT by Titan Magroyne (Suicide Bomb Instructor: "Now pay attention, I'm only gonna do this once...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: FreedomCalls
Grr, scratch that. I can't find the KSC's published opinion yet. Just the Court of Appeals, which reversed the sane trial judge. Can be found here.
43 posted on 09/22/2006 1:10:31 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Sounds like just another way to turn honest folks into criminals by judicial fiat to me.

Dude, he was busted for drunk driving. Here in Texas you can carry your weapon in the glovebox or center console, but ONLY if you are not committing anything worse than a Class C misdemenor.

Get busted for DWI and they will throw the weapon charge at you to add insult to injury.

44 posted on 09/22/2006 1:11:43 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Property tax is feudalism. Income taxes are armed robbery of the minority by the majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It is just a way for the judges to justify their anti-gun desires. We had a ruling in Arizona that was just the opposite. The statute said that if the gun was in a case designed to carry weapons, it was not concealed.

The appeals court ruled that a fanny pack, though it was a "case designed to carry weapons" *and was recognized by the officer as such*, which is why he decided to search it, did not qualify because they decided that the legislature did not mean what the statute said, and that the weapon had to be "displayed in such a way that an ordinary person would be given notice that the person carrying the weapon was armed".
45 posted on 09/22/2006 1:17:59 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Large

Welcome. And welcome to FR! :o)


46 posted on 09/22/2006 1:18:22 PM PDT by Titan Magroyne (Suicide Bomb Instructor: "Now pay attention, I'm only gonna do this once...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TChris

True, but I'd rather laws be simple to understand. Live and let live. See how simple that is? In this case, not guilty, since he wasn't impinging upon someones right to live by having a gun the car.


47 posted on 09/22/2006 1:19:49 PM PDT by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The court's ruling did not follow established law on interpreting a legislature's writings.

The right to carry is a constitutional right and a law limiting such a right by a law must be interpreted in a narrow way to not overly expand the infringement of rights.

Therefore a glove compartment regularly installed in vehicles would include similar compartments-the center console compartment.


48 posted on 09/22/2006 1:20:38 PM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyclotic

"My van does not have a glove compartment nor a center console. It does have a small compartment on the engine cover and also large door pockets"

It was because of our activist, leftist judges that the Arizona legislature just added "map pocket" to the statute that defines what is *not* carrying concealed. It already contained "glove box or any other storage compartment".


49 posted on 09/22/2006 1:22:17 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JTHomes
Live and let live.

Yes, simple. Simplistic, actually.

If I give you a black eye every week and break your arm twice a year while spending most of your other waking moments screaming in your face, am I in violation of "Live and let live"?

50 posted on 09/22/2006 1:22:36 PM PDT by TChris (The United Nations is suffering from delusions of relevance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson