2006 Senate Bill 12 (Mandating gun signage at schools)

Legislation watch

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Katie Stine (R) on January 3, 2006, to require signs relating to possession of weapons on school property to be posted at all public entrances to school buildings, sports arenas, gymnasiums, stadiums, and cafeterias, at unenclosed corners of school property, at the gate or controlled entrances of enclosed properties, and at the entrance of any access road for all open areas owned, operated, leased, or controlled by the school. The bill would specify that if no required sign is posted, no prosecution for violation of certain statutes may take place. The bill would provide that the prohibition against unlawful possession of a weapon on school property would not apply to a person hunting on rural or remote lands owned by a school if the area is not properly posted as closed to hunting by the school's governing board.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 5, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Ernesto Scorsone (D) on February 9, 2006, to retain all provisions except delete provision prohibiting prosecution of persons if the required signs are not posted.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Ernesto Scorsone (D) on February 13, 2006, to delete provision prohibiting prosecution of persons if the required signs are not posted.
- Amendment offered by Sen. R.J. Palmer, II (D) on February 13, 2006, to specify that failure to post the required signs shall bar the prosecution of a person who enters any school premises other than school buildings.
- Amendment offered by Sen. R.J. Palmer, II (D) on February 16, 2006, to add provisions specifying that even if signs are not posted on school property actually used for educational purposes there is a rebuttable presumption that the person knows that a firearm cannot be carried. The bill would treat school property not used for school purposes as any other private property which requires notice against concealed carry of firearms and the remedy for violation is removal of the person from the premises or denial of entry into the premises. The bill would delete provision relating to prohibition against prosecution. The bill would delete existing law relating to not relieving the person from liability for such entry.

Most Recent Comments

1) KentuckyVotes.org has title wrong [by Anonymous Citizen on February 20, 2006]
This website has listed the title of SB 12 as "Mandating Gun Signage at Schools." I would hope this misleading title will change to "Firearms Prohibition on School Property; Due Process for All Citizens." The signage prohibiting firearms on school property has been mandated since 1993. SB 12 isn't creating a mandate, as KentuckVotes.org would lead citizens to believe.

Of course, the signage was originally mandated in order to ensure that well-intending citizens were made aware of the prohibition, punishable as a felony. The ones intending on causing harm and violating the most sacred of society's laws don't care about simple prohibitions. The problem is that school administrators have been arrogantly ignoring this statutory mandate for over a decade. These are the same school administrators who demand that citizens are arrested and prosecuted for unintentional violations of the law prohibiting firearms on properties no one could reasonably identify as being owned, used or operated by a school. Simply put, this is unfair.

SB 12 clarifies how the currently mandated signage is to be posted. This is something that should be welcomed by school administrators. As a matter of due process, it also specifies that citizens cannot be prosecuted for firearms possession if the school administrator does not comply with this simple decade-old mandate. Hopefully, this will finally compel school administrators to follow the clear letter of the law. Don't they set a wonderful example for the children we entrust to their care?

SB 12 furthers the intent of the firearms prohibition by making clear where the prohibited areas begin and end. Anyone who argues that it allows firearms on school property is mislead or, worse, trying to maliciously mislead the public.

The vast majority of states classify firearms possession on school property as a misdemeanor, like Kentucky did prior to 1993. Signage is not as essential in those states because the stakes are not as high. When the penalty was increased to a felony, the signage mandate was added. It can be assumed that school administrators agreed to this in order to see the penalty enhanced. They reneged on that commitment and now they're complaining because state legislators are calling them on it.

Home schooling for my children is beginning to sound like my only responsible option...

troothhurtssumtymes
Reply

Line

2) How? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2006]
The schools do not post the signs required now in the law. How can not posting the required signs IMPROVE student safety? The schools are willingly, knowingly VIOLATING THE LAW, risking studetn safety in the process.

School "property" can and often is not anywhere near a school or used for any school purpose or activity. The schools have NEVER posted signs on these properties but the felony threat remains even though a gun owner may not even know he is on school "property". (One school in Louisville owns an entire street of active, open retail businesses, buildings and all, not attached to the school!)

So, by demanding the schools post the always required signs they do not now post, and by demanding the schools post those properties that no one could possible know are actually school properties, how does this increase in posted warnings make students less safe?

Read the law as it is now:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/527-00/070.PDF

Then read the bill:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/06RS/SB12.htm

Then come back here and expalin your comment.

Craig Palmer, Director
Kentucky Firearms Foundation, Inc.
www.kyfirearms.org

Reply

Line

3) artist/activist [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2006]
This is INSANE!! We are trying to keep our children safe in our schools, and this is totally absurd!!
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation