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."
Homepage: http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm
>"My Account" (upper right corner)
>"My Preferences"
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.
Welcome. And welcome to FR! :o)
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.
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.
"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".
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"?
"lunge area".
The center console clearly fits this term.
i'd guess that the law is trying to make the gun either visible, or out of reach. in the center console might as well be in your pocket.
they'll justify it by citing a "need to protect police officers during routine traffic stops"
what are open/ concealed carry laws like there?
Not only that, but this one must have skipped a few bows to Mecca....he was drunk. Muslims don't drink (Ha Ha)
Maybe we're converting them to our ways.
Because it appears the statute doesn't cover a console, unless the console has a lid or cover, some do, some don't.
If this one had a cover, then they were wrong. If it didn't they were right.
The DWI-DUI will play into this,,But it's just more gun control Krappola,,In the Damn car should be good enough...!
As a Kentuckian i can tell you this debate has been going on for years in my state.The one place they always get you is if you put your gun under the seat.There is a term used here called"ready access"which they feel either threatens the life of police or reacting in the heat of anger.The theory is,if it takes a little longer to get your gun from the glovebox you will rethink what your doing.Maybe with some people but surely not all!We have both open and concealed carry in this state.
Nice!
I do see a little 'pocket' on the dash tho!
:0)
Are you serious? So a three year old could understand this concept but you can't? I guess it is overly anal people like you who are the root of our runaway legal system. I suppose it takes a really smart person to write it in a complex way. But then you like it that way since true right and wrong are not at issue, just whether you can cloud right and wrong with legal or not legal, in whatever nit picky way you can.
Okay, I'll take a stab at a law your way.
Sec.1 Paragraph One. It shall be illegal to give a black eye.
Case law: Case dismissed because Judge ruled eye was bluish green and not black.
Amendment to sec.1 paragraph one. It shall be illegal to give the eye of another an off color.
Case law: Beautician given 6 months in prison for using non-skin tone makeup on a customers eye.
Amendment to amendment sec. 1 paragraph 1. Making someone's eye off color through the use of force shall be considered illegal.
Case law: Case dismissed against a man who admitted hitting someone, but it didn't leave a mark.
Amendment to amended amendment sec. 1 paragraph 1. Hitting someone in the eye is illegal whether it leaves a mark or not.
So, as I've illustrated in this "simplistic" example of how our legal system really works, complicated is not always better or more clear, no matter how smart the lawyer politician thinks they are when they write the law. So my point is, the law should be secondary to what is just and right.
Well,,,It's got a good place to tie that "Buck" rite there
on the "Back",,,;0)
You've done a decent job of creating a mockingly detailed law. But the existing ones appear to strike a reasonable compromise.
"Battery is any offensive touching of another person with the intent to cause harm."
My point in describing a physical assault was to point out that your suggestion of "Live and let live" is overly simplistic. You have demonstrated that it's also posible to be overly detailed and oppressive in statutes.
Perhaps the best solution lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe we should elect representatives to hash out just where that middle ground should be and enact laws. :-)
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.