Skip to comments.UK Gun Owner Fired Over Gun in Car (Kentucky)
Posted on 05/01/2011 9:02:05 AM PDT by marktwain
The University of Kentucky has fired a graduate student and former anesthesia technician, Michael Mitchell, for keeping a gun in his car a mile away from the university hospital where he was employed.
The university then proceeded to try to deny Mitchell unemployment compensation by claiming, unsuccessfully, that he was fired for misconduct. A hearing officer found against the University of Kentucky and in favor of Mitchell.
All this, despite the fact that Mitchell had a Kentucky concealed carry permit, believed he had fully complied with Kentucky law governing concealed carry, and therefore cooperated fully with police and university authorities.
And finally, Kentucky Revised Statutes sec. 27.020 seems to prevent a state institution like the University of Kentucky from interfering with the Second Amendment rights of a concealed carry permit holder. That section holds, in part, that [n]o person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit a concealed carry permit holder from transporting a firearm in his vehicle in accordance with law.
So....... Whats up with the University of Kentucky?
The answer is that its probably not much different from many Left-leaning universities. After all, Virginia Tech fought hard and successfully to keep guns off its campus nearly a year, to the day, before a crazed gunman killed 31 people on that campus.
Mitchell appealed a ruling from Fayette Circuit Court Judge Pamela Goodwine, who dismissed his suit against the University of Kentucky because its anti-gun animus was not a violation of public policy.
Judge Goodwine claims to have read U.S. Supreme Court language concerning exceptions to the Second Amendment. This language is called dictum and is non-binding.
But Goodwine seems to have missed the point of the Supreme Courts decision in Heller: Americans have a constitutional right to use firearms to defend themselves.
Kentucky concealed carry permit holders arent a problem in America. Rather, the problem is liberal anti-gun institutions who want to disarm their students and employees - at the same time that they are adamantly incompetent in their efforts to protect persons on their property.
Mitchell appealed directly to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which voted 5-2 to hear his appeal. A win in this lawsuit will end the illegal and discriminatory practice on the university.
ACTION: Our friends at Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed (KC3) have set up a fund for Michael Mitchells legal defense. Please visit https://www.kc3.com/donation.php to contribute to this important cause. Any contribution, however small, to this effort to fight on behalf of the Second Amendment would be appreciated.
Mucho thanks (a little Spanish Lingo).
I suspected something like that. We get dicked around enough by the liberal media, we sure as hell don’t need our media doing the same.
As to the Constitutional end, my sympathies are gone on this one...if I’m not fed straight information (from what is supposed to be a friendly source), I don’t really care what happens.
I'll say it - he doesn't have a very strong case, at least on its face. Courts have given wide latitude to employers, and especially schools & universities, with respect to creating the (largely fictitious) "safe working environment". Heller and McDonald haven't done anything to limit those employer protections, even if the employer is the state of KY.
Personally, (at a minimum) I think the court should carve out some safe-harbor exceptions for people - like this man - who are licensed to carry, to keep their firearms safely locked in their vehicles even if those vehicles are on school property. Maybe this can be an angle that he attacks.
I would not recommend that any client of mine speak to police outside the presence of their laywer, and certainly NEVER completely absent assistance of counsel.
There are too many people in prison today who thought they were "doing the right thing" in speaking to police, perhaps as a cooperating witness, perhaps as something else, that eventually found themselves indicted and then convicted of a crime they didn't commit. It happens, and it wouldn't be hyperbolic to say it happens all the time.
Men died for your right to remain silent, and we should honor their sacrifice by exercising that right, always.
“Call 9-11 and die (or let the other person die).” Other than that, I see no problem with your advice.
Don't take my word for it, listen to this guy - Professor James Duane. He spells out succinctly how innocent people end up getting themselves falsely accused and convicted, just trying to help out.
“I AM saying that you shouldn’t talk to police - ever - outside the presence of an attorney.”
He makes a good point, but I don’t go that far. I’ve had better luck not staying silent. Having said that, I’ve traveled in Michigan with pepper spray that wasn’t approved for that state (which is a big deal if you’re caught - I read an article about it happening to someone) - luckily I never met the pigs there. But if I did, I wasn’t worried about it - STUPID ME. Moral of my story, if I’m in Texas, where I know the law, I will be respectful, to the point of permitting a search (if I have nothing to hide), if I’m out of state - new rules, GET A WARRANT. Obviously, I have something to hide or fear, of course get a warrant.
Thanks, useful information.
I have to agree with you on this. For reasons I won't go into again, but I have detailed in other posts.
Being innocent AND honest can net you a lot of aggravation, if not real trouble. It is instructive to always be aware that the police (even the honest ones) believe everyone is a liar. This means you and me.
I was set up by our short fat leftist female boss.
I worked for a company with about 300 employees where the boss knew I always carried a gun in my car, she hated it and me but there was nothing she could do. Then we were purchased by one of the largest banks in the US. First time some of the big wigs came to tour the site she asked me if I still had a gun in my car and of course I said yes.
Well the bank had a no gun in car policy and 3 weeks later I was fired. But it all turned out for the best. It took 6 mos but I found a much better job. Better yet 3 years later the fat leftist skank wrecked her car while drunk and it took 6 mos for her to die after endless operations and infections. She also lost her insurance coverage and lost everything she owned before she died.
So at the time I was very upset but everything worked out great in the end. Like my wife always says “Things happen for a reason”.
Not so, read this law: Conspiracy Against Rights
Now either "two or more persons" who "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person [...] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same" must be held to protect against just such scenario as you have posited, or there IS no rule of law.
>Is there a college or university anywhere in the U.S. that isn’t completely dominated by libs?
The University of Hard Knocks...
which explains why they want so hard to assert that “X cannot be allowed to fail.”
Laughable rubbish. You have no “right” to a job, and your boss can fire you at any time for any reason or no reason at all, subject to the terms of the employment contract you both signed. He just can’t fire you for an illegal reason. This is well settled employment law in every at-will employment state. I’m sure this guy’s contract said that employment was conditional on him following the terms of the employee handbook, which forbade him from bringing a gun on property.
>He just cant fire you for an illegal reason.
And due to the law I showed you a firing for the mere possession of firearms COULD INDEED BE ILLEGAL... Especially if anyone other than the counter-signitory on your contract is involved OR if it is resultant of a policy put forth by a committee of more than one.
That’s what the literal word of the law I quoted you says.
>Im sure this guys contract said that employment was conditional on him following the terms of the employee handbook, which forbade him from bringing a gun on property.
And if more than one person was involved in the production of that handbook then it is a conspiracy against the rights secured by the United States Constitution, as per the law.
I didn’t make the law, but I can damn-sure use it to my advantage.
Feel free to believe what you will, but I think you’d have to be nuts to stake your job on such a gossamer thread of speculation.
What’s speculative about it?
You keep claiming “unless it’s illegal” and I have shown you a law that shows there is a VERY high probability the very exception you make [illegality] is indeed the case.
See paragraph 4 specifically...
Sorry for the bump of an old post.
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.